Conservatives? What did Reverend Wright say that was so wrong?

[RandFan]

You consistently get that guilt by association fallacy wrong , and it's tiresome.

What gets tiresome is the petty insults. I get things wrong. I'm one who will admit when I'm wrong. Could we have a cordial conversation? If I've offended you in the past by being snarky I apologize. I could be wrong. I don't think I am though. Let's discuss it without accusations, fair?

Guilt by association takes a (relatively) trivial commonality between two things and then draws the false inference that the two things are therefore alike in other ways as well.

How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial? Does being a member of Wright's church prove that Obama shares any or all of Wrights ideological beliefs?

And how is being a casual associate based on circumstance not trivial?

It is not a fallacy to point out that Obama associates with distasteful people like Wright and Ayers.

I'm sorry, no, it depends on the basis for the association.

• I don't find Wright particularly distasteful.
• The relationship between Wright and Obama is religion and not shared political views.
• An association doesn't constitute agreement on ideology. I have associates with many people I do not share beliefs with. My mother is Mormon. That doesn't make me a Mormon. I worked for a company owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I became close friends and associates of many members. That didn't make me a Seventh Day Adventist.
• Ayers and Obama were casual associates based on circumstance only.

If you met someone who told you he was good buddies with David Duke, would that tend to make you wonder about his character?

• Ayers and Obama are NOT good buddies.
• Lots of "good" buddies have been cops and criminals. Liddy and Timothy Leary.

 

[AvalonXQ]

How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial?

It is if you're doing it right -- if your church affiliation isn't simply a matter of political convenience.

If being in your pew at a popular black church on Sunday morning is basically the same to you as being in your box at the opera on Friday night -- an opportunity to see and be seen by the right people as engaging in the right activities -- then what the sermon says (or how good the singers are) is absolutely trivial.

I think that if more people believed this is the sort of "Christian" that Obama was and is, they wouldn't vote for him.

 

[RandFan]

It is if you're doing it right -- if your church affiliation isn't simply a matter of political convenience.

If being in your pew at a popular black church on Sunday morning is basically the same to you as being in your box at the opera on Friday night -- an opportunity to see and be seen by the right people as engaging in the right activities -- then what the sermon says (or how good the singers are) is absolutely trivial.

I think that if more people believed this is the sort of "Christian" that Obama was and is, they wouldn't vote for him.

I completely agree. Americans have a bizarre blind spot when it comes to religion. We haven't always had it. Robert G. Ingersoll was a hugely popular political leader and atheist. He was also a Republican.

We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Gods" (1872)

Have politician say that today and not catch holy hell.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Y'know, back in '08, I said I'd never vote for a Mormon as President. Eventually somebody talked me out of that.

I wonder if the same will eventually happen with atheists.

 

[RandFan]

Y'know, back in '08, I said I'd never vote for a Mormon as President. Eventually somebody talked me out of that.

I wonder if the same will eventually happen with atheists.

Yeah, I think so. BTW: I was dead set against a Mormon president. But I liked Huntsman and I was on the fence for awhile. I found him very reasonable even though I did not like his politics. And, FWIW: I could vote for Romney. I don't think he is the severe conservative he claims. God help Obama if enough independents are willing to give Romney a pass on the primary. That's not to say I think he will govern as liberal as he did as Governor but I really don't think he would be as conservative as Santorum or Gingrich.

We will see. At this point I don't see me moving away from Obama though.

 

[Brainster]

What gets tiresome is the petty insults.

What petty insults? I see no insults petty or grand in my reply to you whatsoever. Do feel free to point them out.

 

[tyr_13]

It is if you're doing it right -- if your church affiliation isn't simply a matter of political convenience.

If being in your pew at a popular black church on Sunday morning is basically the same to you as being in your box at the opera on Friday night -- an opportunity to see and be seen by the right people as engaging in the right activities -- then what the sermon says (or how good the singers are) is absolutely trivial.

I think that if more people believed this is the sort of "Christian" that Obama was and is, they wouldn't vote for him.

I think calling it 'political convenience' is a bit of an overstatement, but that's essentially why many people go to the church they do. Religious beliefs are becoming more and more personal for a lot Christians in the US, thus finding a church with a pastor/reverend/preacher that closely matches their view is difficult and less important than finding a church that their friends and family go to. Call it 'social convenience'.

For many in the US, the days of just agreeing with your church are long gone. I get your point that it's not how church is intended to work, but that is how it's used. My father's part of the family is Catholic and very active in the church, Eucharistic minister and all, yet they routinely disagree with the church and sermons. I doubt that Romney believes everything the LDS church advocates and even spends money on. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama didn't believe in Wright's nuttery, but is a devote Christian who shares belief with many of the other people in the same church. They might go out of tradition, family obligation, theater for the public, social reasons, or the churches other programs.

 

[RandFan]

What petty insults? I see no insults petty or grand in my reply to you whatsoever. Do feel free to point them out.

Rude and insolent behavior is an insult. Telling me that I frequently get something wrong and that it's tiring to you, that is insulting. But I confess I live in a glass house. I'm just trying to get the people I interact with to be a bit more civil and I'm sincerely trying to be civil.

in·sult

to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt

 

[Brainster]

How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial? Does being a member of Wright's church prove that Obama shares any or all of Wrights ideological beliefs?

Not trying to be insulting here, but you are wrong. Let's start with the guilt by association thing again. It is not a guilt by association fallacy to point out that Obama freely associated himself with Wright. Indeed, the Wikipedia page you pointed to has another GBA fallacy that illustrates this:

Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal.

A comparable GBA fallacy with regard to Wright would be to point out that one of his parishioners did some bad thing, and therefore Obama was guilty of the same bad thing. But in the example above, I would certainly have "trust issues" with regard to Josh himself; why would he choose to be friends with so many petty criminals?

A pastor at your church is not supposed to be some trivial association. The pastor is supposed to be your spiritual guide, someone you look towards for counseling and assistance. Back in the 1960s, my parents disagreed strongly with our local pastor and so we went to another church for several years, and eventually they formed a group of like-minded families and actually hired a priest to come in and perform home masses.

 

[RandFan]

Not trying to be insulting here, but you are wrong.

Cool. Not that I agree but I don't find that at all insulting.

Let's start with the guilt by association thing again. It is not a guilt by association fallacy to point out that Obama freely associated himself with Wright. Indeed, the Wikipedia page you pointed to has another GBA fallacy that illustrates this:

Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal.

First off, let me say clearly that I understand your argument. I did read this example. I do understand the point being made by wiki and other sites. I don't want to get into a pissing contest so lets see if we can find some common ground.

• Would you agree that just because my family is Mormon isn't proof that I'm Mormon?
• Would you agree that just because my family are republicans doesn't prove that I am Republican?

These are not casual relationships, right? So, let's not call it a "guilt by association fallacy".

Mary is P
John is Mary's friend.
Therefore John is P.

Fallacious, right?

A pastor at your church is not supposed to be some trivial association. The pastor is supposed to be your spiritual guide, someone you look towards for counseling and assistance. Back in the 1960s, my parents disagreed strongly with our local pastor and so we went to another church for several years, and eventually they formed a group of like-minded families and actually hired a priest to come in and perform home masses.

"Supposed"? Okay, so let's grant that the association isn't trivial.

• Wright is a racist.
• Every congregant of Wrights church must therefore be a racist.

You don't see a problem with that line of reasoning?

• Mormonism was de facto racist.
• Romney was a Mormon during the time that Mormonism was racist.
• Therefore Romney was a racist.

 

[RandFan]

That said:

source

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Short Definition: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]person is bad because of bad associates

Example: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John must be a snob. He's on the debating team, which is full of snobs.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT]
1. Guilt by association involves making negative judgments about a person or their arguments based SOLELY on their relationship with others. This fallacy is a variation on the ad hominem fallacy.

2. The problem is that many people don't look for any other evidence and thus they leap to the wrong conclusion.

3. Even though it is rational under certain circumstances to judge people by their associates, only rarely will such judgments have a high degree of probability attached to them.

I have argued that absent additional evidence, the association alone is proof of nothing.

 

[Travis]

I got it!

I can do whatever I want and so long as I sit one day a week listening to somebody preach the opposite all my actions are void and null!

That is so awesome. I can snort blow off hookers all week but I'm pious and boring if I sit and listen to someone talk about the horrors of hedonism on Sunday. Obama was on to something. When he discovered his actions were meaningless and only what the words his old Reverend said were important he unlocked the key to allow all of us to be free of the consequence of our own actions.

Thank you far right wing lunatics for allowing this to be so.

 

[Brainster]

I have argued that absent additional evidence, the association alone is proof of nothing.

So Santa Rosa Junior College gets it wrong and Wikipedia has it right.

I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this issue. As I have said before, Obama is not going to be reelected or rejected for a second term based on anything other than the last four years. Reverend Wright is a dead issue.

 

[RandFan]

So Santa Rosa Junior College gets it wrong and Wikipedia has it right.

Argument by assertion. You never acknowledged that even if we grant that it's not fallacy by association it's STILL a fallacy.

John is P.
Joan is a friend of John.
Joan is P.

Fallacious, right?

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this either. I was willing to grant you your premises for arguments sake. It would have been nice if you would have acknowledge mine. Please see my sig file.

 

[Travis]

My older brother went to Santa Rosa Jr College.

Always seemed a real nice place when I visited.

That is all. Sorry for the derail.

 

[TruthersLie]

Now we have the choice between a former Illinois senator who's shown no left-leaning inclinations over the last four years, and a former governor who is STILL a member of a church that institutionalized racism until just a couple decades ago, one which he could have left at any time (if he objected).

Other than the whole nationalized health care, quadrupling the national debt and about a dozen other "liberal" "left" ideas... he hasn't shown any left leaning inclinations...

Personally, I dislike both of them.

I really wish there was a party that was pro social advocacy and pro fiscal responsibility...

Unfortunately, we get the social advocacy on the left which embraces the far left, tax the rich social welfare on one side. And on the other side we get pro fiscal responsibility* but we get the entire religious right with them.

*until Clinton/Bush, the republicans had the high ground on fiscal responsibility

 

[TruthersLie]

TruthersLie, care to have a go at my question? Right now I'm looking for anyone who has a problem with Obama and Wright's association to address it. So far nobody has.

gnome.

I thought I had answered your question. Was there any specific, direct "OMG" moment? Not really.

There was a lot of radicalized talk from Wright in many of his sermons. That radicalized speech COULD have influenced a certain young senator who listened to it for 20 years. That POSSIBLE influence COULD affect the way that young senator/now president makes policy decisions, views the world and/or enacts/enforces the laws.

Questions about past associations often bring up the issues of CHARACTER. And if the person is in the highest office in the land, making decisions that affect 300 Million Americans, then those CHARACTER questions are valid.

 

[TruthersLie]

Of course it's a problem anyway YOU look at it. I suggest throwing off your ideological cloak. Judge the man by his actions. Don't cherry pick whatever suits your bias and draw CT like conclusions.

It's unbecoming.

Ah... but there in lies the rub.

At the time in 2008... we have a young black senator who came from nowhere politically. What major piece of legislation did he write? Can you name any off of the top of your head? Which pieces of legislation did he become the face of?

I can't name any w/out wikipedia/google. How about you?

So how can we "judge the man by his actions" when politically he didn't have ANY worthwhile political actions to judge?

So if we can't judge his actions, then what can we judge him by? One of the oldest methods of judging people (note that I personally disagree) is by who their known associates are. When you look at his known associates.... they don't all have sterling reputations or are absolutely aboveboard.

That brings up questions about his actions. Where these friendships/associations completely calculated, were they genuine, were they a bit of both? That brings up his actions.

I'm not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but I am trying to explain it. I have numerous problems with the current POTUS, but the entire wright issue is a non issue

 

[TruthersLie]

How is being a congregant in a church more than trivial? Does being a member of Wright's church prove that Obama shares any or all of Wrights ideological beliefs?

American politics and religion go together hand in hand. The historical evidence of churches pushing political affiliation is so common as to be a non starter.

And how is being a casual associate based on circumstance not trivial?

You see, visit with and spend a day a week with someone for several hours, every week for 20 years. Are you really going to try to pass off the "trivial" relationship? Really?

• I don't find Wright particularly distasteful.

• 
  Me neither. I think his opinion is wrong and his rhetoric is hurtful to discourse, but I don't find it that distasteful. Apparently neither did Obama for 20 years.
  
  

  [*]The relationship between Wright and Obama is religion and not shared political views.

  Other than the fact that the majority of people vote following their religion and the advice and advocacy of their religious leaders.
  Nothing to see here folks .... move along.
  
  

  [*]An association doesn't constitute agreement on ideology. I have associates with many people I do not share beliefs with. My mother is Mormon. That doesn't make me a Mormon. I worked for a company owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I became close friends and associates of many members. That didn't make me a Seventh Day Adventist.

  Ah... but was your mother a mormon and made you attend mormon temple for twenty years? You have made a choice. Obama made the same choice.. and he sat there for 20 years. Now I'm not the brightest bulb in the pack, but if you sit there for 20 years, you have made a choice that you like what you hear. If you didn't like it, you'd leave.
  
  

  [*]Ayers and Obama were casual associates based on circumstance only.

  
  I'll agree with this one... it is like many of the 9/11 CTs who point to the link between Bush and Bin laden family. I could be wrong, there could be a much stronger relationship there, but I think that one is only slightly connected to Obama.

 

[crimresearch]

And still no answer to the OP question.... just the denier-type spin that if a black speaker uses strong rhetoric against racism, then he must be a racist.