1) "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
2) "But, alas! Have not the sins of America, and of New England in particular, had a hand in bringing down upon us the righteous judgments of Heaven? Wherefore is all this evil come upon us? Is it not because we have forsaken the Lord? Can we say we are innocent of crimes against God? No, surely; it becomes us to humble ourselves under His mighty hand, that He may exalt us in due time. However unjustly and cruelly we have been treated by man, we certainly deserve, at the hand of God, all the calamities in which we are now involved. Have we not lost much of that spirit of genuine Christianity which so remarkably appeared in our ancestors, for which God distinguished them with the signal favors of providence, when they fled from tyranny and persecution into this western desert? Have we not departed from their virtues? Though I hope and am confident that as much true religion, agreeable to the purity and simplicity of the gospel, remains among us as among any people in the world, yet in the midst of the present great apostasy of the nations professing Christianity, have not we likewise been guilty of departing from the living God? Have we not made light of the gospel of salvation, and too much affected the cold, formal, fashionable religion of countries grown old in vice and overspread with infidelity? Do not our follies and iniquities testify against us? Have we not, especially in our seaports, gone much too far into the pride and luxuries of life? Is it not a fact open to common observation, that profaneness, intemperance, unchastity, the love of pleasure, fraud, avarice, and other vices, are increasing among us from year to year? And have not even these young governments been in some measure infected with the corruptions of European courts? Has there been no flattery, no bribery, no artifices practiced, to get into places of honor and profit, or carry a vote to serve a particular interest, without regard to right or wrong? Have our statesmen always acted with integrity? And every judge with impartiality, in the fear of God?
"In short, have all ranks of men showed regard to the divine commands, and joined to promote the Redeemer's kingdom and the public welfare? I wish we could more fully justify ourselves in all these respects. If such sins have not been so notorious among us as in older countries, we must, nevertheless, remember, that the sins of a people who have been remarkable for the profession of godliness, are more aggravated by all the advantages and favors they have enjoyed, and will receive more speedy and signal punishment; as God says of Israel: 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for all your iniquities'."
3) "Now, if it be possible for a nation to sin, it must be when it systematically violates the natural rights of a whole people. I propose to point out some evidences of God's retributive movement over this nation, as displayed in the matter of slavery... for a period of fifty years, on pleas of national peace, for sake of harmony and prosperity, the loyal and free states have declined to maintain the policy of liberty, and have permitted slavery to augment. 'Are not,' said our bribed statesmen, 'the Union and compromise better than all the issue of reformers; and commercial prosperity than God's law?' And when any eminent statesman, who has not of late uttered any such truism, spoke of God's law as the 'Higher Law', there was a howl from all the pulpits and forums in the land, and holy hands, in pious horror, were raised deprecatingly to the Constitution. What's the result? This war is the result. What's the penalty? Go to Sharpsburg, go to Virginia, in the neighbourhood of Washington, look into the swamps which line the Chickahominy, and the trenches filled with your sons, look at Kentucky and Missouri, where the land rocks and reels under the convulsions of the time, and read the assurances of peace. We are reaping what we have sown."
4) "...can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest."
In completely unrelated news, a lot of churchgoing American "conservatives" seem to have forgotten what authentic American Protestantism sounds like.
Comments (26)
[Answer key: 1) Jeremiah Wright, 2) Samuel Langdon, 3) Henry Ward Beecher, 4) Thomas Jefferson.]
Posted by Colby Cosh | March 21, 2008 7:27 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 07:27
Ehh, 1) doesn't bother me really. And of course, it's not that different from things that Falwell, Robertson, and others have said that those on the American left have complained loudly about before.
It's the claims like the CIA inventing AIDS, crack, the US knew about Pearl Harbor, etc. that actually bother me. (So do spurious vaccination/autism claims, of course.)
Posted by John Thacker | March 21, 2008 7:43 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 07:43
Your point insofar as these excerpts go is, certainly, quite accurate. Though I think we should all enjoy Thomas Jefferson being referred to as a "voice of authentic American Protestantism."
Posted by John Thacker | March 21, 2008 8:00 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 08:00
I know, I know. But he knew the Hebrew prophets exceedingly well. No one who has read the Bible even once over lightly should be professing horror at Jeremiah Wright's harsh words toward Caesar.
Posted by Colby Cosh | March 21, 2008 8:05 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 08:05
I've never read the bible and I certainly can't profess horror at his harsh words. Maybe if I was twelve, I could.
Posted by Samantha | March 21, 2008 8:49 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 08:49
I'm with Thacker on this one. It isn't that he's damning the USA. It's that he thinks the USA created AIDS, etc. The distinction between the two is meaningful.
Posted by Half Canadian | March 21, 2008 10:21 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 10:21
It's the claims like the CIA inventing AIDS, crack, the US knew about Pearl Harbor, etc. that actually bother me. (So do spurious vaccination/autism claims, of course.)
But none of that has anything to do with why the Freeper/Corner right is angry. It's fine for us nonbelieving skeptics to take umbrage, but we don't have a candidate anyway. What percentage of Americans believe that a communist ex-Marine named Lee Harvey Oswald was the only one shooting at President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963?
Posted by Colby Cosh | March 21, 2008 10:45 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 10:45
Colby, Oswald is a poor example. The argument that the US gov't was in on 9/11 in on a more even playing field as far as being a loony/paranoid theory that is as equally crazy as the CIA inventing aids.
As for your attempt to equate the goddamn america rantings of Mr. Wright to the likes of Thomas Jefferson it too is weak.
Jefferson was a man who was very aware that the US was not a nation above sin - slavery being the key one (and yes, I know he was a slave owner) - and that being a christian he believed that one day the US would be held to account for it.
That is not the same as a Wright imploring God to Damn America - at full raging volume - not even close. He also cites ridiculous reasons the US to be deserving of damnation - the three strike law, etc.
Posted by Gord Tulk | March 21, 2008 3:33 PM
Posted on March 21, 2008 15:33
not only Thomas Jefferson as the "voice of authentic American Protestantism" but Saints Preserve us, the National Review's "The Corner" as well.
Posted by An American Passing Through | March 21, 2008 9:33 PM
Posted on March 21, 2008 21:33
For those of us who don't read Free Republic or The Corner, a passing reference for claims of anti-americanism doesn't help. But the point still stands. Jefferson, Beacher and Langdon weren't paranoid and they did love the USA. Wright on the other hand? Paranoid and hates the USA.
One can call a nation to repentance and one can wish for a nation to be punished. One can warn and one can despise. Based on the rhetoric from Wright, he despises the USA and prays for its punishment. Jefferson, Beacher and Langdon come across as warning and calling for repentance. So, it isn't just the critique, it's the style.
And the paranoia. Don't forget the paranoia. As Shaidle would say, if the USA is as bad as Wright thinks it is, why isn't he a lampshade?
Posted by Half Canadian | March 22, 2008 12:07 AM
Posted on March 22, 2008 00:07
I don't think the "He should be glad he's not in a concentration camp" argument should be put in Kathy's mouth, or anyone's, unless they wish to claim ownership of it.
Posted by Colby Cosh | March 22, 2008 5:02 AM
Posted on March 22, 2008 05:02
Colby, Oswald is a poor example. The argument that the US gov't was in on 9/11 in on a more even playing field as far as being a loony/paranoid theory that is as equally crazy as the CIA inventing aids.
I think Colby was right on in comparing them. People aren't as stupid as we like to think. They suspect they were duped somehow and are angry. Why do we call the argument loony and paranoid? How does that help any? Is that not kicking a person, or a side, or an argument, when they are already down?
Posted by sam | March 23, 2008 9:47 AM
Posted on March 23, 2008 09:47
Uh, Colby, you misread me. I'm not saying he should be glad that he's not in a concentration camp, I'm saying that if the USA is as bad as he says it is, why is he still alive.
And Shaidle has made the same argument.
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2007-10-22-0006/
Posted by Half Canadian | March 23, 2008 7:09 PM
Posted on March 23, 2008 19:09
If that was all he said we wouldn't be talking about this. It isn't, and so we are.
I could say alot, but I will say only this. Quoters 2,3, and 4 speak of us(referring to the country as a whole). Quoter 1, speaks only of us and them.
This has no relation to Protestantism. We are about self-loathing, not them-loathing.
Posted by Eric-Vancouver | March 24, 2008 12:56 PM
Posted on March 24, 2008 12:56
Can I play?
"If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?"
Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural address.
Posted by Paul Wells | March 24, 2008 2:55 PM
Posted on March 24, 2008 14:55
Not bad, but it doesn't have the whole "Go sniff the corpses of your dead sons" angle that Beecher brings.
Posted by Colby Cosh | March 24, 2008 2:59 PM
Posted on March 24, 2008 14:59
Lincoln never could nail a sound bite.
Posted by Paul Wells | March 24, 2008 3:19 PM
Posted on March 24, 2008 15:19
So an ad hoc mixture of Frankfurt School Marxism and black ethnocentrism concocted in the 1960's is "authentic American Protestantism"? The only thing more objectionable than being harangued about "true" Christianity by an atheist is being harangued about "true" Christianity by a clueless atheist.
Posted by Watertight Compartment | March 25, 2008 2:36 AM
Posted on March 25, 2008 02:36
Oh please. You've missed the point completely. I have no objection to criticisms of the factual substance of Wright's sermons. My specific complaint is that "God damn America" seems to be considered by far the most objectionable thing Wright said, but American preachers and even statesmen have been calling down God's wrath on America since the Great Awakening. Being friendly with kooky black intellectuals has never hurt any Democratic candidate before; it's precisely Wright's rhetorical style that is the source of this controversy. The man didn't fill a church because he sounds like Theodor Adorno.
Posted by Colby Cosh | March 25, 2008 6:58 AM
Posted on March 25, 2008 06:58
(Someone who sounded like Adorno couldn't fill a Jetta with voluntary listeners, actually. And if the Frankfurt School is supposedly the secret third rail of American politics, why is Hillary, who is practically a paid-up member through her Saul Alinsky connection, even in this race?)
Posted by Colby Cosh | March 25, 2008 7:00 AM
Posted on March 25, 2008 07:00
I'm really confused here. Can anyone clarify who is us and who is them is? Who is self-loathing and who is them-loathing?
Posted by Sam | March 25, 2008 9:15 AM
Posted on March 25, 2008 09:15
Cosh,
Who the eff said anything about the Frankfurt School being the third rail? You said Wright represents "authentic American Protestantism" because of some superficial rhetorical similarities, indeed ore so than soi-disant conservative Republicans. Any examination beyond the most superficial would reveal his philosophy as a cultural Marxist identity politics spread over a thin cracker of Christianity. Whether you believe it or not, the substantive issues (i.e. why God's wrath is being called down) are far more important than the rhetorical techniques. Lots of people enjoy raging like Old Testament prophets, often for reasons vastly divorced from the concerns of traditional Christianity (e.g. environmentalists).
Posted by Watertight Compartment | March 25, 2008 2:26 PM
Posted on March 25, 2008 14:26
Cosh,
Who the eff said anything about the Frankfurt School being the third rail? You said Wright represents "authentic American Protestantism" because of some superficial rhetorical similarities, indeed ore so than soi-disant conservative Republicans. Any examination beyond the most superficial would reveal his philosophy as a cultural Marxist identity politics spread over a thin cracker of Christianity. Whether you believe it or not, the substantive issues (i.e. why God's wrath is being called down) are far more important than the rhetorical techniques. Lots of people enjoy raging like Old Testament prophets, often for reasons vastly divorced from the concerns of traditional Christianity (e.g. environmentalists).
Posted by Watertight Compartment | March 25, 2008 2:27 PM
Posted on March 25, 2008 14:27
I apologize for the very lazy post, but I only wanted to say this. Wright's message is divisise and hateful. He does not exhort his parishioners and his country to demand better or to behave better as the others do. He simply looks to inflame anger and resentment. Quoters 2,3 and 4 speak in terms of us. Wright speaks in terms of us and them.
Posted by Eric-Vancouver | March 25, 2008 2:36 PM
Posted on March 25, 2008 14:36
Thanks for clarifying Eric. But does the bible not speak in terms of us and them? I'm not that familiar with it - having avoided books that minimize based on gender any further than society already does. I hear it has great messages though.
Posted by Sam | March 26, 2008 2:41 PM
Posted on March 26, 2008 14:41
Come, come, people. Let Colby's general truth emerge: The U.S. of A is a good Christian nation, and exporting that niceness to nasty places like Iraq can only improve the general tone of this sorry globe.
Let us not carp like H. L. Mencken, who in the middle of newspaper column demanding that FDR's Democrat regime(and suggesting that Canada's Liberal one -- one wonders if he knew about Mackenzie King's anti-semitism) OPEN the gates to German Jewish immigration in the immediate wake of Kristallnacht -- in the middle of this polemic grumbled that the U.S. had a lot of nerve lecturing Nazi Germany about its treatment of Jews when freshly lynched American blacks were spread on the newspaper pages.
The ultimate upshot of this is Mencken being called an anti-semite in the Book section of the Globe and Mail (and anti-black in a few other places), and I fear Colby may suffer the same fate...
Posted by Jens Andersen | March 27, 2008 8:26 AM
Posted on March 27, 2008 08:26