Today I heard a liberal flack try to dismiss the controversy over Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright on the grounds that this is “guilt-by-association.”
By way of reply:
1.I think there are plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama, regardless of his relationship with Rev. Wright—just as I think there are plenty of reasons not to vote for Billary.
2.That said, we also need to distinguish between valid and invalid guilt-by-association.
i) Let’s take an invalid example:
If Kenneth likes Monet, and David Duke likes Monet, then that makes Kenneth Clark a racist.
This guilty association is fallacious because it’s purely coincidental or adventitious.
ii) Let’s take a valid example:
Kenneth Clark belongs to the Klan, therefore Kenneth Clark is a racist.
In this case, if Kenneth Clark a member of a racist organization, an organization that is defined by its racism, then it’s reasonable to infer that he’s a racist.
That’s not a deductive proof, in the sense of a strict implication. It’s logically possible that a member of the Klan is not a racist. For example, a woman might belong to the Klan because she’s the wife of a Klansman. She joined out of loyalty to him even though, let us say, she herself is not a racist.
Of course, even if you had motives other than racism for joining, it would still be culpable to belong to an organization like the KKK.
And belonging to such an organization carries the presumption that you agree with it. There are attenuating circumstances in which it may be possible, in some cases, to overcome that presumption, but the onus lies on you to do so. And you’re still complicit to some degree.
Now, Obama, for the last 20 years, has been a member of a black nationalist church. His church has been quite explicit about that.
So the burden of proof is on Obama to plausibly disassociate himself from the viewpoint of his church and his pastor if, in fact, he doesn’t share the same viewpoint.
Remember, he didn’t grow up in this church. He joined it as an adult.
You should hear Rev. Writes full sermons in which those sound bytes came from.
ReplyDeleteI listenned to two of them so far and it didn't sound so bad when put in it's context.
I admit that his sermons were political and to the far left, but the full sermons weren't really that bad.
I may be wrong, but I think some of those sound bytes were taken out of context.
I listed links of two of his sermons at my blog.
The 9/11 one as well as the G.D. America one.
OR one could just go to Anderson Cooper's & Rolands blogs
Like I said.....I may be wrong, but after listenning to the full sermons I understand why Obama didn't want to disown the man. I also understand why he stayed for 20 years.....eventhough for most of those years he wasn't even in Chicago.
JNORM888
If you would ever support Doug Wilson or Steve Wilkins if they ran for an office, you should consider cutting Obama some slack. A relationship with a person is a complex thing. Perhaps Rev Wright has many good points and Obama was merely tolerating Wright's excesses in his 9/11 anti-America rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, who ever is elected, they will be conformed to the image and likeness of the bureaucracy, the same as Clinton was. There won't be any radical changes so why bother worrying?
JNORM888 SAID:
ReplyDeleteYou should hear Rev. Writes full sermons in which those sound bytes came from.__I listenned to two of them so far and it didn't sound so bad when put in it's context.__I admit that his sermons were political and to the far left, but the full sermons weren't really that bad.__I may be wrong, but I think some of those sound bytes were taken out of context.__I listed links of two of his sermons at my blog.__The 9/11 one as well as the G.D. America one.”
Feel free to put the following quotes “in context”:
"We started the AIDS virus. … We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty."
"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."
"The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Government's lied."
"... what's going on in white America, U.S. of KKKA ..."
"Fighting for peace is like raping for virginity."
"Black men turning on black men – that is fighting the wrong enemy. You both are the primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat."
"We cannot see how what we are doing is the same thing al-Qaida is doing under a different color flag ... And guess what else. If they don't find them some weapons of mass destruction, they going to do just like the LAPD and plant them some weapons of mass destruction."
"God damn America – that's in the Bible – for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating us citizens as less than human. God damn America ..."
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people."
"America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. … We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers. … We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi. … We put (Nelson) Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
And right after 9/11: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
[For the record, I pulled these quotes from WorldNetDaily.]
thnuhthnuh said...
ReplyDelete“If you would ever support Doug Wilson or Steve Wilkins if they ran for an office, you should consider cutting Obama some slack.”
What’s the relevance of the comparison with Wilson or Wilkins? Are you alluding to their affiliation with the Federal Vision?
If so, that wouldn’t be a case of guilt by association. It’s not as if they’re merely associated with proponents of FV. They are proponents in their own right. That’s a case of identity rather than association. So if they’re guilty, it’s not due to guilty by association. Rather, it’s directly related to their own advocacy.
There’s also the question of whether adhering to the theological error of FV is especially germane to their public policy views.
Since Wilson moves in theonomic circles, I might support him if he ran for office.
However, I don’t read his blog on a regular basis, so I’d need to have a more detailed grasp of his social views before I’d consider supporting him for public office (per your hypothetical).
I don’t know anything about Wilkins beyond his advocacy of FV.
“A relationship with a person is a complex thing.”
True, however, there’s a difference between my responsibilities to *my* mentor, and my responsibilities to *your* mentor.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Obama should be loyal to his “spiritual mentor.” I, as a voter, am under no obligation to share Obama’s personal allegiance since Rev. Wright was never my own mentor.
“Perhaps Rev Wright has many good points and Obama was merely tolerating Wright's excesses in his 9/11 anti-America rhetoric.”
Perhaps David Duke has many good points. Is a fine family man. Is kind to kids and small animals. That doesn’t compensate for his worldview.
Once again, I’m not obliged to tolerate what Obama chose to tolerate. Even if you think he’s entitled to make his own judgment call, I, as a voter, have my own civic duties.
“In any case, who ever is elected, they will be conformed to the image and likeness of the bureaucracy, the same as Clinton was. There won't be any radical changes so why bother worrying?”
It could make a potential difference in SCOTUS nominees. Counterterrorism. The size of the Federal budget, &c.
McCain is far from being my first pick. And I haven’t decided if I’ll vote for him. But there are some substantive differences between McCain and Obama or Hillary (although I think Hillary’s bid is a lost cause at this point).
"What’s the relevance of the comparison with Wilson or Wilkins? ...I don’t know anything about Wilkins beyond his advocacy of FV."
ReplyDeleteBack in the mid 90's Wilson and Wilkins co authored an apologetic for 19th American slavery called Southern Slavery As It Was. Wilson has since backpedaled and said that 19th century slavery was evil, but that the North should have handled it differently than going to war.
My point on that was that since Wilson has such widespread reformed support (apart from FV) and at one time held to a racist view, that reformed should make allowances for Obama same as they make allowances for Wilson. But if you weren't aware of that my point doesn't apply - never mind.
It could make a potential difference in SCOTUS nominees. Counterterrorism.
Yes that's bothered me. I live in NYC.
I’m aware of that controversy, although I haven’t bothered to follow every twist and turn. For one thing, it’s not my fight. And it’s not the sort of fight I’d pick.
ReplyDeleteI’m not a civil war historian, and the historical details of this particular controversy are too antiquarian to interest me. More to the point, I don’t think this is a worthwhile debate.
I wouldn’t assume that Wilson is racist. Rather, this reflects poor judgment on his part. It’s not a worthy cause to invest time and energy on.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we suppose that Southern slavery was more humane than some critics make it out to be, it was still unjust and needed to be abolished one way or the other.
So, if we hold that against Wilson, it would not be because he’s a racist, but because he lacks a sense of moral priorities. That’s my off-the-cuff opinion.
I’m not sure that you and I are in disagreement on this point.