Are all hatreds alike?–becoming “just like them”
Recently I rented the movie “United 93.” The edition I watched included an addendum to the film, interviews with families of some of the passengers on Flight 93 who’d been featured in it.
This was almost as interesting as the rest of the movie–hearing the differing ways people have coped with the almost unimaginably wrenching and violent loss of a loved one at the hands of international mass murderers dedicated to a political cause, occurring (literally) out of the blue on a bright and beautiful day in September.
One of the interviewees was the husband of a woman who died on that airplane. He seems a wonderful man, and loved his wife very much. He was still deeply grieving at the time of the interview, some years after 9/11.
This post isn’t about him, though, not really; I mean no disrespect to his feelings, nor to his way of dealing with his dreadful loss. It’s a particular thought he expressed that gives me pause, a remark that struck me as representative of a kind of thinking that always brings me up short when I encounter it. It’s an example of one possible way people have of coping with grief, and it stems from a genuinely wonderful impulse: forgiveness, compassion, reluctance to rush to judgment, and the banishment of hatred from the heart.
This is the statement, as best I can recall it:
I don’t hate Bin Laden; I’ve never met him. That’s their mindset–to hate innocent people they’ve never met and want to kill them. If I hated him I’d be like them.
Would he? Are all hatreds equal, and all equally abhorrent? And what is the definition of “innocence?”
I’ve heard this sort of thing from people of intelligence, kindness, and thoughtfulness too often to consider it a singular statement from one man in particular. No, it’s a trend of thought that seems to emerge sometimes from a religious sensibility that emphasizes the necessity for forgiveness and love, sometimes from the influence of various psychotherapies and their focus on the healthfulness of forgiveness and the destructive power of hatred for the individual, and sometimes from postmodern pronouncements that right and wrong are mere concepts in an ever-changing narrative.
But unfortunately there’s a problem: those who espouse the sort of viewpoints quoted here, in their well-meaning and heartfelt flight from emotions deemed destructive to self and others, may lose sight of the basis for and the ability to make necessary making moral judgments.
And that can be dangerous; as the old Talmudic saying goes: Those who are kind to the cruel end up being cruel to the kind.
In what sense can Osama bin Laden be regarded as “innocent?” My guess–and it’s only a hunch–is that the statement relies at least partly on the legal rule of “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s all very well and good for a court of law. The rule is a protection against certain actions that might follow from an improper judgment of guilt in a court case: the incarceration of an innocent person, the rush to judgment of an individual without a mountain of well-documented evidence. It’s a check against sullying the name of a blameless person and restraining his/her freedom merely through the force of rumor and accusation.
That has nothing to do with making a mental moral judgment about the acts of a world figure bent on the mass murder of truly innocent people–random civilians–and even claiming credit for it. A trial isn’t necessary in this case to establish a standard of guilt that’s high enough to make a moral judgment–and a moral judgment is required, I’m afraid, in order to fight effectively against such things.
But what about the well-known words of Jesus, “Judge not that ye not be judged?” Well, if one looks closely at the context, it seems that the subject was the need to discourage making hypocritical judgments concerning others, jumping to conclusions about their shortcomings without looking at one’s own:
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
This hardly seems to apply to making a judgment about mass murderers who purposely target the innocent.
But what of hatred? The emotion of hatred has gotten a bad press lately, for the aforementioned reasons. Here, however, is a defense of the need to feel hatred in the appropriate circumstances. After all, as the article points out, if we’re looking for a religious base for things, Ecclesiastes 3 says:
For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven. A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.
Both Judaism and Christianity share the “hate the sin but not the sinner” maxim, which originates in a respect for all human life, and the need to keep open the possibility of repentance (take a look at the linked article for a fuller discussion). But Judaism seems to make more allowance than certain strains of Christianity for a vigorous emotional response one might call “hate” towards a person who has moved beyond “ordinary” criminal acts and into the realm of mass murder and power and true evil: a Hitler, a Stalin, a Bin Laden (who, granted, does not rival the first two in terms of numbers, but nevertheless follows the same nihilistic impulses). It is especially appropriate for an unrepetant evildoer.
We can call the emotional response to such acts “hatred,” which has earned a bad rep lately. Or. we could rename it “outrage,” which might make it more acceptable. Although such an emotion is not the same as “love” for the sinner, it does, in a seeming paradox, stem from love: love for humanity, the need to be “kind to the kind” by not being “kind to the cruel.”
Some consider hatred of evildoers to be wrong because they see it as synonymous with the desire for revenge. Not necessarily. Hatred of evil, and of the perpetrators of evil, is one of the emotions fueling the pursuit of justice, which is different from revenge (and also is not limited to the justice of the courtroom). Hatred shouldn’t get out of control or it does become counterproductive, both for the psyche of the hater and for the effectiveness of any campaign against evil. But to expunge it entirely from the picture can easily lead to a paralysis of the will to fight evil and a tolerance for it that perpetrators only see as weak, and which empowers their cause.
It would be wonderful if the example of love and forgiveness could lead to the transformation of evil into its opposite. That’s the hope. And in same cases I do believe that love and forgiveness can work wonders–but only with those who have not crossed a certain line, only with those who share certain underlying values and assumptions. We need to recognize those who are far beyond its reaches; just as a psychiatrist needs to recognize when he/she is dealing with a sociopath, and all the love and understanding in the world is not enough.
Another problem with the sort of thinking evidenced in the quote about Bin Laden is the idea of becoming “just like” the enemy. Even for those who do believe that it’s wrong to feel hatred against someone like Bin Laden, is it really true that an ounce of hatred for a murderous psychopath is the exact equivalent of the evil done by such people and their supporters? Is there no sense of proportion here? Are all hatreds alike, including the one that is harbored in the heart as compared to the one that results in acts of murder? The one that is against the murderer as compared to the one that is against the victim?
This is a good example of a tendency I’ve noticed in our postmodern world: that the part is the equivalent of the whole. Comparisons of degree seem to be impossible for many people who are making judgments. Bush is Hitler, the Patriot Act is the end of liberty in America–or, as an erudite gentlemen serenely stated at a lecture I attended recently–the US is now a theocracy. This man, like certain other champions of so-called “nuance,” seemed unable to make a “nuanced” judgment of relative fault and degree.
Degree matters. Context matters. Not all hatreds are alike. A President whose policies on stem cells is in accord with his religious beliefs does not a theocracy make–ask the Iranians. And hating Bin Laden doesn’t make one like him. I wouldn’t have thought these things needed to be stated, or would be the least bit controversial. But apparently they do, and apparently they are.
Hmm, we don’t need hatered. I do not need to hate the rabid dog to put it down. It is in fact preferable that I do not. Emotional people are more prone to mistakes.
The problem lies with those who sympathize so much with the rabid dog that they are unable to put it down quickly and efficiently. In this they simply allow it to infect and destroy others.
It depends on the degree of the emotion, Debbie. I mentioned this in this passage:
Hatred shouldn’t get out of control or it does become counterproductive, both for the psyche of the hater and for the effectiveness of any campaign against evil. But to expunge it entirely from the picture can easily lead to a paralysis of the will to fight evil and a tolerance for it that perpetrators only see as weak, and which empowers their cause.
I don’t “hate” bin Laden; nor do I “hate” Islamic fascists. It’s more out of concern for what they have done, what they are capable of doing, and what they might do in the future that I wish for their destruction. Hate, as you’ve aptly stated, Neo, has an emotional component. I have heard hate compared to love, in that they are emotions of the same intensity, just in opposite directions. To hate someone, you must care deeply about them—as much as to love them, in fact. It’s the emotional component in the two emotions that is the problem: “love is blind” and we often speak of “blind hatred”. The blindness is what kills. What we need now is rationality, to deal with problems in a sane, measured way: not to confuse all Islam with the fanatics that act on its “behalf”, but at the same time not to ignore, in the name of forgiveness or “love”, the very fanatics that threaten us all.
Neo—I think this is a very interesting issue, particularly as it relates to the question of what motivating and sustaining forces we in the West can call on to give us the power and fortitude we need to fight and win the war we have had thrust upon us by Islam—I do not buy the theory that we are dealing with fringe elements: a reading of the Koran, Hadiths and Sira and a look at Muslim history demonstrates that jihadis are acting according to mainstream Muslim doctrine, belief and past practice. Jihadis are the most active, the point men of Islam but except for a handful of dissenters, the 1.2 billion strong Umma, you notice, is not repudiating the jihadis at all. In fact, Ayaan Hirsi Ali said the following in a Q & A interview in yesterday’s New York Times:
Q. Have you seen any ideology coming from within Islam that gives young Muslims a sense of purpose without the overlay of militancy?
A.” They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply — they’re reactive and they don’t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis. And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. The come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing.”
I have written before that in several major confrontations between Christendom and Islam in the past—at the Battle of Tours in the 8th century, the Crusades in the 11th—13th centuries, the Siege of Vienna and the sea Battle of Lepanto in the 16th century and the last major battle at the Gates of Battle of Vienna in the 17th century–the major things providing fervor and staying power to each side were religious doctrine and faith/fanaticism.
This time around the Muslims still have faith, fanaticism and doctrine as power sources but what do we in the former Christendom—now mostly post-Christian—have for motivating power? It sure ain’t Crusader type religious fervor. So what is it; Patriotism, Democracy, Freedom, Civic Virtue, Hatred? I’m afraid postmodernism’s withering cynicism had pretty much done in patriotism, and probably democracy and freedom as well and few have probably even heard of the old fashioned concept of “civic virtue” these days. So, is it to be hatred? If not, what then?
I think this post is very important.
There is no true move towards forgiveness outside of a genuine emotional process—through anger, denial, grief and finally acceptance. And it may take years.
But then, acceptance never means a univeral sense of love and peace–whatever the issue.
This–it seems to me–is one of the most misunderstood concepts in all of mankind.
True, there is no need to be completely fixated on Bin Laden. But hating what he stands for and has done is another thing.
I never trust someone who forgives too quickly or completely, who then gives the object of forgiveness a free pass from then on.
Within the process of forgiveness there is a lot of insight and wisdom about how never to let it happen again.
Anything short of that is false forgiveness, and only assures that it, indeed, will have to happen again, and again, in order to make the process of forgiveness real.
When will we ever learn this both individually and as a nation?
Traditional Catholic theology distinguishes between types of hatred. To quote from the 1911 Catholic Encyclopaedia:
“Theologians commonly mention two distinct species of this passion [hatred].
“One (odium abominationis, or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself.
“The second sort (odium inimicitiae, or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way.
“This second kind of hatred, as involving a very direct and absolute violation of the precept of charity, is always sinful and may be grievously so. The first-named species of hatred, in so far as it implies the reprobation of what is actually evil, is not a sin and may even represent a virtuous temper of soul. In other words, not only may I, but I even ought to, hate what is contrary to the moral law. Furthermore one may without sin go so far in the detestation of wrongdoing as to wish that which for its perpetrator is a very well-defined evil, yet under another aspect is a much more signal good.”
For example, the perpetrator’s death.
You correctly interpreted Jesus’ teaching on judging. He was speaking about judging someone according to their sins, as God would do. That is usurpation. He most certainly did not mean to condone or ignore someone’s sins.
This misinterpretation has caused many Christians to become enervated while the counterculture elevates sin into a lifestyle choice. If you cannot allow yourself to detest wrong behavior, then you have very little chance of rectifying it.
I’m always struck by the odd inconsistency among apologists for Islam:
On one hand you get “They’re an ancient, noble culture with a lot to teach us.”
But invariably also “We can’t [torture prisoners, execute non-uniformed combatants, hang Saddam] because then we’d be no better than _they_ are!”
So which is it? Do we hold Islam to the same standard as ourselves, or do we treat them like the subhuman barbarians they apparently wish to become?
Thank you for this thoughtful post, and the comments that follow. I hope we can keep the conversation up at this level.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed that in joining the plot to assassinate Hitler he risked coarsening himself at a minimum, damnation at maximum. I agree with the former, but not the latter. When we have to administer justice, we do gradually coarsen, I suppose. What’s the alternative?
We try to do what is necessary for justice and no more. If we had to carry on a hundred wars, with a hundred enemies like AQ, I suppose we would eventually deteriorate to be “just like them.” What has that got to do with today?
King David was not only allowed by God, but encouraged by God to do battle. Yet he was not allowed to be the builder of the Temple because he had blood on his hands. That strikes just about the right note for me. We do what we must for justice, and it is no sin. We may hope for something higher, and even try to set some folks aside for the purpose, a firstfruit for a world we hope might be. But that does not remove the claims of justice, protection of the innocent, and holding the guilty accountable.
It is a fallen world, with evil men, and we make our way through as best we can.
Short thoughts:
Too much emphasis on not hating excuses one from taking unpleasant action, even though the action may be necessary.
There is/was a people in the Upper Nile called the Nuer. They had a acephalic society, which is to say no chief, no boss, no ruling elders. Order was minimal, but what there was of it was a matter, in part, of the clan solidarity. The older guys, or the calmer guys, didn’t want to be fighting other clans over the trespass of some young hothead, or some nutcase. So they disciplined their own. Didn’t work as well as other arrangements, but the point is that the fear of vengeance is sometimes salubrious. Ditto hate. Get yourself hated enough and life becomes difficult.
Sometimes hate is earned and to hate the person who earns it is hardly some kind of mortal sin–speaking generically. Theologians may have another view, but you won’t be ruined in this world by hating somebody who has done significant wrong to you or others. Obsession is different, of course.
Moral relativism is an excuse for not acting. It is hard to believe people who claim we’re just as bad as they are. They must, at least on some level, know better. But if they admitted it, they’d be acknowledging error in their earlier views, and coming close to supporting corrective action they had earlier condemned. In some cases, I have to think, it’s no more than a matter of not admitting to one’s friends that the old, cool, olympian non-judgmentalism isn’t as impressive as it once was. Next you might go to a NASCAR event. So lie and lie, to oneself and others.
Thanks for taking the time to cover this issue, Neo. I myself have written some posts about hate, at Shrink and Blackfive’s blogs.
I’ll just throw some of my conclusions out there.
Those who cannot truely hate, also cannot truely love.
In a way, the terrorists say they hate us. But they do not know the meaning of the word. Why? Because. Hate is a corrosive emotion, as with rage, anger, and fury. It is a corrosive emotion that feeds on the fuel of your will, your desires, your soul, and your determination.
Aristotle once said that good men must feel anger at injustices done in front of them. That is true. A lot of anger comes from a sense that something has occured to you or to someone else, that is “wrong”.
Some people aren’t good, so they feel anger at some very weird things. (wife beaters, Islamic Jihad, Hollywood actors, etc)
Love is a well of emotion that is almost bottomless. It is partially self-sacrificing, the valuing of something else more than your life. To truely feel the full power of hate, you must have a large fuel source for it to feed upon. Because we all know that hate will destroy a person’s soul from the inside out, if not with bitterness, than with simple apathy and emptiness.
For the Islamic Jihad, who knows not what love is and does not feel it except love of themselves, their hate is fickle, weak, and inconstant.
It flickers at times because it lacks fuel, it lacks substance from which to burn.
When hate has stripped a man of his soul and of all other emotions, then the only thing left to burn is determination, will. The man that only feels a desire to preserve his own life, is weak in will, is limited by fear, held by back by hesitation for his own life. The man that risks all because of his family, because of other human beings that he loves and values above his value for his own life, that man can empower hatred to a level from which no other may match. Because when he bottoms out, and has no more will to fight for himself, then he still has the image and memory of his loved ones to fight for. Even if his family is dead, and he wishes vengeance, at least he knew of love and can understand why killing a murderer may save the anguish from another family.
And hate is nothing if not an instinct to fight. To destroy that which you hate. If you do not wish to destroy something, then you do not truely hate it.
Are all hatreds alike?–becoming “just like them”
You ask me, Neo, if all hatreds are alike? The power of hate fueled by love and compassion is the power of Shiva. The power to destroy and the power to create. Those who cannot destroy, cannot truely create either. Those who cannot create, cannot truely destroy either. It is part of the secret to American power and success. In our wars, in our economies, and historical traditions. You saw it in Japan when MacArthur came for the Emperor’s surrender. And afterwards when MacArthur spoke personally with Hirohito. A small gli
mpse, a fleeting glimpse.
The virtuous man is not virtuous if he does not hate slavery and injustice. The virtuous man is not virtuous if he does not feel righteous anger at the sight of injustice, or the exploitation of those weaker than the exploiters.
Just like them, Neo? How can we become just like them. Are we not supposed to be superior to the Islamic Jihad, are we not supposed to have the “moral high ground”?
What is it people fear, do they fear becoming like their enemy or do they fear failing in their duty to protect their loved ones from that enemy? The answer you give to that question, is more important than most people realize.
Why? Because. Because if you fear becoming your enemy, that is a fear FOR YOURSELF. It is a fear for your own life, it is a fear for your own soul, it is a fear of yourself, by yourself, and FOR YOURSELF. It is not an example of the samurai code, to act with the correct action in deadly circumstances without hesitation because you have removed any consideration for your own safety or survival.
Some people give their lives for their country, others give their souls. Which is the greater sacrifice in the defense of freedom?
If I hated him I’d be like them.
People can sniffle about their fears for their lives and their souls all they wish, Neo. The defender is the one who has recognized that he is already dead to the world, that his survival should not be factored in. The defender seeks only to utilize any weapon in his arsenal, hate included, in order to destroy those who threaten those that the defender loves.
Does this perhaps remind you of Flight 93, Neo? It should.
The “suicide bombers” on 9/11 no longer scare me. Because their determination does not come from true hate for their enemies, rather it comes from hate of themselves, love of themselves even. Such are a weak, pallid version, of the true potential for human emotion.
In the end, Neo. One question remains. Does true strength and power come from exploiting others in order to protect yourself, or does true strength and power come from defending others?
Not all hatreds are alike.
The Islamic JIhad does not know a tenth of what it means to Hate.
Hatred shouldn’t get out of control or it does become counterproductive, both for the psyche of the hater and for the effectiveness of any campaign against evil. But to expunge it entirely from the picture can easily lead to a paralysis of the will to fight evil and a tolerance for it that perpetrators only see as weak, and which empowers their cause.
I approve heartily of control and discipline, Neo. Use hate, and do not let it use you. Controlled aggression is far more useful than beserk madness like the German barbarians used to do back in Roman times.
Remember Star Wars, Neo? Give into your anger, join the Dark Side? *snickers*
The Left has always believed that if you feel anger, in any way, that it taints you. That is because the Left, Neo, are not like us. They are not like true or classical liberals. They are not even warriors in a way, because they have nobody and nothing to protect, except for perhaps their own personal lives. Their fleeting personal lives that is.
Power, as I have described before, is indiscriminate. It creates at times good stuff, and it at other times kills and blows stuff up. It does not matter to power.
Hate, anger, and rage is the same. They are destructive emotions, but then so is 10,000 Volts in a way. Destructive that is. Harnessing the power of destruction and transmuting it into something constructive, is a power of creation, in a way. A power of order, rather than disorder.
Humans who are able to master technology of such philosophical dimensions are able to surpass human limitations slowly.
Because we all know that the Islamic JIhad does not create anything of worth. No new medicines, no new technologies or discoveries. And yet they are great at destruction… but they are not as great at destruction as the United States of America.
Remember that. Remember that the ability to create also improves synergistically your ability to destroy (bigger economies equal better armies and more nukes). But…. it also exists that if you REFUSE to destroy, then your ability to create will also be hindered and poisoned. Remember that as well.
Neo, this is a thought provoking post. I would like to try to reframe the conversation though. I think “hate” and outrage” are loaded terms that obscure the root issue. There is a passage in the Talmud which is translated into English as something like this: “He who is kind to the cruel will be cruel to the kind” What I take this dictum to mean is that if we have compassion for those who hate and murder, we are complicit in their depredations.
If we know of his evil intent and do not seek to neutralize and eliminate a Bin Laden, a Hitler or an Ahmadinejad, the blood of his victims is on our hands. Once someone like this has declared his purpose (and they always do declare ahead of time), it is not moral for us to shirk our responsibility. We are human and must feel anger, hatred and rage. We might also feel fear and reluctance or reluctance to change the course of our lives by standing and fighting.
The true proof of our mettle, sincerity and courage is comes when we can be in enough control of these emotions to see our true responsibility. If we use those natural emotions to steel our will and to fulfill that responsibility we are behaving in a truly civilized and reasonable way.
What do you mean reframe Yaacov. I think Neo already mentioned that Talmudic phrase.
Every time I read or hear about new terrorist attack I became ouraged. My heart pounds, my hands tremble, I can’t sit and began to rush about the room. No thoughts, pure, raw emotion of hatred. When I calm a bit, first thoughts appear. They are simple. “Gas them! Nuke them!” When I calm more, I understand that this would be overreaction. Simple, uneducated folks are not to blame. They do not understand a thing. They are brainless herd, “am haaretz”. It is their leadership that should be targeted. Invade the territory, occupy it effectively and kill everybody who can read or write. (This is works: exactly this was done by Communists in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Central Asia. It take 10 years, but all decades of Soviet power these populaces were sheepishly obedient.) Then I appreciate that even this is overreaction. Target intelligentsia and clergy, but do it selectively. Began with those with fame and ambition. This is enough to instill fear into others. That is what Stalin did during Big Purges. And it also worked. So, as I gradually calm down, my plans became more elaborate and nuanced. And, at last, I arrive to more moderate solutions, as, for example, emulate traditional colonial policy of British Empire. That is what Putin achived in Chechnya. Not perfect, but workable and bearing prospects of further amelioration.
Can you elaborate on Putin’s pacification of Chechnya?
I think the West foolishly antagonized Russia with its lecturing at the time, which we are now paying for.
…the old Talmudic saying goes: Those who are kind to the cruel end up being cruel to the kind.
And the saying is horribly wrong. An utter piece of rubbish, in fact.
Goes to show that, just because the Talmud, or the Bible, or the Koran, says something, does not mean that it is true.
It’s possible that the husband of the United 93 victim thought of hate as, like love, a personal emotion, and that he couldn’t hate someone he didn’t “know”, as he says. In that he may have a point, but if that were all we could say then we’d just be left emotionless in the face of both great accomplishments and great crimes by those we don’t know — by refusing a human response to the latter, in other words, we also disable our ability to respond to the former. And all we’re left with is just an immobilizing fear, so paralyzing that we can’t even admit it to ourselves.
Which I think is exactly the emotional trap that most of the liberal-left finds itself in. Their rage and hate hasn’t really gone away, however, but, fueled by their fear, is instead merely displaced — onto Bush, the “neocons”, the Republicans, the religious, conservatives, the right, etc., all of which they know to be entirely safe targets, as opposed to those they genuinely fear and are afraid to hate. This is the irony behind the left’s frequent use of “fascist” as an epithet to throw at their political enemies — they need to cast themselves in the role of victim standing bravely against a threatening power in a make-believe world precisely because that’s the one thing they’re unable to do in the real one.
There may also be some basis for that “just like them” sentiment, which is a slippery-slope argument. I agree completely that “not all hatreds are alike”, but responses that are driven entirely by hate are not just characterized by a kind of blindness, but often enough by a mere savagery that does risk losing sight of some important values. We can agree that “being kind to the cruel” is a bad idea — but that doesn’t imply that we should be cruel, even to the cruel.
Having said that, I should also say that hatred and anger can be components of an entirely rational, just, and effective response. Unlike the Star Trek world, in which human “feelings” are taken to be antithetical (and usually inferior) to Vulcan “logic”, emotion and reason can and do function together very well. In fact, under the conditions of attack by an international gang of mass-murdering psychopaths, hatred and anger are not just appropriate, they’re essential, if, as I said above, we wish to be anything more than paralyzed prey.
Ymarsakar, by reframe, I only mean to say that I would put the responsibility to do something about evil above the consideration of the “correctness” of the emotions involved.
As Assistant Village Idiot rightly pointed out, King David went to war first because survival and prevention of evil are the first responsibility of a leader.
DeShawn Q. Williams, I am sorry you feel compelled to offer opinions without substance. You offer no reason for your dismissal of that ancient dictum as “rubbish” so I have no idea what your problem with it is. This is a perfect example of what I call a “poopyhead” argument. You can call anyone a poopyhead and dismiss anything as rubbish but if you don’t care to explain why you do that, it is nothing more than a meaningless attack on the level of discourse. What gives you the right to pronounce this or that statement utter rubbish without offering reason? I could call you a poopyhead just as easily as you can call me a poopyhead, I am afraid it a terrible waste of our time, however.
Anyway, you confirm your disregard for reason and your unfriendly intent by pretending to know what the exact phrase is. Since the remark was written in a language of which you probably are entirely ignorant the only basis you have for restating my attempt at quotation is that you must have seen some other translation of it somewhere. Because I have only a dim knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, I read in English too but I, at least, have the humility to admit that all translation contains interpretation. That, of course, would be of no concern to you, who apparently finds it so easy to dismiss the entire body of ancient knowledge out of hand.
As to the value of the dictum, allow me to offer a couple of illustrations. Had the European civilization accepted this responsibility in the 1930s World War II might have been averted. Had they not been soft on Hitler during his rise to power and in his first years in power The Spanish Civil War intervention, Krystallnacht, and the Annexation of Czechoslovakia and Austria could never have been tolerated, let alone the Holocaust and the invasion of Ethiopia, etc… Nor would the thief and despot Arafat been able to rise to world prominence as a leader-
Finally, Mr. Williams, I would propose that if you would like an example of what is rubbish, the callous disrespect of comparing (or even mentioning in the same breath) one of the true, great, complex works of the human heart (the Talmud) to a book that is consistently used as the rational for bloodletting, repression and conquest.
The first axiom of combat survival is: never expend emotional energy on an enemy you cannot immediately touch. If the first emotive impulse of disgust and rage lasts for more that two seconds, you don’t have the discipline required to affectively take direct action against said enemy.
The object of discussion – the man losing his wife from a terrorist attack – is coping with a loss; buffering the already devastating emotional consequences of this loss by consciously avoiding an internal polemical struggle by injecting hatred of something he doesn’t understand.
I don’t think this should be confused with a larger cultural phenomena whereby we lose sight of our ‘goals’ in an effort to avoid hating an enemy – which seems to be implied – we aren’t properly prosecuting our enemies because we are too nice, basically.
Also there are those unwilling to subscribe any motives to the 9/11 attacks or to any terrorist attacks; to do so is a sign of weakness, apparently – this is a fallacy however – and shouldn’t be viewed as a ‘leftist’ ‘hatred’ for his/her’sown state or peoples.
It is a recognition that hatred is real and supercedes cultures and societies – a human condition.
We simply increase the probabilities for our own destruction as a species by failing to account for the irrationality that is borne from an unabated, and unquestioning acceptance of this most basic of human emotions….
Like others on this thread, I too am suspicious of those who forgive too quickly, and too easily.
Here’s a thought, and, no, I’m not criticizing the poor husband from Flight 93, or any one individual—but when forgiveness comes too easily, and when the survivors of a victim seem all too eager to embrace the perpetrator, or perpetrators, in “love”—I’m actually repelled, because it seems to me that for these survivors, there really wasn’t that much for them to forgive in the first place, that, deep, deep, down they honestly feel no real, biting anger or outrage at their loved one’s death. But, how can this be, if they really loved them?
Realistically, and from a purely practical point of view, I think we need to be wary of any sort of mind set pushing us to embrace and forgive evil acts in a hurry.
there’s also the “rabid dog” argument; one doesn’t really hate a rabid dog, or a man-eating tiger—you just want to stop it. And, yes, as Ymar points out, wild, emotional hatred can actually be a handicap in battle, when you have to focus on what’s in front of you.
TC, I have no idea what you meant with your post.
Could you please explain?
Hey stumbley – I liked your post at the top – one of the better ones.
What don’t you understand? I guess I’m taking issue with an idea(if I’ve interpreted it correctly)that some hate is good – if it’s directed at the ‘right’ source – and that I think it’s a dangerous game doing that.
I think that many individuals of the “progressive” stripe are *quite afraid* of the American people–much more afraid of them than of bin Laden and his terrorists–and want to keep strong emotions out of the situation because of fear of enraging what they consider to be an irrational and dangerous beast.
I would suggest the need for revenge is stronger than the emotions of loss
TC:
thanks for the clarification.
when forgiveness comes too easily, and when the survivors of a victim seem all too eager to embrace the perpetrator, or perpetrators, in “love”—I’m actually repelled, because it seems to me that for these survivors, there really wasn’t that much for them to forgive in the first place, that, deep, deep, down they honestly feel no real, biting anger or outrage at their loved one’s death. But, how can this be, if they really loved them?
I’m fascinated by the notion that when reality conflicts with how you imagine it should be, you are repelled. I’m guessing it stems by the profound disconnect between the insubstantial, illusory world of blogs and blogging and reading blogs and commenting on blogs, on the one hand, and experiencing actual reality in the actual real world on the other. Fascinating! Keep up the good work.
PS – Didn’t Jesus say something about loving your enemy and forgiving him and so forth? Damn, that Jesus dude would never shut up about love and forgiveness!
I think “outrage” is the better word… outrage at the man, his ideas and his deeds.
Just as Jesus was outraged at the money changers in the Temple’s markets.
Seems to me that outrage is absolutely appropriate… I hope it is still politically correct too.
Anon (whichever “Anon” you are), you’re becoming incoherent. What do blogs and blogging have to do with reality, the ugly reality of murder?
My own experience with reality has shown me that when a person is deeply hurt—as in, say, the death of a loved one, or if a loved one is injured by somebody else—forgiveness may come, but it’s a process of years, and, yes, it does involve anger; it’s not all sweetness and light, and warm snuggle-hugs. It’s hard, and sometimes ugly. To be honest, I think you’re the one who’se divorced from reality; do you really think that, after a murder, or an act of war, such as 9/11, it’s really normal for people just to try and pass it off as, well, I just don’t want to hate, cuz hating’s bad. People may get there, but it takes time. And, even if you do forgive, there’s still the problem of justice, and fighting to keep such things from happening again. Forgiveness does not mean, “Oh, I forgive Osama, and I’m at peace, so, even if kills more people, I won’t hate him, or his actions, ‘cuz that would be wrong!”
As for Jesus, I doubt you believe in Him, so your quoting him doesn’t impress me. (And see the post above, about the moneychangers.) As for yourself—well, if you’re the same “Anon” who’se posted here so many times before, you, yourself, seem quite eaten up with hate and lack of charity for all us evil Neo-cons, so it’s funny to hear you bleat about forgiveness, and facing reality, and-what-would-Jesus-do,when it’s obvious you care about none of those things.
You know, “He who is without sin, throw the first stone”—go look it up.
“What do blogs and blogging have to do with reality, the ugly reality of murder?”
Exactly! Now you’re catching on. My point was something like: where do you get off casting aspersions about someone who has experienced a horrific trauma that you have not? You take part in the hyperreal, imaginary fairyland of the blogosphere in which nothing real intrudes; all you have is a keyboard, a monitor, and words, words, words. The people you write to and about might not exist, for all you know. I think the whole process perverts us; it seems to have placed you in a position where you feel comfortable passing judgment on another person’s suffering, forgiveness, anger, and relationship with God. You have no idea what it was like for him, or what it would be like for you, because this isn’t real, it’s fundamentally imaginary. When our primary mode of discourse becomes “words on a screen to people who may or may not exist,” it creates a schism for you; that is, it creates a disconnect between what really is, somewhere out there, and what exists only in your head. You find the disconnect repellent. I find that fascinating. I can only imagine that, when your primary mode of discourse consists of talking to invisible people who agree with everything you say, having someone do something unexpected can be quite jarring.
Oh, and Jesus and me, we’re tight. Jesus loves me, Jesus loves you, and Jesus loves Osama bin laden. Jesus’ message was one of radical love, something even I can’t wrap my mind around. Whoa! I mean, whoa! He says “I love you all because you exist, that’s enough, because I stand above and beyond this in a way that blows your mind.” There’s no room for hate in that equation.
Neoneoconned–I believe the word you are straining for to describe warmakers in this context is “alive” as opposed to the peacemakers who are trying to make peace with the likes of Osama who, in the long run, will be most accurately described as “dead.”
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”
And yet, the Bible also says:
“1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.”
-Ecclisiastes 3:8
old testament, i prefer the whole thing after jesus showed up and before revelations
Jesus asks that we “forgive those who trespass against us” in the Lord’s Prayer which is pretty much a central teaching in every Christian denomination. There really isn’t much ambiguity there. But hatred and the desire for revenge are human emotions and I’d guess most Christians would say they hate Bin Laden and want to see him dead. But…Deep down inside we all know that these feelings are anti-Christian. You can’t have been raised with even the most basic Christian understanding and not know that you are supposed to forgive people. You’re not going to get your priest or minister to condone feelings of hatred and revenge. So even in extreme cases like Bin Laden there is a little nagging doubt.
By contrast, in the Islamic world we see religous leaders preaching hatred ALL THE TIME. Take the sermons in Iran-“Death to America!”, take the fatwahs issued AGAINST people and groups, take the sanctification of suicide bombers. It goes on and on. Is revenge considered wrong in Islam? It appears not to be or at least there’s ambiguity about it. All human beings have hatred within them but there is a vast chasm between hatred with an asterisk of trepidation and shame and hatred as an emotion to be indulged in and acted upon. People who teach in the name of God that dark, violent impulses are the path to heaven are simply evil. We can see every day where this hatred leads- look at Iraq. Who kills 130 people shopping for food for dinner? We HAVE to recognize and maintain the diffence between us and them. If left unchecked, this kind of thinking will destroy the world. So for us it isn’t even about hatred. It’s about stopping inhuman,satanic destruction.
Anonymous (whichever one you are)if there’s no room for hate in that equation, why do you vent and rant so much hate here? It makes me think you and Jesus really aren’t as “tight” as you say you are. (By teh way, are you a 60’s throwback? You certainly sound like one, when you write.)
And, Anonymous, you have no idea (thank G-d!) of how I really live, or who I talk to, or how I work, or how I spend my day. I don’t live in the blogphere. I don’t talk to “invisible” people in my daily life. I wrote my views on forgiveness from what I seen and experiened, outside the blogsphere, with real people. It is extremely arrogant, and prideful, for you to bluster about how I am really this, and how I am really that, when you know nothing about me.
Gee, filled with pride and anger—ya know, that doesn’t sound too “tight” with Jesus to me, Dude; sounds kinda hypocritical, and pharisiacal, in fact.
Also, you addressed none of my points about the difficulty of forgiveness in many cases, and how if it’s too facile, it may not be genuine.
Well, here’s a thought for you. Jesus loves Osama. That’s nice. Does He love all of Osama’s actions? Does He love, say, Osama’s murder of over 3,000 people as much as He loves, say, the actions of a fireman who helped save people on 9/11, or a doctor who works in a leprosarium? We’re talking about actions here, Dude, not just individuals—actions! Can you, like, dig this?
And, given that Jesus loves Osama, what does that mean for the rest of us? Do we just let him go on killing, and refuse to do anything to stop him, ‘cuz, ya know, Dude, it’s jist like so unforgiving, and oughta just loooooooove him! Do we just sit back and do nothing about mass murderers, such as Osama, Hitler, Stalin? (All of whom committed real acts of murder and horror, Dude, like, it’s historical, ya know? Not just in the blogsphere.)
Somehow, I can’t really believe Jesus wanted humanity to live under the boot of mass murderers, and tyrants.
Again, Neo, as demonstrated here. The Left has a certain selfishness. They care more about their lives, their souls, than they do about the suffering of their common man. It is very much in evidence. But they won’t admit it of course, except indirectly.
Piggybacking on another thread:
Left/liberal=give a man a fish
Conservative/neocon=teach a man to fish
Left/liberal=teach the world to sing in perfect harmony…BOOM!
Conservative/neocon=BOOM! teach those remaining to sing…
Okay, just having a little fun….
Stumbley, why am I not surprised to find you leafing through your Bible to find the passages that justify hatred and violence? Sound like someone else we know?
OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!
Why do you hate freedom and democracy, Stumbley?
PS – I’m not spewing hate, anger, or any of those things. I realize that the medium of blog commenting doesn’t convey nuance of tone, but for the record – I find these little sessions to be nothing but entertaining. In order to be angry over this, I’d have to take you all seriously and, well, I don’t.
Anon, didn’t have to leaf through the Bible…just had to listen to the Byrds or Pete Seeger—you know, those rampant warmongers….
Uh-huh, Anon, you’re not angry. That’s why you’re accusing Stumbley of being exactly like Bin Ladin, and hating freedom and democracy. But that’s not spewing hate, anger, or any of those things, oh, mercy no, how could we possibly think such a thing? It’s just a merry little japing jest. Or something along those lines. But most certainly not hate, or anger!
(Sarc./natch!)
(I’m assuming this Anon is the one who’se been posting about forgiveness—that’s the thing about trying to communicate with “Anons”, you can’t keep track of which one is which. I’m going back to my old policy of ignoring all “Anon” posters.)
PS – I’m not spewing hate, anger, or any of those things.
No, if you’re “spewing” anything, anony, it’s just stupidity.
I will say that it’s funny to watch the trolls here suddenly getting religion. And why do suppose that is? I think, as I said, that it’s because they really are frightened. Up against Bu$Hitler, etc., their rage and hatred knows no bounds — well, except that they’re maybe not quite ready to partake in “martyrdom operations”. But at the prospect of stirring up the islamists, they’re riddled with fear and trembling, which completely quenches any hatred or anger that they might feel toward “Osama”, for example (“No room for hate in that equation”, you bet!). Hence the Kumbaya warbling, and the clutching of the New Testament (sans Revelations, natch).
I think you’re right, Sally.
They’re afraid of Bin Ladin, et al; so they can’t let themselves be angry at them—it would entail too many risks. Instead, they focus all their rage at conservatives, BushHitler, “apostates” like Neo-neocon, etc.
Does this make it easier to tell us apart?
Anyway, I hope that someday you’re all able to look back on the sorts of things that you have written here, in seriousness, and feel – well, if not shame, then that sort of embarrassment that people feel when they flip through their old yearbook and say “Man, did I really believe this garbage? Glad I grew out of that..”
But, until then, I beg of you – don’t stop. And who says I didn’t have religion before? Are you assuming that if someone disagrees with your political agenda then they must be godless heathens? Reminds me of…OSAMA BIN LADEN! I wish one of you could answer my question: why do you hate freedom and democracy? Why do you act so much like Osama bin Laden, accusing those who disagree with you of being godless and twisting the words of your holy texts to justify your hatreds? Why? Why can’t you accept Jesus’ message of love? Put down that bottle of haterade, I beg you!
I don’t hate freedom and democracy. Does that answer your question? And I don’t consider people who disagree with me godless heathens.
If they spout nonsense, however, I’m going to tell them I think it’s nonsense.
And, by the by, how does Stumbley’s joke involving popular song lyrics translate into hatred for freedom and democracy?
I don’t think neo-neocon, Ymar, Sally, or anybody else who posts here hate freedom and democracy either (though I’ll let them answer for themselves.)
And none of us here (I’m pretty sure) have murdered over 3,000 people, so we’re certainly not acting like bin Ladin.
Not that you’ve responded to any questions that have been put to you, say, about the difficulty of forgiveness, and what we’re supposed to do about people like bin Ladin, whether we feel love in our hearts for him or not—you know, the whole hate the sin/love the sinner thing.
And, I repeat—your own bile and rancor disqualify you to lecture anybody about love and/or forgiveness, qualities you seem sadly lacking in.
As you said, Sally, it’s funny when the trolls start getting religion—or at least what passes for religion with them.
And Jesus does love you, Anon—however, it just depresses Him when His children sputter nonsense, and vaunt themselves, like the Pharisee in the parable.
Okay guys, let’s hear it—you’ve been accused of hating freedom and democracy! How do you all plead?
I guess I could ask Anon some non-sequitor such as “Why do you hate your fellow Americans?”, but I won’t. I wil ask Anon to point to the Biblical verse(somewhere between Old Testament and Revelations) where Jesus instructs us to offer an enemy a daughter if one has killed your son.
Or offer an enemy the neighbor on my left-side if one has killed a neighbor on my right-side?
Well, c’mon Anon. You and the desert hippie are so “tight”, can’t you just ask him? Is what I asked above REALLY what He meant?
Tick tick.
Manifest Destiny: A New Direction for America.
Boiled Rice:
Have you just discovered “Manifest Destiny”? Were you sleeping through your high school civics class?
Personally, I do believe in American Manifest Destiny…It’s worked for the major powers throughout history. Why not for the USA?
“Those who are strong, do what they can; those who are weak, do what they must.” Thycidides: Book Two, Pericles’ Funeral Oration, I believe.
Anony: Yes, and as a church goer who reads New Testament and Old Testament Lessons to the congregation, I must say your grasp of theology is weak. Jesus was, above all, for justice in this world and peace in the next world.
“My kingdom is not of this world: if it were, my followers would be fighting you even now.”
“My peace I give you: not as this world understands peace, but as I understand it.”
Jesus was above all, a divine realist. Shows up all the time in New Testament…if you’ve ever glanced at it.
It’s a good read…try it sometime.
Interesting.It seems to me, in my very humble opinion, that hate can be righteous when used for justice,but evil when used for selfish reasons.
For this reason humans are different than animals and we were created( yes, I said created!) in the image of God so that we could reason and make moral choices. And then God communicated to us the boundaries in His law, say, the 10 commandments, so that we would know we would be held accountable for our actions.
My personal forgiveness of an evil doer is required for my spiritual benefit, but it does not relaeas the evil doer from deserving the punishment of his crimes.
“Jesus was a man of peace not of war.”
and it worked out so well for him, too.
“a divine realist”
Ha! As if Jesus could ever be boxed in by such an utterly mundane, human concept as “realism”.
“it worked out so well for him, too”
Well, yeah, it kinda did, considering that Jesus was God inserting himself into his own creation as a man so that he could die for his creation. If he was supposed to die, how could it have been a bad thing that he died?
“it’s funny when the trolls start getting religion—or at least what passes for religion with them”
What supreme arrogance to hold that your religious belief is superior to mine. Isn’t that what jihadists do?
“your own bile and rancor”
What bile and rancor? I’m simply here to recommend that a) you don’t leap to conclusions about another person’s experience with loss, grief, and forgiveness as if you had actually experienced what they’re going through, and b) that you consider what Jesus said about hatred and forgiveness before leaping to conclusions about the righteousness of your own hatred and your disgust over someone else’s acceptance of Jesus’ teachings.
I can never say what Jesus meant. Jesus was, after all, an infinite god squeezed into a finite man. How could you ever comprehend something like that? Call me a hippie if you like, but how can that not blow your mind? But we can report what Jesus said: he said “forgive your enemy.” He didn’t say anything about sacrificing daughters. Lee brought that up, not me. Know who else sacrificed daughters? The followers of the Aztec rain god, Tlaloc. Lee, why are you so interested in murdering little girls for the sake of an Aztec rain god? I challenge you to answer that, you sick man.
Anonymous @ 12:18 pm:
I’ve taken to labeling by time stamp, please take this as a measure of identification.
Jesus was quite scornful of the educated “leaders” of his society and day. Recall the “whited sepulchers, magnificent on the outside, crawling with worms and decay on the inside” remark. I could go on, but it seems to apply to some degree all who interpret His teachings.
I don’t believe He would have stood for the mushy goings on that “spiritual leaders” promote these days. OTOH, He certainly would have strong words about those who hasten to condemn their fellow sinners. Apt quotes on this latter point lies above.
As moral people (“a chosen race, a people set apart”), we are called upon to have moments of clarity about the overt actions of our fellow men and women. This clarity consists of calling a spade a spade when it comes to overt actions: clearly Islam fails in this matter, largely due to a lack of charity and love inherent in their teachings.
That being said, I believe that we also can make at least tentative moral judgments on the actions of societies as a whole. For example, any society that preaches the desirability of Holy Suicide Bombings can easily be judged immoral and psychotic as well.
Repeat after me: “Not all civil societies are healthy and moral”. If you agree with that, logic indicates that multiculturalism is merely assent to widespread immorality. “By their fruits you will know them.”
We do have a right to judge their fruits. It’s where their hearts are…
Anonymous many – if you wish to get into the longish, and complicated story of “What Did Jesus Teach,” there are many here who know a little something. We are unlikely to be much moved by the facile over-simplifications of our faith that you present. Most of us have felt the attractions of Simplified Jesusness but found it untrue to the Gospel. For an academic take on this, you might try Jaroslav Pelikan’s “Jesus Through The Centuries.”
Your anger and hatred have disguised themselves as sneering and condescension, perhaps so that you do not have to acknowledge the feelings to yourself. I only guess at the “why.” But there is no doubt about the “what.” You are angry and hating, whether you see that or not. It will impair your logic in discussion: you will too often fall into the temptation of delivering a really killer line rather than making your case.
Gee, Anon, a little “sensitive” are we? I didn’t call YOU a hippie(but, you already knew that, just another deflection), I referred to Jesus As the desert hippie, didn’t I? But, between all the “you’re sick” crap, at least you admitted you’re not as “tight” with Him as you claimed. Because, if I have some problem with spiritual questions or some “interpretation” of the Bible, etc., I CAN ask Him. Directly. Face-to-Holy Spirit. Yeshoua(popularly knowed as Jesus) told me the answer to the question I posed to you, but, I’ll give you another chance. “Ask, and ye shall recieve.”
“Yeshoua(popularly knowed as Jesus) told me the answer to the question I posed to you, but, I’ll give you another chance.”
Do you have a Jesus Phone? Like Commissioner Gordon’s Bat Phone?
Anonymous | 02.07.07 – 6:00 pm
No, he doesn’t have a phone, it’s just that his faith is real and meaningful to him. Which raises the question, which part of Christian mysticism do you understand?
AVI was right, your anger and hatred impairs your argument.
Anonymouse:
OK, I’ll give you two hints…
There is a process called “Forming a Right Conscience”. A spiritual exercise which originated with Ignatius Loyola. Sigmund Freud would have approved: it’s a form of self-analysis very similar to that process called a School Analysis (have I the right term, SW?) that psychiatrists pass through during the residency.
Except the emphasis is on spiritual development and sensitization. Any good commentary on Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises can explain things better than I.
The other is another Biblical quotation: “Wherever there are two or three gathered together in My Name, I am there.” And actively attending to the discussion.
Try it sometimes…not easy, but effective.
PS: Sometimes known as prayer: do try it sometime…
Lee,
Stop sacrificing little girls to the Aztec rain god, Tlaloc; stop it right this minute, do you hear me?
Seriously. . .
Seriously, Anon, you’re getting silly now. You’re just burbling at this point, to keep the argument going.
And, Anon, if your bilious, and hilararous rantings are “religion”, sorry, I’ll go to the movies instead. It’s you, not the rest of us, who’se beginning to sound like Osama—when you don’t sound like a snarky teen, spoiling for a fight and saying whatever pops into your head in order to continue it.
(And, Lee, and all the rest of you, I hope you’re no longer interested in murdering little girls for the sake of an Aztec rain god. I hope you don’t hate freedom and democracy any more, either. That’s not nice! Go the movies, instead!)
If any of you are tempted to sacrifice anything to anyone, I suggest you sacrifice your laughter, and a banana cream pie, to Captain Hoo-hah, demigod of Jewish humor, and slapstick comedy.
And stop hating freedom and democracy—that’s just plain naughty! Go to the movies, instead!
OH! Sorry, Anon. I was just on the Godfone making sure my webcam feed of my virgin sacrifice was going through to God’s pc. Yes, I do have a “phone” line to Jesus(even has a special ringtone so He knows it’s me calling). It’s called “prayer”. The infinite knowledge and wisdom of God(inexplicable to you, as you claim for inability to answer earlier question) put in little words even I can understand. You should know, as tight as you and JC are.
I almost forgot, Hail Failor.
I like “Anonymoose” better than “Anonymouse.”
‘AVI was right, your anger and hatred impairs your argument.’
What anger? What hatred? Don’t you realize that I look at you with curiosity and amusement?
‘You’re just burbling at this point, to keep the argument going.’
Um, that was the point from the beginning. Well, that and pointing out that you’re all bad Christians, natch. Consider it…theater of the absurd. Take this less seriously, calm down, and stop assuming that I’m full of hate because I happened to point out that you’re all bad Christians.
I get my Christian mysticism from two places (that really stand out): Kierkegaard’s “Fear and Trembling” and Abraham Kook. My god can totally beat up your god, wankers.
Sorry, but I’m not a Christian. You assume too much.
Kierkegaard? No wonder.
“Curiosity and amusement” is simply condescension, veiled hate with the facade of superiority.
The rest, perhaps you should consider yourself as the lead in your own theater of the absurd. The audition would be brief.
As usual, interesting post. I don’t know what I think about this subject, but I have some thoughts / questions, and I’ll be interested to see what others make of them.
stumbley: To hate someone, you must care deeply about them—as much as to love them, in fact.
I don’t buy this. Do you have supporting evidence?
It’s the emotional component in the two emotions that is the problem: “love is blind” and we often speak of “blind hatred”. The blindness is what kills.
I don’t really see the problem with emotional components. Emotion is the core of why we do anything; there would be no reason to apply reason if we did not care about the problem, for example. Does caring enough to reason through a problem taint the process? If not, then why does hate? Emotion sometimes clouds the issues, but sometimes brings clarity. The trick is to know which is which and be able to act on that knowledge.
‘Kierkegaard? No wonder.’
What’s wrong with Kierkegaard?
“I don’t buy this. Do you have supporting evidence?”
You’re kidding, right? But if not, I offer up Ahab:
“to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”
I’d say ol’ Ahab has a thing for Moby Dick, wouldn’t you? And if you want reality, I direct you to the lovely writings of Amanda Marcotte over at Pandagon.com.
The worst emotion one can have for another is indifference. Indifference is what allows an individual to behead another; there’s no feeling involved at all.
A. Nony Moose:
Kierkegaard?!??
How so very Graduate School, My Dear…
And “Kook”? A most unfortunate name, I’m afraid…
Start with Augustine of Hippo (kosher for you: he is traditionally depicted as a oversexed black) and work your way up.
A good distinction to make would be to distinguish hate from anger. What I found curious is that after 9-11, I hated Osama bin Laden and his hoodlums very very much, but there really wasn’t any anger in me at all. Mostly I just find the idea of his death emotionally pleasant and beautiful. Anger is something one feels because one feels it might be necessary to keep hating after the object of hatred molests you or whatever. But Osama bin Laden and his ilk are so obviously evil to me, it somehow is emotionally clear to me that he and his ilk could not use any sort of depravity, manipulation, or deception on me (even if somehow I were to fall under his power) that would ever make me feel otherwise than he should be dead or imprisoned for life (and I’m sufficiently removed from where he is I don’t much feel like he can molest me, and my country’s military can obliterate his). Anger is an emotion that is sane only in situations where depravity (sodomy) might corrupt hatred into some sort of unjustified smarmy affection. When one hates someone so completely coolly and steely that anger seems pointless (as seems to be the case with me toward bin Laden), this actually gives one an advantage in fighting the opponent. As goesh points out, anger emotions can lead to poor combat decisions (an example would be angry generals sending wave after wave of soldiers against fortified positions).
People experienced mainly with typical fairly benevolent people have a great deal of familiarity with how insane anger can cause people to wrongly be mean and unpleasant. Anger is an anti-abuse emotion that is often evoked inappropriately, in situations where one is not at risk of getting molested. But the kind of “anger” people like the bin-Laden jihadists “feel” I really don’t think in its nature has anything to do with anger normal people feel–it’s fake. People who like to molest others don’t tend to get angry much. Likely, they inherit their molesting tendencies from their male ancestors partly because their female ancestors weren’t angry enough to avoid reproducing with their molesters. One can see it in bin Laden–there is a kind of laidbackness about him consistent with one who basically doesn’t have much capacity to get angry. Jihadists try to look angry because they know that people who kill for righteous reasons tend to do so from anger–it makes the jihadists look better, because abuse-hating people tend to get angrier easier than molesting types do. Bin Laden is like the woman-beater trying to make the woman he’s molested/beaten think somehow she deserves it–his lie sells better if he has an angry tone in his denunciations.
What I don’t like about Christianity is the turn-the-other-cheek emphasis of Christ’s teachings. It’s as through Judas Iscariot forcibly sodomized Christ or something. Ecclesiastes is spot on about there is a time for every emotion under the sun. I’d even say there is a time for cruelty. If one actually is being ra
(cot’d.)
If one actually is being raped or forcibly sodomized, be as cruel as one can be during the attack, inflicting pain on his gonads. In a civilized society nowadays, that’s about the proper scope I am inclined to think for cruelty. But Iraq is apparently largely a lawless violent anarchy. Maybe if a few sexy Iraqi young taunting females cleanly tortured a few bin Ladenist rapacious thugs on the internet with a kind of sexual sadistic ferocity the advantages by way of taking the testicular fortitude out of the murderers would exceed the disadvantages of producing possible mass insane anger.
‘How so very Graduate School, My Dear’
Or, one could just pick up a book every now and then.
‘And “Kook”? A most unfortunate name, I’m afraid…’
Or, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel.
‘Start with Augustine of Hippo (kosher for you: he is traditionally depicted as a oversexed black) and work your way up.’
Or, I could have done that in seminary 12 years ago. Or not? Who knows. It’s the internet! Everything’s as real as we want it to be. You assume that because I have a different (ever so slightly!) understanding of Christian mysticism that I must be an unedcuated fool. Except I read Kierkegaard in grad school? Stop not making sense.
Anonymoose,
No, it was your condescension towards one who has a deep belief in his personal God and its Holy Spirit that led to all this. Perhaps you shouldn’t consider such a person a fool either, since their understanding of Christian mysticism is only slightly different than your own. The “you’re all bad Christians” certainly opened you up for rebuke and ridicule.
I don’t assume you are an uneducated fool, by far.
Hey, Lee, I thought I told you! No more virgin sacrifice! Don’t make me come over there, and force you to take a time out!
Either that, or start throwing custard pies around!
black jack leather black jack leather black jack leather // personal debt consolidation loan personal debt consolidation loan personal debt consolidation loan
Anonymous just has to play the fool in order to avoid the very simple question(Very simple in so far as most on this page can answer it, yet, continues to BAFFLE, BEFUDDLE, AND MYSTIFY Anon) I posed to him earlier. You would think a learned man as yourself could directly answer a direct question, instead of CHILDISH deflectionism. I think it’s because he doesn’t know the answer. We’ll see. Will his next posting be an attempt at answering the question, or more juvenileism.
BTW, I don’t think you’re an uneducated fool because your idea of “Christian mysticism” disagrees with mine, I think you’re a fool because of the STUPID, MORONIC, IDIOTIC things you say.
A. Nony Moose:
So you’re “in the profession” so to speak? May I inquire which seminary was graced by your presence?
My wife was a research librarian at Harvard Divinity School when I first met her. So I have a mild interest…
Ever hear of Arthur Darby Knox? Just curious on that one…
I don’t eat Freedom Fries, Talkin. Does that count as hating freedom?
Victory Cabbage, maybe?
me: “I don’t buy this. Do you have supporting evidence?”
stumbley: You’re kidding, right? But if not, I offer up Ahab:
I don’t consider literary characters that representative of humanity. I made it clear I was exploring the topic. You may be right, but I’m unconvinced at the moment.
Also, indifference isn’t nearly that bad. There must be some motivation for beheading someone; even the random killer has a reason for killing, though not necessarily a reason for killing that specific person. Utter indifference would mean they don’t care if you die, not that they would kill you.
I will likely put this clumsily but here goes: personal hatred, the kind we feel for someone specific does involve stumbley’s knot, but dehumanized hatred does not have this tie. Hatred for those dehumanized is cold, methodical, and cruel, you have no deep care or attachment to them, they are simply symbolic obstacles which must be removed to further your goals. The only thought spent on them is to continue their dehumanization.
No, because this is an act against the French, whom Captain Hoo-Hah does not approve of, since they consider Jerry Lewis funny.
(Captain Hoo-Hah, as demi-god of slapstick humor, does not approve of Jerry, whom he considers terminally unfunny.)
PJ:
I postulate that to “hate” someone, you must have deep feeling for them, you must care what happens to them—otherwise, why would you spend the time and effort to criticize/post blog entries/send hate mail/call in the middle of the night/slash tires/attempt to murder/actually murder—see where I’m going? Beheading someone is much like what Ariel describes, the dispatching of an obstacle, an object. There’s a certain amount of indifference to suffering and/or humanity there. Hate is a powerful emotion; indifference is lack of emotion. I submit that jihadists are indifferent to those they murder; the victims are just objects or pawns in a larger game.
Said with thick French accent: “Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!”.
stumbley and Ariel: I see what stumbley means, but I still think indifference doesn’t produce murder (though it wouldn’t prevent murder, either). Ariel’s distinction seems pretty reasonable; dehumanized hatred vs. personal hatred makes sense. I do think dehumanized hatred is still a strong motivation, not a form of indifference. The killer (to take the extreme example) still has a tremendous desire to cause pain / suffering / death, but the specific object doesn’t matter as long as he / she belongs to the class of targets.
Thanks, guys.
There is a powerful impulse to bend and redress Christianity in hippie style. Leo Tolstoy tried it in Russia. That is true that Christianity (not Islam, as Pope recently demonstrated) IS religion of peace; but it is not religion of peaceniks! “Not peace I brought, but sword”. It also does not reject capital punishment. Jesus said about child molesters: “It would be better for them to tie millstone on their neck and throw them in water”. It includes such conceptions as just war — and Armageddon. For recent examples, see William J. Bennett’s Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism or modern Catholic theologian George Weigel, “Moral Clarity in a Time of War.