Join Us in Signing the Peace and Civility Pledge

And no one is saying that, either, only creating the conditions if which it might happen. And that's fair, sorry to say.

"Just a point of information: Jim Wallis wrote: "We pledge that when we disagree, we will do so respectfully, without falsely impugning the other's motives, attacking the other's character, or questioning the other's faith. We will be mindful of our language, being neither arrogant nor boastful in our beliefs as we strive to 'be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love' (Ephesians 4:2)."

I can't find the words "liberal" or "conservative" or "left" or "right" in this article at all."

As I've said before the post itself is not placing blame per se. The problem is that you first have to presume, as Wallis does, that the irresponsible and immoral finger pointing is true before you can even write a post like this focusing on hateful rhetoric. There is no evidence to date that so-called incendiary political rhetoric from the right is connected to the attack in any way. Wallis chooses to make this assumption in order to score points against his political adversaries. Thus, he violates his own call to "commit that our dialogue with each other will reflect the spirit of the scriptures, which tell us, in relating to each other, to be 'quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry'." At a minimum, being quick to listen and slow to speak ought to include waiting until the facts are in before jumping to conclusions and engaging in libelous writings.

So the words "liberal" and "conservative" are not included in the article but he has chosen to join the narrative of the liberals who have created an imaginary climate of hate from conservatives to blame for the shootings otherwise Wallis would have created a pledge regarding the treatment of mentally ill persons or stricter gun control laws in AZ, for example. Not very prophetic at all.

"So why doesn't he similarly criticize "liberals"? Nowhere near the number of Christians there, nor do they have that kind of influence in the Body of Christ."

Couldn't be because he is a liberal himself.

To Blue Deacon and Jeff Wright: There's way more heat than light being generated here. Why don't you just call a truce and agree that you're not going to agree, and move on.

Well, liberals don't harangue him and say they're doing "God's work," truth be told.

So whether or not vitriolic political rhetoric had anything to do with the tragedies in Tucson -we'll probably never know. But Jim is absolutely right in calling for civility for all the hurt that the rhetoric causes. Case in point - Sarah Palin's response to accusations that her bulls' eyes contributed to a violent climate. She called the accusations a "blood libel." I admit, I was not familiar with the term. It refers to a hateful shameful lie perpetrated by anti-semites for centuries. The lie says that Jews kill Christian children to use their blood in a ritual. How hurtful to use that phrase!

As one poster said before, surely Christ is crying.

"To Blue Deacon and Jeff Wright: There's way more heat than light being generated here. Why don't you just call a truce and agree that you're not going to agree, and move on."

I'm actually interacting with several people here, not just Blue Deacon. In the last couple of posts he has attempted to speak for everyone else here but he does not.

Nope, you haven't said anything that leads me to believe this. Jim Wallis has regularly.

With that kind of rhetoric, you're going to lecture us?

That you took it as an insult proves my point.

"With that kind of rhetoric, you're going to lecture us?"

Do you have anything to contribute or are you just here to attempt to get the last word even when I'm speaking to someone else?

Maybe you should ask yourself that question.

"Maybe you should ask yourself that question."

Rick, please leave me to discuss this with folks who are interested in substantive issues rather than the pettiness you continue to inject.

You do the same, which will include judging Wallis' motives.

Which is the point I tried to make to Jeff.

Jeff Wright -- I think you fail to win your case here because you provide no substantiating facts to support your opinions. You keep talking about Wallis' improper motives and agenda. Most of us don't see it that way so if you want to convince us, you have to substantiate it.

You also seem to believe that hateful rhetoric and fear-mongering have little or no impact on people or that it only impacts the foolish. That is contrary to the experience most of us have had. I agree that it is wrong to jump all over one group or person as being the sole purveyor of toxic ranting, but isn't that what you are doing? You are refusing to acknowledge the poison spouted by those on the right while complaining about imaginery motives of Jim Wallis.
I have heard voices on the left apologize for things they have done and said in the past that may have contributed to the poisonous talk, but I have not heard one word from a righty even remotely apologetic. I have heard no one on the right suggest raising the quality of discourse, only whining ala Palin about how badly she has been treated, how her gun metaphors have been misunderstood.

You do the same, which will include judging Wallis' motives."

Again, Rick, this not your blog, this is not your newspaper column, you obviously have nothing else to say about the the topic, please stop thread-stalking me. I'm attempting to discuss the issues at hand. Please move on if all you're going to do if follow every post of mine with little personal jabs.

"You also seem to believe that hateful rhetoric and fear-mongering have little or no impact on people or that it only impacts the foolish."

Thank you, scat, for at least being willing to discuss the issue.

This is incorrect. I have intentionally avoided speaking generalities because that is part of the problem. What I do believe is that there is zero evidence that hateful rhetoric from conservatives influenced the attacker in AZ.

"Most of us don't see it that way so if you want to convince us, you have to substantiate it."

I've done it many times but it continues to be ignored. Again, I do not take the pledge at face value and here's why. It begins:

"The horrible shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others is an important American moment. We strive to honor this tragic event by..."

...By what? Whatever follows next will be very revealing. Yes, it's a horrible shooting. This is an important moment. How can we strive to honor this tragic event? Here's where the politicization comes in. Wallis had a choice to make here. Logically we would honor this tragic event by addressing something related to the event in some way. Mental illness. Gun control. There would be disagreement as to how to do this but at least there is some factual, logical connection between the attacks and these two issues.

But Wallis did not do this. He says we strive to honor this tragic event by reflecting deeply on how we speak to and about one another, and how we create environments that help peace grow - or allow violence and hatred to enter. He chose to focus on speech, how we speak to one another. He chose to focus on peace as opposed to environments of violence and hatred. And I'm supposed to believe that he just so happened to single out speech and environments of hatred and violence at the same exact time that his ideological comrades were, mere hours after the attacks, creating a narrative which placed blame for the attacks at the feet of conservatives who have created an environment of violence and hatred with their hateful rhetoric. What a coincidence!

When he could have chosen any number of ways to honor this tragic event he chose to focus in on the same exact issue his comrades in the media were using to lie and impugn and attack "the other" with. And I'm supposed to believe that Wallis is not tying the attack to hateful rhetoric. This defies all basic logic and common sense.

Scat you have only see those on the left Apologize ? We have people on the left now blaming the murders of innocent people on Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Conservative voices on radio. You do watch Obberman ? Meadows? Listen to Schultz and Air America ?
The reason you are not convinced is because you are entrenched in an ideological view point . Just what the President spoke to tonight .

We have more in common then what keeps us apart he said . You seem to think the left has a greater and higher standing on the side of virtue . I have never seen you or any of the regulars here defend the beliefs of Evangelicals. I have noticed if you're an Evangelical supporting bigger government you have high virtues , if you are an evangelical who believes in smaller government you have less . Till you can understand what goes on here , Jeff and the majority of believers in this country will not support a divisive organization

Jeff Wright -- sorry -- my reply feature seems to be on vacation.

I also, along with a lot of people, had the immediate reaction of beleiving our hate-filled discourse had a hand in creating this event. Not because of any political agenda but because I have feared for sometime that this was inevitable. Maybe it has something to do with age, but there was a time people could disagree without using personal hateful attacks. When I was a lot younger, I had very close friends with whom I argued religion and politics without any personal animosity entering into it. We have crossed a line and nobody seems to care. Differences of opinion seem to justify hatefulness. This is certainly not truly Christian. In fact, from what I know of other religions, it is not generally acceptable in most religions. Where does this come from -- my theory is that it has more to do with advertising and greed, but that is for another day.

It stretches credulity when your primary reason for castigating Wallis is that he chose the occasion of this massacre to talk about striving for more civility. Suppose he had said nothing about civil discourse. Would it be accurate to say that because he chose to say nothing about hateful rhetoric, he must therefore approve of it? Just because a person does something different from what you would have done does not by itself justify impuning that person's motives. It reminds me of those who criticize people who support animal rescue operations saying they must not care about people or they would contribute to people oriented charities.

Can't we all just get along?

Rumors of your banning seem to be greatly exaggerated...

"...are hurt by the phrase."

Really? They're hurt by the phrase? Oh my. Professional political pressure groups are conveniently "hurt" by a phrase used by someone whose reputation they want to damage.

"You don't like Jim Wallis, we get that."

I don't like his tactics, his politics or his disingenuous agenda but please don't reduce my position to some personal dislike.

"But how can you object to the pledge?"

I have maybe a dozen posts on this. Check them out and see what you think.

I agree with your pledge and the general message. However, trying to promote political civility in light of the Tucson shooting is entirely missing the point. Jared Loughner was clearly a mentally disturbed individual whose exact motivations are unclear, but does anyone really think they were rational? The discussion should be about increasing mental health awareness, and early detection of people who need help (very similar to the Virginia Tech shootings), not political civility.

He IS a right-wing ideologue I've known personally since the 1990s; my own stance has nothing to do with that.