On the Tennessee Shootings
We need to talk about the killings at that Unitarian church in Tennessee. You know what happened, here's the Washington Post discussing it this morning.
It is tempting to generalize from this case. Well, first it's time to think about that word "hate." I have mostly avoided the topic here, even though what we are dealing with on this web site is the topic of hate, we exist to oppose some people who espouse hateful beliefs.
This is America, you don't have to like everybody, you're free to hate. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. It's not pretty, and there are some of us who try to pull the hatred out of our hearts by the roots, but there are people who cherish it and they are free to feel that way.
Haters don't often use the word "hate." Or if they do, they turn it around, we have heard people in our county for instance say "Love the sinner, hate the sin," as if you could love somebody but hate everything about them. The point of saying this is that the person is claiming not to hate somebody, it makes them appear to be less of a bad person.
It is exactly the same thing to say that you hate somebody as to say that that person is evil. When the President of our country declares that entire countries are evil, and even that they are aligned together somehow in an "axis of evil," he is recommending hatred. He is removing people in those countries from the category of human beings. He is saying it's all right to kill people who populate those countries, and in fact that's what we've done, at least with the first one on the list. Attributing evil to a person is the same as hating them.
There are plenty of people who attribute evil to liberals, and certainly to gay people. Mostly those who feel that way do not become violent about it, they tend to express their hatred in different ways. In our county, we are now looking at a new law that prohibits discrimination against someone on the basis of their gender identity. This law would be unnecessary if there were no such discrimination, but there is -- lots. Again, this is America and if a transgender person creeps you out or offends you, that's cool, you can feel that way, but the fact remains that they are people and if they're trying to hail a cab the cab ought to stop just like it would stop for anybody else.
Some conservatives try to make it sound like hate laws are about thoughts. They like to talk about the "thought police" regulating our beliefs and feelings. They like hating and feel threatened when somebody says they can't act on it. But the fact is, a civilized society has to allow and accept diversity among citizens, you don't have to like everybody but law-abiding people deserve their rights. This is a hard balance to maintain, because if you feel a certain way you will find beliefs that support your feelings, and then you will behave in ways that are consistent with those feelings and beliefs, and the next thing you know somebody's getting the short end of the stick, rudeness spills over into discrimination or even violence.
It is tempting to generalize from this one nutty guy to the whole group of liberal-haters and gay-haters, and in fact it's not a bad idea. You can disagree with liberal ideas and argue with liberal people, you can disapprove of homosexuality and dislike gay people, whatever, but there comes a point when feelings and beliefs are transformed into actions. This sick man only acted out the attitudes that are expressed every day by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the others. It's not a giant step from hating in your heart to acting violently against others.
KNOXVILLE, Tenn., July 28 -- An out-of-work truck driver accused of opening fire and killing two people at a Unitarian Universalist church apparently targeted the congregation out of hatred for its support of liberal social policies, including its acceptance of gays, police said Monday.
A four-page letter found in Jim D. Adkisson's SUV indicated that he targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general, as well as gays," according to Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen IV.
Adkisson, 58, had a shotgun and 76 shells with him when he entered the church Sunday during a children's performance of the musical "Annie." Six adults were wounded in the attack. Rampage Attributed to Hatred of Liberalism
It is tempting to generalize from this case. Well, first it's time to think about that word "hate." I have mostly avoided the topic here, even though what we are dealing with on this web site is the topic of hate, we exist to oppose some people who espouse hateful beliefs.
This is America, you don't have to like everybody, you're free to hate. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. It's not pretty, and there are some of us who try to pull the hatred out of our hearts by the roots, but there are people who cherish it and they are free to feel that way.
Haters don't often use the word "hate." Or if they do, they turn it around, we have heard people in our county for instance say "Love the sinner, hate the sin," as if you could love somebody but hate everything about them. The point of saying this is that the person is claiming not to hate somebody, it makes them appear to be less of a bad person.
It is exactly the same thing to say that you hate somebody as to say that that person is evil. When the President of our country declares that entire countries are evil, and even that they are aligned together somehow in an "axis of evil," he is recommending hatred. He is removing people in those countries from the category of human beings. He is saying it's all right to kill people who populate those countries, and in fact that's what we've done, at least with the first one on the list. Attributing evil to a person is the same as hating them.
There are plenty of people who attribute evil to liberals, and certainly to gay people. Mostly those who feel that way do not become violent about it, they tend to express their hatred in different ways. In our county, we are now looking at a new law that prohibits discrimination against someone on the basis of their gender identity. This law would be unnecessary if there were no such discrimination, but there is -- lots. Again, this is America and if a transgender person creeps you out or offends you, that's cool, you can feel that way, but the fact remains that they are people and if they're trying to hail a cab the cab ought to stop just like it would stop for anybody else.
Some conservatives try to make it sound like hate laws are about thoughts. They like to talk about the "thought police" regulating our beliefs and feelings. They like hating and feel threatened when somebody says they can't act on it. But the fact is, a civilized society has to allow and accept diversity among citizens, you don't have to like everybody but law-abiding people deserve their rights. This is a hard balance to maintain, because if you feel a certain way you will find beliefs that support your feelings, and then you will behave in ways that are consistent with those feelings and beliefs, and the next thing you know somebody's getting the short end of the stick, rudeness spills over into discrimination or even violence.
It is tempting to generalize from this one nutty guy to the whole group of liberal-haters and gay-haters, and in fact it's not a bad idea. You can disagree with liberal ideas and argue with liberal people, you can disapprove of homosexuality and dislike gay people, whatever, but there comes a point when feelings and beliefs are transformed into actions. This sick man only acted out the attitudes that are expressed every day by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the others. It's not a giant step from hating in your heart to acting violently against others.
posted by JimK at 12:28 PM
33 Comments:
Police seized three books from Adkisson’s home, including “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television commentator Bill O’Reilly; “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” by radio personality Michael Savage; and “Let Freedom Ring,” by political pundit Sean Hannity.”.
The hate preached by right wing religionists does motivate violence against gays.
Priya and Jim,
I think you may have the wrong idea about this guy. From what I've read, this guy hated evangelicals as much as liberals. Does that make you two a party to his actions since you seem to have a less than favorable opinion about evangelicals?
A neighbor of his tells a story about telling him her daughter had just graduated from Bible College and he went off into a rant about all the inconsistencies in the Bible.
Sounds like what I've heard a lot of from Priya. And yet, I don't think I've ever tried to suggest that Priya's opinion leads to murderous rampages.
Extremists and, just plain nuts, appear on both sides of the political spectrum.
We could probably find some of Priya's favorite books in the jail cells of Charles Manson and the Unabomber.
But we aren't that shameless and desperate for any type of vindication.
There's no evidence that he hated evangelicals. One neighbour suggested that because he refused to join her in a bible study that that was the case. His own writings emphasized his hatred of gays and liberals, nowhere did he mention evangelicals. If he hated evangelicals he wouldn't have passed the several larger conservative christian churchs to attack people in a Unitarian church where few if any evangelicals would be likely to be found. The unitarian church had a sign out front welcoming gays, its pretty clear what his motivation was.
There is nothing to suggest that Charles Manson and the Unabomer weren't fans of conservative writers rather than liberals, your fantasies notwithstanding.
"The unitarian church had a sign out front welcoming gays, its pretty clear what his motivation was."
Oh, he may have been anti-gay. The point you seem immune to is that violence against gays is not generally motivated by "right wing religionists" as you sweetly opine.
Where your proof connecting this guy to that?
BTW, there was more evidence of his hatred of evangelicals than the one example I gave.
“But we aren't that shameless and desperate for any type of vindication.”
Apparently you are, as you just took the time to dodge the issue:
“The hate preached by right wing religionists does motivate violence against gays.”
As Wayne Besen notes in a recent article:
“The far right's dirty little secret is that they depend on the threat of violence to retard the advancement of the GLBT movement. Without the fear of physical attack, the number of people who are out of the closet would quickly multiply. Gay couples would hold hands in every city in the nation. On each block, from San Francisco to San Antonio, gay and lesbian people would be visibly present.”
The messages of intolerance that come from the left/gays are in response to the messages of intolerance from the right FOR the left/gays. No matter how much you choose to dress up such hatred as Christ-like - by calling it “evangelical,” there’s quite a difference.
Red baron, when right wing religionists like you go around claiming gays are going to bring the end of the world, gays are the tool of satan, gays are worse then terrorists, gays are unnatural deviants molesting children, and so on some right wingers like this guy are going to attack gays. To suggest otherwise is just foolish. This is what Hitler did with the Jews, he started a campaign demonizing them and look where that lead, no different with the right wing christianists.
And Red baron, claims of his being anti-evangelical made by right wing christianists aren't evidence. The only evidence we have for who he opposed are his writings and he mentioned liberals and gays and excluded evangelicals. Evangelicals are right wing conservatives, people who say they hate liberals don't hate right wing conservatives.
Just to be clear, it is not just the Washington Post that reports Mr. Adkisson's reading materials. Take a look at the article from the local Knoxville newspaper:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/
Hate breeds hate and despicable behavior arising from that hate. In our own time, Bin Laden, Karadic, and now, on a lessor scale, Adkisson.
Anon, rather than reflexively hoping against hope that Adkisson hated evangelicals and could just as easily have shot up a fundamentalist church, you might want to take a deep breath, and think about how saying nasty, hateful things about people who may make you uncomfortable but who are no threat to you can have horrible consequences.
Nazi Germany is the sharpest example in the West's collective historical memory of how this can happen. But we also know that it can happen anywhere.
"Anon, rather than reflexively hoping against hope that Adkisson hated evangelicals and could just as easily have shot up a fundamentalist church,"
I read it in the media reports. I heard the same thing in report just tonight. I'm sure you did too, David. You usually have more integrity than that.
It's really irrelevant anyway, David. You know as well as I do that madness strikes all politicsl varieties.
Nazis? Don't get us started, David. You won't wind up looking good.
You're mixing up definitions again, btw. Evangelicals and fundamentalists are not identical nor are the "right-wing religionists" that Priya detests and fears so.
Priya and David
We're still waiting for any evidence that this guy was motivated to "violence against gays" by "right wing religioinsts".
I don't think he killed any gays and O'Reilly, Savage and Hannity aren't religious writers.
“It's really irrelevant anyway, David.”
Which part is irrelevant?
The irrelevant part of the paragraph that you responded to, or the most important part that you avoided responding to?:
“you might want to take a deep breath, and think about how saying nasty, hateful things about people who may make you uncomfortable but who are no threat to you can have horrible consequences.”
------------
"You're mixing up definitions again, btw. Evangelicals and fundamentalists are not identical nor are the "right-wing religionists""
Well then how 'bout this for a label: People that are incapable of understanding the "The Order of Importance," which may, or may not include: Evangelicals, fundamentalists and right-wing-religionists.
Would your people who are incapable of understanding the order of importance like an acronym to go with that?
Assuming of course that you speak for all of them.
Oh, great, emslob has joined in to make himself look stupid. Always a positive development for us.
To get you caught up, em, we're waiting for evidence that religious motivations made this guy shoot up the Unitarian congregation.
Priya and David seem to think Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are religious writers. Let's remember that one of Priya's favorite atheists, Christopher Hitchens, is a conservative commenter in his spare time. TTF appears to have faith in a missing link between conservatism and religion, however.
We're also trying to figure out why Priya thinks media reports that he hated liberals are acurate and media reports that he hated Bible-believing Christians are not accurate.
BTW, Priya asked why the guy bypassed other churches and hit this one. One possible explanation is that his ex-wife was a member.
Eric Robert Rudolph (born September 19, 1966), also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American terrorist who committed a series of bombings across the southern United States which killed three people and injured at least 150 others. He declared that his bombings were part of a guerrilla campaign against abortion and what he describes as "the homosexual agenda."
...Although Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations give wardens the right to restrict or reject correspondence by an inmate for "the protection of the public, or if it might facilitate criminal activity," including material "which may lead to the use of physical violence," essays which condone violence and militant action written by Rudolph, who is incarcerated in the most secure part of ADX Florence in Colorado, are being published by an Army of God anti-abortion activist who posts Rudolph's essays on an Internet website.
David's right. Anon types should "take a deep breath, and think about how saying nasty, hateful things about people who may make you uncomfortable but who are no threat to you can have horrible consequences.”
And, anon(s), if it could be conclusively proven -- to your satisfaction -- that this man shot up this church as a direct result of the hate rhetoric that you worship and spew, then what would you say?
Red Baron said "We're also trying to figure out why Priya thinks media reports that he hated liberals are acurate and media reports that he hated Bible-believing Christians are not accurate."
You really are dense. Unlike the case with your "media reports" that he hated Christians he stated himself that he hated gays and liberals and did not say he hated Christians. His own words carry far more weight than the words of some religious right wing nutter with an agenda.
I take it back Red Baron, you're not dense, your willfully stupid. People don't come by your kind of stupid naturally and honestly, they have to work at it and clearly you've worked very hard at being stupid.
Red Baron said "Nazis? Don't get us started, David. You won't wind up looking good.".
You truly are deluded. At least one right wing religious luminary and pro-"family" advocate has praised his fellow christian Nazis for their treatment of gays and he's also suggested gays be exterminated. Like the Nazis Christian reconstructionist friends of Mike Huckabee have called for the death penalty for gays, and not surprisingly Huckabee the typical right wing Christianist has not renounced them for these calls. The rhetoric of the right wing Christianists demonizing gays closely mirrors the rhetoric the Nazis used to demonize the Jews. Leave it to Christianists like these and Red Baron to pull a page out of the Nazi playbook in their attack on gays.
"Unlike the case with your "media reports" that he hated Christians he stated himself that he hated gays and liberals and did not say he hated Christians. His own words carry far more weight than the words of some religious right wing nutter with an agenda."
Actually, Priya, no actual words of this guy have been released. He wrote a note that was paraphrased by a local sheriff as saying he hated that church because of its "liberal" positions. The note hasn't been released to the public. The comment about gays is an add-on by the sheriff as an example of the liberal positions taken by this church.
The sheriff also said the guy was not a church attender. He had been taken to a more mainstream church as a child and hated it. Again, neighbors related rants he had about inconsistencies in the Bible. Sounds like you, actually. Maybe all this talk you do about how horrible religion is leads to violence.
Right?
Perhaps we shouldn't allow free speech in cases where someone has used an idea as a pretext for violence. Squeaky Fromme shot Gerald Ford to save the redwoods. Perhaps, we should allow no more talk about how nice redwoods are. John Hinckley shot Reagan because he wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Perhaps we should allow no more talk about what a great actor she is. The Unabomber decried large corporations and globalization. New taboo subject?
See where your illocical leads?
Into the same dark well in which you dwell.
Again, why did he choose this church? Well, his ex-wife went there and it was very visible in the local community as an advocate on certain social issues he apparently disgreed with.
Bottom line: all this stuff is hearsay. The killer hasn't been heard from.
You choose the hearsay you prefer.
"At least one right wing religious luminary and pro-"family" advocate has praised his fellow christian Nazis for their treatment of gays and he's also suggested gays be exterminated. Like the Nazis Christian reconstructionist friends of Mike Huckabee have called for the death penalty for gays, and not surprisingly Huckabee the typical right wing Christianist has not renounced them for these calls. The rhetoric of the right wing Christianists demonizing gays closely mirrors the rhetoric the Nazis used to demonize the Jews. Leave it to Christianists like these and Red Baron to pull a page out of the Nazi playbook in their attack on gays"
I love it when you talk like this, Priya. Shows you for the nut you are.
I we believe you, most societies in world history and most of the world today is filled with the equivalent of Nazis.
You think anyone takes you seriously?
Truth is
Here's what i cannot understand.
I am, in many ways, a very old fashioned kind of woman. I have very conservative view on a lot of things, especially when it comes to things like the golden rule principle (which most people that choose to overwhelmingly judge or be denigrating or discriminatory towards me on very sight, and on a fairly constant basis, seems to have forgeotten somehow)..
I talk to my neighbors. I give them vegetable plants in the spring that i grow from seeds with love and hard work. I talk to all the cashiers at my local grocery stores, and anyone else i have to deal with on a normal daily basis.
I greet them all with smiles and warmth and agressively open and unconditional compassion and intelligence, no matter the race, age, shape, color or disposition.
Most often, many of the women wherever i shop, will come straight to me the second they see me come into their stores and give me a hug and exchange warm pleasantries in one form or another.
I believe in good old fashioned neighborliness in the most classic of ways and practice these simple considerate kindnesses to the fullest extent of my personal capabilities, even when i am feeling miserable, tired, even angry, and emotionally drained from the otherwise constant stigmata of social abuse and stereo-typical misperceptions that most people still seem quite comfortable with exhibiting in the most completely childish, disingenuous, and hurtful of ways.
in fact, this depressingly seems to be a great source of constant public and /or personal private (but noneltheless completely rude)entertainment to many on a regular basis...
So much for good strong Godly conservative values of non-judgementalism and loving acceptance, not to mention almost 5years of workplace discrimination that has nearly killed every single resource i have ever possessed in this life...
That being said, i would like to know how anyone ever decided to use the word "liberal" as a very demeaning form of address or classification.
This has been used to berate and label millions of people that frankly, most that use it in this way, in a hateful or angrily directed and demeaning manner, have never even met nor can give full or accurate witness to those whose lives they judge.
yet somehow i have seen continuous evidence of many that presuppose the right to blithely label others they have never even met personally nor walked in their shoes, with huge swaths of generalities?
There are soldiers, policemen, husbands, wives, factory workes, white collar execs - some have liberal vies on certain subjects, some dont.
- How can anyone in their right mind think for one minute that such labeling and massively inaccurate generalizations from lack of personal witness to those lives being classified, is supposed to actually wash ? This goes for BOTH sides of the coin, folks.
Both are equally unfair, and equally innaccurate when taking the human being out of the element of equation, by using all too convenient lables and mass genralizations of others.
Worst part is, it seems that many people might go along with this kind of pure hypocrisy,and are all too happy to do so.
Here is the definition of the word liberal and it's root meanings.
As far as i can tell, the baseline meanings in most cases, represent cornerstone principles of true fairness and generosity (even in many theologies)that once, any one of us would have been proud to claim as fellow human beings, much less as fellow Americans. I just dont get it at all.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1325–75; ME < L līberālis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al1]
—Related forms
lib·er·al·ly, adverb
lib·er·al·ness, noun
—Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
—Antonyms 1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.
You really are pathetic Red Baron.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/07/28/2444
According to Police chief Sterling Owen, Adkisson wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his “hatred of the liberal movement. Liberals in general, as well as gays.”.
Read that again. He (Adkisson) stated his hatred of liberals in general as well as gays. That was not an "add on by the sheriff as an example of the liberal positions taken by this church.".
You're pathetic reaching only highlights your willful stupidity and bias. You need to work on your reading comprehension and bad.
Red Baron said "You think anyone takes you seriously?"
Don't take my word for it, read it yourself:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,020.htm
Note how your christian pro-"family" advocate uses the Nazi treatement of gays as an example of how the U.S. should treat gays, note how, as the Nazis did with the Jews he refers to gays as parasites. At the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference, Cameron announced to the attendees, “Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals.” According to an interview with former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending the extermination option as early as 1983. Cameron is widely quoted by Christians to attack gays, he's their hero.
http://rainbowzine.com/media/does_huckabee_want_death_penalty_for_gaysl_0107.htm
We reported earlier on Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee's fundraising event at the home of Houston multimillionaire Steven Hotze, a well-known Christian Reconstructionist. Pastor Rick Scarborough, who also maintains Reconstructionist beliefs, was there as well. Since then, we've learned that Huckabee's ties go far deeper than mere acquaintances and financial backers. He has a history of working very closely with some very well-known Reconstructionists over the years. In this report, we will examine two of Huckabee's closest Reconstructionist colleagues.
Modern Christian Reconstructionism (sometimes known as Dominionism) was founded by the late R.J. Rushdoony and his son-in-law, Gary North. Rushdoony believed that it was the duty of every Bible-believing Christian to place each and every word of the Bible at the core of that person's life. According to Rushdoony, this meant that the Bible must necessarily replace all civil laws and constitutions with the Old and New Testaments, including the revival of the death penalty for homosexuality, incest, adultery, lying about one' virginity, and apostasy or public blasphemy, among a much longer list of biblical crimes. Rushdoony wrote that Democracy is a heresy and "the great love of the failures and cowards of life." '
In the piece, Burroway examines Huckabee's ties to Christian Reconstructionists George Grant-- who coauthored a book with Huckabee in which homosexuality was categorized along with pedophilia, sadomasochism and necrophilia as "institutionally supported aberrations
Read more of Jim Burroway's story at Box Turtle Bulletin
Did Huckabee believe legislating a death penalty for homosexuality when he co-authored "Kids Who Kill: Confronting Our Culture of Violence", with reconstructionist George Grant (who unabashedly advocated such a penalty ) in 1998 ? Does Huckabee believe it now ? Will any reporter have the guts to ask him ?
"According to Police chief Sterling Owen, Adkisson wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his “hatred of the liberal movement. Liberals in general, as well as gays.”."
Hearsay, Priya. Sounds like the estimable Boxturtle blog did some paraphrasing of their own. Let us know when the killer's actual words are released.
Another nutty post.
Keep 'em comin', Priya.
Red Baron you just can't stand the truth. The police chief said that Adkisson stated in his letter that he hated liberals and gays - he never mentioned evangelicals. Its clear to people with room temperature IQs exactly what that means but not you in your willful stupidity.
Red Baron said "Another nutty post.".
In your language nutty obviously means true just like "pro-family" actually means gay-hater.
Maryanne Arnow said...
“That being said, i would like to know how anyone ever decided to use the word "liberal" as a very demeaning form of address or classification.
This has been used to berate and label millions of people that frankly, most that use it in this way, in a hateful or angrily directed and demeaning manner, have never even met nor can give full or accurate witness to those whose lives they judge.
yet somehow i have seen continuous evidence of many that presuppose the right to blithely label others they have never even met personally nor walked in their shoes, with huge swaths of generalities?
There are soldiers, policemen, husbands, wives, factory workes, white collar execs - some have liberal vies on certain subjects, some dont.
- How can anyone in their right mind think for one minute that such labeling and massively inaccurate generalizations from lack of personal witness to those lives being classified, is supposed to actually wash ? This goes for BOTH sides of the coin, folks.”
Very well said Maryanne,
And this is my point as well. It’s the sweeping generalizations that AUTOMATICALLY make the label inaccurate, and therefore unfair. I always make to point to clarify, as best as possible, any labels I ascribe to any particular group, and it’s a constant challenge, but one that I feel is well worth it in that I know I am at least minimizing the possibility that my words will be misconstrued as applying to anyone other than whom I’m talking about.
Any ‘liberal’ worth their salt should know to do this, and generally speaking, this is what I see. For example, personally, I always make it a point to put the word “Christian” in quotes when referring to anti-gay religious supremacists, or I may just use the term ‘anti-gay religious supremacist’ in lieu of “Christian” altogether. Or I might say the ‘radical right’ as opposed to simply ‘the right,’ etc., etc.
Like I said, it’s a constant challenge, but a necessary one, because the point is to convey that it’s the ideology that binds them, and that it is unfair to suggest that that ideology is bound to any particular church, building, or demographic.
It’s actually a very practical example of the adage “hate the sin not the sinner.” A notion trounced upon so often by the very people who supposedly subscribe to it when thy claim liberals are this or that, or that gays are this or that. In fact the term “gay agenda” is a blanket announcement that ALL GAYS ARE OUT TO GET YOU and destroy everything you love.
Sweeping and unfair generalizations seem to be part and parcel to those who are incapable of taking responsibility for their words and actions. The response to this case in particular (and others) demonstrate this by the continual need to shift focus away from EVEN THE POSSIBILITY of culpability.
Which pretty much demonstrates that those who use hate speech unfairly, by sweepingly generalizing entire swaths of people, are less concerned with taking responsibility for the nature of that hate speech, and more concerned with justifying it - no matter what the consequences.
And to be clear, this is just a difference that I’ve noticed. I take the same offense when someone who is gay or purports to be liberal denigrates ALL Christians as anti-gay, or uses the term ‘conservative Christian’ as a blanket term for anti-gay.
I agree, the unfair generalizations exist on both sides of the coin, but I have noticed it to be strikingly more prevalent on one side of it.
Jim writes,
It is tempting to generalize from this one nutty guy to the whole group of liberal-haters and gay-haters, and in fact it's not a bad idea.
LOL!!! Never one to miss an opportunity, eh?
I am persuaded to the view that while this person did indeed see the local Unitarian church as the local hot bed of liberalism, I think many other factors played a part.
First off, he was not only single, he was single because he was divorced - two risk factors for violent behavior. He was unemployed at the time of the crime, and had been for some time. Also, he was not exactly high up on the socio-economic feeding chain. It does not appear that he had any children. Give me a fuller profile and I could likely find more factors to explain away the evil this man did.
But is that what any of you really want? Come now...be honest...while I am certain none of you take any joy in this news, does it not validate the prejudice you hold with regards to conservatives? I know for a fact that a number of liberals I know are good people. How do I know? Because they are also my friends, people I have known and learned from, and even close family members. But in order to do this I have had to reach outside of zone that causes some (both conservative and liberal) discomfort and extend a listening ear.
Would it have made a difference if this person had known someone that they liked and respected that was also a liberal. Maybe if this person had one friend that also attended that Unitarian church that had reflected their faith in a manner so as to bring credit to their faith...maybe.
Adkinson's wife had been a member of that Unitarian Universalist church. Clearly, Adkinsin did know at least some UUs. And the court records show that when married, Adkinson loved his wife so much that he threatened to kill her.
What difference is there between deciding that someone is a "faggot," a word that means "you'd make good firewood," and deciding that someone is a "target," or a "bullseye"? Hate speech does support violence.
Orin, here's something you should read:
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity". (The Guardian)
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition:
The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification
of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition
So what, pray tell, is political liberalism motivated by? LOL...
Since psychiatry was used once in the late Soviet Union to in as a therapy in political re-education, is this what the oh-so-tolerant liberals have in mind for us conservatives?
That's easy, Orin.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Yesterday the Clergy and members of Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church rededicated their sanctuary. Forgive me for this large cut and paste, but their statement is better than anything I would write about it:
On Sunday August 3, 2008, Rev. Chris Buice and the congregation of Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church rededicated our sanctuary in an emotional service, one week after a man with a shotgun killed two people attending a service here.
Rev. Buice led us in resanctifying the space where TVUUC Board member and usher Greg McKendry and a visitor, Linda Kraeger, died. Six other people were injured in the attack. "Love is the spirit of this church," Rev. Buice said in unision with others in the congregation. "And service is its law. To dwell together in peace, to seek the truth in love, and to help one another – this is our great covenant."
www.tvuuc.org
Orin: “So what, pray tell, is political liberalism motivated by? LOL…”
Aunt Bea: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
--
Political liberalism: The REAL Christianity.
Post a Comment
<< Home