Can we cut the guilit by association crap?

[calteacherguy]

I read post after post about how someone working for one of the candidates (be it Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or whoever) said this, did that, worked for someone, or whatever.

I don't give a shit. Every candidate is going to have folks working for them some rabid supporter of another candidate can attack.

These guilt by association posts are getting ridiculous, and they're just plain stupid.

[Captain_Nemo]

1. The only problem is that the candidate can't preach equality for all and then rub elbows

with the people who are anti-equality for all.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. So you'd be ok if your candidate appeared with David Duke?

C'mon, no guilt by association, right? :sarcasm:

[CreekDog]

8. That's a germaine comparison, oh yeah

(sarcasm)

[More Than A Feeling]

10. Racism and homophobia look a lot alike to me, so yes, it is a relevant comparison.

[CreekDog]

22. It would be one thing if Obama endorsed the view

It's quite another when he attracts the audience to get them to listen to Obama's message which is inclusive and not bigoted.

Second, McClurkin is not advocating discrimination or violence towards gays, but he has a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong. I think this is not the same view as hating someone for their sexual orientation or clan like behavior that was directed towards African Americans.

There are many liberals who are religious that even think that Jewish people and those of the Arabic faith should 'willingly' become Christians --this doesn't make them bigots, it's just their religious belief. So long as there isn't force or coercion, this is a different thing than klan, David Duke type behavior.

But I don't want to spend time defending McClurkin, he is entitled to his views, my point was to defend Obama who doesn't share the view of everyone he is associated with.

[More Than A Feeling]

30. I think that who Obama associates himself and his campaign with is part of his message.

And what is McClurkin's message? "God hates gays, just like he hates lying"(http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/2005/09/30/is_donnie_mcclu) Are you ok with bigotry when it is justified by religion (as irrational as justifying bigotry based on the pseudo-concept of race).

Religion is a set of ideas that can be changed. Sexuality is more akin to race and gender, inherent characteristics that cannot be changed by force of will. Teaching people that they can change and that they are immoral if they don't is abusive. It promotes self-loathing among a population that is already stigmatized in the eyes of many. It's lead to at least one suicide (http://fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=18017).

[CreekDog]

31. I don't believe sexuality changes either (maybe there are rare exceptions to this rule...)

And I'm defending Obama here, McClurkin can defend himself.

Though McClurkin specifically said that God does not "hate gays".

There is support among some religious people for full gay rights, even among some who are taught and believe that to have same sex relations is wrong. For these people, they can help you pass gay rights leglislation, but you are likely to encounter resistance if you say that they have to and their religions have to approve of same sex sexual relationships themselves.

[Maven]

33. religious belief ... "not the same as hating someone for their sexual orientation"

YES IT IS.

It is hatred. It is a belief motivated by a desire that an entire group of people you don't like, who don't fit into your neat little worldview, CEASE TO BE..."for their own good," of course. :eyes:

Homosexuality is not a "phenomenon" you can "disagree" with. It is INNATE TRAIT embodied by an entire population of people. And to suggest that it is not is to delegitimize the identity and the very existence of that group. McClurkin is nothing but another "ex-gay" con artist and self-hating bigot.

There were many in the 60's who didn't think black people should marry white people. Oh, it wasn't because they "hated" black people. It was just their religious belief, see?

[CreekDog]

39. No, it is not the same thing

And how do you know that people in churches that teach that sexual relations between the same sexes is wrong --that all those people that agree with that teaching actually HATE gay people? How do you know? Yes, some of them genuninely hate, belittle, make fun of, etc.

BUT, Nearly all the people I know that are in these churches, some within my own family try to abide the teaching, yet they love their friends (gay or not), they love their children (gay or not).

You are making people out to be a caricature and considering that you are trying to battle intolerance and prejudice, I would expect more from you than to cater and propagate caricature about any people --after all, you don't seem to like it being applied to gay people.

Further, though homosexuality is against Roman Catholic doctrine (actually, on the sexual part, not the orientation), gays were for years encouraged to become priests --does that sound like something you would encourage people whom you hate? No.

I think the major issue to deal with, that all of us with a religion must face is grappling with teachings that we believe come from our God and what we are supposed to do when we have among our families and friends people that either believe or do otherwise.

But if these folks really HATED the way you say they do, there would be no struggle, they would hate and enjoy it, but I don't see that in most churches I've been to.

And I'm not abandoning my church, my religion and my God because of this teaching because frankly, I didn't invent my religion and I'm not going to start now, I don't know where else to go. The churches that teach differently don't simply teach differently on homosexuality, but have thrown out the major teachings that are the mainstay of my religion.

Needless to say, I will love people, accept them for what they are, accept their partners, that's what I do. I am not God and I don't get to decide.

[Maven]

40. Excuse me.

The people you describe ATTACK people like me. They go after my rights, they intervene in political affairs to make my life difficult.

They persecute people like me and then claim it's done out of "love." No one needs to caricature them--they are caricatures of themselves. And it sounds like you agree with them.

You don't tell another human being to be something they are not, to bury their own human nature, to suffocate and hide and be miserable, because you love them. You don't tell them that part of their core identity is disgusting, evil and needs to be "cured" because you love them. You don't tell them that their most personal and private feelings are lie, that they are not who and what they say they are, because you love them. Putting dogma and "major teachings" above compassion and acceptance of other human beings who are different is not love. It is hatred. No matter how many songs you sing and poetic verses you recite to make you feel good about the backwards, archaic and hurtful belief system underlying it.

Bigotry isn't love simply because you put a smile on its face.

Sell that someplace else.

[CreekDog]

42. If they try deny you marriage rights, rights to be free from discrimination they don't agree with me

And, yes, my church does happen to teach against(though rarely) same sex sex, but like I said, the people I know there don't try to change the sexual orientation of others (most don't even think that's possible) or fight gay rights. Heck, I vote for gay rights every opportunity I get. The point is that people can support gay rights without even believing that being gay is okay according to their religious tenets.

And by the way, my church does teach that you are at your core sinful and evil, but not because you are gay, but because you are human, it's called original sin and no straight person is representing their religion correctly if they say that you are more sinful than they are because you are gay and they are not.

And man, I am lucky I don't have more rocks coming my way for posting these things here on DU, but I am trying to give people a glimpse of what being in an old line church, being faithful and trying to be progressive and tolerant feels like.

Life is messy.

[Bluebear]

12. It's entirely germaine. Or is homophobia to you acceptable whereas racism is not?

[Maven]

34. Yes, that is pretty much the attitude, I think, of people who defend Obama as a

pragmatist for appearing on stage with a bigot.

[ecstatic]

41. That's different, AS EVERYONE KNOWS what DD is all about

Now if one were to end up rubbing elbows with an obscure bigot, then that is a different matter.

[Cameron27]

3. Hosting an event where this asshole

was invited to perform isn't really guilt by association. If he didn't know before, Obama knows now.

[cboy4]

4. Obama should know better. That's the bottom line.

I encourage and welcome the information to help me choose my candidate.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. Biden, Clinton, Edwards, and Dodd should have known better than to vote for the IWR

Oh but Obama showed poor judgement by not thoroughly vetting a singer who was performing for him. :eyes:

[jgraz]

5. So Bush's hiring of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzo and Condi say nothing about his leadership?

Or is it just that most of the guilt is splattered on the candidate you're supporting?

[lligrd]

6. So If Your Kid Is Hanging Out With A Known Drug Dealer

it would be okay with you?

[backscatter712]

7. If Hillary fired Mark Rich the instant his lobbying for Blackwater became public,

maybe I'd agree with you.

But she didn't fire him. Her campaign made excuses for him.

Sorry, but that counts as her implicit approval of his actions in my book.

[CreekDog]

9. I think you mean complicit

But whether your point is well taken or not, who one of the advisors is, will not be anywhere near the top of the priorities in my deciding a candidate.

All things being equal, perhaps it would come into play, but damn, candidates do this stuff all the time. It's when they pull a Giuliani and ALL their advisors are wackos that you rule out the candidate. But the thing about that is that, well, he's wacko to begin with, his advisors would never be the reason I decided to vote for him, it's that he's a power hungry maniac.

So, let's stick to the mountains, not the molehills, okayyyyyyyy?

[saracat]

11. You mean Mark Penn don't you? If so I agree.

[backscatter712]

32. D'oh! You're right, my bad!

[Nostradammit]

13. As soon as she quits associating with the guilty

the guilt by association posts will stop.

[depakid]

14. People are judged by who they choose to associate with

and/or take big money from.

Nothing wrong with that- indeed, it's often quite telling.

[JTFrog]

15. Would you inform my local police

and justice systems how stupid they are please. You see, I'm going to court tomorrow because my son is the friend of a boy who stole a car. My son has a ironclad alibi, complete with statements from six well established adult members of the community. Yet he and another boy were named as accomplices to grand theft auto because two years ago the three boys were acquaintances. They do however, still bear the burden of proof. In the end it will work out just fine.

So while you have to suffer clicking on another thread, I don't think I'll have pity for you or your candidate. If there is no guilt, then there will be no proof. But she'll have to go through the vetting process like everyone else.

[LWolf]

16. First, let's learn to spell.

Personally, I think "You shall be known by the company you keep" to be a pretty accurate way of getting to know who the politician behind the rhetoric is.

[wyldwolf]

17. why? Because it just bit Obama in the ass?

Where were you in the countless "guilt by association" charges leveled at Sen. Clinton.

Right. You didn't see them or you would have blah blah blah... :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

20. The OP is a Clinton supporter, wyld one. n/t

[Ethelk2044]

27. Then Clinton is Guilty as well. 9/15/07 Bill was at an event with Donnie for

Andrew Young's Birthday. Guilt by Association.

[wyldwolf]

29. ha ha! TERRIBLE try.

Was she WITH Donnie or were both at an even for a civil rights hero, Andrew Young?

:rofl:

[Dawgs]

35. Hey wyldwolf!! The original poster is a Clinton supporter.

[wyldwolf]

38. So?

:shrug:

The Obama thing inspired the post.

[terrya]

18. In answer to your question...no n/t

[Ethelk2044]

28. You must feel really bad then Guilt by Associate on 9/15/07 Bill Clinton

Attended an event with Donnie for Andrew Young's Birthday. I guess you do not like her so much then?

[sniffa]

19. um, no

especiaLLy, when some candidates have more odious associates than others.

[Forkboy]

21. Sorry, I think it's fine.

I'll damn well judge people by the people they surround themselves with, identify themselves with, and use to further their goals with.Not all are the same...things like a small fry staffer isn't going to bother me.Stuff like this Obama crap and Mark Penn, that bothers me.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. How about waiting to see how Obama deals with it?

Before you throw him in the same category with Clinton and Penn.

[Forkboy]

25. Oh, trust me, I am waiting to see how he deals with it.

[Stop Cornyn]

26. No. Who a candidate associates with is relevant. This photo is relevant because of the association:

It would hypocritical of me to turn around and now say that we ought not consider who candidates associate with.

It amuses me that those who frequently post the most offensive blather about other candidates have the thinnest skin when anyone raises a legitimate question about their candidate.

[Dawgs]

36. Uh, the original poster is a Clinton supporter.

[Stop Cornyn]

37. I never suggested otherwise.