CNN has reported that the man accused of shooting up a Unitarian-Universalist church in Knoxville told police that the church's liberal teachings incited the rampage which killed two and injured seven. J. David Adkisson blamed liberals and Democrats for the country's decline, and, "because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement ... he would then target those that had voted them into office".
Inside his house, police officers found 'Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder' by radio talk show host Michael Savage, 'Let Freedom Ring' by talk show host Sean Hannity, and 'The O'Reilly Factor,' by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly."
After reading the works of Hate Radio commentators he decided to do something about it. As only one example, Ann Coulter says liberals should be beaten with baseball bats.
The sad irony is that Unitarian-Universalists strongly support social justice. They were in the forefront of the anti-slavery movement and the current gay rights movement. They often find themselves championing people who have been marginalized by society.
Matthew Hine
Chattanooga
* * *
Should we ban books by conservative Talk Show entertainers? The shootings at the Unitarian-Universalist Church in Knoxville were tragic, but to say Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage are contributing factors is a little far fetched. That would be like saying Jodie Foster was a contributing factor in the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.
Should we ban all books and films? What if someone reads Al Gore's book and destroys your house because it is not energy efficient. Would you say Al was a contributing factor?
Where does it stop? What should we ban next? Guns? Which assault weapons do you want to ban? Guns, cars, trucks, Golf Clubs, Screwdrivers, Kitchen knives, rolling pins, bowling balls, etc. All of these assault weapons could have ended the life of an innocent bystander in this tragedy. However, one practical feature of purses, suits, clergy robes, and choir robes are their ability to hide hand guns and I am sure a lot more worshipers will be carrying more than the Bible this and every Sunday morning from now on.
May God be with all of the families involved in this tragedy.
Richard Sims
* * *
Knee-jerk responses to anything and everything are the norm these days, but Mr. Hines' letter about the "Factors in Tragic Knoxville Church Shooting" is yet another textbook example of finger-pointing and blame assignment.
This crime was perpetrated by a sick, deranged nut case. The motivating factors are irrelevant, because as an adult he alone is responsible for his horrible actions. Not Rush Limbaugh, not Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage. Let's keep the blame where it belongs.
Both sides of the political aisle are responsible for the polarized atmosphere in this country. Everything is an "either/or" proposition. There is no common ground. Liberals don't give an inch (see "Oil Drilling"), Conservatives don't give an inch. Right now, you're on one side or the other, and to use a sports analogy, you have to hate the other team with all your heart and soul.
So, spare us the "Talk Radio is evil" lecture. Talk Radio as a format is popular because Conservatives know they can't trust the news the mainstream media presents. They have turned to this format for the other side.
Millions of these listeners are normal, ultra-productive, law-abiding members of our great society and to lump them in with a wacko is insulting.
And as an aside, a copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance was found in the Unabomber's home. So is Al the Savior guilty of murder as well?
Jonathan Griswold
Soddy Daisy
jg107@comcast.net
* * *
To Mr. Sims and Mr. Giswold,
Mr. Hine never advocated for banning books or speech in his letter.
He does point out that the shooter at the UU Church in Knoxville was a consumer of hate speech.
Not many people who listen to hate speech will behave in this manner, but some will.
While there may be no direct link for the average listener, why do these hate mongers deserve an audience?
Phaen Stone
* * *
A difference in political views is not hate speech. It's called free speech. The same free speech that allows Al Franken and Michael Moore to spread their liberal "hate speech".
America is still a democracy and we are allowed to hear all points of view.
Rick Watts
* * *
Phaen Stone believes "hate speech" (whatever that is) leads mentally ill
people to murder. I never read Savage (don't have much use for him), but
Hannity's and O'Reilly's writings are pretty vanilla....factual, but very
time-dated and I watch and listen to them for current stuff, not a world
view.
Phaen and Matthew Hine won't have to worry about their own heroes and
heroines having much impact, as few people ever seem to buy their books.
Paying good money to read bee-ess isn't very attractive. Just today
Boortz reported Nany Pullosi's book dropped on Amazon from
#800-something, and by the time Rush came on it was below #1,000. I
guess I give democrat readers less credit than I might.
John R. Smickle
Chattanooga
jsbottomfeeder@juno.com
Chattanooga
* * *
"We sleep peacefully in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf." ~ Orson Wells
So, "why do these hate mongers deserve an audience?" Because those rough men have been willing to march off, sometimes never to return home, sometimes to only partially return, and do violence in order to ensure each of us has a right to speak in any manner we wish. They have been willing to sacrifice themselves for people they don't even know.
Those rough men have marched off to do violence on our behalf in order to ensure that if the only European phrase we wish to learn is "merci beaucoup," that's all we have to learn ... or no foreign language at all.
Those who question the right of those who don't agree with them to freely speak remind me of something the late Samuel Langhorn Clemons, known to most by his pen name, Mark Twain, once said:
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man." ~Mark Twain
Something in statements by those who would be so bold as to express a question such as "why do these hate mongers deserve an audience" makes me wonder if that person has ever walked up to a veteran, looked him or her in the eye, shook his hand, and said "thank you."
Royce E. Burrage Jr.
Royce@OfficiallyChapped.org
* * *
It’s funny how those that defend the speech of guys like Dr. Savage and Ann Coulter are often very quick to blame inner city violence on rappers and hip hop music. Surely if listening to a “music studio gangster” rap about shooting someone and gangbanging makes kids do stupid things the same would apply to a guy who listens to Dr Savage ranting about how the Minorities and Liberals are destroying America.
Wake up, people. Both Dr. Savage and Hip Hop are forms of entertainment. The real culprits are the guys who pull the trigger, not the entertainers that they listen to.
G. Scruggs
Chattanooga
* * *
Mr. Burrage, what exactly are you talking about? How do you equate someone calling out O'Reilly, Hannity and Savage as hate mongers with people being anti free speech? While I know you picture yourself as the Will Rogers of the Chattanooga Right Wing, you are way off base here.
The question was not "why do they deserve the right to express an opinion," it was "why do they deserve an audience?"
There was no attack on free speech, but as is often pointed out, you are responsible for what you say.
The fact is these pundits are not out there trying to get the "truth" out. They are trying to get Americans to hate other Americans. In this way they can label people as "Conservatives" or "Liberals." When this happens, then there is no real discussion on issues, it is just us vs. them. Their goal is to get conservative to dismiss all opinions of liberals, simply because they are liberals.
It happens on both sides and will keep this country from ever addressing any real problems. The objective is to get their listeners to blame all their problems on the people on the other side of the political spectrum, regardless if it is logical are factual.
These people are not to blame for the actions of some nut, but the current mentality that says those who differ politically are out to "destroy America" is partially to blame. While I am sure that O'Reilly and Hannity would not want someone to use violence to solve political differences, you can be quite sure their goal is to divide people along political lines, even to the point of hate. This has become the norm on both sides, and is politically effective.
As far as Mr. Savage goes, his speech appeals to the most hateful aspects of human nature. He told a gay man that he "hoped he got AIDS and died" just because he was gay, and he recently stated that autistic children mostly just needed to have some sense slapped into them. It is apparent he is the one that could probably use a little sense.
Ask yourself this question. If not for the daily, multiple attacks by people who are anti-immigrant, would five regular high school kids beat a illegal immigrant to death, like just happened in Pennsylvania? While illegal immigration is a serious issue, people like O'Reilly and Dobbs like to use specific cases of illegal immigrants breaking the law to induce anger towards these people, mainly Hispanics. Illegal immigration needs to addressed through politicians and laws, not vigilanty justice, but when you make a deliberate effort to induce fear and anger in the population, you should expect that their will be a response by a few that is past your objective.
B. Vance
Johnson City, Tn.
* * *
I always think it interesting that those who will stand up for the people (some will try to call them "entertainers" but I use other, much less attractive, adjectives) who advocate violence against women, violence toward police, drug use, and shooting or otherwise harming others are equated with what some consider the right wing wacko crowd on talk radio.
I will defy any of these to give specific examples of when any of the Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, Levin, Coulter, O'Reilly, Dobbs and others crowd have ever said or written anything about harming another person because they don't believe the same way they do. You can't. They may be passionate about their beliefs but they have never advocated violence to reach their goals. To even try to equate them with those who do advocate violence is pure idiocy and to include that other person, Michael Savage, with them is too.
As for the difference between "why do they deserve an audience" and "why do they deserve the right to express an opinion", there is none. They express their opinions and present themselves to a willing audience. It is as simple as that. They get paid quite handsomely for doing it, too, by the way. I suppose if people are willing to pay them to express those opinions they deserve those audiences.
I've heard people question the amount of money these people get paid and are they worth it. Obviously they are or nobody would pay them. What's the difference between their salaries and those some sports figure gets paid? I suppose the next thing we will be told is that rich people are responsible for all of the ills of the world. But wait, they're already being blamed for most of them anyway so that wouldn't be too much of a leap; except that it seems only conservative people are being blamed, never those who advocate violence in both their words and actions.
Could it be that some are jealous? It's enough to make a person wonder. My daughter learned that a bar of soap doesn't taste very good when she spoke badly of another girl whose family had more than us when they were little. That was one time her brothers took a lesson, a lesson some appear not to have learned from their parents.
Barbara Fields
Stallings, NC
Barb1217@bellsouth.net