Criticizing Hate

| Mon 9 Jan 2012 | 3 Comments | 453 Views

Author Emily Dietle

My focus is on state-church separation & social issues. I'm an avid reader, and feel that one of our most valuable tools is the free movement of information and ideas. | @emilyhasbooks

The first news story I read today has me fuming.  The article, from @JoeMyGod, shares a story about two emails from Kansas politician.  The first email was in poor taste, referring to Mrs. Obama as “Mrs. YoMama,” the second was treasonous.

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal, from the city of Hutchison, sent an email before Christmas that compared the president’s wife to the Dr. Seuss character The Grinch, with a tagline asking: “Twins separated at birth?”

O’Neal had forward another email which referenced the Bible verse Psalm 109:8, which reads: “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.” The very next verse adds: “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

To top it off, O’Neal added his own closure to the second email:

“At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president!” O’Neal wrote. “Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!”

Apparently, O’Neal has since made an apology, albeit an insincere, legal “apology” and it was only in reference to the first email. He claims, “I forwarded it too quickly, missing the text included in the body of the mail.”  Can you say bullshit?

Apology not accepted, @ | “I forwarded it too quickly, missing the text included in the body of the mail.” << bullshit
@emilyhasbooks

Hate from the GOP is not new, and neither is using the Bible to support their abhorrent views.  This email incident is just another example of how the “holy” books are malignant, vile works.  The continual use and reference to such filth inspires and reinforces bigotry, hate, and violence.

Let me make a 2012 prediction of my own: criticism of Speaker O’Neal’s hate-filled email will be labeled an “attack” and those of us criticizing him that are atheists will be called “mean spirited.”  Such a response wouldn’t be unprecedented.  If you want to label me “angry” or “mean” for openly criticizing an individual’s hatred, so be it.  I’d rather be an “angry atheist” than apathetic.  Can I get an AMEN?

Links: JoeMyGod’s blog post & The Raw Story article

«
»
  • Homer Carroll

    A-fucking-men

  • John-Paul Mitchell

    Re: Criticizing Hate

    I agree with your sentiment and I’m sure, if his hateful letter receives the media attention it so richly deserves, it will be exaggeratingly called an “attack” and those who criticize him, curiously, will be called “angry” in a pejorative way. But, I’m not writing but for the opportunity to a gree with you, but to voice my dissent; seems fair?

    Onward. I take issue with the characterization of “treasonous” of his sentiment and with the characterization of “abhorrent” of the GOP’s views. First, because treason has a specific definition, it’s easy to see that saying you wish someone would die, nay, even sincerely praying it so, and further making the fact explicitly known is not treason. If prayer actually worked and if the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States weren’t worded the way it is, perhaps there would be a case for either conspiracy to commit or outright treason. As such, with the full power of prayer working as it does coupled with the freedoms afforded by the Bill of Rights, the speaker’s fumbling words do not meet the definition of “treasonous.”

    Further still. “Abhorrent” as some planks of the GOPs platform may be — and I’d ask you to numerate the one or more if you are criticizing the whole on account of the part — to your own views (Webster’s definition 2.) I shudder to think that you’d find a party’s entire set of views “abhorrent” (Webster, 3.) to you, especially based on one the speaker’s letter — which, if you check, are not the official views of the party itself and are the sentiment of but a fringe of the membership itself. Perhaps you have not considered that the members who make-up a party do not necessarily define the party line by their private lives or that the flustering rant of a proven backwoods state might not hold the Rosetta Stone for understanding the true thoughts of the majority of members. I’m here to tell you, adamantly, that his words do not. In the same way that Fox News is Conservatism and Bill O’Reilly is a true pundit — that is, only in that they both wish to portray themselves as such for effect. In case you’d like to understand the GOP’s rotted planks and thus the architecture of its platform: http://www.gop.com They have some fair and true criticism of the president, his policies and they describe rather vaguely their position of several issues. There’s also Wikipedia, which though a trite suggestion, in some cases apparently needs be made. I would not think that high wages, lower taxes and low unemployment would be goals disagreeable to you, so I assume there is at least some measure of agreement you’d have with the GOP.

    The close, I know this is long-winded, but it was carefully considered and written in hopes to illustrate that the two fears you and I share, that the speaker’s letter will be unfairly characterized as an “attack” and those who condemn his sentiment and expression will be dismissed as simply “angry.” You see, you have committed both sins. You call the letter treasonous, when it plainly is not; you call the GOP abhorrent on the ground of the letter’s “poor taste”, which paints you as “mean spirited” and simply angry about someone’s opposing views, of which you seem not-to-well informed. So, to head-off the ambush of criticism, perhaps anyone criticizing this letter could stray away from hyperbole and straw-manery. The letter has several faults, reasonable and contradictory to the writer’s very profession of faith. Indeed the speaker could be fairly and indelibly painted as an immature whelp and a hypocrite, but blog posts like this relegate his letter to the picayune points of unnecessary exaggeration countered by tedious semantics.

    Perhaps I’m trolling, perhaps I’m not, but I would hope my criticism of your post would not be taken personally, but be an impetus to think and research before wafting your fume into the blogosphere. I welcome any response you’d have.

  • emsbooks

    @John-Paul Mitchell

    Is it not treasonous to call upon the death of the President? It doesn’t matter that we recognize that prayer doesn’t work, this man truly believes it does.

    I cite United States v. Stickrath, 242 151, 153 (DC Ohio 1917) (“In this country sovereignty resides in the people, not in the President, who is merely their chosen representative. To threaten to kill him or to inflict upon him bodily harm stimulates opposition to national policies, however wise, even in the most critical times, incites the hostile and evil-minded to take the President’s life, adds to the expense of his safekeeping, is an affront to all loyal and right-thinking persons, inflames their minds, provokes resentment, disorder, and violence, is akin to treason, and is rightly denounced as a crime against the people as the sovereign power.”).

    Also, refer yourself to this: Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making “any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States”.

    The prototype for Section 871 was the British Treason Act 1351, which made it a crime to “compass or imagine” the death of the King. Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 871 have been sustained for declaring that “President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself.”;[3] and for declaring that “Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power I would put him there.”

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States)

    Furthermore, I did not damn the entire GOP for O’Neal’s behaviour. In fact, I clearly stated, “Hate from the GOP is not new, and neither is using the Bible to support their abhorrent views.” This legislator is an official representative of the Grand Old Party. They have not come out and officially condemned his remarks, so are we to assume the GOP agrees with O’Neal?

    My ultimate focus and frustration is with the “holy” books, and how they are a continual source of material to back-up people’s bigotry, hate, and violence.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Category: Atheism & Religion