Who's Responsible?

[Dan Fienen]

It's been noted that there has been an uptick in racial incidents anti-Muslim incidents and Trump themed vandalism and incidents since the election.  It has been suggested that Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric is responsible for some of this.

There has also been incidents of violence and rioting associated with protests of Trump's election.  While protesting is an honored American tradition and legally protected, violence while traditional is not legally protected nor should it be acceptable.  Does Hillary Clinton bear some responsibility for the violence that has been associated with her loss?

There has been a significant uptick in police shootings in 2016.  So far this year there has be over 60% more police officers shot to death this year than last year at this time.  60 so far this year versus 36 in 2015.  Does the denigration of the police and the anti-police rhetoric of some groups such as Black Lives Matter, the incitement of violence against police at some of their protests and refusal to consider affirming the value of any lives over than Blacks bear some responsibility for increased violence against police, including the increase in ambush type attack seeming directed at any police office handy for attack?

If Trump is to be held responsible for the unacceptable actions of some who would claim to be his supporters, what about the unacceptable actions of some who would claim to be Hillary Clinton or other groups?  Where does responsibility lie? 

It seems to me that all of us need to be careful of our rhetoric, both in support of people or causes and opposition.  Neither the right nor the left have a exclusive claim to violence associated with their causes.

[SomeoneWrites]

It's been noted that there has been an uptick in racial incidents anti-Muslim incidents and Trump themed vandalism and incidents since the election.  It has been suggested that Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric is responsible for some of this.

There has also been incidents of violence and rioting associated with protests of Trump's election.  While protesting is an honored American tradition and legally protected, violence while traditional is not legally protected nor should it be acceptable.  Does Hillary Clinton bear some responsibility for the violence that has been associated with her loss?

There has been a significant uptick in police shootings in 2016.  So far this year there has be over 60% more police officers shot to death this year than last year at this time.  60 so far this year versus 36 in 2015.  Does the denigration of the police and the anti-police rhetoric of some groups such as Black Lives Matter, the incitement of violence against police at some of their protests and refusal to consider affirming the value of any lives over than Blacks bear some responsibility for increased violence against police, including the increase in ambush type attack seeming directed at any police office handy for attack?

If Trump is to be held responsible for the unacceptable actions of some who would claim to be his supporters, what about the unacceptable actions of some who would claim to be Hillary Clinton or other groups?  Where does responsibility lie? 

It seems to me that all of us need to be careful of our rhetoric, both in support of people or causes and opposition.  Neither the right nor the left have a exclusive claim to violence associated with their causes.

I think it kinda depends on a lot of things.

For example, when I see ISIS I don't blame the monolith of Islam.  When I see people claim to be Christian and do things that I think are bad, I don't necessarily blame Christianity. 

When I look at Black Lives Matter, I look at
http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

I am not surprised if there are individuals within that group that have violence-inciting rhetoric, but that's not the position of the group per-se. 

When I look at things Trump says and note how some people respond, it depends on the response.  Is it in concert with what he speaks/proclaims? 
I'd say the same thing if it were another person in authority.

One thing I'm mulling about now is what exactly are they drawing from.   

[DCharlton]

I'm not sure whether groups and classes of people can be blamed for the actions of lone gunmen.  But if we are going to go down that road, we should be consistent.  Some would like to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few, while not blaming all White Americans for the actions of a few.  Meanwhile, others reject the notion of collective Muslim guilt, even while they insist on the notion of collective White guilt. 

The same is true for rhetoric.  If we are going to argue that Trump's rhetoric causes right wing violence, then we should ask who's rhetoric causes left wing violence.  It Trump's demonization of Muslims causes anti-Muslim violence, then it follows that demonization of police causes anti-police violence.   On the other hand, if anti-police rhetoric doesn't cause anti-police violence, then neither does Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric cause anti-Trump violence. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Don't we believe that preaching the Gospel will change the behaviors of the people who hear?

[SomeoneWrites]

Don't we believe that preaching the Gospel will change the behaviors of the people who hear?

That's pretty nebulous

[pearson]

Don't we believe that preaching the Gospel will change the behaviors of the people who hear?

Only if we also believe that sin can be expunged from the behaviors of the people who hear.

Tom Pearson

[Charles Austin]

Not true, Pastor Cottingham. Those protests are noted all the time all over the place.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Don't we believe that preaching the Gospel will change the behaviors of the people who hear?

Only if we also believe that sin can be expunged from the behaviors of the people who hear.

Even sinners can become more loving in their behaviors. We also proclaim the first use of the law - a civil righteousness that we are able to achieve and improve on.

[Team Hesse]

Don't we believe that preaching the Gospel will change the behaviors of the people who hear?

Only if we also believe that sin can be expunged from the behaviors of the people who hear.

Even sinners can become more loving in their behaviors. We also proclaim the first use of the law - a civil righteousness that we are able to achieve and improve on.

and we are doing so very well.....


Lou

[James_Gale]

Don't we believe that preaching the Gospel will change the behaviors of the people who hear?

Only if we also believe that sin can be expunged from the behaviors of the people who hear.

Even sinners can become more loving in their behaviors. We also proclaim the first use of the law - a civil righteousness that we are able to achieve and improve on.

and we are doing so very well.....


Lou

Based on one of Pr. Stoffregen's earlier posts in another thread, that all depends on what the meaning of the word "we" is.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Don't we believe that preaching the Gospel will change the behaviors of the people who hear?

Only if we also believe that sin can be expunged from the behaviors of the people who hear.

Even sinners can become more loving in their behaviors. We also proclaim the first use of the law - a civil righteousness that we are able to achieve and improve on.

and we are doing so very well.....

What criteria do you use for rating something "very well"?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Don't we believe that preaching the Gospel will change the behaviors of the people who hear?

Only if we also believe that sin can be expunged from the behaviors of the people who hear.

Even sinners can become more loving in their behaviors. We also proclaim the first use of the law - a civil righteousness that we are able to achieve and improve on.

and we are doing so very well.....


Lou

Based on one of Pr. Stoffregen's earlier posts in another thread, that all depends on what the meaning of the word "we" is.

"We" in the context I used it refers to Lutherans - that group of folks who talk about and teach and preach different uses of the Law. "We" follow the teachings of Martin Luther who writes about our ability to achieve some measure of civil righteousness.

[DCharlton]

"We" in the context I used it refers to Lutherans - that group of folks who talk about and teach and preach different uses of the Law. "We" follow the teachings of Martin Luther who writes about our ability to achieve some measure of civil righteousness.

Do 21st Century American Lutherans preach about such things?  I hope you are right that we do.  Too often I hear a politicized 3rd Use of the Law or a political 2nd Use of the Gospel.