Hate speech goes one step further and continues down the road of dehumanizing openly, rather than with prejudice or racism. It's speech design to declare this or that group of persons as not mere persons but as a group to be identified and understood outside each's value as a human being made in the image of God.

That's a long rambling way of saying it. Suffice it to say I agree with you, but wanted to elaborate my way of understanding it.

Their was a murder the other day where an alleged Muslim Fanatic killed a recruiter in Arkansas. The only reason I heard it was people were talking about why it had not been on the mainstream news yet.

Pdaughter is being joked about getting knocked up by a NY Yankee ,player Letterman is calling Palen slutty on his top ten list, It was defended by the View Gals .Are women defended only when politically expedient?

I think what bothers me is that I would agree many times with what I hear on Conservative radio as being way over the line , Obama's Birth Certificate stuff etc . Michael Savage is disgusting . Its what happens on the mainstream media that everyone thinks is OK is what is bothersome. The lines of civility are so different and based more on political /world views then what our Mothers and Fathers use to just teach us.

LV

I just wish Wallis would be more specific here. He's making pretty strong accusations without mentioning who he's talking about. And I don't know if I'm ready to give him the benefit of the doubt for two reasons:

1) He left out the killing of Pvt. Long, which would have fit perfectly into his argument. Why?

2) He held up Rev. Wright has a prophet instead of “shunning” him despite the extreme and inflammatory rhetoric he uses. And now we have Wright's antisemitic comments. I'm lead to believe that Wallis is much more willing to call out the “extremists” on what he perceives is the other political side than those on his own side.

Again, I think it would have been very helpful if Wallis had been more specific about what is “hate speech” that should be shunned by providing examples from both sides of the political spectrum.

I agree that there are many kinds of hate speech. Being Lesbian, I've experienced hate speech first hand. However, passing laws against hate speech (however it is defined) only makes the poison hidden rather than out in the open.

As Christians, people can speak out against hateful speech, counteract it with love. Remember Jesus' Two Great Commandments: Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself.

O'Reilly's comments were not about the evils of abortion – instead they targetted an individual and called him an executioner and murderer; I'd challenge you to find Obama degrading any individual in that manner (in fact the support he gave to operatives who implemented torture would speak to the opposite).

O'Reilly went on to suggest that 'we' cannot allow Tiller to continue. Obama also likes to use 'we.' But when the President speaks of 'we' he is speaking of the nation and of action the government will take on behalf of the nation; when O'Reilly speaks of 'we' he is speaking of his audience and of actions the audience members will take. Given that the audience are probaly not a unified group he is speaking of the need for individual action.

And lo and behold an individual took action, provided 'justice' for the 'murderer' and took steps to ensure America remained a noble nation.' hmmm.

Sorry, LV. I 'strongly disagree' with you and it's not hate speech, but I'm not abusing you, belittling you, dehumanising you or calling you a criminal. O'Reilly was. Big Difference.

To see why, substitute “Guantanamo Bay” for abortion. I'm pretty sure Obama himself said that Gitmo undermines our moral authority, our ability to condemn civil rights violations by other nations, and made us a less noble society — in other words, pretty much the essence of what O'Reilly said about abortion.

Strong disagreement is not hate speech. Try again.

LV

I think he is calling for Christians to model reasonable discourse, which is hard to argue with. His idea of shunning people or groups who are particularly prone to use overheated rhetoric is certainly consistent with both Christianity and the principles of free speech.

The devil's in the details of course. Censorship is always a temptation and can creep back into the thinking of those who profess respect for freedom of speech. One man's hate speech can be another man's plain truth, so drawing the line is always going to be complicated. For any of this to work we'll all need to exhibit humility and a commitment to truth on all sides.

And that, among other things, means that Jim Wallis is entitled to a bit of benefit of the doubt. Vague or not, I don't see him trying to scapegoat conservatives here or cut off first-amendment rights.

LV

Doesn't look like he limited it to Christians, does it?