Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
THE QUESTION
Tragedy in Tucson
After Saturday's tragic shooting in Tucson, some have pointed the finger at inflammatory political rhetoric.
Many singled out Sarah Palin's now-infamous "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!" tweet and her 'Crosshairs' campaign map, which included Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' district, as a sign that some politicians have gone too far in stoking vitriol against their political opponents. (Since the shooting, Palin reportedly emphasized in an email that she "hates violence.") Others reject any connection between the shooter, who does not appear to espouse any coherent ideology, and our current political climate.
What are the ethical and moral implications of incendiary political language?
Posted by
On Faith on January 10, 2011 8:49 PM
FROM THE PANEL
Preaching hatred begets hatred
There are several very real problems in our country that have created the environment that led to what happened. The most immediate is that violence--in thought, word, and deed--has become such a prevalent aspect of our society that far too many of us have come to see it as just another way of dealing with people and ideas we do not like.
Posted by Ramdas Lamb, on January 16, 2011 9:15 PM
Take the path of selfless service
Although things may look inflammatory and polarized sometimes in the political and social arena, we really are not as divided as it might appear on the surface.
Posted by Rajan Zed, on January 14, 2011 2:29 PM
Trivializing violence
Some contemporary political rhetoric can be quite combustible-- not because it celebrates the idea of insurrection, but because it trivializes the nature of violence itself. Sarah Palin's recent statement unintentionally makes this point quite clearly.
Posted by Mathew N. Schmalz, on January 13, 2011 5:00 PM
Why Americans fight over civility
This disagreement--one largely about why civility matters--provides a window into the dramatically different world views of liberals and conservatives that lie at the root of our current political conflicts.
Posted by Robert P. Jones, on January 13, 2011 4:50 PM
Political monotheism and the slippery slope to Tucson
The man who calmly and methodically visited depravity and madness upon a grocery store in Tucson last week, wounds us deeply--unnerves us--beyond the utter tragedy of the lives lost and broken. The accused killer personifies the horror that our society has the potential to put forth--a profoundly disturbed, displaced soul, un-anchored and listless, until it hits a mine and explodes.
Posted by Aseem Shukla, on January 13, 2011 3:28 PM
Rethink, not reload
We all are responsible for what we say and write. Everyone who participates in the public discourse ought to do our part to end a culture of power-over domination that leads to violent speech and violent acts.
Posted by Valerie Elverton Dixon, on January 13, 2011 3:00 PM
Decent mourning
If the politicians could ban free will in the citizens, then they might end evil, but they should not try to do what God Himself will not do. So long as men are men, there will be tragedy in this life
Posted by John Mark Reynolds, on January 13, 2011 1:00 PM
Think before you hit 'send'
Sharp exchanges are part of our political life and are here to stay. We can retain those while jettisoning rhetoric that goes over the top.
Posted by Barry Lynn, on January 13, 2011 12:47 PM
Shooting underscores need for civility
Americans are fed up with such rhetoric. Even before this tragedy, a Public Agenda Research poll showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans said that lack of civility is a "serious national problem." More than six in 10 agreed that social behaviors were ruder than in the past. These trends are stunting an already violent society, and, continue to coddle a culture that produces road rage, sports fan rage, cell phone rage, and yes, even raging maniacs like alleged Arizona gunman Jared Loughner.
Posted by Jonathan Merritt, on January 13, 2011 12:38 PM
No safe way for prophets
Rep. Giffords is a new kind of leader who brings the right stuff to help heal our nation. What can we learn from her example?
Posted by Katharine Henderson, on January 13, 2011 12:34 PM
Time for a new story
Isn't it time for us to have a different type of conversation in response to this national trauma - the rare attempt in our country's history to assassinate a member of congress? Is there an alternative way we can think about this that might help us all move, at least a little bit, beyond our presumptive interpretations?
Posted by Irwin Kula, on January 13, 2011 12:17 PM
Time to stop rewarding the dehumanizing rhetoric
To prevent violence, we must stop speaking with violence.
Posted by Chris Stedman, on January 12, 2011 8:22 PM
We must be repelled by violence
we must also be mindful of those who acted heroically - and succeeded - to save the lives of the victims; and saved entire worlds....including all of us....as well.
Posted by Nathan Diament, on January 12, 2011 12:33 PM
Blaming "incendiary language" is a tool of ideologues
To attempt to "keep the peace" by chilling, or somehow prohibiting, freedom of speech, is simply another form of violence against the human spirit.
Posted by Fr. Frank Pavone, on January 12, 2011 8:12 AM
Incendiary political speech is aggressively selfish
Freedom of speech is one of the utterly essential pillars of government of, for and by the people. For me, the most serious moral implication of incendiary political speech is the way it exploits this necessary element of our body politic.
Posted by Janet Edwards, on January 11, 2011 4:50 PM
Defenders of incendiary political speech favor the ethic of Cain
When anti-gun control folk argue that "guns don't kill people--people kill people," they are disclosing scrambled moral thinking.
Posted by Robert Parham, on January 11, 2011 4:32 PM
Words represent our core beliefs
I do hope we can learn as a society from the tragedy in Tucson and tone things down. Early evidence, however, after a brief flurry of breast-beating, doesn't seem to be encouraging.
Posted by Max Carter, on January 11, 2011 4:32 PM
Existential rhetoric not new in American politics
Politicians on the left and the right have always framed policy debates in much larger terms. Health care, taxes, gun rights, abortion, and the like have never been talked about as limited policy issues affecting a few million Americans, but as existential threats to American identity. Unfortunately, once in a while, someone may actually believe it.
Posted by Amarnath Amarasingam, on January 11, 2011 3:24 PM
The state of hate
Radio talk hosts are wasting their breath and our time in challenging the notion that hateful words spawn hateful action. We know that "hateful words" induce conflict.
Posted by Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, on January 11, 2011 3:22 PM
This is a moment for courage, reflection
Surely, no one can lay the blame for the violence in Tucson at the foot of any politician or religious leader or media figure. The man who killed must bear the burden of his actions. But equally surely, this is a moment that calls for quiet, purging, reflection.
Posted by Timothy Shriver, on January 11, 2011 2:46 PM
Charged rhetoric pollutes the public square
It's hard to know whether there is any direct connection between the tragic shootings in Tucson and our rancid political rhetoric. We may never find out. However, we do know that inflammatory language -- pregnant with martial metaphors and Second Amendment allusions -- pollutes the public square
Posted by J. Brent Walker, on January 11, 2011 2:19 PM
Free speech trumps firearms
I deplore the incendiary political language of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, but I defend their right to use it.
Posted by Herb Silverman, on January 11, 2011 2:04 PM
Why we should instead look within
In the face of such terror, we seek reasons and explanations. I appreciate that impulse, and even indulged it for a while.
Posted by Brad Hirschfield, on January 11, 2011 10:54 AM
Vitriol + guns = disaster
Saturday was, simply, the brutal and inevitable intersection of fear, hatred and guns. There are those who, predictably, were quick to classify the violence as the work of a solo individual who held no coherent political ideology. This dangerous and misleading analysis reflects a willful blindness to the context and implications of the shootings.
Posted by Sharon Brous, on January 11, 2011 1:08 AM
How many more will die?
How many more will die before the Congress of the United States and the highest court in the land stand up to the gun lobby, put aside their political ideologies and differences and exercise the wisdom and courage necessary to address what has become the shame of our great democracy?
Posted by John Bryson Chane, on January 10, 2011 4:24 PM
