NewsBusters' Motley: Ineligibility for presidency "could reasonably be extended to Obama"
SUMMARY: Media Research Center director of communications Seton Motley questioned Barack Obama's allegiance to the United States, asserting that Obama's membership in Trinity United Church of Christ, which is predominantly African-American, "seems to stand in diametric opposition to ... the oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." Motley also claimed that: "Our prohibition on the Presidency...could reasonably be extended to Obama ... who chooses to pledge allegiance elsewhere as an article of faith."
In a January 11 entry on the blog NewsBusters, Media Research Center director of communications Seton Motley questioned Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) allegiance to the United States, and suggested that a "prohibition on the Presidency ... could reasonably be extended to Obama." Motley claimed that Obama's membership in Trinity United Church of Christ, which is predominantly African-American, "seems to stand in diametric opposition to ... the oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." Noting that Trinity United professes to "remain 'true to our native land,' " Motley wrote: "Our prohibition on the Presidency for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has chosen fidelity to the United States but whose loyalties are called into question merely by the matter of his place of birth, could reasonably be extended to Obama, who had the good fortune to be born in America, but who chooses to pledge allegiance elsewhere as an article of faith."
Motley also claimed that Trinity "is certainly not shy about expressing its immense pride in something over which they had no control; that being its assemblage's skin color," adding: "It revels in it, and from all appearances it is race, rather than God and His worship, for and about which this congregation has been convened." Motley also wrote that "Obama's house of worship's racial deficiencies exist in the here and now, and remain heretofore unexamined." Noting that Trinity United describes itself as "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian," Motley wrote: "Please note that 'Black' comes before 'Christian'."
As Media Matters for America has documented, on the December 7, 2007, edition of Fox News' Hanity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity falsely called Obama's church "segregated." In fact, according to an April 2, 2007, article on the website of the University of Chicago Divinity School's The Martin Marty Center -- an institute for the advanced study of religion -- professor emeritus Martin E. Marty wrote of Trinity: "for Trinity, being 'unashamedly black' does not mean being 'anti-white.' My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed."
NewsBusters, operated by the conservative Media Research Center, describes itself as offering "immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting."
From Motley's January 11 NewsBusters entry:
So Obama is not the Decider, even on something as individual and personal, not to mention realistically irrelevant, as his melanin-based classification.
Once this assessment was made for him, however, Obama had no problem settling right in to the racial identity mindset that in no small part led him to the Democrat [sic] Party once his fancy late in life lightly turned to politics.
It also must have led him to choose the church he attends when back in his home state. The Trinity United Church of Christ of Chicago is certainly not shy about expressing its immense pride in something over which they had no control; that being its assemblage's skin color.
It revels in it, and from all appearances it is race, rather than God and His worship, for and about which this congregation has been convened.
It exhibits that for some Liberals, even God is of secondary import to ideology, racial or otherwise. It exhibits that for the media, highly questionable matters in a Democrat's life are unworthy of questioning.
Remember this the next time a member of the press excoriates Republican candidate Mitt Romney for the Mormon Church's less than stellar past with respect to race. Obama's house of worship's racial deficiencies exist in the here and now, and remain heretofore unexamined.
So we shall. From Trinity United's About Us page:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian...
Please note that "Black" comes before "Christian".
Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent.
We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.
We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
(1) Commitment to God
At least He comes first here.
[...]
The selection of one's place of worship is a very personal, and sometimes painstaking, decision, and it is by no means my intention, or anyone's proper place, to question the nature of someone's faith.
But it is certainly fair to say that the purpose of religion is to transcend, and gird us against, the petty difficulties and differences of this world and unite us all in a devotion to something higher than ourselves. Faith is not to be used to ensconce this earthly divisiveness in pseudo-sacrosanct dictum, and twisted into just another wedge item to further one's secular political or racial causes.
This is exactly on what the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been dining for decades. Trinity United, with lesser fanfare but no less success, has done the very same thing. And Obama proudly proclaims himself a member of this political congregation guised as hallowed gathering.
A commitment to Unashamed Blackness, remain true to (his) native land (that would be Africa, as per Trinity United parlance) and the embrace of the Black Value System certainly seems to stand in diametric opposition to Obama's potential upcoming oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and his doing his very best to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Our prohibition on the Presidency for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has chosen fidelity to the United States but whose loyalties are called into question merely by the matter of his place of birth, could reasonably be extended to Obama, who had the good fortune to be born in America, but who chooses to pledge allegiance elsewhere as an article of faith.
All of these are questions worth asking. So why are the media not?
I guess they've realized they need to give up on the Madrassa rumor because everyone is wise to it now, there's just way too much easy reading on the 'net to debunk it. Thus the continued attack on Obama's association with th Trinity Church.
Nice try, Motley, but it's still up to the voters.
"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
"Our prohibition on the Presidency for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has chosen fidelity to the United States but whose loyalties are called into question merely by the matter of his place of birth, could reasonably be extended to Obama, who had the good fortune to be born in America, but who chooses to pledge allegiance elsewhere as an article of faith."
First off, merely by the matter of his place of birth? It's called "conflict of interest". The idea is that if there's a conflict, or really any interaction with that native country at all, then that could influence someone's decisions. Fair or not, that's a significant and (I would think) self-evident concern.
Now, bearing that in mind, how would race come at odds with American interests? How is a commitment to "black values" going to create a conflict of interest with preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution? And what's more, since when is Africa a united government whose policies are being championed by this church? As Reagan said, "you'd be surprised...they're all different countries" (paraphrased?). That's a matter of heritage, not policy, the same way that my recognition of my roots in Europe doesn't mean I'm going to split my loyalties to the USA with Scandinavia, Germany and England. What is the argument, that we might have a war brewing with Libya, but Obama won't do anything because it's part of Africa?
And this convoluted BS is supposed to be used as evidence that the media is liberal, because they're not asking these idiotic questions? Criminy.
1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
What does #4 mean ? Of all of these, I can see people having a problem only with #4, and I personally am not bugged in the least by it.
Either way I don't think I have a problem with anything on that list.
What exactly kind of a commitment does this entail? I would like to see someone at least ask Obama to clarify this. I don't think a U.S. President should have a non-negotiable commitment other than one to the U.S.A.
While our foreign policy does seem to include a commitment to the state of Israel, I'd still be uncomfortable if we elected a Jewish President whose synagogue had a 10 point vision that included:
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO Israel.
Because of that, I have a hard time seeing what the issue would be. It seems to be more of a rhetorical "homeland" commitment rather than anything that could have any tangible negative effects.
I'll try to help. Israel is a sovereign nation.
Africa is a continent.
Next someone will claim th president can't have a non-negotiable commitment to TREES.
--disgusted by the shallowness of his critics
Um you do realize that there are 53 African NATIONS...
Are you suggesting we should have a non-negotiable COMMITMENT to each?
MiddleLeft, next time you try to be a wise ass, think first...so you don't just sound like an ass.
"A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO Israel."
OK, now that you put it that way, how well would anyone tolerate these:
non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO Europe
non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO Asia
??
I think I would be bothered by those, at least enough to ask the the candidate to explain what that means.
I believe the President also takes an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution...Not shred it and refer to it as a "GD piece of paper". So under this clown's definition, the current occupant should be ineligible to say the least. And does anyone recall that jaw-dropping moment when Bush's Monica (Goodling) stated in her testimony in front of Waxman's Hearing that she took an "Oath to the President"? Most in this administration have an allegiance to an ideology and not the Constitution and are a "gathering threat" to our democratic form of government.