I have been dealing recently with those who question the rationality of religious faith, and insist that it serves no useful personal or social purpose whatsoever, and is best discarded. I was considering the view this morning as I listened to my wife's sermon, in which she spoke of forgiveness. One example she used - and there are many from recent events one could use, but I like this one - was the treatment of the perpetrator of violence against their community by some Amish folks. A deranged individual killed several Amish girls; the community gathered together in a display of solidarity and showed this person the real meaning of forgiveness.
Isn't that awful? What a display of intolerance, violence, and terrorism! What a shocking example of irrational behavior! What a horrid example for the rest of the world to follow!
Or, perhaps, not.
15 comments:
Truly the Amish set an example for the rest of us. There are, it seems to me, 2 separate and distinct aspects to this: First, the maturity and humanity to understand that the impulse to revenge will only amplify the pain of the crime, and only by forgiving and letting go of that impulse can the healing begin. Second, the importance of community to reinforce our better instincts and stand with us as we perform the difficult acts of forgiveness and charity that are important to our personal and corporate well-being.
That said, it hardly seems that religious faith is necessary to either. Certainly atheists can forgive and probably do so in cases of capital crime at least as often if not more often than religious folk. Community is more elusive for non-believers, but not impossible.
Neither religious belief nor the existence of a community of like-minded individuals guarantees such eleemosynary behavior, nor does its absence preclude it.
First of all, I like your use of the word eleemosynary. People who not only know how to use such words but do so are OK in my book.
As to the specifics at issue, I would agree that, as a general rule, the question of the source of the strength to act in such a counter-intuitive manner may be secondary. Except that when we stop to consider actual cases of how and why people act the way they do, and most especially in this case, it was precisely their faith that led them to act the way they did. We can argue back and forth as to the relevant merits of the place of religious belief in beneficent acts such as this, but to discount the religious roots of the Amish action simply is to discount the reasons the community acted as it did.
I believe, DL, that you know me well enough by now to know that I would never insist that such actions are only open to Christians. I was, rather, pointing to this particular episode as an example of the less than malignant residue that religious belief can have upon human beings. That's all.
I would have to concede that over the course of human history to this point, many if not most emotionally mature selfless acts have been committed by persons who espouse a religious belief. Of course, as many others are willing to point out, one can say the same about horrible acts of terror and genocide. So I suppose we will have to acknowledge that the residue of religious belief can be both benign and malignant.
Humans commit selfless and selfish acts, moral and immoral acts without regard to religion or lack thereof, certainly no specific religion can claim to have convinced or inspired its adherents to act only in moral and selfless ways.
I would not argue that religious faith was irrelevant to the actions of the Amish in this instance, merely that religious faith is not a pre-requisite for moral action. In fact, being religious - taken generically - is simply not an indicator of one's penchant for morality.
I figured you would enjoy that little term I picked up from the Watergate hearings. Back in the day, we had intelligent, well-read politicians in Congress who actually took their oath of office seriously. Ah, the good ol' days.
The thing is, you can *believe* anything and still be a jerk, or a saint. You can even "trust" God and be a jerk, or a saint.
But trying to imitate Jesus is something else, isn't it? I mean, I think that's what James the epistlist was gettin' at.
Maybe you don't have to be a Christian to try to imitate Jesus. But for a Christian, those are the basic -- the "fundamentl" -- marching orders. Aren't they?
Fie on "belief" if it means "I agree" or "I adhere to." Fie on cheap "trust" even.
Christian faith, without works, isn't just dead. It just isn't.
Turn in yer hymnals to ...
:-)
DL, I first read it in a biography of William Ewart Gladstone by British author Roy Jenkins. I had to look it up . . .
So how does all this play against the need for law enforcement and justice's call for atonement? Does forgiveness in your mind settle the issue totally, or should the perpetrator still be tried, convicted and sentenced for his crime? I believe in forgiveness and it's benefits for the forgiver, but I believe in justice as well. It doesn't do any society any good to absolve criminal behavior only. I would not blame the rest of the world for not following such an example. Do you feel there is no forgiveness if we follow through with the proscribed procedures for murder?
The question of forgiveness and the question of legal responsibility are separate. The first is an act of compassion on the part of a victim; the second is an act of social protection on behalf of all threatened by the violence of those who would destroy life. The question, however, is pertinent, as too often law is reduced to vengeance in the name of the victimization of the innocent - we seek the death penalty as retribution, or reduce or remove the possibility of parole in a quest to keep locked away forever those who perpetrate crimes. What good is such an argument if a victim refuses to act with malice in their heart? We can then, perhaps, return to a notion of justice not retribution on behalf of the victim, but of social approbation limited to very specific instances of law-breaking.
Our legal system has moved to destroy the barriers once imposed between punishment and retribution; thus we have the tabloid-like spectacle of relatives of victims appearing and testifying at the punishment phase of criminal proceedings, as if establishing the guilt and legal responsibility for a crime were not enough, we now hear over and again the weeping and wailing of those whose lives have been shattered by crimes of violence, perpetuating the victimization through the celebration of their lost innocence. The Amish show us another way - a victim refusing to rest in the moral superiority of perpetual grievance, seeking to accept back in to the family of humanity those by whose acts have removed themselves from fellowship with other persons.
Why is it always either/or with you, Marshall? Why is it either punish without remorse or forgive and forget? Why is it not possible to both forgive and seek just punishment for crime?
It seems to me our society would be better served if we mimicked the deeds of the Amish, rejecting the popular image of the victim and embracing the hope displayed through forgiveness. Of course, that would mean that we who are the benefactors of great social crimes - against the native populations, against African slaves and their descendants, against women - would first have to own up to our collective responsibility towards them and their on-going victimization at the hands of a society that deems them of less worth than ourselves. The first step, it would seem, is for us to do collectively what we demand of others individually, something we are told time and again is both unnecessary and morally reprehensible. I, for one, would much prefer we seek forgiveness in an honest accounting of our complicity in horrid crimes, rather than discuss the guilt and/or innocence of others. But that is a different post for another time.
"Why is it always either/or with you, Marshall? Why is it either punish without remorse or forgive and forget? Why is it not possible to both forgive and seek just punishment for crime?"
Whoa, Hossie, whoa! Whence comes THIS? My comment was merely to seek clarification from you regarding YOUR post. I have no problem with the notion of forgiving those who do us wrong. Indeed forgiveness looms large in my faith---"...forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." Pretty much paint ourselves in a corner with THAT prayer, now don't we? Am I to assume from your posting of the Amish tale that you have until then NOT been a forgiving man? You seem to be really impressed by it. For my part, it's not the first time I've heard of a victim forgiving a perpetrator. I've even heard of families of the murdered pleading against the death penalty for the jerk who killed their kin. I find it reassuring that there exists those who are as such.
But as you suggest, that's a far cry from telling the perp to have a nice day and drop by again sometime. And that's the distinction I was hoping to hear from you, hence my comments. Glad to see your progressive Christianity has it's limits.
Hey. Them Amish. Would you call them fundamentalists? I don't really know the extent and limits of their beliefs.
As far as being a benefactor of the great social crimes, feel free to apologize to anyone you like. I choose to treat people like people and leave it at that. I've encountered various troubles in my life. I don't go expecting apologies from those who had nothing to do with it. Your concept of "collective responsibility" is nonsense. If you feel responsible or compelled to apologize, knock yourself out. In fact, knock yourself out first and then see if you feel the same when you wake up. I hope these people you've named aren't waiting around for this "collective responsibility" apology. That would be even more sad. I'd like to think that folks have better things on their minds.
P.S. You really should see someone about that guilt you're carrying around.
My concept of "collective responsibility" is a recognition that I and most of the rest of the country are the benefactors of the crimes of our forebears, from the theft of land and genocide of the native populations to the three hundred-year-plus subjugation of African-Americans (they were the creators of abundant wealth, not just on plantations, but in southern industry, and through insurance, shipping and hauling, and the rest; some insurance companies have actually come clean about their role in supporting chattel slavery and the profits they made from insuring slaves as property).
Were we a moral people, we might just recognize part of our legacy as being working not just to redress these grievances but creating structures to prevent the continuance of further dehumanization. The oldest, and easiest, dodge in the world is to refuse to recognize the reality of our culpability, and hide behind the "I treat everyone the same" line. This isn't about what you or I or any one individual do; it is about what all of us do, and not do, as a society towards the victims of our social life. The refusal to acknowledge these realities is a perpetuation of the oppression. I honestly don't care if you think you owe anybody an apology. The recognition by any one individual is neither here nor there; the debt is real, and were we honorable, decent, and ethically centered, we would not even have to have a discussion such as this. . .
I feel obliged to note for the historical record that the New England textile industry was the chief buyer of Southern cotton, and that the notes on slaves were held by New York lenders who financed slavery almost in toto.
Which is why I say that anyone who wants to get rid of the flag that represented slavery should either start with the U.S. flag or leave the Southern battle flag the hell alone.
(Sore spot. Disagreement understood. Peace out, Dawg.)
We are all guilty. It is the appropriation of the Southern Battle Flag by the Klan and other racists groups, and its display by those whose sole intent is a silent declaration of their racism, that is the source of my disdain. Not you, for I understand your position.
I know.
"This isn't about what you or I or any one individual do..."
It's exactly what it's about. It takes each individual to make a move. Mine is to treat people fairly, yours is to pretend you're guilty of something for which you bear no responsibility. Your responsibility is to be a good guy, not perpetuate any existing traces of prejudice, and stand against it when it rears it's ugly head. THAT'S how you pay back the memory of those abused. Anyone being abused today has someone directly responsible with whom they can deal.
"The refusal to acknowledge these realities is a perpetuation of the oppression."
Bunk. How far back in time should we go to repay all who have suffered as a result of our ancestors? How about the Inquisition? As a Christian, are you going to look for anyone who might be descended from those victims? What about your nationality? What horrid things have people from your ancestors' country done? Who's lifting me up from the oppression that forced my grandparents to flee Poland as Germany was starting to invade and eek out a living in a country where they struggled to learn the language? The whole concept is a crock and a psychological problem for both the white guys who feel guilty and the black guys who think they can't get anywhere because their great-grandpa picked cotton. Get real.
First of all, it's "eke", not "eek". The latter is a scream, the former means "to barely survive through scratching out a living".
Second, the recognition that we as a society have benefited from the evil acts of our predecessors is not a psychological problem, but the mature response to American history. How far back should we go? 1775 seems right, although 1787 might be better, because in the Constitution is enshrined the idea that African slaves are precisely three-fifths human beings, and unworthy of any rights any white person should respect, in the words of Chief Justice Roger Taney in the Dred Scott decision. It is not bunk to refuse to acknowledge our corporate culpability, but an honest appraisal of responsibility, just as it is not guilt to acknowledge one is constantly fighting against the racism that permeates our country and its institutions. As an individual, I strive to treat people equally; as a moral individual, I strive to recognize my failure to do so.
This conversation is going nowhere, so I do believe that is my final word on the subject.
I agree. We disagree totally here. What we started, we've since acknowledged error and changed. But I'm sorry. I don't belong to your corporation. Nor do I believe that racism permeates more than pockets of our society, and few of those at that. But as you say, we are deadlocked.
I saw my error after I published, to which I said "EKE!!!"
Post a Comment