One dead, eight wounded by gunfire in church

[Publisher]

I believe people are responsible for their own actions and people have the right to speak their opinions. For example, I don’t believe those who speak out against abortion should be held responsible for someone else blowing up an abortion clinic.

I too believe people are responsible fo their own actions…but we are also responsible for the words we use to give our “opinions”…and we must use our language responsibly. We are not “islands”…we influence others by our words as well as our deeds.

 

[Christophorus72]

If you do not find yourself among the “we”…you’re “good”, I’m sure.

Are you going to answer the question, who is the “we” who caused the man to shoot the people in the church, or dance around it? I’m guessing the latter.

 

[Publisher]

Are you going to answer the question, who is the “we” who caused the man to shoot the people in the church, or dance around it? I’m guessing the latter.

You may.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

judging by his neighbor’s comments below, I’d say no in regard to “more extreme right-wing radio talk shows” (I’m assuming you are referring to the likes of Hannity, Rush, etc., otherwise I have no idea who you are talking about).

Michael Savage for starters. But you can see the list in my previous post. If you care too.

*Karen Massey, a neighbor to Adkisson, told the Knoxville News Sentinel about a lengthy conversation she had with Adkisson a few years back in which she told him her daughter had just graduated from a bible college. She said she was surprised by his reaction when she told him she was a Christian.

“He almost turned angry,” she told the newspaper. “He seemed to get angry at that. He said that everything in the Bible contradicts itself if you read it.” She also said Adkisson spoke frequently about his parents, who “made him go to church all his life. … He acted like he was forced to do that.”*

Explains that he didn’t like churches. Now why a liberal church that welcomes homosexuals…the killer says so himself.

the guy had previously threatened to blow his wife’s brains out and then blow his brains out a few years ago. I’m not sure how that correlates to any political agenda either.

It doesn’t but this does

note suggesting that he targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal policies, including its acceptance of gays,

just a hateful and angry man in my opinion. see PZ Myers.

er. So fact that he specifically said he wanted to kill liberals and gays does not mean anything?

and as Proverbs 29:22 so eloquently puts, “An angry man stirs up strife, And a hot-tempered man abounds in transgression.”.

Yes. People like O’Reilly, Coulter, Savage and Rush should remember that

I don’t agree with their theology, but I do pray for the victims of this tragedy.

In that we are agreed.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

Cuddy Duck, anyone who thinks that conservative radio is in any way at fault in this must not be really listening to it.

The quotes are above. In bold red. But in case you have trouble finding them on the other page…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=256832

Opposing liberalism, opposing homosexual practice, etc, does not equate to promoting violence.

Er. Who said it did? The Pope himself opposes homosexuality. And violence. Please do not bring strawmen arguments into this. I never said that.

On the other hand, saying You should only get AIDS and die, you pig
or I am dreaming of riots in Denver is what exactly?

When Imams in the UK talking the same way I was condemning that and if a liberal talks that way I’ll condemn that too.

Three of the quotes you gave above, allegedly showing conservatives advocating violence, are taken so extremely out of context that it is absurd. Both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh use humor on their shows.

I highlighted in red the classic three point defense of hate speech. Textbook stuff.:coffeeread:

I have the context right here.

BECK: Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out – is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus – band – Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, “Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,” and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, “Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.” And you know, well, I’m not sure.

Humour? I don’t get it:shrug:

Thus they say things in that context which are purely facetious and obviously so to anyone actually listening instead of quote mining to prove something.

Er. What are you accusing me of here? Quote mining? Oh. You mean research? You mean googling?

To *prove *something. No I have an agenda?

Prove? Since when is *proof *a bad thing? You mean I bothered to back up my concern that some people are saying things that may easily invite violence?

The D’Souza quote is not blaming liberals directly for 9/11, but is blaming the liberal attitude of being soft on the enemies of the US. And defeating liberalism in that case means politically. So, yet again, we have dishonest proof-texting.

Dishonest! I promised a guy here that I wouldn’t use the angry emoticon and I keep my word, but I wish to express myself so

In the qute I included the title, so the context is clear to everybody. How is this dishonest?

Oh?

not enough?

let’s see

Oh I know! How about the title with the subtitle.

THE ENEMY AT HOME:
THE CULTURAL LEFT AND ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9/11

Ok now?

Well just in case. The horse’s mouth:
dineshdsouza.com/books/enemy-intro.html

Also, interesting that you mention Phelps. I have heard Sean Hannity on the radio denouncing Phelps and having heated arguments with a woman from his organization. So, no, the conservative media is AGAINST Phelps.

You are right. I mentioned Phelps and that increasingly, talk radio is resmbling the whacko. I did not mention Hannity. The report did. I simply did not wish to edit the entire reading list. That may have distorted the facts.

Honestly, I have heard more hateful things come from liberals than I ever have from conservatives.

But I guess we’ll have to take your word for it, cos you wouldn’t stoop to “quote mining” to “prove a point”.

But apparently it’s ok then?

Er. No. It’s not OK. Or at least it wouldn’t be.

But I said that already.

So with that last strawman we see two strawmen, two accusations of quoting out of context an accusation of dishonesty and attempting “prove a point” and finally “quote mining” whatever that is.

Congratulations. that is quite a haul for one post.:clapping:

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

Are you going to answer the question, who is the “we” who caused the man to shoot the people in the church, or dance around it? I’m guessing the latter.

answers.com/we
Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject: We made it to the lecture hall on time. We are planning a trip to Arizona this winter.

Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer: “How can we enter the professions and yet remain civilized human beings?” (Virginia Woolf).

But while we are on the subject of semantics tery “cause” versus “was a contributing factor in”. Then explore the difference between “cause” and “influence”.

:coffeeread:

 

[Steeltemplar]

Cuddy Duck, I do not think it is necessary that you should take such a nasty tone in responding to me. A reasonable level of respect would be appreciated, especially between Catholics. In view of that, I will say that I apologize if any of my own rhetoric was rude.

I do not defend all of what you quoted there. That is why I did not mention the likes of Savage and Coulter - because I do not defend them. But perhaps I should have made that more clear.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are both being satirical in their cases. Is the satire of a rough kind? Yes. But if you were to actually hear what was being said, then you could hear the tone indicating that it is purely satirical. I think that is missing when you read something which was originally in a spoken form.

In D’Souza’s case, I would submit, again, that he does not directly blame liberals for 9/11. By directly, I mean that he does not suggest that they actually carried it out themselves. As I said, his point is that liberal attitudes facilitated the 9/11 attacks occurring. And certainly he does not advocate violence against liberals.

Respectfully, I must disagree with you that conservative pundits are in any way responsible for causing this very tragic incident. They are not the same as the Imams you mention, I think, who actively promote violence.

 

[Christophorus72]

Michael Savage for starters. But you can see the list in my previous post. If you care too.

who is Michael Savage?

Explains that he didn’t like churches. Now why a liberal church that welcomes homosexuals…the killer says so himself.

I know alot of people who don’t like church. There’s even a church down the road with a sign that says “A church for people who don’t like church”. And yet, I don’t see any of them blowing people away. And the fact that he threatened to kill his ex-wife wife and himself a few years ago is proof he’s a violent man. But I suppose you can round up some quotes from Hannity, Rush, etc that states that those actions are acceptable as well

So fact that he specifically said he wanted to kill liberals and gays does not mean anything?

I notice you left out he wanted to kill his ex-wife and himself as well.

Yes. People like O’Reilly, Coulter, Savage and Rush should remember that

why would they? are they religious? have any of them read the Bible? Do you know that for a fact? Maybe you can find some quotes for us.

It’s always easier to blame someone else for our actions. But you would rather blame some person talking through a radio.

 

[Christophorus72]

Cuddy Duck, I do not think it is necessary that you should take such a nasty tone in responding to me.

he can always blame Hannity and Rush for that Apparently they can control people through the radio.

 

[Christophorus72]

answers.com/we
Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject: We made it to the lecture hall on time. We are planning a trip to Arizona this winter.

Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer: “How can we enter the professions and yet remain civilized human beings?” (Virginia Woolf).

But while we are on the subject of semantics tery “cause” versus “was a contributing factor in”. Then explore the difference between “cause” and “influence”.

:coffeeread:

:dancing: :dancing:

 

[Robert_Bay]

GENERAL REMINDER

The charity level on this thread is not to CAF standards. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other. Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are both being satirical in their cases. Is the satire of a rough kind? Yes.

I am sorry but I don’t find either of them funny or satircal. I also find them more than “rough”. I certainly wouldn’t encourage people to allow their children to listen to them.

But if you were to actually hear what was being said, then you could hear the tone indicating that it is purely satirical. I think that is missing when you read something which was originally in a spoken form.

I’m listening…
jp.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwqnkWdCJg
:nope: Still sounds very sinister to me. Talking about killing people on national radio like that is not funny.

In D’Souza’s case, I would submit, again, that he does not directly blame liberals for 9/11. By directly, I mean that he does not suggest that they actually carried it out themselves. As I said, his point is that liberal attitudes facilitated the 9/11 attacks occurring. And certainly he does not advocate violence against liberals.

He lays the responsibility at their feet.

It is as ridiculous as the accusations that Jewish people indirectly led to it because of the Us support of Israel during the Israeli/ Palestine conflict.

This book is ridiculous, provocative and downright dangerous.

Moreover it puts the guilt onto the victims (US citizens) and off the perpetrator (Al Quaeda).

Wahabism is reponsible. Period.

Respectfully, I must disagree with you that conservative pundits are in any way responsible for causing this very tragic incident.

Well, I think you have misunderstood my position. I did not talk about cause; I talked about influence.

They are not the same as the Imams you mention, I think, who actively promote violence

Actually, if you look at the quotes I provided, you might see that they very much resemble each other.

who is Michael Savage?

He is a conservative pundit and author. I quoted him previously. The report I quoted also explicitly mentions that the killer had his book in his apartment.

And he is not unheard of on this forum. For example…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=240543&highlight=Michael+Savage
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=255880&highlight=Michael+Savage

But I suppose you can round up some quotes from Hannity, Rush, etc that states that those actions are acceptable as well

As I said in my last post, I never quoted Hannity. (sigh)

I notice you left out he wanted to kill his ex-wife and himself as well.

No. I pointed out the latter, and the former was included in the linked article.

why would they? are they religious?

Yes.

have any of them read the Bible?

Yes.

Do you know that for a fact?

Yes.

Maybe you can find some quotes for us.

Wanna bet?:bounce:

It’s always easier to blame someone else for our actions. But you would rather blame some person talking through a radio.

I think I have answered that Strawman at least four times now, so I’ll save everybody time and refer you to the answers I have given previously.

God Bless.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

once again silence

 

[Christophorus72]

He is a conservative pundit and author. I quoted him previously. The report I quoted also explicitly mentions that the killer had his book in his apartment.

So you’ve got a non-Christian reading a book by a non-Christian. What exactly was your point?

And what other books were in his apartment? You going to blame those authors as well?

 

[Christophorus72]

and maybe since you’re so sure that Rush, Hannity, and Savage have read the Bible, perhaps you can enlighten us with which version they read.

 

[Steeltemplar]

once again silence

Well, it is just that I think we are at an impasse. After quite a bit of exposure to conservative punditry, I do not agree that they had any influence in this crime. They simply do not actually support violent, criminal actions.

But “I say, you say” does not work very well as a discussion.

I would be interested in your thoughts, however, on Professor Ward Churchill - a very liberal professor who actually has instructed people to murder.

 

[Cuddy_Duck]

So you’ve got a non-Christian reading a book by a non-Christian. What exactly was your point?

And what other books were in his apartment? You going to blame those authors as well?

On the first page of this thread I posted an excerpt from the story. It might save time if you read the thread.

Inside the house, officers found “Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder” by radio talk show host Michael Savage, “Let Freedom Ring” by talk show host Sean Hannity, and “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television talk show host Bill O’Reilly.

And once again, not blame for *causing *but blame for influence

I would be interested in your thoughts, however, on Professor Ward Churchill - a very liberal professor who actually has instructed people to murder.

People like Ward Churchill is EXACTLY what I am talking about: public speakers should not incite hate, dehumanise their opponents or encourage vilence, even as a “joke”.

Ward Churchill may be on the left and some of those I quoted earlier on the right but that is besdies the point. Using a platform to spread animosity WILL have n effect. Not to you or me perhaps, but to some nut, sooner or later. That is the consequence of spreading such evil sentiments.

Indeed if some solider were to “frag” his senior officer and then to be fpound in posesseion of a book by Ward Curchill then I have no doubt what many people’s reaction woud be.

But that is hypothetical, unless you know of an actual case.

In THIS case a killer attacked people becasue their political point of view and had literature that incites hatred and violence for liberal thinking people as well as homosexuals.

Are those speakers guilty of causing this murder? No. Are they guilty of spreading hatred? Yes.

Whether from the mouth of an Iamam, a conservative pundit or a moonbat professor, it is wrong.

 

[FindTruth7]

I wonder these people had any influence?

WARNING: very shocking.

Pat Robertson

“Oh, you’re one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig.Savage Nation”

While Savage angers me alot sometimes–many times, I think he had a right to be angry at this caller. There’s more to it than meets the eye. But yes, he could’ve spoken better.

Glenn Beck

Michael Savage

Rush Limbaugh

Dinesh D’Souza

from THE ENEMY AT HOME

Anne Coulter

ETA:
knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/

That would be a yes, then.

 

[Christophorus72]

Not to you or me perhaps, but to some nut, sooner or later. That is the consequence of spreading such evil sentiments.

exactly, the guy was nuts. how many normal people threaten to kill themselves and their wife? that’s the difference between this guy and a normal person who hears these things. no, they should not be said, but they are, on both sides. if this guy was a child, fine, I might bite on your argument, and I’d probably even agree with you. this guy was 58 years old. he should know right from wrong, no matter who “influenced” him.

 

[Bennie_P]

What is sad about this story is people/ the press are depicting the guy as anti-liberal, when in fact he is just as liberal, well in reality more so then those he attacked. How liberal can one get when you think you know better then society and its norms against harming others with viloence.?

Those that try to comdemn conservative radio talk show host as the fuel for this hedious crime need to listen to Air America if they really want to hear hate speech. Thank goodness it is no longer aired in my area.

As to liberalism, it is a sin and the man which acted in this violent manner is a liberal to the upmost sense.

LIBERALISM IS A SIN
Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because (22) within it are comprehended all heresies. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.
Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order, because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general.
More

By this definition on how liberalism is a sin, presents the idea that the shooter himself is a liberal and was controlled by liberal ideas, even though he claims to oppose and hate liberals. He broke several of God’s commandments, as most liberals are willing to do.