I think most educated people know that the Unitarians are not traditional, orthodox Christians. As a relative of mine who attends a Unitarian church once told me (and this is an exact quote): “We have the most wonderful church!!! We don’t believe in anything!!!!” The truth of they matter (or closer to it)is that they are a strange amalgam of spiritual searchers, secular humanists, people brought up in some more conventional church who did not like that church and needed something different, an occasional Buddhist, and maybe some believers in Christ who have a truly universalist bent. With regard to the last item, I recall an excahnge one night between Larry King and Billy Graham:

Larry: Do you think just some people will be saved or everyone?

Billy: Well, the Bible indicates that only some people will be saved. However, it also says that God is full of mercy. That being the case, he might decide to save everyone in the end. I would certainly like to think so.

So, I don’t think you can totally riule out the possibility that there were some Christians in there last Sunday. Nonetheless, I think Jim Adkisson knew who he was shooting up. He knew that they were not orthodox Christians. Most people know that Unitarians are pretty liberal folks—some would say “open-minded” might be a better characterization.

Of course, that simpleminded story was just assumed because who would shoot up a church on Sunday aside from some anti-Christian extremist?

The local press dropped the ball on that one, and we who knew just what the Unitarian Universalist church was knew that they dropped the ball.

But, again, for a while after the shooting until sometime early Monday when some of the contents of the letter were released, the comfortable story of the evil man who hates mom, apple pie, and Chrisitians was very satisfying to most of the public.

Sad.

I think my point is really this, and it bears some thought by all who visit here. The First Amendment DOES guarantee our right of free speech—even hateful or harmful speech to a large extent, barring the famous “fire in the theater” example.

However, there is one thing that the First Amendment does not guarantee to any MAN OR WOMAN. IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE AN AUDIENCE TO WHATEVER SOMEONE HAS TO SAY. Think about that.

However, folks have to realize that violent rhetoric like Rush Limbaugh or Lee Rogers does have consequences. Can you yell “fire” in a crowded theater? Can you yell “bomb” on an airplane? Communities over centuries have adopted standards of acceptable behavior.

Telling people “Don’t kill all the liberals, leave enough…” (R. Limbaugh) is not acceptable. And whether a commentator advocates killing the liberals, or the Jews, or the blacks, or the Christians, or the Scot Irish, or the gays, or the evangelicals, it is wrong and unacceptable.

And if anyone thinks it is, and wants to hide behind the first amendment and not call foul, then they are no patriot and may indeed be an enemy of the state.

Who exactly gets to speak? And what are they permitted to say?

try again, Jimmy. you’re scared to death that Fox and others might be held to account for their violent, advertiser supported rhetoric.

Of course, communists in general, Karl Marx, Stalin, and other such idiots on the other end of the political spectrum have done terrible things as well. I would also hold that those who openly supported such idiots as these in their violent tendencies are just as culpable of incitement to violence as those on the right. However, I refuse to buy into the ridiculous notion that someone who contributes a small portion of the tax till to someone in need is a communist and a murderer and that they automatically support these historical nuts. If that were the case, you would have to put the Jewish preisthood in the Old Testament in jail. However, I do find—almost without exception in my own experience—that those on the right wing in this country who oppose giving a piece of tax-bought bread to a starving stranger DO BUY hook, line, and sinker into the extreme ideology of the right wing in this country. I don’t buy into the extreme ideology of the far left in this country, and I would say that most of the people who visit here do not. The problem I have is that a thing we once called “being generous, neighborly, and Christian” here Tennessee 50 years ago is now defined by people like Jim as “communism.” What kind of a warped mind does it take to jump over the abyss of sensibility to arrive at a conclusion like that.

I am sticking with my original point about the extremism and murderous undercurrent of the radical right in this country as “ACTED OUT” this past Sunday.

When I enter my voting booth this fall, I am going to remember the people of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church by pulling my lever for a candidate who will oppose these right wing idiots. I intend to vote for Barack Obama. However, as most of you know here, John McCain is a man of good sensibility and honor who also opposes the religious right and the extreme right wing in this country—although he is having to hide it a bit. He too would be a good choice to kick these buttholes back into the lunatic asylum where they belong. Ron Paul would probably be a good choice too. I guess this is just my way of saying that you do not have to be a Democrat or an independent to oppose the likes of James Dobson, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and the radical radio-talk DJs in this country.

Like Aulder Guy, you completely dodged the question about the anti-war protester. You also were too much of a coward to answer for Bill Ayers, ALF, and the ELF. So you’re no different than he is: just an empty shell of a person so consumed by your own hatred that you’ve lost the ability to understand the bounds of human decency in the face of tragedy.

It’s sad, but at least you’ve made it clear to everyone that hatred is only real “principle” you have…

IstockAnalyst.com has picked up the WBIR story via UPI linking the Knoxville shooter to Savage, Hannity, and O’Reilly.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of haters. Hope the shares of the media companies of the right wing noise machine plummet.

Since you completely dodged the question about the anti-war protester and plowed right ahead with your ranting about how much you hate conservatives, we can safely assume that your “principle” is nothing of the sort: it’s just pure hatred of those who disagree with you.

We have now come full circle in this discussion back to my original comment: you took a tragedy and rather than show any human decency, you played politics with it for no reason other than that you can’t control the hatred simmering inside you for those who have beliefs different than yours.

The fact that you cited a Nazi in your post is so drippingly rich with irony that I can’t help but laugh at your historical ignorance. Did it escape you that “Nazi” is short for “national SOCIALIST party”? The Nazi regime is the pen-ultimate example of what can happen when government controls everything and you have nothing but hatred for those who believe differently than you do: the natural end result of the liberal policies you advocate so vociferously and your own attitude toward conservatives. But hey, I hear their national health care plan was something else, right?

Conservatism is all about the power of the individual and the freedom to live your life free from government interference: the exact opposite of what Nazism (and liberalism) was all about.

And since we’re sharing Wikipedia entries, let me leave you with the ultimate example of Liberal hatred propaganda leading the gullible and hate-filled masses to murdering literally millions of people around the globe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

You want to go back to 1980, I’ll give you another 60-odd years on top of that and still spot you 70 million people…

(This is the problem when you either don’t know your history or are looking at it with your ideological blinders on: you end up making huge blunders that make exactly the opposite point you were trying to make.)

Put down the koolaid, dude and back away slowly from the keyboard. You have fulfilled Godwin’s Law now, your “work” here is done.

And if you do not think words matter. If you think that you can just keep on demonizing your enemies and that the message and methods have no consequences. If you really think that sticks and stones may break peoples bones but words will never hurt them—let me introduce you to a little-known man who made a cottage industry out of doing just that—read the biography—read it carefully—read it slowly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

If we follow your logic, Mark David Chapman, who assassinated John Lennon was obsessed with the very liberal and controversial “Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger, does this mean Salinger is responsible for Chapman’s actions? Other books in his apartment; The Skyjacker by David Hubbard, Welcome to Xanadu by Nathaniel Benchley, The Fox is Crazy Too by Eliot Asinof, Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, The Fan by Bob Randall and Taxi Driver. Do you believe all those authors should have been banned or at the very least persecuted?

What about all the people who read the Bible and Koran and kill people? Are the authors of those books responsible? Can we be affected by what we read? Sure but most people don’t shoot someone because they read a certain book or disagree with someone’s beliefs. Should we ban all controversial language and ideas? And who gets to decide what voices to silence?

I only called you a twit when you compared me to a murderer. I was being polite. That wasn’t the word I was thinking. And I’m a woman. I don’t fit your mold at all, do I?

You weren’t content to compare me with a murderer by voting record, you then compare my argument with his shotgun blast. Have much hate in your heart, dear? Can’t have an argument without resorting to horrible accusations? All this hate and vitriol from you because I think we should hold the man who pulled the trigger responsible and not focus on his reading list. Amazing. I’m astounded by your logic. Bested by you? ROFLMAO

What you’re smelling isn’t fear from “conservative posters,” it’s your own rank hypocrisy. (Might I suggest a stronger deodorant?) When faced with a murder by an anti-war protester, there is complete silence from your side of the aisle about your personal responsibility.

I’ve already said how I feel about it, but you can’t have it both ways. The phrase you’re looking for is “cognitive dissonance,” and it’s the cause of that splitting headache you’re experiencing right about now.

As far as Kerochee calling you a twit, it’s not a word I would have chosen, but if the shoe fits…

::listens to the crickets chirping::

That’s what I thought…enough said…

“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

The man who pulled the trigger “owns the blood,” to claim otherwise is just plain ignorant…

You own the blood spilled. Your words have made it so.

Be men about it. Admit that your own political messiahs grew and nourished Adkisson and his ilk. Your squeals of moral superiority are nothing more than an impotent version of Adkisson’s shotgun blast. Much like Jim and K., he thinks he is better. He thinks he is entitled to judge.

Are you then claiming responsibility for what the anti-war protester in my example did? If so, then at least you’re wrong consistently.

If not, then the “principle” you’re standing on is nothing more than the weakest possible irrational self-justification for your hatred of those who disagree with you politically.

So which is it?