Jeremiah Wright Soft Peddles 'God Damn America' Comment
Saturday, April 26, 2008 at 04:39PM Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s former controversial pastor, on Bill Moyers last night explaining his “God damn America” comment:
Wright is correct when he says that God doesn’t bless America’s sins, but Wright is blessing America’s sins with his liberal theology and social ideology. He does not have the moral authority to suggest God damn America nor is he apparently aware of the historical contexts in which God desired to redeem civilizations because of their righteous citizens despite the sinful ones.
The problem emerges when Wright doesn’t not define “hope” and “meaning in life”. It is in these details that his social gospel strays from Jesus’ gospel. It replaces the exalted Christ with a crucified political community intent on foregoing the moral message of the faith justifying it with a martyr syndrome that blames social opponents for its struggle rather than taking responsibility for itself.
Rather than being the woman at the feet of Christ caught in adultery and accepting His command to “go and sin no more”, the community blames the moral law of God, the stone-throwers and abuses the grace of Christ. This social gospel facilitates the perpetuation of the very sins that nailed Jesus to the cross; abortion, sex outside of marriage, self-centeredness, relativism, hatred and the idea that the commandments are fulfilled by loving others as they love you rather than loving others as you want to be loved.
Jesus was crucified because he didn’t preach the overthrow of the Roman government which was occupying Israel. The savior Israel wanted was a nationalistic one, a racial one as it were, rather than a spiritual one. The Pharisaical, blind, hypocritical gospel of Jeremiah Wright misinterprets the mission of Jesus and sends Him off to be crucified anew.
Jesus said “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and give to God the things that are God’s”. Jeremiah Wright’s gospel does not made this distinction.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1791331
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (27)
Obsess much, Amy?
Wingnuts like Amy Proctor harp on Wright for one reason and one reason only: They are utterly incapable of participating in serious discussions of Obama's positions on the issues. Observe...
Amy: What is Obama's officially stated position on foreign policy? Where can it be found?
What is Obama's officially stated position on energy and the environment? Where can it be found?
What is Obama's officially stated position on veterans? Where can it be found?
Not only does Amy not know the answers to these questions, she does not know how to find the answers. Most damningly, Amy Proctor does not understand why it is important to discuss these questions.
Amy and her kind prefer smearing someone with guilt by association. Serious discussion of serious issues is completely beyond Amy's capabilities.
I'm voting Republican. Obama smears himself, he doesn't need my help. And by association, eh? Where were you defending Bush and the Saudis? Or Cheney and Halliburton? Mmmhmm, that's what I thought.
There are many entries on this blog about Obama's positions on Iraq, the military, foreign policy and so on. It's the Democrats problem. I'm just happy to point out the implosions in the Democractic party.
This is a legitimate discourse on the implications of liberal religion/ social gospel in America.
Check the Rules of Engagement.
.
Thanks, Amy. You proved my point: you are incapable of a serious discussion of the issues.
Amy Proctor is "...incapable of a serious discussion of the issues." Bwaahahahahahahahahaha! Damn that's a good one!
Yeah, meatbrain, that's why Amy's blog has over 1.2 million hits, she's been interviewed on national TV, several radio stations, internet radio, and featured on the front page of blogs run CNN, Time and Newsweek.
Dude, you're in over your head.
Obama aside, criticism of Jeremiah Wright stands on his own.
*its* own. Sorry about that...
"Check the Rules of Engagement."
Obama wants to go fight a real WOT in Pakistan.Hillary and McCain do not. But that is not part of the Rules of Engagement. We must sit in Iraq and twiddle the thumbs for the next 50 years.
Wright does not like how Americans treated blacks. For example, in Viet Nam, the blacks were given mainly two jobs… cleaning latrines and fighting in the front lines as padding and early alert warnings.
That is not part of the "Rules of Engagement" -- He must be framed as a bag guy by guilt by association.
Cal, your apprehension of combat history needs work.
Pakistan isn't "the real War on Terror." It's an important part, but the war is comprehnsive and literally global.
"Myth: A disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War."
Although his qualifications are solid, Johnny, it is a shame he works for the US army (Charles C. Moskos is a sociologist of the United States Military ). It is like asking the Democratic Party to look into their own candidate and report the truth when they have face to keep – like any other organization would do. I guess the blacks that reported this treatment coming back from Viet Nam were liars? Does that mean there is some difference between blacks and whites about honesty?
Amy, Alexander the Great ( destroyed the Persian Empire as retaliation for attacks on Greece Republics), and General Patton, US commander that proposed and started our tank divisions, and led black tank infantries with him, because he believed they had courage in the ‘battle of the bulge’ – both claimed to never hold ground as military policy. They are considered great military men and planners of history ( and retrospective). No one has risen to their stature in this Iraq war phase II. They had a plan called defeat, currently we have a plan called occupy and argued as detained – but in reality it is paternalism-argued as colonialism. If Al Qaeda is in Iraq, then march to them, don’t sit there. We will end up sitting there forever. That is why some Muslims want us there so we can be viewed as occupiers – giving them historical claim to attack the ‘ west’ in the future. Al Qaeda, since the first months and first year of the WOT when we were in Afghanistan moved their operations to Pakistan/afghan locations. This is common knowledge -- We have done nothing there. So what is the logic? There is none.
I'm for winning the war rather than sitting in the sand for long lengths of time.
Apparently you two see sitting in Iraq as the solution to the WOT. Patton and Alexander would not see it that way – but of course there not as smart militarily as you two. They just had a desire to win, that is all. Sitting in Iraq and forcing a western government on peoples we have no right to do as per – “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” does not apply in this case in the Iraqi sands?
In which case, Amy will have no trouble answering the questions I posed to her above.
Amy?
Amy?
Helloooooo?
Cal, again, apples and oranges. Patton and Alexander were fighting conventional wars against symettrical threats. Counterinsurgency is primarily a political struggle. We are serving at the invitation of the government of Iraq and have not been asked to leave. In fact, we have been asked to stay indefinitely.
You have not offered a solution other than leaving and 'hoping' it all turns out alright. That is not a foreign policy nor a defense strategy.
Excuse me, meathead, but you are a guest here. What sort of male chauvinist are you? Don't come here and demand answers from me or pose questions that have nothing to do with the topic. I'm not your lapdog, you're not my instructor and I owe you nothing. Take an etiquette class before posting here again.
What you call intellectual cowardice is actually HAVING A LIFE, which apparently is something you do not have.
Only one individual is banned from this blog but I will gladly make it two if you continue to pollute it with your chauvinistic attitude. Don't say you haven't been warned. I guess now we'll see who is really interested in discussing the issues, won't we?
Cal, I have no idea what happened to you. I don't think you have a clue what sort of warfare is being executed in Iraq or Afghanistan, with all due respect. Johnny's right, its apples and oranges. We used Pattonesque warfare for years 2004-06 in Iraq and you can see what happened.
Sitting in Iraq as the solution? The military is working HARD to facilitate political progress, teaching Law and Ethics to Iraqi judges, training Iraqi police and military, including officers who go through years of training. It takes time but you act as if we're twiddling our thumbs. There is intense movement on the ground with a plethora of unique circumstances to consider. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.
meatbrain,
"Wingnuts like Amy Proctor harp on Wright for one reason and one reason only: They are utterly incapable of participating in serious discussions of Obama's positions on the issues. Observe..."
If John McCain were a member of a church for 20 years that blamed the black community for all the crime and drug use in the white community.
Said the black community used racism as an excuse to commit genocide on the white population and that
slavery was the black communities "chickens coming home to roost" for their sins you liberals would say
"nothing to see here", this is just a "distraction".
YEAH RIGHT!!!
According to Obama, this discussion on Wright is a "legitimate discussion".
OBAMA ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY
Fox News Sunday
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obama_on_fox_news_sunday.html
WALLACE: I wasn't sure whether I was even going to ask you about your former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, but he made it easy for me because he's now begun this -
OBAMA: Right.
WALLACE: -- public campaign to redeem his reputation. The other night he said to Bill Moyers that he has been the target of a smear campaign.
Question: Do you think that Reverend Wright is just the victim here?
OBAMA: No. I think that people were legitimately offended by some of the comments that he had made in the past.
The fact that he is my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue. So I understand that.
It is sickening to watch liberals with their supposed "high moral standards" defend the bigoted,racist comments by Wright and his 20 year support by Obama.
Obama's "mentor","spiritual advisor",and member of his campaign says that America and Al-qaeda are"one
and the same",states that 9/11 is America's fault,says the US government is responsible for enacting genocide
by infecting the black community with the aids virus and this is just a "distraction" according to liberals.
To liberals, a Presidential candidate that supports a church that awards a racist like Farrakhan and is based on
a separatist theology such as this:
In a set of "talking points" on the church's Web site, Wright proclaims himself an exponent of "black liberation theology." He cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having "systematized" this strain of Christianity.
Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology (hat tip: Spengler, a pseudonymous columnist for the Asia Times):
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
no big deal at all to the super moral left.
The bringer of "hope" and "change" surely would not hold other people to a different standard than himself or his spiritual support group....right?
OBAMA DEMANDED LOTT RESIGNATION
Illinois senator couldn't 'forgive' his embrace of segregationist colleague
Posted: March 19, 2008
11:14 pm Eastern
WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – While Sen. Barack Obama said he couldn't throw over his friend and pastor of 20 years for racially charged and divisive hate speech, he had no trouble calling for the head of Sen. Trent Lott, the Republican Senate majority leader, for embracing a colleague with a segregationist past on his 100th birthday.
On Dec. 12, 2002, Obama, then serving as an Illinois state senator and filling in as host of the Cliff Kelley radio show on WVON, challenged the Republican Party to demand Lott's resignation.
"It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do," said Obama.
He added: "The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."
FERRAR-OVER
By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
March 13, 2008 -- WASHINGTON - Geraldine Ferraro abruptly resigned her post in Hillary Rodham Clinton's fund-raising team yesterday, days after touching off a racial furor by saying Barack Obama was ahead in the Democratic race because he's black.
Last week, Ferraro, who ran as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984, told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."
Obama went on the attack yesterday on NBC's "Today Show." After calling Ferraro a trailblazer, he said she was participating in "the kind of slice-and-dice politics that's about race and about gender and about this and that, and that's what Americans are tired of because they recognize that when we divide ourselves in that way, we can't solve problems."
OBAMA: FIRE IMUS
Obama First White House Contender to Call for Imus' Firing Over Racial Slur
By JAKE TAPPER
April 11, 2007—
In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus' show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.
"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."
Obama said he appeared once on Imus' show two years ago, and "I have no intention of returning."
According to Obama, you can accuse the government of genocide with no proof,say the government is run by
the KKK,and adhere to a racist,separatist theology that promotes the genocide of the white man,and sit there for 20 years and yell "AMEN!!"
But you call a few girl basketball players the same thing that hundreds of hip hop artist call women"nappy headed hoes" and you have crossed the line.
NO....NO....NO....NO. Mister "hope" and "change" is drawing the line right there.
How brave.
We have watched democrats that voted to send our men and women to fight in Iraq, sell them out for senate seats and a bid for the white house.
Now democrats will defend even the most bigoted and racist opinions of Obama's spiritual support group for the last 20 years in their quest for the white house.
The only "change" going on here is the goal posts to all that moral outrage liberals feel when people are judged by the color of their skin.
There's been no male chauvinism in anything I've said to you, Amy. You're inventing horsecrap out of thin air again.
Amy can't answer the questions I put to her -- but it is somehow all someone else's fault. It is to laugh.
Amy is dealing in guilt by association. She is incapable of, or afraid to, actually discuss Obama's positions on the issues. She is afraid to even look for Obama's statements of his positions on the issues.
Make whatever excuses you like, Amy, but the fact remains that your behavior is pure intellectual cowardice.
I suppose CNN is "obsessing much", too. They have pre-empted regularly scheduled broadcasting to cover the Jeremiah Wright speech at the NAACP.
The fact that you don't even realize coming to a woman's blog and talking to/at her in the manner you do buttresses my point that you have chauvinistic tendancies. When you order me around and tell ME what evidence to give YOU... I shouldn't have to explain this.
I have dissected Obama's platform on abortion, Iraq, Pakistan and other issues on this blog.
Who are you to tell me essentially to write an essay on Obama's positions? If you like him, you do it. YOU prove whatever point you're trying to make. Write about it on your own blog since you think it's so important and your judgmental statements about what I do or do not understand are not only ignorant and presumptous, but they're wrong.
Enough of that.
Baxter Greene is absolutely right. Even Obama admits the Jeremiah Wright issue is legitimate. Appparently meanhead knows more than the candidate.
meatbrain, there is no such thing as looking for real "information" and seeking "facts" of what each person stands for with these people. It seems in American politics, the easiest trip to "presidency" is to look and pretend to be a "regular bloke", serving the average joe and voila you are in office. Reagan, Bush sr. Bush Jr. they all come from the same mold. No substance, just a bit of external "I am just your every day Joe" pretense and people will vote for them. There is only a handful of people who vote on the issues and actually dwelve deeply into what each candidate is really about. Its all a fassad of superficiality.
I can assure you that, if Barack Obama was advocating 90% of the policies that Bush was hawking in office, they still wouldn't vote for him because he's a "liberal". The level of maturity is that akin to school yard kids forming clics and playing the "he/she is on my side" game. I mean even read Amy write somewhere that she thought some commenter was "on their side" and she was asking why he changed his mind. Because god forbid we gather information, and reason out our past digressions and form (hopefully) a better understanding of what is happening. Here one must form and opinion and then seek to prove that its true under all circumstances. It doesnt matter how much underlying evidence exists against a particular point of view.
REAGAN had no substance? You're kidding, right? I agree about Bush Sr. and disagree about the current Bush yet understand that's up for interpretation, but Reagan?
I fell in love with Ronald Reagan in 1979 during the presidential elections. I was 12. I recall the absolute DISASTER that was the Carter adminstration. It was such a debacle that the economy needed a "misery index". Even as a 12 year old I understood what incompetence was occupying the White House.
Ronald Reagan made me care about American politics. He was a brilliant politician whose articulate defense of his positions were indisputable. His explanations of why he opposed abortion was moving to me as a young girl.
During the 1983 Presidential campaign, the debates between Reagan and Mondale showcased Reagan's brilliance even further. He handled accussations with humor, his positions with poignancy. I could go on, but the point is that your comments, Mavic, show how utterly little you understand American politics and Republican presidents.
" including officers who go through years of training." " I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about" --Amy
That is fine. In China Amy, before wwII, we went to intervene in China in 1939 ( -1945). Roosevelt micromanaged that war and the same policy of "including officers who go through years of training" had no effect and failed ... he knew it in 1944, so he had people write it up for the media and in government (classified docs too) for future twisting to blame his US generals in China, Burma, and India, and tried to frame the Chinese commanders as corrupt after years of mentoring them. This was the furthest from the truth. While a great European commander, his dark spot was Asia. Before 1943, Roosevelt spent much of his time concentrating on the eastern theater. After 1943 he focused on Europe and the invasion. However, he had noticed that years of training and treating these people as automatons created disaster and it was him and not his generals. He micromanaged generals, pulling one in and out whenever he did not like the results: Iraq sounds similarly the same. We are there to mentor all these social things, but look what it did to the Germans, British, Dutch, Portugal, Spain, Holland, French, Italians, Austrians, the Russians – look how they went around being doogooders and it finally became a reality that the people hated them all the same. Because people want freedom. We are not giving Iraqi people their freedom, we are forcing on them our freedom. There is a difference. In 1945, when we pulled out of China as main policy and left only a hope, we left Burma, India, and Southwest China in ruins. People ( like Roosevelt which became myth) blamed some Chinese leaders but that was a myth, because we broke promises consistently with them that they would have a role in China’s postwar future -- we flinched. The rational, we are their to fight Al Qaeda, is different form were there to build you a country, from the different of we are there to force Democracy on you, too we are there to search for WMD, too we are there to find and remove that hated Saddam, we are there to liberate you ( From what?) – so that we can control you? We are there to fight Al Qaeda – that is a rational, but at the same time we are there to control people’s political trajectory – that is a contradiction. What this is, in actuality, is an occupation—colonization.
However, I understand you will continue to support this war (Actually occupation) no-matter what happens. I wish you well.
at best, Wright is a stranger to the truth. Just as it is troubling that conservatism has become a Satanic cult bent on practicing ritual human sacrifice and dismemberment in Iraq for the next 100 years, so too is it disturbing that a cult on the left thinks they can curse America and lie about it or that we are to supposed to admire them for the way they curse us. Well in that case, dm U too! And in the words of FUtus, the sitting VP, fu as well.
Amy's mendacity continues unabated. I haven't ordered her to do anything. I've merely asked questions that Amy cannot or will not answer. If the questions are uncomfortable for Amy, she has no one to blame but herself.
This is also a fantasy wholly of Amy's devising. I have simply asked Amy if she is able to find Obama's positions. As she chooses not to do so, she is clearly not interested in discussion anything of substance regarding Obama's positions. She much prefers the smear tactics of guilt by association.
http://obama.senate.gov/contact/index.php
RACE doesn't appear to be one of Obama's issues on his web page.
I believe Jeremiah Wright is a filthy racist.
Obama chose Wright to officiate his wedding and baptized his children. Are these things Obama takes lightly or is this indicative of his character and judgment?
BEFORE YOU READ BELOW:
If anyone ojects to anything I posted BELOW... I am only following the good Rev. Wrights lead and telling it like it is!!
Since he is being divisive in his talk... let me lovingly return the favor. For the Glory of GOD!!
And let me just say ..... if you TAKE OFFENSE to anything that is written below, than you are probobly just "taking me out of context" and your are probobly a racist.
Blacks...because of the evolutionary point they were at when they were baught 500yrs ago and braught to the US...
they were at least 700 years behind the The WHITES in Math, Science, Literature, Technology and so on. They hadn't even discovered such things yet.
Do you really think any Africans new what Mathmatics/Geometry or Science was 500yrs ago? of course NOT,
Everything BLACKS in the U.S. have learned over the last 500 hundred years is because of the WHITE MAN eduacating him
or (by Black/White teachers teaching WHITE eduacation to the Black children)
If you look at the "whites" 700yrs ago You will see that Whites, be they.. Greeks, Romans, Europeans, Irish, FRENCH, Italians , not to mention ASIANS .....
were already lightyears ahead of AFRICANS in their technology and evolution.
They had already built coliseums (for entertainment), ships (to explore the planet), real HOUSES ( NOT MUDD HUTS), established goverments and so on....
I've never heard of ANY Africans exploring the planet in large SHIPS they built themselves over 500 yrs ago. The WHITE MAN was.
Africans were still in the endogenous phase of their evolution (living in huts and tribes) and some still are TODAY!
Europeans were at least 700 yrs ahead of Africans at that time intellectually.
Blacks were behind WHITES intellectually then and they are still behind WHITES now. That is why we are having this entire discussion! (because Blacks dont GET IT!)
Slavery was terrible , but it got you out of Africa were you would have most likely starved to death or continued to be inslaved by Muslms and other people, not to mention your own
African cousins at that time (read the FACTS about your history in that time) whites were not the only ones inslaving you.
You were doomed either way (because of your intellectual and evolutionary weaknesses).
Being inslaved by the WHITE man was hard yes, but it exposed you to a portion of the most evolved human being on the planet and because of that you were eduacated and given a spring board
into the future (far ahead of your African cousins and brothers who stayed in Africa (includeing the ones who would have enslaved you if you would have stayed in africa)...
the very IDEAS of...
All of your current schools are based off of the idea and eduacation system of WHITES.
All of your current organizations are based from the idea of WHITE organizations.
All of your current Music is based off of the invention of WHITE/European and Asian musical instruments
Your CAR was invented by a WHITE man.
Your medicene that you take for your Diabetes was created by a WHITE Man...
Your Kentucky Fried Chicken was created from a recipe by a WHITE MAN...
and so on and so on...
All of your GUNS.....invented by White Men
All of your Houses were built from the Engineering technology of of the WHITE MAN..
All of your Liquer you drink exists because of the Brewing Technology of the WHITE MAN....
All of your "Colt 45" Malt Liquer Beer .. which was founded in 1844 by Jacob Best (a WHITE MAN from Germany)
Your Job was taken away from a more capable WHITE PERSON and given to you by "Affirmative Action" (because of WHITE legislation)
You are who you are today because of the WHITE man getting you out of AFRICA and you have evolved ONLY from being exsposed to the EUROPEAN "WHITE" MAN.
Otherwise you would still be living in MUDD HUTS and starving to death in AFRICA.
Their's no NEGRO College Fund or Welfare System in AFRICA.
Your life is better in America because of the WHITE MAN...if NOT, then why arent African Americans returning to AFRICA today??
because they have it better in AMERICA!!
If you dont believe me just bring a group of Africans from the Sudan to the United States and observe them in our modern Society (they are LOST)
and that's exactly where you would be if it wasn't for the WHITE MAN!!
You want to bite the very hand that feeds you (through food stamps) and you want to attack the very race that made you who you are today.
Equality is an "IDEAL" it will never be a reality for AFRICAN AMERICANS because you will never be EQUAL intellectually....maybe someday you will be equal in POPULATION but NEVER intellectually.
UNLESS you mix marry into the white race then your Children will stand a chance.
Such as BARACK OBAMA (he's HALF WHITE... could that be why he was able to graduate from Harvard a WHITE college??)
Could that be why he can talk and make sense to WHITE people and get the Majority of the vote in a WHITE state such as IOWA????
Could that be why a Black Preacher such as Jeremiah Wright speaks and makes no sense and (all he does is MAKE ENEMIES) when he tries to speak to the same WHITE people.
Hey are you a professional journalist? This article is very well written, as compared to most other blogs i saw today�.
anyhow thanks for the good read!