After Tucson, the State of the Union

Exhibit A: The US Civil War

Exhibit B: The killing fields of Cambodia

Rev. Wallis:

Your call to civility and tolerance of dissenting views on the part of politicians, leaders and media pundits of all ideological stripes, while commendable, unfortunately, misses a larger point. The incitement to violence and racial hatred, the use of gun imagery, references to "second amendment solutions", "reloading, not retreating" and the "targeting" of liberal political figures have all come from conservative or republican-leaning politicians, pundits and leaders, especially from the so called "populist", radical right incarnated in the Tea Party movement. I have not heard a single progressive or left leaning political leader, media figure or public intellectual call for violence against corporate establishment figures, right wing politicians or right-wing media pundits. Their protests and comments are often ignored by the mainstream media and even so none of these folks have called for "taking out" (remember Pat Robertson?) people that are a seen as a threat to social justice movements or advocated for the violent overthrow of capitalism or the military industrial complex. Instead they have have expressed their commitment to sustained, far-reaching, non-violent efforts to raise awareness and educate people about the fundamental injustice and immorality of economic and political systems that prioritize military spending and corporate greed while minimizing the plight and social injustice that working and poor people across racial and political lines suffer every day.

Again, while I believe the call to civility and tolerance should be embraced by ALL sides of the political debate, the aforementioned distinction I believe is critical and should be made clear. In our current context, The extreme RIGHT is the one using the language of violence, bigotry and incitement while the mainstream republican establishment only makes half-hearted attempts to denounce the hatred and fear they produce, while hoping to capitalize on these very feelings for their own political gain.

Richard --thank you for the John Adams quote -- some problems are persistent and it seems we have not yet learned the lesson in some 200 years.
David --I don't think Richard was accusing Jim of just looking to our leaders to solve our spiritual ills. Richard was talking of all of us, as I have also tried to do. We need to demand better behaviour of ourselves and our leaders. I have lamented the ease with which people lie and accept lies -- "it's just a little lie" or "it's no big deal, all politicians lie". Even in everyday life, lying is seen as a normal response to so many situations -- just take a look at a few commercials showing kids lying to parents and we think it's so cute.
Our values seem to be more in valuing results rather than how something was accomplished. We reward kids for just showing up.

commonsense --- I agree that some of your comments are unnecessarily personally insulting. All that shows is that your argument may be so weak that you feel it's necessary to distract -- I know it and others know it because we have all given into that temptation from time to time. In fact I used to take pride in my verbal ability to destroy others in one sentence. And please don't ask others to look it up for themselves when you assert conclusions without factual proof. That ends up on the cutting room floor.

To all Sojourner contributors:

Rev. Wallis' call to civility and tolerance of dissenting views on the part of politicians, leaders and media pundits of all ideological stripes, while commendable, unfortunately, misses a larger point. The incitement to violence and racial hatred, the use of gun imagery, references to "second amendment solutions", "reloading, not retreating" and the "targeting" of liberal political figures have all come from conservative or republican-leaning politicians, pundits and political leaders, especially from the so called "populist", radical right incarnated in the Tea Party movement.

I have not heard a single progressive or left-leaning political leader, media figure or public intellectual call for violence against corporate establishment figures, right wing politicians or right-wing media pundits. Their protests and comments are often ignored by the mainstream media and even so none of these folks have called for "taking out" (remember Pat Robertson?) people that are a seen as a threat to social justice or advocated for the violent overthrow of capitalism or the military industrial complex. Instead they have have expressed their commitment to sustained, far-reaching, non-violent efforts to raise awareness of, build a resistance to and educate people about the fundamental injustice and immorality of economic and political systems that prioritize military spending and corporate greed while minimizing the plight and social injustice that working and poor people across racial and political lines suffer every day.

Again, while I believe the call to civility and tolerance should be embraced by ALL sides of the political debate, the aforementioned distinction I believe is critical and should be made clear. In our current context, The extreme RIGHT is the one using the language of violence, bigotry and incitement while the mainstream republican establishment only makes half-hearted attempts to denounce the hatred and fear they produce, while hoping to capitalize on these very feelings for their own political gain.

Please don't.

"I have not heard a single progressive or left-leaning political leader, media figure or public intellectual call for violence against corporate establishment figures, right wing politicians or right-wing media pundits."

You clearly are out of touch with reality and actual events.

Oh great. Here come the links...Brace yourself...

We've been through this on 2 or 3 threads already, sankukai, and it has resulted in nothing positive.

Is this the same God that sends sinners to eternal damnation and hell-fire? If He's on all our sides what do we make of heaven and hell?

Actually, I agree with Mick's point that He is on all our sides, but we aren't all on His side.

If he wasn't on our side, then He wouldn't have made a way for us to come to His side via Jesus.

Some reject His side, in spite of all His efforts, unfortunately.

What reality and events are you talking about? Again, I am not pointing this out out of some perverse pleasure I get in singling out people from the Right, BUT BECAUSE IT IS TRUE. Can you name any mayor progressive or liberal political o media figure that has been using the kind of aggressive, incendiary rhetoric used by the Right to denounce or vilify their opponents?

Whoops, that gets you a flag.

You may protest what you disagree with, but your attempt to silence it is typical of the left and progressives. True dialogue and debate outweighs adolescent covering of the eyes, ears, and resorting to pithy comments and flagging.

Commonsense247 -- You make a lot of generalizations but not one specific example of hateful rhetoric from the left. I did hear about some congressman today that recited the Goebels comment about telling a lie often enough to make people think it's true in reference to the Republicans. That's a pretty well-worn out metaphor, but it is the only thing I recall hearing from the left that I find objectionable. If there were such statements as you suggest out there why isn't the great right-wing talk machine talking about them? I certainly would like to know. And please document precisely what instances of "rioting, looting, destruction and desecration of property, and physical attacks on others" by member of the left you are referring to.
You are right -- "Incendiary language is wrong no matter from what political side it comes from, and to mischaracterize and deny reality to achieve a distortion that better fits with your views is intellectually dishonest and sadly deranged. "

Ah Jeff, point out specifically what I am saying that is not true with examples or evidence rather than simply protesting and feigning that I am 'breaking the rules.'

You've just been flagged for breaking rules #1 and #2 with your very first retort.

And how is your phrase "the great right-wing talk machine" not a generalization, then? Any comment made about the left or progressive narrative is labeled as a retort and generalization.
That unbalanced application of judgement is clearly biased and it is not with Christian honesty that one can claim it is fair.

Patricia -- Not only is tort reform a relatively small contributor to any solution to health care, it isn't even new. That issue has been around for decades as the solution to all kinds of ills, including overcrowded court dockets. That it is now being touted as one of the right's key reform provisions demonstrates where the right's concerns are and it is not for the health of average Americans, but for the profits of the those who already have bulging pockets. Not until we are willing so separate the concept of health care from for-profit insurance will we make any significant progress.
Even sadder is the idea that if this is the best the right can offer as a health care solution, then we have a long way to go. It is amazing to me that anyone who is capable of tying thier own shoes believes this nonsense.

Sankukai -- I have asked those who accuse people on the left of participating in hateful rhetoric for examples -- to no avail. I want to know who is spreading this stuff, no matter what side they are on. I certainly don't want to support anyone who does this. But all we get is "the other side does it to" or "look it up". You would think if the left was really doing it, those folks on the right would be blasting it all over the internet.

Scat, since it would take a very long time to list as the examples and evidence is so plentiful, I'll leave that for anyone honest, willing, and interested to discover for themselves by simply using any search engine and entering the names I've mentioned and the words vitriol, rhetoric, violence, encite, hatred, etc and finding the results for themselves. I guess you're not aware, but the great ring-wing talk machine (will Pastor Jeff flag you for using such a statement? I think not, which is evidence of bias and hypocrisy) has definitely been citing examples the rhetoric and vitriol from the left and from those who identify as progressives.
I listen to and read news and commentary from a variety of sources across the political spectrum which exposes me to what is being said. Of course the left will not comment on their own vitriol, and the right will not either. I suggest that many of those here with views left of center will not then be exposed to grievances on that side unless they are getting an aggregate of sources and views.

I beg to differ, Patricia. Pointing out that someone's claims of truth are quite frankly a denial of reality is not a lack of civility, courtesy, or respect. And the reactions you and Pastor Jeff take are more inclined to flag those with whom you disagree, as I pointed out in my comment to Scat on the use of "the great right wing talk machine". Your views dictate your act of flagging, and are thus not a pure approach or application of the rules stated.

Someone else has spent the time logging such examples of vitriol, hatred, and incitement to violence by those that call themselves left or progressive. Quite a good listing is done here - http://tinyurl.com/2aucavx

PASTOR JEFF wrote, in response to commonsense247:

"Excuse me. Could you tell me where I could buy some mushrooms?"

"Why, any idiot knows they are available in the Wal-Mart down the street. Here let me show you how to operate a shopping cart."

Is this respectful dialogue even given extenuating circumstances?

=========================

That kind of distended mischaracterization of my example makes it irrelevant and not very applicable.
First you begin with a question. Then the answer is given in a sarcastic and demeaning manner to someone who was asking for help. None of that was taking place here and is completely out of context.

A person makes a claim, then states it is true and factual. Then adds that they know of nothing that jeopardizes or challenges that claim.
My response was surprise and disbelief that if they were truly engaged they could miss (or ignore while being honest) the multiple occurrences that in fact render their claim of truth and fact completely erroneous.

Let's use relevant illustrations to make our points keeping us intellectually honest.

Hear hear.

It is not a generalization because while there IS, factually, a "great right-wing talk machine" consisting of FOX, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and most talk radio - this particular media spectrum gets enormous ratings - not all members of the right, or even the right wing are members of the machine. If the statement had been that the entire right, or all the right, or everyone on the right were part of or supporting that talk machine, THEN it would be a generalization. The fact that there IS a great (in rating size) right-wing talk machine is, in my opinion, indisputable.

Can you see the difference?

You have been provided documentation and links which you evidently refuse to look at; once again, denying reality because you will not open your eyes or ears is not a valid argument that it does not exist.