EURO Requests Rev. Edwards’ Sermons

White supremacy group EURO (European-American Unity and Rights Organization) has requested transcripts of Dr. Rev. Alvin Edwards’ sermons from his Mt. Zion Baptist Church from last September until January. In a press release, the organization effectively accuses Edwards of causing the recent attacks on UVa students, saying: “Considering the position Reverend Edwards has taken on the assaults, and the political nature of many black churches today, we are very concerned why three young Black teens from his congregation would target Whites for attacks. If his sermons incited these Black teens to attack Whites we want to know it, and put a stop to it.”

28 Responses to “EURO Requests Rev. Edwards’ Sermons”


  • I think the more ignorance about these incidents and cases there is, the more room there is for David Duke’s bunch AND the “community” committees to invent and promulgate weird stories like this.

    I don’t think any of the local public institutions or notables have done themselves any favors — not the bumbling Charlottesville Police, the secretive Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, the timid local press, the apathetic University, the grandstanding Charlottesville High School principal, the “community” committees which alternate between denial and transferring blame, the politicians looking first for (personal) political expedience . . . and ultimately they haven’t served us, the public, well either.

  • It is this city own conflicted actions that have allowed groups like this to be effective or even be here at all. As we point to others, much of this lunacy is clearly self-inflicted. If this was treated as the crime it should have been, things might be different. Stop the madness!

  • I totally agree with the first two comments. What a bunch of wishy-washy people, afraid to speak up and treat the incident for whast it was — a vicious attack.

    MJ

  • The obvious underlying problem here is that this whole media frenzy is a typical Democrat “oh no, everyone’s a victim” knee-jerk reaction. Too many Democrats in this town are trying to take a simple assult and turn it into a bleeding-heart whine-fest, which in turn brings out the right-wing reactionaries (who still call it “The War of Northern Aggression”) who are itching for a fight.

    I hate to sound negative, but until this town gets more moderates to lead the community (i.e., city council elections don’t end at the Democratic Convention), nothing will ever change.

  • . . . a vicious attack.

    Rather — vicious attackS. Plural.

    As in serial, felonious crimes — premeditated, organized (the white girls in the getaway cars; and the passing on of stolen property between perps in different incidents), and continued for months without remorse until the arrests and jailing prevented further (potential) attacks.

    Ohhh . . . but these are “good kids”!

  • You hit the nail on the head!

  • You hit the nail on the head!

    Sure, almost . . . except for the fact that this isn’t a case of “a simple assault”, but rather nine perps are facing multiple FELONY charges (reportedly, and inconsistently so and, as yet, incompletely).

    There’s a huge difference. Just ask the perps’ lawyers.

  • This Democrat says the victims were the ones who were beaten and the perpetrators need to be prosecuted. I’ve got a sense that there’s plenty of other Democrats in Charlottesville that share my view.

    The reality is that Republicans are unable to present a serious challenger to run for City Council. Until that happens, I’d suggest that those who wish to influence the choice of local leaders involve themselves in the Democratic party. Just a handful of votes could have dramatically changed the nominees.

  • There’s a huge difference. Just ask the perps’ lawyers.

    Well, I’m no lawyer, but it isn’t hard to compare these sentencing guidelines:

    simple assault (§18.2-57(A)): up to 12 months

    simple assault – hate crime (§18.2-57(A)): 30 days to 12 months

    simple assault by mob (§18.2-42): up to 12 months

    AND

    malicious wounding (§18.2-51): 5 years to 20 years

    street robbery (§18.2-58): 5 years to Life

    Any corrections/additons are welcome.

  • I, too, am a Democrat, and probably typical. I admit to having a bleeding-heart when it comes to true injustice. My heart bleeds for the true victims of the crimes–the innocent UVa students who were attacked. I have no doubt that some of the perpetrators have more difficult and less privileged lives than the college students, but that is no justification/reason/excuse for criminal behavior. The greatest injustice would be to excuse their behavior and legitimize it. Better they learn there are consequences for their actions.

  • yeah, but there are actually idiots out there setting up a support find for the attackers! How ridiculous is that??

  • I think he means a “support FUND”

  • Should Edwards provide EURO with transcripts or tapes of his sermons, to show he has nothing (I presume) to hide? Or should he just ignore them?

  • I believe in full disclosure but EURO has no right to the sermons. It is up to EURO to prove this is not just some fishing expediation. EURO must prove that Rev. Edwards had anything to do with the attacks. I would be be suprised if he was.

  • I agree that Edwards probably doens’t have anything to hide, and that EURO has no “right” . . . but if there is indeed nothing to hide, why not give what you have to EURO to demonstrate the just how wrong their suspicion was?

    Otherwise, in the media swirl, they’ll argue that he has something to hide. And there has been speculation political interference with the handling of these cases — as seen in different threads in this forum [once,twice (scroll to bottom; “The True Story”), and thrice].

  • My original point here is that this area has too much of a liberal slant and thus causes something that is a “simple assult” (as in “don’t overcomplicate the issue into some huge townie vs. student or black vs. non-black issue”) to turn into some huge arena in which every damn extremist from Jesse “I’m a preacher but don’t pay attention to my marital infidelities” Jackson to that scumbag David Duke.

    If there was a less liberal slant, and a more moderate (read: not conservative either!!!) balance in this area, then this wouldn’t have turned into the idiotic frenzy that it has now become.

    Just try the kids for beating up other kids. If you can PROVE that it really was racially motivated, then bring it to the judge. Otherwise, just try them for the assult.

  • Back to the original question of whether Rev. Edwards should give these assholes copies of his sermons:

    I lived for years in Staunton, and during the late 1980’s, the Klan decided that Staunton “needed” their presence, and came to town in the form of a march through town. 95% of the town, of course, was outraged, and organaized a huge conter-demonstration to line the streets and let the Klan know they weren’t welcome.

    The reality, though, seemed to be the opposite. Hate mongers don’t care about whether people believe them, they don’t even care about the “issues” they claim to represent.Their only real goal is to stir up trouble. After the first Klan march, they vowed to come back, which they did. It was only after the town came to the realization that these people didn’t want to seriously talk about any issues, that most people stayed home and didn’t give the Klan the attention they wanted. When the town stopped showing up at the rallies, the Klan gave up and presumably found other towns where they could more easily stir up trouble.

    So my take on evil little weasels like this is that the more we acknowledge them and their hatred, the more we’re going to have to listen to their crap.

  • The Anti-Defamation League also expressed concern about the manner in which local authorities were treating these cases.

    Does that make the ADL “evil little weasels”/”assholes”/”hate mongers” whom we should ignore?

  • I hate to sound negative, but until this town gets more moderates to lead the community (i.e., city council elections don’t end at the Democratic Convention), nothing will ever change.

    I agree completely.

    I wonder if any other (Democrat-leaning, or otherwise) reader here really believes that a one-party government is a good thing. If so, I’d like to hear why you think so.

  • If there was a less liberal slant, and a more moderate (read: not conservative either!!!) balance in this area, then this wouldn’t have turned into the idiotic frenzy that it has now become.

    As I’ve said before I don’t think any of the local public institutions or notables have done themselves any favors, and ultimately they haven’t served us, the public, well either.

    But each has acted within predictably selfish/narrow political sensibilities.

    Does anyone have ideas about the motivations/sensibilities/political affiliations of the police department (various levels), the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, and the judiciary?

  • It seems to me that there’s a very big difference between the idea that the city could be handling this entire situation better and the idea that a respected community leader’s sermons “incited” the attcks.

    You can take any stance you want on the city’s response, and whether or not you want to call the attacks “hate crimes” – I’m in favor of throwing the book at the attackers – but implying in ANY way that Rev. Edwards is responsible is nothing more than hate mongering, and I have no hesitation about calling anyone who thinks he is responsible an asshole.

    Or, if you prefer, an evil little weasel. I kinda liked that one… :)

  • You can take any stance you want on the city’s response . . .

    I think Waldo’s poll gives good indication (if not absolutely accurately) the public’s “stance”.

  • Or, if you prefer, an evil little weasel. I kinda liked that one… :)

    Agreed — I’m sure I’ll be going around all day finding excuses to use the phrase “evil little weasel.” :)

  • “I agree that Edwards probably doens’t have anything to hide, and that EURO has no “right” . . . but if there is indeed nothing to hide, why not give what you have to EURO to demonstrate the just how wrong their suspicion was?”

    Because then you legitimate the right of an organization like EURO (very different from the the ADL, by the way) to see these sermons. You imply that they are credible and that they can ask for whatever they want and we’ll just cough it up.

    Plus, do you think EURO would shut up and go home if they found that there were nothing in Edwards’ sermons to suit their purposes? Of course not–they’d find a way to twist whatever he said into more of their racist propaganda.

  • “Just try the kids for beating up other kids. If you can PROVE that it really was racially motivated, then bring it to the judge. Otherwise, just try them for the assult.”

    Isn’t that what’s about to happen? They’ve got their first hearing in a couple weeks. The way people post on this topic, you’d think that these kids HAD gotten off scot-free. They haven’t; they’re going to be tried.

  • “but until this town gets more moderates to lead the community (i.e., city council elections don’t end at the Democratic Convention), nothing will ever change.”

    How does a town “get” more moderates? By voting for them. Hence, if this town hasn’t gotten more moderates, it’s because not enough people have voted for them. The town has the government that the most people voted for. It’s called democracy. Sorry if you find yourself in the minority.

  • It’s called democracy

    Of course, “democracy” is much more complicated and varied than the simple way you describe.

    What we have in the city is representational democracy, with representatives chosen on a “at-large” basis.

    There are other methods for selecting representatives which are equally “democratic”. And, frankly, I think we need something to shake up the current one-party government — which is arguably selected by a “minority” of the town’s eligible voters.

  • Isn’t that what’s about to happen?

    Well, we don’t know yet, do we?

    What charges are the juveniles facing? This is itself a judgement call, and one which might be influenced equally by political considerations as well as (admissible) evidence at hand.

    The whole process is cloaked in secrecy (for no legal reason) and confusion (how many attacks, where and when; how many victims) and apparent incompetence (did the authorities really not know that two of the ten persons they themselves said they had charged were in fact the same person?).

    This leads RIGHTLY to suspicion (your comment: “[t]he way people post on this topic . . .”).

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog