Someone, Please Stop This Nonsense
For several months, several of us on Vox Nova have pointed out the belligerent, violent developments spreading across the United States. There has been an effort to incite hate, and with that hate, violence. It continues.
Not only have we seen death threats being given to senators for passing health care reform, Sarah Palin seems to be fueling such a sentiment. It is one thing to say “let’s get our people in charge,” it’s another to do this:
This was put on her facebook page yesterday. Even if Sarah does not really intend any violence from this, it is clear this kind of rhetoric fuels it. How can anyone who claims themselves to be pro-life come out embrace the way of death?
Glenn Beck, however, is not so surprising. He already has said he is not for social justice. But, it is clear, he is also egging on the violence, as he suggests an armed insurrection.
Please, for the good of everyone, speak out against this now before it is too late. You support a culture of life? Prove it. Speak out against the ways of death.
Comments are closed.
Tell you what, I’ll work on telling people on the right to stop the stupid threats if you will publish and work on stopping the people on the on the left. And please don’t tell me there aren’t similar threats that are and have come from the left. Your one sided reporting is very tiring.
Brad
I’m not “of the left.”
Speak out against the ways of death.
Would that include imputing the worst possible motives to one’s political opponents? Strikes me that is exactly what you are doing here. Or does the familiar notion of targeting politicians for electoral defeat offend your PC sensibilities so much that you actually see it as “an effort to incite hate, violence”?
Ron
Yes, when there are death threats being given, putting up a face book entry with targets on various states is not something to be concerned about. I get it. The fact is the “targeting” rhetoric is bad, using pictures to do so is even worse. This isn’t a pro-life action. This is an encouragement of the ways of death. As for motives, read the post. Even if she doesn’t have the motive for people to go out and do something, that rhetoric in the middle of this environment will be an encouragement for others to read it in a new way. And, whether you like it or not, it is using the symbols of death. Deal with it.
A pro-life way of engaging politicians you disagree with is not putting them in target sights. Period.
After Sarah Palin spent a year telling people the government was going to kill their grandmothers, and refusing to back down even after her error was pointed out, after the Republican congressmen accusing Bart Stupack of being a “Baby killer” and after all the other claims of violence this bill would do to the American people, I think the conservative movement, the Tea Party and the Republican party have some responsibility for this.
If Brad can tell me which Democratic congressmen yelled out murderer to a Republican who supports the death penalty, I will be glad to condemn him or her. If someone could point out which left wing group tied to the Democratic Party published a Republican’s home address and encouraged people to stop by and express anger, I will call on the party to disassociate itself from that group.
There are clearly liberal groups that have crossed the line, and Democrats and other liberals have condemned them for it. But the claim of “they all do it” does not hold water here.
Have Democrats used the analogy of “war” “battle” “fight” and “Target?”
I’m pretty sure they have. These terms, in politics, sports, and business, are too casually used. Says very little if anything about which group is better.
It’s really interesting to see so-called pro-lifers take a “so-what” attitude towards death threats and violent rhetoric.
The Left passes laws forcing persons to buy health insurance at the point of a gun but they themselves object to threats of violence. How odd.
I’m letting all the comments through for people to see. The demons are being brought out to light.
Henry writes:
Brad
I’m not “of the left.”
But I am of the left, Brad. A Leftist with Shachtmanite tendencies. And I think I’ve honored your call.
I am too young to have been around when my political forebearers in the late ’40s did the heavy lifting — expelling Communist dominated unions from the CIO, forming the liberal, anti-Communist Americans for Democratic Action andthe New York State Liberal Party, and cleaning up the American Veterans Committee, etc.
That was the great work of Walter Reuther, Jim Carey, Phillip Murray, Msgr. Charles Owen Rice, Gus Tyler, Hubert Humphrey, Phillip and Young Bob La Follette, David Dubinsky, Jay Lovestone, Sidney Hook, Tom Kahn, Bayard Rustin and A. Phillip Randolph.
But in the 1980s, as we sat around in planning meetings for a march or protest and someone would say “oh, look, over 100 groups are supporting our march”, I was the jerk who would pick up the piece of paper they were listed on, eye-ball it, and announce “This group, that group and this third group — they’re out. Nice sounding names but they are Communist front groups. We are not debating this further.”
Some of us, Brad, have paid our dues.
As a pro-lifer and a Christian, I condemn all threats of violence and all acts of violence directed at another person. Such threats of violence, acts of violence, or acts inciting others to violence against a person, are never acceptable methods of political discourse.
Now whether Palin’s and Beck’s rhetoric constitutes an actual threat of violence against another person is, in my opinion, a different issue.
Henry:
I think there’s a difference between saying one is ok with the language and simply pointing out that this is an all too common occurrence. Of course death threats ought to be condemned and war not made light of as is occurring here, but the Democratic narrative that this is somehow unique to the GOP & the Tea Party is nonsense. Both sides have fringes that engage in this kind of behavior. Truthers and Birthers; Neo-Nazis and ELF.
I didn’t see outrage about the threats against Ann Coulter. Mmmmmh. Sounds like a double standard to me.
We have been putting up with violent protests since the 60s, so go cry somewhere else.
Death threats to Ann Coulter are wrong. Death threats are wrong, period.
It is sad to see that the country that was able to
endure the lure of fascism and served the world as a beacon of freedom during the dark days of WWII is falling for the hollow faux outrage of rich pampered folks like Palin and alike.
Sure it does cost money and societal resources to extend health care coverage to all.
But it is the right thing to do for each other.
Lets get real who benefits from the prior status quo – we as a society and as paying insured picked up the tab for those who claim that they are free to not pay anyway – I ‘love’ the teabaggers and rich hanger ons like Rush, Palin and alike – selfish people really- they do not want to pay taxes but are very ready to stick us normal people with the tab – they very much want the military – the roads – the bridges etc . but they somehow think this can all be done by running around telling people that they can have it all and not pay a single dime for it.
I trust that good Americans yet one more time can withstand the lure of these modern day demagogues.
UGH… once again… Henry is trying to address this issue as a Catholic not as a Democrat or a Republican. Why is that so hard for people to get? As a VN contributor I’m a registered independent. My biggest concern right now is agrarianism… I’m concerned that farmers be treated fairly and not destroyed by big agribusiness nor Wal-Mart. I hardly see how that makes me a liberal, a leftist, or many of the other things I and others at VN often get called by fellow sisters and brothers in the Catholic Church.
Rhetoric is violent! (Just read the Letter of James 3:1-18). I personally don’t understand how any pundit or politician who calls themselves a Christian can say half of the negative things that they say. Then again, I can’t believe how much foul stuff is said throughout the blogosphere by Christians. Do you know that we often get comments here on VN that are tantamount to “hate-mail” by other Catholics? It’s unbelievable!
Moreover, Jesus tells us not to call sisters and brothers, “fools!” We’ve got to be very careful with our rhetoric–especially as Christians… “what comes out of the mouth…” says a lot about a person’s inner-condition.
I think what Henry is saying here is very important and the critique should be applied to the whole country–left, right, and center. Jesus teaches us in the Sermon on the Mount that anger is what leads to murder. Anger is growing at such a rapid pace in this country that if we Christians do not start showing a better way, I fear people will get killed. As a people of life, we cannot support anything that would lead us in this direction.
DWR
David,
Yes, it’s just becoming more and more disturbing to me, especially when I see what is being said about this rhetoric when it is questioned. It’s very sad. My study of history makes it even more troubling to me. I pray we get beyond this rhetoric now, and charity begins to take over the conversation again. Disagreement can happen, but it should be to the point of violence (rhetoric or actual). And yes, I know people did such against Bush, and it was wrong, too. But it seems to me, if one wants a culture of life, they must promote it — in deed, and part of that deed must include what one says and promotes and what one rejects.
Death threats are certainly wrong. It’s really sad that so much hate seems to be flowing around the blog world. Palin and Beck love to stir people up. I mean here Palin called Obama an elitist and yet check this out: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/03/tea_party_convention_organizer.html#ixzz0jBwy0Tkp”
So she gets paid $100,000 to give a speech on top of that $18,000 for a private jet. But she’s all folksy and Obama is the elitist… yeah right. It’s just the way of politics and rhetoric.
Cindy,
It’s been this way for sometime, though I think it is increasing, and more and more people are, if they are not supporting it, not denouncing it the way they should, as they would have just a year ago. The more this kind of rhetoric repeats, the more its influence can be seen. It’s sad. It’s frightening. I hope someone from the Republican wing can get this rhetoric to stop. I really do.
I think what Henry is saying here is very important and the critique should be applied to the whole country–left, right, and center.
You’re right. And if he had, people wouldn’t have pointed out that his selection of only Republicans to target. Of course, by being biased instead of being fair, Henry has given poor witness (as it appeared-whether or not-to be a partisan attack rather than a real fair critique of American rhetoric from a Catholic perspective) and persuaded no one.
I did read that John Boehner spoke out against it yesterday. He spoke out against it but that was after he called the legislation’s passage Armageddon.
The real one is Glenn Beck though. He said:
Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck told his radio audience Monday that Democrats who supported the bill would be remembered as “an enemy of the republic” and “an enemy to the Constitution.” But he urged viewers of his Fox News television show Wednesday to avoid violence, because “radical” supporters of the Obama administration are counting on such attacks to discredit their opposition, he said.
“Not only is it completely nuts and wrong, it’s exactly what they want,” Beck said. He told viewers, “They are begging for it. You are being set up.”
That is just going too far. If something voilent happens because of all this kind of rhetoric…. what will people say then?
Michael Denton,
Can you give a fair critique at this point in time? You posted an extremely long post over at Catholic Hate. I suppose I will go over and read it.
Eating my lunch, I watched the View (a group of women whose views, across board, I often have problems with), but at least they discussed this point. They all agreed: this kind of speech is dangerous and wrong. Elizabeth said she was disappointed with Sarah Palin in this one, because Sarah does have influence, and someone looking at the post can take it literally – that Sarah has to understand the kind of way people will take such rhetoric. So at least, this time, I agree with what I saw there (and what was said was a universal rejection of this violent rhetoric, and Joy even said that those who are confronted with the violence must not react in kind).
Politics in the US is a blood sport. It always has been. The communists (read “Democrats”) are not above “false flag” operations to inflame the sheeple and try to turn opinion in their favor. However, one can only cry “wolf” so many times before the cry is ignored. The nation is not a nation anymore — it is not united around a common set of principles, and is being destoryed by the leadership of both parties that no longer take the rule of law and the constitution seriously. Too bad. I was hoping that my children could live in freedom and prosperity, but it doesn’t look like that is going to happen. Cest la Vive!
Just reminding people — I am letting comments through which I would not normally let through — because I want a full exposure of the demons hiding in the darkness. The light is shining, the rage is showing.
Yeah, Henry could you avoid being consistent? I mean, geez it really challenges my political affiliations and American-idolatry. Could you please find where Rachel Madow has called for the death of Jim Demint….
oh wait, she hasn’t. That’s right, only the far right wing has nationally broadcast talking heads like Glenn Beck to spew violence.
Taking Palin’s graphic literally would mean dropping missiles on cities. Let’s not make a big deal out of that. As for Glenn Beck, I don’t listen to him, but the little I know of him sounds awful, and everyone denounces him.
What belligerence there has been is wrong. Based on the number of incidents, the Tea Party movement is more peaceful than Terps fans after a win against Duke, but any violence or threat of violence is wrong.
Henry~ no human being can seem to tame the tongue. It’s a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. This need not be so, my brothers. Does a spring gush forth from the same opening both pure and brackish water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, produce olives, or a grapevine figs? Neither can salt water yeild fresh.
Maybe we all could do well today to pull out our bibles and ready James3, Chapter 3.
And people threated/joked/made signs about assassinating Bush and others rioted at anti-war protests. And a crazy who might be labelled “on the right” killed Tiller. And a crazy who might be labelled “on the left” flew a plane into an Austin building. And Coulter used a crude phrase and insulted someone on the left. And Olbermann used a crude phrase and insulted someone on the right.
Yes, the level of political discourse is bad these days and definitely needs to be improved. Everyone can be better about it. And it would help if the media didn’t jump on mere allegations of bad actions so quickly, which are at times sometimes exaggerated or faked by planted opponents.
Palin quit her job in Alaska to go for the Big Payday. With that accomplished, she runs around inciting the average Jethro to fight for the “freedom” to go broke paying for health insurance or the “freedom” to be uninsured and foist his medical bills off onto others. Not that Sarah herself will ever have to worry her pretty little head about either scenario. I wonder how many in her folksy fan club notice she’s carrying a gold plated pitchfork.
As this topic continues, I just want to add some more names to the pantheon of liberals and members of the democratic Left who proved themselves quite capable of denoucing extremism and anti-democratic actions on their side of the political spectrum:
Michael Harrington, Irving Howe, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Sen. Paul Douglas, Mary McCarthy, Diana & Lionel Trilling, Rev. Reinhold Niebuhr, Murray Kempton, Msgr. George Higgins, and the editors and many writers of Partisan Review and Dissent.
Well, here we go– the violence begets violence — and the new violence is also to be deplored:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/rep-cantors-richmond-campaign-office-shot-overnight/
Republican Rep. Eric Cantor’s Richmond campaign office was shot at Wednesday night, Fox News has learned, the latest in a rash of apparent threats and acts of intimidation against members of Congress.
My thoughts are plain and simple, as a combat Veteran I know all to well that Violence begets Violence. I speak as a Vietnam Vet, the Violence I speak of was not in the “War”, but rather within the Society I returned to. Violence brings about bloodshed, bloodshed brings about more bloodshed until someone says : “STOP!!! We are running the Blood Well dry!!!” Ask yourself this question “Are YOU ready for a Civil War!?!?” By the Gods and Goddesses I pray not. I hope that my use of the words Gods & Goddesses doesn’t get me censored.
I’m with you Randy. This needs to stop.
Republican Rep. Eric Cantor’s Richmond campaign office was shot at Wednesday night, Fox News has learned,…”
“shot at” meaning… hit or missed? Any pix? The Democratic offices had bricks thrown, lots of shattered glass.
You guys do realize this is the United States of Americca, right?
I mean, I agree death threats are wrong. Not so sure if I agree that “targeting” rhetoric or the above map constitute “death threats.” Saying, “The law is a baby killer” is just stating objective fact. The point of the “Death panels” blog was affirmed by Stupak himself when he said the Democratic Party leadership wants abortion in health care to cut costs (of course, Stupak has proven himself in the past few days to be a typical Americanist heretic).
My point is that this is nothing new. This country was founded on armed violence. Jefferson called for a bloody revolution every generation or so. After the Joe Wilson brouhaha, I looked up “censorship” in the House. in the 19th Century, it was applied to Representatives who beat each other with canes, had duels, etc.
In the 1990s, Alec Baldwin said on national television that he wanted to go to Henry Hyde’s house and stone him, rape his wife, etc., and was applauded.
Witness the practical consequences of the culture wars. Violence doesn’t stay contained within discourse.
Do you have any reason to believe that Vox Nova readers are remotely involved in violence or incitement of violence of any kind?
If not, then it seems to me this post and this, “I want a full exposure of the demons hiding in the darkness” garbage is yet another example of “Aren’t we so much better than the other guys” moral preening that doesn’t do anybody one damn bit of good.
I’m not a particular fan of Sarah Palin, but if you read her graph as an incitement for violence rather than representatives to defeat in the midterms, that says more about you than it does about her.
And I am not going to take a moral shower and express my abhorrence of this violence. Like your opposition to the current abortion regime, I’ll call it a “given.” So feel free to follow up with your post about how telling it is that I can’t bring myself to condemn actual violence.
John
The words spoken in this thread reveal much. That’s all I will say.
@ John and others… what you can take comfort in is that those of us at VN will never be the majority in the Church… nor will the nonviolent or the peacemakers. We’ll never take it over… I mean, at the most, 200 people show up to hear John Dear talk about peace. It’s just a fact…
You see we’ve always been in the minority and we will continue to be in the minority–and that’s just fine with me.
I often wonder, though, why so many Catholics consider VN such a threat…??? If you think we’re “full of garbage” what incentive is there to even show up here and say anything to us? There must be something… do you and many others just need to say we’re wrong? If so, I can live with that… but, really, why bother?
Sometimes the posts and arguments aren’t even worth it! It would be like me having a debate with Sarah Palin as to why Jesus is against war. What good would it do?
I remember a theology teacher of mine, back when I was an evangelical, being asked by a student why he wouldn’t go to the local bookstore in Wheaton, IL and debate Bp. John Shelby Spong on the resurrection of Jesus. My teacher responded, “What would be the point? We’ve no common ground, so why bother?” I don’t think a lot of us here at VN have realized this wisdom, but I also think it applies to many of the people who respond to posts on VN.
Someone above said something about Keith Olb. on MSNBC. I thought it was sad that a fake news program, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, had to point out to Keith that he was being very very violent with his rhetoric… in fact Mr. Stewart said Keith was being no different than the people he was accusing over at Fox News of being violent.
Surprisingly, Keith apologized and said that Mr. Stewart was right…
Frankly, I’ve begun to follow the advice of Fr. Dan Berrigan, SJ. Instead of breathing in the violence of the media, I spend my days contemplating Jesus and his words in the Sermon on the Mount. I wish we would all do this, and allow the written word, which is representative of the Living Word, to change us.
My prayer–though I’m not optimistic about its effects–is that the entire Catholic Church would embrace the nonviolent gospel of Jesus.
But, again, I wouldn’t worry. Even Fr. John Dear, SJ has recently said that he thinks the possibility of a nonviolent Church and a nonviolent world may be at an end.
DWR
David
I look at it differently. I like to look at the blogs and thoughts of others. I like to know what is being said, by people who are Catholic, even if I have a strong view contrary to theirs. Sometimes, I learn something from them. Sometimes, they learn something from me. Maybe not often, but still I think that is good. And beyond that, I do hope the faith we hold together can somehow make us work together better — it’s not easy, but I wish for it. And so I also do try to see where we are in agreement, and promote it. Maybe it will lead to better contact, so we will see each other beyond the politics and ideologies we see online, maybe not. But I sure hope it would. So I welcome people, even those who have strong disagreement with us, here — so they can learn, maybe we can learn, and maybe we can find something to hold together.
Plus, I wouldn’t risk predicting the strange ways the Spirit might move in the future. I mean, if France and England can become allies… anything is possible!
BTW… Cantor’s office was just shot at… this must stop too… all violence must be stopped…
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/index.html?hpt=T1
Christ never says “blessed are the violent…” he says, “blessed are the peacemakers…”
So… I pray for Mr. Cantor’s safety…
DWR
Probably not necessary to say what I think about all of this.
But I will answer the question: do you think they are really interested in violence? Of course.
@ Henry… I see your point… I’m just a bit more cynical these days… ;-)
(you probably know why…)
David — of course, but we have to keep faith, hope and love, even in our actions to others. We must always remember, the image of God is in the one whom we find most disturbing.
awakaman Says:
“The Left passes laws forcing persons to buy health insurance at the point of a gun but they themselves object to threats of violence. How odd.”
Wait a minute. The right is going to have to get its story straight here. Are you claiming that there have been no serious threats of violence? Or that the threats of violence have been justified?
Half of you want to laugh these things off, the other half want to claim that taking up arms is merely your patriotic duty at this moment in history.
Which is it?
I’m letting all the comments through for people to see. The demons are being brought out to light.
The demons, Henry??? The demons??? Because people disagree with you???
The demons, Henry??? The demons??? Because people disagree with you???
Not to speak for Henry, but it does not seem he is simply “demonizing” people who disagree with him. He is not invoking the image of the demonic because of a disagreement over musical taste. He is invoking the image with reference to violent words and actions. Quite different.
Michael I
Once again — you hit it on the nail. The violence and excuses for violence in this thread have revealed what is behind much of the political rhetoric of the day. It’s not good.
I do say, however, Cantor also hit it on the nail in his little press release. He called for it to stop. Good for him!
There are a number of good examples from which to start an examination of hateful rhetoric and its consequences, but citing this Sarah Palin post is ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing violent or threatening about it, unless all partisan political activity is somehow inherently violent. This is a serious topic and deserves better.
There are a number of good examples from which to start an examination of hateful rhetoric and its consequences, but citing this Sarah Palin post is ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing violent or threatening about it, unless all partisan political activity is somehow inherently violent. This is a serious topic and deserves better.
As Henry pointed out, we have been documenting violent rhetoric and actions for some time now on this blog. This Sarah Palin thing is merely one of the most recent instances.
To say there is nothing violent about a picture of the United States with targets all over it (and in her message telling people not to retreat but “reload” makes me wonder what exactly would be seen as violence.
First, it’s certainly a lot less violenc than the ads the Alaska Democrats were running before Palin resigned, marking their campaign contributions by red blood pouring over a picture of Sarah and Trig.
Second, it’s just a strategy map. I don’t see how that’s necessarily violent.
Thirdly, my point is that it is stupid to draw a necessary conclusion between the use of military metaphors and actual violence.
I am sick of hearing that if I say, “Abortion is murder,” that’s an incitement to violence. It’s only an incitement to violence if one thinks vigilantism is the proper response to murder.
To speak of “culture wars” or “spiritual warfare” is precisely *not* to speak of actual violenc, but of trying to change people’s minds through ideology or prayer, respectively.
And what about the fact that we are the Church Militant? And if you deny that, you’re not a Catholic.
Second, it’s just a strategy map. I don’t see how that’s necessarily violent.
If only that was all it were. If only. But once you put target signs all over it, things change. It’s not just a use of metaphor, though one must remember, the symbol has two aspects to it, and both aspects have value when using them.
And I have rejected all violent overtones and have put forward what is happening to Cantor right now, and his own words which echo the inclinations of this post.
As for the symbol of the Church Militant, you won’t find it in the early fathers. It is a later development, fit for the time it came from. But one doesn’t have to stick with it to be a good Catholic. One can understand it, and its value, without being stuck with the imagery.
Here’s an idea: the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate convene a joint press conference where that say something like the following:
Matt
While that would be very good, we did get this from the USCCB today: http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2010/03/in-all-things-charity.html
I hope it helps with Catholics.
Henry,
you just spoke of hitting the nail on the head. That’s a violent metaphor!
No, but to reject a part of tradition on the grounds that it’s a later doctrinal development is to reject the teaching authority of the Church.
To reject the idea of Church Militant is to reject the idea that we are to see the world, the flesh and the Devil as our enemies.
To reject the idea of Church Militant is to belie your claim of being “not of the Left,” since you’ve rejected one of the basic aspects of Traditional Catholic thought.
It is not a rejection of the point and value of the words — St Hilary of Poitiers really said it well, we are not to be stuck in the words, we use words because we are forced to. But we should not confuse their use for the doctrine implied in them. You are still following the legalistic understanding of words, which is itself, not traditional…
Violence or the threat of violence should be immediately and unconditionally condemned, whatever the source. Period.
This is a good opportunity for everyone to reflect on their use of language, including the implicitly hostile language of caricature and accusation. Some, including some here, self-righteously call such rhetoric “truthtelling” but in fact it only waters the soil from which violence springs.
Mark
Right. Very right, in fact. All too right. It’s a danger we all fall under, I think. It is human nature to fall to some level of rhetoric which has some violent overtones, and even on the least level, we should recognize that overtone is wrong. So you get an amen from me, for what it is worth.
FYI… John Bohener has now come out condemning the violence over healthcare…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/republicans-condemn-viole_n_513211.html
DWR
“No, but to reject a part of tradition on the grounds that it’s a later doctrinal development is to reject the teaching authority of the Church.
To reject the idea of Church Militant is to reject the idea that we are to see the world, the flesh and the Devil as our enemies.
To reject the idea of Church Militant is to belie your claim of being “not of the Left,” since you’ve rejected one of the basic aspects of Traditional Catholic thought.”
Again, I’m confused: is the point that all this seemingly violent talk is just talk, and nothing to worry about? Or are we supposed to take the idea of the “Church Militant” very seriously, especially now that the socialistic baby-killers are in charge?
The conservative remarks here can be read both ways.
No, it is to reject the meaning behind the words.
By rejecting the term “Church Militant,” you preach the hermeneutic of rupture.
Secondly, how would you have people, then, deal with a dictatorship?
Trivia question, who said,
“From the time of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force”?
Who said, “Do not think I came to bring peace. I came not to bring peace but the sword and division”?
No, it is not to preach any such rupture; indeed, you are the one who is incapable of seeing the continuation and development, and the kind which reaches beyond the little history of theology which you know. As for “dictatorship,” we can go further: read what Peter and Paul encouraged in the time of Nero.
And you must remember, there is and has been, even in the Church, a plurality in unity. Some traditions which you neglect remain throughout. I’m not Western. We have far different ways of addressing things.
And Jesus said he came to bring peace, and not peace in the way of the world (we’ve addressed this before).
“Militant” metaphors in Christianity can only be used rightly within the context of a Christian commitment to nonviolence. All political imagery used by the church — “militant,” “war,” “battle,” “Lord,” “hierarchy,” etc. — is subversive of actual violence because of the Christ event. Use of Christian “militant” metaphors outside of that context of nonviolence is wrong.
All of this has little to do with the violent rhetoric of the Christian right/Christo-fascists. They have no commitment to nonviolence. They ridicule it. In doing so they ridicule the cross. Further, this has nothing to do with the violent rhetoric and actions of the “tea party” and related movements, none of which have a discernible or very serious commitment to the Christian faith.
Look, it is simply false to say that violent threats are “just talk.” We all know from experience that these peoples’ “metaphors” end up taking form in action. If you are like me, you have family members who love guns and who are not against the idea of using violence for political ends. The fact that you people are now insisting that these are “just words, just metaphors” and that these people would never ever resort to actual violence are the same people who brag on your own blogs about your gun collections, who ridicule nonviolence, who reject church teaching on war. You’re full of it.
“Trivia question, who said,
“From the time of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force”?
Who said, “Do not think I came to bring peace. I came not to bring peace but the sword and division”?”
I’ll play….
Same guy who said “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.” And then proceded to heal wounded.
“Secondly, how would you have people, then, deal with a dictatorship?
Who said, “Do not think I came to bring peace. I came not to bring peace but the sword and division”?”
Again, I ask for clarity: Do you think that the remarks in question DO NOT constitute threats of violence, or do you think threats of violence, and perhaps violence itself, is a justified response to the present government?
We do not need to reject the term “church militant.”
But we need to reject the idea that the term “church militant” has anything to do with violence, and we need to reject the people who want to make that link.
The term “church militant” is a rejection of violence, not a “violent metaphor.”
This debate, especially the dialogue with GodsGadfly, demonstrates the incomparable value of Rene Girard’s contribution to the Church.
This debate, especially the dialogue with GodsGadfly, demonstrates the incomparable value of Rene Girard’s contribution to the Church.
Yes. And how little his contribution has impacted the church, unfortunately.
Balthasar is another great example here, and Ellul from the Protestant traditions.
Mark
Once again, I agree — and not just Girard — but he is a good, central figure in our times.
First, no honest person could disagree that our culture, indeed our world, is a violent place.
But would the reasonable man be convinced that using bull’s eyes or targets or rhetoric to those effects is “embracing the way of death”?
There can not truly be a dilemma between fortitude in defending the most vulnerable innocents and Christian virtue.
Mastering our passions requires supernatural virtue, which is, I take it, the point of this discourse.
But would the reasonable man (sic) be convinced that using bull’s eyes or targets or rhetoric to those effects is “embracing the way of death”?
Do these things alone represent an “embrace of death”? No, certainly not. Combined with the movement’s love of guns, support of unjust wars, xenophobia, ridicule of nonviolence, and tendency to be personally threatening to people who disagree with them (there are countless, literally countless, examples of this, examples that I have experienced personally), then YES they DO represent an embrace of death.
“Balthasar is another great example here, and Ellul from the Protestant traditions.”
And again, I say Yoder. He’s more Catholic than you think. And his voice here about Empire and violence is especially poignant.
Joshua
There are many, I fully agree. I was just trying to point out we shouldn’t ignore the Protestants. Plus, is Yoder really Protestant? ;) Ellul clearly is following Barth, but Yoder is Anabaptist. I could add many more voices, and I do think Hanh from the Buddhist one is worthy of study.
Hooray for Yoder!
Well we could get into the “are anabaptists protestant” debate, but its enough to say he wrote his dissertation with Barth. The best thing us Yoder gave Barth a treatise on why Barths just war theology was wrong.
And the best thing Barth ever wrote was when he said Balthasar understood him ;) (I say that understanding the need for the Barths of the world, but just not finding myself too Barthian save in the way he influenced people who influence me).
I agree… yeah YODER!!!
Yoder is more Catholic than people think… so is Hauerwas…
From a biblical perspective I would recommend that everyone get ahold of a volume edited by Richard Horsley entitled In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance. What people like Yoder and Girard were saying from a theological vantage point, many biblical scholars are now promoting from an historical vantage point.
Amazon.com: In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance (9780664232320): Richard A. Horsley: Books
I think that sometimes in the Catholic world we forget to discuss issues from a biblical point of view. But… I’m biased…
DWR
@ Henry… I thought the best thing Barth ever wrote was, “Show me a big church and I’ll show you a place where the Gospel has never been preached…”
FWIW
On Hauerwas being Catholic, yes and no!
David – Almost included that Horsley volume in this comp I’m preparing.
Why is no one including Chaput’s new book in their comps?!
@ Michael… o you theologians… ;-)
Yes… I’d include the Horsley volume and anything else that he’s edited… Have you seen the new volume in the Paul and Critical Context series by Kahl on Galatians? It’s quite good… it posits that the real problem in Galatia was the imperial cult… it also suggests that we’ve misread some of Paul’s arguments about the Law…
Perhaps more in another post…
@ Henry… since you and I are already done with comps… I think we can safely say that “passing comps” is a priority… so that probably answers your question about you know what…
See below. I also don’t recall any “right wing” protestors shooting at congressman…
The following voicemail was left at the office of Ohio Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt (the transcription is below):
Speaker: “Yeah, I’m glad the president passed health care. Yeah. Funky ass, racist-ass Republicans hate that, don’t you? Jean Schmitt, when you got hit by that car, you should’ve broke your back, bitch. And Boehner, motherfucker…that Mitch McConnell. All you racist fucking Republicans. Why don’t you just change your party name to racist? Cuz if one of those fucking Tea baggers had spit on me, I’d have shot all them in the fucking face with my fucking 9 millimeter. Fuck all you racist motherfuckers.”
“Militant” metaphors in Christianity can only be used rightly within the context of a Christian commitment to nonviolence. All political imagery used by the church — “militant,” “war,” “battle,” “Lord,” “hierarchy,” etc. — is subversive of actual violence because of the Christ event. Use of Christian “militant” metaphors outside of that context of nonviolence is wrong.
You’re ignoring pretty much the entire history of the Church historically.
Face it, the Church recognizes that non-violence will NOT solve all problems because the Church realizes that its people must exist in an imperfect world.
CrazyCatholic — so you do not believe Christ is the answer? That’s sad.
@ CrazyCatholic… that may be… but Jesus believes that nonviolence will solve all of the problems… Again… my prayer is that the Church will embrace the nonviolent Gospel of Christ…
In light of CC’s remarks… I’m reminded of something Peter Maurin said, “You can’t judge Christianity because true Christianity has never been tried…”
Crazycatholic: from the police report concerning the Congressman who you claim was “shot at”:
“A first floor window was struck by a bullet at approximately 1 a.m. on Tuesday, March 23. The building, which has several tenants including an office used by Congressman Eric Cantor, was unoccupied at the time…preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman.”
CrazyCatholic;
Does anyone at VN really need to respond? They have repeatedly condemned all violent rhetoric, whether from the right or left. Are you ready to similarly condemn and renounce the violent rhetoric that has been flying from “right wing” commentators?
CrazyCatholic writes:
“Face it, the Church recognizes that non-violence will NOT solve all problems because the Church realizes that its people must exist in an imperfect world.”
So, violence against the current administration is justified? right?
Once again: half of conservatives claim that absolutely no threat of any kind was actually made, it was just colorful language.
The other half believes that violence against a murderous and unjust regime. . . which this administration is. . . is justified.
Pick one, conservatives.
Violent reactions and threats because of healthcare-expanding legislation. Where else on the planet would you find that ? Seriously, let that sink in. Over an expansion of health care. (enacted by a colored!! First Gettysburg and now this…bound to give one the vapors)
There is a large segment of the population that isn’t just stupid, but proudly so. Their icons ? Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin (she’s a bit like Dave Chappelle’s KKK character. Unlike my wife’s, her ancestors didn’t exactly come here on the Mayflower), Anne Coulter, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. Glenn Beck may well be the dumbest of them. A moronic Mormon, raised Catholic, ranting about Marxism (where else in the world ??) while saying he learned about it at the public (!) library because “you know, books are free” (!). That’s a politically influential figure in this benighted country.
I live on the edge of civilization (50 miles East of San Francisco) in California, the local newspaper had a column worrying about Obama’s “Communist” agenda. Goes well with the “Proud Army Wife” sticker (I guess the “Proud Army Widow” one hasn’t been invented yet) You can’t even parody this madness. The price we pay for being able to grow our own food and own a big house, I guess. I wish I could transplant it all to Vienna or Vancouver (one of the most beautiful cities you’ll find, and I’ve seen countless). Ever since I was asked at Home Depot, “What are you, Canadian?” upon asking for a metric tape measure I’ve started to say “Sorry, I’m Canadian”, when people ask me to sign some ballot initiative. (“Austrian” just makes them think I’m from Outback Steakhouse (particularly wrong for an Austrian vegetarian heh)).
…and they think they’re followers of Jesus! The Jesus of Suburbia*. They think they follow the Gospel. The Gospel according to St. Bastard**. Jesus wouldn’t even get into their organizations, being a Jew and all. Christianity in this case is nothing but another instance of us-versus-them, a gotcha game of “I’m saved, neenerneener!”
That said, I do hope rapture is real and coming soon. I’d hate to see Sarah Palin and her differently abled admirers disappointed (and still here), after all she said, “more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead.” (not that they like Jews, but they’re a means to an end. Once Jesus comes to beam ‘em up, the Jews are on their own)
Imagine all the people (left behind), living life in peace.
* Green Day ** Eddie Izzard
As far as violence goes – sure, there may be rhetoric on the Left, but last I checked Bull Connor, George W. Bush, Richard Nixon etc. weren’t assassinated but rather JFK, RFK, MLK. Alec Baldwin (who’s a hilarious right winger on 30 Rock) may make a crude joke, but he doesn’t actually mean it. I think the anger of tea baggers is genuine and so is the desire for violence. Regrets, they have but a few – having had to leave the hood at home, for example. That kind of white is still ok after Labor Day.
Was this post originally titled “please bring on more nonsense”? What a wacky set of comments.
Isn’t it clear to everyone that God was so irritated at the USCCB for nearly derailing this legislation that He’s behind these latest revelations tying abuse cover-ups to Benedict XVI?
Once again, I remind everyone, I’ve tried to leave the thread open — the comments are quite often not my own views.
@ R… did you see that the chief Vatican exorcist has said that the devil is in the Vatican? He even went so far as to say that many of the Cardinals are not even Christian…
Just when the point is made about the implied violence of angry, accusatory rhetoric, along comes Gerald Naus to offer up the most violent thing written in this thread.
CrazyCatholic — so you do not believe Christ is the answer? That’s sad.
where did I say that? I just find it interesting that people so easily hide behijd absolute nonviolence with no thought to the consequences.
I’ve actually witnessed a commenter here say that they would rather their wife and child be raped and murdered than to commit the “sin” of violence. How selfish and complicit with evil is that?
As far as the current healthcare situation and rhetotic and threats of violence, I thought it was interesting that the only actual act of violence was a gunshot at an opponent of the legislation.
Another note, if millions of people do not want to participate and they are being forced to, why does it make it ok for a separate group to force it on them? Is that not then oppression? Is that not against the teaching of the Church? Or is the Church only opposed to oppression of the current pet project of the american left? I think we all know that’s not the case, so what’s the excuse to force these policies through threat of violence?
Crazy
You said non-violence is not the answer. Christ, however, brings a non-violent solution.
drd,
I haven’t read much Barth, but if your quote from him is a representative example of his wisdom, I don’t see the need to read a lot of him.
The source of Christian disunity and discord has always been the impulse to be in the tiniest, purest, most right-believing church possible. The Catholic alternative (ideally) is as big a church as possible (hence the name), unity in diversity while always indeed preaching the gospel–which the Catholic Church has always done–though with notable stutterings!–and will always do–and stand by for more stutterings–until the Church and the Kingdom of God are one.
My previous comment was sent inadvertently before proofreading and the last two words, “. . . are one.”
To use symbols of violence has created fear of violence which in turn separates us from awareness of God’s Love. Even thoughts of violence separate us from God. Fear separates us from God. Any primitive response to threat whether it be fear or rage can lead to seeking power or safety within the context of survival separates us from God and one another. It leads to us against them and not us loving them as Jesus tells us to do.
Christ tells us that even thoughts of violence have already harmed someone. He is talking quantum mechanics here. He is talking quantum entanglement. The spiritual life of the individual can either create more love or more hate without any outward action. Those who are most spiritually sensitive know this. There has been much violence expressed towards Henry because he has pointed out the violence within the person who created the image of violence. You see Henry can see what others may not be able to see because of their insensitivity. Does that mean that Henry is wrong because he can see what another cannot see?
I think there is a difference between venting one’s rage by spewing venom vs. speaking the truth, even a truth others object to hearing. Some try to object to those speaking the truth on the grounds of charity or justice, but those objections fall flat.
Historically, the Left has always been about saying things that sound grand and good, but then acquiring power by means of murder, and that on a mass scale, starting with the Reign of Terror and the Vendee, on to the Bolshevik Revolution, Stalin’s purges, the Killing Fields, Mao’s murdered tens of millions, and all along the steadily increasing holocaust of infants in the womb whose only crime has been that they were unwanted.
In recent days a handful of our fellow citizens have expressed their political frustrations by uttering some impotent, rather childish threats. And their behavior has been reported on and held up as indicative of the “violence” and “murderous malice” characteristic of those opposed to the Left.
That’s rich!
My fellow Americans, pay attention. Know your history – world history. And don’t forget the Left’s motto: “The ends justify the means”. That means, for them, anything goes.
Anything.
Anything.
Anything from outright lies, murder, abortion: it’s all justified if it helps the Cause.
Scary stuff, if you ask me.
And when was the last time any word of this was reported in the NYT or on MSNBC?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118×304267
democrats fantasizing about buying guns for the sole purpose of killing “conservatives” and “republicans”
interesting to say the least
You’re ignoring pretty much the entire history of the Church historically.
I’m not ignoring it at all. But I am suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church has unfortunately understood “militant” metaphors in scripture and tradition in precisely the wrong way. [Shrug] Ain’t a big deal, because I can admit that the church has screwed a lot of things up. Only triumphalists would have a problem with that idea.
David W-R – I’ll include an essay or two by Horsley on this comp, but they’re really pushing for me to stick with the guidelines and keep the number of texts small. But that makes it difficult to work out a comp on postcolonial thought and theologies, as the field is pretty diverse. I’ll let you know what texts I settle on.
Scary stuff, if you ask me. And when was the last time any word of this was reported in the NYT or on MSNBC?
I think it was on the 12th of Never. Still though, other news sources are not much more reliable. I can only recommend flipping channels a lot to get any sense of balanced coverage.
CrazyCatholic;
Again, VN has repeatedly condemned and spoken out against all violent threats and rhetoric, from supporters and opponents of the current health plan. The response will be the same no matter how many examples you bring up. Yet you still have not condemned the violent threats uttered by those opposed to this health plan. Why is this? Do you feel that this issue is one that justifies violent insurrection?
In the light of the fact that there have been multiple death-threats made to legislators who voted for the health care bill, posting an image that identifies each legislator that voted for the bill — with a target — is suggestive, to say the least. Sarah Palin’s actual intentions, of course, are known only to herself.
Apparently, Sarah Palin in Nevada told the Tea Party to start pulling over people with Obama bumper stickers on their cars and to interrogate them about Obama.
I should not have said that the image identifies each legislator with a “target,” because it identifies each with *crosshairs*. The suggestion of shooting is very obvious.
People are outraged because they say this crosses a line which reaches a new level of violent rhetoric.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
The link has an example of not only using targets which, when you roll your mouse over each bull’s eye, it actually opens a window with “Targeted Republican: John Smith” a picture, and more specific information.
Of course, that was done on an official Democratic Party web site against Republicans, but is it not the same thing?
Is it not worse?
Is there not any outrage?
I think we let ouselves turn against each other or not depending on how the media drives us. Are we that easily manipulated?
Bruce
Crosshairs is worse — especially when combined with the violent language of her post. But any indication of targets like that I would agree is wrong.
How about this one?
http://www.dccc.org/content/recovery
This is one where if you put your cursor on the center of the target and press, then the head shot of the targeted Republican appears.
Again, this is on an official Democratic party web site, not someone’s facebook.
Look, I think the rhetoric or iconography is neither new nor proximate to inciting violence.
What fascinates me about this issue is how it can be energized or ignored, depending on whether the left or right weighs in with their media “outrage” or not. We appear to fall for it every time and either take take bait and scream “this is a new level of terrible” or “no big whup” depending.
Bruce
Once again, you fail to see what has been said here. Enough is enough! READ THE COMMENTS. And the idea that crosshairs is nothing — and that Sarah Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload’ isn’t indicative of violent rhetoric is sad.