On that transcript, the one that floats the idea that the attach was motivated by anti-Christianity, not racism, is a black pastor from a predominantly black church. Why are you not blaming him but Fox?
First of all, that’s a bizarre interpretation of the segment. Fox selected this particular guy out of the thousands of black pastors in America, scripted the segment as being about anti-Christian bias (see, e.g., the banner that started before the interview), and then were the first ones to raise the idea that it would be “extraordinary” to consider this a racial hate crime–a claim which the pastor did not fully embrace.
Second, I’m happy to blame him too. If you cannot call out racism when a white supremacist shoots up a black church while yelling racial epithets, but you’re happy to jump to the conclusion that the motivation was hostility to Christianity, then you are a racist (regardless of your skin color).
I think that’s about all I can say in this forum.
It is? Right out of the gate, after nothing but “Your thoughts this morning?” this is what this pastor says:
“We are urging people, wait for the facts, don’t jump to conclusions. But, I have to tell you that I am deeply concerned this gunman chose to go into a church, because there does seem to be a rising hostility against Christians across this country because of our biblical views. And, I just think it’s something we have to be aware of and not create an atmosphere where people take out their violent intentions against Christians.”
Is it your interpretation that he didn’t steer this towards the idea that this was an anti-Christian act?
Since apparently repeating myself is necessary:
Fox selected this particular guy out of the thousands of black pastors in America, scripted the segment as being about anti-Christian bias (see, e.g., the banner that started before the interview), and then were the first ones to raise the idea that it would be “extraordinary” to consider this a racial hate crime–a claim which the pastor did not fully embrace.
Which part of that did you not understand the first time?
You have no idea how many black pastors in America hold this view, the banner that started before the interview is not surprising, since they probably pre-interviewed him and knew what he was going to say, and he was the first one to raise the idea that it was an anti-Christian crime. Which part of this did you not understand?
Lindsey Graham on The View
Rick Santorum speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
You didn’t make any of those arguments before Terr. I’m happy to respond to your feeble arguments as soon as you make them, but I’m not going to predict how you might choose to defend the framing of this incident as anti-Christian violence rather than racism.
The number of black pastors who hold this view is irrelevant. The relevant point is that they selected this guy for a reason–because he shares their framing of the events. If you think they didn’t know what he was going to say before they called him for the segment, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Idaho to sell you, homie.
Notably, the host went even further than the guest was willing to go, by labeling the idea of a racial motivation “extraordinary.”
It couldn’t be because he is their usual go-to black pastor guy, could it?
That’s perfectly consistent with my point.
But how about you stop playing coy, Terr. Do you think they planned this segment to frame the event as anti-Christian and not about race? Or do you think they just went along with what their guest happened to say in the pre-interview?
Do you disagree with the views they expressed? Do you think this attack was motivated in whole or in part by anti-Christian animus? What role did white supremacy play, in your view?
No, it isn’t. You claim that they specifically picked him out for this particular interview. That may play if he has never been on Fox before. But he is a regular on Fox. So, no.
I think they had the idea that it was an anti-Christian crime before the interview. Their guest, whom they didn’t specifically pick out, and is a regular on Fox, suggested it too. Note that this was before any evidence came out that this was, in fact, a racially-motivated hate crime.
Now that I know the facts? Of course it was a racially-motivated hate crime. Back then, before the facts came out? It was definitely a possibility that it may have been religiously-motivated, yes. I would have said it is more likely to be racist, but that possibility was present.
I won’t note that because it isn’t true. Since it seems to be the whole premise upon which your post is based, I’ll just leave it here. Hopefully tomorrow bring some solace to the survivors.
Neither do you, the church was known for its historical activism and I saw reports thatRev. Clementa Pinckney had supported cameras on cops in light of the recent suspicious cases of police killing minorities. I remember reports that the suspect did ask about where the senator was. Also there were witnesses that reported the suspect repeating a very racist meme and in the photos found we can see evidence too that this was more influenced by racist hate or/and politics rather than religious hate.
A lot is bound to change once a formal investigation is made, it is clear that the black pastor in the FOX interview told people to “wait for the facts, don’t jump to conclusions.” But, of course he allowed himself to jump to a conclusion too, but what it comes out also is clearly the red herring that FOX is pushing.
AFAIK, it is. The news about the murderer’s “You rape our women…” comment came out around 8:25 am. The “Fox & Friends” segment aired earlier.
How Dylann Roof got captured. Extraordinary that he was recognized in a fast moving car on the highway.
Aparently the lady in question recognized him because of his haircut. She saw that the car was like the one that had been described, and when she looked at the driver it was the hair what immediately called her attention.
In this respect, Ike Witt was eerily prescient early in the thread:
clap clap clap well done!
This guy caught even his friends by surprise. These events were just hours before the shooting. No one seemed to realize how disturbed and dangerous he was.
http://news.yahoo.com/suspect-church-shooting-had-apartheid-era-patches-173023242.html#
I suppose they haven’t bothered to check whether the killer may be a Christian himself, have they?
People talk about Rhodesia on this very message board. You decide their levels of sanity yourself.
If this shooting happened at a grocery store, library, hell even a porn shop, Santorum & the dopey priest would’ve said the same thing. “Well, they shot a pastor. Doesn’t matter if he was trying to steal the Hope diamond, it’s still an attack on Christianity.”
Where the “attacks” on Christianity happen is whenever a dumb-ass, like a priest or Senator Santorum, open their mouths and say, “attack on Christianity.” When they shut up, there won’t be any attack, of course, I say let them talk all day long. The wait for progress will be over very quickly. 
THIS little asshole murderer shot 9 people at close range saying racial insults at black people. He’s a racist, but yes, he’s also a Christian. I am really, really hoping that his statement in the next few days includes something about, “Yeah, all those GOP or GED candidates who like God and run for office, I think they really spoke to me as I fired.” Or even something as basically retarded as “God told me to do it for Him!”
I’ll side pit all the news outlets who let stupid shit like this run as breaking news. This shithead is a racist murderer, plain and simple. I don’t care if he worships Bob.
Maybe now might be a good time for SC to come to its senses and quit flying the Confederate flag. It seems to me that continue to do so is a tacit state endorsement of racism and if we want to eliminate future racist murders, how about we stop flying symbols of racism from government buildings?