AmP twitter updates

Twitter Updates

    archives of the funny

    Caption of the Day/PPOTD

    website of the month

    A.P.Project

     book of the month

    Our Lady of Guadalupe

     Pa•pist: n. A Catholic who is a strong advocate of the papacy.

     

     "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." - Ephesians 5:11

    AmP 2.0 features

    recent posts

     

    comments

    AmP videos

     

    AddThis Feed Button

    facebook

    subscribe

    AddThis Feed Button

    bookmark

     

    email updates


    AmP Countdown: Time left to demand that Congress make health care reform pro-life: 2009-11-07 18:00:00 GMT-05:00


    Tuesday, September 15, 2009

    People who don't support Obama are racists, liberal Catholic claims

    I've discovered the application of Godwin's law which is most applicable to pro-Obama Catholics. It goes like this:

    "As it becomes more difficult to defend Obama, the probability of a charge of racism approaches."

    In all seriousness, Michael Sean Winters - a liberal Catholic who supported Obama during his presidency and continues to do so - actually wrote this in American Magazine about those who came to Washington DC for an anti-tax rally:

    "It is becoming well nigh impossible to deny the racist overtones of these protests."

    What, may you ask, is the strongest argument for this astounding claim?

    "Many of the virtually all-white crowd on Saturday yearned for an earlier time with less government involvement in society."
    You read that correctly: the fact that this crowd was predominantly caucasian (by Winters' account), proves that it must be racist. By Winters' logic, the United States Senate must be "racist" - it is "virtually all-white", after all.

    Winters goes on:

    "But, that earlier time [of less government involvement in society] recalls, for many of us, the memory of states’ rights being enforced through dogs and water cannons."

    So let's parse this argument:
    1. When there was less government involvement in society in America, there was also racial segregation
    2. The anti-tax marchers want less government involvement in society (specifically, over-taxation and regulation)
    3. ... the anti-tax marchers want a return to racial segregation.

    That is Winters' argument, in three easy steps.

    As I tweeted immediately upon being forwarded and reading Winters piece, "Liberal Catholics would do well to practice some fraternal correction." Let me explain:

    Liberal Catholics will go ballistic when a conservative Catholic writer makes an absurd argument, and demand that fellow conservatives disown the maverick's argument. Because, on the whole, we strive to be reasonable and agreeable people, we typically do so. We can call one of our own out of bounds without feeling we've eroded our common arguments. We can call crazy "crazy" because we try to avoid it. Winters seems to be reduced to just writing crazy.

    Well, in similar fashion, I'd like to see some "liberal" Catholic writers take Winters to the woodshed for this one. People who don't like Obama don't like him because they are racist - really?! Is anyone typically sympathetic to Winters prepared to defend this claim of his? There are many more people in America who did not attend this march who are sympathetic to the concerns of those who did attend. Are all of them equally guilty of the racism Winters ascribes?

    I'll be waiting for such logical reflection on these claims Winters has injected into the debate.

    But frankly, until Winters himself retracts this stupidity, I'll feel free to disregard him completely.

    After all, I shouldn't give my time to someone who writes for a racist magazine like America.

    I mean, just look at the complexion of that magazine's editors.

    [photo - boston college]

    Labels: , ,

    |

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home