I received some comments on yesterday’s blog regarding the hostage crisis at the Discovery Channel headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland. 

The gist of it was that, while the hostage taker appeared motivated by the arguments of environmentalists, specifically Al Gore, it would be wrong to hold them or their legitimate viewpoints hostage to the actions of a disturbed madman.

I also said that same principle applies to political liberals, conservatives, Christians, Muslims and any individuals or groups holding legitimate (possibly wrong but legitimately held) beliefs that are twisted by people seeking to justify their own hateful speech and/or heinous acts. I believe to do so may seem politically expedient as a way of discrediting all opposition but does not serve the cause of actual understanding and civil discourse.

I do. I admit, think the most of purportedly agendaless mainstream media does have tendency to focus a lot more attention on the motivations lunatics of the right than of the left.   

In any event, Kenneth made several good and valid points in his comments. Starting with:

“If people bear no responsibility for inciting others to evil acts, why is
Charlie Manson still in prison? Or most of the top-level white supremacists from
the 80s and 90s? Why do we think of Jim Jones as a bad guy? All he did was float
some ideas out there. If people went a little nuts with them, well that must
have been their misinterpretation!“

My response: I think the difference is that the people you mentioned directly called for for violence.  That’s far different than merely standing for environmentalism or against abortion (even passionately so) and having someone use that position as a justification for violence.

Kenneth adds:

For that matter, what’s the moral basis for our war on terrorism? A good many
of the people we hunt are guys who have nothing to do with moving money or
weapons or planning attacks or training or any material act of terror. They’re
just “imams” who craft the mythology which inspires young men to join the
movement.

My response: I think our government has made it very clear that this is not a war on Islam but on those involved in terrorism. To my knowledge, any imam on a terror list is at least suspected of involvement with terrorism.

Kenneth: “Does the moral responsibility for WW II rest solely on the guys who pulled the
triggers and ran the logistics of the death camps? Before he took power, Hitler
was just a guy who spoke forcefully about very legitimate grievances of his
fellow countrymen. His words inspired many killings without his direct
involvement or knowledge Did he become morally culpable only after he issued his
first signed orders in office?” 

My response: I think Hitler was, in fact, directly involved with the creation of death camps and the murders committed by the Nazis. He, after all, ordered them. I don’t, however, hold all Germans responsible — only those who knowingly and willingly took part in attempted genocide.

Kenneth: “Why does the Catholic Church have a penalty of excommunication for people who
publicly advocate heresy or theological “error”? They’re not making anyone do
anything after all.”

My response: First of all, I don’t defend everything the Catholic Church has ever done — but those in authority do have the right to insist that those claiming to reflect the church’s views actually reflect them.

Kenneth: “Of course individuals bear responsibility for their own action, but so do
those who incite them. I’m not talking about some nut reading secret messages
into song lyrics, but demagogues who deliberately and intentionally incite
hatred and create an atmosphere where violence seems welcome, even
moral.”

My response: So, we agree on individual responsibility — and also that it is morally wrong to deliberately and intentionally incite violence. But I’m not sure why reading secret messages into song lyrics (some of which can be pretty angry and provocative) is all that much crazier than twisting environmentalism or a belief in traditional religious values into a justification for hate speech or, worse, violence.

To be sure, both liberal and conservative commentators would be wise to tamp down the anger in their rhetoric (at the very least it coarsens society) but there’s a big difference between expressing a point of view (even with anger) and promoting hatred or violence.

Kenneth: “Some of these guys, mostly conservatives these days, put out rhetoric around the
clock telling people that their country is being stolen from them by evil alien
forces and that it’s time “some patriot” does “something” wink-wink about it. I
find it hard to believe they’re not hoping for violence, or at least indifferent
to its possibility. They’re recklessly manipulating people for their own power
and they bear no moral responsibility for the results, then we have truly become
an amoral society.”

My response: I have to seriously disagree with your contention that over-the-top rhetoric stems mostly from conservatives.  Some does but there are countless examples from the left as well., i.e. this from MSNBC’s Ed Schultz prior to the recent U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts:  “I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times. I don’t
know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to
keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.”

So, in Schultz’s world view, GOP candidate Scott Brown (who, of course, won) was such a threat to America that it would have been justified to subvert democracy to keep him from being elected. Imagine if Glenn Beck had said that.

And this isn’t as isolated case. I most probably could fill a health care bill-sized document with other such examples.

The right and the left both need to police themselves and restrain from the suggestion that to merely disagree with their own version of “politically-correct” thinking is a threat to humanity so great that even the Constitution should not be an impediment to thwarting dissenters.

And, finally, in answering my rhetorical question “What if the Discovery Channel hostage taker had been “awakened” to the words of
Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck?,” nnmns wrote:

“He’d have tried to kill one of our brave abortion providers, as has happened
a number of times before. Or maybe attacked a synagogue or mosque, depending on
his bent, as has happened too often. Or tried to fly a plane into an IRS office
as happened a few months ago and was applauded by some conservative
bloggers.”

My response: First of all, any act to commit violence to fight abortion is wrong and should be condemned. According to Wikipedia, prior to the heinous murder of Dr. George Tiller in 2009, the last such murder of an abortion provider in the U.S. was in 1998. There have been none since.  There have been other non-lethal abortion clinic attacks since then which should also be condemned.

The battle over abortion (or fetuscide) needs to be won in the hearts and minds of the American people — not with bombs and bullets.

As for the idea that conservatives are out there bombing synogogues and mosques, I would suggest that it is conservatives who are most supportive of the Jewish people when it comes to protecting the State of Israel — and that liberals, unfortunately, are at least as prone to anti-Semitism as conservatives.

And, of course, violence against mosques is to be condemned but why is that it’s okay to link all conservatives with the acts of a few terrorists (and they are terrorists) but we are (correctly) expected to separate mainstream Muslims from those who commit violence in their name? The simple principle is that such generalizations are wrong — period!

Regarding, Joe Stack, the guy who flew his plane earlier this year into a Texas IRS building, I believe you have your facts wrong.

As documented by the Smoking Gun, Stack apparently posted a manifesto online prior to his suicidal flight that contained ditties like:

“Why is it that a handful of thugs and
plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives,
for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under
the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full
federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not
hours?”

And references to “the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church,” “the monsters of organized religion,” and “presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies.” 

If he was a product of the right, then I think he missed the Talking Points memo.

BTW, if you missed Mr. Stack’s manifesto, it’s not surprising.  Despite the spectacular nature of his act of suicidal terrorism, the story actually fell off the front pages pretty quickly. I suspect it might have had more legs had he belonged to the Tea Party.

And, also BTW, what conservative bloggers “applauded” that attack? That’s a claim that needs to be backed up. Asserting it doesn’t make it so.

The basic point is that there are crazies on the left and crazies on the right. They’re toxic to all and poison the well of legitimate debate.

nnmns adds: “These things done by conservative kooks have happened often enough not to be big
news and of course won’t be parroted by right wing bloggers like JWK.”

My response: While I do, in fact, tilt to the conservative side of the ledger, I hold quite a few more liberal positions that probably don’t conform to your (apparently) us-against-them view of the world.

My actual overall view is that we’ve all been given legitimate perspectives, that the truth lies in finding the right balance between them and that God expects us to learn to live together by peacefully working out our differences. That requires thinking, respect for others — and restraint from making snap judgments about other people who don’t see things exactly as we do.