Posted by
RightTeacher on Saturday, July 12, 2008 1:33:06 PM
I could not attack Obama for his relations with Pastor Wright.
We cannot attack someone for his religious observance (assuming it is legal). Even if we confine our attacks to his handling of the situation--his lying, his deception, his failing integrity, and his lack of judgement--if we allow no way for him to have handled the situation properly, then our attacks are reduced to an attack on his religion.
Whether it is true or not, I need to allow that all three of these to exist at the same time: a) Obama attending his Church, b) Obama being honest and trustworthy, and c) Obama having a viable campaign.
b), above, may or may not be true. But if true, I cannot allow a) to be the sole obstacle to c). There must be a way for a) and c) to be true if b) is also true.
As long as I did not have a way for c) to be true if a) and b) are also true, the attacks on Obama are attacks on his religion. But what is an honest, trustworthy Obama (assuming such an animal existed) to do?
This is why the
statement Obama never gave matters. That he did no handle it that way, we know that b) is not true, and hence c) is not true. Obama's campaign has lost viability not merely because he attended his church, but because b) is not true. He has shown himself to be deceptive, opportunist, and lacking the ability to handle a difficult situation honestly and with integrity. If he cannot do it as a candidate, how could he do it as a president.