John Adams: God Damn America

As I alternate between reruns of Jeremiah Wrights "God Damn America" tirade and first-runs of the HBO's John Adams series, I see a surprising connection. Like many of the Revolutionary era, Adams believed that if we weren't careful, God would damn us or at least withdraw his support.

At some points during the war, Adams feared that the cause would fail because he saw too much greed and commercialism in the colonies. "I have seen all my life such selfishness and littleness even in New England, that I sometimes tremble to think that, although we are engaged in the best cause that ever employed the human heart, yet the prospect of success is doubtful not for want of power or wisdom but of virtue." During the revolution, Adams -- evoking the manner of his Puritan ancestors -- told his friend Benjamin Rush that the colonials would only have a chance of winning, "if we fear God and repent our sins." He even speculated that God might intend for America to be defeated so that its "vicious and luxurious and effeminate appetites, passion and habits" would be cleansed, laying the foundation for a more-deserved victory in the future.

Adams wasn't alone in seeing the events on the ground as a reflection -- positive and negative -- of God's assessment. One minister ascribed the Continental Army's difficulties to the presence of slavery. Noting the brutal winter, the poor crops, the loss of cattle, and the seemingly imminent collapse of the army, a Quaker farmer speculated that it was part of a divinely-ordained set of plagues. When on July 20, 1775 the Continental Congress called for a day of prayer, it was accompanied by a call for fasting, self-reflection and a unified effort to "unfeignedly confess and deplore our many sins."

I don't mean this as a defense of Jeremiah Wright (or John Adams). It's just a reminder that there's a long tradition among preachers and politicians of asserting that if God is to bless us when we're good, He may damn us when we're bad.

Comments

[stopmakingsense]

this is great, you'll reflect's what is good and what bad with our country. Some of you seem very smart and some of you seem pretty dumb and cold hearted. I'm an American who happen to be black. When this campaign started i had an open mind, but as time went on, i began to see a pattern. Hillary thought she was a lock the for nomination, but as Obama gain ground, the Karl Roach Rove, Jesse Hate Helms started show it's ulgy head. I'm sick of dirty politics, if you have to lie, twist other people words, race bait to get elected i don't want you for my president. I don't support Senate Obama because of race, i support him because i believed he is the right person for our country it this time in history.

Let move forward America.

[davemyers]

I'll start from early on in my evolution... I am a biracial man whose father is African-American and mother is Caucasian. My parents met in 1959 when my un-wed mother was in a nursing school where my father was employed as a nurses aide... my mother was engaged to a white man who was attending engineering school. My father had an African-American wife and (5) children at the time of his extra-marital relationship with my mother. At some early point of my mothers pregnancy with me she made the decision to marry her fiance, and to lie to everyone about who the father of her un-born child was... she achieved this by claiming that I had been afflicted with a skin-disease called "melanism".

My mother and step-father had four more children together in the space of nine years after I was born, and we grew up together in a middle-class household in white america where the subject of "race" was never discussed. My earliest recollections of having to be aware of race was when I was asked questions about the color of my skin by other classmates in first grade... "Why was my skin dark?", "Was I adopted?" race was certainly a hot-button issue in 1965-66 when I began school , but any awareness that my mother and step-father had achieved from growing up in their white neighborhoods in the 40's and 50's was insufficient in preparing them for raising a biracial child... and to complicate things, they were both in complete denial of their complicity in my mis-education. When I came home from school after having been asked questions by fellow students from my all-white school district, my mother then explained "the skin-disease story" to me... "other kids with this disease usually have dark blotches all over their bodies, so you should feel fortunate". When I would tell my mother about other boys and girls who would call me names or act aggressively for no apparent reason, I began to understand that I would get no further assistance from her to explain this rationale... my step-father was even more removed from the conversation and would only add, "You know what your mother said".

By the time that my step-father transferred jobs and our family of (7) had moved from the all-white Cleveland, Ohio suburb of Stow to the all-white school district of Portville in Western up-state N.Y. it was the spring of 1970 and I was in fourth grade, and already the veteran of many racial incidents and altercations between myself, classmates, and even some adults. My four younger siblings had also been told the same story, and had to explain the same things to their friends when asked why they had a brother who was black... "Hey, did your mother fool around a little bit??" I remember how much that hurt me when I heard it, and I'm sure that they felt just as badly when they did... nonetheless, this was a "subject" that we never discussed as a family, not once, at least in my presence.

I was taught through my observations of my mother and step-father to keep quiet about things that I wasn't sure about, and I was also taught to ignore the obvious.

As I matured into my teen-aged years and began to experience societies issues and insecurities in coming to terms with this countries racial in-equalities during the 70's, I felt an increasing need to rationalize and then codify the information that my mother had given me, regardless of what I was beginning to realize inside... I felt a growing discomfort/conflict, yet there was no one in my life to offer any other perspective... I had learned that black people were a part of society that we didn't talk about. ( There was a black family in my small town, and they were poor and lived in a run-down house near the river...I never had any opportunity or reason to associate with them)

I was a "B" student and also began taking an interest in sports where I was above average. Meeting other schools and student athletes were opportunities to then be exposed to populations that had not been inured by my story yet...I was just another black kid to them.

Communicating my experiences to my mother and step-father was difficult because they had no experience with racial prejudice, therefore when I had problems with other children it would be looked at as an issue that "I" had in getting along with others(as well as intra-family sibling issues).
Because "race" was being ruled-out entirely, by my mothers denial of my father, she could not logically use that rationale to explain any conflicts that I would have. My step-fathers complicity in this was to blindly support my mothers viewpoint.

The "white" viewpoint has always been that blacks(black society) were pretty well cared for, and what contact they did have would be polite and careful... What, with the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts being passed, the playing field had been leveled.(re: my mother and step-father's generation)
The feelings and comfort of my mother were apparently what was important, and her inculcation had to have been partly comprised of the idea that white society acted as the gate-keepers and care-takers of an infantilized black population.




questions:

How has black society formed its identity?

What role models have been used, and how does white society react to positive
black role models today? (Are they held to a more critical prism??)

Is there enough information readily available for black people to easily form a
positive racial identity?

Is it important that black society is able to connect accurately the dots of its social
evolution in America? and is it also important that white society can connect those
same dots??

What is White Privilege?

What is White awareness?

What is Whiteness?

What about Affirmative Action?

Is Race just a social construct?

How do we improve our society in America?

Is there any other way(besides the attrition of the old guard) to achieve this??



Dave Myers
www.discussrace.com

[ipitombi]

... and pastors and politicians should know a lot about being damned, since they are the worst hypocrites, sinners, and liars. On the one hand, they demonstrate the worst in us, while condemning us on the other. You just have to go to church on any Sunday, watch the crooked televangelists, and listen to any politician. The BS is enough to crap-out.

[newsweek1945]

DAMN, HOW WELL PRESENTED, MR. WALDMAN, YOU ARE ON THE MONEY. NOW LET'S ALL PUT THIS FOOL AND HIS WORDS BEHIND US AND NOT BE DISTRACTED. IF THE CRONES ARE DISLODGED FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, MAYBE GOD WILL LET US KNOW IF WE DID THE RIGHT THING! I SUPPOSE IT'S HIS CALL, NOT OURS!!

[Kahawa]

And don't neglect this posting on huffington: www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/meet-the-white-man-who-_n_92793.html

[naturallight]

Black History Month:

On December 2, 1863, when the "Freedom" statue was hoisted atop the dome of the U.S. Capitol, it was due to the workmanship of a slave at the Bladensburg (Maryland) Foundry, Philip Reid. He was responsible for the bronze casting that is a symbol of freedom around the world.

[Slagfish]

Let us all pray for a world without religion so that peace and harmony might prevail.

[LightningJoe]

Hear, hear, Slagfish! I'd only point out that religion is so egregious, because it first attracts ignorant people (those who may not be in the habit of thinking for themselves), and then exploits their credulousness for aims the founder of the religion would likely find repugnant.

Who would Jesus bomb?

----

exorcize your tv.

[maddogbitesback]

Prayer won't help. Education and thought will.

[Locksley]

During the revolution, Adams -- evoking the manner of his Puritan ancestors -- told his friend Benjamin Rush that the colonials would only have a chance of winning, "if we fear God and repent our sins." He even speculated that God might intend for America to be defeated so that its "vicious and luxurious and effeminate appetites, passion and habits"

The great John Adams, wildly underappreciate by the liberal historians of the past 50 years who continually rate Wilson, whose naivety laid the foundations for WW2, and FDR, whose hubris prevented him understanding the Soviets and refused to allow him to stop running for president, just below Washington and Lincoln, was one of the best historian-presidents (next to, perhaps Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman).

Adams understood the lessons of history. He knew all too well of nations and empires that get too soft, too wealthy, too effeminate, too childishly concerned with dividing up the nation into one group after another demanding more rights than the others, too good for the rest of the world.

Adams had seen the corruption of government at first hand and made sure that the people working for him were honest and, at least publically, moral. Adams had seen civil administrators given over to personal and civic vice. We keep seeing examples of this in both Democrat and Republican administrations and do nothing. Being like John Adams is too much work for us.

The easy-going, slave-owning, hypocritical Thomas Jefferson is much more to our liking. He was a liberal. Adams was a convervative. Jefferson was a liar. Adams, no matter how much his enemies hated him, were never able to accuse him of being dishonest.

Adams not only believed in God, he rendered God the honor of acting as if he believed in Him.

John Adams was courageous and understood statecraft. He was also one of the most honest men in this nation. His presidency was wrecked by "the bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar," Alexander Hamilton, and the guilt-ridden slave owner, Thomas Jefferson - who hired hack writers to keep his name in print throughout Adams' administration - while accusing the president of all sorts of heinous actions.

Abagail Adams, seeing the perfidious betrayal of Jefferson, her husband's erstwhile friend, refused to speak to him ever again, even after he and Adams mended their friendship.

Adams understood that ordinary people, without proper education, saw only the surface and never the interior of candidates. An ardent supporter of republican government, Adams was never in favor of the United States as a democracy because people are so easily misled - we need only look at the two Democratic candidates to exemply Adams' wisdom.

Our educational system has been so politicized that it is a sham, a mockery of real scholarship. Students learn despite teachers sucked dry by their unions and textbooks that turn history into fairy tales, while continuing to proclaim the benefits of democracy.

The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic. It is not ruled directly by the people but by their representatives. The day the United States becomes a pure democracy it will be the beginning of the end of this nation and this nation's Constitution.

Why? One simple reason - the people are too lazy to take the time to understand what is best for their government. They will continue to have their heads turned by celebrity candidates, power-hungry pusillanimous pigs who suck at the public trough.

I read saami's post above: "God has nothing to do with the successes or failures of men."

That is the statement of a typical atheist who believes in juck science and magic, such as that we are all here by accident. His dogma is too small to allow real science prove to him that God not only exists, but that there is no other explanation for the order in the universe. Real scientists - those not protecting their grants by concocting global warming, global cooling and other yearly catastrophic scenarios - know this.

"There was never a democracy did that not commit suicide," wrote John Adams.

We have a razor blade in our hands.

[realpolitic]

How do nations get too "effeminate?"

[RoseMerry]

You have to be rather sexist to understand that. What the hell, that was before the feminist revolution. Women could not vote or own property back then. Every man got to own one. No such limit on slaves, just how many you could afford.

[gevan]

eye liner

[LightningJoe]

A "democratic republic," which we are, is still a democracy, because the people are supposed to have the last say. I'm tired of hearing that this is "not a democracy." It's not looking like one now though, and that's not a good thing.

The founders rebelled against tyranny; and if we are now ruled by tyrants, we should follow their example. CES.

------

kill your tv first, then the tyrants.

[bogananda666]

You or Winston Churchill, who should I trust the most when analyzing democracy. Winston said, bout democracy, that it is a terrible form of government and its only endearing quality is that its better than all the other form of government. I think I'll go with Winston on this as your comments are just insane amounting to gibberish. I might suggest that since you have disdain for democratic processes that you go some where they don't exist. Cuba sound like your cup of tea, for instance.

[Daniel8168]

I am no longer a Christian, but I was very sincerely for several years. It was pretty simple to understand the actions and words that were attributed to Jesus. We have heard for several years now that America is a "Christian" nation. We've heard that America was founded on Christian principles. Unfortunately, in the last 8 years, those principles were only a matter of concern when they served a political purpose.

Concerning whether God would bless America or damn it, let's look at some of the issues that were most important to Jesus -

Jesus said don't just love your neighbor, but love your enemy as well. When someone strikes you on the cheek turn the other cheek to him also. This isn't an easy one to live by, but it was at the forefront of Jesus' message. It is nearly impossible to protect the citizens of a nation and live by this commandment. This alone makes government and Christianity almost mutually exclusive. Not to mention that concerning government actions, Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's. In other words, respect your government and abide by its laws, but don't confuse it with God and God's laws.

Jesus said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, cure the sick, give to the poor. Looking at America, this "Christian" nation has had quite a bit of trouble with these direct commands of Jesus. Because we have a capitalist economy, we are taught that getting our fair share and supporting the economy is more important than caring for those in need. I have to believe that God would choose to damn this outright greed, especially considering that we are already one of the richest nations in the world.

Let's look at the issue of gay marriage that was used for political gain. First of all, Jesus specifically says that marriage is for people on earth and that there is no marriage in heaven. That alone says to me that marriage is not sacred. Jesus also said that God only allowed divorce because people are hard-hearted. So, with that in mind, let's revisit the issue of marriage. What is more destructive to the institution of marriage? Is allowing gay people that love each other to marry more detrimental to the institution of marriage than allowing people to divorce? Why, if Americans are so concerned about the imagined sacredness of marriage, don't they try to pass laws prohibiting divorce? Reeks strongly of hypocrisy and an exploitation of Christianity to me - Somehow I think that would piss God off rather than please him.

As Reverend Wright mentioned, not only was this nation involved in many wars out of necessity, but it has engaged in some horrific displays of violence against innocents. This nation dropped 3 nuclear bombs on Japanese citizens. Our current administration lied to lead us into a war which has taken the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens as well as nearly 4,000 American soldiers. We have used excessive violent force against innocent civilians at times not because we had to, but simply because we could. Considering the words of Jesus, I'd have to say God would damn this nation for that violence.

Granted, there are many people in this nation that try very hard to live by real Christian principles. I applaud them, because it is not an easy life, and there is little reward unless you believe in Heaven. But for people to twist the words of Jesus for their own ends, while ignoring his specific, direct commandments is not only sickening, but surely worthy of being damned by God.

Even when I was a believer I saw the hypocrisy that was rampant among those that called themselves Christians, particularly our leaders in government. Before anyone denounces Reverend Wright for his comments, I would ask them to take a long hard look at themselves and at this country, and truly ask themselves whether God would bless them. The last time I checked, the words attributed to Jesus were very firm and resolute, and any deviation from them should bring about at least some measure of damnation. Perhaps there are many things about this nation that God would bless, and there are certainly many people in this nation that I personally believe would be deserving of a blessing, but to assume that God would refuse to damn this nation just because it calls itself Christain, or to assume that God won't damn someone because they go to church every now and then is pure fiction, and a perfect example of the false pride that is corrupting this nation - a pride which, by the way, God also damns.

Granted, there is probably no nation on this planet that should escape God's damnation. Granted, the attacks on September 11, 2001 were horrific acts of violence that should be condemned outright. But to argue that we are somehow free from God's damnation and condemnation is to pretend that God is willing to overlook our sins and atrocities simply because we say that we believe in him. The lesser of two evils is still an evil.

[LightningJoe]

Daniel, this nation was never a Christian nation, despite Wing-Nut propaganda that it was founded as such. And that's an overwhelmingly good thing, seeing the sentiments of those who call themselves Christian these days. They can't bring themselves to stand up for Christ's teachings, and yet they still say they "follow" them. Whatever that means.

I wash my hands of them (get it? little bible joke, there...)

----

stop watching tv.

[Daniel8168]

I agree that America was never a Christian nation, that's why I addressed it as "We have heard that . . ." rather than as "We know that . . ."

[realpolitic]

Jesus, may have been a socialist.

[thinkbridge]

Good post that brings up a much-needed point: all the hyperventilating whenever anything "anti-American" comes up does nothing for America's higher ideals.
It's not really religion v. non-religion. How can anyone imagine that only religious people vent their feelings? Give me a break. Or that only religious people - and they mean who? UBL? the pope? Pat Robertson? the Dalai Lama? - could say "damn America."
The point is that anyone could say "damn America" and anyone could say "goddam" and it will have - and I say this with scientific certainly - no effect whatsoever on "American values" or the constitution. But hyperventilating, unlike verbal damnation, can have some effect on the electorate, which I've noticed passing out on occasion, and they associate that with "something wrong happened", which means "something wrong could happen" from the associated candidate, which is probably bad, which means evil, which in turn means .... dammit!

[saami]

God has nothing to do with the successes or failures of men. There is no god and if there was, he would be so busy fixing football games, recitals, helping people pass exams, making sure that guy really loves you and that you will get laid; he has no time for wars, or floods or any of that silly stuff. Reverand Wright has a right to say what he did in America; freedom of speech means you have to let people you don't like or don't agree with speak their mind. We all experience this country in different ways and speak from our experience. As an old white woman from the midwest, I found that I agreed with a lot of what he said.

[blytzd]

It does not matter if God is real if most believe it is.

[MainSpark]

"It does not matter if God is real if most believe it is."

Yes, it *does* matter. Just because the majority believes something, doesn't make it true. Believing in something which is untrue does not advance mankind. Delusion isn't something with which we should be comfortable.

For ages, the majority believed that the Earth was flat. That did *not* make it true. And, it mattered, and in a large way.

When mankind gets to the point that believers - of all religions - are a minority, true advancement can take place.

[WashingtonPine]

I've posted this link on other sites before, because the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is aptly named:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/149/149syllabus5jeremiad.html

It's an account of The American Jeremiad tradition and how it differs from that practiced in Europe. Of course it is originally based on the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations in the Old Testament.

Here's an excerpt:

Bercovitch contrasts the American jeremiad with its European predecessor. The European jeremiad depicted a static society condemned to fall perpetually from its mythic roots; it wailed from the pulpit and unleashed a torrent of guilt upon its audience. In contrast, the American jeremiad added the dimension of progress - the hope that public life can improve. The invocation of the American jeremiad involves three steps:

(1) provide a biblical or spiritual standard for individual activity and public life
(2) outline the manners in which a people has fallen from that standard,
(3) envision an ideal public life - with its concurrent individual benefits - that follows a return to the religious standard.
With this ideal, the American jeremiad sustains a paradoxical rhetoric of hope and fear - a tension between the ideal and the real. This tension is designed to generate the requisite energy to improve public life: "It posits a movement from promise to experience - from the ideal of community to the shortcomings of community life - and thence forward, with prophetic assurance, toward the resolution that incorporates (as it transforms) both the promise and the condemnation" (Bercovitch, p. 16). The key to the American jeremiad is its blurring of individual and communal pursuits.

Just food for thought.



I wish more people knew how hard John Adams fought against slavery when the constitution was being written. Do you remember seeing Amistad? So please don't come down on him for being a white supremist or something.

Adams must have been an irritating man to get along with, but he did fight the good fight.

[gevan]

"Amistad" was John Quincy Adams--John Adams' boy who should have appeared three years old in the beginning of the HBO series, but looked much older.

[valleygent]

Those who choose to place their collective heads in the sand in America will never understand the simple concept of self admiration: arrogance. America is an experiment, in the right hands good may come of our endeavors, in the wrong hands America can be guilty of the same horrors we so blindly accuse other nations of perpetuating.

A brief review of American history reads like a river of blood, on our soil and abroad. Ask the American Indian, ask Abraham Lincoln, ask the Vietnamese. Ask the everyday Iraqi on the street. Currently we in America are debating the legality of torture as a means of foreign policy. We have already condoned its use.

Self adoring liberty has indeed come with a cost, just ask the Romans...oh... there not around anymore? Catch a clue America, we are far from being clean of wrong doing in this world.

Can we be lifted up to overcome?...Yes...if we can be brutally honest about where and when we have shed innocent blood.

[LightningJoe]

One can't turn on the tv, without hearing that we are the "greatest nation in the world." Given all we "greatest" are doing to our own disadvantaged, and to good causes the world over, I'm getting tired of hearing how great we are.

But if the cure is brutal honesty, I predict a sorry end for us. We can no longer be honest, if we ever could. Television now functions as the forebrain of the culture. Any sentiments that the sponsors don't want on the tube will remain relegated to the individual private mind.

This is reason enough, why television as we know it should die. It's not just abstract: Televised opinions make up the sole content of our national "dialog," and are owned outright by those who make money off of sowing distrust and difference.

-----
kill your tv. do it now.

[websmith]

The Constitution was put in place to prevent greed from prevailing. We need to insist that it is enforced instead of being called, "just a goddammed piece of paper" by our President.

[mamamay]

Why is it when a white man says derogatory statement re anything, it is not really refuted, but somewhat accepted without criticism? I havent a clue what the Rev meant when he said what he said but did it mean that the Rev was a bad man for saying it or was it because a black man said this? Look at the tv, the men complaining are white men, they appear angry and ready to go off. Why cant they accept that this is a nation of free speech for all, and come to grips that this was another man's few? Why does hatred have to come in to play. Do you know that this is a common reason why teachers are failing in the sight of these same kind of angry white men? Teachers catch the devils arrow when they stand up and defend their method of teaching which may be the kind of teaching that makes a difference in the way a child learns, especially if it is not the way these angry men think the teaching should be done. We do view folks as typical when a pattern appears to follow. Many older white women do not go against the grain of the older males views re the way to think about a black man. These older women catch hell for thinking positive about other male black folks. How? Fear is stirred up in the females if they dare show compassion. The women become fearful and they do what their older masculine folks want them to do or say about the issue whether the females agree or not.
Yes, this reaction happens with the Typical (good word) woman,regardless of etnic background.
We need to stop picking apart every word Obama says, or black folks say. Many of these white women do not like it, and this is why many of them are growing tired of these angry men trying to persuade them, the older white female voters, to go for Clinton or McCain, in support of this angry rampage.
The younger folks see this as static, stuck in a rut, not working type rhetoric so they move on. They leave the nest; they shut them out and keep on stepping. Folks if you are one of these angry, upset people, you need to realize that your day has come and is going away, and you will realize this by the division from your loved ones. People are sick and tired of this hating. Start by doing something positive. Find out what can be done for Post Traumatic Distress Syndrome. PTDS? So ,many folks are ending up angry, many of our vets are coming home mentally messed up, Angry. Some Vets are robbing and killing folks, some folks get this from seeing this anger on tv, scenes from the war, etc. We all need to stop our drama and start showing love for one another. Vote for Obama and Move on

[WashingtonPine]

This is a real question: Please explain to me why you think that "when a white man says derogatory statement re anything, it is not really refuted, but somewhat accepted without criticism?" I'm serious about this question. What do you mean by accepted?

Have you ever read Flannery O'Connor's alleged statement that, when asked why she and other Southern writers wrote about freaks, responded "That's because in the South we know a freak when we see one." Stupid statements by right-wing nuts are not often refuted - they are ignored, because we know right-wing nuts when we see them.

[LeeAnnG]

What Wright said might have been inflammatory, but when I heard it, my reaction was, "Well, he's absolutely right!"

"Damn" does not necessarily mean to condemn to hell. It also means to denounce. If any god does not denounce racism, lynching, slavery, invading other countries for nefarious reasons, interfering with democratically elected leaders all over the world, racial profiling, the death penalty (note the recent article on Alternet concerning the Georgia Supreme Court's refusal to retry the case of a black man who is almost certainly innocent!), jingoism, and a multitude of other unfortunate behavior, I don't know what he or she or it might denounce!

I mean, with Christianity, we are talking about a god who supposedly actually condemned all of mankind to eternal suffering before Jesus came to save us from "our" sins because an ancient woman got convinced by a talking snake into eating a piece of FRUIT!

Before qualifying one's statements by saying they are not excuses for what Wright said, it might be fair to also mention all the seriously anti-American statements made by the likes of Francis Schaeffer, one of the founders of the religious right who compared the US to Nazi Germany and the USSR because of moral decrepitude; Ann Coulter, who called for the assassination of members of the supreme court; Rush Limbaugh who railed about fake soldiers; Rev. Hagee, a supporter of McCain who called the Catholic church a "whore," and a multitude of other Americans, right or wrong, who have exercised their freedom of speech.

Hm. I wonder if the difference is that Wright is a black and probably a progressive. Oh, gee. Probably not.

[HernQuin2008YouTube]

Mr. Waldman: The parallel experience you share here belongs to the #2 Parallel code and responds to the #20 date and also to the Jewish Double Adar month code that runs through early April. If you keep you eyes and ears open, you should spot many more of these events, which are not coincidence, rather, Code Incidents.

As for your conclusion, I must disagree with the notion that God would be doing the blessing or damning. Numbers 22-24 and James 3 gives us some insight into how words spoken by human beings can have this effect. This is also what Christ meant when he said that what comes out of the mouth is what contaminates a person, not what goes in. This idea is reinforced by his promise to the disciples that whatever they bind or loose on earth will be likewise done in heaven. That is why the unfortunate words which have shackled Pastor Wright to iinfamy should be understood as a call for his followers to ask God to damn America.

While I'm here, let me donate my two cents on Sen. Barack Obama's Race Speech. A problem of logic arises from Obama's defense. His absence from the Dec. 25th service provided the deniability he is using now. Fact is, Obama was the cause for Rev. Wright's unprovoked verbal assault on Clinton and whites in general. Sadly, this uncouth utterance usurped the joyous preaching of Christ's miraculous birth, during that sermon. The most offended should have been church members subjected to purely political rhetoric. If in fact, they had come seeking God's Gospel of Love and not a man's hateful ranting.

[thesimulacra]

That's not a contradiction, because "Obama was a cause in" is not the same thing as "Obama made this happen". Obama didn't tell Rev. Wright to go after Hillary Clinton, he can't be held responsible for the things someone else does on their own just because that person just happens to be their preacher. Are you responsible for the things your preacher has said and done?

[Retiredteacher]

Wow. That's one of the funniest posts I've read here in a long time. Thanks for lightening things up.

[mamamay]

Were you there? I would like to know the WHOLE Sermon. Preachers usually make a statement or ask a question re a response to something. then they get off into the tone of delivery of a message that even a little child can understand. The splicing of that tape that I heard did not allow for an answer to- what question or statement led up to the statements that Rev made. Therefore, the message did not make sense. The words were clear, and ugly enough to make one think that this is a mad man talking, but it did not quantify if some had asked a question that the Rev was responding too. People if you enter a room while someone is talking and they say these same words. The words may not be so harsh if the person was quoting someone else, or answering a question, or just reading back what someone had previously said. This can't be understood from listening to snippits of a tape. The folks who are replaying this tape, over and over and trying to analyze this message, dont understand the
meaning of this tape, either. Thus, folks are condemning the man, and his words,without a clue the Meaning of the speaker.