As we mull Jeremiah Wright’s “God Damn America” theory, it’s worth remembering that in an earlier era, politicians routinely talked in these terms. During the revolutionary era, there was an assumption that God was paying attention and, thanks to the nobility of our cause, intervening on the side of the Americans. But when things were not going well, speculation would bubble up that perhaps God was damning America because of our bad behavior.
At some points during the war, John 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."
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Steven, i already mentioned your Founding Faith archive is excellent.
This is certainly making me dwell exactly why you wrote the above blog.
I am not that familiar with your writings, yet. However, if you intended any simile between Adams exhortation and the race-baiting of
Rev. Wright you seem to have missed his political/economic philosophy.
I believe it is referred to as 'Black Seperatism'-that type of ideology
practiced by Rev. Faracan[?]-American Nation of Islam. Seperate and apart/damn the white man and his devious ways. Fortunatly, this dogma
has never worked in this country. And for the Grace of God will never
in the centuries to come.
If you ared perhaps playing a type of devils role advocate in this issue its inappropiate. This issue has to be taken seriously and not
made jest of and/or reduced to such simplistic theories such as yours.
You do indeed display a 'screwball' apologetic attitude. I just do not
know where the hell your coming from. AND i personally do not care for
it.
If you are as 'youthful' as your current blog pic shows this might
explain some generational differences-ie, your academic higher education.
Yes, my friend, whatever college/U you had attended indoctrinated you
whether it be a secular/religious, conservative/liberal campus-you are
a product of the input fed to you. Call me a foolish and stupid old
man who had to spoon feed himself his own academic nutrition because
i attended a music school which lacked depth in the humanities. But
these socio/economic/cultural aspects of higher education have prevailed since the 'Academy' of Plato up to and beyond the establioshment of William&Mary College. There is a bias in education
K-9 thru postgraduate work. It is up to the young mind to be able to
descriminate. But, i rant on about everything except your blog. Please
try and dwell on your topic more thoroughly-and perhaps amend some
parts of the blog. I feel you did not take enough time formulating
your ideas in a coherrent fashion. Rather, matter of factly. That
attitude should not be taken in dealing with this type of rhetoric
coming from the "pulpit".
Yes, steven, i did read the entire transcript of Wright's monologue.
Much of it is defenseable. In the context it was delivered in it was
divesif. It was reminescent of the speech i heard given by Farachan
in L.A., CA some 20 yrs ago.
Bottom line stephen-Wrights commentary on the American Republic really
does not mean sh*t. However, the man who wants Americas top CEO
positiion should not be sitting his butt on those pews listening to
it-that initself is a action of affirmation.
I was well aware about all this many months ago while the mainstream
press sought to ignore it[by design or otherwise is a serious problem
itself]. The fact that Hannity & O'Reaily are pounding away at this
only goes to show the deep anger that still/and always will address
the subject of the Black Mans role in American culture.
You are a good writer. You have a facile mind. Please give more thought
to your more important topical blogs/essays.
Regards,
Claude Posella [klauden@Beliefnet.com]
Hi Stephen,
Pastor Wright's comments disturbed me, but I try to imagine where the anger came from. I don't think most people, including myself (I'm white) can understand the complexity of feelings of many black Americans toward this country. If my family were forced to come to this country to create wealth for white plantation owners, and only got full civil rights in the sixties, I would have some anger too. I think you can be patriotic and love this country without having blinders on in terms of where problems like racism still exist.
I liked Obama's response in Philadelphia. It was honest and actually addressed in a compassionate way the divide between people that are hurting, black or white.
I am reading your book "Founding Faith" and love it. Thank you for a great read.
Beverly
Thank you, Mr. Waldman.
We need not get angry with Dr. Wright, and if we should, why not sit quietly and read Joel, Amos, Haggai, Jeremiah, Hosea, Obadiah, Micah, etc.,in the Bible. We can learn a lot. God had and still has a lot to say to a nation of people who have turned their backs on His word and His instructions on how we treat Him and each other. We need not judge, but sit and reason with each other. Maybe it is time for us to sit and have our conversations on race in our country, and how we can really solve some of our problems. We do not need to shout at each other, or even agree, but sit and realize that we have one life on this earth to live with each other. Make it a life that will count towards making peace with each other. Would it hurt anything? I really feel that it would actually help us as a nation.
Let us show a little more love toward each other.
It's a pleasure to read Mr. Waldman on the religious beliefs of the Founders because he really has the historical background firmly grasped, something which too many who argue these matters are too present-minded to do. A review of "Founding Faith" by Brookhiser in today's NY Times Book Review gives him all due credit for this.
As for John Adams, who co-stars in a chapter of my own book ("The End of Kings" 2000), I think the best word both for him and for the Jefferson (with whom Adams famously corresponded on the big issues in the later years of their lives) is "anticlerical." It's used more for European history than American, but its meaning is clear: an anticlerical is someone who may have well-defined religious beliefs and even a willingness to indulge religious zeal ("enthusiasm" was the 18th-century term), but who is preemptively mistrustful of all clergy, whatever their denomination.
In 1765 Adams wrote the following about his ancestors the Puritans, who had executed King Charles I in 1649 and established parliamentary sovereignty in England. I think it sounds a lot like Obama condemning Wright while indulging his zeal:
"Religious to some degree of enthusiasm it may be admitted they were; but this can be no peculiar derogation from their character; because it was at that time almost the universal character not only of England, but of Christendom. Had this, however, been otherwise, their enthusiasm, considering the principles on which it was founded and the ends to which it was directed, far from being a reproach to them, was greatly to their honor; for I believe it will be found universally true, that no great enterprise for the honor or happiness of mankind was ever achieved without a large mixture of that noble infirmity." (Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law," 1765)
My two favorite observations from Adams are as pessimistic and calvinist as Wright's, and maybe even Protestant Christian and anticlerical:
"There is Danger from all Men. The only Maxim of a free Government, ought to be to trust no Man living, with Power to endanger the public Liberty." (Adams, "Diary" 1771-1772)
"There is no special providence for Americans, and their nature is the same with that of others." (Adams, "Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States" 1787)
WE, St. Ann's School, Brooklyn
I think Rev. RIGHT! Has it Right!. Whites should not be concerned about the plight of black citizens they should care for themselves!! And in doing so remember the invlovement of america. America has a problem when it is properly identified for what it is! " A den of DEMONS" The world see's that clearly now thanks to bush! There is no complexity of feelings of blacks of america. It is CRYSTAL clear in the mind of Black's of what america is! Therefore, John Adams and Rev. Right had it Right!! GOD DAMN America!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.