When is it appropriate to demand that someone condemn somebody else for his remarks or something he has written? I reckon that you should have some connection to the person to be condemned. For example, would anyone properly ask Barack Obama to condemn Bill O for Bill O’s most recent racist gaffe? I wouldn’t even expect a right winger to condemn Bill O unless he was somehow associated with him in some way other than agreeing with him most of the time. Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes could be asked to condemn Bill O, and that would make some sense.
Why on earth would Democrats suppose that they are obliged to condemn MoveOn for their General Betrayus schtick? They are much too quick to jump on the condemnation bandwagon, if you ask me. I told off my Congresscritter in an e-mail for voting to censure MoveOn. He’s dead to me now.
I don’t feel obliged to condemn anyone for what they say or write. If I do so, it’s for its own sake, not because I need to distance myself from people. If Pat Robertson says something blasphemous, as he does every day, I don’t have to apologize for it as a Christian. I’m not connected to all white people just because I am mostly white, so don’t look to me to condemn every white guy who says something idiotic. And I’m not responsible for other men or for the people in any other category that I might belong to. Bleu cheese dressing lovers of the world share the bond of the mold, but we aren’t responsible for every utterance of one another.
Not condemning something does not imply endorsement. Also, you can disagree with someone without condemning them. Of course, some folks, like that Catholic League guy, are just begging to be condemned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment