Round up the usual suspects |
by Gina Dalfonzo |
Liberal columnist and talk-show host Bonnie Erbe suggests that we "round up" purveyors of hate speech before they cause violence:
Now we have this quote from the so-called Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who used to be President Obama's pastor. Hate comes from among all peoples and all religions. He said this about his lack of communication with Barack Obama since he's been elected president, according to the AP:
"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office," Wright told the Daily Press of Newport News following a Tuesday night sermon at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference.
It's not enough to prosecute these murders as murders. They are hate-motivated crimes and each of these men had been under some sort of police surveillance prior to their actions. Isn't it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?
We need to take steps against the encouragement of violence in our society; there's no question about that. But the steps Erbe advocates would lead us in a very dangerous direction.
If we rounded up persons who did "hate speech" there would be lots of arrests done daily if the FBI viewed even AOL's common news sites.
However, they are assuming that nasty words automatically points to a killer.
And, of course, who defines "hate speech"???
Posted by: vikingmother | June 15, 2009 at 11:25 AM
It's interesting that Wright's remarks were made at a "Minister's" conference. I'd love to know the source of their theology. If it had even a remote connection to Scripture, all of the "Ministers" would have gotten up and walked out on Wright as well they should have.
Posted by: Joe | June 15, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Aren't our prisons already overcrowded?
Oh, that's right - they could use Gitmo.
Posted by: LeeQuod | June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Isn't the phrase "hate speech" rather "hateful"? What if someone starts killing people for using "hate speech"?
Posted by: jason taylor | June 15, 2009 at 02:12 PM
The real danger is in who will determine what "hate speech" is. While it may be clear that someone, like the Holocost museum murderer, clearly hated and acted on his hate, it might be decided that a pastor giving a sermon on, say the value of life, might be inciting someone to go out and shoot up an abortion clinic. Who will decide?
Posted by: becky | June 15, 2009 at 02:38 PM
One other thing. There is a local African American reporter who commented recently about how we can't even have a good discussion on race anymore because everyone is afraid of being labeled as "racist". The concept of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" may be holding us back from dealing with real problems in our society.
Posted by: becky | June 15, 2009 at 02:43 PM
So as Christians, we have another great reason to focus on teaching our young people (and learning ourselves) how to communicate the truth in a firm yet loving and winsome manner. Sarcasm -- out. Personal attacks -- out.
Jesus told the truth always, but he was never mean-spirited about it.
I say all this knowing that even when we *are* above reproach as the Bible instructs, there will still be folks out there who interpret a direct quote from the Bible, read in the most mild voice and prefaced by compassionate, understanding remarks, to be ... "hateful!"
Nonetheless, Holy Spirit often convicts me that there is plenty of room for improvement in my personal speech. And I believe the church as a whole should continue to aim for that "being above reproach" standard God set.
When I see that standard held up on the Point, it inspires me to keep trying in everyday ways and in print.
Posted by: Rachel Coleman | June 15, 2009 at 06:40 PM