Letters to the Editor
-
@jimmysanborn
You make a lot of compelling points, many of which I'm sympathetic too.
I, too, am sensitive to free rein being given to vitriol and hatred and anger. I, too, believe in love and try to cultivate an ethos of love and charity in my life, difficult though it is and fail though I do.
That said, I do believe in righteous indignation.
To me, the question is whether your anger and hatred is targeted at specific people who are potential victims of subsequent violence or not.
For instance, a sermon thundering against homosexuals frightens me because gay people really do get gay bashed and that's a direct result of speech and attitudes that dehumanize them.
In the case of Wright, however (and I've not seen the sermon), my understanding is that his target was not people, per se, but governmental policies.
To me, that's a critical difference.
Was Wright really preaching against whitey? And was he doing so in a way wherein white people should feel at risk of physical violence?
Again, it's all about context. Inciting people (directly or implicitly) to visit violence on their fellow human beings is unacceptable hate speech.
The fire and brimstone whose object is injustice, however, is a whole nother kettle of fish, in my view.
Do you agree?