Domestic Terrorist? Church Gunman Who Killed Two Was A Self-Described "Confederate" and "Believer in the Old South."

It's very difficult to ignore the fact that if sushi-eating, volvo driving, body piercing, new york times reading, hollywood loving liberals have an official faith it's Unitarianism.

Only if you subscribe to stereotypes. We have Unitarian Churches in Alabama, and I have never seen one spilling over with stereotypical Liberals.

#3.1 - A whackjob with a grudge against God goes and shoots up a church. Any church will do.

Well, let's say I hate ...oh geez, let's just stay on course and say I hate liberals for the sake of argument. I go pick out the most liberal organization I can think of and go shoot it up (no, I don't intend to, don't call HS on me just yet!). It just happens to be the local Unitarian Church.

Would that qualify the act as an act of terrorism or as the act of a lone nutjob with an imaginary axe to grind?

Sure, I suppose one could characterize it as terrorism - but that's stretching the meaning of the word too far imho (it's used for almost everything these days, and I feel inappropriately so), but "lone nutjob gone psycho" seems to fit a little better (again, at least imho).

I'm sorry, but I didn't see anywhere in the article that stated that he blamed all of his problems on Liberals. I'm not saying this isn't true, I'm just saying I don't see any evidence. Did I miss something?

Yeah, I just read that. And like I said, if it turns out that he had an agenda, then we can call it terrorism, but judging the situation based on this article alone, I couldn't extract terrorism from it.

Details emerging on shooter's agenda.

He targeted the church because of its' liberal stance, that meets the definition of terrorism. There's an update on MSN and MSNBC about it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25872864/

It would meet that definition, yes. But I still think we should wait for more information. Did we have any psychological issues? Just what was his motivation? And how liberal was this church? Also, he has expressed a disapproval of biblical literalism, and possibly of religion in general, which may be at odds with these beliefs. Wait and see, I say.

A wackjob with a grudge against God doesn't shoot up a Unitarian church. It's very difficult to ignore the fact that if sushi-eating, volvo driving, body piercing, new york times reading, hollywood loving liberals have an official faith it's Unitarianism.

Kill, again with the stupid stereotypes. My nephew lives within about a mile of that Church and most liberals in Knoxville would have Obama talking about bitter people with guns. When are you going to stop this pandering to some kind of meme to inflame people about things you know so little about?

By communicating this assumption, you had to make assumptions about the shooter and his mindset. These are intrinsically your own views of what you thought the guy was thinking. You do this with little understanding of people who live in East Tennessee in general and Knoxville in particular. My nephew is quite conservative and yet he has zero inclination to go out and shoot liberals who live in his neighborhood, an area within one mile of that church. He owns a business servicing Toyotas and has sponsored and put on Christian concerts in the Knoxville area. At these events no one has been encouraged to go out and shoot liberal christians who drink Latte's or any other beverage. Your rank generalizations about the character of the people of that area is classist and biased against people you know absolutely nothing about.

Personally, my company does a lot of work in Tenn, Johnson City and Bristol to be exact. I like the state and I like the people. Tough place to make a living though, beautiful place to visit and nice people.

Ya know it's worth pointing out that I grew up just a little ways up I-81 from Knoxville, that I'm married into a blue collar southern family, and that I'm just about the least classist person you'll ever meet. You've really flown off the handle at me here and I'm pretty sure it's because you've drawn some conclusions about what I wrote that are completely unwarranted.

Only to point out that White southern guilt complexes (See Harold Raines from Huntsville Alabama who was the head of the New York Times) are fairly common to liberal southerners who then look down on their origins when they move away.

No as many have pointed out here, especially Bill Scoggins, nothing that this guy did fit the legal definition of terrorism. It was a hate crime, end of story. Even that is a stupid definition as any time anyone kills wantonly and with premeditation, no matter what, it is a hate filled act.

It seems that the attempt to define this as something other than terrorism is to separate white Christian violence from that of Islamic violence.
Some hate the idea of having their own group (white Christian southerner) lumped in to the same group as Osama ben Forgotten. So when this type of violence happens they can just blame on a lone nut instead of a culture of hate and violence.
The fact that some still think the Stars and bars are an acceptable expression of Southern heritage shows that the mindset isn't all that different from the old South; just more of a civilized veneer covering over the old hate and resentments.

Jdoyle, the reason I wasn't so quick to call it terrorism, was because of lack of evidence. Now that I have seen more info, I will be willing to call this Domestic Terrorism, no doubt.

One thing about the "Old South" mentality. I wouldn't write it off completely. There is a difference between standing up for state's rights, and standing up for blatant racism. Many contemporary Southerners (like myself) are disgusted by the actions of our ignorant ancestors, yet defend the state's right to govern themselves by their own laws. One can believe that and not advocate slavery or segregation. When it comes to human rights, some things (like anti-slavery/segregation laws) should be enforced by the federal government as a national standard. When it comes to most personal choices (abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana) the state should be able to pass what laws they wish, and not have them trampled by the Federal Government. These choices concern only those who are involved, there are no outside victims.

This guy was a nut-case, which comes with his brand of fundamentalist "conservatism", but we shouldn't use him as ANOTHER reason to look down on the Southern mentality. I mostly agree with Confederacy when it comes to the issue of Federal Government vs State Government, but that doesn't mean I am behind their tooth-and-nail fight for the "right" to own slaves.

Good points; however the main reason for wanting states rights to trump federal law was the institution of slavery and later on segregation.

That is why the South, as a whole, wanted to push states rights.

I wouldn't say the South "as a whole" wanted slavery and segregation. I'd not safe to assume that all Southerners, then or now, look down on non-whites.

But just because that is why the Confederacy wanted state's rights preserved doesn't mean that slavery/segregation is the only outcome of state's right to make their own laws.

Some people believe that if you take the slavery/segregation mission out of the whole "State's Rights" argument, that it is a very good argument.

Kill

Was typing too fast, the not should have been in there.

Interesting that your definitions would apply to some of the threads here.

It does look like there are a lot of competing statutes here.

I'm with jdoyle on this. If States Rights were sufficient cause for the Civil War, why didn't New Hampshire, Vermont etc. jump in on the side of the Confederacy? Because the notion of "Live Free or Die" was extended to all races by the (proto-Unitarian-Universalist) Yanks. The right to personal freedom trumped the notion of collective states rights. I suspect this "Civil War was about States Rights" argument is 90% revisionist history. Contemporary accounts turned on "maintaining a traditional way of life" and self-justifying Biblical interpretations of a type still common today.

I suspect this "Civil War was about States Rights" argument is 90% revisionist history.

I don't think anybody ever said that. I did say that the Civil War was ALSO about state's rights. You can chalk it up to "revisionist history" or you can read a book or two and see that it is fact. The predominant reason for state's rights may have been slavery, but it ALSO includes other rights. The Confederacy didn't want the Federal government to have absolute control over the individual states, and they also didn't want the Feds to take tax money from, say, Alabama and spend the money to improve New York while Alabama crumbled to dust (which is what has happened since the Civil War).

Today there are many issues that could be resolved if the states had not completely surrendered to the Federal Government, but now we are not united states, we are just one big country under one big government.

I suspect this "Civil War was about States Rights" argument is 90% revisionist history.

I don't think anybody ever said that. I did say that the Civil War was ALSO about state's rights. You can chalk it up to "revisionist history" or you can read a book or two and see that it is fact.

Au contraire. I have read a classix illustrated or two, thank you very much, and every partisan of the confederacy I've spoken with in the last decade tries to spin the Civil War as largely a states rights issue, of which slavery was but a sidebar. The inescapable conclusion is that slavery was a sufficient and final cause, not states rights. States Rights was a red herring as the real battle was to protect southern masculinity, defined as being 1. not a woman and 2. not a slave. This gender battle rages on, as unfortunately demonstrated in the event that stimulated this conversation -- a True Confederate out to destroy liberals who propound notions of gender, trans-gender, and racial equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
"Southern concerns included not only economic loss but also fears of racial equality.[37][38][39][40] The Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession[41][42] said that the non-slave-holding states were "proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color", and that the African race "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race". Alabama secessionist E. S. Dargan said that emancipation would make Southerners feel "demoralized and degraded".[43]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights

"Of course, exactly -which- states' rights were the causus belli in the Civil War remain controversial. Manisha Sinha argues in "The Counterrevolution of Slavery" that the Civil War was about states' rights such as:
* States' rights to engage in slavery;
* States' rights to force other states to permit slave ownership when the sovereign people thereof objected;
* States' rights to deem portions of their population a "subordinate and inferior class of beings", unfit for citizenship;
* States' rights to effect their unilateral separation from the Federal union after an election whose result they disagreed with;
* States' rights to secede by force of arms prior to even attempting a peaceful separation, through negotiation;
* States' rights to have an anti-democratic and non-republican form of government within their states, denying the franchise to even the majority of white, male citizens, due to non-ownership of property (e.g. South Carolina);
* States' rights to suppress the freedom of speech of those opposed to slavery or its expansion;
* States' rights to violate human and natural rights;
* States' rights to overturn the radical idealism of the American Revolution, the core of which being expressed in the Declaration of Independence--that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But if you're in a mood for a wondrous exercise in revisionist history try http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/

For a slightly less strident view try http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm

and they also didn't want the Feds to take tax money from, say, Alabama and spend the money to improve New York while Alabama crumbled to dust (which is what has happened since the Civil War).

An excellent point. The fact is that before the war of Northern Aggression the South was the richest part of the country. The war was about Lincoln and his munition manufacturing supporters taking the wealth of the south for the north. All that other stuff was added on later. Lincoln wrote in so many words that he did NOT want to free the slaves. Read the emancipation proclamation. Notice that it gives a time limit, if the south had returned to the fold before that deadline all would have been forgiven.

An excellent point. The fact is that before the war of Northern Aggression the South was the richest part of the country. The war was about Lincoln and his munition manufacturing supporters taking the wealth of the south for the north

ummmm.. got any references to support this? The north had a 5-to-1 population advantage and virtually all the industry. The south had agriculture of a type that could not be sustained indefinitely. There may have been some substantial family fortunes but the majority of rural southerners lived pretty much hand-to-mouth. Don't have stats at hand on how much wealth the merchant class/middle class actually controlled. But to say the south was the richest part of the country suggests one too many viewings of Gone With the Wind.

and they also didn't want the Feds to take tax money from, say, Alabama and spend the money to improve New York while Alabama crumbled to dust (which is what has happened since the Civil War).

It is my understanding that the southern states wouldn't even support each other during the war -- i.e. munitions or food from Alabama could not/would not be used to support troops from Mississippi etc. While this approach may not have lost the war, it certainly didn't contribute to its successful conclusion for the confederacy. It's debatable whether or not Alabama was ever a wealthy place. West Virginia has certainly prospered under the munificence of Robt Byrd, which suggests that the south either could have gotten their share had they played the political game or what federal wealth went south landed in private coffers. I suspect the latter...

Of course, the Confederacy fired the first shots at Fort Sumter but, of course, the other guys were the aggressors.

Fort Sumter, that's in the South isn't it?

Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the equality of races, and the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the Confederate states, which Lincoln had no authority in.

in 1858, while debating in Ottowa, Illinois on August 21st of that year, Mr. Lincoln stated, quite plainly, that: "I have no disposition to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together on terms of respect, social and political equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there should be a superiority somewhere, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position;"

What makes him different from Timothy McVeigh or Osama? The fact that he killed 2 people instead of hundreds or thousands?

No, what makes him different is that he had no known agenda. Not having a job doesn't prove that this was done for ideology. It may come out later that he had some deep-hidden message behind his slayings, but as of right now we have little in the way of hard facts, and some miscomprehended words spoken to a neighbor.

He did have an agenda. Please, go to MSN.com and read the news story. He targeted the church because they advocated Women's and gay rights. Also, because the church founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. That man had every intention of killing everyone in that church based on their views and affliation with the church. It was an act of terrorism plain and simple.

He did have an agenda. Please, go to MSN.com and read the news story.

If that is true, then you are right. I have only read the article here, which is what I am discussing.

If he says that he did it because he wanted to "teach" the Liberals not to mess with social-conservatism, then yes it would be terrorism.

Who really cares. I know I don't. So the guy was a whack job who hated liberals and then acted out on his frustration. Sounds like just another run of the mill weirdo loser. "Terrorism" as commonly understood normally has some degree of organization to it associated with a political purpose whether it be John Brown and his men killing men, women and children in "bleeding Kansas" to further the cause of abolition, Klansmen killing civil rights workers and lynching blacks to thwart de-segregation, '60s radicals like Barry's buddies the Ayers and their cohort blowing up ROTC buildings, the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Black Panthers, Ted Kaczcynski or the current flavor du jour the eco-terrorists.

My own personal inclinations in this regard are that most liberals aren't worth wasting good ammunition on. ;>0

Actually Kaczycynski had a well worked-out method to this madness if you read his "manifesto" and his victims were selectively targeted in this regard. This guy sounds just like a disgruntled loser.

Bill H, kf:

Oh eff me Beffwheat.

This is one of those tangles (it's frequently related, actually) like "When do we start the clock on Middle East history?" Absolutely ridiculous and endlessly and worthlessly debatable.
The State Department (I believe slightly adapted from a version produced by the U.N. but I could be wrong about that) has a definition that I always cite not because it's so great--you can always pick around the edges) but because if you don't pick a definition--arbitararily if necessary--you never get one.

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant/*/ targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Under that rubric, I'd say this qualifies as a terrorist act. Under other definitions, it wouldn't.

Agreed.

Mr. Harrison,

As per your comment of #4.6 above, where you say:

"Who really cares. I know I don't. So the guy was a whack job who hated liberals and then acted out on his frustration. Sounds like just another run of the mill weirdo loser."

I would be remiss were I not to remind you of our conversation of June 14. The seed was about Michael Reagan calling for the murder of an annoying anti-war activist. Reagan said:

"We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullets." "

To which you responded:

Sounds like a splendid idea but a waste of good ammo. A more cost-effective method would simply be to drop him off in an al Qaeda infested holdout near Mosul and let them separate his head from his torso with a rusty blade.

To which I responded:

Never mind that you're reducing the value of a fellow human being's life to less than that of a bullet (and that you've made the philosophical error of assuming that one form of evil justifies another).
Am I understanding you correctly? Are you advocating murder as a terror tactic? Are you absolutely certain that's what you'd like to do on a public forum?

Even assuming your comment is a tasteless and uncivilized form of satire, is this the best that your American traditionalism can muster? Is this what you want others to think you're trying to "conserve?" If so, what's to differentiate your comment from any other flippant disregard for life, in any other country, throughout the horrors of the 20th century and into today's "War on Terror".

What if someone, one day, were to take your advice? Did you ever think about that?

And now here you are, happy as a lark, dismissing this cat as a lone nut. No, I don't think you can be allowed to do that. You don't get to spread murderous invective - even as a "joke" - and then dismiss the fruits of the same.

From the Knoxville News Sentinal...

Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

This man may be a lone nut, but he's also an indicator. Intellectual violence breeds actual violence, and just because the regulatory agencies that should be censuring Fox News and Michael Reagan and that Savage person are no longer policing the public discourse doesn't mean there aren't consequences.

Spot on, and chilling, comment.

Stacy,

Chilling, but probably true. The right wing has only begun its radicalization of America. They will fight any moderation tooth and nail. Which makes me wonder whether there will in fact be a transition to a new government at all. I think that martial law is a far more likely action, incited by these kinds of far right groups. After the Olympics I think that we'll see some eye-opening stuff.

Yes, indeed, a long article on the history of politically-inspired violence in this country from both sides of the ideological spectrum would be illuminating.

Very well stated. The convenience of labeling anyone outside the US as a "terrorist" and anyone inside as a "lone nutjob" is quite compelling. Meanwhile the smearmongers continue their dirty work unabated, shielded from any responsibility for the mayhem they cause.

A common phrase among UU's is that we are "tolerant of everything but intolerance."

The problem is that the heritage was built on hate - hate of the rights of humans to be fully human instead of objects meant to be enslaved to the desires of a small elite. I am not saying that this is the way that it was for all in the era of slavery, but unfortunately it's the legacy with which we live.

I don't know, I can understand that bumper sticker. I mean you can say stuff like "but they had slaves" but in all honesty I think that the appeal of the Confederate era is not just racism but it's also when the states had more power and a lot of the right wing, in my opinion, rightfully believe that the smaller governments deserve more power and perhaps confederacy represents that.
I mean the American flag itself has a lot of blood on it. It has the blood of many confederates, it also the blood of natives, the blood of Mexicans, the blood of all sorts of people. Would you say the American flag represents hate? Every flag is the same.

Every flag is the same.

NEVER in the history of comments has a sentence ever been more WRONG!

The flag has an interesting history, but to pretend it is only associated with the ideal of an independent south seems a bit disingenuous to me.

The confederate jack actually started out as a naval flag, and it was adopted by some units in the army. It probably was inspired by the British union jack, which also started its life in the Navy. It is a battle flag, not a national flag.

The CSA never flew the Confederate jack as we know it as a national flag. It flew the "Stars and Bars", then the "Stainless Banner," which included the confederate jack design in the corner, on a field of white. Then they added a red stripe to the field because it was thought to look too much like a white flag of surrender.

The present-day "Rebel Flag" is more the result of a reinvention of the idea of "Southern pride" in the 20th century. It was incorporated into the Georgia state flag in 1956; and it's hard to imagine, in this guise, that it was done innocent of its connotations.

Killfile

When I was studying in the grad school at UVA in the Corcoran Dept. Of History, this guy was a close friend of mine. Now Stuart is as big a liberal as can be found (and apparently popular with his students as well) and the son of a minister whose family at one time was associated with the founding of the Georgian utopian community of Fairhope, AL. But that said, older McGehees fought hard and well for the Stars and Bars during the Struggle just as did my maternal ancestors. Stuart went to UVa with the idea of studying Civil War military history but this was before Gary Gallagher's time. Thus, he decided on pursuing social history with the help of Olivier Zunz. To make a long story short he used to wear a big CSA belt buckle with his jeans and this just used to drive our fellow grad students (99.9% of whom were on the left) nuts no matter how much we would try to tell them that while we are glad the South lost the war at the same time we can be proud of courage and sacrifice of our ancestors in defending what they viewed as their "country".

To that extent I can understand the heritage not hate bit. It seems a bit insensitive to me at times, but the confederate flag does stand for more than just slavery and racism. Sadly, it's been co-opted by those dark dimensions of its past to such an extent that it will likely remain beyond any hope of redemption in perpetuity.

As someone with a deep Southern heritage also - many of my southern ancestors fought in the War of Independence - there is indeed a deeper legacy that's involved in southern heritage. But until the ghost of Jim Crow is buried for good I am afraid that the good part of southern heritage will be forever obscured. The Germans built their Holocaust museum: when will we see rising in the south the Museum of African Slavery? Until such a symbolic reparation takes place I am afraid that the rest is empty words and the display of the Confederate battle flag and the Stars and Bars only too transparently a racial threat.

Is this what you're trying to say?

Killfile

Admittedly my experience with undergraduates at the university and their curriculum for that matter was limited to instructing them and not taking their courses. Olivier Zunz is actually one of the stars of the Corcoran Dept. on the larger stage of the profession.

I agree and your post directly relates to what I said in #1.9 above.

Greengal, IMHO, there is no difference between the two. Voiced exhortations to cause damage or injury to someone else, regardless of sex, color, religious persuasion, etc. have no place in this society, and should rightfully be called exactly what it is: hate speech. To readers here; what is the possibility that any person who exhorts others to commit crimes against those who are different from them might be prosecuted for hate crimes? I'm not as familiar with the legal side of this argument as I might be, and am looking for some guidance, and maybe some "legalese" so that I might better understand how our government views this activity.
Another question: Is it possible that the extent of his "Southern Loyalty" may have been the cause of his inability to find a job? I would find that hard to believe, in the South as I've learned.......
This shooting is a tragedy, and my heart goes out to those who were in that church. The bravery of those who shielded the children and others from harm is above comment, and the sacrifice made by at least one person to protect the others was the ultimate sacrifice; he gave his life so that others might live. What a MAN!

Ok, feel free to delete this comment now, no hard feelings. :)

Wheel:

No deletion! I need to ask you a question.

Why does "nut" rule out "terrorist"? Can't he be both?

Yes, he can be both I suppose. But from the ranting in that letter I not sure he's organized enough to qualify as a terrorist. The one thing that terrorists seem to have in common is a plan and some kind of organization.

Wheel:

Actually, one of the reasons why I prefer the State Dept. definition cited above is precisely because it doesn't require an "organization." Lone Wolves or tiny cells (Tim McVeigh's act was, it turned out, by two guys, one of who seems to have not been fully informed).

Depending on how coherent the letter is (haven't read it yet), I think it's the political purpose that's most intrinsic to a terrorist act and I believe this qualifies. Moreover, the Turner Diaries envisions almost precisely the "leaderless resistance" that this act could display.

what qualifies someone as a terrorist? i could definitely see how he could be a terrorist. he hates someone for being different and uses fear as a weapon (as well as weapons for weapons), which is exactly what the 9/11 terrorists did... isn't it?

thanks greengal. your comment make sense. it should not be any difference a criminal act is terror in itself! we have to say it like it is, anybody who terrorizes a community is a criminal and a terrorist!

thanks greengal. your comment make sense. it should not be any difference a criminal act is terror in itself! we have to say it like it is, anybody who terrorizes a community is a criminal and a terrorist!

This could lead people to believe that you stand for Martial Law and Police States.

Americanpuppetescapee - What, '...could lead people to believe that you stand for Martial Law and Police States...' ???

i dont get what he is trying to say! LOL