Comments on I Beg to Disagree: Obama's Defense: "You Say Guilt By Association"," ...

Your argument that Obama is culpable for continuin...

2008-05-28T12:17:00.000-04:00

Your argument that Obama is culpable for continuing to associate with a congregation in which unattractive things have been said from the pulpit exaggerates the importance of the sermon in church life. Have you examined the entire program of this church and its benefit to the community? If (as I have no reason to doubt) the effect is wholesome and civilizing, perhaps crucially and uniquely so-- i.e., if its members didn't have this church to attend, would they be likely to attend another, yours for example-- then you take on quite a burden of proof indeed in suggesting that an upstanding citizen would repudiate it.

I would argue, further, that a preacher is quite correct in condemning any image, ideology, or instutition, including the government of the United States, or the image of the United States as something deserving of uncritical support. These are demonic idols. This theology, first articulated by the late William Stringfellow (who, curiously, happens to share certain biographical details with Barack Obama) and after his death has been rigorously developed by Walter Wink-- an Episcopalian and a Lutheran respectively. These ideas are not the product of a lunatic fringe.

Whatever the church is, you have far from made a case that it should exist for the purpose of propping up knee-jerk nationalism. Where does this notion come from?

All else being equal, given a choice between a Presidential candidate who understands the temptations and dangers, both to himself spiritually and to his responsibilities to his fellow human beings, in this office, and a candidate who does not, I'll take the one whose eyes are open any day.

thanks, Ralph, for your prompt comment.I think tha...

2008-03-31T21:45:00.000-04:00

thanks, Ralph, for your prompt comment.

I think that the public links between Obama on the one hand and Wright, Farrakhan, and Hamas on the other establish at least an appearance of some sort of connection between them. Obama had every chance to sever that connection conclusively, but chose not to do so. (You may wish to read Deborah Hellman -- the link is in my posting -- on the importance of appearance here).

Now of course Obama has every right in the world to be loyal to Wright, and Wright has every right in the world to be loyal to Farrakhan and to Hamas. But people like us have every right not to be thrilled by these choices.

Obama can't seem to cut loose from bad company when he's a candidate. What is he going to do in the White House, when there is no election imminent ?

There is nothing ironclad here. I am also not reas...

2008-03-31T19:48:00.000-04:00

There is nothing ironclad here. I am also not reassurred by Obama's association with Wright, and Wright's association with Farrakhan and Hamas. This doesn't mean, however, that Obama = Wright = Farrakhan, et al.

Unless we had good evidence from a variety of sources that Obama was tainted by his association with Wright to think like him about Farrakhan and Hamas, and the related issues we care about of Jews and Israel, this should have limited import.

Based mostly on the overall experience of the two Democratic candidates, I have supported Sen. Clinton. It's going to take much more, however, for me to totally reject Obama as a plausible recipient of my vote in the general election. I understand if Werner feels otherwise, but I think this is an emotional rather than a rational choice on his part.