We must also guard against another temptation. When the world recently learned that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a plagiarist, those who had a vested interest in keeping him up on his pedestal immediately began talking about feet of clay, the human condition, and we all struggle, do we not? In other words, Dr. King was a scoundrel, but we will admit no evidence that supports the claim and treat as a scoundrel anyone who dares to present the evidence. When confronted, against our will, with indisputable evidence that our hero was not foremost among the saints, the automatic response is to interpret it as evidence that King had a ‘weakness’ or a ‘failing.’ But never is it called by its Biblical name — sin.
Douglas Wilson
3 Comments
Comments are closed.
So, if I am understanding this correctly, plagiarism by King (or others) is a sin. Plagiarism by Wilson cohorts is an honest mistake, but one that shouldn’t have happened. Plagiarism in books edited by Wilson cohorts and published by Wilson kin is bad (but not sin) and the editor falls on his sword. Claims of committed by Wilson or in a book that Wilson has edited is a case of evil people trying to undermine a great and righteous man?
Hi Steve,
Yes, you understand it correctly.
What I wouldn’t give to kick Doug Wilson repeatedly in the balls. Like, seriously haul off and soccer-kick him as hard as possible in the nuts repeatedly until he swells up like a couple of grapefruit. I hate that guy, I really do.