The “Christian” right strikes again.
On August 16, Anderson delivered a sermon titled “Why I Hate Barack Obama.”
In it, Anderson admitted he prays for the president’s death.
It is a position he reiterated Sunday.
“If you want to know how I’d like to see Obama die, I’d like him to die of natural causes,” said Anderson. “I don’t want him to be a martyr, we don’t need another holiday. I’d like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer.”
The sermon so incensed Bill Demski he traveled from his home in Glendale to picket Anderson’s 10:30 a.m. Sunday morning service in Tempe.
“A man of the cloth wants to kill the president, how sick can you get,” asked Demski.
Anderson and Demski: one of them is a chicken shit, and the other is not.
I follow David Niewert (over at C&L) regarding the odourous venting of the Christianist Eliminationists.
This dude’s not even ‘Christian’…Where is Christ’s messages if Love and Inclusion with “Why I hate Barack Obama”??
the Secret Service needs to keep an eye on this sociopath–he’ll be inciting his ‘flock’ to violent action before long (He’s already got them showing up at political meetings visibly armed)
This guy (Anderson) is freaking scary. What’s disturbing is that I actually felt _bad_ for Anderson once: he was the victim of an over-zealous border patrol beating. Now he’s just full of hate.
If I believed in a god, I’d be praying that someone clubs Anderson again.
Where were these people and their righteous indignation when Bush was sending US citizens to jail for life without charges?
Or gospel, apparently.
Yeah, they are what we thought they are.
“Where were these people and their righteous indignation when Bush was sending US citizens to jail for life without charges?”
I’ve been asking myself that same question. They only possible answer that comes to mind is that the masses are easily manipulated.
Are you worried then that Christ is going to answer this guy’s prayer because he keeps praying so hard for it?
Are you worried then that Christ is going to answer this guy’s prayer because he keeps praying so hard for it?
Is that a real question?
Somehow I doubt it. Just in case it is, though, my answer is: Of course not. If you start searching right now for the Biblical passage where Jesus advises praying for the death of you enemies, you’ll still be searching upon the arrival of the Apocalypse.
Well he just guaranteed himself free government surveillance for the next 3-8 years. They will keep tabs on him rather closely, and his flock of dumb angry men who cannot get laid. Phones, email, people attending his little strip mall church, all will be monitored and logged.
Yes it’s a real question, Quaker. If one of you guys on here says to someone else who he disagrees with, ‘I hope you die’ or something similar, which they have many times, how is that different than this yahoo praying that Obama dies of natural causes?
How is it any different that Jaim can tell Jay Tea or Frank that he hopes they die than if a pastor prays that someone dies? You must think that his status as a man of the cloth increases the chances that his prayers would be answered or something. Is that the case with you?
Dennis
Pretending to be obtuse isn’t as clever as you think it is.
@Dennis – Let me get this straight? You’re actually defending this clown. Am I right on this?
Ignorance is bliss.
If one of you guys on here says to someone else who he disagrees with, ‘I hope you die’ or something similar, which they have many times, how is that different than this yahoo praying that Obama dies of natural causes?
The man you call “this yahoo” fashions himself as a religious teacher–a minister. Some people turn to ministers for moral and ethical guidance.
(So far, I’m unaware of anyone seeking similar guidance here in our little clubhouse.)
Of course, this touches upon one of the many reasons I call myself a Quaker. That’s a discussion best left for another time.
No, I’m not defending him. I’m asking how you think anyone is harmed by someone praying for yours or anyone’s demise and why it is you think this guy deserves your strict attention.
So? There are all sorts of weird people who call themselves that. They’re a dime a dozen. Barack Obama followed one of them for twenty years. Praised him. Dedicated a book to him. He had a lot bigger following than this guy does. Do you think Obama’s pastor never prayed for the demise of George Bush or Dick Cheney?
So? There are all sorts of weird people who call themselves that. They’re a dime a dozen.
And they’re greatly influential in the lives of their followers.
Do you think Obama’s pastor never prayed for the demise of George Bush or Dick Cheney?
I have no reason to think so. Do you?
Again, so what? So what if there are a hundred people in his congregation praying for Obama to get brain cancer?
Does that increase the odds that it will happen or something?
Does that increase the odds that it will happen or something?
It increases the odds that a misguided soul may believe he’s “doing the Lord’s work” by helping Mr. Obama into the afterlife.
I don’t know anything about your religious experience, Dennis, but I can tell you with certainty that a great number of Americans place great trust in their ministers to interpret the will of The Divine.
Pastor Anderson is making a name for himself at the risk of gravely misleading his flock.
Dennis, we don’t really know if Obama’s pastor ever prayed for Bush’s death, but that wouldn’t make sense anyway, since the VP would’ve been worse.
In his reign, I never hoped for Bush to die, I only hoped that he would do the right thing, and he ALWAYS disappointed.
When the best the troll can come up with is to try and generate speculative parity with the left, or worse, try and diminish the appalling behavior, I have found the best response to be a derisive snort.
Jody, I don’t think you’ve ever made an intelligent comment about anything, so a derisive snort for you would be an upgrade.
You must think that his status as a man of the cloth increases the chances that his prayers would be answered or something. Is that the case with you?
Yeah, sure, yup. Absolutely. Definitely the case.
No, I’m not defending him.
First of all, yes you are. Again. Defending the indefensible.
I’m asking how you think anyone is harmed by someone praying for yours or anyone’s demise and why it is you think this guy deserves your strict attention.
Well, when you yap your piehole in front of a bunch of like-minded idiots, you increase the chances that some like-minded idiot, his small unused brain all chock full of Glen Beck and Pastor Anderson bile, might just go out and take a shot at the Pres with a rental van and a few drums of Ammonium Nitrate.
If it weren’t for traitors like him and Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly, we wouldn’t have to think about something terrible happening. But we do, and asshats like this are not helping.
It’s gonna make the Clinton years look like the Gilded age.
Jody, I don’t think you’ve ever made an intelligent comment about anything,
Then you’re not reading carefully enough. The “speculative parity” thing was right on the mark.
I could make the case that this pastor is being irrational too, in that the VP would be far worse.
Fair enough, Wilfredo. Plenty of people did hope for Bush to die, and Cheney too. I’ve read hundreds of comments on liberal blogs over the years hoping for something bad to happen to both those guys. I didn’t give any of them much attention.
Apparently, neither did many people here.
Yeah Quaker, it doesn’t surprise me that he’d miss the point. After all, his entire modus operandi for the entire thread has been to miss the point about the seriousness of religious leaders calling for the death of political ones.
I can only assume he’s deliberately trying to muddy the waters. The only people stupid enough to actually believe that kind of tripe don’t troll forums. They’re petrified that the magical boxes of lights and buttons might steal their souls.
Plenty of people did hope for Bush to die, and Cheney too. I’ve read hundreds of comments on liberal blogs over the years hoping for something bad to happen to both those guys. I didn’t give any of them much attention.
Apparently, neither did many people here.
Some other guy somewhere on a blog I read did something just as bad some other time and we didn’t yell about it, so it’s hypocritical for us to kick up a fuss about Pastor Anderson.
Is that your position?
No, Quaker, my position has been one of curiosity as to why the concern such that we get an update that this pastor is again praying for Obama’s death. It’s your answers that are hypocritical.
my position has been one of curiosity as to why the concern such that we get an update that this pastor is again praying for Obama’s death.
Asked and answered.
It’s your answers that are hypocritical.
Huh?
Much as it annoys me to do so, I’ve got to side with Dennis on this one.
There are clear and important distinctions to be made between an outright threat (”I’m going to kill so-and-so”), a direct appeal (”I think you should kill so-and-so”), and a prayer (”may the FSM rain down searing-hot marinara on so-and-so”). The first must be responded to in a serious way, since it indicates intent. The second may, after the fact, be evidence of complicity, but until a crime is committed it’s really nothing more than one person expressing an opinion. The third, prayer, falls under the same category as curses, imprecations, hopes, wishes and tantrums: it’s between the speaker and whatever Imaginary Friend he or she has created to play with in the big scary universe where things don’t always work out the way you want them to.
Speaking of distinctions to be drawn, there’s another very clear one between support/defense of a given statement and support/defense of the right to make that statement. The ACLU understands the difference, which is why they’ll defend the right of the KKK to assemble and talk trash about “mud races”. I think, for example, that Randall Terry’s street theater piece featuring a caricature of Obama whipping a white woman while she calls him “Massa” is repugnant, vile, contemptible and racist; I also think that he has every right to perform it.
The argument Duros makes, that “some like-minded idiot … might” do something terrible because Anderson (or whoever) makes his pathetic little prayer public, is familiar and dangerous and without merit. I understand why this argument gets made: you don’t want anyone to get hurt, and you don’t want to have to wait until after the fact to punish people for hurting others. So you try to strike at what seems like the source of the violence. I believe that would be a pre-emptive strike. Hmm…where have we heard that phrase before?
It doesn’t work. It’s indefensible. It leads to censorship, which only drives hateful speech underground where it festers all the more effectively. If you want to keep the president safe, if you want to prevent the death of another George Tiller, then let these assholes shout to the rooftops. Let the world see how disgusting their ideas are. Rebut their claims, destroy their arguments, laugh in their ugly faces.
What you don’t do is allow them to claim the moral high ground.
Has a liberal pastor ever prayed for the death of Bush? I would be very surprised if such a thing ever happened, and I would be even more surprised if the likes of Dennis would rush to their defense if they had.
By the way, what the hell has Obama ever done to merit this kind of treatment? It’s insane.
No, Quaker, my position has been one of curiosity as to why the concern such that we get an update that this pastor is again praying for Obama’s death.
Boy Dennis sure is cranking out the stupid today, isn’t he?
@Felix Helix — I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone is advocating censorship or that the pastor should be locked up (although it would be irresponsible for the secret service not to look into the matter and keep an eye on the situation). What people ARE saying is that it’s incredibly reckless for a pastor to be saying things like this to his congregation. And depending on the denomination, it could easily get him kicked out (although something tells me that won’t be happening in this case).
Pastors can be very influential to some people. You can’t say that it’s perfectly okay for someone like that to say “I hope God strikes the president dead and I don’t care how it happens…” That does seem like a borderline call to violence. I don’t remember many people on the left literally wishing that Bush would die, but even if there were you can’t compare this to some nobody commenting on a blog or shouting at a rally.
If you want to keep the president safe, if you want to prevent the death of another George Tiller, then let these assholes shout to the rooftops. Let the world see how disgusting their ideas are. Rebut their claims, destroy their arguments, laugh in their ugly faces.
Isn’t that what we’re doing?
What you don’t do is allow them to claim the moral high ground.
That’s why Pastor Anderson’s sermon is reckless and dangerous. As a minister, by definition many of his parishoners grant him the moral high ground.
How does one attempt to deny him the high ground without calling attention to his act and speaking against it?
I posted that last one before I saw Felix’s, which outstips even Dennis in the stupid sweepstakes. Felix, get back to us when Anderson is arrested. The notion that criticism, which is what we are engaging in here, is the same as censorship or criminal prosecution is the argument that the rightwingers trot out whenever we call them on their bullshit. Are you sure you’re not a right-winger?
It’s indefensible. It leads to censorship: Does it escape you that you are committing the exact same sin that you accuse us of committing: doing something that might lead to a bad thing (here censorship) before the bad thing has occurred.
I have no interest in censoring Anderson. I personally hope that he continues to spout his antithesis-of-Christian garbage because our response to it flushes crypto-loonies like Dennis out of their “mr. moderate” posturing.
It hasn’t even been two years since my own mother died from cancer. It was hell on her and on our family. I wouldn’t wish such a death on my worst enemy. Anyone who does so needs a steel-toed boot up their ass – repeatedly.
Praying for the death of a political adversary isn’t exclusive to Anderson, people. Have we forgotten Falwell and Robertson’s wanting God to give chest pains and other medical “messages” to Ruth Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens, to convince them to step down?
The religious right needs to be carefully surveilled!
I don’t think anyone will need to call Color For Change, this guy is a nutcase and his congregation will || should abandon him.
I bet Pastor Steven has signed up with the “9/12 project”
So?
Yeah, what’s the worst that could happen? As one Dittohead put it:
How quickly some willfully forget.
Are you worried then that Christ is going to answer this guy’s prayer because he keeps praying so hard for it?
No, but Mammon might.
Also, this guy has called for the execution of homosexuals.
Oliver, why do you have “Christian” surrounded by quotation marks? There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts Anderson’s prayer of wanting Obama to die, as long as it’s not from an act of murder (this is obviously what Anderson meant with the “martyr” part of his statement). It’s perfectly consistent to be a “good” Christian and still pray that prayer…and that sure doesn’t say much for Christianity, now, does it?
Who would Jesus shoot?
Oliver, why do you have “Christian” surrounded by quotation marks? There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts Anderson’s prayer of wanting Obama to die
Except that little bit about “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
So Dennis, in one breath you say:
‘Barack Obama followed one of them for twenty years. Praised him. Dedicated a book to him. He had a lot bigger following than this guy does.’
Yet in another you claim:
‘Again, so what? So what if there are a hundred people in his congregation praying for Obama to get brain cancer?’
So which is it? Either Rev. Wright is an evil, traitorous influence on Obama or he should be ignored. Why do you suppose the Right wing made him out to be the harbinger of the Apocalypse if he didn’t amount to an iota of interest in the life of the President?
‘Plenty of people did hope for Bush to die, and Cheney too. I’ve read hundreds of comments on liberal blogs over the years hoping for something bad to happen to both those guys. I didn’t give any of them much attention.’
And how many of them were Ministers Dennis, preaching to a congregation of supposedly like minded Christians?
jrfunkenstein is right. You’re such an idiot, Dennis, if you think a commentator on a blog is the same thing as a minister.
Can you imagine the moral teachings Republicans must impart to their children?
“It’s OK to spew hatred and possibly be arrested for threatening the life of the president dear, because once I remember hearing about someone telling someone else that a mean nasty Dem blogger supposedly wished death on George Bush.”
I’m not at liberty to stay current with the flow of comments, so please forgive the length of time between my responses.
Wilbur, I’m quite sure that I’m not a right-winger. Right-wingers, for one thing, don’t often stick up for the rights of people they disagree with.
And I’m certainly not anti-criticism; I wrote that people of good conscience should “rebut their claims, destroy their arguments, laugh in their ugly faces.” Yes, some of that is happening here. That’s a good thing.
Dennis asked a fair question: how is anyone harmed by someone else’s prayers, and why should we care about them? Duros responded that stupid people might use those prayers as an excuse to do harm to others. My response to that response is that stupid people don’t need excuses. People who want to hurt other people will find a way to do it regardless of what anyone says or doesn’t say.
Let me try to be clearer about this. I think we should criticize Pastor Anderson for his statements because they are mean-spirited, small-minded, ugly and contemptible things to say. I also think we should be very careful NOT to criticize him because what he says will supposedly drive one of his flock to commit murder. Do you see the difference? The words themselves are bad enough. Don’t make the mistake of condemning the possible actions that might ensue as a result if someone decides to interpret them as coded commands of some kind.
Forget the rancid ideology for a second, and consider how this kind of thinking played out during the McCarthy era.
This is the part that really got me shaking my head, though. Duros wrote: If it weren’t for traitors like him and Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly, we wouldn’t have to think about something terrible happening.
Guess what? You never did have to think about something terrible happening, and you still don’t. Guess what else? Something terrible might happen anyway, and always might have, regardless of who’s starring in the latest Punch and Judy.
Don’t make the mistake of condemning the possible actions that might ensue
Okay, should I also apply that to this statement?
Forget the rancid ideology for a second, and consider how this kind of thinking played out during the McCarthy era.
Thanks for your concern, Felix.
Yes, Wilbur, that’s the idea. I think you misunderstand the analogy.
During the McCarthy era, HUAC condemned people based on suppositions about what Communist affiliation or perceived Communist sympathies might lead to, i.e. treason and the downfall of America.
If your professed gratitude for my comments is actually an attempt at oh-so-subtle humor by saddling me with the “concern troll” epithet, I say to you: meh.
Like I said, Felix, get back to us when Anderson is arrested, or called before a congressional committee, or forced to sign an Obama loyalty oath, or any of the other things that, you know, actually happened under McCarthy.
Till then, I will continue in my belief that an influential pastor, whose words encourage his congregants to do stuff like carry loaded assault rifles to Obama rallies, is a greater threat to a civil society than the minimal likelihood that criticism of said pastor for said encouragement will have some chilling effect on free speech. And I won’t be shy in saying so.
As for concern trolling, I don’t know whether you’re a concern troll or a useful idiot. Either way it’s pretty tedious.
These have to be different two different Wilbur’s because these two statements are much too conflicted to be from the same person.
Can you two guys alter your names slightly so we know which Wilbur said what? Otherwise it gets too confusing.
Wilbur: [G]et back to us when Anderson is arrested, or…
Oh, so we should wait to point out hypocritical disregard for First Amendment rights until McCarthyism actually sets in?
I didn’t say we were there. I said it’s a place we’ve gone before and could go again if we’re not vigilant about defending the First Amendment, regardless of what is being said. I bother to make this point not only because I believe in the supreme importance of the First Amendment to keeping this country free, but also because I think those of us on the left who get lazy about our criticism of the right undermine the strength of our own arguments. Like I said — I don’t want to give them any moral high ground.
The right is constantly going back to this well. Glenn Beck just went there yesterday, insinuating that because Van Jones had (or, OMG, has!) Communist sympathies, he’s somehow part of a “quiet revolution” to transform Our America into an unrecognizable socialist gulag. Or something. Which I’m sure Mr. Beck would say is a far greater threat to civil society than a law-abiding parishioner peacefully exercising his Constitutional right to bring an AK-47 to a presidential rally. Mr. Beck is an idiot and an ideologue who will say anything that seems convenient to support his prejudiced view of reality. I can dismiss him far more easily than I can dismiss progressives who pull this kind of schtick.
As for tedium, I find an echo chamber of “Yeah, what he said” far more tedious than an actual debate. That’s why I don’t post here more often — if my only response is a nod of agreement, I don’t see the point in making it. And while I usually find the arguments of Dennis, Jay Tea, Joaquin, Frank and others to be specious at best, at least they’re presenting alternative points of view.
It’s pretty sad when any divergent opinion gets attacked for being the work of a “troll” or an “idiot”. One might think you could debate the opinion on its merits, rather than insulting the person who expressed it. One might be wrong.
I am not sure why you put “Christian” in quotes there. Nutty, insane spiteful people are just following the Bible.
The “Christians” are the ones who sugar coat the nasty Bible for 21st century evolved social standards and pretend that it’s something nice.
As a minister, by definition many of his parishoners grant him the moral high ground.
Kind of the whole point of an altar, isn’t it?
Mr Helix, you usually post thoughtful stuff here. I don’t know why you cling to this position. This is not a First Amendment issue.
For civilians, who are not government officials, to say, “That guy ought not to have said that,” is NOT the same as saying, “That guy ought to be prevented from saying that,” or even, “That guy ought to be arrested for saying that.”
No one here has the power, and I doubt anyone here has the inclination, to say the latter two statements. They are only saying the first.
And they are right. He ought not to have said it. Period.
Oh, so we should wait to point out hypocritical disregard for First Amendment rights until McCarthyism actually sets in?
Oh, so we should wait until one of nutty Anderson’s nutty followers follows through on what Anderson said to express our disapproval of what Anderson said?
Felix, there’s a light bulb dying to light up in you head. Let it!
Wilbur,
You said you hope Anderson keeps talking this way.
Whatever his guilt is in saying what he said, you’d be sharing in that guilt. If something drastic happens as a result of his prayers, you said you wanted him to keep praying for it to happen.
Which is it my friend, do you want him to keep it up, or do you not? Or is this all really just political gamesmanship on your part?
Bruce, Wilbur, I’m not making the argument you think I’m making.
I have no problem with criticism of Anderson’s statements. For that matter, I have no problem with criticism of any statement. Yay criticism! Yay disapproval! You want to see me do it, too? Here goes: I disapprove of what Anderson said. I think he ought not to have said it. I think it’s creepy for a preacher to stand at a pulpit and wish death on anybody, and though I’m not a Christian, it seems like a perversion of Christian ideals to do so. Eeew. Ick. And so forth.
The problem I have is with criticism that is based on what these icky statements are supposedly going to lead to, i.e. actual violence. Yeah, you can make that kind of criticism too if you want — go First Amendment! — I just find it totally without merit.
I don’t see anyone here advocating censorship; I do see people implying that saying “I pray the President dies” is bad because it might result in the President actually dying. And if I believed in a Bad Santa God who listens to imprecatory prayers and doles out thunderbolt strikes in response, I might believe that, too. But I don’t believe that, and I also don’t believe that if a nutjob tries to kill the President, anyone but the nutjob should be held responsible. Certainly not some other guy who voiced some lame prayer.
No one’s advocating censorship — yet — but that’s where that kind of implication leads, eventually. Because once you accept the premise that a person’s words can be responsible for another person’s actions, it’s very easy to justify putting “reasonable” limits on words in order to prevent bad actions from happening.
Do I understand correctly?
You don’t believe that a preacher urging the death of the President might lead a person to act on those wishes.
You do believe that criticism of such statements might lead a government to impose censorship?
Extraordinary.
Quaker, do you believe that a preacher urging God to damn America might lead a person who happens to be in a position to do just that to act on those wishes?
You nailed me there, Dennis. I do actually think my thinking is consistent on the issue, but my expression of it was careless and inaccurate. Here’s what I really think:
I don’t really want Anderson to keep saying that sort of thing, both because it is potentially dangerous and because I find it really distasteful, like chartreuse shag carpeting that a wet sheepdog’s been sleeping on for ten years.
_But_ I don’t want him to be censored either, or jailed or otherwise shut up by force legal or illegal. He should be allowed to spew his hateful antithesis-of-Christian filth. I believe in a nearly exception-free interpretation of the first amendment. But because we -must- allow our fellow citizens the freedom to be stupid, it is incumbent upon us to be vigilant against any unpleasant consequences that may arise from that stupidity. Part of that vigilance is calling out such bastards publicly, which is what Felix seems to object to for some vague and unfortunate reason.
And, just as beautiful daisies grow from the rottenest cowshit, there are some good things that come from the freedom that ratfuckers like Anderson enjoy as a gift from their Creator: one such good thing is that folks like you speak up in their defense and we know better where the turkeys roost.
_That_ is what I meant to say. But credit where credit is due: score one for Dennis.
Quaker, do you believe that a preacher urging God to damn America might lead a person who happens to be in a position to do just that to act on those wishes?
How can someone “damn America”? That makes no sense.
I think the guy’s a sick mf’-er, Wilbur, and I’ve spent a lot of time in churches over my lifetime but you wouldn’t catch me dead in that guy’s church. I think there is the possibility that one of his congregants might take a shot at someone political, but it’s a very small possibility, and everything you guys do here to denounce it, does nothing to lessen that possibility. I don’t believe that’s what you’re trying to do. What you’re trying to do is what several of you have done, and that is to say conservatives embrace these kinds of people. What you said I believe you meant, that you actually enjoy it when nutcases like this guy make spectacles of themselves. I don’t defend him and nothing I’ve said indicates that I did, so you’re lying when you accuse me of that. I just ask why it is that you soil your drawers over what some asshole prays about. The only answer you’ve given that has any truth to it is the one you candidly admitted that you hope guys like this go on doing it.
Please don’t give me any credit for pointing out the obvious. That’s almost worse than the damning with feint praise that Felix Helix twice gave me, even though I did agree with him.
Zython, I’d answer that, but you’re more of a lowlife than Pastor Anderson. At least he’s honest about who he is.
Zython, I’d answer that, but you’re more of a lowlife than Pastor Anderson. At least he’s honest about who he is.
So you don’t have an answer? Gotcha.
You’re the one who needs an honesty check, Dennis. When a bum starts peeing in a drinking fountain and people gather round and start giving him hell for peeing in the drinking fountain and you come up and say “hey, what’s the big deal, it’s not like anyone’s been hurt yet by the bum peeing in the drinking fountain,” then guess what: you’re defending the bum. You are objectively pro-bum-pee.
You are embracing Anderson, just like you embrace Palin, no matter how loony the garbage is that comes out of her mouth, because you think she riles us up into a frenzy. Maybe you do think Anderson’s a sick mo’fo with some part of your head, but a bigger part of your head is thinkin’ “he’s a useful mo’fo’.”
Don’t forget, Wilbur, he’ll then point out a jaywalker and call him a menace to society.
Quaker: You don’t believe that a preacher urging the death of the President might lead a person to act on those wishes[?]
No more than listening to the Talking Heads might lead a person to burn down the house.
You do believe that criticism of such statements might lead a government to impose censorship?
Way to strip the nuance out of my argument. I believe that criticizing any statement based on the totally hypothetical possibility that it might convince someone to commit a violent act is the kind of faulty reasoning that enables people to justify censorship.
Wilbur: [B]ecause we -must- allow our fellow citizens the freedom to be stupid, it is incumbent upon us to be vigilant against any unpleasant consequences that may arise from that stupidity.
Any unpleasant consequences that may arise? That’s a whole lot of vigilance, man. And considering the vast quantity of stupid out there, I don’t see how you’re going to have time to do anything else ever again.
Part of that vigilance is calling out such bastards publicly, which is what Felix seems to object to for some vague and unfortunate reason.
(shrug) I guess it goes without saying that I find my own objections clear and reasonable, right? I suppose they might be confusing if you don’t read them carefully, but I really do think I’m being quite specific. I am all for calling the bastards out; it’s one of the main reasons I enjoy reading Oliver and watching Maddow. However, it’s not only not helpful but actually detrimental to call them out based on specious reasoning. Particularly when that same flavor of specious reasoning is so frequently employed by the very bastards we rail against.
No more than listening to the Talking Heads might lead a person to burn down the house.
Someone’s been taking bogus analogy lessons from Save Farris.
Look Felix, I promise to stand with you shoulder-to-shoulder on the barricades if the thought police come after either Pastor Anderson or David Byrne. Till then, I will say what I think which is that it was all downhill for the Heads after ‘77 and that it’s disturbing that a supposedly Christian pastor would wish a painful death upon the president, especially when his followers are in the habit of carrying assault rifles to political debates.
I totally agree with you that it’s a disturbing statement to make. As far as your Heads assessment, though, I can’t get behind that — too much great music. I’d put the shark-jumping at ‘86.
Way to strip the nuance out of my argument. I believe that criticizing any statement based on the totally hypothetical possibility that it might convince someone to commit a violent act is the kind of faulty reasoning that enables people to justify censorship.
Well yeah. Stripping out the nuance is the only way to get to the nub of the matter. You’re arguing that speech has influence over action except when it doesn’t.
If you believe that “criticizing any statement based on the totally hypothetical possibility that it might enable” censorship, you’re hoist by your own rhetorical petard.
Quaker: Stripping out the nuance is the only way to get to the nub of the matter.
Got that from Sean Hannity, did you?
I’m arguing that while people can choose to be persuaded by what someone else says* and make a decision, based on that speech, to take action, the responsibility for the choice, decision and action rest solely with the person who makes them. The person who merely said something is responsible only for having said it — not for how other people interpret it or take action based on it.
I see where you’re going, though: if speaker A can’t be held responsible for the deeds of actor B, how can making a bad argument (speech) be responsible for censorship (action)? Well, of course, it can’t. People who censor are responsible for censorship, while people who argue in favor of it are merely stating an opinion. That’s their prerogative, and yours if you choose to take it. I choose to make a different argument, because I don’t think bad arguments should go unchallenged.
* I admit there is some gray area here when it comes to brainwashing, a la Manson. Usually, though, that kind of verbal persuasion carries with it a threat of violence, which is persuasive in a totally different way. For example, a person saying to you “I think you should kill the President” is making a verbal argument that you’re free to disregard; if they’re saying that while pointing a gun at your head, that’s a totally different argument.
In the old testement God required people to be killed, casted out of familes and camps because there was no way for spirits (sin) to be removed from the human soul. In the new testement, with the death of Christ, killing of people is no longer required since spirits (sin) can be removed by baptism, fasting and prayer. Hate the spirits, not the man.