David Neiwert, in his influential discussions of eliminationist rhetoric in fascism and in the increasingly coarse and demagogic style of contemporary conservative commentators, notes the fascist method of describing opponents, especially Jews as "vermin."  Dehumanizing metaphors that compare one's opponents to animals that are commonly understood to be feared, despised and hunted is certainly part of the eliminationist rhetorical arsenal.  That said, I am glad that Chris' intentions were not in line with his unfortunately reckless use of language.  And I am pleased that he recognized that the language was problematic and I would like to publicly thank him for modifying it.

How we all conduct ourselves in public, matters. We are a religious and politically diverse society, and as I mentioned in my original post, thanks to Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Pat Robertson, among others, eliminationist rhetoric has become a problem that is contributing to the deep, volatile and dangerous divisions that may very well turn Americans against one another.  Those of us who enter the arena of the hottest issues of our time have a special responsibility to hold oursevles to very high standards consistent with the outcomes of a more peaceful, just and harmonious society -- to which almost everyone says that they aspire.

I am glad Chris is on board with this. Just today he denounced the eliminationist rhetoric of Pat Robertson,   (although he did not call it that).

But I want to note that Chris takes particular exception to my statement: "His words sound a great deal more like a call for theocratic vigilantism than the patience he elsewhere claims to counsel."

He writes: "Fred is more than deceptive here. I honestly don't know how he can refer to my comments as a "call for theocratic vigilantism." He's not telling the truth and intentionally exaggerating my comments beyond proportion."

Well, fortunately the plain meaning of the English language is on my side on this. I said in conclusion that his words "sound" more like a call for theocratic vigilantism, for the reasons I gave, and contrasted that with his usual statements. If I felt Chris had called for vigilante violence, I certainly would have said so.  

To summarize:  I think Chris's harsh rhetoric was unintentionally eliminationist. He does not agree with my characterization, but he withdrew most of the objectionable language anyway. Chris says he did not intend a call for vigilante violence, and I believe him.