When Hate Speech Justifies Killing

It would take an entire paragraph to give specific names and instances, but David Brock of Media Matters for America actually documents then when they happen -- his group is so thorough and effective that some of these same people denounce it as a "left-wing" hate group. I'd say that Wallis is on pretty solid ground.

And notice how Jim Wallis conveniently leaves out the Muslim who killed a member of the military in Arkansas.... If he was willing to talk about that one and the people who advocate hate in that area, then we would probably agree, but Jim Wallis will never bring that up.

I agree with Wallis' basic premise - that as Christians we should watch how we conduct ourselves and our language so that we will glorify God in our thoughts, words, and actions. And we should also watch out for who we associate with.

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.

Hey, speaking of von Brunn, did you hear the latest? The Weekly Standard might have been one of his targets. Isn't that something?

LV

It's more likely Commentary, which is basically Jewish.

Who is "we"?

I listen to Air America on my home from work , and it must not be listened to by many people because some of things I hear are way over the top. Mike Malloy was speaking the other day about if we had another Civil war he would have no problem killing folks like Hannity, O'Reilly etc .

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.

Perhaps in some people's minds Scott Roeder is no different than someone like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who with a group of others tried in vain to assessinate Hitler. Maybe in Roeder's mind he was doing the will of God. I happen to think that Bonhoeffer was justified; how many hundreds of thousands of innocent lives would have been saved had his group been successful? maybe Roeder took Ps. 139 to heart.

It wasn't just Jews that von Brunn hated. We're working on a story about him now.

While Wallis has been maddeningly vague at times, I'm inclined to cut him a little bit of slack here. For one thing, I don't really see him trying to pin these crimes on conservatives, not even in a backhand way. Conservatives may be stronger on talk radio but the left certainly has its fringe web sites and cable commentators. Second, I don't see a call to censorship, in fact he explictly rejects it.

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

I'm going to assume you're joking. But on the off chance you're not let's consider the two comparisons and lets agree that strong disagreement is not hate speech.

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.

I think your observations are correct. And you're right, nobody listens to Air[head]America... that's why they went bankrupt last year (or thereabouts) and had to restructure.

Taylor Lautner Workout...

Also you might wanna' check out this blog I found here......

It isnt love If it is represented in various forms of words.From people who have problems,there is no secret message in fiction type writing.Unless you enjoy dull mystery's....

Treadmill...

[

I agree with Wallis' basic premise - that as Christians we should watch how we conduct ourselves and our language so that we will glorify God in our thoughts, words, and actions. And we should also watch out for who we associate with.

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.

thank you Jim for your words, I know what it is like to be a victim onf hate crimes...and we all know who preaches the policies of fear, fiction and nativism. Dobbs, Savage, O'Reilly ...and how about the local AM radio?

It is so sad to see people of "faith" engage in this type of politic of fear ad deception. There is a huge difference between freedom of speech and in yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre and even starting the fire.

Thank God Jim there are people like you and like the ajority of people around the globe, that realize we are all f the same race...the human race and we are all children of God. Peace Enrique, Border Angels San Diego

Pathetic response, John.
The best you can come up with?

JIT: when this SC guy said this he was roundly crticized by the right.

But you go on and live in that little bubble you have created for yourself.

As is typical with people on the left you continually switch arguments.

John,

The idiot in South Carolina is a card carrying member of the Republican
Party, elected to public office by a constituency that is obviously not
concerned that their candidate and public servant is a racist who spouts
off with racist hate speech. He may even have been elected just BECAUSE
he traffics in hate speech.
My point is there's an enormous fan base within the Republican Party for
hate speech and hate politics.
Indeed, the GOP has maintained power over the last 30 years by cleverly
manipulating the base emotions of fear and hate among their base.

Fans of GOP hate politics are distributed all around the nation, not
just in South Carolina. Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg are among the
many hate entertainers who satisfy this group of GOP haters with a
steady diet of hate speech. GOP haters are not all psychopaths, but,
just like you, they tolerate hate politics as if it doesn't exist.

This same group of GOP hypocritical haters has been screaming for years
that Hollywood sex and violence and violent video games are corrupting
the society and contributing to the prevalence of violence and
immorality in our youth. They protect their children from the reality of
media sex and violence so they won't be corrupted. There's an element of
common sense here. Obviously, GOP haters do believe the media has a
powerful influence on Americans, contrary to your claims that hate
speech doesn't contribute to hate violence.

But this very same hypocritical hater base in the right wing of the
Republican Party will never admit to the reality of hate speech, hate
politics or the influence on sociopathic behavior.
They will never protest when their favorite hate entertainers spew hate
and violent innuendo into the public domain if it's directed towards
their demonized liberal enemies.
Whenever there's another episode of right wing hate violence, GOP haters
will frantically deny any responsibility for the violence.
But whenever the rhetoric is directed towards the right wing of the GOP,
they will scream like wounded eagles.
And that's why right wing hypocritical haters are blamed for right wing
hate violence.

Wake up and connect the dots, John.

JIT: I cannot deny that statements like what that idiot in SC said are made
from time to time. But, no one ever stands by them and it's no different
that what people like you say about conservatives all the time. It's stupid
to say stuff like that, but it's a far cry that a relatively obscure guy in
SC says something and a guy who has been a racist his whole life kills
someone in DC and make the connection. If you are doing that, then you are
stupid.

But I asked you for an example of Jonah Goldberg since YOU brought him up.

The Democratic Party may have inherited a permanent majority by dint of GOP overreach and incompetence of governance, which Americans have soundly rejected.

Most Democrats are not happy with this state of affairs, however.
We recognize that a healthy democratic society requires at least two vital political parties for success.
The GOP in it's present state does not qualify as a vital competent party of opposition and most honorable Republicans have abandoned it.
If I knew what to do I would help honorable Republicans take their party back from the incompetent extremists.

Apparently, in spite of his vast knowledge of the history of authoritarian regimes, justontime is oblivious to the fact that America narrowly escaped an authoritarian coup.

Has he never heard of the GOP plot to impose a permanent Republican majority on American politics?
Is he unaware of the Bush administration's attempt to trash the United States Constitution using the bogus theory of the "unitary executive"?
Is he unaware of the Bush administration's politicization of the US Department of Justice?
Is he unaware of the Bush administration's widespread, indiscriminate use of illegal wiretaps to spy on American citizens?

Justontime should cut back a little on his history obsession and wake up to the here and the now.

Liberation theology and his concern about them (joos) neo cons and Zionists is what Wallis admires about Rev. Wright. Wallis is part of the fringe where the far left meets the kook right. That means many of the things the shooter ranted about sounds like Rev. Wallis. He hated George Bush, Fox news, Zionism, Neo Cons and conservatives. That is just the condensed list.