Joan:

Although Rev. Wright can no doubt be fairly criticized (as he has been by Barack Obama, among others) for his incendiary remarks, I believe your column seriously mischaracterizes the points he was attempting to make in the sermons at issue, just as the mainstream media have been doing by wrenching the now notorious "God damn America" and "America's chickens" sermon snippets violently out of context and looping them ad nauseum for their "shock and awe" entertainment value. This sort of analysis does no one any good.

Most significantly, it is not the case that Wright was "defending" the 9/11 attacks or that he "seems" somehow to "feel vindicated" by them, as you provocatively speculate with your comment that while you too "deplore all of those civilian killings [e.g., the extermination of Native Americans and the mass killings at Hiroshima] as well, . . . 9/11 was indefensible." With this statement you both misread Wright's sermon and indulge in a bit of moral self-congratulation. As the extended excerpts aired by Moyers make perfectly clear, Wright's purpose in discussing 9/11 was not to *defend* the horrific attacks but rather to emphasize a simple point which the Bible instructs over and over -- that hatred, violence, and terror (including, most tragically, the slaughter of innocent civilians) beget only more violence and more terror, and that God calls upon all peoples and nations -- not just the U.S., but other nation-states, as well as al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, to forswear violence and terror as responses to conflict. According to Wright, God urges people and nations, in addressing conflict, to strive instead toward redemption, reconciliation, and wholeness.

With respect to the "God damn America" sermon, you assert that Wright probably "could have gotten away with 'God damn Bush' for the Iraq war or 'God damn the American government!', but that the phrase he chose makes it sound "like it's the idea of America, its fundamental principles, that he's rejecting." Yet, here again, the full context provided by the longer excerpt of the sermon sharply contradicts your sour assessment. At the beginning of the relevant passage, Wright makes explicit that his focus is on governmental failure, not the basic myths and core principles of a nation, which in his view provoke God's anger. He starts by noting that "*Governments* fail" (emphasis added), then proceeds to list governments, from Pontius Pilate's Rome to the governments of England, Russia, Japan, Germany, and "the U.S. *government*" (emphasis added), that in his view had failed to respect the dignity and equality of human beings. Wright warns that such failures invite God's wrath, quoting in the Moyers interview, for example, from 2 Corinthians God's admonition to seek his face and "turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven," and [the passage continues] "will forgive their sin and will heal their land." It is in this context that Wright urges god to "damn," i.e., "condemn," America, not in some global or eternal sense, but "*as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is supreme*." (Emphasis added.) In my observations over the years, this sort of castigation of nation-states which are seen is seen as attempting to usurp God's role is hardly unusual in Christian pulpits.

Finally, I question your apparent belief that American voters will facilely equate Obama with Wright, and impute to the former the most inflammatory, wrongheaded statements of the latter. (I'm referring her to your description of Wright's politics as "especially deadly for Obama.") There is no evidence to date that Democratic voters have been significantly swayed by the Wright dust-up one way or the other -- we/they seem to have our/their own critical faculties after all -- and the general election is still many months away.

Regards,

arthur69

Thanks for posting that link, it might provoke some real discourse, it might even cause some to pause, and just think.

Another piece where I suspect your preference in the Democratic nomination is skewing your reason.

Your critique of Wright is sound enough, although I DID hear "God damn America" the way Wright explains it. He didn't say "God damn the American government" because, as you know quite well, he was oratorically moving from the familiar refrain of "God Bless America." The oratorical device is jarring and assists him in expressing a radical opinion with, yes, much anger behind it.

Somehow, you proceed as if the presence of anger proves a hatred for the American idea itself. That isn't proven, and nothing in the interview with Moyers or these sermons persuades me that Jeremiah Wright hates America.

Those with an interest in seeing Obama's candidacy end in the primary will gladly hand Wright from Obama's neck like an albatross, use guilt by association, in hopes enough people will go along with the premise that because Obama's pastor is a passionately angry black man, Obama must covertly feel the same passionate anger and thus be untrustworthy.

It is a conclusion bereft of reason and tinged with racism. But I don't think you're bigoted, Joan. I just think your preference for Hillary Clinton is seducing you into her talking points.

I can't find words to describe your hateful view of life...where did you grow up and who gave you this job. You bring out the most negative sentiments in me...I can't even say you are different...you are an idiot...Ms. Walsh...go get laid

"ms. walsh, you need to get laid

I can't find words to describe your hateful view of life...where did you grow up and who gave you this job. You bring out the most negative sentiments in me...I can't even say you are different...you are an idiot...Ms. Walsh...go get laid

-- Blue98"

Here is another example. Women who do not agree with men, or who do not agree with you, are assumed to need hetersexual intercourse, whether voluntary or not.....

Disgusting.

Susan

Sometimes we don't respond, because the illogic of (some) Clinton supporters and Joan is so stupifying as to render some of us speechless.

I don't even know where to begin. There are so many clear, reasoned arguments as to why this was ridiculous Joan.

Gwen Ifil put it best when they played the exert of Wright's interview back to her. She said, "So? He got it exactly right. He's a preacher, Barack Obama's a politician, they operate in separate realms. Is this news? Did any one not know Barack Obama was a politician? They're two totally separate things."

As earlier posters have pointed out the ever dimming line in the division between church and state (which we all know we have the radical, right-wing evangelicals to thank for) is equally disturbing.

People refuse to watch Wright in his entirety or even attempt to place his comments in context.

Clinton supporters are on here arguing about what's so wrong about Wright's statements is that "black people in Africa are enslaving other black people so stop blaming us."

They're also arguing about how "There are more smart people and more racists than there are idiots (thank god) left in this country." Okay, well I guess, whatever. Thank God for the racists. Whatever.

Joan's going around quoting, and channeling her Irish-American ancestors (hey I've got nohting against them) but when the heck did that ever become an issue?

I don't know. Maybe other people can actually continue arguing with this level of inanity. I can't. I'm sure they will. Eagerly awaiting Joan's next post Monday hopefully clarifying this. Perhaps it won't be simply another passive-aggressive attack on Obama, but given that all of her previous postings have been such, it's hard to imagine it being anything else.

I don't know.