Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, February 16, 2007
Matt Barber :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hate bloggers, death threats and apologies abound
by Matt Barber
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

Media outlets have given the story fairly wide coverage. Presidential candidate and former Senator John Edwards (D- North Carolina) recently named two leftist, anti-Christian bloggers to high profile positions with his campaign. In the past, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan have spewed anti-Christian venom containing language that might even make Howard Stern blush. Despite a chorus of disapproval, Edwards said he’d keep the ladies – if you can call them that – on his campaign payroll. But the two women apparently decided they’d rather devote their full attention to anti-Christian hatemongering, and quickly resigned.

But another story, with perhaps more serious implications, has gone largely unreported by the mainstream media.

Last week, Concerned Women for America (CWA) broke the news about an apparent threat to the life of pro-family advocate Peter LaBarbera made by a commenter on lesbian activist Pam Spaulding’s anti-Christian site Pam’s House Blend.

Spaulding is an information technology manager with Duke University Press, and her employer appears quite proud of its blustering left-wing blogger. Duke Press has even publicly praised and promoted her blog activities, calling them a “mixture of snappy prose, funny postings and serious commentary.”

So, just for fun, let’s see if we can’t yuck it up a bit with Duke University. Let’s take a look at some of Spaulding’s “snappy” and “funny” musings:

On her blog – among other things – Spaulding regularly mocks both Christ and Christians by sarcastically referring to Jesus as “jeebus.” She refers to Christians as both the “Am Taliban” (for American Taliban) and “bible beaters.” She’s doctored photos of the pope, dressing him in drag and women’s makeup, apparently implying that he’s a cross-dressing closet homosexual. Spaulding has likened a well-respected black New Jersey pastor to cult leader and mass murderer Jim Jones, and she has managed to ridicule both Christmas and pro-lifers in one fell swoop with a post titled, “Oh Fetus tree, Oh Fetus tree.”

Side splitting, isn’t it?

And if you think that’s funny, this’ll make you collapse in gales of laughter:

In what was, at the very least, an apparent attempt to intimidate and frighten Americans for Truth president Peter LaBarbera, who is married with children, someone on House Blend published his home address in a January 13, 2007, thread. Shortly thereafter, someone identified as “Barry G. Wick” suggested that “snipers take note” of LaBarbera’s address. Wick also suggested that shooting LaBarbera would amount to an act of self defense and stated that, “[LaBarbera] and others like him ought to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what future awaits them from a cadre of selected defenders willing to give up everything in order to protect the lives of gay and lesbian citizens.”

Spaulding and other members of her blog so frequently foment hatred toward Christians that it’s no real surprise that one of her posts culminated in this chilling and ostensibly illegal threat to LaBarbera’s life.

Soon after CWA broke the story, Spaulding issued a public apology to LaBarbera and removed the threatening language from her site. She has purportedly banned Wick from her blog. Spaulding indicated that she was unaware of the post, although the threat had been posted for nearly three weeks. LaBarbera was gracious enough to take her at her word and has accepted her apology.

But Spaulding should apologize further.

She should apologize to the millions of Christians around the world whom she mocks and bashes on a daily basis.

She should apologize to pro-family leaders like LaBarbera, Dr. James Dobson, Beverly LaHaye and others whom she unfairly belittles and needlessly berates.

But she probably won’t.

And since one can reasonably infer that Duke University Press has placed its stamp of approval on Spaulding’s anti-Christian tirades, perhaps it’s appropriate for them to apologize on her behalf – that is, if they don’t actually share her backward beliefs.

But don’t hold your breath.

We’ve all seen how collectively stingy Duke University staff can be with apologies. Remember the ad the lynch mob – er – faculty hastily took out condemning the Duke Lacrosse team members accused of rape? They rendered judgment before the ink was dry on the arrest warrant but arrogantly refused to apologize even after it became abundantly clear that the accused would likely be exonerated.

Still, if Duke’s stubborn liberal pride won’t allow them to apologize for enabling, if not endorsing, Spaulding’s hateful screeds, then at the very least Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead will surely denounce the threat made to LaBarbera’s life on the very blog of which Duke is so proud.

It’s a noxious paradox, really. The left loves to pay lip service to the rhetoric of tolerance and diversity, while their own bigotry is betrayed by hateful and intolerant blather such as that which pollutes the cyber-pages of Pam’s House Blend.

And they’re not saying “sorry” for it.

But someone is apologizing.

Last Wednesday, February 7, South Dakota homosexual activist Barry G. Wick faxed a letter to CWA’s Washington D.C. headquarters admitting that he was the author of the threatening House Blend comments. Wick issued what appeared to be a heartfelt apology to LaBarbera and requested that CWA pass along his sincere regrets to the Christian community. Again, LaBarbera has graciously accepted the apology and says that he has forgiven Wick.

We are all sinners – every one. Christians are commanded to forgive others as we pray the Father will forgive us. However, even in forgiveness actions have consequences. We are a nation of laws, and when those laws are violated, there is a legal process that should and must take place.

Objectively speaking, a threat to the life of another is a very serious offense, even if it’s subjectively made in jest. It must always be treated as a bona fide threat. LaBarbera has shared that when he learned of what appeared to be an imminent threat to his person; he contacted the FBI and other appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Federal law is clear. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 875 (c) states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

The legal process is in motion, and as with all serious matters of this type, our unique system of justice will determine the outcome.

In the meantime, the very Christians who are the subject of those insidious threats, hateful words, and intolerant acts of omission will – in LaBarbera’s own words – be praying for “Spaulding, Barry Wick, and all those whose embrace of homosexuality has led them to be consumed by hatred toward Christians and others who defend natural sexuality and marriage.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
J. Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Oh wow...
We are not all sinners. This can only happen if you accept the dogma of "original sin", which I do not. By saying this, Ultra Right Conservative Christians will use cluster bomb logic and say I hate Christ, Christians, and Christianity.

Spaulding's right of free speech ends at the point of your nose, or even earlier if your legal cites are correct.

Most people don't like to be mocked or denigrated. However, once you enter the public arena you are fair game for any displayed pomposity or self righteousness.

bigbelly
You hit it right on the nose.

Remember the tiff last winter about the mohammed cartoons? Does anyone out there remember actually seeing them in a "mainstream" newspaper? I kind of doubt it because there was not one that had the courage to print them. Not one. And to a man (or woman) they all had the same reason for not doing so - They didn't want to offend the Muslim community, etc. Yada yada yada,

horsepuckey

To the best of my knowledge there was only one publication that had the guts to say why they wouldn't print the cartoons.

In its February 10, 2006 edition, The Boston Phoenix, not exactly a bastion of right wing thought, stated "simply speaking we are being terrorized."

the (dixie?) chicks (Call them A&M) that edwards hired as bloggers did their thing such as it is (how can someone - ANYone be proud of themselves making their living like that?) and they had their past catch up with them and so they got canned or they resigned but I think we can count on them to spin it pretty well. Count on them at some point to bring up 'freedom of speech' which is a crock, count on them to find a way to spin it to make even more money.

But DON'T count on them to say something offensive about Islam because if they did they would be history pretty quick and they know it and they ain't THAT brave.

former senator edwards - you are very handsome and I know you are the son of a miner and you are known by the company you keep.

i hate extremists
ahh the lovely combination of extreme ideology and facelessness of being on the internet. It breeds hatred for people that think differently and convinces people to think that they are the only ones who are right and everyone else is a worthless moron who cant see straight. I even see it here an d on talk radio but to a lesser extent

Bleeding Heart Liberal
So let me get this straight. An anti-Christian's hate speech ends at the point of my Christian nose, but a Christian's right of free speech ends at the school door, legislature's door and the courthouse door. Oh and at least two blocks in any direction around an abortion clinic. I get it.

Show me the venum
Barber writes: "Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan have spewed anti-Christian venom containing language that might even make Howard Stern blush." -- Show me! There are a few anatomical references, but none more serious than those of the "Canterbury Tales". Christianity is mocked, but no more than in that great American song "It ain't necessarily so". (casting aspersion on the birth of Moses)

A few months ago you guys were beside yourselves over Muslim reaction to a cartoon. Now here you are having the same reaction.

Show me from LGM----excuse the language
Quoting from Amanda Marcotte: "One thing I vow here and now–you mother******s who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will [censored] without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous mother******s. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now."
I missed this part of the Canterbury Tales somehow. I don't hear anyone calling for her death so I don't think the reaction is quite up to the Muslim reaction to the cartoon. The point is John Edward's hired these idiots..that's the point...the cartoonist's were not on a Republican's payroll..get it?

I just want to know why
a lot of the 'liberal bloggers' and websites entertain the DEATH of an opponent? Talk about it. Encourage it. Fantasize about it.

In the interest of full disclosure, there has been a few I would love to meet in a dark alley and maybe slap em, like my dad said, "to get their attention." Or change their ipod to produce only biblical messages. But I have NEVER WANTED THEM DEAD!

But they DO WANT conservatives/republicans DEAD.

(Could it be that they can't come up with any answer to our questions? Or just the fact that we DARE TO QUESTION?)

No respect
Liberalgoodman, you can go to the Catholic League website for an entire porno-cast on what they wrote.

I ain't going to repeat it out of respect for God and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

We're not having the "same" reaction as the extremist Muslims, thankfully.

At least for now outrage over what these women wrote has won the day as they felt pressured to quit. It is heartening to know that decency is still valued by a segment of the American public.

Laughing at hate
I laugh every time someone on Townhall accuses liberals of hate. Don't you read Townhall? Ann Coulter (a tragedy is a bus load of liberals going over a cliff, . . . with an empty seat)??

Did you read the column yesterday quoting approvingly a US president wishing to kill legislators who voted against his war funding. (Naturally for TH, the Lincoln quote turned out to be fake.)?

The quote: "One thing I vow here and now–you mother******s who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will [censored] without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous mother******s. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now." may or not be accurate, given that its source is a conservative web site no more trustworthy than TH (see previous paragraph). Even if it is (it may be), it is not violent or a threat.

The author is angry that the religious right wants to take away what she sees as her right to birth control. She implies that conservative Christians want her not to have sex because they are jealous of her. This is far milder than many many columns here that accuse liberals of opposing Bush because they hate America.

Maybe you read the expurgated translation of the Canturbury Tales. I read the complete original. There's anatomy, there's action, it's explicit.

I'd like to know where the supposed
death threats from Christians are on Amanda Marcotte's website. I checked it out and except for a handful (less than a half dozen) comments from Christians saying she's rude and incorrect in her analysis or correcting her Biblical exegesis, I couldn't find any death threats directed at her. I did, however, find a LOT of comments wishing conservative Christians and Catholics harm of various kinds.

It's not hate to disagree with someone, even publicly. It is hate when you wish them ill because you don't agree with them. Classical tolerance allows for differing views in the public arena and requires that we all listen to each other respectfully and disagree with civility. It's okay to disagree, but there are lines that should never be crossed. These liberal hate-bloggers cross that line way too often. If you visit any number of Christian sites, you don't find the level of rage and hate that you do on leftist sites. This is because our God, who teaches us character, tells us we must be civil to those we disagree with, even when they're trying to slap us around. I'm waiting for someone in the "liberal" community to tell these women that they're anything but "liberal", but I'm not holding my breath because modern-day "liberals" are themselves any thing but "liberal". Ideas of tolerance, open discussion, liberty and civility are the province of conservatives, not "liberals."

state of mind
seems that most of the leftist blogs, and people that I know are always angry,full of rage about the situation of the world,or their own situation which is never the result of their own actions or decisions. most are very pessimistic, only taking joy from others failures. On the other hand most of the conservatives that I know are generally pretty well adjusted people who can become passionate and angry over a situation but are usually pretty happy and optimistic...most if in a bad situation make a plan and act on it to get out of it,taking responsiblity for their own decsions...from the level of anger on her blog miss Spaulding probably has a very miserable life, hopefully things will turn around for her, maybe she should get a cat

Escape from depravity…

We are seeing real human depravity unfold as we move further away from our heritage. This depravity is not limited to sexual perversion, but includes all unrighteousness; that is, violation of the whole Law of God.

Men’s rebellion against God and the depths of his depravity speak to the power of the gospel to change the heart of men and deliver him from ruin. Where sin did abound, grace did much more abound.

Christian, consider from what you have been rescued and the great power exercised on your behalf. [Ephesians 1:19 in context]

Bleeding Heart Liberal writes:
*** "We are not all sinners. This can only happen if you accept the dogma of "original sin", which I do not. By saying this, Ultra Right Conservative Christians will use cluster bomb logic and say I hate Christ, Christians, and Christianity." ***

Removing the religious jargon, your first statement can be stated simply, "Sin is meaningless to people who do not believe in God". Okay, I agree.

What is your definition of "Ultra Right Conservative Christian"? One would take your qualifiers as representing a very small percentage. What percentage of the Christians do you believe are "Ultra Right Conservative"? What percentage of "Ultra Right Conservatives" actually make the statements that you attribute to them?

Are you equating the number of such Christians making hateful statements to the number of anti-Christians making hateful statements?

*** "Spaulding's right of free speech ends at the point of your nose, or even earlier if your legal cites are correct." ***

Yes. You are right. They have the right to free speech. However, free speech does not mean _uncontested_ free speech. I have the right to criticize what you said. Large numbers of people are free to criticize what you said.

Also, free speech does not mean free speech without consequences. The bloggers have the right of free speech. However, don't expect to be popular when you upset a large number of people.

An employer has the right to censure the speech of on-the-job employees. The bloggers are free to make their statements on their own dime.


*** "Most people don't like to be mocked or denigrated. However, once you enter the public arena you are fair game for any displayed pomposity or self righteousness." ***

Just who has been pompous and self-righteous? Who has mocked and denigrated others? Are your statements exempt?

Let's get this straight ...
Neither side of the political spectrum is devoid of radical idiots. Both sides have people who spew invectives at those with whom they disagree. Can we all agree on that?

I believe the point to be taken here is that one of the top presidential candidates had the audacity to knowingly hire people who were on the fringe. If he didn't think that they were on the fringe, what does that say about where he stands and where is beliefs are?

From a liberal perspective, these bloggers may be humorous to read, but caution and discretion should have been used by Edwards, who now appears to know neither.

As a conservative, I sometimes find Ann Coulter funny, but sometimes I cringe at how far she is willing to go. I think I can state confidently that she would not be hired by a Republican for any type of public communication.

I hate liberals
and make no bones about it. I guess that makes me closer to them than your average Christian.

Liberalgoodman;

"I laugh every time someone on Townhall accuses liberals of hate."

You have to laugh because that is the only answer liberals have to what is so apparent and prevalent.

Liberals are lying, stingy, thoughtless, snobbish, controlling and bigoted. They cover these traits by being the squeakiest wheel, the loudest yellers, and the most adept at the skill of covering their ears and going "la, la, la, la. I can't hear you" when confronted with their promotion of sin and immorality.

If you don't believe in original sin, fine. Everyone still sins, period.

LGM
Canterbury Tales are not usually posted on a website.

So to compare the language of middle ages literature from your sophomore English Lit. class to the drive by diatribes from Ms, Marcotte and others is definitely apples and oranges. The context is everything. One is a group of stories, the other hateful rambling.

People on Town Hall
People on Town Hall threaten to kill liberals in general all the time. In fact, I can even name them. GunnyG, GShawk, the list goes on.

The only distinction I can see is that in this case an individual was named.

The facinating irony of the right wing's characterization of the left is the notion that the left is:

1.) Feel Good
2.) Hateful

Which is it?

Town Hall is nothing more than one big feel good, kum by ah, session for hating liberals.

It is determental to America's body politick that the right wing must always deliver its messages by Ann Coulter. Glen Beck, a rather new additon on CNN, is a perfect example of an Ann Coulter wanna be.


This is one of those "Kettle meet Pot" articles.

I see nothing but hatred on Town Hall and death threats to liberals in general abound in plenty.




drivebyposting
------------
1.) Feel Good
2.) Hateful

Which is it?"
------------
What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

I'm a prison guard. I've known a few drug-pushers, murderers and baby-rapers who were quite stuck on themselves, thought they were just the end-all and be-all, kind of like liberal snobs.

The not-so-funny part is that if you ask them, just about every one would tell you that if they were allowed to vote, they'd vote Democrat.

Go figure...

Drivebyposting
*** "People on Town Hall threaten to kill liberals in general all the time. In fact, I can even name them. GunnyG, GShawk, the list goes on." ***

Really? They have posted their real intent to actually kill liberals? I've read posts by them. Please provide links to some examples.

*** "The facinating irony of the right wing's characterization of the left is the notion that the left is:

1.) Feel Good
2.) Hateful

Which is it?" ***

Here is your answer: The left, as a group, promotes what "feels good". The left, as group, are "hateful" (I would say "intolerant") towards those who hinder their efforts.

Examples:

- Global warming. It makes the left, as a group, "feel good" that they are protecting Earth from destruction. They are "intolerant" towards those who disagree with their conclusions.

- Elimination of poverty. It makes the left, as a group, "feel good" that they care for the poor. They are "intolerant" to those who believe that personal responsibility is at least as important as money.

- Affirmative Action. It makes the left, as a group, "feel good" that they are giving the disadvantaged an edge over others to make up for past injustices. They are "intolerant" to those who believe that giving advantages to some perpetuates a sense of victim-hood.


To the liberals who are reading this: Those of you who smile at the first half of my examples, but fume over the second half are making my point.

No One Cares
What our hate bloggers don't get about conservatives is that we don't care what they do. We're not interested in being in their beds or their britches. In reality, I'd like them to keep their disgusting, disease-ridden britches OUT of my face.
Pay for your own abortions.
Pay for your own birth control.
Pay for your own treatment for STDs.
Don't expect me to pay you to teach my children about sex. I don't want you to.
You reserve the right to talk about my religion as disgusting. I reserve the right to characterize your behavior as disgusting. Free speech works both ways.

Birds of a feather...
Right, Left -- doesn't matter. The extremists of each party populate the blogs of their like-minded pals and post vitriolic statements. Neither has the moral high ground as to who hates more.

Those in the middle who call someone out for these type of statements is automatically branded as a slobbering member of the party the poster opposes.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that the blogosphere has done very little to contribute to meaningful exchanges of ideas.

"I blog therefore I am"

Moderate Hick
i couldnt agree more

liberalgoodman
You said that offended Christians were acting like Muslims did over those Muhammad cartoons. Really, how many Christian riots have there been? How many bloggers have been beheaded by Christians? Do you really expect us to see an equivalence there?

Duke
Could, would the Duke Trustees please investigate the academic environment and administrative competence at their University. Duke is becoming a major embarrassment to "higher learning."

Diomedes
Are the Duke Trustees sufficiently independent to conduct a review?

Unfortunately, this seems to be par for the course.

This is the same Duke University that tarred and feathered the defendants of the supposed Duke Men's Lacrosse team rape scandal.

Read some of Mike S. Adam's articles right here on TownHall for an inside look at liberal academia.

"Nation of laws"
I believe this is a *corruption* of the Adams quote: "A government of laws and not of men." Unfortunately it's all too common.

Hey, who cares
what liberals think?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.