Okay so this is a Psalm that some people are putting on bumper stickers, tee-shirts, tedddy bears, and tons of other things.
“Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”
Psalm 109.8
Okay, now I mean absolutely no disrespect to Christians when I say this but, are they out of their freaking minds?!!!!
Is this what their religion, a religion started by Jesus who said "Turn the Other Cheek" and "treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated", tells them to do? Put assassination threats of the back of their cars? The Psalm right after that one says "May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow"
That sounds like a death-threat to me, so I've gotta ask the question, what the heck makes these people think that just because they lost an election that means that they should threaten to kill the President of the United States?
Their religion tells them quite simply in the 6th Commandment "You shall not murder" or "You shalt not kill". So when they say borderline insane things like this they are going against sense, against the law, against their religion, and against morality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I think you may be interpreting this verse wrong.
What this verse is saying, is that the leader of a society cannot stay in power for to long.
Power Corrupts.
With all due respect, I think that if you look at the full Psalm you can see that in context, it means exactly what I said it meant.
Chapter 109
1. For the conductor. Of David, a song. O God of my praise, be not silent. א.
2. For the mouth of a wicked man and the mouth of a deceitful man have opened upon me; they spoke with me with a lying tongue. ב.
3. And with words of hatred they have surrounded me, and they have fought with me without cause. ג.
4. Instead of my love, they persecute me, but I am at prayer. ד.
5. They have imposed upon me evil instead of good and hatred instead of my love. ה.
6. Set a wicked man over him, and let an adversary stand at his right hand. ו.
7. When he is judged, let him emerge guilty, and let his prayer be accounted as a sin. ז.
8. May his days be few, and may someone else take his office of dignity. ח.
9. May his sons be orphans and his wife a widow. ט.
10. May his sons wander, and [people] should ask and search from their ruins. י.
11. May a creditor search out all he has, and may strangers despoil his labor. יא.
12. May he have none who extends kindness, and may no one be gracious to his orphans. יב.
13. May his end be to be cut off; in another generation may their name be blotted out. יג.
14. May the iniquity against his forefathers be remembered by the Lord, and may the sin against his mother not be erased. יד.
15. May they be before the Lord constantly, and may He cut off their remembrance from the earth. טו.
16. Because he did not remember to do kindness, and he pursued a poor and needy man, and a broken-hearted one, to kill [him]. טז.
17. And he loved a curse, and it came upon him; and he did not desire a blessing, and it distanced itself from him. יז.
18. And he donned a curse like his garment, and it came into his midst like water and into his bones like oil. יח.
19. May it be to him as a garment with which he envelops himself and as a girdle with which he constantly girds himself. יט.
20. This is the recompense of my adversaries from the Lord, and those who speak evil upon my soul. כ.
21. But You, O God, my Lord, do with me for Your name's sake, for Your kindness is good; save me. כא.
22. For I am poor and needy, and my heart has died within me. כב.
23. Like a shadow when it lengthens, I was driven about; I was stirred up like a locust. כג.
24. My knees stumbled from fasting, and my flesh became emaciated from fat. כד.
25. And I was a disgrace to them; they would see me, they would shake their head. כה.
26. Help me, O Lord, my God; save me according to Your kindness. כו.
27. And they should know that this is Your hand; You, O Lord, have done it. כז.
28. Let them curse and You will bless; they rose up and were ashamed, but Your servant will rejoice. כח.
29. May my adversaries don disgrace and enwrap themselves with their shame like a cloak. כט.
30. I shall thank the Lord exceedingly with my mouth, and among many people I shall praise Him. ל.
31. For He will stand to the right of the needy to save [him] from those who judge his soul.
David is asking God to strike down someone, he is not saying that power corrupts. Also, Obama has been President all of one year, why would they say that he has been in office to long?
No this is a stupid and potentially disastrous idea that was thought by a bunch of people who are still pouting and stomping their proverbial foot over how they lost the election. They can not accept the responsibility for losing the election and they don't have anything of substance to say so they use violent rhetoric to try and regain popularity.
One idea is to say that they pout and "stomp there proverbial feet." Yes that is one way to look at it.
Yet this is not "violent rhetoric." This verse was not spoken in context. Anything can mean anything when not in context. Just in the way it was spoken, it simple means let someone else take his office.
America was founded on Freedom. Freedom to say whatever you want. To do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm anyone else, or infringe on there freedom. One of the things that has made America great is that no one is above reproach, that everyone is being questioned.
If our president has done or said something that these people are opposed to, then they have all the right in the world to oppose him in any way they chose.
If we don't like it then we should just ignore them.
Well, now I've learned something. It makes you wonder how many famous people are vegetarians.
Well, David is obviously unhappy with someone he thinks is persecuting him...he wants him to be "judged", "his days few" "sons orphans" and his wife "a widow". David is basically asking God to condemn/kill this person.
Does power corrupt??? Yes, it can and does, ...but is that a reason for the "leader" to be *killed*? Harsh!
There is no way that a rational person cannot see this bumper sticker as a threat to our current president.
Freedom of speech? yes....but threats?...illegal and unacceptable!
You say a threat is illegal. Here is a brief and unbiased dissertation on the boundary between free speech and a threat.
Determining the Legality of a threat
The First Amendment protection of speech does not distinguish between lawful and unlawful expressions. Since determining when lawful speech over steps the boundaries and becomes unlawful is so difficult, the definition of a “true threat” is open to interpretation. The definition is, therefore, continuously redefined, resulting in unbalanced judicial hearings. Time and again court rulings have sought to uphold First Amendment rights, but only upon the determination that the communciated language does not qualify as unlawful. The judicial system has indicated that despite our right to speech that “true threats* are not protected by the First Amendment. Over time, many cases have highlighted the evidence needed to determine the validity of a threat, and although the criteria varies from case to case, deliberation tends to involve a similar set of guidelines. What follows are the predominant notions of what the courts have come to consider as constituting a legal threat.
Form of communication
Among the stipulations of what a threat consists of, there is no apparent dispute to the notion that the medium by which a threat is communicated does in no way invalidate its legal implications. A threat is not restricted to being a physical nor spoken exchange. All forms of communication including telecommunications, mail, e-mail, and even the Internet have been found to be reasonable methods by which a threat can be communicated. The last two mediums are more recently accepted forms. In US vs. Machado, the court ruled that making threats by e-mail is in fact unprotected by the First Amendment.1 And the Planned Parenthood vs. ACLA is the first ruling in which usage of the Internet to communicate a threat was permisable as evidence. (For an example of evidence submitted in the trial, click here. Please note that the images are very graphic.)
Context
This was the first screen of the Nuremberg Files
Numerous rulings have considered context to be one of the crucial elements in determining the legality of a threat. In determining whether the context in which a threat was made makes the threat unprotected speech, investigations tend to examine the relationship between the involved parties, the circumstances leading up to the communication, the behavior of the person making the threat, and the setting of the actual communication. However, there are exceptions where the speech is still considered unprotected in situations where the context is weak or it conflicts. In US vs. Machado, the defendant maintained that the threat he made was merely joke, yet despite the absence of any relationship to the threatened individuals, the jury pronounced his speech as unlawful due to the racially motivated context of the threat.2 In our present case, the context of the Nuremburg site, along with that of the “wanted” posters and “deadly dozen” list was heavily considered in the determination of threat towards the targeted individuals.
Sadly the blog will only accepted comments with a max of 4096 characters, so I will be submitting the rest of this comment in the 2 following comments.
Intent
Intent is among the more significant factors in determining a true threat. Courts have shown that there must be a willful intent to carry out the alleged threat. this tends to be a cautionary measure intended to protect individuals who mistakenly make a threat in a moment of desperation and frustration. In such instances, intent and context directly contradict. While in the context of the situation a threat could easily be interpreted as unlawful, it is often found that there is no intent to carry out the threat. This is why when determining context, the behavior of the individuals and their relationship to one another is an important factor. The defendants of the Planned Parenthood suit asserted that their posters and web site where in no way intended to illicit unlawful actions, but instead to provide factual data.3 The jury concluded otherwise.
Reaction of recipient Considering the reaction of the recipient to the threat is among the more controversial factors used to determine the legality of a threat. It is here in which court rulings have often given weak interpretations that have provoked public disagreement and that have lead to calls for justice.4 Among the more ill-defined terms is that of a “reasonable person.” When considering the speech as unlawful, the reaction elicited by a “reasonable person” as a consequence of a threat is heavily weighted in the court’s decision. While the rationalization may be to consider the fear and intimidation that results from a threat as important elements, it is not the most concrete means by which to assure this. The difficulty is that emotions are an unpredictable and abstract, yet fundamental constituent of human life that are essentially immeasurable. Jury deliberation is therfore unpredictable due to these loose definitions. The predominant definition states that if a threat as interpreted by a “reasonable person,” causes fear for the safety and/or the life of an individual or their family, it is unprotected by the First Amendment.5 In deliberation over the evidence against the ACLA, the judge instructed the jury to use their notion of a “reasonable person” to determine the legality of the threat.
Intended target Cases in which presidentially directed threats are involved have established a widely accepted tendency to declare speech as unlawful in lieu of the absence of the intended target during communication of the threat.6 If a communicated in the presence of a 3rd party, the threat is just as legal. In these circumstances, the 3rd party plays the role of the “reasonable person,” whose reaction is used to determine whether or not the communicated speech is legally unprotected. In US vs. Baker, an attempt was made to expand this measure to include threats which do not specifically target an individual. Unlike United States v. Cox, where the “Sixth Circuit has also held that ‘a specific individual as a target of the threat need not be identified.’ their attempt has been unsuccesful thus far.7 The grounds for prosecution against Baker were based on statute 18 U.S.C. Sec. 875(c), but jury interpretation found for the defendant, based on inconclusive evidence.8 Unconditional One of the less significant factors, but nonetheless included, regards the unconditionality of a threat. A threat must exhibit the intent to be carried out, unconditionally.9 While this overlaps with the factor of intent, it differs in the sense that certain speech is made on a conditional basis when the communicator seeks to gain something from the recipient, and only in the extreme circumstance that the recipient does not deliver, will the threat be carried out. Legally this seems to be a weak argument. Determining if a disputed threat is unconditional is difficult. Unconditionality is a circular argument that insignificantly contributes to deliberations. Unequivocal This factor is similarly a weak contributor in the determination of a true threat. It deals more with the exact threat, and seeks to assure that a threat is not ambiguous and not obscure. In other words that the communicated speech is in no way debatable as a threat and that this is obvious to a reasonable person.10 Open to jury interpretation Perhaps the most significant factor in the determination of a legal threat comes from the jury’s interpretation and understanding. Ultimately, the jury will have the last say, not only in deciding if speech is unlawful, but also in establishing the guidelines by which to make that decision. The jury’s reaction to the case and the circumstances will guide its decision. In the Planned Parenthood vs. ACLA trial, the power of the jury to make a decision based on their own opinion is apparent.11 The final ruling favoring the plaintiffs, came through the jury’s reaction to the “threat” and their expectations of a “reasonable person”.
ACLU: Amicus Curiae The memorandum created by ACLU to direct the courts ruling in Planned Parenthood vs. ACLA is written in an effort to protect First Amendment rights. The brief points out that the Supreme Court “has not yet offered any extensive analysis of the “true threats” doctrine” permitting the lower circuit courts to develop it.12 They assert that “[a]lleged threats should be considered in light of their entire factual context, including the surrounding events and the reaction of the listeners.”13 Furthermore, they consider it important that the communicator of the alleged threat should be cognizant of how the recipient of the communication might react. Only in the circumstance that the communicator realizes and expects the averse reaction should they be responsible.14 The ACLU offers two tests by which to ensure these measures, within which it refers to the other factors, as discussed above, that it considers necessary to declare speech as unlawful. “The objective test requires that the statement be reasonably interpreted by the listener, in light of its relevant context, as communicating a serious intent to inflict or cause harm. The subjective test requires that the speaker specifically intend that his statement be understood by the listener as such.”15 The ACLU’s Suggested Methodology for Considering True Threats “According to the approach urged by this amicus, evidence satisfying both an objective test and a subjective test should required before one may properly conclude that a threat is a “true threat,” thereby falling outside of the protections of the First Amendment. This requirement of both an objective and a subjective test is necessary to ensure that protected political advocacy is not chilled in the name of punishing threats. Thus, plaintiffs should be required to show the following: Considering the alleged threat in light of its relevant factual context, would a reasonable listener (or recipient of the communication) interpret the statement as communicating a serious expression of an intent to inflict or cause serious harm to the listener, i.e. would a reasonable person perceive the statement as a threat? (This is the objective test.) Did the speaker intend that the communication be taken as a threat to inflict or cause serious harm to the listener, thereby intending to place the listener in fear for his or her safety, regardless of whether the speaker actually intended to carry out the threat? (This is the subjective test.) Moreover, in determining whether an alleged threat is a “true threat,” thereby undeserving of constitutional protection, a court should also consider other related factors, including: (a) how explicit and unambiguous is the alleged threat; (b) is the alleged threat directed to a specific individual or to specific individuals, rather than to a group at large; (c) was the alleged threat communicated to the listener and, if so, in what manner; and (d) does the alleged threat threaten to inflict or cause serious harm. These are not necessarily all of the factors that should be considered, but they appear to this amicus to be among the most important considerations for ensuring that liability is imposed only upon “true threats” and that speech protected under the First Amendment is neither punished nor chilled.”16
Now as you can see the question of the legality and sociable acceptability of a treat is a hard to determine question.
Yet I believe that, from this, we can see that the statement in question does not cross the boundary.
In conclusion, the statement was mention not in context, and thus should be taken a face value. With this and the things mentioned above in mind I do not think we can say that this is
"illegal and unacceptable!"
Okay, a Psalm is a song. A song is it's own context. If you took exception to the Ani Difranco lyric which said "I cannot pray to a male god, 'cause you know that would be insane" I could not argue that it was not in context.
Also, I have never said, nor would I ever, that they do not have the right to say this. I do not like censorship, after having been the victim of it myself. They have the right to say it, and I have the right, and I feel the responsibility, to point out that it is dangerous. The people who are making the bumper stickers and things may not mean it to be a threat, but some people might think that this verse gives them the right to go and kill the President, just because they disagree with him.
There are unstable people in this country and if they become convinced that God wants them to shoot Obama, they will and that will be terrible for the country.
All I am saying is that violent speech is not only stupid and pointless, but it is also dangerous and the people saying it should stop.
I just don't get why people who have a legitimate case to make against the President's policies feel the need to ignore the issues and instead say violent things against an elected representative of the people.
Post a Comment