Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Charged rhetoric pollutes the public square
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?
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, and may cause someone to run past the metaphor and take the message literally. This kind of language is altogether counterproductive, as it fails to communicate accurately with one's constituency, and it alienates and emboldens the opposition. In governing, such rhetoric also fails to provide a linguistic context within which to compromise.
Our public debate has moral fiber for all of us -- people of faith and non-believers alike. In our pluralistic political culture we will seldom all agree on much of anything, and it is a sign of a vital democracy to debate our differences with passion and intensity. But we must always speak the truth, and do it lovingly and with a touch of humility.
The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures enjoin us to tell the truth, speak from the heart, avoid slander and keep our word. For the Psalmist it was a condition of entry to the Tent of Meeting in the temple. In his first letter, St. Peter says to be ready to make a strong defense of the hope that is within us, but to do it with "gentleness and respect." In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us to speak directly and truthfully (let your yes be yes and your no be no). We are instructed not to insult one another in anger and, perhaps most difficult of all, to love our enemies, real and perceived.
Without compromising whatsoever their heart-felt disagreements on policy issues or political leadership, I would hope the purveyors of these diatribes -- the Palins, Becks, Gingriches and, yes, the Daily Kos blogger on the left, and all who claim to be followers of Christ or even fair-minded persons -- would covenant to do away with overheated rhetoric, not just because it might encourage a lunatic to do something stupid, but because our faith traditions command it and the welfare of our democracy depends on it.
By
J. Brent Walker
|
January 11, 2011; 2:19 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Free speech trumps firearms |
Next: This is a moment for courage, reflection
Posted by: Rongoklunk | January 17, 2011 10:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Paul,
I noticed you specifically mentioned Beck & Limbaugh. I can only assume that you are not so delusional as to believe that the core problem goes back to only "conservative" or "right wing" speech.
Don't move until you see it.
Rich blessings.
Posted by: globalone | January 11, 2011 7:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Even if there had been no Tucson tragedy, the hate-filled rhetoric that permeates the airwaves and cyberspace is a serious problem in our country and is getting worse each day. I just don't see how any true follower of Jesus Christ can be a Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh disciple. Much of their rhetoric is devoid of Christ-like love. It is sinful to be paid millions of dollars for spewing the kind of hatred that breeds violence. Beck and Limbaugh may not have directly influenced the Tucson shooter, but they are contributing mightily to America's pervasive hate climate.
Posted by: PaulWhiteley | January 11, 2011 4:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion is definitely the problem. When we encourage our children to believe that fairies and angels are real, and gods live up in the sky - we are messing with their brains.
By encouraging them to believe that an invisible man lives up there - looking over us, we are forcing superstitious nonsense into their heads. Shame on us. In reality there are no fairies, and no gods. One day in a more enlightened world - we will rue our idiocy in making young folk believe that ancient myths are real.
9/11 should have warned us of this danger.
Nineteen college educated young men believed everything they were told about the great skygod and celestial virgins awaiting their martyrdom. But WE know this was nonsense don't we? But these guys believed it was real. Well, that's religion. It may kill us all yet.