Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Defenders of incendiary political speech favor the ethic of Cain
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?
Adjunct philosophy professor Kent Slinker, one of Jared Lee Loughner's teachers at Pima Community College, said Loughner was someone "whose brains were scrambled."
Slinker observed that the Tucson shooter had thoughts "unrelated to anything in our world."
Does our society have thoughts that are "unrelated" to reality? Do we have "scrambled" moral thinking?
When anti-gun control folk argue that "guns don't kill people--people kill people," they are disclosing scrambled moral thinking.
Other examples of scrambled thinking include (1) "Cigarettes don't kill people--people kill people." (2) "Alcohol doesn't kill people--people kill people." (3) "Venomous talk doesn't kill people--people kill people."
One of the first stories in the Bible contains a question that challenges such moral junk: "Am I my brother's keeper?"
If we act as our brother's keeper, we care that guns, cigarettes, alcohol and incendiary political talk can harm. People of goodwill then take actions to control access to guns, to reduce smoking, to stop drunken drivers and to discourage vitriol.
Unfortunately, too many in our society -- many of whom light verbal fuses for a living -- favor the ethic of Cain, who denied having any responsibility for the death of his brother.
By
Robert Parham
|
January 11, 2011; 4:32 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Words represent our core beliefs |
Next: Incendiary political speech is aggressively selfish
Posted by: arkelk | January 17, 2011 4:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Our words fall on the unhinged and the hinged alike"
Not your fault that Christina is dead!
Nor that Gabby was shot in the head
Your free speech it just can't be infringed
Though you know it inflames the unhinged
You can claim it was nothing *you* said!
Dedicated to: Glenn, Rush, Kieth, Rachel, Sarah, and Sally.
Posted by: pseudo1 | January 13, 2011 7:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
That guilt trip belongs in church - not in rational discourse. We've been down that road, by the way: think PROHIBITION.
I've got a novel idea for the media: drop it. If you want to do some good, try talking about the real problems that led to this tragedy, and solutions that might prevent the next one like it. For example, why did the police make no attempts to refer this man to treatment, or even evaluation, after numerous complaints had been filed. His high school decided he was terrifying enough to expel – yet their concern seemingly vanished at the schools borders (of liability?) How can the killer's parents claim to have had no inklings of trouble when he lived at home. There are plenty of burning questions to be hand, so why aren’t’ they front and center stage – instead of the same old “Sara Palin” rants - ad nauseum.
Posted by: ranv05 | January 12, 2011 10:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Cain and Abel story has NO connection whatsoever with the murders and wounded people in Arizona.
Abel offered a sacrifice giving best of what he had and his heart was in what he was doing. Abel had livestock.
Nothing was wrong as far a offering a sacrifice of produce to Yahweh Elohim (LORD God; but, in Cain's case, he apparently just gathered up some fruit and not the first of the harvest to sacrifice.
Cain's heart wasn't right and he was jealous that God accepted Abel's sacrifice of being grateful.
Posted by: joe_allen_doty | January 12, 2011 5:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
One major difference.
CAIN ACTUALLY KILLED ABEL!!
"Am I my brother's keeper" has nothing to do with anything.
It was a LIE used to cover up the fact that he murdered Abel.
And just think about it.
If he asked that question, in order to deceive God, then apparently the answer that Cain understood to be acceptable would have been "No, you are NOT your brother's keeper"
You're an idiot
Posted by: MrMeaner | January 12, 2011 2:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Guns don't kill people.
Sarah Palin's maps kill people.
Posted by: WmarkW | January 12, 2011 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Of more concern is why nobody sought to get this person treatment over the years. It was his deranged mind that led to his mis-use of the tools (guns in this case) of a modern society. And since he apparently did not listen to the chattering classes, blaming Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al, is merely an excuse to try to silence one's political foes, not help the situation.