Obama Belongs to Racist Cultish Religion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3qbibh8Mk&mode=related&search=

Hannity gets right to the point and it becomes quite clear that this church and its values - its stated values are racist.  Of course, this doesn't necessarilly mean Obama agrees with them, but it does give a person reason to stop and think.  Obama considers himself a member of this church, and thus he must not find what they are saying too objectionable, right?

Alan Colmes sidesteps the whole point and goes on to criticize the guest for questioning Obama's faith.  Colmes asks him something like 'where do you get the right to question Obama's faith?' - kindof a stupid question really.  Why doesn't he have the right to question Obama's faith? Is he not free to think as he pleases, to question what he wants? 

Bottom line? Obama is a part of a church with some clearly racist doctrines. 

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

   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.

That's the "10-point list" Hannity thinks he's quoting.  What Hannity actually IS quoting is the "Black Value System" laid out by the pastor of the church back in 1981.  The Black Value System isn't the focus of the Church, but it is a community innitiative dedicated to the improvement of the "Black Community".  It does not advocate any form of violence.  It does not advocate any form of superiority, nor separation of any kind, nor of advancement to the exclusion of other races.  It merely expresses a desire to improve the black community in the area of Chicago where the Church is housed.

And >>3, your argument of switching "black" community for "white" community is apt, but weak.  It is no secret that the black community is underprivileged compared to the white community in urban areas.  Now, I don't believe that this is any longer because of racism, but instead merely reflects the fact that urban black populations tend to be poor populations and vice versa.  It would be nice if this church substituted "poor community" for "black community".  But this is racism in a far more benign setting.  Whereas traditionally we think of racism as excluding or discriminating on the basis of biological race, this form of referring to a "black community" is more reflective of an attempt to aid or comfort on the basis of social/demographic standing.