Main content | Sidebar | Links
Advertising

Monday, July 28, 2008

Police: Gunman's hostility to liberalism key motive.

Although I'm not sure what to make of the (probably) selective inventory of Knoxville gunman Jim David Adkisson's home library (mentioned in the latest report from the Knoxville News Sentinel) — antiliberal books by Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity — the police investigator's commentary strongly points toward ideologically motivated violence. Obviously his defense will attempt to offer another explanation, but it seems the gunman himself wanted his actions to be interpreted as antiliberal violence.

Knoxville Police Department Officer Steve Still requested the search warrant after interviewing Adkisson, who was subdued by several church members after firing three rounds from a 12-gauge shotgun into the congregation.

Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."

Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."

That's profoundly demented.

Copyright © 2008 by Philocrites | Posted 28 July 2008 at 9:44 PM

Previous: UUA sets up blog for Knoxville condolences.
Next: Updates on Knoxville church shooting.

Advertising

Advertising

4 comments:

Jason Tippitt:

July 28, 2008 10:38 PM | Permalink for this comment

Urm, wrong title for the newspaper unless they have a competitor who's skating close to trademark infringement. :) It's the Knoxville News Sentinel...

Jeremy!:

July 28, 2008 10:43 PM | Permalink for this comment

That is demented. And while now is not the time to break out soapboxes, I'm dumbfounded at how the man attacked because of political beliefs not necessarily religious beliefs. I sincerely hope that it becomes more about the ex-wife's affiliation than the man believing the church is representative of the liberal viewpoint.

If I'm wrong....then geez. It's disturbing that the church has become merged and representative of a political ideology.

While one can point at the Christian Right for making churches mere extensions (or the base) of a particular ideology, there are certainly liberal churches that fall under the same category.

When people start confusing churches with political agendas...maybe its time for churches to reconsider what they really want to be identified with.

Again, I am fully aware now is not the time for soapboxing, but this article evoked something in me and you had a comment form. So I'm at least partially blaming you.

Philocrites:

July 28, 2008 10:56 PM | Permalink for this comment

Thanks, Jason. I've referred to it so many times today my eyes are crossing. I'll fix the post.

Steve Caldwell:

July 30, 2008 10:28 AM | Permalink for this comment

On 28 July 2008, Jeremy wrote:

That is demented. And while now is not the time to break out soapboxes, I'm dumbfounded at how the man attacked because of political beliefs not necessarily religious beliefs. I sincerely hope that it becomes more about the ex-wife's affiliation than the man believing the church is representative of the liberal viewpoint.
If I'm wrong....then geez. It's disturbing that the church has become merged and representative of a political ideology.

Jeremy,

I'm going to give some points for tackiness for raising this issue at this time. Just because the blog author has a comment field doesn't mean that your somehow compelled to comment.

Much of what is viewed as "liberal" politics in the US falls under the headings of gay rights or gender equality.

Unitarian Universalism does have some core religious convictions that we share as a community (by "share," I mean "share in a non-creedal but covenental sense").

We value the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

We value justice, equality, and compassion in our relations with others.

We acknowledge that our lives are interconnected.

These basic principles are religious ones -- not political.

However, once one accepts these core religious principles, it would be very difficult to be anti-gay, anti-feminist, etc simply because one religious beliefs and political beliefs would be in conflict.

To the outsider, this is confusing because it looks the church is doing politics and not religion.

However, if one accepts promoting the worth and dignity of every person, how could one hold that view and be against gay rights? I don't see how this is possible logically.

An anti-gay stance currently associated with conservatism would be inconsistent with these religious principles. And that explains the correlation between Unitarian Universalism and liberal politics.



Comments for this entry are currently closed.