Violent Rhetoric in Politics

[broken_one]

Okay, I think we all know what I'm talking about. A man entered a Safeway yesterday and shot a congresswoman point-blank in the head, killed 6 people including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl, and then injured about a dozen more. The shooter, a 22-year-old white male, was said to be have been inspired and influenced by the vitriol coming from the recent political climate. Sarah Palin's reference on her website to the congresswoman as a "target" with crosshairs on her district has drawn ire in particular, as well as the Tea Party carrying guns to political rallies (Congresswoman Giffords' in particular) during the last election. Personally I think it was just some crazy who, under the "approved" climate of violence and anger, was allowed to further his fantasy to the point of tragedy.

When are we going to stop making these metaphors and symbolic actions so these things do not happen in the future??

 

[Amber.ly]

Violence isn't contained to politics, so when there are no more individuals who are willing to use weapons against other living creatures, then the problem will be solved.

I think hatred comes from inside ourselves and when we have that, it doesn't matter what outside forces influence us, at some point, that hatred, if left unchecked, will be destructive.

 

[MacFall]

Politics deals exclusively with the legal power to initiate force. There is no way to talk about politics in terms of peace and respect without lying.

 

[armyman_83]

Why can't people make such metaphors? Didn't those in the Bible even use images of warfare? I think that its how you take it. Sure some people might literally mean some of the things they say.

Free Speech.....I guess its only good if its non-violent. Maybe it should be-- "Non-violent, PG rated, Warm and Fuzzy Feeling Speech."

Blame crazies, not people for using the RIGHT of free speech.

 

[benf]

Senseless tragedy.

 

[CrusaderKing]

Just because someone took a message literally shouldn't mean people can't use metaphors.

 

[Touma]

Why can't people make such metaphors? Didn't those in the Bible even use images of warfare? I think that its how you take it. Sure some people might literally mean some of the things they say.

Free Speech.....I guess its only good if its non-violent. Maybe it should be-- "Non-violent, PG rated, Warm and Fuzzy Feeling Speech."

Blame crazies, not people for using the RIGHT of free speech.

Yes, we have free speech. But freedom requires responsibility. People with power have to realize that there are those who are so desperate, angry, scared, mentally unstable, etc etc etc, and those people will listen to these violent images and take them seriously and go and hurt others.

We live in an increasingly divided and troubled time. There are people on both sides who use these words carelessly, because it generates publicity, and with publicity comes followers and money. Unfortunately, when you spew things like using "second amendment remedies" to take care of the Democrats, or talk about reloading and taking aim at opponents, or have a map with targets on it, or talking about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants, people will take those things seriously and will try to find a way to follow through with the message.

We can still disagree with political ideologies in which we hold no belief. I will still speak out as a liberal against many conservative policies. But I will never say anything which would indicate that those beliefs need to be eliminated, with violent imagery. How horrible would it be if I said "Just like the Jews were eliminated in Nazi Germany, so too conservative policies need to be burned and gassed". I technically have the right to say that. The fact that I was able to use it as an example, proves that. However, it does nothing to add to the political discussions that we need to be having. We need to be discussing why things work, and why other things don't work. If something doesn't work, then we need to convince other people that it is time to move away from that idea. So instead of my previous statement, I could saying something like:

"I believe it is time that we move away from traditional views on this social aspect, because there are many people who do not hold to that view, and want us to progress forward".

That type of discussion is what we need to use our free speech for. It is the kind that builds our country up, instead of the bridge burning, walling building, red state/blue state, divisive screamfests that we currently engaged in.

 

[ulu]

95% of politicians are bottom feeders. Always expect the worst from them and you won't be disappointed. Referring to themselves as "public servants" while living the high life at the expense of the "public' gives a glimpse of the deception they willingly participate in.

 

[armyman_83]

Yes, we have free speech. But freedom requires responsibility. People with power have to realize that there are those who are so desperate, angry, scared, mentally unstable, etc etc etc, and those people will listen to these violent images and take them seriously and go and hurt others.

We live in an increasingly divided and troubled time. There are people on both sides who use these words carelessly, because it generates publicity, and with publicity comes followers and money. Unfortunately, when you spew things like using "second amendment remedies" to take care of the Democrats, or talk about reloading and taking aim at opponents, or have a map with targets on it, or talking about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants, people will take those things seriously and will try to find a way to follow through with the message.

We can still disagree with political ideologies in which we hold no belief. I will still speak out as a liberal against many conservative policies. But I will never say anything which would indicate that those beliefs need to be eliminated, with violent imagery. How horrible would it be if I said "Just like the Jews were eliminated in Nazi Germany, so too conservative policies need to be burned and gassed". I technically have the right to say that. The fact that I was able to use it as an example, proves that. However, it does nothing to add to the political discussions that we need to be having. We need to be discussing why things work, and why other things don't work. If something doesn't work, then we need to convince other people that it is time to move away from that idea. So instead of my previous statement, I could saying something like:

"I believe it is time that we move away from traditional views on this social aspect, because there are many people who do not hold to that view, and want us to progress forward".

That type of discussion is what we need to use our free speech for. It is the kind that builds our country up, instead of the bridge burning, walling building, red state/blue state, divisive screamfests that we currently engaged in.

I agree, we have the duty to act as reasonable people. But still, peoples' rights' are their rights'.

You say people shouldn't say some things, and thats fine--you have freedom to say it. People shouldn't use their freedom of speech to limit anothers, they should use it to change their mind.

Oh and why shouldn't "Second amendment remedies" be acceptable? Why should are forefathers' quotes be deemed unreasonable? While such methods are a bit extreme, they are, under certian circumstances, acceptable.

 

[Sketcher]

The Daily Kos does the exact same thing that Palin did. I for one don't have a problem with the rhetoric. It is by reasonable people, for reasonable people. It is not for violent nutcases. Besides, I'd be surprised if this character even saw Palin's map. He was an anarchist.

 

[Touma]

I agree, we have the duty to act as reasonable people. But still, peoples' rights' are their rights'.

You say people shouldn't say some things, and thats fine--you have freedom to say it. People shouldn't use their freedom of speech to limit anothers, they should use it to change their mind.

Oh and why shouldn't "Second amendment remedies" be acceptable? Why should are forefathers' quotes be deemed unreasonable? While such methods are a bit extreme, they are, under certian circumstances, acceptable.

There are limits to free speech though. I cannot write an article advocating treason against the United States government. I cannot slander or libel someone. I cannot go into a plane and yell bomb, or a crowded theater and yell fire. I cannot say that I want to kill the president. These are all reasonable limitations on free speech, because their outcomes all end up bringing destabilization or violence to our free society. There is no room for violence in politics, but rather civil discussions.

Sharon Angle was the person who said there needed to be 2nd amendment remedies. Against what? "The Harry Reid problem". That should be seen as a direct call to violence. The 2nd amendment is not meant to be a tool to use anytime you disagree politically with someone. Nor is it reasonable to say that we need t water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots. We live in a society where we can completely overthrow the government with the power of voting. A lot of the violent rhetoric started coming right after the Health Care vote. People were threatening congressmen, attacking other citizens, vandalizing property, etc. And it was all based around the rhetoric which came from the right when talking about Health Care. That is irresponsible, and not how our country works.

We vote congress people into office. They then make laws which are based on what the majority of their constituents desire. The democrats were elected by the people, partly based on reforming health care. They did what they were told to do. If the majority of people wanted that to not happen, then there would have been a lot more republican victories in November. Thus, the will of the people is still in effect. So it is not like there is some tyrannical government forcing its will upon the people, and oppressing their every right.

And even if there was such a thing to happen, what right do we Christians have, to be part of a violently charged opposition? Have we forgot that God ordains all authority(romans 13)?

So once again, its all about being responsible. Saying that political opposition needs to be taken out with violent imagery is FAR from responsible, and could possibly fall under some of those restrictions on Free speech.

 

[Touma]

The Daily Kos does the exact same thing that Palin did. I for one don't have a problem with the rhetoric. It is by reasonable people, for reasonable people. It is not for violent nutcases. Besides, I'd be surprised if this character even saw Palin's map. He was an anarchist.

I don't think that saying someone is dead to me is the same as calling for reloading and taking aim, or using 2nd amendment remedies. It is uncalled for nonetheless.

 

[MacFall]

95% of politicians are bottom feeders. Always expect the worst from them and you won't be disappointed. Referring to themselves as "public servants" while living the high life at the expense of the "public' gives a glimpse of the deception they willingly participate in.

I agree with all but the first two words.

One has to be willing to live parasitically while believing one's self to be morally superior to others in order to become a politician at all, or else be completely ignorant of the nature of politics.

 

[Sketcher]

I don't think that saying someone is dead to me is the same as calling for reloading and taking aim, or using 2nd amendment remedies. It is uncalled for nonetheless.

Again, the rhetoric is by reasonable people and for reasonable people. It is not for violent loons.

 

[MacFall]

There is no room for violence in politics, but rather civil discussions.

Only true in a very twisted way. Politics is all about having civil discussions masking the deep wells of violence on which all political action thrives.

A lot of the violent rhetoric started coming right after the Health Care vote.

Which, I'm sure, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the government's willingness to violently impose itself on people who want it to have nothing to do with their health care choices.

We vote congress people into office. They then make laws which are based on what the majority of their constituents desire.

Which are then inflicted on the minority through violence.

Have we forgot that God ordains all authority(romans 13)?

God ordains agents of justice (those who reward good and punish evil). He does not ordain political power, which enables corruption and inhibits good works and moral choice. The sooner Christians learn to distinguish just authority from political power, the better.

So once again, its all about being responsible. Saying that political opposition needs to be taken out with violent imagery is FAR from responsible, and could possibly fall under some of those restrictions on Free speech.

Political speech is either going to be openly violent, or dishonest. There are no other options. If you want to get rid of violent imagery, you'll have to get rid of politics.

 

[benf]

God ordains agents of justice (those who reward good and punish evil). He does not ordain political power, which enables corruption and inhibits good works and moral choice. The sooner Christians learn to distinguish just authority from political power, the better.

Are you trying to tell me the Bush/Gore count results wasn't deevine provadence!!??? Dat ain't American. Never Forget™9/11/01

Spoiler: my self-portrait

 

[armyman_83]

There are limits to free speech though. I cannot write an article advocating treason against the United States government. I cannot slander or libel someone. I cannot go into a plane and yell bomb, or a crowded theater and yell fire. I cannot say that I want to kill the president. These are all reasonable limitations on free speech, because their outcomes all end up bringing destabilization or violence to our free society. There is no room for violence in politics, but rather civil discussions.

Sadly you might go to jail for writing such an article. But people should remember the Sedition Acts. Peoples' free speech against the government was seen as hazardous by the government (no duh right?). Luckily the Sedition acts were done away with, that way big brother can't limit everything and construde it as treason. But there are, of course, still lots of limits.

As to yelling fire in a theater--that is covered in Schenck v. United States, and the idea of such words being in volation were tweeked in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

I agree that there are some limits to free speech, as there should be--in some very few cases.

Sharon Angle was the person who said there needed to be 2nd amendment remedies. Against what? "The Harry Reid problem". That should be seen as a direct call to violence. The 2nd amendment is not meant to be a tool to use anytime you disagree politically with someone. Nor is it reasonable to say that we need t water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots. We live in a society where we can completely overthrow the government with the power of voting. A lot of the violent rhetoric started coming right after the Health Care vote. People were threatening congressmen, attacking other citizens, vandalizing property, etc. And it was all based around the rhetoric which came from the right when talking about Health Care. That is irresponsible, and not how our country works.

You talk as if violence isn't an acceptable option in some circumstances? I am not saying that people should not use the lawful process, but if that process ever becomes destructive to the ends of its citizens, it is oppression and usurpation. This is of course, in extreme situations. Now the Ballot is where we must look for with hope, but that does not mean we should lay aside the Bullet either.

We vote congress people into office. They then make laws which are based on what the majority of their constituents desire. The democrats were elected by the people, partly based on reforming health care. They did what they were told to do. If the majority of people wanted that to not happen, then there would have been a lot more republican victories in November. Thus, the will of the people is still in effect. So it is not like there is some tyrannical government forcing its will upon the people, and oppressing their every right.

Not all laws are, in fact, Constitutional.

And even if there was such a thing to happen, what right do we Christians have, to be part of a violently charged opposition? Have we forgot that God ordains all authority(romans 13)?

We are bound to obey the law, so long as it is a good law. Lex Mella, Lex Nulla--A bad law is no law.

If those in power were to disobey the Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land), then we would be within our right to remove them, by any means necessary--as they are in violation. Ballots first.

So once again, its all about being responsible. Saying that political opposition needs to be taken out with violent imagery is FAR from responsible, and could possibly fall under some of those restrictions on Free speech.

Its how people take "violent imagery" that matters, not those who speak with violent metephors. But I am in agreement, that people should be perhaps a bit more tactful--but even if they aren't---It is their Right.

 

[smacky ramone]

Scripture talks about the tongue as a tiny spark that can ignite a forest fire. When you use phrases like "lock 'n' load" to stir up dissension, it's essentially sowing seeds of violence. If you look at Romans 1:29, you can see several of the fruits of evil that exist in politics: "Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip."

It doesn't matter your political viewpoints; if you can't express them in a godly way, then something is wrong in your spiritual walk.

 

[armyman_83]

Righteous fury is different from malicious behavior.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

The Daily Kos does the exact same thing that Palin did. I for one don't have a problem with the rhetoric. It is by reasonable people, for reasonable people. It is not for violent nutcases. Besides, I'd be surprised if this character even saw Palin's map. He was an anarchist.

You can't be serious. Didn't that link a message board?