Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2010

Tavis Smiley

Ask a liberal this question: If a black man commits a crime, is he, by default, doing so in the name of his blackness? Assuming the criminal did not specifically designate the crime as such, is it fair, or accurate, to say it was a “black” crime, perpetrated in the name of being black?

If a woman commits a crime, is she, by default, doing so in the name of her sex? By virtue of the fact that she is a woman, does it mean that the wrongs she does are automatically assumed to be enacted in the name of her genetalia?

On both counts, it would be a ridiculous assumption … unless evidence supports the claim.

If, for instance, person A (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and shouts, “I dole out this justice in the name of my black skin!” can one reasonably assume that the crime was committed in the name of his blackness? Certainly, in his mind, it was … hence, the proclaimation. And what if it is discovered through subsequent investigation that he possessed anti-white literature and posted frequently at militant black-power websites and blogs? Would it then be safe to assume he did so in the name of his blackness?

And what if, person B (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and says absolutely nothing about skin color and makes no overt references to the melanin in his skin? Can one conclude the crime was also committed in the name of his skin color? And if ensuing investigations reveal a person who did not involve himself in racially charged activities and did not post at black power blogs, should we still infer he did what he did in the name of being black?

What does the evidence show?

(On a side note, I am vehemently opposed to hate-crime legislation and all the silly post-it-note classifications that liberals attach to crimes. The action is either a crime or it isn’t. The mother of a slain daughter will not feel any better knowing that her baby was murdered by a non-bigot. It’s a matter of values.)

In this country, the overwhelming vast majority of people are Christian.

Does that mean that crimes committed in this country by Christians are necessarily to be considered Christian crimes, even when perpetrator has made no mention of faith and has not referenced his or her faith in the undertaking of the act?

PBS’s Tavis Smiley, an intelligent man by all accounts – and a card-carrying, hard-core liberal – seems to be a tad confused on the matter.

During a recent television interview with Ayann Hirsi-Ali, a Somalian-born Dutch activist and politician who is openly critical of Islam, Smiley broke out his trusted “moral equivelancy” card in discussing the dangers and threats Americans face on a daily basis from radical Christians.

The exchange went like this:

AYANN HIRSI-ALI: The people who were engaged in terrorist activities look like you and me. They look like everyone else here. Major Nidal Hasan, the military guy who, in November, shot thirteen of his colleagues and injured thirty-two – he’s going to be on trial pretty soon, I think this week – (and) the young man, Faisal Shahzad, in Times square, who tried to blow innocent people that he doesn’t know up, these guys are acting on conviction. Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the heaeafter.

SMILEY: But Christians do that every single day in this country.

AYANN HIRSI-ALI: Do they blow people up-

SMILEY: Yes, Christians, every day – people walk into post offices, they walk into schools … That’s what Columbine was. I mean, I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians — and I happen to be a Christian, that’s back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read — there are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country in which you live and work.

One can only find themselves detached from reality in this way if they are on the left. It is because of Smiley’s leftism that he can say such a thing … and absolutely believe it. (See Attorney General Eric Holder’s unwillingness to admit that radical Islam could be – I say, could be –  a factor in recent domestic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks: “I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”)

To begin with, since the beginning of 2006, there have been two post office shootings in the United States, both of which occurred that year.

As horrible as these crimes were, neither of them – nor any of the nearly 40 post office incidents that have occured since 1986 in the United States – were done in the name of Jesus Christ.

School shootings, such as the murderous rampage at Columbine High School, were also not undertaken in the name of Jesus. Rather, these were perpetrated by those who wholly rejected the Christian faith.

The threat of terrorism that exists to the American people by Christians who do so in the name of Jesus Christ is nonexistent. The number of terrorist attacks that have taken place on American soil – or anywhere for that matter – in the name of Christianity is equally quantifiable.

John at the Verum Serum blog writes:

But even if a church-goer gets angry and shoots his landlord today, that’s not at all what Hirsi-Ali was talking about. She’s talking about religiously motivated violence. And when you get to this category, you can bring up the murder of Dr. Tiller, Dr. Slepian and Dr. Britton. Those murders are arguably religiously motivated. But that’s three incidents in 12 years, four if you include Eric Rudolph. And as already noted, that’s compared to three incidents of attempted mass murder (successful in once case) by jihadist in just the last six months.

Has it officially been ruled out that the Times Square bomber was jilted by a girlfriend? Or that he was dissatisfied with Barack Obama’s health care reform bill?

As talk show host Dennis Prager says: “Leftism deprives you of wisdom because it creates a world in which you cannot see clearly.”

wordpress statistics



  1. A P Kiwalski said

    I was researching, found this article and it begins with ask a liberal……. PLEASE. This is not a political issue. Bad start. Also, to claim hate crimes do not exist – do you live in the south or in a bubble? I live in the South. Believe me – there are hate crimes all over the place, against blacks, Catholics, immigrants…etc. I do not believe the author truly understands what a hate crime is. I hate to say this – but it exists – why does he think there are KKK groups and White Supremacist, etc. A bunch of ignorant “pro Jesus, pro white”. Watch the History Channel – it’s all over the place about these guys. They do their crimes in the name of Jesus who they have accepted as their Lord and Savior. Sick? Oh yeah, Jesus’ name being used in such a way – shameful. The “army of God” – another group of sicko-s. Also the “Christians” that are anti gay – etc. etc. etc. No – I am not what anyone would call a “liberal” – I just don’t like ANYONE praching any kind of hate in the name of Jesus. He was a peacemaker and loved ALL – he didn’t say “Love God, Love your neighbor”…..oh except for those that are gay, those that are black those that live next to you and can’t speak Eglish, oh and don’t love the poor man – you will have to pay more taxes to feed him.”

  2. Rick Franklin said

    A.P., I think you missed the point. What Andrew was pointing out was that Tavis Smiley was absolutely wrong to claim that “every single day in this country” Christians engage in violent religiously-motivated terrorism, and they do so more frequently than do Muslims. I listen to the news and read newspapers regularly, and there were no such reported attacks yesterday, nor the day before yesterday, nor this month, nor this year. So for Smiley to claim that it happens “every single day” was absolutely untrue. The reports of killings that make the news are because of jealousy, anger, rage and other selfish reasons, not because the killer wanted to honor Christ. The three recent Muslim attacks (only one of which was successful) in this country were done by people attempting to please Allah.

    Smiley cited Columbine as an example. Anyone who looks at the evidence about what motivated Harris and Klebold will conclude that it was definitely not Christian faith. In fact, one of their victims, Cassie Bernall, was murdered specifically because she was a Christian.

    Many Muslims commit their terrorist acts because they believe that in so doing, they will be rewarded in the hereafter. The postal shootings to which Smiley refers were motivated by anger at being fired and other selfish motives.

    Andrew’s point was that Smiley makes these false statements because of his liberal bias. If you’re not familiar with the differences between liberal and conservative worldviews, poke around some conservative and liberal blogs–it could be a real eye-opener for you. Take any recent news story (the DOMA court decision in Massachusetts might be a good place to start) and compare and contrast the liberal and conservative reactions to the story.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: