John Nichols: Wright, Jefferson and the Wrath of God

[babylonsister]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/316575

Wright, Jefferson and the Wrath of God
posted by John Nichols on 04/29/2008 @ 5:05pm

snip//

But there's little if anything about this pastor that should provoke embarrassment or invite apology.

Wright can be unsettling, thought-provoking, often right and sometimes wrong. But he is neither anti-American nor unpatriotic.

In more ways than Republican and now Democratic critics seem prepared to admit, Wright is the embodiment of an American religious and political tradition of challenging the country's sins while calling it to the higher ground that extends from the founding of the republic. No less a figure than Thomas Jefferson -- who constructed that wall of separation between church and state but who worried a good deal about questions of the divine -- worried openly about the retribution that would befall a nation that permitted slavery.

"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other," wrote Jefferson in 1781's Notes on the State of Virginia, where he asked, "(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 the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."

The wrath of God brought down on a country that permits slavery? A nation damned by its original sin? God damn America?

America has been blessed from its beginnings by champions of liberty, by abolitionists and civil rights marchers, by suffragists and union organizers, by anti-imperialists like Mark Twain and challengers of the military-industrial complex like Dwight Eisenhower. Necessarily, these patriots have said some tough things about American leaders and policies. They have acknowledged flaws that are self-evident. Yet, they have not done so out of hatred. Rather, they have loved America sufficiently to believe it can be as good and as just as figures so diverse and yet in some very important ways so similar as Thomas Jefferson and Jeremiah Wright have taught us.

[panader0]

1. While I personally agree with Wright's views on many things

including all the bad shit this country has done, I think he should have waited until after Obama was elected to state his views. Candidacy can be a very fragile thing, like an infant, and needs to be guarded and protected by all who want to see their candidate elected. An earlier poster claimed that this "divorce" was planned, so that Obama could distance himself from controversy. Who knows?

[babylonsister]

3. I'm glad Obama spoke out, but Nichols and Wright do have points.

I also agree with Wright on a lot of things and think he's helped educate me. I don't understand why Wright said some of the things he said yesterday, but if there was so much planning going on between the two, why'd he say it to begin with? I do not think Obama and Wright were in cahoots at all. Obama was pissed and disappointed today.

[bemildred]

2. As long as Americans continue to swallow this crap, they will continue to get screwed. nt

[babylonsister]

4. This crap, meaning religion or the blown-out-of-proportion

Rev. Wright? What choices do Americans have if they only get their news from the TV? It's been non-stop.

[bemildred]

6. Both I would think.

When does politics become about substantive issues that affect the public (and the republic) instead of all this "divide-and-rule" stuff aimed at making you upset instead of making you think?

[qijackie]

5. Jefferson represented lots of traditions, didn't he?

Jefferson certainly enjoyed that position of "unremitting despotism" with his sexual enjoyment of the "degrading submissions" of numerous female slaves. Bet he didn't miss one night's sleep over that!

[EFerrari]

7. The main source of my own cognitive dissonance is really simple.

In the late sixties, early seventies, people could still speak up. All kinds of people, not just Faux News cleared voices.

Sure, there were assassinations and, sure, there was propaganda, and sure, people were intimidated and manipulated. But it was NOTHING like the level the manipulation and censorship has been taken to today.

Fast forward to now -- our media is captive and so is our judgment. We, ourselves, are condemning voices like Wright's, for example. We don't even seem to need the bobble heads on cable to tell us, dissent is BAD.

We have been muzzled, but good.

[babylonsister]

8. Yes, we have. I posted this because I still think

Wright's message was important and informative, even though his timing and possible intentions might suck. Because of the way he chose to deliver it, his message will be lost, and that's sad.