So let me get this straight... she harassed advertisers who supported a newspaper that expresses opinions. Then when people harassed her about expressing her opinion, she's now the victim? Weren't the advertisers’ victims of her unwanted calls too? This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
No, Aaron. She called advertisers to inform them that she would not purchase their products as long as they support bigotry and hatred. That's standard operating procedure in a boycott, and advertisers like to know these things, especially big corporations, as they usually don't like their products to be seen as connected with hatred and bigotry. (This is why advertisers started pulling out of Crazy Glenn Beck's show when he finally went totally off the deep end.)
There is a far cry between calling a company's comment line (printed on the back of every package they sell) and posting an individual's personal phone number and address in a newspaper and encouraging people to engage in acts of harassment, vandalism, psychological terror and possible violence.
really Aaron?? wow! I would like to respond more at length but Jenn already broke it down with eloquence. The Reader is one of the best examples of the slow evolution of thought in these parts. It's a shame and a disgrace! I think I will follow Ms. Mitchell's fine example and do the same. I will urge others to do the same because I'm sick of what the Reader represents AND I believe that these actions are a form of terrorism themselves. Considering how much space the Reader devotes to "possible" terrorists in our town I find these hateful if not juvenile actions incredibly ironic and MORONIC.
Actions speak louder than words. Instead of calling the advertisers, why not just avoid purchasing their services?
If you don't like what someone has to say, or write, don't read it.
Instead of being a negative person who only calls to complain to companies, do you also call companies to thank them for supporting newspapers you support?
Obviously, companies advertise in newspapers that get readers. The more readers, the bigger the target audience.
But if you speak up against any subject, expect a response. It may not be an appropriate response, like in this example, but you can't be one-side and expect people to only listen to you and not have something to say back. People have a right to their opinion just as much as you do.
I wonder how many people are like me and have never heard of the "Rutherford Reader" until now. She has probably boosted sales of the paper as those who are just curious buy one. (I won't be among them.)
Aaron, so right - she could just quit reading the Rutherford Reader as well. I once lived in Oklahoma City - it amazed me the people would write in complaining about an adult entertainment channel late at night - sometimes their complaint was very graphic. I wondered "Why are you watching it if you do not like it?"
Respectfully, that doesn't make sense. If folks disagree with the Reader and it's open political and religious agenda we would be doing a disservice to the advertisers by not telling them why we will not support them as long as they advertise with the Reader. They would be losing income and not even know why. This boycott of the Reader will probably grow and many businesses could take a hit and not even know why. Thats not right!! There is a business that I have used for years that has advertised with them and awhile back I mentioned my displeasure at the ad and that I would have a hard time continuing using their services because I believed the Reader ultimately is bad for this community and stirs up fear and paranoia in the easily incited. The owner listened and said he would think about that. Then it becomes the advertisers choice. Which is fine with me. If he continues and feels that it's not something he wants to stop. I would respect that. He's not writing the drivel. But at least he would know why he lost a loyal client. Every business wants that information. The Reader is not by subscription or you don't pay for it so simply not picking it up will not effect their ability to push their agenda. Taking the information and choice away from the businesses is not fair to them. I care about local business and this community . The Reader does nothing for this community but stir division and hate. They made the choice to go from a simple trade paper to one with an agenda. Every choice has a consequence.
The Rutherford Reader is an embarrassment to our community. Boycott their advertisers.
We can’t seem to see the woods for the trees. Let’s ask ourselves a few common sense questions: Why does a congregation of 250 families with 45 wages earners need a 52,000 sq. ft. facility, or even a 12,000 sq. ft. facility? This project has already cost approximately $1.2M. A 52,000 sq. ft. facility will cost $5M+. Who is paying for that? If these people did not want to be Americans, why did they leave the Middle East? If they do not wish to use our churches, schools, and many fine community parks and centers available to them, why are they here? Why do they own several blocks of land on Veal’s Road? Why are they in such close touch with Washington? Why does the DOJ send lawyers to defend them when they meet the slightest resistance to their plan?
A little research into Islam, the Quran and the current policies in Washington DC will answer these questions. If Islam is allowed to spread in Middle TN and across America, our children and grand-children will be slaughtered in the streets just as people are being killed every day in the Middle East. It’s not about religion, it’s a 7th Century political system that hates all “infidels” and instructs death. That’s everyone but them folks. As far as I know, there is no religion that instructs their members to kill everyone that does not convert to their social and political system. It is a system of oppression and submission. We are living in a dangerous time from which only a higher power will be able to save us. The Reader is the only publication that has the guts to publish the truth in this Community. THINK!!
Gwen..they left the middle east to escape radical elements. They came here to practice in peace away from the fringe violent sects. You SHOULD know this but alas your paranoia and lack of real knowledge is showing. They built a large mosque for the future...for growth hoping and praying that others would escape the hardline radicals that reign terror on the peaceful. If you did your homework you would know that more Muslims have died by the hands of Radical Islamists than all the Non-Muslim . The number is way higher. Think about that for a minute. They came here to escape persecution and violence from radical groups. Unfortunately they seem to have picked a town that seems to be closer to their home than they thought. I could pick apart any religion and find stuff that would feed a fearful and radical mind. Heck the Klan did that for years! You seeing Islam in black and white and it's many shades of grey. I think it's ironic that you are telling others to think! And really you have done a nice job of taking the comments of point! But maybe thats your point anyway...
Gwendolyn The per capita cost of the Mosque pales in comparison to that of the World Outreach Church and with the Pastor having studied at Jerusalem U and with his connections in Israel one would have to a little naive not to suspect that animosity being promoted there.
All the commenters, to some degree, make valid points. However, we must not allow ourselves to become caught up in the superficial, neurotic hype spewed by the prime time media: specifically, anytime anyone makes a strong comment about a minority, a religion, or a sexual preference it, automatically, is defined as "hate" rhetoric! Granted, Doughtie writes with a right-wing slant, and, too, he could've been more careful regarding the case of one Sara Mitchell. However, I challenge each of you to go over everything Doughtie has written in The Reader and find one tid-bit of "hate" rhetoric. Conservative, yes, "hate," no. Do not allow the prime time media to beguile you - they're not that good nor persuasive!
Conservative...gee I hope not!! I grew up in a conservative family and non-of them would have supported the views of the reader. I have read the reader many times. I read articles that painted all Muslims with the same brush. Wheres Mr. Doughties thoughtful interview of the people he wants out of our town? His every word (i have read) is an argument against allowing these people to peacefully build their house of worship. If I work against a group of people and try to convince others how they are all the same framing my articles with paranoid rhetoric thats fires up the fearful you should label my speech as at least hate influenced...wait..hmmm...I may have gotten yo a point of hating the reader. Labeling the Reader as simply Conservative is a bit much.
AaronR: As I understand this article, the people who spoke to businesses expressing their opinions were not in any way threatening, abusive or otherwise acting inappropriately. They were, apparently, only stating their opinion to the business(es) to explain their viewpoint. As consumers, we need to not only "vote with our dollars", but also with our words. If we don't let the business know "this is the reason I am considering taking my business elsewhere", they can't do anything to resolve the problem. They would only see one less customer and have no feedback to consider, be that feedback positive or negative. And to answer your question - yes, I DO often call, email or personally express my appreciation when I encounter a business and/or it's employees that I feel deserves praise. You are correct when you say that people (all people) are entitled to their opinions and viewpoints. However, all people are also entitled to being able to appropriately express those opinions without fear of being terrorized and having their right to privacy trampled.
Gwendolyn: There is just so much about your post that boggles my mind, I don't even know where to start. I guess my first question would be about your opening sentences. Let's add ONE word and see if you'd feel the same way.
"Why does a CHRISTIAN congregation of 250 families with 45 wages earners need a 52,000 sq. ft. facility, or even a 12,000 sq. ft. facility? This project has already cost approximately $1.2M. A 52,000 sq. ft. facility will cost $5M+. Who is paying for that?"
Would you have the same "common sense questions" if your paragraph were written about a group of Christians? Somehow, I think you might not feel quite the same if that were the case. I respectfully ask that you do a little more research, but this time you don't limit yourself to "resources" like Fox News. In fact, read up a bit on the Crusades and the history of pograms. I think you'll find that PLENTY of people have died in the name of our Christian God.
Jesus Christ did not hate. He lived as he teached - lovingly, with acceptance, with peace. In my opinion, to be a true Christian we must strive to walk in the path Jesus walked. Do you think Jesus would have advocated for this sort of behavior towards our fellow men and women (and yes, Muslims are humans, too!)?
2isonU: According to the website definitions.uslegal.com, the legal definition for "hate speech" is as follows: "Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women."
Given this LEGAL DEFINITION, it seems plausible that Mr. Doughtie was, indeed, using "hate speech".
It's also possible that he could be in trouble for committing a "Terroristic Threat". The same website I mentioned above has this to say about:
"A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.
The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:
(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
cause a reaction of any type to his threat[s] by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place;
cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state."
I no longer live in Middle Tennesssee, but I will always feel it is my home. It saddens me that when my home state garners nationwide attention, it's often because of something that is closed-minded and ugly. It is wonderful to see folks like JennK, rick, hikerman and bota on this comment thread. Keep striving for basic human kindness.
Nice post! But I fear it will fall on deaf ears. People don't seem to listen anymore they simply spend the time they should be processing information on framing their next argument defending the indefensible. I agree that his actions border on a form of terrorism but I doubt he sees it that way and thats the truly sad part much as the statement that he wasn't using hate speech and the reader is just being conservative. Your points are well made and you back them up with actual facts...unfortunately...and I hate to even say this...it may be over some folks heads. I'm still in awe of the conservative statement. I may lean to the left but I know that our country needs good heads and ideas from both sides for our country to work effectively...the Reader kind of conservative only thinks of the other side as an enemy they must defeat using some twisted logic that will fail. Fear has a shelf life and many Americans are figuring that out. Cris Christie is a popular conservative and he went off last week on sharia law paranoia. As more intelligent conservatives turn against the radical weirdos I suspect we'll see a reclaiming of the party in a much more enlightened way. I hope.
This issue really comes down to a couple basics. You either believe in freedom of religion or you don't. There is no gray area because you don't like a particular religion. The Reader has singled out American families that have shared our community peacefully for decades. When have we in America decided that we fear women and children. The reader has called for the ban of the Burka. This is singling out a minority female population for expressing their devotion to God. The Reader in against the freedom of religion, and therefore anti American. As for the concern that a minority religion is going to force their religious laws on the rest of us is nothing but hate filled paranoia. Seriously how much of a dedicated population would it take to make this happen? The christian community holding a majority, the last I checked, cant even get the 10 commandments posted at will. Most Muslim students attending MTSU are female. Would anyone like to explain how these women, who are getting a college education, fit the stereotype of the oppressed Muslim women. The only one who has called for their oppression is Pete Doughtie. I have seen no legitimate security concern from the reader. This is nothing but a witch hunt.
a "conservative" breaking it down...