Alex,

Just shows there are hatred fanatics on the "left and right" that will try and advance their political-religious or social agenda by force and innuendo.

pat

The shooting makes me sad.

My views on homosexuality are quite close to those articulated by the compassion and clarity panel at Southern Adventist University. The comment you quoted illustrates that for fanatics, only fanaticism is acceptable.

At a meeting of the San Diego Adventist Forum an adjunct religion professor at La Sierra was asked if he was gay. He simply stood up and said "I am not" and sat down. Single at the time, he was recently married. That's good enough for me and should be good enough for anyone who cares. For those that don't, no satisfactory reply is possible or merited.

My God. This had been a tragic shooting. It shows just how dangerous it is to truly live out the Kingdom of God today - as it always has been.

Pat, I find it rather tasteless to spin this as some "oh, yes, extremists of any kind are bad." This was an extremist from a very particular political persuasion, and to cover that over with pat phrases about "left and right" is to ignore one of the most important factors that led to this crime: his dangerous conservatism. If we wish to prevent such violence in the future, we cannot sugar over the real origins of this evil.

Alex, the quotes you posted are indeed scary and should be shameful to whoever wrote them. My heart goes out to you. Not you, not Johnny, not anyone should be the subject of such hateful speech. And the events in Knoxville only show how scarily serious such speech is - how we cannot afford to casually write off such vehemence and not hold the writers accountable. We need not silence anyone, but we must let these people know that we do take their words seriously. "Layman" may think his are idle words, but there is no reason to think he could never become the next Knoxville shooter if he continues to write like that.

You deserve much more respect, as does every child of God. I am sorry you and others have been subject to such abuse, and I am inspired that you continue to struggle for justice in the face of such demented personal attacks.

pat,

Force and innuendo? That's like the recent commenter who argued that Gandhi wasn't really a practitioner of non-violence because he used the force of psychology.

But maybe I need to listen here? Do you feel threatened by some sort of innuendo about equal rights?

And just so we're clear on this "left and right equal in their use of violence idea," there is a tendency among the right (go visit their mil blog sites) to resort to the rhetoric and behavior of actual initiated violence, which is not as common among, say, non-violence advocating Christians.

Like thoughtful Adventists did after Waco and Rwanda, these events give us an opportunity to look clear-eyed at the philosophical, psychological and hermeneutical roots and talk - rationally and calmly - about contributing factors.

It's called learning from our mistakes. And just saying that "everyone makes them," doesn't actually help us as a community identify patterns and learn how to better care for each other.

If you haven't seen those of the left politcal persuasion using force or innuendo against the "right political or conservative religious belief" or the shooting inside of conservative churches of Christians or Columbine ...then perhaps we don't live on the same planet but in a "parallel universe."

People of both extremes and philosophy have incorporated force against those that disagree with them. Your very purpose seems Alex, to point to only the views you disagree with by posting this. I avoid bringing specific attention to individual situations from the other side because they do not accurately portray all.

Audrey, do you sense Alex's primary reason for posting this was in sorrow of the event? Sorry, I doubt it.

From the "innuendoed narrow,fundy,literalist"

pat

Pat, your comment:

"Your very purpose seems Alex, to point to only the views you disagree with by posting this. I avoid bringing specific attention to individual situations from the other side because they do not accurately portray all.

"do you sense Alex's primary reason for posting this was in sorrow of the event? Sorry, I doubt it."

Both of those comments are totally out of place as speculative and not based on your personal knowledge. When were you endowed with omniscence? Sorry, but I so much appreciate Alex not always showing the "party line." You are not going to find the views presented here in any official SDA publication. There are fundamentalist SDA sites. If someone is uncomfortable and feels out of place here, there are alternatives.

I continue to be surprised by the comments I read on this blog. This is actually quite scary. As a pastor of a diverse church in the inter city of Los Angeles, this kind of story gets my attention.

I really don't get why some would attack the messenger for posting about a story related to religion which will be plastered all over the national news tonight. Hate crimes are hate crimes. Why blame Alex for posting it. I, for one, believe that Alex would post in a heart beat a news story about a homosexual, Green Party, Berkley grad who shot up a conservative church out of hatred. I've just never heard of such a thing, have you?. I'm sure peace-loving, pro-choice liberals have bombed pro-life headquarters somewhere, I've just never heard of it.

Heard of the Unabomber or noticed the destruction at WTO meetings? Seen Hummer dealers burned in Calif? One of the girls at Columbine last comments was , "I'm a Christian."...shot and killed.In Texas or Oklahoma a few years back an "anti-evangelical" shot and killed members of a congregation. (excuse that I don't name the specific church)

Surely folks you see this?!

True Christians simply don't kill those with whom they may strongly disagree on the basis of "liberal and conservative...pro gay or anti-gay or religion"... pure and simple and the others are fanatics.

The painting of those who hold those who would say that Jews need to accept Christ for salvation as a valid Christian position as "anti-Jewish" is irresponsible for example. I pointed out EGW and LaRondelle's view so as to verify that those on this blog wouldn't associate me with the likes of the neo-Nazi's that appeared on this blog...whom I detest in thought.

pat

This is indeed a very sad story.

Pat--I think this thread illustrates the problems with labels and how limiting they can be, especially when one word throws up a huge red flag for some (e.g. "liberal"). When people think of "liberal Christians," I doubt they're thinking of the Columbine killers, the Unabomber, or even the WTO activists. This story illustrates the point on a thread from last week about how fundamentalism can be so dangerous, even genocidal. I'll try to define that so I'm not contributing to the label confusion issue.

A fundamentalist feels that his/her position is THE only position and that any one who disagrees may as well not exist. Now, most don't go to the extreme of this deranged individual and actually carry out violence, but those assumptions and worldview can lead to others seeing a justification for violence. As Crossan pointed out, fundamentalism isn't unique to Christianity or Islam or even any religion--it's a label that crosses over all boundaries and is a mindset and method rather than just a belief system.

I find nothing controversial in Pats post.
The replies are far more telling than his one sentence observation.

One could have just agreed that both extremes are bad and have used the same tactics at times, or they could have let the comment pass altogether.

Daneen,

Did I use the term, "When people think of "liberal Christians" as you did in this regard to this strand?....no, I did use "liberal" you provided the latter.

Could that be telling?

The unabomber was a hyper-environmentalist.

Do you feel this guy that killed in this instance represents most "conservative Christians?"

Could that be telling?

Now many would like you to think that it is.

Elaine... if you think I would be at home on a "traditional or conservative SDA site" vs. conservative Christian understanding you haven't understood a thing I have said over the last 8 mos.

I do however understand your "general" position on religious matters...that's the reason I see little reason to converse with you but have when I agreed on other issuues such as the fannie and freddie bailout.

regards,

pat

Pat, of course I don't think this sad, fearful, crazed individual who decided to kill people in a church because they practiced an open, tolerant form of Christianity represents conservatives. It's a bit hard for me to imagine that I'm even having to make that statement. Yikes!

I'm afraid I'll only draw more ire or confusion or make some sort of "telling" statement that can be vastly misunderstood, so I'm retiring from this thread and simply saying it is a very sad story when someone--no matter what his/her beliefs--decides that others are so wrong in theirs that they no longer deserve life.

As much as I hate to admit it, I can kinda see Pat's point. I would be as unhappy with a "Kalifornia ueber Alles" kind of state as I would be with a theocracy. I sorta see the former to be somewhat less likely in the US, but there are those who are for it. We can think of extremist animal rights activists, extreme environmentalists, etc. You can be extreme about almost anything.

But, yeah. That was tragic, and those Knoxville people, from what I've read in the news, were very brave.

I can recount four attenpts at threatening me with physical injury or death over liberal ideas.

1. A SDA Black Physcian stationed at near by Fort Gordon, requestion his daughter be enrolled in the Augusta SDA Church Church. I was chair of the board. Several members objected. The primary reason was that whites and blacks should not intermarry. I pointed out the Southern Missionary College accepted both whites are blacks into their college curriulum. These students were potentially of marraiging age. I said, If anyone could demonstrate a fourth grate inter-marraige. I would withdraw my support. The final vote was to accept the child. The major opponent threated to blow out 25 percent of my house and 25 percent of the church since that was home much he have had invested in the new church school. Another, threatened to punch me in th nose as soon as I stepped foot on the parking lor.

2. I gave testmony favoring formal academic training of the dental hygieniest in Gaorgia. The leadership of the Georgia dental scocity opposed, reversing their position of three years prior. I prevailed in the Health and Ecology Committee Hearing. By the time I arrived home, I received a phone call form the President of the Goegia Dental Association that he owned a 357 Magnum and he was on this way to Augusta to blow my head off.

University Hospital proposed under legislation formed by Prsident Carter to convert University Hosital from a publically own hospital (Richomnd) county to a privae hospital. I appossed. The chariman of the board said: Tom you stand a chance of a snow ball in hell in prevailing, but if you do, bet sure you will be dead in this town. (I lost)
4. The Georgia Dental Assciation appossed Carter legislation for 6 hours of continuing education for any persnnel prior to being certified to handle x-ay equiment. diagnosist x-rays. I was challegned as to my crediatials in the field. I point out that I had been on 33 accreditation site visit teams of U.S. and Candadian Dental Schools, and had a M.S. Degree in dignositic dental x-rays. I prevailed only to have Carter lose the election ant the issue died with him. As a rsult a motion as made a the house of delegates meetng to have my membership dropped.
My point is that sometimes otherwise rational people make irrational threats. There is alway some nut who doen't get soap box spoutings of Bill O/Reilly et al. and thinks they are real. As a rsult someone get terribly hurt. Tom

The more we pay attention to these people the more power we give them. I'll say it again: the Amish practice of shunning has some good things going for it.

This is a really sad and scary story.

I'm sure the email examples given above are not all the editors of this site have had to deal with and I'll say again that I appreciate all you guys do.

And Elaine, while I don't want to make light of the person's threat, I have to say that maybe you could take pride in the fact that some people find 80+ year old you so frightening that they feel better with their assault rifles nearby. I hope someone finds my ideas dangerous when I am older too.

Hi Pat!

I gather from what they have written elsewhere that what Alex, Chuck, Monte, me and others wrote about supercessionism, Constantianism and anti-semitism is one of the things that really upsets some of these angry people.

One of them repeatedly insists that we have singled him out as an anti-semite because his views on these matters differ from ours in some--not all--respects.

This puzzles me because I thought that in our exchanges we had clarified that Alex and the rest of us were not talking about specific individuals but competing theololgical paradigms. I think I said that it feels to me as though I aimed at a target but that after I pulled the trigger someone stepped into its path and was fatally struck. But I wasn't aiming at him!

Of course, in some sense Christianity does supercede Judaism but in other respects it doesn't. The important thing is to sort this out in a reliable manner.

I am not linking you to them because you share some of the same reservations regarding our Christian theology of Judaism. Far from it!

I'm just observing that at one time you may have felt that we were faulting you and other individuals for being antisemitic. We weren't.

Many thanks!

Dave Larson

I decided to edit what this post previously said because it was insensitive, and this is a pretty sensitive issue, I guess.

It seems my previous writing posted here has the potential to do more than make it difficult to find employment in the Adventist denomination. Who knew?!

Niemand and Michael,

Thanks for making an honest attempt at hearing my meaning.

Dave,

I still suggest your paradigm construct made me feel uncomfortable that in holding my paradigm (which SDA's,LaRondelle,EGW,PCA, and others have traditionally held)I would be painted as antisemetic on this site.

I am not. I still have fond thoughts of lifeguarding at the Jewish community center pool during college summer break.They weren't particularly thrilled at my putting milk in the fridge with the meat by mistake however.They were nontheless gracious to this ignorant gentile.

"apology" accepted.

thanks,

pat

Hi Pat!

I aplogize for leaving the impression that I apologized. I didn't! I feel no need to do so because I have never described you as anti-semitic or anything remotely akin to that.

My quarrel is not with you or Hans LaRondelle or Ellen White. It is against a murderous doctrine that for centuries has caused much needless suffering and death.

Explicit expressions of this doctrine appear in the writings of Martin Luther with which you early on stated your disagreement. That's been more than good enough for me!

Thank you!

Dave

Dave,

In your opinion it is a "needless" doctrine. The Jews misused the Sabbath in Christ's day but in your view that doesn't make it needless. Likewise some have misused "this doctrine" and likewise it is not needless to me.

To me it is simply "the obvious" that the church is now the "Israel of God" and not the "Jewish nation." There is but One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism.People of all etnic backgrounds are welcome to enter in Christ.

Thank you!

pat

This is indeed a tragic story.

I used to live in Knoxville when I did campus ministry at UT and drove down Kingston Pike every day.

The Unitarian church is less than a quarter mile away from the Adventist church, on the same side of the street.

Do we know for sure that the suspect's hatred of liberals and gays was religiously motivated (You write above that this is an example of someone clinging to their "conservative religious views" but does not seem so clear to me from the clips and links.)?

In fact, according to the Sentinel article (link provided above):

"Adkisson does not appear to be a member of any church himself, Owen said.

"In his written statement, he does not ascribe to any affiliation," the chief said. "It does not appear he's a member of any organized group."

The primary influence seems to the hate and fear-mongering done by politically conservative radio talk show hosts.

Words have power. The talk show hosts need to be held accountable for the things they say, as do we.

Pat

None of us have ever said that the "Jewish nation" is now the "Israel of God."

What we have said is that there is no basis for believing that the Jewish faith as a religion should cease to exist because Chistianity as a religion has come upon the scene.

It is this specific feature of supersessionism that has been so murderous. If one believes that the very existence of some religious group is theologically offensive, it should not be a surprise if some people take steps to make sure that it disappears.

If you think the world would be a better place if the Jewish religion disappeared from the face of the earth, you and I disagree. If you don't, we concur.

The connection between our exchange and the topic of this thread is that some--not you--of those who are most upset believe that we have described them as specific persons as anti-semitc. But this is factually false.

Thanks!

Dave

Buddhism, Hinduism,Islam or Judaism need not to cease to exist. We can concur on this.

However, My God has a Son who is also God and His name is Jesus. Eternal salvation is in Jesus alone.If you want another God that's ok and you don't need to disappear. It just isn't Christianity.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Jn.3:16-18.

Thanks!

pat

Zane,

I, too, drove by that church on Kingston Pike when I attended the University.

Jesus's views were so liberal and scary, he was not only threatened with death, it was carried out so that His views would die with Him.

They didn't.

When one espouses Jesus's views and is imbued with the Spirit, there will inevitably be uber-offended people who will try to take the law into their own hands--and innocent people's lives.

This is what we've seen in Knoxville.

What courage that usher showed in "standing in the gap" between the shooter and the children. He gave his life for his values and beliefs and for others. He is a hero.

David, please explain your statement:

"Of course, in some sense Christianity does supercede Judaism but in other respects it doesn't."

Since that sounds like a paradox, would you enlighten us on how that occurred? If, in some sense, Christianity supercedes Judaism, how could that possibly be when Judaism was a recognized religious belief hundreds of years before anyone thought of a Christian religion?

It is a confusing statement, so please elaborate.

My impression of where Dave was going with his statement was that Judaism wasnt designed by God as how it was practiced from Christs time till now. They were supposed to accept him. In that light it is Christianity that would never have existed.
Judiasm is a 3 minute egg cooked only 2 minutes.

Whether religiously motivated or not, hatred and killing of gays is a sad commentary on America, the land of the free and the home of the brave! I have never heard of a gay person killing someone who hated them - have you, Pat? Unfortunately, gay-hating is usually fostered by religious people. I have heard my share of sermons about how homosexuality is a sign of the end.

Alex, I'm shocked and sorry about the kind of messages you received.

Alex, I feel equally awful about the messages you've been getting.

I agree with Ms. Akers, particularly concerning how labels are dangerous and inadequate--"liberal", "conservative"...even "religious", "Adventist", or "Christian".

All we can do is live our lives with a healthy amount of doubt in ourselves (to protect from the insidious self-righteousness that infects both liberals and conservatives, and with which Satan drove Adkinsson mad), share our burdens, and share the "hope that burns in our hearts". Above all else, we should be talking about the mercy of God, the justice of God, and, what lies behind and beyond both of these--the love of God that is in Christ that nothing--not shotgun shells, not talk-show host drivel, not arguing, and not angry messages--can separate any single human being from.

http://www.slate.com/id/2196341/

What is it that scares us? Is it the carnage or the fact that he believes that the best way to teach people a lesson is to kill them? We have no trouble teaching that some time in the future God will do exactly that to everyone who does not come around to our way of thinking. That carnage will be worse. We live in an awfully big glasshouse and should be careful of the stones that we throw.

My God. This had been a tragic shooting. It shows just how dangerous it is to truly live out the Kingdom of God today - as it always has been.

Pat, I find it rather tasteless to spin this as some "oh, yes, extremists of any kind are bad." This was an extremist from a very particular political persuasion, and to cover that over with pat phrases about "left and right" is to ignore one of the most important factors that led to this crime: his dangerous conservatism. If we wish to prevent such violence in the future, we cannot sugar over the real origins of this evil.

Alex, the quotes you posted are indeed scary and should be shameful to whoever wrote them. My heart goes out to you. Not you, not Johnny, not anyone should be the subject of such hateful speech. And the events in Knoxville only show how scarily serious such speech is - how we cannot afford to casually write off such vehemence and not hold the writers accountable. We need not silence anyone, but we must let these people know that we do take their words seriously. "Layman" may think his are idle words, but there is no reason to think he could never become the next Knoxville shooter if he continues to write like that.

You deserve much more respect, as does every child of God. I am sorry you and others have been subject to such abuse, and I am inspired that you continue to struggle for justice in the face of such demented personal attacks.
Posted by: Audrey (not verified) | 28 July 2008 at 2:26
---------------------------------------------------------

Audrey please,
The only reason this made the Spectrum was because the shooter was conservative.
This much is clear.
The shooter at the church in Colorado and the Columbine killers both were hostile to Christianity; but I bet you didn't even know that--much less read it here.

Then we haven't yet touched on the political darlings on the left and the pain they have caused in the last century or so.

Every murderer purports to have a "reason". Why do some weigh more than others?

David, please explain your statement:

"Of course, in some sense Christianity does supercede Judaism but in other respects it doesn't."

Since that sounds like a paradox, would you enlighten us on how that occurred? If, in some sense, Christianity supercedes Judaism, how could that possibly be when Judaism was a recognized religious belief hundreds of years before anyone thought of a Christian religion?

It is a confusing statement, so please elaborate.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 29 July 2008 at 7:28
--------------------------------------------

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supersede

1 a: to cause to be set aside b: to force out of use as inferior2: to take the place or position of3: to displace in favor of another

What is confusing? That is the exact definition of "supersede".
All other chronology is irrelevant.

My impression of where Dave was going with his statement was that Judaism wasn't designed by God as how it was practiced from Christs time till now. They were supposed to accept him. In that light it is Christianity that would never have existed.
Judaism is a 3 minute egg cooked only 2 minutes.
Posted by: Michael | 29 July 2008 at 10:07
-------------------------------------------------------

Also, Rabbinical Judaism is not Biblical Judaism.

Today's Judaism is a far cry from what we read about in the Bible; and any Jew who thinks it should be otherwise (like the Karaites) finds out the hard way.

Christianity is supposed to be the completion of Biblical Judaism; not a spontaneous and unrelated invention of the first century. Rabbinical Judaism on the other hand, is man-made at it's core; and Jesus himself said that (way back when it was closer to the Biblical origins; it has not gotten better since then).

The shooter at the church in Colorado and the Columbine killers both were hostile to Christianity; but I bet you didn't even know that--much less read it here.

Unfortunately some folks posting here are just wrong on their facts.

Unlike the TN ideologically-driven killer, the megachurch guy was actually a Christian and was upset over not receiving housing.

The Columbine kids, well, since a grad class I took dealt with that, let's just say that there are about a dozen interconnecting theories (video games, trench coat culture, music, absent parents, gun culture, teen alienation, unrequited love, peer pressure, and even hazing) about their motivations, but not a single one is that they were liberals or even that they hated Christianity. What they hated was the way that some Christians treated them, making fun of them and falsely ostracizing them as gay. One of the boys actually had a crush on a Christian girl.

Furthermore, that whole thing about one of the killers asking a girl whether she believed in God has been debunked by the Rocky Mountain News, the girl's friend and the sheriff's investigators.

Anyone using these fake counter examples probably should do a little comparative analysis and critical thinking. . .or at least use a lil' Google.

The Colorado guy actually wanted to be a Christian missionary.

Here's what those in the reality-based community call sources.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/23/columbine/index.html
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7682958

The reason I posted on this news item is because this story unlike any that anyone has named thus far clearly connects a person's murderous actions toward our brothers and sisters in God to their ideology and frustrations over "liberals and gay people." (Especially troubling when via the letter, the real cause was economic.)

Having had Adventists threaten SPECTRUM folks with gun violence and falsely defame our character because we talk about LBGT rights reveals a pattern of fear and sin rhetoric, masking sexual confusion and discomfort cum hate often cloaked in ideology and poor comparative analysis skills.

Mr. Carpenter,
He was "denied housing"? It's stuff like this he was writing months in advance on the internet and in his suicide note:

"...God, I can't wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you ... as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.""

The preponderance of evidence about Matthew J. Murray points to nothing close to "he didn't get housing". Not even close. He hated Christians, and targeted them for that reason. He said so himself.

The guy left postings on the web:

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=82548

All sorts of theories pop up based on this, but it is clear that he hated Christians for a number of reasons (whether or not he himself was a Christian--after all, he lived at home with a strict Christian family); the main one being that he felt that he had been rejected by the Christian group Youth With A Mission (not for "housing"), along with possibly the church's teaching on human sexuality as it applied to himself.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15576902/detail.html

He repeatedly posted on anti-pentecostal sites and at one time joined an occult group, Ad Astra Oasis of Ordo Templi Orientis. He was expelled from there too.

What they hated was the way that some Christians treated them, making fun of them and falsely ostracizing them as gay. One of the boys actually had a crush on a Christian girl.
---------------------------------------------------

Also, what is this supposed to mean?

Surely you are not saying that the Christians brought it upon themselves by "treating them bad and calling them gay". (Which "Christians" did this to them, by the way?)

Is this not exactly what I was saying? Some "reasons" for mass murder seem to be more "acceptable" than others?

And you forgot to mention that this unnamed "Christian girl" that Klebold had a crush on was the same girl who was shot when asked if she was still a Christian; and who, if you don't believe that report was ridiculed by the killers on video for her Christian beliefs in the infamous "basement tapes":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM4rH8bsV0w (Warning: Explicit language!)

It's terrible that they abuse Jesus like that, but note that it's coming from their larger hated/fear of the school in-crowd.

It's vital to watch those tapes in the larger context of their teenage angst. They also hated the WB network and the government putting restrictions on them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUOUGO_A-rA

And you're flat out wrong on the facts about the girls.

Klebold had a crush on Rachel Scott (the one mentioned in the video) who was not asked if she was a Christian. That's according to the guy, now paralyzed, who was sitting next to her when both were shot. The Cassie Bernall story has been roundly debunked and the one girl who investigators and witnesses all agree was asked if she believed in God, because she was praying, was actually spared.

It's really interesting how much of the early reports have been proven by further reporting and the investigators to have been emotionally-driven mishearings and faith-based false conclusions.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm

Also, it should be pretty clear that the megachurch guy had some very serious mental illness issues and there's no telling how ideas mix with psychosis. For that reason, I'm equally opposed to anti-Christian rhetoric.

Furthermore, even if these were good examples, they still don't function as counter examples since these are not ideologically-driven attacks on conservatives, or homophobes.

You'll notice that the TN killer attacked a church as well. . .apparently in part because he didn't like the reality that humans can be liberal, support gay rights, and be believers in God. In preserving life, tearing down that ideological wall is key, wouldn't you agree?

Anonymous11 said- "The only reason this made the Spectrum was because the shooter was conservative. This much is clear."

Firstly, pick another pseudonym as anonymous is not allowed. I know Daneen pointed this out to you on another thread and she is right in that having a name, even if it isn't really yours, is helpful. That is our request and those are our guidelines.

It would be helpful for me to hear you address the shooting and/or slanderous comments directed against us as they stand. On their own. To hear if you feel they are appropriate or not and why.

I would hate, if it is not your intent, for people to think you're 'ok' with that. Maybe you are but hopefully you're not.