My husband and I saw the film 2016: Obama’s America last night.
2016 is based on Dinesh D’Souza’s 2010 best-selling book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage. The movie was advertised on this site for several weeks.
Both the book and movie attempt to make sense of Obama’s otherwise inexplicable decisions as president by tying them to his anti-colonialist roots and subsequent belief system. Both of Obama’s parents were anti-colonialists, as was his adolescent mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and several of his professors and adult peers, particularly Bill Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
2016 is a box office hit. As of this weekend 2016 had grossed $18.2 million, making it the highest grossing conservative documentary of all time. 2016 still has a ways to go to compete with its liberal competitor, Fahrenheit 9/11, which grossed $119.2 million.
We found 2016 quite compelling. If nothing else, Obama’s childhood and adult ideological influences would shock American sensibilities.
But I left the movie with a question: How does Obama’s anti-colonial beliefs play into his radical pro-abortion beliefs?
Through pro-life friend Jason Jones, president of Movie to Movement, I got in touch with Dr. D’Souza, pictured right, who was kind enough to answer my question by email today:
Jill: Obama rejects traditional Christianity. He subscribes to what may be termed Third World liberation theology.
This radical brand of Christianity considers Christ to be a kind of guerrilla revolutionary, fighting against the evil capitalists and the ruling class.
Traditional Christian tenets such as the dignity of life don’t seem to feature prominently in Obama’s view. Even partial birth abortion doesn’t revolt him in the way it revolts most people–even Democrats.
Hope this is helpful.
It was. Liberation Theology is a vast topic, but in brief, from Wikipedia:
Liberation theology is a political movement in Christian theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions. It has been described by proponents as “an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor’s suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor”, and by detractors as Christianized Marxism.
Black Liberation Theology, which Wright espouses, is another vast topic, but in brief, according to Wikipedia:
Black liberation theology is a theological perspective found in some Christian churches and the Nation of Islam in the United States which contextualizes liberation theology in an attempt to help African-Americans overcome oppression.
Modern American origins of contemporary black liberation theology can be traced to July 31, 1966, when an ad hoc group of 51 black pastors, calling themselves the National Committee of Negro Churchmen, bought a full page ad in the New York Times to publish their “Black Power Statement,” which proposed a more aggressive approach to combating racism using the Bible for inspiration.
In the minds of many African-Americans, Christianity was long associated with slavery and segregation….
Black theology deals primarily with the African-American community, to make Christianity real for blacks. It explains Christianity as a matter of liberation here and now, rather than in an afterlife….
According to Black religion expert Jonathan Walton: “James Cone believed that the New Testament revealed Jesus as one who identified with those suffering under oppression, the socially marginalized and the cultural outcasts….”
Black liberation theology contends that dominant cultures have corrupted Christianity, and the result is a mainstream faith-based empire that serves its own interests, not God’s….
Liberation from a false god who privileges whites, and the realization of an alternative and true God who desires the empowerment of the oppressed through self-definition, self-affirmation, and self-determination is the core of black liberation theology.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around all this and would welcome your insights.
It would appear, if Dr. D’Souza’s theory on Obama’s ideological foundation is accurate, that Obama views abortion as a vehicle to overcome black poverty and inequality, a vehicle previously only safely available to rich white women when illegal. Obama would view Planned Parenthood as a driver.
This belief would dovetail with beliefs expressed at the May briefing co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, wherein black abortion proponents expressed their highest value as the “right” to choose – freedom, autonomy, independence.
That white Evangelicals and Catholics reject abortion based on their interpretation of the Bible means nothing to Obama, and, in fact, may repel him from that belief due to his own prejudices against traditional Christianity and whites.
Implicit (and sometimes explicit) in these approaches has been an assumption that access to family planning will reduce pregnancy rates amongst those teenagers who were already having sex but will not cause an increase in the proportion of all teenagers who engage in sexual activity.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.