I hesitate to comment, only for the reason that I doubt many will understand me. First, what happened with the most recent church shooting is tragic. It is horrific, as have been all the shootings (or any shooting anywhere).

Secondly, I have already heard the drum beats of gun control again, and even this author spoke of it. Its kind of like the headline in the newspaper that reads: "SUV kills 3 in accident" as if the evil SUV killed three people. Nevermind that the SUV was driven by a drunk lunatic - its automatically the SUV killing people. And the cry is heard around the U.S. by liberals - "we need to get rid of these massive SUV's. Little cars don't stand a chance."

The principle applies here. The gun didn't kill these people - the person behind the gun did. He made the decision to kill before he even pulled the trigger. Also of note here is the fact that the gun was a 12 gauge shotgun. Not a semi-automatic, not a pistol, not a WMD, yet we are hearing gun control rhetoric about a shotgun. So are we now to ban ALL firearms? I thought there were only complaints about concealed weapons and semi-automatics?

Folks, you can go out an commit crimes with a BB gun and a sling shot. Its the people behind the weapons that need to be held accountable, not the tool or weapon used.

And for the record, in Japan, are they supposed to ban knives? People are killed more often by knives than guns. In fact, they are having a rash of stabbings there. Sinful humanity can turn anything into a weapon to destroy. Case in point - suicide bombers. What do we ban there?

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | July 31, 2008 10:31 AM

Interestingly, this piece highlights how the broader culture war has divided the church. First, we hear songs from Annie being sung in church. Is this because they had nothing better to sing? Annie is fine, but to sing songs from that musical seems watered down. I have just as much trouble with most of K-Love. I get bored with prom songs to Jesus.
But, if we accept the peace-loving, tomorrow-singing unitarians as the real Christians in this story, then they got what we should all expect as true believers: persecution.
If we start being concerned for our own safety when living the truth we become cowards. Mr. Detweiler's trepidations ought to be our norm. God's Politics too often assumes that we can and should have a Christian culture and Christian based laws. It is the friction created among factions rivaling over control of the laws which provokes violence. If we all worked to just limit the quantity and scope of the law instead we could resolve a great deal of the trouble right away.
Let's start by getting rid of all gun control, price control, and labor laws.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 31, 2008 10:43 AM

Kevin, did he say right or left when talking about talk radio?

Indeed, he specifically said BOTH sides were toxic.

And I quote..

"While ultimate responsibility resides with the shooters, we can also connect these deaths to too much toxic talk radio. Both the left and the right play the blame game all day long. On talk radio, my problems are always somebody else's fault."

So, why comments about the lack of connection to the 'LEFT" blogosphere, when he indicted both sides and their toxic radio habits equally?

And for the person commenting below Kevin (I know that the new code doesn't fill in the name field automatically, so I'm not going to assume they are deliberately anonymous)..

First, I have seen church spaces used for more than just religious activities. Secondly, this was a Unitarian Universalist church. Might want to look up the denomination. They aren't specifically Christian at all. (Though they do have members that are Christian, they also have atheist, Jewish, etc members. Its.. complicated.)

So, this was a not Christian religious faction that got attacked. And they would be the last group to be lobbying to have a 'Christian Government' put into place.

Posted by: Karen Brown | July 31, 2008 10:52 AM

"So, why comments about the lack of connection to the 'LEFT" blogosphere, when he indicted both sides and their toxic radio habits equally? "

Because he didn't indict the left at all in this incident, but rather "connected" this incident to right wing radio. James above had no problem linking Detweiler's commentary to my conservative beliefs, so the connection was clear to him as well.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 31, 2008 11:49 AM

Kevin,

As has been pointed out, Detweiler did indict the entire talk radio establishment - its plainly there and has been specifically pointed out to you.

He does specifically mention conservative talk radio in East Tennessee - do you think its possible that's because they were the only ones talking about it? Does there have to be equal culpability for both sides in everything that happens? It doesn't sound like Adkisson probably listened to more liberal sources, so I'm not sure why Detweiler should have mentioned them more specifically in relation to this particular event.

But again, he was quite clear that he thinks both sides are part of the problem. So I don't really understand what you're so upset about, unless you're just presupposed to be upset with the things written on this blog.

Posted by: Jake | July 31, 2008 12:00 PM

"As has been pointed out, Detweiler did indict the entire talk radio establishment - its plainly there and has been specifically pointed out to you."

And I have pointed out that he heaps the lion share of blame on conservative talk radio, and he ends by saying that he fears for his family because he reaches out to "those deemed "other" by the conservative Christian community".

Nobody would expect him to write "conservatives and ONLY conservatives practice heated rhetoric," nor would he need to in order to reveal his bias.

"Does there have to be equal culpability for both sides in everything that happens? "

I don't think talk radio shares no culpability in this matter, unless someone was calling for the death of members of this church. So even if he is distributing blame equally, his premise is flawed. But you cannot convince me that this is post is simply a rumination on overheated political rhetoric in general.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 31, 2008 1:20 PM

... unless you're just presupposed to be upset with the things written on this blog.

This comment from Jake just about sums up Kevin's comments on this blog, IMO.

D

Posted by: Don | July 31, 2008 2:55 PM

nice guy: "So when Baba Wawa does a story on the sweat shops in some third world country making clothes for a line of products in a major dept. store and some nut goes in there and starts the store on fire - we are to hold her accountable for their act?"

Moderatelad, good to have you back bro.

Virginia G: "Contrast this blaming and flaming with the response of the Mennonite community to the man who killed their daughters in the Pennsylvania shootings a few years ago.
Such devotion to Christian principles takes your breath away."

A great point Virginia. Thanks.

Posted by: carl copas | July 31, 2008 3:35 PM

Shouldn't there, at the bare minimum, be proof that this nut actually listened to the radio before we go off assuming that talk radio is somehow culpable here? Instead what we see is:

1) A family member of the victims makes claims about the issue being on talk radio and how that made Adkisson drive 10 miles out of his way (10 miles ain't exactly "out of the way" in my book) to shoot up the church, and;

2) Detweiler's assumption that 1) is right.

But 1) hasn't been proven. One can certainly hate liberals (or conservatives, or anyone else) without listening to the radio. I grew up in a family where one side hated all Republicans and the other side hated all Democrats--I never would have had to listen to the radio when I had Aunt Jenny.

As a result, Detweiler (and others who seek to implicate talk radio in this somehow) is jumping to conclusions and demonstrating bias rather than careful thinking.

Posted by: peter | July 31, 2008 4:32 PM

"I never would have had to listen to the radio when I had Aunt Jenny."

Aunt Jenny was a communist.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 31, 2008 4:41 PM

Peter: "Shouldn't there, at the bare minimum, be proof that this nut actually listened to the radio before we go off assuming that talk radio is somehow culpable here?"

Peter, my understanding from news reports is that the shooter's friends and family confirm that he was a fan of rightwing talk radio. That does not, of course, establish culpability.

Posted by: carl copas | July 31, 2008 5:02 PM

I agree, how can this event be tied to a culture war theory. Southerns have a long history of acting rashly when disagreeing over stuff. Shoving it off to culture is a novel idea but not necessarily so.

Posted by: loyalist | July 31, 2008 5:26 PM

We may not all be warmongers, but few of us are peace makers that God will call the "sons of God."
Our first response as a nation is most often "bomb the sob's."

Posted by: RandyT | July 31, 2008 7:42 PM

Roy: The Pharisees in Jesus' time (forerunners of today's Bible idolators) were Jews in the Biblical sense of the word. You may need to know Jesus more than the UUs lest you perish in your sin of pride. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | July 31, 2008 9:06 PM

Kevin -

I probably shouldn't be posting this here, because I'm having trouble suppressing my rage at your comments.

For your information, one of the people killed in this latest rampage was a close family friend, as were several of the people injured. If things had worked out a little differently, my mother would have been sitting in the pew on which the gunman fired. Please don't tell me my family is safe. I am outraged, and yes, I blame two people specifically: Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, whom I understand the shooter had been listening to intensively.

This has shaken me beyond what words can express, and my first inclination is to condemn those two people with every fiber of my being. What they are doing to our society is beyond contempt, and this latest incident shows this clearly. As a Christian, though, I am called to forgive, and I am trying to find it within me to begin to imagine how I might possibly do so. You aren't helping.

Posted by: Another nonymous | July 31, 2008 10:45 PM

To Another nonymous,

Please accept my condolences. This is rough, and nobody should have to deal with this. I stand with you in prayer at this time.

Sincerely,

Ahem...

Posted by: Ahem... | August 1, 2008 4:58 AM

Another nonymous,

So sorry for your loss - you and your family are in my prayers.

kevin,

If I painted you with too broad a brush, I apologize. But there was no need "caricature" your comment. I'd be perfectly open to hearing you explain how saying that you "cannot be convinced" shows even the slightest openness to dialogue.

As far as the difference between "direct responsibility" (I did say "direct", and its an important word here) and culpability (I'm using "cause" and culpability" in similar ways here, and perhaps that is confusing) - in anything that happens, there are direct causes and indirect causes. In this case, the direct cause for the shooting is an extremely disturbed man (Adkisson) who decided to vent his frustrations by picking up a gun and shooting a bunch of innocent people with whom he apparently disagreed. But indirect causes are the things that contributed to the event, even if they didn't actually make it happen.

I think this should be clear a this point - and my argument (and Detweiler's, I think) is that talk radio (and, I believe, the kind of "discussion" of politics and religion in our country that they represent) are an indirect cause of events like this one. They create an environment in which it is easier for events like this one to happen. Some also argue that a lack of gun control laws are also an indirect cause - I'm not interested in that debate here, but its another example of an "indirect" cause.

It seems to me that you have two issues here - that you think Detweiler is not balanced enough in his condemnation (focusing on conservatives), and that you don't believe talk radio, etc. contributes anyway. I don't think there's "selective quoting" going on here - whether he's done it to your satisfaction or not, its clear that he implicates both sides to at least some level in this kinds of tragedies, because he makes statements to that effect in his article. But I'm surprised that anybody would not see that things like talk radio do contribute to problems like this one - although I recognize that what seems clear as day to one person often seems very different to others.

Posted by: Jake | August 1, 2008 9:19 AM

"I probably shouldn't be posting this here, because I'm having trouble suppressing my rage at your comments."

I'm sorry for your loss. I still can't assign blame to Sean Hannity.

"Please don't tell me my family is safe."

I didn't say anything about your family, unless you are Craig Detweiler.

"However, in this specific case, it was clearly the right end of the poisoned airwave spectrum that is involved. We know that Adkisson didn't acquire his contempt for "liberals" by listening to Air America. Can Detwiler ignore that obvious fact in his reporting of the incident?"

As I mention above, in his analysis of the New Life murders, he doesn't mention anything about political speech. It is only discussed with respect to right wing radio. I am left to conclude he sees right wing rhetoric as the problem.

His vague preface that both sides are to blame strikes me to be as convincing as a conservative or a liberal think-tanks claim to non-partisanship. They have to say that they are non-partisan, but it is obvious to any casual observer that they are not because of the policies they choose to advocate.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 1, 2008 1:38 PM

i am deeply saddened, another nonymous, for you and that congregation, and for our culture. a church, universalist or otherwise, was targeted for doing exactly what the church is called to do - welcoming the other. this was not an attack on a gay bar, which would be horrific in its own right, but was an attack on a church for expressing God's love. where did it come from? from a deranged man. but like others who have commented above, i think it also came from our culture. this is an extreme manifestation of an otherwise not-so-uncommon hatred and/or revulsion against our brothers and sisters who are gay.

but why would he not attack the gay bar instead of the church? because his christian faith, his most prized possession, is being dismantled from within, in his mind, by deviants and their liberal /permissive allies who are, to quote a recent book title, "godless." because the good news he hears about in his church, and is shared by media purveyors, is not for those unlike him. because there are members of the christian faith who have accepted hatred and irreconciliation as spiritual gifts cloaked as defense of tradition. because the church itself has elements within it decrying acceptance of gay people, children of god like ourselves, without condition. the issue is not homosexuality, as it was not inter-racial marriage or anti-catholicism or inter-racial worship before it. the issue is feeding the sickness of abiding outside the radical love of God from within our own church doors & the media markets fanning the flames.

and collectively we seem to be ok with this fear of the other. obviously no one condones this shooting, but there is clearly a giant market of consumers for the media purveyors of hatred and demonizing the other, and you can get your fix on any side of any issue. most shocking is that an astonishing amount of their supporters, and the hosts themselves, are self-identified christians. this is not about the political points of view they express, as has been noted above, it is about the tenor of the rhetoric & our acceptance of it. it comes to a fever pitch on an almost daily basis on talk radio & cable television "news" shows, & our political agreements excuse the rancor. in fact, the rancor feeds something inside of us & further clouds our judgment against its folly and especially against its danger. next thing you know, it has permeated large parts of the church's consciousness & gradually into the category of a sanctioned defense of the gospel, because we all slip into the human tendency to make god in our own image rather than vice versa. and while it manifests itself, in my opinion, much more on the right side of the isle, the liberal churches are certainly not immune to this scenario.

we are christians in our churches, but so should we be in what we listen to, what we tolerate, what we perpetuate. let us as christians and moral citizens exercise our collective consciences and our consumer might and turn off the voices that demonize. maybe even go to the other who is demonized & say, "Zacchaeus (or whatever their name may be), i am coming to your house today."

Posted by: nad2 | August 1, 2008 2:33 PM

"Maybe the reason Craig Detweiler doesn't bring up left-wing media in connection with the New Life case is because there's no connection to left-wing media there. "

We don't know if the connection is here either, other than he read books written by right-wing talk show hosts. We do know that killer in that case referenced song lyrics in his suicide note. Was Detweiler interested in the influence of rock music? Nope.

Like he did here, he found a conservative viewpoint (support of gun rights) to attack. And here he attacks those who support the conservative viewpoint.

You note that Adkisson has no ties to Christianity with which you are aware. That does not stop Mr. Detweiler from fearing for his safety because of the intolerance of "the conservative Christian community".

Why does he make that leap? How is that relevant to this case?

Posted by: kevin s. | August 1, 2008 3:15 PM

I tried to post something like this soon after Kevin posted his 3:15, but it was held up by Beliefnet. Maybe it will show up later.

Kevin wrote:

We don't know if the connection is here either, other than he read books written by right-wing talk show hosts.

That's not a connection, Kevin?

And is there no connection to the words Adkisson wrote in his explanatory letter to the public statements of Hannity, O'Reilly, and Michael Savage (they found a book written by him, too, in Adkisson's house)?

Some of the things Adkisson wrote in his letter read like parodies of right-wing media.

According to an article on the Web site for TV 10 Knoxville:
"... Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were a ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years. Adkisson made statements that he had pre-planned this shooting and had began writing the letter for the last week," the search warrant reads." (emphasis mine)

The title of Michael Savage's book, a copy of which was found in Adkisson's house, is Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder.

Here are a few quotes from Adkisson's "heroes":

"It is not a stretch to say that MoveOn is the new Klan." — Bill O’Reilly

"I’ll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo — every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." — Sean Hannity

"To fight only the al-Qaeda **** is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who." — Michael Savage

No connection, Kevin?

Posted by: Don | August 1, 2008 5:55 PM

"No connection, Kevin? "

The MoveOn comment is irrelevant, though I don't know why O'Reilly compared them to a racist group.

For the other two, it depends. Do we know that he listened to those comments?

Posted by: kevin s. | August 1, 2008 7:13 PM

"Don,
you're shouting at the deaf. There are no ears to hear."

Apparently not. Here's what Susan Jacoby wrote after the salutary experience of being "interviewed" by O'Reilly:

"Hosts like Bill O'Reilly do not even make a pretense of being interested in what their guests have to say; they simply interrupt anyone who disagrees with their political views."

I think we all recognize what she's describing. Once you get used to thinking that such a "conversation" constitutes an exchange of ideas, the pattern begins to look so normal that its obvious inadequacy is simply ignored. Saying "shut up!" is so much easier than listening. This entire thread shows how perfectly a discussion of a topic can mirror the topic itself.

Thanks to all who have offered their prayers and support.

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 1, 2008 8:14 PM

Don, you're shouting at the deaf. There are no ears to hear.

No kidding.

Posted by: Don | August 1, 2008 9:18 PM

"If the standard for associating rhetoric with violence is simply to establish a "connection", however nominal, then we can hold just about anyone accountable for murder."

Not just anyone, Kevin, but I maintain that people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, for that matter, cross the line. Part of freedom of speech is the responsibility not to abuse it. The same is true of the right to own a gun. Adkisson abused the latter; O'Reilly and Limbaugh abuse the former on a daily basis. As someone who believes that words are powerful, I think their indiscretion is just as serious.

I do not, BTW, mean to accuse you of abusing your freedom of speech, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Do you not acknowledge, though, that guns and words are both dangerous, and that the greater the freedom, the greater the responsibility?

Someone I used to go to church with sported a bumper sticker that read "Support Gun Rights, Shoot a Liberal." I prayed beside that person for years, and I'm ashamed to say that I never told him how offended I was. Maybe I was afraid of getting shot.

Of course, we don't usually put people in jail for saying hateful things; it was Adkisson who fired the gun, and he is the one who will be punished. While the penance may be different, though, for someone who abuses free speech, penance nevertheless seems called for.

Personally, I would like to hear just one person who has said something truly hateful about liberals publicly acknowledge their shame and undertake some kind of meaningful penance: perhaps advocating a "Turn off Limbaugh Week," for example. When things like that start happening, I'll believe that somebody has actually learned from this horrible experience.

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 1, 2008 10:43 PM

Dailykos applauded the slaughter of contract workers in Iraq. Can we connect Kos to the continued murder of Americans in Iraq? I doubt you would like that argument.

Apples and oranges -- I seriously doubt that militant Iraqis read the Dailykos.

I still recall my shock and horror when Paul Hill murdered Dr. John Britton in the name of "life." How could a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary and an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church of America take up arms, killing in the name of God?

Very simple. Hill was a reconstructionist, which meant that he believed that nations should be run under Biblical law; that kind, which doesn't communicate with anyone who disagrees, has zero respect for any other political tradition. That viewpoint is actually quite popular in conservative Calvinist circles; the late D. James Kennedy's view leaned toward that way and there are a bunch of "theonomists" at one of the local seminaries. I would also submit that Hill wanted to make himself into a martyr and rally more people to the cause.

Posted by: Rick | August 2, 2008 8:53 AM

Sorry, here's the correct link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/a-murderers-bookshelf-han_b_115497.html

Posted by: Allison | August 2, 2008 10:42 AM

Kevin: I thought I was engaging your argument. I guess you are selective about who is engaging you.
Another non: Sorry. You have demonstrated great grace and candor. May the grace of God be with your mom and all those at the uu church involved. These folks are martyrs (witnesses) for love. You and they will be in our prayers.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 2, 2008 4:24 PM

"cavil" is very apt---wish I'd thought of that one. the best i could come up with is "pettifoggery."

Posted by: carl copas | August 3, 2008 6:46 PM

Peace does not mean disarmment.

When were churches ever "armed"?

How can we compromise our witness for the sake of reducing risk? If we do this we are no longer who we claim to be.

I for one do not fear that someone might come into my church and start shooting. If we start promoting fear, we are playing the world's game, and we're not obeying Christ.

Posted by: Don | August 4, 2008 1:04 PM

caviling will not get you removed, but pointing it out will. apparently pettifoggery is another matter entirely, carl.

Posted by: nad2 | August 4, 2008 5:07 PM

carl "the chicaner" copas. i'm your agent if this persona starts making $ writing bestsellers about bush & bin laden being kissin' cousins.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 5:42 PM

nad2: "carl "the chicaner" copas. i'm your agent if this persona starts making $ writing bestsellers about bush & bin laden being kissin' cousins."

LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 6:14 PM

Kevin, Detweiler's argument is that a non-stop barrage of violent, hateful and often murderous language directed at liberals in a broad and pervasive range of media, instigated by highly paid people who receive million-dollar book contacts, if extended over many, many years, might lead somebody to act on the sentiment expressed by the bumper sticker I quoted earlier. Nothing you have said in any way disproves that argument, or even seriously challenges it.

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 4, 2008 7:15 PM

I wrote this essay last week, and, given the continued obstinacy of some posters here, I have decided to share it in the hopes of getting this discussion back to the original subject. Please note that I have not named names, and that I have done my best to keep my considerable anger under control.

"What goes through the mind of a man possessed by hatred? What does it take to push that hatred across the line into malevolent evil?

"These questions are much on my mind as what was meant to be a relaxing week at the beach has been shattered by a truly evil act that touched my life directly. On Sunday morning, a man walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee with a guitar case, removed a shotgun and began shooting. The children of the church had just begun a long-anticipated musical performance. Many visitors were present: a fact that provides the personal connection, since my mother might easily have been sitting in the pew with the victims. These were the people on whom the gunman chose to vent his rage before being tackled while trying to reload. When he was done, two people were dead and at least a half dozen were critically wounded. He apparently intended to kill many more.

"What made him do it? The explanations are ones we’ve all heard before. He was out of work, divorced, and facing hard times. His food stamps were about to be reduced. He was as close as middle class citizens normally come to the brink. He was angry and alone. The first question — What goes through the mind of a man possessed by hatred? — is relatively easy to answer.

"The second is more difficult. It appears that he targeted this particular church, of which his ex-wife had been a longtime member. If the church had been Baptist, or even Lutheran, that would probably be seen as a tragic coincidence. However, the church was Unitarian Universalist. Unitarians, as nearly everybody knows, are liberals.

"Since I grew up near Knoxville, I have an idea of what that means. Tennesseans take their religion straight, from Scopes to the snake handlers. Knoxville “used to” be a segregated city, and the churches helped — and still help — to keep it that way. Except for those dang Unitarians, who were pushing for integration long before doing so became less risky and more anodyne. More recently, they were at the front of efforts to shelter the homeless and the “illegal,” as we are pleased to call those not born with the privileges we take for granted. They had even voted to welcome members who were openly gay. All of these things apparently made the man with the shotgun angry, since he perceived, whether rightly or wrongly, that some of these unwanted people were now succeeding where he was failing. Over time, his anger grew into hatred.

"And that is where the second question acquires an urgency that should haunt us all. We live in a society in which widely heard voices are eager to stoke anger, and do so with broad approval and support. The man with the shotgun had apparently been listening to those voices, whose stock in trade is the angry dismissal, the “blowing away” of those who dare to disagree with their views or those of their passionate listeners. We all know, of course, that those who are “blown away” are liberals, whom these commentators are accustomed to blaming for nearly every societal ill known to man. Millions tune in each day already convinced that these strange, alien people are willfully destroying their way of life, and instead of being treated to reason they are fed with more hatred, their anger growing to white hot and, perhaps, beyond.

"It was one such man, pushed beyond reason — who knows how far beyond — by these voices, who walked into a Tennessee church last Sunday and fired a shotgun at the pew where my mother might well have been sitting. My mother, who brought me up to be a liberal because we lived in a world beset by evil but possessed by hope — who taught me that standing up for “the least of these” was the most noble task to which one born to middle class privilege could hope to aspire. I grew up with that faith, and it led me, as an adult, back to the source. Raised an agnostic, I was baptized at 29, and have seen my Christian faith and my liberalism grow together and temper each other. It is a precious heritage, and one that I treasure increasingly with each passing year. Despite my growing orthodoxy, I might well have been sitting in that pew in a liberal, unorthodox Tennessee church. I’m pretty sure Jesus was there, and that He also felt the impact of those shotgun blasts that sent two good people to their deaths.

"What pushes someone from the darkness of hatred into the unspeakable nighttime of evil? Sometimes all it takes is having that hatred fed by those who would rather blame others than do the honest soul-searching to which our Lord led us, and leads us still. Let us follow Him, and tune out those voices. They are only as powerful as we make them."

If you've read this far, thank you, and God bless.

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 4, 2008 8:08 PM

"No. He said that talk radio personalities should tone down their rhetoric, and strongly suggested that over-heated rhetoric creates victims of a culture war. In short, what Detweiler is saying has more teeth than your paraphrase."

Fine. I still agree with him, as I hope my essay makes clear. In fact, my central argument in this thread, to which you have yet to respond, is that freedom of speech carries with it the responsibility not to abuse it. You presumably recognize that, since you argued passionately that Mahmoud Ahmadinijad should not have been invited to speak at Columbia University. I agreed with you. Why? Because, among other things, he had called for the destruction of Israel. Why should people who say equally hateful things about our own citizens on a daily basis not be asked to tone it down?

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 4, 2008 9:25 PM

Of course, I should have said "I am equally threatened by all three." Score one for overhasty self-proofreading.

However, let me take the opportunity to parse what I said in my last post a bit further. Ahmadinijad speaks for a facet of his own culture. That facet is not unanimous, though it is often perceived as being so in the West. However, there are certainly those in Iran who are virulently anti-Semitic, and he speaks for them.

Similarly, there are those in our culture who are virulently anti-liberal, and people like O'Reilly and Limbaugh speak for them. Not being national political leaders, they may not speak with the same precisely directed language. Nevertheless, others do (as witness the bumper sticker I quoted). Thus, in both cases, we are speaking about a very dark, potentially violent set of attitudes held by an angry, vocal segment of a society that is easy to stereotype but dangerous to underestimate. One should not light a fuse under such a powder keg, and people who do so, like A, O and L, are dangerously irresponsible and deserved to be reproved.

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 4, 2008 10:08 PM

Another nonymous: I would never attend a church with armed guards. The very idea is abhorrent. The experience last Sunday has only affirmed me in this view.

Welcome to my world. I'm Jewish, and we have at least one armed guard outside our temple for Friday night and Saturday morning services, again on Sunday when the kiddies come for Sunday school, and more than a handful for the High Holy Day services.

Can ya feel the love? :-/

Posted by: Peppermint Patty | August 5, 2008 12:56 AM

I think that he could and more than likely have a greater inpact on your life and lifestyle than the other two put together = but that is just my opinion.

But when you add to Rush's voice and Bill O'Reilly's voice several others--Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, ad nauseum and ad nauseum, you speak about a veritable chorus of voices, all saying essentially the same thing: that liberals are what's wrong with America, that America would be better if we got rid of them. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has only been president of Iran since, what, 2002? This right-wing media chorus has been on the air for upwards of twenty years. So my guess is that the total impact of their words over those twenty-some years might even be greater than that of Ahmadinejad's.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the letter that Adkisson, the shooter at TVUUC, wrote, and his statement to police, sounds like an echo of these media voices.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 5, 2008 7:10 AM

modlad, i'll take my 1st, 4th & 5th amendments to our constitution instead. if this is conservatism, i am utterly confused...

Posted by: nad2 | August 5, 2008 10:20 AM

"That is an absolutely asinine comparison."

Only if you believe that gun possession are inherently uncouth. I am simply pointing out that you have presumed what you need to argue.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 5, 2008 10:27 AM

"I agree that talk radio practitioners often go over the line, which is why I don't listen to it. I don't think I have said anything to the contrary with respect to your point about responsibility."

Then, as I said to another poster recently, I'm no longer sure exactly what it is we disagree about. I suppose you'll say it's the perception that there's a "culture war" going on, and that the Tennessee victims were casualties. As far as I can tell, however, everything that has been posted by both sides in this discussion only illustrates the yawning chasm within our culture and the difficulties those on both sides have even imagining how those on the other think. Once again, discussion and subject matter seem to mirror each other perfectly.

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 5, 2008 11:56 AM

And I do blame them, along with dozens of others who make their living off of hateful rhetoric. That does not mean that I think they are guilty of murder, or that I think they made the gunman do it. It does mean that I think they need to repent, publicly, and their manifest failure to do so only reinforces my point. They see no connection between what they do for a living and the existence of a climate of hatred in which something like this could happen.

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 5, 2008 1:27 PM

Very nice.

Posted by: funnygirl | August 7, 2008 2:08 PM

Very nice.

Posted by: emergency loan payday | August 22, 2008 1:34 PM