Fortunately for you, I have loads of time on my hands...

I read Kyle-Anne Shiver's essay Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx. I have to admit, she is incredibly clever. Had she not mentioned at the beginning of her essay...

...I would have wondered how someone like her could have slipped through an educational system that often requires logic, reason and critical-thinking skills.

First, she makes the ridiculous mistake of assuming that the parts of something bad must be as bad as the thing itself. In this case, she assumes that because Marxism is, as a whole, a flawed and down-right bad ideology, and that Marx was, himself, quite the asshole, that every statement that Marx makes is also guilty of these same criticisms.

Then, as though that weren't bad enough, she argues that because Marx and Hitler both harbored resentment toward Jewish people, that they are equitable. This is a truly fascinating line of reasoning. It's also horrific. By this line of reasoning, George W. Bush saying, "We will find you and bring you to justice," and Nikita Kruschev saying, "We will crush you," are evidence that the two men stem from the same ideological base.

Interestingly, quite early in the first part of her essay, she displays a quote from Adolf Hitler:

Now, the author obviously intends for this quote to be a criticism of, what she regards to be, Obama's message. Somehow, she tries to argue that Obama has suggested that speeches are all that is needed to motivate the people to action. What's hilarious, however, is that Hitler's quote is virtually identical to the criticism that many have laid against Obama and his supporters. Obama's opponents adopt Hitler's argument as a way to cut down Obama's message. They say, "the people are organizing merely on the basis of his words and speeches."

The author goes on to equate liberation theology to Marxism. However, this thesis is based entirely on two things: (1) The coincidence of a few words - "class," "oppression," "struggle." And (2) A few quotes from Pope Benedict written over 20 years ago which, the author argues, refer to liberation theology. The author doesn't provide any evidence to back up her claims that fighting for a just society is wrong, or that defending the poor is Marxism at its epitome. She just assumes that her readers will make this absurd assumption because, after all, she certainly has.

The reason why I say, "The author argues," regarding the Pope's quotes, is because Shiver consistently places parentheses around the term "liberation theology" when she quotes the Pope, leading one to conclude that those were not the exact words of the Pope. Considering the author's complete lack of respect for context or accuracy throughout the rest of the essay, she asks quite a bit of her reader to giv her the benefit of the doubt in her quotations. Of course, anyone who would buy into the bullshit espoused by The American Thinker wouldn't think twice about accepting said bullshit as gospel.

Shiver uses quotes like "Fight for freedom" and "Power to the people" to argue that liberation theology is warped and radical. Then she does what every white person does when they argue against a religion that is adopted by black people...

...she quotes James H. Cone as saying, "White devil." Of course, the author expects us to be outraged at the fact that the quote comes from an author whose books are sold in the church bookstore of Trinity United Church of Christ, which...oh, wait for it...is Obama's former church! Ipso facto, Obama is a radical, white-hating Marxist, right? You'll buy that, right?

But, the author also makes reference to Cone's use of the phrase, "White Jesus." See if you notice something strange about Shiver's paragraph here...

Did you notice that? Who needs context, right? The author takes two phrases, inserts them into a sentence that she has concocted, and assumes that her readers won't ask for context. She doesn't provide anything about Cone's definition of "White Jesus." She just assumes that Cone's "White Jesus" is a reference to the exact same commonly held perception of Jesus of whom Christians are familiar. This, explicitly, is the conclusion she reaches...

This deep into the essay, Shiver still has not made mention of any quote that could reasonably serve as evidence that Barack Obama shares any of the same views as James H. Cone. She assumes not only that Senator Obama has read Cone's book, but that Senator Obama agrees with Cone's book. After all, we all know that every bookstore that carries, to borrow the examples from the author, Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto is run by Nazi Communists, right? You see where this line of reasoning takes us?

Then, immediately after arguing that Barack Obama is a radical adopter of the beliefs of Cone and, yes, even Farahkan, she oddly asserts...

Someone should tell Shiver that a decision has to be made. Is Obama a subservient, radical Liberation theologist? Or a deceitful faith-faker? He can't be both.

She then goes on to show two quotes...

...and tries to argue that they suggest the same thing. At this point, I had to re-read each quote several times to see if I was missing something. I wasn't. Marx's quote says, for a lack of a better explanation, "religion is bad." Obama's quote says, for a lack of a better explanation, "all faiths must come together to better America." How dare he, right?

In yet another instance of horrible irony, the author quotes Pope Benedict as saying...

Believe it or not, she uses this quote to argue that Obama's speech at Wesleyan College where he stated...

...represents an attempt, by Obama, to do exactly that to which the Pope was referring. To do this, the author makes the mistake of narrowing the definition of salvation to mean only exactly what she wants it to mean. If Kyle-Anne Shiver possessed half of the intellectual capacity of Senator Obama, she would have realized that the word salvation does not possess a single, precise, pigeon-holed definition.

However, what is more trouble than that blatant inability to understand the meaning of a word, is her final statement:

She praises her own religion, demeans Obama's religion, and then uses these characterizations to argue that this, in fact, is what the election is all about. She uses the Pope's quote, arguing against using religion for political purposes, then betrays the message by doing just that.

I can't say this kind of "Christian elitism" is particularly surprising. After all, these are the same kind of people that claimed John McCain wasn't a "true conservative." These people seem to argue that their version of Christianity, or at least whatever version is convenient to their argument that day, is superior to any other form of Christianity. Essentially, they are Christian supremacists.

What Kyle-Anne Shiver has done, to borrow from the author's theme, is adopt a Mein Kampf-ian strategy of connecting unrelated things, using the most convoluted associations, in an attempt to exploit the ignorance of her readership. She assumes that her readers won't ask for evidence. She assumes her readers won't mind if he provides no context. She assumes that the coincidence of words like "class," "struggle" and "oppression" will be enough to provide proof that, not only are Liberation theology and Marxism virtually one-and-the-same, but, by virtue of this pathetic attempt at logic, Barack Obama must, himself, be a Marxist. She has, to use her own words, bamboozled and hoodwinked her readers.

tashi deleks,

RFK1968

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will