Sons of Dr. Goebbels

Written by

Bishop Swing of California is forthright about his disagreement with Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria and Archbishop Orombi of Uganda, who have been vocally leading the charge against the "apostate" Episcopal Church over the issue of homosexuality. See + Swing’s February 2005 letter to his clergy and his recent missive about last month’s primates’ meeting in Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, a few traditionalists have sought to paint +Swing as a racist, with zero supporting evidence. (See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, and here.) That’s a sin against the Ninth Commandment — just as it would be a sin to for liberals to try to brand all opponents of same-sex marriages and gay bishops as homophobes.

Repeating either of these slurs often enough, and loudly enough, won’t make them true. People
of any persuasion who try to do so are sons of Dr. Goebbels.

Comments

8 responses to “Sons of Dr. Goebbels”

2005-03-08

Anonymous

Be careful how you apply those labels! In your critique of traditionalists who are labeling Biship Swing as a racist, you’re labeling the traditionalists as Nazis! That’s an unfair characterization. Why didn’t you just state that you disagreed with them because of their violation of the Ninth commandment, and leave it at that?

Reply
2005-03-08

Barry Fernelius

Oops! I forgot to label my previous response with my name. Sorry.

Reply
2005-03-08

D. C.

Barry, please re-read what I said, because you seem to have misread it the first time through. In particular, please read carefully who I’m describing as sons of Dr. Goebbels. There’s nothing the least bit unfair about my characterization.
In this day and age, to accuse someone of racism is to “go nuclear.” An accusation of racism is a statement that the alleged racist is unfit for the company of civilized people, and that what he says, does, and stands for, must be relegated to the trash heap.
I challenged the commenters in question to come up with even one example of a racist remark by +Swing. They didn’t — and probably couldn’t. As I said at the time, they should be ashamed of themselves for recklessly spreading such poison.
I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did so unthinkingly, without realizing the implications of what they were saying. But that’s not to excuse their sin.
I try hard to follow the Rules of Engagement for these debates. And if +Swing had in fact made racist remarks, it would be another matter entirely.
But I’ll be damned if I’ll stand idly by when people engage in such vicious, unfounded personal attacks against others in pursuit of their political agendas. Yes, that’s what the Nazis did, and I’m willing to say so.

Reply
2005-03-08

Barry Fernelius

D. C.
I read and re-read what you posted. You claim that Bishop Swing has been mis-labeled by so-called traditionalists. You provide compelling evidence that backs up your claim. You’re right to defend Bishop Swing against these attacks that have no merit.
It is my opinion that your argument would gain credibility and power if you simple OMITTED THE LAST SENTENCE and changed the title. You say that to accuse someone of racism is to “go nuclear.” I say that to accuse someone of being a Nazi is also “going nuclear.” You’d gain credibility with me by avoiding the emotionally loaded term ‘Nazi.’
You see, once one side cries out, “Racist!” and the other side replies by shouting “Nazi!”, the facts become less important than the emotional battle. I know that you believe that your characterization is fair, but it’s been my experience that once you call someone a ‘Nazi’, there are lots of reasonable people who will not take you seriously. I was hoping that you might manage to act more maturely than the folks who are bearing false witness against Bishop Swing.

Reply
2005-03-08

D. C.

Barry, I appreciate the comments. I didn’t allude to the Nazis lightly, because as you correctly point out, that cna be a nuclear missile in itself. If there had been just one unsupported attack against +Swing, that would have been one thing. But there seemed to be hints of a recurring pattern of false attacks, with a possible intent of marginalizing or even ostracizing +Swing. That can be especially dangerous, because when this happens, it can be difficult or impossible for the truth to win out in the popular consciousness.

Reply
2005-03-14

David Huff

The situation you describe WRT Bp. Swing is sad – but not at all surprising. And I find your “Sons of Dr. Goebbels” characterization perfectly reasonable and correct.
What I’ve come to realize is that “the other side” (not your std. conservative Episcopalians, but the AAC/”Network”/FiF/etc… crowd) cannot and will not be convinced by reason, or charity. They act as if they’re in a war and to give even an inch is a sign of weakness. This sort of thing devolves very quickly into the morally-bankrupt tactics of “the end justifies the means” (the Bp. Swing issue is a classic example).

Reply
2005-03-15

Philip

David, re your comment, I am very uncomfortable with your broad-brush inclusion of all those folks of an orthodox bent, with whom you disagree.
IMO, that puts you also, into an exclusionary category, that rejects ab initio ANY arguement from someone who self describes themselves as a member of the AAC or the Network, of FiFA, or indeed any orthodox Anglican.
Those orthodox Anglicans, who have not been persuaded by the rhetoric, that the claim of a “New Thing” being done by the Holy Spirit, have all been lumped by you, into the pejorative “They”. As such, you turn away from them, as a group.
It may very well be that any form of on-going communion between the ECUSA & ACofC and the rest of the Anglican Communion is impossible.
If so, then both sides should simply move apart and stop tearing each other into bloody bits.
If that solution is not acceptable to you, what then do you posit, given the fact that everyone is yelling past each other?
Note to D.C., thanks for the link to your blog.
Philip

Reply
2005-03-16

David Huff

I am very uncomfortable with your broad-brush inclusion of all those folks of an orthodox bent, with whom you disagree.
I thought I was pretty clear that I wasn’t including all “conservative” Episcopalians, but perhaps not. I stand by what I said with respect to that small minority of the so-called “orthodox” who have no tolerance for divergent viewpoints, no intention towards reconciliation, and whose goal seems quite plainly to be the destruction of the ECUSA.
If so, then both sides should simply move apart and stop tearing each other into bloody bits.
I agree. That’s probably the only thing we can do at this point.

Reply