Numbers

Chris Beneke

And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities. (Numbers 21:3)

Estimating mass deaths requires an accounting in which the sums are always grievous. For the twentieth century, the numbers are so terribly large that the researcher could be tempted to discount the meaning, and the value, of each one. For those who study other times, the scale of the twentieth century’s killing is both humbling and edifying . In the early hours of April 19, 1775, eight provincials were killed on Lexington Green; in the spring and early summer of 1994, eight hundred thousand Tutsis were killed in Rwanda. We’re certain about the number killed in Lexington on that morning. We’ll probably never know how many Rwandans were killed in those grim months. The lives lost in the former were no more dear than the lives lost in the latter. But proximity, collective memory, and relative connection to transformative events can easily obscure that moral truth. As Yale Historian Timothy Snyder puts it:

Discussion of numbers can blunt our sense of the horrific personal character of each killing and the irreducible tragedy of each death. As anyone who has lost a loved one knows, the difference between zero and one is an infinity. Though we have a harder time grasping this, the same is true for the difference between, say, 780,862 and 780,863—which happens to be the best estimate of the number of people murdered at Treblinka. Large numbers matter because they are an accumulation of small numbers: that is, precious individual lives.

Snyder’s essay in the latest New York Review of Books (“Hitler vs. Stalin: Who Killed More?”) focuses on death tolls but also addresses moral culpability. In some cases, as when the Nazis gassed Jews or the Stalinists shot dissidents, the evil and its sources are transparent. On this ledger, the Germans were directly responsible for the death of 11 to 12 million noncombatants (depending on the measure), and the Soviets 6 to 9 million. But these figures do not include the millions who died on the battlefield, nor the millions who starved as a result of invasion, collectivization, and murderous indifference. Snyder’s striking point here and in the bestselling book from which the essay is derived is that the “most fundamental proximity of the [Hitler and Stalin] regimes … is not ideological but geographical.” In the great mass of land between Berlin and Moscow, where colossal armies clashed in both World War I and II “we must take seriously the possibility that some of the death and destruction wrought in the lands between was their mutual responsibility.” Killing there was multiplicative, rather than merely additive.

Moving from west to east, Roderick MacFarquhar’s review of Frank Dikötter’s Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962 (NYRB, Feb. 10) presents some chilling tallies as well. According to Dikötter, the longstanding estimate of 30 million deaths attributed to China’s Great Leap Forward needs to be revised upward to “a minimum of 45 million.” These deaths resulted primarily from food shortages, rather that secret police forces, mobs, machine guns, or forced labor camps. At the same time, MacFarquhar observes, the “exploitation of the peasantry during the GLF and into the famine was so unprecedently excessive that provinces were left with virtually no food for the people who had produced it.” As with the terror unleashed by the Nazis and the Stalinists, the relative degree of culpability may be in dispute, but the fact of incalculable loss is not.

Does More Civility Mean We Stop Telling the Truth?

Why Republicans Won't Really Change Their Tone

I have been annoyed by the commentary over the last few weeks regarding the tone of the political discourse in America. The mass shooting in Arizona set off a huge debate in this Country, much of it dishonest, about what was/is to blame in general when these events occur. It is true that we don't know what exactly set off Tucson shooter Jared Loughner. However, it is dishonest to say that it was just an isolated incident and the ugly political debate, especially on the right, plays no part in contributing to an atmosphere that makes it more conducive for these sorts of events to happen. This is just intellectually and morally dishonest on a grand scale.

Something else that gave me a headache was this effort by those on the right to make the false equivalence claim - that "both sides are doing this equally".... "both sides are guilty".... yada yada yada. They are attempting to whitewash the last two years, and rewrite history to fit their own narrative post-Tucson. Almost as annoying... the media is playing right along with Republicans/Conservatives who make this argument. Of course both sides say things that are inappropriate... that cross the line, etc. But this idea that all sides are somehow equal in doing so is just laughable. There is no equivalence whatsoever in terms of the number of occurrences, the level of ugliness or seriousness of threats, or the outcomes. Clearly right wing pundits and politicians are at the top in all three of those categories...by far. I have been watching in awe as the media has pretended otherwise....playing right along, as if they are being told what to say. Time and time again I have seen/heard hosts....whether on CNN, NPR, or my local AM news station KMOX - St. Louis (the defacto voice of the Right in the midwest) play along with Conservative guests when the equivalence argument is made...failing to challenge the right in any way.... no follow-up questions...nothing. Beyond ridiculous.

Let's review shall we...

This is not simply about the comments that are being made over the national airwaves, it is also about the context...or the backdrop in which the comments are made. It is the context that matters more here.

And what has been the context over the last two years? Well, this most recent political context took shape in 2008 (and you could probably go as far back as 2007) during the Presidential campaign. Over that period (2007-2009) we know of two major reports that news organizations put out regarding the changing attitudes & changing tone in the Country. One was about the Homeland Security assessment regarding the rise of Right Wing extremism in America, due to the recession and the introduction of a Black President...or Candidate who actually had a real shot. The other report came from the Secret Service, describing the fact that threats against Obama were at unprecedented levels, with 2-fold & 3-fold more threats than his white predecessors. So knowing this.... you would think that the responsible thing for politicians (regardless of Party affiliation) would be extra careful about language and tone, right? But we know that is not what happened. Politicians on the right lost their minds...and the tone got out of control. Open racism was allowed to take root at Republican rallies in Pennsylvania, Ohio & throughout the Country. Despite these reports of increased threats, Palin continued to be irresponsible throughout the campaign. Instead of challenging followers behaving inappropriately...by telling them to stop racist comments.... Palin seemed to ignore them. Instead... she whipped up Republican followers and seemed to focus on a certain part of her base by using certain buzz words that challenged not only Obama's right to run for President...but questioned his citizenship and loyalty to the Country during a time of conflict and deep social/political division. By demonizing Obama & stripping him of his right to be a "real American", taking away his Americanness, suggesting he was a traitor & a terrorist, suggesting he was a socialist, and by dehumanizing him...in a way gives the green light to any number of lone nuts. Remember the context we were (and still are) in.

Everyone is suggesting that after Tucson.... pundits and politicians (especially those on the right) are suddenly going to play nice and behave in a much more civil and respectful manner. But if history is our guide... that is probably not going to be the case. This goes back to this attempt by right wing pundits and the media to frame Tucson as an isolated incident. People are acting as if Tucson was the first incident where a nut engaged in some sort of political violence or targeted a political figure. How media pundits do this with a straight face is a mystery to me. How they get away with it is even more perplexing. Just in the last two years, the number of high profile incidents of a political/ideological/religious nature...or influenced by the national debate at some level, has been unprecedented.

Just in the last 2 years or so... we have had the following (and keep in mind...we have already established the context.... and we STILL had folks taking guns to political events, and politicians suggesting 2nd Amendment remedies... the context...the reality of how volatile the Country was didn't stop those on the right from continuing their madness.)


♦ Jim Adkisson - shot up a Unitarian church in Tennessee. Fueled by Right wing talk show pundits. The rhetoric didn't stop.

♦ Raymond Hunter Geisel - threatening Obama. Republicans didn't stop. Just an isolated incident?

♦ Richard Andrew Poplawski - killed Police officers in Pittsburgh because he internalized rhetoric on the right that told Americans that Obama was coming for their guns. Just an isolated incident? Oh yeah... Republicans didn't stop their rhetoric after this either.

♦ Scott Roeder - Killed Dr. George Tiller (nicknamed "The Baby Killer" by the right). Isolated incident? Republicans didn't stop their rhetoric after this incident either.

♦ James Von Brunn - launched terrorist attack at the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C. Isolated incident? The violent rhetoric didn't stop.

♦ Joseph Stack - out of work, anti-government activist flew plane into IRS building in Texas. Isolated incident? The rhetoric didn't stop. In fact, one GOP politician seemed to sympathize with the terrorist, who killed at least one IRS worker in the incident.

♦ Byron Williams - Was stopped by police in Northern California while enroute to attack Liberals. Fueled by Glenn Beck and others in the Right wing media. Isolated incident? Republicans refused to change their tone.

♦ Danny Ray Tollett - Brutally attacked Muslim convenience store workers in Louisiana. Shot 2 Muslims at close range...in cold blooded attacks. Fueled by anti-Muslim theme carried by Right wing media. Isolated incident? Republicans failed to change their tone.

♦ The Denver Plot - see specifically counts 9, 11 and 12 - White supremacists planned to harm candidate Obama. Attack foiled in planning stage. Isolated incident? Republicans continued with their rhetoric.

♦ Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman - Allegedly planned to harm President. Isolated incident? Republicans failed to stop their rhetoric.

♦ Michael Enright - Stabbed NYC Cabbie in the neck because he was Muslim. Ahh what the Hell... just another isolated incident. Republicans continued on with their madness (particularly about the "Mosque at Ground Zero" which really didn't exist...but they knew that framing it that way would scare the Hell out of a lot of people...so they went with it...almost costing a father...a family man...his life).

♦ Charles Habermann - Charged just recently with threatening Rep. Jim McDermott. Just an isolated incident? Republicans carried on.

♦ Gas line intentionally cut at Congressman's home, after wrong address is posted online...with blogger encouraging followers to 'pay a visit to the victim'. Just an isolated incident? Republicans refused to stop their rhetoric that whipped followers into a frenzy over Health Care Reform.

♦ Travis Corcoran - Another right wing radical... praised the shooting of Giffords. Just an isolated event?

♦ Just in the past week, we have the backpack bomb found along the MLK commemorative parade route in Spokane Washington. Luckily...the device failed to detonate. An isolated incident?

♦ Now Conservative pundit/blogger Erick Erickson JUST THIS WEEK suggested that he may use a shotgun to threaten U.S. Census workers...gloating about it on the airwaves. An isolated incident? No condemnation by other Conservative media figures. So this is the change in tone that the goofballs on the news programs have been talking about over the past two weeks? Give me a break!

With the exception of the last three...these are incidents that took place before Tucson. So Tucson didn't happen in some vacuum... There is an abundance of context. This is what makes the behavior of those on the right so vile. And this is not even a full list.... there were threats against Pelosi....and arrests in several other cases. The list is long. Again...as I mentioned...the last two years have been unprecedented in terms of threats of political violence or actual incidents, which matches up with what the U.S. Secret Service has stated regarding their data on the increase in threats.

At what point can we stop using false equivalencies and stop suggesting these events are somehow "isolated incidents" separate from the volatile atmosphere created primarily by those in the world of right wing Conservative media?

I see nothing that would lead me to believe that some magical shift towards civility is going to take place after the tragedy in Tucson Arizona. Republican/right wing pundits are not going to stop what they have been doing for the past few years. This is their bread and butter (getting their followers riled up.... feeding them misinformation, and manipulating people). This is a key part of Republican strategy. Giffords & all the others are considered collateral damage to those on the right. Republicans can't afford to be civil because they have grown so dependent on a certain kind of volatile, ugly rhetoric to maintain media success & energize their political base. It has worked for them (unfortunately). And I see them continuing with that approach. Just this week... Rush Limbaugh... the Supreme Leader of the Republican Party & Conservative movement in America, engaged in more ugly behavior... joking about the way that the Chinese President Hu Jintao spoke during his official State visit to the U.S. Of course the media ignored this...just like it practically ignored the MLK bomb case in Spokane.

By allowing the pundits, bloggers and talk show hosts (the unofficial but true leadership of the Conservative movement) to spew the ugliest rhetoric and lies, the official political leadership and the so-called "stars" within the Republican party can get away with using the plausible deniability argument...and that's exactly what they have done here. predictably, they have used the Hell out of this argument since the Tucson attack. I have mentioned several times, including on my right wing media information page, that this is how the right operates. Of course, no one is actually suggesting that anyone on the right has given direct orders to any extremists or extremist groups.... but they have created an atmosphere conducive to violence...and in some cases, they have indirectly given a wink & nod approval for such actions (in some cases, simply by their silence when violence or threats of violence occur. Silence in this context...after they have worked so hard to rile the crazies up... equals tacit approval).

A few people on Social media (twitter to be exact) suggested that the Right has somehow been let off the hook by Obama after his call for civility. I initially wanted to agree with that. I think that the media at large may let Republicans off the hook, and networks may continue to play the false equivalence game. But I don't think Obama's speech in Tucson means that we shouldn't tell the truth. I plan to continue stating what needs to be said.

The Shootings in Tucson and the Tragedy of America's Mental Health System

The tragic shootings a week ago in Tucson, which left six dead, and thirteen wounded, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was hosting a "Congress on the Corner" event, has raised important questions for the nation.  The debate began with a focus on the tenor of our national conversations, but as we learned more about the situation, we discovered that this was a more complicated issue than maybe we first thought.  It turns out that the suspect in custody was driven more by "inner demons" that were rather disconnected from political discourse.  As the President noted Wednesday evening there are issues beyond discourse that need out attention -- including accessibility to guns and our mental health situation. 

I use the phrase "inner demons" advisedly, but I think it has some value, because it reminds us that what happens internally, in our minds, can lead to tragic and destructive events.  I appreciated the fact that the President didn't call Jared Loughner a madman or even call him crazy.  It's easy to use those words, but they are extremely pejorative, and they don't help us understand the root causes of tragedies like that of last Saturday.  I realize that some will think I'm letting this man off too easily by putting the question in the context of mental health.  But, to give this issue a bit of theological context, I'd like to suggest that we put into our hearts and minds the encounter that Jesus had with the "demon-possessed man" from the region of the Gerasenes.  Remember that this man lived alone, ostracized by his community, because of his violence.  But instead of imprisoning the man, or condemning the man, Jesus freed him from his demons (Luke 8:26-39). 

Jesus brought healing to this man, and thus to the community.  He restored this person not only to his "right mind," but also to his community.  My sense is that Jared Loughner will spend the rest of his life in prison, but will he find healing?  Will we let him find healing?  And the question then is -- how does this healing occur?

In the context of the Gospel, Jesus acted as an exorcist.  In today's context, healing is likely to come as a result of attending to a person's psychological disturbances, which often means addressing chemical imbalances that can lead to all number of problems, including paranoia and violence.    I believe that evil exists in this world, but more often than not it is systemic and not personal.  But people can get caught up in the context of evil, and if they are suffering from mental illness, that can have tragic consequences.   What we know so far is that this young man exhibited aberrant behaviors, and yet no one knew what to do to help him until was too late.  Couple this failure of the system, with another system that makes semi-automatic guns available to people who are suffering from mental illness, and you have a problem. 

So, what have learned from these events?  I believe that one important thing that we've learned is that we are, as a nation, ill-equipped to deal with mental illness.  Maybe less so than we were a generation earlier.  We have more drug therapies and counselors available, but too often these therapies are beyond the reach of those most affected. 

It's important that we remember that most state mental hospitals were closed years ago, and those who resided in those institutions were often put out on the streets.  There may be good reasons for doing this, even humane reasons -- for one need only  watch One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to get a sense of the abuses that were often present in these intuitions.  But even as these institutions were being closed, we didn't think ahead far enough about the consequences to provide alternatives.  As a result, we're discovering that many mentally ill people, who once would have been institutionalized, end up either homeless or in prison.  

So what should we do?  Remember that we're living in a period of budget deficits, and mental health spending is often the first line item to see cuts.  It's important to remember too that many if most insurance plans don't cover mental health solutions, especially counseling.  You can get meds from your MD, but access to regular counseling is hard to come by.  It would appear that the Health Care Reform law will help resolve some of these problems, but what if this law gets undermined or over-turned either by Congress or by the courts?   Who will pay the cost then -- not only for the individuals who suffer from mental health problems, but society itself?   

My hope is that before the events of last Saturday begin to fade from our memories that we will have a conversation about the way we deal with mental health issues in our nation.  There is great urgency to this conversation, before we find ourselves dealing with another Jared Loughner type act of violence.     

Writing History and the Crisis in Punditry

Heather Cox Richardson

Participating in the discussion over the media’s role in the tragedy in Tucson, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi makes the point that media figures get their market share by offering their audience a certain kind of emotional charge, reassuring them that they are better than “the other.”

Where entertainers will go for inspiration now that that dog-whistle kind of performance is suspect, he doesn’t have a firm idea.

It seems to me that historians have, at this point, a great opening to jump into the public conversation. My friend and literary agent, Lisa Adams, is always reminding me that readers want to feel smarter after they invest time reading something. If, indeed, there is a market for making people feel superior, why can’t we invest our energies in making people feel smarter with good facts and argument, presented accessibly?

There is an unfortunate tendency among academics to suggest that anything written for a popular audience must be “dumbed down.” This is wrong. On the contrary, pieces written for non-academics must be smarter than anything we consume within the academy. Untrained historians will not accept a book that uses theory as shorthand in place of an explanation for how something actually happened (but they will happily accept theoretical constructs if they are proven). They will not endure poor writing, or incomplete explanations. Indeed, rather than dumbing down our arguments, it seems to me that writing for a non-academic audience often forces academic historians to give up the jargon and shortcuts that allow them to advance arguments their facts don’t prove.

At a time when there is a vacuum in the public arena waiting to be filled by writers who can offer a new kind of intellectual rush, historians have a unique opportunity to step up to the plate.

And it might just be good for us.

Poltical Assassination and Motivation

Randall Stephens

On November 23, 1963 the New York Times announced "Leftist Accused: Figure in a Pro-Castro Group is Charged--Policeman Slain." Will Fritz, head of the Homicide Bureau, Dallas Police Department, linked Lee Harvey Oswald to the left-wing "Fair Play for Cuba Committee." Such connections proved more complicated than originally imagined. Oswald lied and was, by any account, a shiftless loser. Journalists and commentators grasped for a motive in the chaotic hours and days after President Kennedy's assassination. Texas, and Dallas in particular, was a hotbed of anti-Kennedy feeling and theories of a right-wing plot circulated widely. (Replace Texas then with Arizona now and some striking similarities in public discussion are apparent. Tea Partiers and John Birchers . . . anti-immigration and anti-communism . . .)

There was, in fact, enough hard-right political terrorism in the South to make such views seem credible enough. The Klan harassed and threatened civil rights workers and dynamited churches and schools. Pundits called Birmingham "Bombingham." In rare cases, gunmen assassinated black leaders and activists. The murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., in April 1968 created a political firestorm and produced innumerable theories as Kennedy's murder had less than five years before. After King's death in Memphis riots erupted across the country's cities and conspiracy theories of Klan involvement and a government assassin gripped the imagination of Americans roiled by the events of a turbulent year. Writing in Life magazine in June 1968 Paul O'Neil observed, "No real criminal organization conspired with [James Earl] Ray," King's alleged killer. Ray was, in O'Neil's words, like Robert Kennedy's assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, prone to bizarre fantasies and unreal self conceptions.

Medical professionals, journalists, and the general public have often questioned an assassin's sanity. And the current debate over the political motivations of Gabrielle Giffords' mentally unstable shooter parallel related events in history.

Was Leon Czolgosz, who shot and killed President McKinley nearly 110 years ago, insane? The American establishment, observes Eric Rauchway in Murdering McKinley: The Making of Theodore Roosevelt's America (New York: Hill and Wang, 2003), could not "admit that a low criminal had accomplished so much, and so from the start they insisted he was insane, and his action an accident of a callous fate" (x).

What of America's most infamous assassin? "One is naturally tempted to ask whether John Wilkes Booth, son of the 'Mad Tragedian,' might have been found insane under existing laws," writes Michael W. Kauffman in American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies (New York: Random House, 2005), 353. Wilkes's brother thought madness ran through the male portion of the family. But, in this case, notions of melancholy and madness were closely linked. And diagnosing someone from the the remove of nearly 150 years would certainly be difficult.

Historians often ask why people do the things they do. Is it trickier to answer that question about current figures than about those from ages past? Figuring out the motivations of men and women from long ago, like judging why an unstable young Arizona man went on a shooting spree, can be a tough game. David Hackett Fischer explored motivation in his controversial, argumentative Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1970):

Historians have often used motivational explanations in their work. Almost always, they have used them badly. Problems of motive in academic historiography tend to be hopelessly mired in a sort of simple-minded moralizing which is equally objectionable from an ethical and an empirical point of view. Lord Rosebery once remarked that what the English people really wished to know about Napoleon was whether he was a good man. The same purpose often prevails among professional scholars who are unable to distinguish motivational psychology from moral philosophy, and even unwilling to admit that there can be a distinction at all. Moreover, many scholars tend to find flat, monistic answers to complex motivational problems, which further falsifies their interpretations (187).

But that won't keep Americans from wondering, speculating, and trying to make some sense out of seemingly senseless acts of violence, past or present.

Words Have Consequences

The tragic event of Saturday in Tucson, which has led to the deaths of six people, and the wounding of 12 others, including a sitting member of Congress (Gabrielle Giffords), has shaken the nation.  We don't know if Rep. Giffords will recover, or if she does, whether she'll be able to return to Congress.  We keep her and the others affected in our prayers.

This event has not only caught our attention, and it has spurred a national conversation about the words we use and their consequences.  It has become increasingly clear that the nation's rhetoric has become increasingly uncivil and even violent.  When it comes to politics, it seems that anything goes.  Pundits right and left spew angry words at one another, and the nation has begun to divide up, depending on who they listen to on the radio or the TV. 

Now, the United States has a rich tradition of free speech, which I support, but as Paul makes so clear --

"All things are lawful," but not all things are beneficial.  "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. (1 Corinthians 10:23). 

 I realize that Paul is speaking here of dietary restrictions and not speech, but I think the meaning is clear enough.  We may have the freedom to say whatever we like, but those words, especially words spoken in anger, can have consequences -- even violent consequences.

Did Sarah Palin's tasteless ad "targeting" certain members of Congress lead to this shooting?  In and of itself, no.  I doubt that the former Governor was wishing death upon them, but when we use words and images of violence then some may take this much more literally than intended.  The same is true of those folks who are praying their "imprecatory prayer," which quotes from Psalm 109:8 -- "May his days be few; may another seize his position."  Are these folks praying for President Obama to die?  I doubt that most are praying for death, or even contemplating ways in which this would take place.  They're just hoping that in 2012 someone else will be elected, but if you're going to use this verse then perhaps you should pay attention to the words that follow:  "May his children be orphans, and his wife a widow."   This isn't a prayer for electoral change, it's a prayer for vengeance.

So, here we are, living in a time when the rhetoric has gone beyond being uncivil.  It has moved past angry rhetoric.   The rhetoric, especially on the right, but not just the right, has turned toward the violent.  We can have a discussion about the size of government, whether or not it's too big or not.  We can have a discussion about what kind of health care we should have in our land, but when we start moving toward violent imagery and calls for overthrowing the government, then we've moved past what is acceptable. 

Good people of good will need to step up and say, enough is enough.  Let's bring the level of rhetoric down several notches, and start working toward the common good.  

Since I began with scripture, I'll end with scripture.  

7 People can tame and already have tamed every kind of animal, bird, reptile, and fish. 8 No one can tame the tongue, though. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we both bless the Lord and Father and curse human beings made in God’s likeness. 10 Blessing and cursing come from the same mouth. My brothers and sisters, it just shouldn’t be this way!  (James 3:7-10 Common English Bible).

Prayers for Gabrielle

As many know, a gunman shot and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Congresswoman from Tucson, AZ, as she hosted a "meet the constituents" event at a local Safeway.  To this point, the Congresswoman, who by every account is committed to the good of our nation and has sought to stay above the angry rhetoric that has taken hold in the land, is doing as well as one could hope.  Doctors are "cautiously optimistic" about her recovery.  So, we keep her and her family in our prayers.

We also must pray for the families of the six people who died in this attack,among whom are numbered one of the Congresswoman's aides, a Federal judge, and a nine-year old girl who had gone to the event to see democracy in action.  Besides those who died, apparently twelve others were wounded.  In time we'll learn more about the "motive" of the shooter, but for now we must pray for those who have been caught up in this horrendous act of evil.

Besides those most intimately involved in this attack, we must pray for the people of Tucson and Arizona.  I was in conversation with a high school friend who lives in Tucson, and she said the people there are in shock.  We need to pray for our nation that the level of violent rhetoric that has skyrocketed of late will be put aside, so that we can become one nation again.  I realize there has never been true unity, but we must work to bring an end to violence in our nation, so that others like Gabrielle need not fear to do his or her job of governance.

Let us, then, keep our hearts and minds focused on lifting up those who grieve and those who hope for recovery and restoration of life.

Shooting in Arizona; 6 dead, Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords shot in head; Judge killed

from the Arizona Star

Rep. Giffords shot, judge and 5 others killed at Tucson event

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot point-blank in the head on Saturday at a northwest-side grocery store, but surgeons say they are "very optimistic" about her recovery.

Meanwhile, Gov. Jan Brewer's office is confirming federal Judge John Roll was among the dead.

Sheriff's authorities said there were six dead, including a child, as well as 18 wounded.

Giffords, who is in critical condition, is out of surgery at University Medical Center, said Dr. Peter Rayle, a UMC surgeon. The bullet passed cleanly out her brain, exiting her head.

Rayle said she was following commands, which is a good sign.

The shooting occurred at a Safeway supermarket where Giffords was holding one of her regular "Congress on Your Corner" events, which allows her to speak directly with constituents in her district.

A tearful U.S. District Judge Frank Zapata of Tucson, meanwhile, did not know why Roll was at the event.

"It's devastating to the courts and to me," Zapata said. "We've been friends for 25 years and he was a tremendous judge and a tremendous person."

The gunman has been identified as 22-year-old Jared Loughner, according to The Associated Press.

From Rep. Giffords' father:


The congresswoman’s father Spencer Gifford, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.

"Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole Tea Party."

Which brings us to Sarah Palin, who is trying to backtrack, after being the leader of fomenting the atmosphere that breeds DOMESTIC TERRORISTS like this guy.

She tried to scrub her website, but it always lives in cyberspace.

her ' lock and load' page:



Please note Rep. Giffords on the list.

Is Voting an Act of Violence? Reflections on Election Process

Yesterday I offered up some thoughts on the upcoming elections.  The day before that I offered up a review of a book entitled Split Ticket: Independent Faith in a Time of Partisan Politics.  I have always believed that voting is not just a right, but a sacred privilege to be taken very seriously.  I have tried to vote in every election and I make it a point to go to the polls to vote.  I have taken my lead in part from Romans 13, though my interpretation might not be standard issue. 

In Romans 13, Paul tells the people to be "subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God."  In our country, which is a democracy, the governing authority is the voter.  Thus, I am to be subject to the direction given by the voters, even if I don't always agree with the majority on every issue or candidate.  Now I don't follow this lead blindly, but I understand that in our system we have the right to resist through the vote.  Because I believe that voting is important it has been my belief that if you don't vote then don't complain.  That's the way I was raised.

With that as the background I find quite challenging the premise that voting could be an act of violence.  In an essay in Split Ticket John Edgerton and Vince Amlin make this very claim.

Most of us think about voting for a President as choosing between candidates, deciding who is best suited for the position.  This is only part of the story.  We are also voting to place someone in the office of President.  This office, like any, comes with a job description, part of which is the role of Commander in Chief of the armed forces.  When we vote, we collectively decide to give one person control over the deadliest weapon in the world, the U.S. military, and authorize him or her to use it whenever necessary.  Voting in a Presidential election does more than simply express a preference.  Voting also affirms the broader political order of our nation, and that political order is not peaceful.  (Split Ticket, p. 59). 

Although I don't find the argument convincing -- maybe that's because of my own upbringing -- I think it is appropriate to consider the kind of political order we've committed ourselves to.  Remember that Paul was writing to people living under Roman Rule.  He suggested that government provided structure and order, but he didn't give his imprimatur on any particular form of government. 

Although I'm not sure that voting is an act of violence, I have become more and more convinced that the act of campaigning is verging on becoming an act of violence.  I realize that nastiness has always been part of the campaign process, but with the multiple forms of media available, and the huge sums of money available due to corporate spending on elections, they have become more and more polarizing each time out.  It is rare to see a positive TV commercial, and if you're watching TV for a couple of hours in an evening you will be bombarded by commercial after commercial. 

Is voting an act of violence, I'm not convinced that it is, but the process has become increasingly violent.  And, to be honest I'm concerned about the kind of governance we will get if we continue down this road.  

Franklin Graham on Islam and Violence -- Sightings

Martin Marty has come back just in time, to offer a bit of wisdom and common sense to the overheated debate about Islam, especially the debate that is engendered by misguided or misinformed souls like Franklin Graham.   I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not sure he deserves it.  Nonetheless, Martin Marty picks up the topic that has been raging during his month or so away from his regular Monday perch.  So, here we have his opening round for September.

********************************************************



Sightings 9/13/2010

Franklin Graham on Islam and Violence

-- Martin E. Marty

Aestas horribilis, Queen Elizabeth might call the summer just past, or those who care about civility in religious discourse and interfaith relations might judge it to have been. While Sightings took August off, forces, agencies, and voices of prejudice and, frankly, hate-mongering, did not. “Protest mosques,” “Restore America,” “Burn Qur’ans” and many more are keywords in our internet memory. One set of these keywords is so illuminating and nearly normative that it merits comment before we enter a new but not necessarily more promising season. I refer to the pronouncements of evangelist Franklin Graham on Muslim genetics, competition for souls, Islam as killer, and scriptures.

Genetics first: There is no need to repeat Graham’s bizarre charge that Islam is passed through the genes of a father to a son. Scholars of Islam find that idea nowhere in its teachings. Conversion-expert Graham should understand that one becomes a Muslim the way the born-again in Graham’s tradition become Christian: by making a profession of faith and a commitment through word and action. We won’t go into the political dimension of this issue with reference to Graham’s subject, the President of the United States, because, as long-time readers know, Sightings does not “do” Presidents.

Competition for souls, second: Graham’s work is often positioned along lines crossed in Africa, where Muslims kill Christians and Christians kill Muslims. There is little point in going into “Who fired first?” or “Who killed most?” In religion-based warfare, there is never really a first and a second; there are only debates about first and second. Graham has chosen to attempt conversion in the second most tense area known to the two faith communities. Without doubt, there is ugliness and murder, but we picture militant Muslims speaking of Christians the way Graham speaks of Muslims. Call it a draw. (By the way, “the undersigned” is a Christian who sees a place for evangelism.)

Islam as killer of Christians, third: Graham has repeatedly charged this year that Islam, which he frequently calls “a very wicked and evil religion” is mandated to kill, and that it kills. He does not qualify his remarks, as the word “very” suggests and even though he is often cautioned about the possible lethal consequences for Christians and Muslims if things get more heated. Historians have no difficulty finding Muslims in killing modes. The problem is that historians also find Christians in killing modes, from most years of Christendom, when the sword advanced Christianity, down into our own time. Think of the Christian justifications in World War I. Think Christian killing Christian in Rwanda, Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

Fourth, scriptures: It is easy to find passages in the Qur’an and other classic Muslim texts in which Allah’s people may or should kill to advance God’s cause. Isolating these chunks of the Qur’an which are by now most familiar to Americans calls for overlooking Islam’s many peace-promoting texts. And it also means overlooking parallel biblical texts. There are far more pictures in the biblical texts of a warrior God licensing and, yes, commanding “omnicide,” the killing of men and women and children who stand in the path of God’s people. Yes, all that was long ago. Now, you will never (at least I never) find Jews or Christians who think that killing people of another faith is a scriptured mandate for them.

Let’s hope and work for a less horrifying autumn.

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at http://www.illuminos.com./

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.