Guns, Killing, and People
| July 28th, 2008
I am never quite sure how one builds up a hatred of Unitarian Universalists. Oh, I know people exist who hate us, but it seems a bit of a wasted emotion. After all, the central tenet of Unitarianism is that nobody really knows whether there’s a God or not, and if there is, nobody really knows what he, she, it, or they are like. No lake of fire for the unbelievers, no eternal torment for the non-elect; as the great philosopher Homer J. Simpson once said, when asked what the true religion is, “Well, not the Unitarians. If that’s the one true faith I’ll eat my hat!” Not a Unitarian alive would disagree with him.
But UUs can be defined by one overriding principle, inherent in the idea that any of us could be right, and any of us could be wrong: tolerance. Tolerance for ideas and decisions and lifestyles that may not be right for me, but may be right for someone else. UUs are ardently pro-choice, staunchly pro-GLBTQQ rights, anti-racist, and pro-equality for all. Unitarian Churches and Societies in Massachusetts and California gladly perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, and that differentiates them from those in the other 48 states only because their states recognize the ceremony. We believe in helping those who are in need, accepting those who are different, supporting those who make the brave and difficult decision to be themselves, no matter what they are supposed to be.
And that is dangerous. For those who believe that there is but one acceptable way to live, but one acceptable path in life, but one acceptable belief system, the Unitarian Universalists are anathema to all that is right. We preach acceptance and tolerance, when we should be teaching proscription and the one true way. And that cannot stand.
Jim David Adkisson was clearly a disturbed and deranged man, one with a violent temper and a tenuous hold on his sanity. His ex-wife had been a member of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, a liberal, tolerant church, one where women were counted as equals, where gays and lesbians were welcomed with open arms, where liberal ideas of propriety and decency prevailed.
Adkisson was no liberal; that much is clear. While his neighbors noted that he had a rooted distrust of Christianity, he was much more interested in reading the sort of right-wing hate speech that passes for meaningful discourse. Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity sat on his bookshelf, as did Michael Savage’s Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder, and Bill O’Reilly’s The O’Reilly Factor. He nursed a hatred of liberals, one that he would eventually pour out into a four-page screed in which he said liberals were destroying America, and because he could not attack the leaders of the liberal movement, he would attack their followers.
And then he loaded up a shotgun, and he headed to the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, where children were engaged in a performance of Annie, Jr. And he opened fire.
We are told by the right, each time a mass shooting such as this takes place, that it would be best if everyone around was armed, better if everyone could just fire back. In a different setting, a different church, maybe there would have been crossfire. But even in Tennessee, I misdoubt gun ownership among UUs can be counted in the single digits. Total.
There would be no standoff, no OK Corrall shootout. Instead, Greg McKendry, a longtime parishioner and usher at the church, threw himself in front of the shooter, dying in the process but limiting the other deaths to but one other person, Lisa Kraeger, who was visiting from a different UU church. Others rushed to subdue and disarm Adkisson, a man who expected he would go out in a blaze of glory, no doubt buoyed by his belief that liberals would not fight back, would not be armed, would go quietly.
Adkisson was denied his martyrdom. He was arrested; he is in custody, and he will rot in jail. His attempt for immortality was dashed by people willing to put themselves in harm’s way to save others. Adkisson himself was unharmed.
It would be nice if we UUs had a coherent belief in the afterlife, to say that McKendry and Kraeger were in Heaven now, and at peace. We don’t. We hope there’s something, and maybe there is something, but like all other aspects of our faith, we know only that we don’t know. McKendry and Kraeger may be in Heaven, or moving on to the next cycle of life, or joining with the infinite mind, or they may simply be gone, forever.
But their deaths were not in vain. McKendry died a hero, saving others by sacrificing himself. Kraeger died a martyr to her faith, if Unitarianism believed in such a thing.
There is, of course, much to say about the hatred that fed Adkisson’s resentment, the bile that begat his terroristic attack, that led him to write, “all liberals should be killed.” How the hatred and the othering that the right has engaged in for lo these many years will inevitably lead to more Adkissons, choosing to attack other liberal organizations. Dave Neiwert will inevitably have quite a bit to say about this, while the Malkinites will try to declare that Adkisson wasn’t really a conservative after all.
And it is important for us to discuss that, but in truth, I feel sorry for Adkisson, even as his actions are clearly unforgivable. He was, like all of us, a soul cast upon this world, looking for direction and purpose. Had he found himself a more stable, more honorable set of influences, he may have found himself happier and saner, at least enough so that he did not feel the need to murder others in order to find meaning in his existence. He went looking for answers, and the right gave him instead a scapegoat, an over-arching group to place all his self-hatred onto, all his anger, all his rage, all his uncomprehending fury. And then he acted.
He is as lost and broken as anybody involved in this, and my heart goes out to him. Hatred does not just push people to destroy others; it destroys those that hate, as well.
None of us know what lies beyond the end of our time on this Earth. All we know for certain is that we have this time to live, and this short time to find our own meaning to our existence. Adkisson thought he had found his meaning, that he was a means to the destruction of the enemy — the enemy being his fellow humans. But his fellow humans refused to turn on him, refused to harm him, refused to kill him, refused to view him as he viewed them. In all the righteous anger and fury and pain of the moment, the members of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church did not seek revenge. Two lives ended the day of Adkisson’s attack, but they did not die without meaning. In that moment, the UUs of that congregation did what all of us in the church hope we can do — they fought back with tolerance, compassion, and self-sacrifice, not with anger, bitterness, and vengeance. The dead and wounded — even those who only bear the psychological scars of that moment — they embraced what is best about the Unitarian Universalist Church’s ethos.
There is deep meaning in that, even if it came in a horrific and brutal moment.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Tears right now
This comment was written by MH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Brilliant, just brilliant.
My blog partner and I talked about this issue this morning–the scramble is on to distance what inspired this man from the money-making industry of hate that produces the books in his home.
What gets lost in all of this is that the real Christians have already forgiven this man.
This comment was written by Warren Street.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 7:59 am
I recall several court cases involving teen suicides where the premise of the prosecution was that some musical group “enticed” the youth to suicide with suggestive lyrics or such. When a man filled with hate shoots up a church after reading the likes of Hannity, Savage, and O’Reilly, does anyone ever make the same comparison? These people are in the business of selling hate and intolerance, and make millions doing it. It’s average people who end up paying, both for the books and the sickness they generate. So sad that our society elevates hatemongering to a noble profession. Where’s the radio personalities being paid a fortune to promote peace and understanding?
This comment was written by JohnnyD.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 9:08 am
“the UUs of that congregation did what all of us in the church hope we can do — they fought back with tolerance, compassion, and self-sacrifice, not with anger, bitterness, and vengeance. The dead and wounded — even those who only bear the psychological scars of that moment — they embraced what is best about the Unitarian Universalist Church’s ethos.”
Jeff, this was the first post I read this morning, and I’ve been trying to think of something to say all day. I’ll admit, my first thought was “Awesome, I’m so not surprised he’s UU!” but I thought that would be a little narrow-minded. I’ve been thinking about how much I miss my old congregation (Unity Church in St. Paul), and how much your words reminded me about why I loved them so much. Thanks. Let’s hope that despite this horror, that message gets out to more people.
This comment was written by ErinElizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
My hearts go out to the victim and to the fact that there is so much misplaced anger and frustration in this world that it would be taken out on in the form of murder of those that want nothing but peace and love.
As far as guns are involved, it would not matter if every single parishioner, including the pastor, had concealed carry permits. No house of worship anywhere would allow weapons inside its walls, and no self-respecting follower would take their arms into the church with them. I would say this is an almost globally recognized tenet that tools of destruction are not wanted or welcome inside a place of peace and sanctuary.
Also, thank you for making the salient point about denying this man his martyrdom. This will bring more justice than any bullet or jury can. This killer thought to act on his feelings hoping to never have to account for his actions or think them through. Perhaps the victims and families of may feel somewhat differently, though I am sure they will forgive(as stated above). Death does no one honor.
This comment was written by DB.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 9:52 am
This is a most refreshing, sane take on this tragedy.
The comment thread on AOL’s report of the gunman’s alleged motives yesterday was most disturbing. It’s hard to believe we share a genome, let alone a country, with some of those hateful commenters.
This comment was written by GOPnot4me.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 10:10 am
This story was my first introduction to your blog, and I loved your thoughtful post (I’ve been scanning your back archives).
I SHOULD disavow this fellow’s motives, because I’ve always done so with similar claims about video games and movie violence. I SHOULD overlook all the pundit junk that was strewn all over his place, because this was just another attack by another deranged person, and those books SHOULD be held no more accountable than a Marilyn Manson video. However–hoorah!–I DON”T HAVE TO do any of that. Video games and movies and music videos aren’t presented as being anything other than entertainment and diversion. Hannity and Savage and O’Reilly are presented as informative editorial and even sometimes as news, instead of as the emotional junk food they are.
Actually, that’s unfair. Junk food is at least actually food. It contains calories (too many, in fact).
This comment was written by Type12point.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Good piece, Jeff. I’ve long had similar thoughts about the number of peace activists assassinated over the years. There’s something about someone speaking about peace and tolerance that, ironically enough, sends already hateful people into a literally murderous rage. I suspect, with hatred of MLK, Gandhi and others, there’s a deep fear of the social order changing, but also that the haters’ identities and basic self-esteem are so tied in with that perceived social order, with finding a scapegoat, and with re-establishing a sense of control that they view a horribly immoral act as a point of honor, but most of all privilege. It’s insecure bullying at its most deadly. Sadly, as Dave Neiwert and others have documented, “eliminationist” rhetoric has long been around, and of course Savage, Hannity, Coulter and the rest feed that beast for personal profit as well as any personal desire. Expressing violent thoughts toward liberals, journalists or average citizens is sadly an acceptable social norm in right-wing circles; more than that, it’s an affirmation of tribal identity. Authoritarian conservatism at its heart is little more than Orwell’s Two-Minute Hate, with variations. In their view, torture is wrong when done to Us in the tribe, but right when done to Them, the godless heathens or otherwise less worthy and less human. There’s really no standard of morality independent of authority and tribal identity. Even God is less an independent judge (and certainly not merciful) than a powerful being who metes vengeance on one’s perceived enemies. “We believe in God, they believe in Gott,” as the old WWI British expression went.
Sorry, roaming afield here, but it’s a dynamic with dire consequences that’s long concerned me. I will add that you may have seen that conservatives bloggers are trying to portray this as an anti-Christian act based on the statement of a single neighbor, when in actuality, the attacker himself gave his reasons: hatred of liberalism and tolerance liberalism and tolerance being perfectly compatible with Christianity, of course). McKendry was extremely brave, and his was an extraordinary act. Condolences and best wishes to the entire congregation in this time of tragedy.
This comment was written by Batocchio.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Thanks, Jeff.
My grandfather was a Unitarian minister, and the pastor of the first interracial church in Berkeley. I used to live there years back, and I was impressed at the goodness, decency, and gentility of spirit of each and every member of the congregation. I haven’t been back for a while, but I think I’ll be attending services this weekend.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Speaking of othering: It is accurate to blame “the right” for Adkisson’s actions? It is wise?
ON THE ONE HAND, the label “the right” encompasses a broad collection if ideas and notions, arguably reaching from violent appeals for ethnic purity to reasoned debate regarding capital gain tax rates. I have not yet had the pleasure of perusing the works of Messrs. Hannity, Savage and O’Reilly, so please forgive my ignorance, but I have difficulty believing that they advocate what Adkisson did.
If we oppose intolerance, let us condemn intolerance. If we oppose hate and hate speech, let us condemn hate and hate speech. But are these attributes unique to “the right”? The Unibomber was also intolerant and filled with violent hate, but of a lefty anti-establishment variety. Does that make him better?
The fact that Adkisson may have believed he was vindicating principles of “the right” may not have much bearing on the issue. As Menchen remarked, anyone who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. It is appropriate to blame Jesus for the crusades, merely because crusaders acted in Jesus’ name?
There are no shortage of perfectly legitimate reasons to take issue with right-wing policies; we needn’t stoop to guilt by association.
ON THE OTHER HAND, there is some research supporting the proposition that right-wing authoritarianism is especially widespread and pernicious. Thus, while violent intolerance and hate are problematic from whatever quarter, as a practical matter the problems seem to be coming predominantly from the right, and we should not let a desire for the appearance of even-handedness blind us to evidence.
Additionally, there is the problem of implication. Adkisson may have been mistaken in his view that he was vindicating principles espoused by Hannity, Savage or O’Reilly, but lashed out violently under this mistaken belief. Similarly the public was mistaken in the view that Saddam had something to do with the 9/11 attacks, but supported a violent “reprisal” under this mistaken belief. Where do people derive such mistaken ideas? Is there a pattern here? And do opinion leaders bear any responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their less-than-charitable words?
A common misconception. As it happens, I don’t have any more idea than anyone else.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Oh yes you do; you’re just holding out on us.
Bastard.
This comment was written by anyone.else.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I am so glad I followed a link from Crooks & Liars to this post. I had not fully understood what the Unitarian/Universalist doctrine might be. Imagine my surprise to discover that it is exactly what my belief/philosophy has evolved to be.
My heart goes out to the members of the church, and a salute to Greg McKendry, a man who truly lived, and died, his faith.
I will be sharing this article with friends, and I think I will be checking out the local UU Fellowship soon.
This comment was written by Rockytonker.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
RockyTonker:
A lot of people are surprised when they discover UU. For me, I’d always been searching for something that was open and accepting of all viewpoints. I wanted to learn, not receive dogma. And that’s part of the beauty of UU — a non-creedal religion that emphasizes the inherent worth & dignity of all.
Jeff:
This comment was written by Bookblog Brian.Well said, very tolerant and thoughtful. I have some thoughts on my blog as well but yours pretty much makes my entry superfluous. Well done.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Jeff–This was a truly beautifully-written piece. I really have nothing to add to this discussion except that it breaks my heart that people can do this sort of thing.
This comment was written by Genevieve.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
[...] later note] And these pieces at Alas, A Blog: this piece from Monday, Guns, Killing, and People, which reads the tragedy in light of Unitarian Universalist belief, and this one [...]
This comment was written by This is what people mean when they say it’s going to get worse before it gets better*** at Lesbian Dad.Report this comment to the moderators