RSS Feed
Guilt by Association Un-American and Un-Christian
Obama and Wright. McCain and Keating. Palin and Muthee. To what extent is it right or wrong to judge candidates by the company they keep?
My mind goes right away to the stories how Jesus was often denounced or shunned for the company he kept.
In the spiritual sense, he was all about seeing people as God sees them--marvelous creatures, flawed, yes; but "a little lower than the angels," the poet of the Psalms put it. He invited public sinners to his table and forgave them. He palled around with tax collectors, tools of the hated Roman overseers, and saw in them the potential of a new life of honesty and integrity.
Our question this week obviously refers to an active, hard-fought political campaign. It has turned nasty on both sides, but much more so at this moment in the way Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are drawing broad conclusions about Sen. Obama on the basis of the thinnest evidence.
Associations with persons and causes can be relevant when we size up a candidate, but only if the accuser makes or traces a valid pattern of behavior, attitude of mind or current position. We all change our minds, sometimes for the better, thank God.
It's blindingly obvious to me at least that if there was ever a time to stay on the issues and try to deal with the awful mess we're in, it's now. Judgment works both ways, and I think a lot of us are going to judge candidates who lean heavily on guilt by association, a discredited American political idea if there ever was one.
As a person of faith, I take heart in Jesus' wisdom, part of the sweeping challenge in one of his great teachings, the Sermon on the Mount:
"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." (Gospel of Matthew 7:1-5)
By
William Tully
|
October 14, 2008; 10:53 AM ET
| Category:
Religion & Politics
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Divine Impulses: Joel and Victoria Osteen |
Next: Warren Buffett, American Dumbledore
Posted by: Paganplace | October 14, 2008 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankly, if they want to try to say Obama 'Pals around with Terrorists' for serving on the same board as Ayers, who was hired by a conservative foundation after doing some stuff when Obama was eight and apparently being re-habilitated enough by then...
Never mind Murthee and Hagee for a moment, how about Mccain's actual, recent, and mutually-supportive palling around with the convicted and unrepentant domestic terrorist G. Gordon *Liddy?*
Posted by: Paganplace | October 14, 2008 3:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry but McCain's relationship with Keating is not the same as Obama and Palin's relationship with the priests mentioned. There is a BIG difference between influence peddling and nutty religionism. Judging McCain for selling influence to Charles Keating is not guilt by association, it is guilt by being guilty.
Posted by: squier13 | October 14, 2008 9:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Fr. Tully, what has been overlooked by those of us who are Episcopalians is our own role in the cultural divide. What is significant are the two events of April 29, 1996: namely, former Presiding Bishop Browning's signature on an Interfaith Letter - drafted by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice - urging the members of Congress not to overturn President Clinton's veto of the proposed ban of the partial-birth abortion procedure; and Bishop Spong's appearance before a House Subcommittee where he made a forceful appeal for legalizing "assisted suicide," which was broadcast on C-SPAN.
As you perhaps know, in early 2006 Executive Council formalized the Church's membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and efforts to rescind that affiliation failed at the last General Convention. As for Bishop Spong, he has enjoyed prophetic privilege over the years, and as far as I know his testimony has been allowed to stand.
It is interesting to consider this remarkable coincidence, for in one day the Episcopal Church effectively declared its indifference to the fate of the unborn and the dying. It would be easy to dismiss this as a silly mistake for a church which has such a prestigious history, to say nothing of National Cathedral. But 12 years is a long time, and in the court of public opinion it might be difficiult for the Church to qualify its bold public advocacy.
If we are honest and generous Christians, we would bring these events to the attention of the American public, so deeply divided and struggling to find a way forward during this critical election season. But if there is the Democratic sweep of Congress and the Administration as many anticipate, should we not expect these hot-button issues to become well established in American society and with the tacit blessing of the "church for the nation?"
I regret writing such a negative message, but I am utterly serious about this and hope you will do what you can to bring it to the attention of your diocese.
Posted by: MaryMiserable | October 11, 2008 6:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
I mean, remember G.Gordon Liddy? Not only does he make Ollie North look like a boy Scout, he actually did terrorism to try and fix an election.
And McCain's been actually overtly *agreeing* with the guy on his radio show as late as 2007.