http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2000/2/28/231510

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

For the story behind the story...

Tuesday February 29, 2000; 12:09 AM EST

Diallo Diatribe Backfires on Harlem Reverend

Harlem minister Rev. Calvin Butts may have stepped in it big time on Sunday, as he excoriated New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the aftermath of the Diallo trial acquittals. In fact, his incendiary remarks may end up costing him his prestigious second job as a college president.

Just two days after an Albany, N.Y., jury found four white policemen not guilty of murdering the African immigrant, Butts took to the pulpit of his Abyssinian Baptist Church and assailed the pro-cop Giuliani, calling him a "racist." Then the reverend warned, "There is no chance that your police will not be resisted. They must be resisted, they will be resisted."

Butts got even more agitated during a United Nations rally for Diallo later that day, employing rhetoric that many now say crossed the line. In a voice dripping with sarcasm, Butts first charged that Giuliani needed a few "Negroes" to help keep other African Americans down, then topped off his rant by shouting, "Go to hell, White Man!"

That last tidbit was ommitted from Monday's mainstream print reports on the Diallo protests. But WABC Talk Radio's Steve Malzberg managed to obtain a full recording of the Butts diatribe, including his ugly attack on whites, and played it repeatedly during his Sunday night show.

His WABC colleague Sean Hannity continued to air Butts' anti-white blast on his afternoon show. Then NewsMax.com reminded Hannity that Butts moonlights as president of the State University of New York at Old Westbury.

SUNY Westbury's trustees aren't likely to be amused by Butts' "Go to hell, White Man!" outburst. Neither are New York taxpayers, who underwrite Butts' position at their university.

Hannity tried to reach New York Gov. George Pataki, to see what impact the reverend's rhetoric might have on his state-funded academic career. By the end of the talk jock's show, Pataki had yet to respond.

Stay tuned.

-- Markus Archus (apxov@mail.com), March 01, 2000

Answers

The problem with relativism in the guise of 'liberalism' is that it ultimately results in complete internal contradictions. Using intolerance to enforce tolreance for example. Allowing bigotry to fight perceived bigotry so long as the bigotry is on the 'correct' side of the arguement, etc.

Once saw a picture of a book burning by 'liberals'. That was interesting to say the least since they 'abhore' conservatives who might do such to volumns which they think are good.

Its tribalism all over again. Always is and always has been. Us/Them. The problem for contemporary thought is how to find permanent values when nihilism is embraced as a good thing. Relativism is self defeating. It ends up being a way station toward fascism or totalitarianism (both of which do not hold to it).

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), March 01, 2000.

Rev. Butts gonna get some brothers killed talkin' that way.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

He's not a hate criminal for the same reason Sharpton and Jackson and Farrakhan aren't. It doesn't serve the mainstream liberal press agenda.

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), March 01, 2000.

Dit -

Cal Thomas wrote a book a while back called, germanely enough to your point, "Book Burning." That was what first opened my eyes to the reality that it's the liberals who are the true narrow-minded censors, back in the early 1980's. (Unfortunately Amazon.com reports that it's currently out of print.)

-- Markus Archus (apxov@mail.com), March 01, 2000.

It is not a hate crime because there are no hate crimes. There are only crimes. Hate crimes are a fiction the government is using to cast the net of control over a larger population.

Only God can judge what is a hate crime because only God can understand the heart and mind of an individual. What may look like a hate crime to a person may, in fact, have nothing to do with hate at all.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), March 01, 2000.

Saying things like what the Reverend Butts apparently said when you're in a politically sensitive position is not good sense if you're interested in maintaining a career in said position.

Having said that though, I don't see what he said is a "hate crime" and thus he cannot be a "hate criminal." What he said is not a crime at all. He was exercising his right to free political speech. I don't agree with the man in the least but so long as he does not break the law in acting on what he says nor incite others to do so then he has the right to say it and I defend that right.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about protecting unoffensive speech, such needs no protection. It's the speech that makes your blood boil that must be protected.

When suppression of dissent becomes widely condoned then the Republic is doomed.

Personally, from the details that I have been able to glean from the media reporting I'm glad those officers got off. The results of their actions was a tragedy and they may have used egregiously poor judgment but it was not a crime. What Reverend Butts is saying is also wrong in my opinion and he may have shown poor judgement in letting his emotions runaway with his reason but what he said was also no crime.

........Alan.

The Providence Cooperative - free preparedness & survivalism FAQ's

http://www.providenceco-op.com

-- A.T. Hagan (athagan@netscape.net), March 01, 2000.

Ah! My dear compatriots! I could not agree with you more except for one thing:

Try going out in public and shouting: Go to hell, Black Man.

You will most likely find there are hate crimes!

-- Gypsy (GypsiGold@aol.com), March 01, 2000.

Hate Criminal = ANYBODY who can not be reliably counted on to vote for the lefts candidate.

-- JB (noway@jose.com), March 01, 2000.

Last night my teenage son came home and told me a joke he had heard from one of the boys in the neighborhood.

Q: What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza?

A: The pizza doesn't complain when you put it in the oven.

What do I, as a Christian parent, do? Do I call the boy's parents and complain? If I do, I'm a narrow-minded Christian holier-than- thou trying to ram my standards of morality down other people's throats. If I don't, I'm a Nazi sympathizer.

-- Markus Archus (apxov@mail.com), March 01, 2000.

If what he (Butts) said was no crime, how come Rocker is fined and suspended for the opinions Rocker said.

Was Butts not actually and deliberately in front of his audience, deliberately urging them and exhorting them to resist the police in a public place, while on public salary?

Seems Rocker was simply (and speaking to no one else outside the car) expressing an opinion.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 01, 2000.

Rocker was not arrested or jailed. His employer decided that his public speech was detrimental to its business interests, and made the appropriate business decision. You have no right to free speech in employment.

Butts cannot be convicted of a crime for anti-white rhetoric, but may be called to account by his employer - but as a state employee, he has rights to due process, and it will take time.

-- kermit (colourmegreen@hotmail.com), March 01, 2000.

Oh I understand the "techincal" differences in the two cases. No "legal" question there.

It's the news media hysteria, the massive numbers of quotes and accusations and "attention" given to the two men that matters.

The news media have Butts on tape and on the video's saying this, making these threats, being this accusative and racist and bigoted.

But not only did they not PROMOTE the issue for fun and profit, as they have done endlessly against Rocker, but they edited out these remarks and presented others that "fit their ageenda." Even other interviews with other correspondents that same day DON'T even bring up these racist remarks. INSTEAD - the interviews, quotes, and references stress Butts' qualifications and background to talk about race relations.

Thus - Proved. The media is hiding various "uncomfortable" truths about their sources, and thus NOT presenting unbiased results nor unbiased analysis.

And deliberating exposing problems where they want to find them in those who they (the national media in genreal) want to oppose. regardless of evidence.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 01, 2000.

"What do I, as a Christian parent, do? Do I call the boy's parents and complain? If I do, I'm a narrow-minded Christian holier-than- thou trying to ram my standards of morality down other people's throats. If I don't, I'm a Nazi sympathizer. "

What I do in situations like these with my own kids is discuss the offending joke and why it offends me. Wouldn't dream of calling their friend's parents and complain. If you don't discuss with your kids your morals and values, they're going to pick them up of their own on the streets.

-- Chris (@#$%@.pond.com), March 01, 2000.

Yeah really...let the guy make an ass out of himself

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), March 01, 2000.

Marcus,

(Sigh), yes what he said IS racist, but I wouldn't want him prosecuted. In America today the only entities who have any "freedom of speech" are big buisiness and those who spout the party line. As I don't want my constitutional rights trashed more than they have been to date, I'll put up with guys like this.

I'll also admit to a double standard. If a white man were to become passionate about some perceived outrage and say something similar, he'd be out of a job in a hurry. Dr. Butts probably won't be. Another shocking example of institutional racism towards white people ;-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 02, 2000.