Ethics Observations On “Prayers Of A Weary Black Woman”

Nice.

Wait: what is this junk?

This is an essay in a “devotional” titled “A Rhythm of Prayer” by Sarah Bessey. Containing pieces by many authors, it is available on Amazon. Target sells it online for $14.87 in its “Religion + Beliefs” section and “Christian Life” subsection. It is selling well, I hear. The anti-white screed above was authored by Professor of Theology Chinequa Walker-Barnes of Mercer University.

Observations:

1. You can’t buy “If I Ran the Zoo” by Dr. Seuss on Amazon, but you can but this book. Someone should ask what the theory is on that…

2. The most common response to the “prayer” is “Substitute “black” or “Jewish” for white. Would the “prayer ” be acceptable then?” No, of course not. You see, white people ARE horrible, so there is nothing bigoted or racist about treating them as horrible. Yes, this is how Hitler conditioned the Germans to think about Jews, and how the South persisted in teaching children to think about blacks, and how generations of Americans regarded gays, but they were just wrong, that’s all. That’s prejudice. Hating white people is rational and based on historical fact. That is what
scholars like Walker-Barnes believe, and what they teach their students.

3. No white student should attend a university that employs a professor like Walker-Barnes. No non-white student with any ethical compass should either. Before I would hire a graduate of Mercer, he or she would have to explain to me why they stayed in a school enabling racism….and that explanation would have to be damn good.

4. Apparently social media platforms have removed some posts critical of the “prayer,” or ones that even mention it. Two that I tried to find had been taken down.

5. Should Target and Amazon sell books promoting race hate? Sure, if they sell books promoting all kinds of race hate. I won’t read or buy any of them, but they are protected speech, and should be.

6. If, however, for whatever reason, only books and “prayers” promoting race hate toward a single group are sold, posted and used in schools, that is, as Jonathan Turley would say, “concerning.”

7. The forces of division, anti-white bigotry and Leftist domination see an opportunity, and will keep crossing lines relentlessly. Radicals and extremists are by nature insatiable, and because they have warped ethics alarms, they never know when to stop.

8. If their victims never muster the courage and determination to stop them, they have no one to blame but themselves.

_____________________

Pointer: Ann Siegel

40 thoughts on “Ethics Observations On “Prayers Of A Weary Black Woman”

  1. I wonder, if we had a poll, which of the following people would find more appealing?

    “Dear God, please help me to hate White people…”

    Or:

    “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, help me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is despair, hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy. O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.”

    Side note: though this prayers if often associated with St. Francis of Assisi, it is entirely absent from his writings. Its use can only be traced back to just before World War I.

    • After all these centuries of harm, are we also going to try to censure her voice? Her prayer is written in the style of the Psalms. (see Psalm 69:19-24 as one of many examples) What if we acknowledge that it is not our people (white) who were led by God out of slavery, but hers; and that she has not only the right but also good reason to speak in the style of the Psalms. If we can read all the way to the end, we might realize that this is a beautiful prayer.

      • Part of freedom is being able to put forth your views without being jailed or killed for doing so. Part of being a grown-up is graciously handling criticism.

        Being freed from slavery does not give one the right to hate. Hatred leads right back to bondage, namely the bondage of sin, which is worse than any Egyptian or plantation owner. Pleading for the ability to hate even a specific category of white people is worthy of criticism, especially pitted against teachings from the Sermon on the Mount. Can you reconcile a plea for help hating people with “But I tell you to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”?

        Our people? Her people? I guess I’m among those she denounces who “don’t see color,” because I see, or at least want to see, people. Each person is a child of God, wonderfully and fearfully made, with his own inviolable dignity. And God did rescue all of us from slavery through Jesus’s passion, death, and resurrection. And like the Israelites, who found their freedom challenging, we keep wanting to return to the bondage of sin. Yes, some white-skinned people enslaved some black-skinned people in the Americas, and I don’t want to downplay that fact, nor the social problems that slavery created and still plagues us today. But there is a huge difference between trying to heal those problems on one side, and on the other wishing harm on people who never owned a slave, whose parents and grandparents never owned a slave, and who find the idea of slavery abhorrent.

        Does she have the right to speak in the style of the Psalms? Sure. Why wouldn’t she? Or are you implying some exclusive right, where she can do so, but I could not? But more importantly, does she have some special permission to ask for, rather than justice as the psalmist does in Psalm 69, a hardened heart impervious to love?

        I did read her works to the end, which inspired my self-reflection below. And, while I’ll admit that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I found it to be a very ugly prayer.

      • I read it through, but guess I missed the part where she established her identity as an Israelite. Her style notwithstanding, her product is a nasty, hateful piece of dreck.

      • What? #1: Who’s trying to censure (you mean censor, right?) her voice? She can say any idiotic and bigoted thing her sick brain can devise. She has no right to pollute tuition-paying students with it.

        What? #2: The Israelites were not “black” by any definition of the word, and Semitic people are Caucasian.

        What? #3: “Our people” are all people.

        What? #4: She has a right to speak Pig Latin too—it’s the content that is the problem.

        What? #5: No “beautiful” anything begins with “help me hate.”

        What’s the matter with you?

  2. I’m guessing she didn’t understand the admittedly small part of Jesus’ teachings where He commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

    • The vast majority of Leftwingers – including Leftwing “Christians” – haven’t cracked open the Holy Book in years if not decades except in the rare occasion to read the small passage in the Acts of the Apostles to make the claim that we should all be communists.

      As a leftwing theology professor and supposed Christian is doesn’t surprise me that she’s so biblically illiterate and non-discipled that she doesn’t understand even the basic tenets of Christian attitudes.

  3. Charles Manson must be watching everything going on from his toasty spot in Hell and thinking “Damn… so THAT’S how you start a race war!”

  4. It doesn’t sound like this person needs to pray for help hating. It sounds like she’s got it covered. Most of those who hate whole groups have it covered. They just want some reason to believe it’s ok to hate and a reason to tell others it’s ok to hate and morally desirable to act on that hatred. There’s absolutely no difference between her and the Muslim terrorist who hijacks a plane, the IRA guy who plants a bomb to blow up a busload of schoolchildren, the Dotbuster who ambushes some Indian engineering student and knocks him around while calling him “curry-slurper” or the Proud Boy who grabs some black guy on his way home from the grocery store and beats his head in.

    • I really, really don’t know where this tunnel vision comes from. I’ve tried telling people many times: a lot of that isn’t hatred, even though this woman actually is seeking hatred for her part. For the Nazis, at least the upper level ones, dealing with the Jews was merely handling a problem. For the I.R.A.., planting bombs is a tactic carried out – very often – in a spirit of indifference rather than of hatred, callous and brutal though that may be. For muslims, it is a matter of religious duty, even if humane feelings do sometimes creep past that and distract them. And so on.

      This is no quibble. For anyone tempted to reply that he is going to call it hatred anyway because it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, that is missing the point. You are never going to get the right target recognition and counter measures if you load up for and look out for hatred, so others will get by you. You will be like someone going into an Irish pub or walking down a street in Glasgow at night and not reading right what is happening when he sees everybody laughing more, smiling more and generally getting exuberant, not seeing what that contemplation of a joyful prospect means to them – or for him.

      I know whereof I speak. I have been around it and I have seen it. But I knew what it was, just as I have seen matters develop for others in other times and places, and so I could and did stare down two Glaswegians on my own when the occasion arose. Will you rise to the occasion that also waits for you?

  5. It looks like this story is gaining traction. She apparently has a Facebook page, and people are also mentioning her on Twitter. On her Facebook page, she hasn’t issued a statement explaining anything. If she were a white man, the media would be having a field day with this.

  6. It is hard to look at something like this and not feel anger. After all, does it really matter that there is another self-professed Christian (I assume Christian because she says she is a ecumenical minister) that is continuing to not only teach Christianity incorrectly, but is also giving Christians a very bad name. It shouldn’t, but that doesn’t stop the frustration from rising to my throat. I try not to roll my eyes as she makes theological claims which are incorrect. I manage to keep my temper in check as she twist scripture like a serpent talking to a woman over a fruit. But as a claim down and think about it, I realize that this line of thinking does me no good. But perhaps maybe I can do some good by breaking it down. First, lets look at the use of the Psalm.

    The Psalm (34:18) is better correctly translated:

    The Lord is near to the brokenhearted
    and saves the crushed in spirit.

    The Psalm, a Psalm of David, is traditionally written at a time while David was pretending to crazy while he was living with the Philistines. The overall purpose of the Psalm was to express gratitude to the Lord for protecting David during his exile, while exhorting his goodness. It was most likely written when David had returned from his exile and he penned the words as some sort of way to commemorate the event. By the time David reaches the 18th verse he writes those words to remind him that no matter where he goes or what hardship he suffers that the “Lord is close.” Even in his time of exile, he should have no need to worry. God will care of him. It is a reminder that Jesus would come to share when he says “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God.”

    As someone who has studied these words extensively, it is intended to give comfort in time of need. While it may not be the most effective words penned on paper the idea is that no matter how low you are in life, God will be with you and take care of you as God sees fit.

    However, that is not what is displayed here. What comes after these words is one of the worst uses of “comfort for the brokenhearted” I have ever seen. If a student had penned these words to me, I would have been greatly tempted to rip them up, tell them to get over themselves, and send them back to Bible 101. Lot did attempt to change his neighbors. Jonah was mad at God for “changing his mind” not the people repenting. The purpose of the Gospel is not to help the less fortunate, but to “share the Good News.” Dr. Talker-Barnes might have realized this is she spent more time on her theology and less time on her anger, because that is what this prayer is all about. These words are nothing but pure hated against white people, which not only violates the golden rule, but the very basic tenants of Christianity. Jesus believed in the concept of love so strongly, he not only equated hate with murder, but told his followers to love (not hate) their enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.

    There is a bigger problem here (however, at this point I’m going to stray more into the theological and moral as opposed to the ethical), is what she wants. I believe this falls mostly under the scripture of “ask and it will be given to you” words Jesus says in the Gospel of John. Most scholarship agrees this verse was never intended to be “ask for anything you want” but to ask for what is pure, righteous, and good: something Dr. Talker-Barnes obviously doesn’t want. Since the Bible makes it clear God would never give something like what Dr. Talker-Barnes wants, I can’t possibly see her writing this for any other reason than to signal her hatred. She laments that she wants this, which is ironic because it is quite easy to get. The only person who could give her exactly what she wants is herself. Which, perhaps ironically, has already been given to her as some sort of self-fulfilled prophecy.

    It might be tempting to call her an asshole, but really, the whole thing is just sad. Mostly, it sad that she lives in a state of mind where she not only thought other people needed to read this, but she was able to write it. Perhaps, like David, one day she will shake off the madness (real or fake) and come to be better regarding herself and fellow man…But I’m not counting on it.

  7. Well, I don’t know about the rest of you, but it seems like I am in the clear. She likes me.

    But, correct me if I am wrong, isn’t she way off base in her interpretations of Lot and Jonah?

    -Jut

    • Jonah is only 4 chapters long and apparently she couldn’t make it to the end.

      And yeah, that’s a pretty poor characterization of Lot.

  8. My favorite part is the beautiful insanity of the “about the author” section:

    Dr. Chanequa Walker-Barnes is a clinical psychologist, womanist theologian, and ecumenical minister whose work focuses upon healing the legacies of racial and gender oppression.

    I am unclear as to how we heal “…the legacies of racial and gender oppression…” by asking God for permission and assistance hating other people because of their race. In my apparently inadequate education experience, such a thing would be described, at minimum, as racial animus and bigotry. Notice that I don’t use the word, “racist,” which has been rendered meaningless by the “woke” Left.

    In addition, when did it become fashionable to hate people who prefer one mainstream news network over another, or who supported a particular presidential candidate? I get that “tolerance” is no longer a thing on the “woke” Left, but really, news programs and candidate preference?

    I wonder, if she could be troubled to re-read her missive, would she would notice that she has just “those peopled” about half the country, or at least a good 35-40% while in the same breath denounces that thinking as racist? Hmmm, must’ve slipped past the proofread.

    Her lack of self-awareness is truly breathtaking, perhaps unrivaled in the history of mankind, or woman-kind, or whatever. Truly worthy of MSNBC, and who knows, perhaps even CNN!

    • Succinct, broadly encompassing, and well worded Glen. You said a mouthful about a disagreeable component of our current culture and made it easy reading. You get my own personal COD (not to be confused with an official one).

  9. I John 2:9 (not an exact quote, but pretty close) – Anyone who claims to walk in the light but hates a brother or sister is a liar, and still walks in the darkness.

    Ms. Walker-Barnes is another – not unlike a certain set of SN writers – who has chosen to mock God…not a good idea. I don’t know this writer’s heart, but then again, I really don’t have to, do I? The condition of her heart oozes from her pen. As we talked about just recently when the subject of Matthew 7 came up, a tree is known by its fruits.

    Racist hatred is still racist hatred, no matter one’s skin color, no matter if it’s a “person of theology” writing the words, and no matter if it’s in the form of a prayer.

    …and God will not be mocked.

  10. After spending a little more time reflecting on this incredible diatribe, I decided to take a step back and ask what it is about me that would lead to this. Now, I’m not necessarily claiming any direct personal responsibility for this terrible prayer, but my reflections do stem from Matthew 25:31-46. Have I seen you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and I did not minister to you?

    Have I been indifferent to your struggles, since they are not mine? Have I been dismissive of your burdens, and perhaps even cast blame upon you? Did I sneer at your poverty, your drug addiction, your broken relationships, and say they were the just desserts of your poor choices? Have I stood at a distance and shrugged, because someone else would help, or if no one else did, the government would lavish plenitude upon you? Did I think that you were greedy for free money, and not feel the sting to your pride? Did I never feel the self-doubt and the hurt? Did I never extend a hand in genuine friendship, giving in to my own fears, rejecting you for your skin color before you could reject me for mine? If I showed you a smile, was it forced and hollow, because I cared more about not being called a racist than in offering you genuine happiness? Did I always demand you come to me asking, and never came without being asked? Was I the one who demanded you get a job before I’d respect you? Was I the one who belittled you for taking the opportunities offered you, without ever taking a moment to see if you were actually qualified? Did I ever stop to listen to you, to really listen to you, instead of lecturing at you?

    This is not white guilt, but perhaps a bit of personal guilt at failing to walk side by side with someone who is hurting. Perhaps trying to walk alongside that person is not what they want, but am I so pusillanimous that I would not bear my heart to be wounded, that I would rather not risk pain in an effort to help another person?

    I think this applies broadly. I think it is true that conservative economic theory is better than liberal theory, that it helps more people by increasing capital and opportunities all around. But the temptation for the conservatives is the same for the liberals. Correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m just spouting out my personal failings and shouldn’t indict others in my sins, but it seems that both the right and the left want to skip personally helping someone, and just let the monolithic, impersonal systems do the heavy lifting. If it isn’t letting the government distribute welfare to all those in need, then it is letting the economy generate the jobs that will then give people the opportunity to rise out of poverty.

    Yes, I know there will be people who will unjustly hate with the fiercest hate imaginable, and there’s nothing I can do to change that. And there’s too much hate for anyone one person (save for the one person who proved his love for us by dying for us) to handle. But maybe there’s a great deal more hate than there needs to be because I didn’t do my small part to diffuse it.

    • I think this is a fine comment, Ryan, and makes a number of excellent points. I’d like to offer my thoughts on a few of them.

      Have I been indifferent to your struggles, since they are not mine? Have I been dismissive of your burdens, and perhaps even cast blame upon you?

      One of the things that are part and parcel of human nature is the tunnel-vision of self-interest and self-absorption. Juxtaposed against that is our social nature, and that conflict enables both great indifference and great generosity.

      What the “woke” left has done is channel one side of this tension between self and social interests to attack its enemies. By couching this focus in terms of racial bigotry and its attendant emotional response, it attempts to value punishment over redemption, a rejection of the ideal of Christian thought that has informed life in America for almost 250 years. This new ideology rejects the very idea that “whiteness” can ever be forgiven, and this is by design — what can be forgiven can be forgotten, and that would render the power of this New Jacobin viewpoint temporary. Obviously, that’s not ideal from the viewpoint of its purveyors.

      Correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m just spouting out my personal failings and shouldn’t indict others in my sins, but it seems that both the right and the left want to skip personally helping someone, and just let the monolithic, impersonal systems do the heavy lifting.

      This is no doubt true in the very general sense, but we cannot enforce on everyone a duty to “help others.” That is a personal mission, and those who wish to live their lives in tolerance and peace with a minimum of social sacrifice should also be able to do so, n’est ce pas?

      But the “Woke” Left would not allow that — they have determined it necessary not just to impose a broad, mandated duty of self-hate and permanent sacrifice on one particular racial group, but demand a new class of attendant social stigma connected to a historical offense only by the amount of melanin in one’s skin. Not only that, but this “stain” can never be cleansed, ever.

      So when we self-reflect, I think it’s important to compare what is being asked of us by Christ, and its concomitant access to forgiveness and redemption, to the eternal punishment being demanded by the “woke” Left of all those who don’t embrace its dogma wholeheartedly. Yes, religions of all stripes had and still have certain adherents who cannot tolerate nonbelievers, but virtually all provide some path to redemption. Not so the new religion of “woke,” who (if we believe this woman) are called not just to oppose, but apparently to hate those who disagree with them in any jot or tittle.

      In summary, I don’t think believers can place the blame for this current insanity on their lack of sufficient love for their fellow man. It is one thing to be insufficiently mindful of the plight of others, and quite another to hate them — not to mention the particular viciousness of pleading with God for permission to hate them in an explicit rejection of Jesus’ words to the contrary.

      Yes, I know there will be people who will unjustly hate with the fiercest hate imaginable, and there’s nothing I can do to change that.

      Well, not wholesale perhaps, but can we not at least acknowledge that trying to disabuse others of that hate is at least as important as concern for their personal corporeal struggles? After all, if one believes the Bible, hatred is a path to eternal damnation. How much better is it to help another save his or her immortal soul than to give him financial or social assistance?

      • I’ll answer this:

        Have I been indifferent to your struggles, since they are not mine?

        I have my problems. Others have their problems. Everyone has enough problems of their own and it isn’t their responsibility to solve yours for you. Solve your own damn problems, or, at a bare minimum, try to solve them without getting me involved.

        Have I been dismissive of your burdens, and perhaps even cast blame upon you?

        Like I said, I have my problems, you have yours. Deal with them. The one thing all your problems have in common is you.

        Did I sneer at your poverty, your drug addiction, your broken relationships, and say they were the just desserts of your poor choices?

        Damn straight I did. Not to sound like cranky libertarian Neal Boortz, but our lives are the sum of our choices. Not to also sound like J.K. Rowling, but it isn’t our talents, but what we do with them that defines us. Society didn’t stick that needle in your arm, or make you not show up to work so you got fired, or make you associate with that POS guy who fucked and trucked.

        Have I stood at a distance and shrugged, because someone else would help, or if no one else did, the government would lavish plenitude upon you?

        Maybe I did. My first responsibility is to me and my family.

        Did I think that you were greedy for free money, and not feel the sting to your pride?

        Nope, I didn’t, because if you really felt a sting you’d make it your business to stop living off the efforts of others.

        Did I never feel the self-doubt and the hurt?

        Oh please. You should feel self-doubt and hurt if you are living off the efforts of others.

        Did I never extend a hand in genuine friendship, giving in to my own fears, rejecting you for your skin color before you could reject me for mine?

        You know, generally I don’t associate with marginal people, whatever color they might be. They’re usually marginal for a reason.

        If I showed you a smile, was it forced and hollow, because I cared more about not being called a racist than in offering you genuine happiness?

        Your happiness is your responsibility, not mine. Maybe I force a smile because right now you can call me a racist and trash my life, but don’t count on it to last.

        Did I always demand you come to me asking, and never came without being asked?

        What’s so wrong about that?

        Was I the one who demanded you get a job before I’d respect you?

        Yup. Start contributing and being productive, you slug.

        Was I the one who belittled you for taking the opportunities offered you, without ever taking a moment to see if you were actually qualified?

        Why were they offered in the first place?

        Did I ever stop to listen to you, to really listen to you, instead of lecturing at you?

        Not interested in what the marginal have to say.

      • Glen,

        Thank you.

        What the “woke” left has done is channel one side of this tension between self and social interests to attack its enemies.

        That is very true. Part of my contemplation is leading me to believe that the woke have succeeded because of a vacuum created by insufficient willingness to engage with those in need. Maybe my take on this is very skewed because of my own insulated world, and maybe I’m being unfair to the many, many people out there dedicating their lives to outreach. My thesis, though, is that I feel there is a great indifference out there, and that the woke culture has filled the void that indifference has left. I certainly did nothing to earn their hate, but maybe I’ve not done anything to convince them to not hate me.

        By couching this focus in terms of racial bigotry and its attendant emotional response, it attempts to value punishment over redemption, a rejection of the ideal of Christian thought that has informed life in America for almost 250 years.This new ideology rejects the very idea that “whiteness” can ever be forgiven, and this is by design.

        In this I find a trace of certain lines of Calvinism, in which you are either saved or damned, and there is not a thing you can do about either one. It is entirely up to God, and you can neither cooperate with him nor resist him. If you are among the elect, and you can catch a hint that you are if God showers you with blessings, then you can glory in that fact. If someone is among the damned, since that’s God’s active will, there’s no point in ministering to them. You might end up ministering to them anyway, since God might inspire you to do so, but it isn’t going to change their unfortunate outcome.

        Being born white or black should neither disqualify someone nor promote someone. It is skin color. But if one cannot (reasonably) change skin color, then this is much like Calvinist double-predestination. Now, as a Catholic, I reject double-predestination, and I believe fully in forgiveness, especially as one who has been forgiven much. So this Calvinist way of thought is very alien to me, but it has had influence in American culture, and I think it has bred that indifference in a lot a quarters, and that indifference has allowed the woke culture to take some of these Calvinist ideas and flip them on their head.

        In fact, as I think about it more, what Ms. Walker-Barnes is spouting makes a certain logical sense in that light.

        This is no doubt true in the very general sense, but we cannot enforce on everyone a duty to “help others.”

        I agree that we cannot enforce a duty to help on others. And perhaps I’m trying to work a distinction that does not exist. (My wife certainly thinks so. We argued for almost an hour last night about my comment, and I had to eventually stop the conversation because we needed to go to sleep. Maybe she’ll chime in with her thoughts, because she did have some very valid points and concerns that would be good to discuss.) But the distinction is in my mind is analogous to the pretty young woman who, while dressed provocatively, wanders down an alley in a bad part of town. If anything happens to her, her assailants have fully culpability. Yet she was not entirely passive in the whole affair either. She could have acted more prudently for her own protection. In a similar light, the woke culture driving these racial hatreds bears culpability for deepening the divide and fostering hatred, but maybe we could have acted more prudently in heading that off.

        It is fine if one wants to live in tolerance and peace, but at the same time, if one does not wish to engage to head off the hatred, one cannot complain when that hatred flourishes unrestrained.

        So when we self-reflect, I think it’s important to compare what is being asked of us by Christ, and its concomitant access to forgiveness and redemption, to the eternal punishment being demanded by the “woke” Left of all those who don’t embrace its dogma wholeheartedly. Yes, religions of all stripes had and still have certain adherents who cannot tolerate nonbelievers, but virtually all provide some path to redemption. Not so the new religion of “woke,” who (if we believe this woman) are called not just to oppose, but apparently to hate those who disagree with them in any jot or tittle.

        I agree, and that is why I’m so concerned with what I can do. I have a limited sphere of influence. When it comes down to it, all I can control is myself (and sometimes not even then, sad to say…). I can influence some people around me, and there is an entire realm of things I cannot influence in the slightest. So any change I can make has to start with me. The woke culture is an existential threat to our society and needs to be fought. My wife disagrees, but I think the way to fight is to outdo the Left in generosity and love.

        How much better is it to help another save his or her immortal soul than to give him financial or social assistance?

        Amen. There’s only one great sadness in this world, and that is not to be a saint. Being generous does not necessarily mean financial handouts, but could be spending time and attention or a hundred other little gestures that could make maintaining hatred very difficult.

    • I think this is appropriate Christian introspection. But in the context of the topic, I don’t think it’s warranted. We are encouraged, often commanded, to go out of our way to help others. I think we should be remorseful when we don’t but we could have.

      I don’t think we are supposed to be remorseful when any particular person who thinks they didn’t get something they think they deserved decides to be spiteful pricks about it.

  11. Remember, she teaches in a theology department. These are the things new ministers believe coming out of seminary. It is insane the things many so-called ministers believe these days. People wonder why Christianity seems to be dying in the US, well, look at this woman. THIS is one of the chief reasons why.

    • I’d substitute “reactionaries” or “counter-revolutionaries” for “white people” and “Dear Leader” or “Vladimir” or “Leon” or “Chairman Mao” for “God” in order to understand where this woman is coming from. This is nothing more than a Marxist pep talk. It’s brilliance stems from its brazenly hi-jacking Christianity, of all things, a traditional target for destruction by Marxists, to push a completely anti-religious power grab.

      Lefty politics have become the religion of modern day America. As I’ve noted before, go into a church and instead of seeing banners for “Faith” and “Hope” and “Charity” you’ll see banners for “Social Justice.” It’s incredibly nefarious and pervasive. This woman is a true believer and her faithful are, for the most part, useful idiots. This woman is NOT an outlier. She’s in the mainstream of this destructive power grab.

      • Candidly, I think you’re being far too generous. Other than the novel aspect of casting this as a “prayer,” backed up by the clearly dubious premise that she’s a theologian, a read of the entire thing (thanks to the images) is pretty much standard-issue SJW tropes with nice packaging. There’s no truly original thinking in it – at least, none that I can see.

        This suggests to me that she, too, is a useful idiot (UI). Useful idiocy isn’t necessarily a flat social structure, with everyone in the UI category at the same level. Slightly more skilled UIs can be manipulated by those who actually do seek and wield power to manipulate the even more credulous.

        I doubt this gal would know what to do with power if someone walked up and handed it to her. No… it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that while there are certainly horrible power games afoot, people like this aren’t seeking power.

        Or justice, for that matter.

        They’ll be quite satisfied with revenge.

        • I think she wants whites to cower in her presence, AIM. I’m sure she wants reparations, as an opener to restructuring the entire economy so the oppressed get money for free. You know, from all those billionaires. Perhaps semi-unwittingly, she’s militating for an entire restructuring (demolition) of the current economy.

  12. The wonderful thing about these “prayer” authors and the “believers” who wish to use the “prayers” to command God to do things their way, is that I don’t even have to tell them what to go and do. They are already the world’s very best at fucking themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.