Browse By

White House: We’ll Respond to Threats of Violence, but not Threats of Speech

Let me get this straight:

After some people threatened to fly off the handle and kill people if a pastor in Florida engaged in constitutionally-protected free speech, various Obama Administration officials (from David Petraeus to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama himself) acquiesced to the death threats, pushing the pastor to refrain from expressing himself.

But after a pastor in Florida threatened to engage in constitutionally-protected free speech unless the White House called him, the White House hesitated to give him a call because it might encourage “other extremists” to threaten other acts of free speech.

Why should the president work to curb American freedoms in the face of death threats, then worry about the possibility of appeasing somebody who doesn’t plan to hurt a flea? It seems to me that these responses are morally inverted.

2 thoughts on “White House: We’ll Respond to Threats of Violence, but not Threats of Speech”

  1. Tom says:

    Well, in this case i think it’s best to be prudent and not engage in such a volatile act. Why is it these so-called Christians act like such assholes while the Muslims show all the intelligence, restraint and willingness to engage in dialog to solve their problems? Like pedophilia, this gives this Florida clown’s “church” a less than savory reputation.

    1. Jim says:


      There are a billion of “the Muslims,” so you can’t overgeneralize, and you can’t generalize about “the Christians” either.

      But if you want to set that Christian next to some comparable Muslims, there have already been demonstrations around the globe where a lot of heated religious speech from Muslims has been generated. See : at one, an American flag has been burned while people chanted “Death to the Christians.” Because they’re upset that Terry Jones is being disrespectful. Uh huh. Very intellectual and respectful.

      It is, literally, a volatile act. That’s what fires are. But it’s just a fire, and it’s just paper. The volatility is in the human mind.

      You know, Tom there’s been an interesting amount of energy in the news over the past day dedicated toward pointing out that this guy is not part of a “mainstream” church, that it’s really not a “typical” Church, that he runs a “cult.” Well, there is no “mainstream” or “typical” church in America, and a cult is a religion that people don’t like. The whole “church” in quotes thing has an interesting parallel in New York where people are declaring that you can ban a mosque because Islam “isn’t really a religion.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!