The Dome of the Rock Example is not too good because, it is an act of cultural vandalism. The triumph of Islam over the Jews.

Check out the current dispute over Rachel's Tomb vs the "Mosque" in that location. Or the mosque going up near Christian sites.

I still think it is good to hate your enemies until they surrender. Given enemies like Nazis perhaps it is good that for most people the hate never goes away. OTOH there is the story of a Lincoln, Nebraska rabbi who got into a dialog with a neo-Nazi who helped the Nazi end his hate. Surprisingly the Nazi converted to Judaism before he died.

I'd say even hate must be rational and tempered with the possibility of love.

But sometimes (often) I just want to shoot the bastards.

Hating someone is giving them your soul. They'll control your mind, your thoughts, your actions. Chronic, long term, irrational hate hurts the hater more than the hated. Don't give anyone this power of corruption. Keep your soul.

I prefer chronic, long term, rational hate where appropriate.

It is good fo the soul.

Kill Nazis. Good.

Kill Nazis good. Hate Nazis good? Don't know. What if we hated them so much that we submitted to an American dictatorship to improve the war effort? What if we hated them so much that we committed genocide? Sounds like losing our soul to me.

Is it a matter of degree? When I visualize hate, I see something pathological, uncontrollable. Are you seeing something else? If so, it seems like balancing on the knife’s edge… it’s dangerous to mess with.

Ok, now you've gone and done it. I'm reminded of this line

Lurker, I think what you're saying is only part of the story. Certainly, blinding, irrational hatred is dangerous. On the other hand, there's another danger.

It isn't our job to save other people from themselves at the expense of ourselves or innocents. Appeasement of tyrants, terrorists and bullies is one example of this. The same situation in a different cloak is learned helplessness: drama-ridden friends who are bailed out of each and every crisis they put themselves into.

Shielding people from the consequences of their mistakes is not always a good thing. It isn't my job to be friends with people who have hurt me. As an occasional act of kindness or generosity, that's fine. More than that, you run the risk of reinforcing the pattern they're in.

Even more importantly, this kind of thinking takes onus away from the innocents who are caught up in the perpetrator's actions. A Nazi running a concentration camp doesn't need to be psychoanalysed or counselled. He needs to be contained or killed, to protect the innocent and to provide a measure of justice.

Finally, when a man has committed terrible crimes, this needs to be remembered. Lao Tzu said, "When a man says he has forgiven but not forgot, it means he has not forgiven." Hogwash. A person's past behaivor should be taken into account when gauging his future decisions. If a man has stolen several times, but is now forgiven, it would still be silly to blame his friends for not remaining cautious with their possessions around him. Demanding unconditional forgiveness casts victims as villian.

So anyway, there's three good reasons to remain vigilant and unforgiving towards evil men: Unconditional love removes the penalties and so rewards evil decisions, it interferes with necessary actions to combat evil and protect the innocent, and it reverses the rightful grievances of the victim against the villain.

Rob:
I'm not sure why hate is needed to accomplish any of the things you're talking about. Remembering doesn't mean hate. Vigilance doesn't mean hate. Lack of hate doesn't mean love. We can be STRONG without hate. I think you must agree with this, that's why I'm wondering what we're disagreeing about.

Joe has asked as to think about the nature of hate. Are we calling two different emotions hate? Or is it differing degrees of hate? I'm not sure whether hate has degrees. Either you hate or you don't. Like I've mentioned I think hate is pathological and uncontrollable. If you've reached the point of hating, then you have lost reason.

If it's individuals doing the hating, like relatives of murder victims, society can restrain violence until reason returns. If it is the society that hates, then where is the restraint? How can we return to reason? Do we let it run its course until what we hate is completely destroyed? Do we lose our souls in the process? Must hate ALWAYS be answered with hate?

What about this scenario? Somehow, terrorists manage to nuke NYC. In retaliation, we nuke what? Mecca? All of the Middle East? OK. Then what. Do we round up all other Arabs in the world and gas them so there's no one left to complain about genocide? We will feel better then? Hate can drive us to insanity. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

Porphy,
I like the Blues Bros. Which part of the movie did that come from?

Your post (and its links) inspired a post on my blog.

For the curious:

Hate: The Answer?

Many thanks.

Respectfully,

Kevin Kim

Lurker wrote:

"I like the Blues Bros. Which part of the movie did that come from?"

They're tooling around in that car and get stopped at a bridge because those NAZI guys (which end up chasing them later in the movie) are out there protesting; right after that line they charge the car at the NAZIs, forcing them to bail into the river below.

Porphy,
I'd completely forgot about that scene. Reckon I'll need to get the DVD now. Nothing like Rawhide performed by the Good Ol’ Blues Brothers Boys!

Now to keep this on topic… I’m not sure if Elwood really hated the Illinois Nazis or whether is statement was a rhetorical device used to indicate displeasure.

M Simon I am biased. I am a Fisherman. In your comments you said Kill Nazis. Good. That is NOT Right, but rather it is Wrong.

God is All Perfect. In order that He be the perfection of Love (which He IS), implies by Reason that He cannot Hate, for the opposite of Love, is Hate. He is All Just. It is His to Judge the acts of Man, both individually and collectively.

The act of killing, be it right or wrong, is determined by Reason and Moral Theology. There are instances (i.e. Just War, or self-defense) where killing is permitted. There are certain cicumstances (i.e. Europe, 1943) where killing a Nazi would be permitted. It would not be 'Good'. It would tolerated, and 'Right'.

To say, today, that killing a Nazi is 'Good' is not right, and I say that to you in Charity.

...And Cap'n Spin offers an excellent demonstration of one of the key differences in approach between Judaism and Christianity, as Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik discusses in the linked article.

In Jewish terms, it would indeed be "good" to kill a Nazi, and also "right". Nor is this Nazi-specific... substitute a Khmer Rouge for the Nazi, and the conclusion remains. See Soloveichik's article itself for a deeper and lengthier explanation of why this is so.

In fairness, there would be cases in Jewish thinking where it may not be good to kill a Nazi, or even right. Circumstances can intrude and confound. But the core point about the differences in worldview remains.

Joe:

Some Christians, I know, would turn the other cheek. But Christian doctrine does let us kill Nazis if it's a matter of self-preservation. So, does this mean that killing the Nazi is okay in this case, but that hating him is the sin? Can we forgive the Nazi after we've killed him?

Can a Jew kill a Nazi without hating him? Or is he obligated to hate before killing? For a Jew, how does the forgiveness aspect tie into this? Is the hate in Jewish doctrine more like unforgiveness?

This may get back in some fashion to what I said before. Is it a matter of the degree of hate? Maybe the hate that Christians talk about is the pathological, uncontrollable hate, where forgiveness can't even be conceived. While the hate that Jews talk about is something more like: "We remember what you did and do not forgive."

JoeK, all,

What I got from the Soloveichik article was that in Jewish tradition there was a certain kind of hate, call it "righteous hate", which is not only "permitted", but "good".

The rational: while unjustified hate is a danger to the soul (and an insulting to God), unjustified compassion is a danger to the innocent. Hate is sometimes necessary to carry on with what must be done against transgressors (e.g., Nazis). Premature or delusional compassion creates additional victims.

My problem with this is that "hate" is a bad term for this kind of attitude. "Hate" is "hot", and what is required is to be "cold". Hard hearted, not hot headed.

Something concrete: my attitude toward Bin Laden? I don't hate him. Really. Forgiveness? Irrelevant. Forgiveness is not mine to give. Compassion? I'm sorry he's removed himself so far from God's love. Really. Liquidation? Immediate, unflinching, thorough.

Hate is bad for you: lots of nasty stress hormones (cortisol). If you are truly centered and settled, as BigHominid describes, you can liquidate your real enemies without hate and it's nasty endocrine side effects. Why put yourself through it?

All,

I know little of the Jewish Faith. I do not 'hate' Jews, as some radical Christians might, so I cannot address that. What I addressed (and I stand outside 'modern' Christianity (including the modern 'Catholic' Church), and base my argument on, is Reason. I apologize if I offend, but we must all 'run what we brung'. I said up front that I am a Christian, and that I argue from Authority. I know no other 'Way'. Christ brought a 'New' Law. He claimed Sonship. That is why the Jews feared Him.
Old Law (a weak understanding) permitted an 'Eye for an Eye'. Christ taught as I said: Love of God, neighbor (be he brother or enemy) and Self, for Love of God. 'Killing' is permitted, under certain circumstances, both individually (oneself) and collectively (Social Order, or State). A 'good' state, be it a Democracy, or any other form, has nothing to fear of the true Christian, nor does any Man.

"The Dome of the Rock Example is not too good because, it is an act of cultural vandalism. The triumph of Islam over the Jews."

There are many similar examples; Churches turned into Mosques after successive waves of Islamic conquest. One of the more famous being Haiga Sophia in what was formerly Constantinople, now with Minarets and all.

However, agitating for the reversal of such "cultural vandalism" does not mean one should be driven to hate. For example, while I can understand the Hindu reaction in India over such things, the vengeful way it has been expressed now that they have the upper hand hasn't really helped, has it?

Getting further to the topic of hate - I can understand hate. But one has to understand that virulant hate can drive you to do counterproductive things. I mentioned in a post in another thread watching "Blue Gender" a half hour ago.

The storyline starts with a guy, Yuri, who has been in "cold storage" for about 20 years and gets awoken by some soldier types (who use the usual largish robots favored in Anime as fighting suits). One of the soldiers is the other main character, Marlene Angel. There are all sorts of indicators that we're supposed to like Marlene, but also be shown the flaws in her character. THe world Yuri awakes into is a post-apocalyptic nightmare; bugs (the Blue) have overun the planet. Civilization remains in space stations (where the soldiers come from). There are scattered human survivors on the planet living a wretched, refugee-like existance.

Yuri starts the show as a naif, something of a whiner, who is friendly but apalled by the attitude that Marlene, in particular, shows the survivors on earth. She's all about fighting the Blue (and is very, very good at it) - is indifferent to whether the people on earth live or die. She treats them like they're already dead. Helping them isn't even a secondary consideration to fighting the enemy - it's a non-consideration.

The show progresses over episodes and Marlene starts to change. So does Yuri. Marlene comes to see Yuri as a friend (!) - before he was just "the sample". Yuri gradually learns to fight. Once they make it to the Station, Marlene gets in trouble with her superiors - the problem is the emotional bond she's developed. But Marlene has come to see that this is a strength, that the way she was going about things was wrong and hurtful to her cause.

But now, especially in tonight's episode, we see that the tables are completely switched - Yuri has come a very skilled fighter but he's all about ridding the world of the Blue now and everything else is unimportant compared to that drive. It is he who is now blinded by his hatred for them. At the end of the episode, they foreshadow the next one, and we can tell that this is going to drive Yuri to do something that will lead him to trouble - not success. Marlene will have to teach him what she has learned and Yuri has forgotten.

What has Marlene learned since the beginning of the show (tonight was Episode 16) that Yuri has now forgotten? That compassion is more powerful than hate, even in overcoming enemies. Hate, at least in excess, can lead you to forget what you're fighting for - the people you're fighting to help and save. Can drive you to do reckless things and even to, if only momentarily, forget about your friends.

There are things I hate. I don't let hate rule how I deal with them, though. At least I try not to. I will note that anger/vexation/frustration and hate are not the same thing (they can be related or tied together).

Mr. Katzman:

Thanks. I found Sufi Bushanja's remarks very interesting, and the Buddhist story about carrying the lady across the river one of my favorites.

In appreciation,

Kevin

Mr. Katzman:

Thanks. I found Sufi Bushanja's remarks very interesting, and the Buddhist story about carrying the lady across the river is one of my favorites.

In appreciation,

Kevin

lewy14 has it exactly right. So, when we speak of "hate" his comment is a good reference re: what we mean for the purposes of this debate:

Cold-hearted, despising them for the distance they have placed between themselves and G-d or humanity, prepared to do such people harm and seeing that as a good thing. Not deeply angry. Not obsessive. More like Lurker's "we remember what you did and do not forgive" (and if we can, we intend to do something about it).

This is clearly hostile intent, and compassion for the evildoer is not in evidence (unless they renounce their evil in deed and not just words). The word "hate" fits - but the mindset is not the same as the feeling of blind anger that is also associated with the word. That's when Bushanja's maxim kicks in, and reminds us that endlessly chewing over the sin - of others as well as ourselves - is a real danger.

Hopefully, this will clear up the confusion.

So, given this simmering, as opposed to boiling, diffinition of hate, what have we learned.

It seems that the Jewish outlook is internally consistant, i.e. you harmed us, we hate you, we kill you if given the chance.

The Christian outlook still seems to have an internal contradiction, how to reconcile forgiveness with killing someone to remove a threat. Surely there's some doctine on this, but I don't know what it is precisely.

The only thing I can think of is that when a person forgives, he is just forgoing judement, e.g. "judge not lest ye be judged". By leaving the Judgement to God, we are only exercising our motal power of forgiveness, which can still leave us free to remove a real threat, even if we must resort to killing.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Note that the Jewish outlook does not require harm to Jews to deserve the kind iof hate we're discussing here. Hence my note that a Khmer Rouge member would also qualify.

It's also worthy of note that killing is just one potential response - recall Wiesenthal's simple refusal to forgive a dying Nazi in the opening paragraph of Soloveichik's essay. So killing is not required, but neither will it be flinched from or apologized for if deemed justifiable (and the corpus of Jewish law goes into detail both broad and exacting re: when that is).

The Christian outlook does have the potential for an internal conflict, and it's one that may be important to the current state of the Euro-American churches. They appear to be drifting away from the common-sense resolution Lurker offers, and that issue is probably a post or 3 in itself.

The question of how to avoid having hatred harm the soul of the hater remains a very good one, and is applicable across all religious traditions. Soloveichik addresses it head-on in his essay. The Sufi Bushanja's dictum gives another pointer toward resolution within an Abrahamic worldview, one I've seen echoed in Jewish sources. Buddhism's implicit injunction to employ this response only in the moment as needed, then simply "put it down," extends that in useful ways.

The two articles - Alan's and the Rabbi's - to me describe two very different phenomena.

Alan describes collective hatred in a very general and impersonal sense while the Rabbi discusses (mainly) hatred of individuals for their specific behaviors.

Was the collective persecution of the Jews by the Nazi's the same as the hatred directed to a specific Nazi?

I don't think so.

While I don't feel hatred toward anyone, I can sympathize with the Israeli's son's declared hatred of Saddam. He has good cause for his feelings. Saddam has been instrumental in persecuting the Israelis collectively. Does this same child hate all Iraqis? The article doesn't say, but I suspect he does not.

To wish the termination of someone who wishes you evil is not hatred. It is self-preservation.

If I'm interpreting Lewy14 accurately, like me, he doesn't define the desire to see Saddam dead as hatred. I'm not sure I'd characterize the Israeli boy's desire to see Saddam dead as hatred either.

Consider Arafat. Were he to die today, I would neither rejoice nor mourn. I would be optimistic that perhaps some peace could be found for both Israelis and Jews. Would it require hatred to kill Arafat? I don't think so. Just the realization that his existance stands in the way of my existance.

On the other hand. Should someone decide it was justified to kill 3000 Palestinians in order to kill Arafat. Horrific. Deserving of retribution. Yes. Hatred. Not necessarily. A complete disregard for the lives of innocent people, maybe. But not necessarily hatred by my own definition. Indifference is not the same as hatred.

Should someone decide to kill 3000 or even 3 Palestinians simply because they are Palestinians. That is hatred and even more horrific because of the driving motivation. This is worse than complete disregard for human life.

To wish harm on someone who has deliberately tagged you for evil can be hatred, but is not always hatred. To wish a group of people harm simply because they exist. THAT is hatred in it's most disturbing and most irrational.

And maybe that's the root of my perspective on this. Reason vs lack of reason. There is good reason to hate Arafat or Saddam or Bin Laden or the SS officer or the Nazi or the terrorist. There is no reason, rationale, good or bad, to hate Jews or Muslims or Germans or Palestinians as a group.

Let's compare a bit futher. Did the terrorists who bombed the UN building in Baghdad do it out of hatred? Perhaps. But maybe they saw this as a means to an end with a disgusting indifference to the innocent people they would kill. This does not absolve them by any means. But it doesn't hurt to understand the possible motivation. Don't misunderstand me. It could have been hatred. But that is not clear based on my own definition of the term.

In contrast, the bus bombing of that same day and the attacks in NY. The means was the ends. Kill the hated ones because we hate them. The more dead the better because they are all the same. All hated. All deserve to die. Draw no distinction between individuals.

Hate is difficult to sustain once you start to view the enemy as individuals.

CBK

My bad!

This :
Consider Arafat. Were he to die today, I would neither rejoice nor mourn. I would be optimistic that perhaps some peace could be found for both Israelis and Jews.

Should read:

...both Israelis and Palestinians.

Joe, when you mention the western churches, do you mean their demands to always 'forgive', irrespective of self-preservation?

cbk, Interesting comments. This post has had me struggling with the concepts of collective versus personal hate as well.

I don't think there are collective haters, i.e. "they hate...". Hate lives in the hearts of individuals. So, while it's not possible for the group to hate, each person in that group can hate someone individually. Can an individual hate a group? Yes, undoubtedly.

Some good questions are:
How do stereotypes, peer pressure, and other social effects transmit hate from one person to another?

Or does it just lay the framework for hate, predisposing one to hate the other groups individuals when you run across them?

Now somewhat contradicting a previous statement:
Is this really what collective hate is… this kind of cultural predisposition to hate another group?

Allow me to clarify your thoughts about hating individuals. I'll agree that it is more difficult to hate someone based on their group association when you think of them as an individual. But, to me at least, it is easier to hate someone you know, than one you don't. How many times have I had to suppress hating someone for some continuing transgression? What about you? Likewise, how can you hate some guy standing on the corner that you’ve never met? You can't. Not on a personal level. Collectively? Now my head is hurting!

Lurker,

By leaving the Judgement to God, we are only exercising our motal power of forgiveness, which can still leave us free to remove a real threat, even if we must resort to killing.

hmmmm...

Re: leaving Judgement to God in the Christian tradition...maybe.

And Re: collective hatred

These are only personal observations based on my own experience.

I don't believe I've ever hated anyone.

I've had cause to defend myself on numerous occasions. I've even been in a position to wish for my gun to use against a man, an individual I knew all too well, who was threatening my child. Thankfully, I was restrained. It wasn't long before I forgave. I never trusted him again, never allowed him to be a threat anymore, but I forgave him. And I suppose had he continued to threaten me I may have learned to hate.

I didn't forgive because of God's Judgement. I'm not sure I believe in God's Judgement. I forgave him because he was no longer a threat. I had no reason to hate him. We all survived the episode. What right or reason had I to carry animosity, much less continue to direct it at this person? This may be tied to the Christian tradition. Some version of judge not lest ye be judged. I'm not sure.

As to collective hate, well, I have no direct experience in that either. Perhaps I'm looking for an easy explanation for what I can only consider madness.

But I'm not sure I agree that a collective cannot hate.

How can a collective hate?

Through indoctrination, propaganda, ideologies.

Another personal story.

My sister married a Palestinian. My half-brothers are Jews. When my brother-in-law (having been in the states for several years) first brought his siblings over from Beirut, they initially refused to enter my mother's house.

As I recall, two of them stayed with me until my brother was safely out of town before they ventured in.

The oldest one (20something, I believe) moved on to Dallas and has only come to visit our fair city 3 times in 17 years. His visits are brief and his animosity is palpable. Emotions flair, harsh sounding arabic words are spewed and he storms away with his dark hateful cloud in tact.

The younger two, teenaged, gradually learned that no one was out to get them, but they firmly believed they were in enemy territory for a spell.

They were indoctrinated, in my view, as was the older one. In fact, I believe it was the older who orchestrated their indoctrination, as their parents do not seem carry hatred. Fortunately, they were still young and were not completely molded to this mindset.

They ways in which they were indoctrinated are many and pervasive. I'm not sure they've been relieved of all prejudice, but if they do they don't show it. There is certainly no hatred.

Take your garden variety hateful racism. Is that not indoctrination from childhood? The Klan for instance. Were not the Nazi propagandized to as young adults? Aren't the terrorists we are so consumed with today the products of some older hateful man indoctrinating a bunch of younger, easily influenced men?

Is that not a group? Or a collective?

A group of individuals, you say. Yeah. But a group of individuals with the same hateful ideology. A collective ideology. And I mean that more than just they all share an ideology. I mean that they are comrades within that ideology. And I mean that they view their enemies in a collective manner. They view themselves as the group against the collective enemy. The Us against the Them. They are victims or the heros or some such and the rest of us are the Zionists!!! The Infidels!!!

As did/does the KKK against the Blacks. Nazis against the Jews. US circa 45 against the Japs.

Just a thought... Do you suppose the tendency to feel strong group fidelity (ie: thinking of yourself as part of a collective) can foster the same collective view for those you don't see favorably?

Now my mind just jumped to the Bush-Hating-All Republicans-are-Racist-Democrats! Ahhhhh!

CBK

Porphy, cbk,

Your posts bring up an interesting aspect of compassion: the way it can facilitate, as opposed to hinder, our ability to defend ourselves. "What's it like being you?" This is the essence of compassion - we may not know exactly what it's like being them, but it is like something to be them; they are human beings. If you lose sight of the fact that your enemies are human, risk more than karma, you risk losing your effectiveness.

The human mind excells in abstraction. Hatred can be indoctrinated against groups, which are an abstraction. If you see a person in front of you, it's hard to hate them - natural compassion is actually a hard thing to overcome. If you see them as "just" a member of a hated group, then your perception of them as human beings can be overcome, and you can hate them and kill them.

Indoctrination of hatred against groups is a kind of virus that infects human institutions (families, congregations, polities). It gives them the illusion of strength even as it weakens them. These viri tend to burn themselves out quicker in environments where institutions overlap with great diversity, and where individuals have opportunities to chose their associations. While America is host to many strains of such viri, they remain marginalized to a significant extent.

Joe, Lurker,

"Christians must be ready to die, indeed have their children die, rather than betray the gospel. ... Christians are not called to be heroes. We are called to be holy."

So...Lurker,

Our diversity of groups, diversity of thought works against the hateful virus?

The flip side being that communities, societies or cultures that lack diversity, lack diversity of thought, tend to cultivate the hateful virus.

Is that too far from the notion that group mentality feeds group hate? Either by default or deliberately? I'm afraid I'm not articulating this very well. Something like lack of free thought fosters group thought?

Another notion occured to me, and I'm surprised I haven't fully developed my own views on this observation before. But here it is, poorly articulated and unrefined as it may be.

The morality of individualism vs morality of groupism- Those who hold individuals responsible for individual acts find it reprehensible to hold a group responsible for the acts of an individual. It seems kneejerk even. Not that that means it is unreasoned, just that it is an automatic response based on our concept of justice and responsibility. Individual crime and individual reprimand.

Conversely, those who adhere to groupthink don't seem especially disgusted when what they percieve as members of the group "other" are punished for acts performed by a member of that group. In fact, they see such acts as a victory for their group, the execution of justice.

Hence, my own rationale that the IDF acting against an individual Hamas member is justified while an act against the group labeled Israelis is thoroughly immoral.

Obviously, many people don't agree with me, as evidenced by the moral equivalency that so easily equates the two as if their is no difference. I am convinced there is a moral difference, a huge moral difference. And I am convinced I am correct in my view. They are just as convinced there is no moral difference what so ever. I feel certain they hold their views as strongly as I do in my own.

That's a huge divide in the nuances of morality and self perception. A huge divide in the notions of guilt, responsibility and punishment. A huge divide in the concept of justice.

So...back to Mr. Brain's essay, building on Lewy14's thoughts (as I understand them), to combat this dilemma of the indoctrination of hate, the most anyone can do is to push towards free thought and diversity within societies and cultures, push towards individualism vs groupism. No small task given that (Palestinian as my example) within such societies, those with thoughts outside the group are as hated and dealt with as harshly as the actual hated group. My evidence, the propensity to kill "collaborators".

I wouldn't doubt that within some groups the "deviants" from that group are even more hated because they are willfully deviant. They have the opportunity to be a part of the collective but choose to insult the collective through their thoughts and actions. Not unlike the Islamists' view of apostates.

CBK

Might I interject a very off topic topic...

This blog seems to attract (myself excluded) a good number of very thoughtful comments.

I've suggested it before, and will again. WOC should seriously consider attaching a discussion forum to compliment the blog.

Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore it. It is my own selfish desire to see some of these conversations continue and grow.

CBK

lewyXIV Astute! A true Christian is called (in this order) to serve God and Country. I would give my life FOR God, and I would give my life for Country, and I would give my life for my Brother. I will not sacrafice my Child, although my child may have no say (or opportunity) in the matter. If a 'Christian' does not recognize the difference between what he has been taught (be it potentially wrong) and what he knows to be right (by reason) then he is not a 'true' Christian.

We all have reason, and hence, Free Will. These are gifts. Like all gifts, they can be rejected, or put aside, and allowed to wither and die. They must be exercised, not exorcised.

CBK,

Our diversity of groups, diversity of thought works against the hateful virus?

I think you've attributed this to me when it was actually levy14 who wrote it. Just wanted to clarify this, since I hadn't been thinking along these lines at all.

All,
Now there's a dilemma. levy14 and cbk have both posted very thoughtfully and deserve a response. And the Cap'n has made a contribution that I actually understand (and even agree with!) on the first reading. So, the stars are aligned. Can, my stamina and skills meet the posting challenge?

I'll try to summarize the various threads:
1. Jewish vs. Christian perceptions of hate and forgiveness.
2. Hate as a continuum.
3. Christian contradiction - forgiveness vs. self-defense.
4. Individual vs. collective hate.
5. Spreading collective hate - virus, indoctrination (or should it be meme?)
6. Diversity as an antidote to hate.
7. Reason as an antidote to hate.

I can't even say for sure that this is the whole list! Does this mean we're all off topic? Don't care!

Let's see, I'm still drawn to the Christian contradiction. Being unlettered and untrained in Christian theology, I've been surprised many times, quite by accident, by finding a Christian theologist has already beaten me to a specific philosophical conclusion. So many times in fact, that I'm no longer surprised! This particular contradiction must have had some heavy thought invested into it already. Can any or you point me to some literature that addresses it directly? Your own thoughts are welcome too... Somewhere in this is the answer Joe was originally looking for.

Obviously, my thoughts concerning collective hate were quite muddled. Your posts have helped me some, but it's still not clear to me that a collective can hate. It's not like we have a Borg™ hive mind. Obviously, humans are predisposed to collective behavior, maybe due to our long matriculation as hunter-gatherers.

Do these collective behaviors, like hate, start with an individual and then spread to the group? Or is it a group dynamic that infects the individuals? Seems both mechanisms play a role. Would the first be more likely to spread if it started with a leader? Is it more of a tool of maintaining leadership? (Nazis, blaa, blaa, blaa) Or does it really provide an advantage in group cohesiveness? Would it be only a short-term advantage, since a highly cohesive group would be more likely hit a blind alley? Should this be another post/article?

Certainly, diversity and reason are antidotes to hate. These are, if somewhat limited, immunizations against hate. People seem to like to divide themselves into groups and the "they're all out to get us" meme still seems all to common. It's hard to hate "the Jews" for controlling world finance (or is it Holywood now), if you go to work everyday, and Jews are there. Some of them are smart, some not so smart. Some work hard, some don't. This spectrum of experience with indivduals, makes it harder to believe that they all go home at night to work on the evil scheme of gloabal domination. This process is natural.

Reason is a tougher road. There's nothing inately logcal in the human mind, at least at the level of conciousness. People have to be trained to reason. Many people can't seem to get there even with training. Don't know why, but it is so. It'd be much more profitable to mix kids around with other groups every few years. That would be better than all of the sermons against hate. What about foreign exchange programs starting in grade school? Should we make them mandatory? (just kidding!)

cbk,
Sorry. I didn't address you thoughts about the morality of group think...

Abviously, there are morality issue whenever someone surrenders all thought to a group, or a leader.

One thought...
What is it when the Israelis retaliate for a bombing by bulldozing the bomber's family home? Is this done only if it is known that the family suported the bombing?

Unfortunaetly, it seems both sides have to a large extent retreated into the group think.

I don't want this to devolve into a Isreali vs. Palestinian argument. With respect to force, Israel is showing remarkable restraint.

All,

This is an excellent discussion. There are a few threads in the air here and as we've shown it's difficult to keep exact track of who introduced what idea, so allow me to make some random comments. Some of these you may find quite provocative.

Who hates - the individual or the collective? Only individuals are capable of hate, yet it seems hate must be studied in the context of the mutually reinforcing relationships between individuals, i.e., "groups". Virus vs meme - a virus is a bit of genetic material that can't reproduce by itself, but requires a host cell, whose protein synthesis machinery it co-opts to replicate. It then destroys the host. I think this is an adequate analogy for the process by which hate "memes" infect otherwise healthy groups and institutions. A detailed analysis of the reproductive cycle of the hate meme is something I'd like to explore further. There are many obstacles to such a study - religious dogma, conservative intransigence, political correctness, you name it, there are folks who don't really want an objective analysis because it might threaten them. But as this discussion shows there are folks who are prepared to knock over their own mental furniture to attain some insight as to how to prevent planes from flying into buildings or nukes going off in New York or Tel Aviv. I'm too frickin' desperate to care whose sacred ox I'm goring. Let's figure this out.

The "Christian contradiction": I would observe that however conflicted Christian theology may be in the abstract, actual Christian soldiers as exemplified by the armed forces of the United States, appear to be largely unconflicted. They are lethal in war and yet do not hate as a group. Counterexamples can always be found but for the most part, the devout among them (and many are devout) go to worship and go to war. If they are uneasy with killing, (and understandably many are), I would submit that they find their faith in Christ soothes their unease rather than aggravates it. Perhaps those with more direct knowledge, such as Donald Sensing, could comment.

Reason - yes, reason is not a universal language. I am an engineer by profession and I'm quite aware that many people simply lack the capacity for any significant degree of rational thought. This sounds amazingly arrogant and vain but it's true - see the WoC post "M vs N" people above (The Two Cultures. Many scientists, engineers, and mathematicians hold those "rationality challenged" people in contempt. There was a time when I thought myself superior for my capacity to reason but I've attempted to outgrow this attitude, with some success I hope. I get over my 'tude through exchange with many beautiful and brilliant minds, minds with gifts far exceeding my own, who nonetheless - how can I put this - couldn't think their way of a paper bag. OK that's flawed, but at least its clear. I think this superiority complex on the part of rational adepts is a barrier to the spread of logic and reason - everyone can be taught to some extent, I really believe that. The poverty of Reason is partially a result of a lack of imagination and dedication of those who would be its evangelists. But regardless of attitude it must be recognized that "promoting logic and reason" is not a universal answer or the agenda of the Enlightenment would have been achieved long ago.

This leaves diversity - a diversity of groups as well as individuals. Hate often does not survive close contact with individuals of the hated group - "fraternization with the enemy". This is why I believe, that achieving diversity of important institutions (public and private) is an absolute social good of the first order. Sadly, "diversity" and "affirmative action" are objectives which have been co-opted by radical elements whose agenda is more divisive and confrontational than reconciliatory. These objectives must be reclaimed from them - to argue for "diversity" now practically identifies one as an "idiotarian" and something must be done about that. Further, I believe free markets and economic development are key to establishing a diversity of groups, as businesses and unions are added to the collection of identities which compete for an individuals allegiance. If you think being a corporate peon of a soulless transnational conglomerate is bad, try being a member of Hamas.

Evidence for the assertion that reason and diversity are enemies of hate can be found in the edicts against them which are issued by hateful groups. For example, the Wahhabi's (whom I accuse without apology of being a "hate group" of the first order) expressly prohibit reasoning about religion (they call it "innovation" and it is forbidden). Non Muslims may not even visit Mecca or Medina. Some pride themselves on never having met a non-Muslim (e.g., Mullah Omar).

Can hate be eliminated? I don't think so, and I don't think it is wise to try. Here is where the Buddhist, the Hindu, and the Republican (stop laughing, I'm serious) agree: we re caught in the cycle of samsara, of pain and suffering. Any attempt to create heaven on earth will make things worse, not better. The utopian always tends toward the dystopian. Group hatred have been suppressed in human societies but only by totalitarian mechanisms which were arguable more evil than the suppressed hate (because they also suppressed joy, music, innovation, food, life itself, etc). Therefore hate can be marginalized, denied fertile soil - but it cannot be suppressed. The United States does I believe excel in marginalizing hate, and yet its expression can be found everywhere. If we suppressed hate completely we would no longer be a free country.

If you read this far, you have my sincere appreciation and thanks.

WOW I'm serious, folks. This is THE best discussion I've seen in awhile, and I don't want to leave any stone unturned. The question of the 'true' Christian and his relationship to the State (ours) in a time of war, is an excellent example. We are at war. I, as a soldier, have some decisions to make. I am being asked to 'kill', and it is a collective killing. That does not relieve me of my responsibility as a soldier, and it does not relieve me of my responsibility as a Christian. (1) Is this war Just? If it is just, I have no choice. I must do my duty that I took an oath to fulfill. (2) Is this war Unjust? If it is unjust, and I participate, and therefore 'kill', I must accept the consequences of my 'killing'. A Christian may not participate in an Unjust war. (3) If I as a Christian, cannot determine whether the war be Just or Unjust, I must participate, for my country expects me to fulfill my duty. As a true Christian, I serve God (first) and Country. Authority comes from somewhere. Properly constructed governments, be they in ANY form, have nothing to fear from a true Christian, and as such, be I a soldier or civilian, I must respect the judgement of a higher authority.

Do I 'hate' Muslims? No. I do not 'hate' Muslims. I hate Islam. It is a 'religion' which oppresses and denigrates man and woman alike, enslaves its followers, and treats women as if they had no value. How can a 'Right-thinking' man rationalize such behavior? I Love the Muslim. I hold out Hope for the Muslim, and I was taught to treat the Muslim with Charity. Nothing has changed in 2000 years.

I don't 'think' there is any contradiction in true Christian behavior. If I find there is no contradiction in myself, there is none in Christian behavior.

Special kudos to LewyXIV, for giving me a 'break'. I apostrophicate at times, and tend to use obscure analogies. :o) No trollery here...

Cap'n, Thanks for the Christian perspective. Your point about a Christian killing in just war is well taken, but in my mind the Christian contradiction we're talking about still stands.

As far as I know Jesue never said anything about 'just war'. He DID say we should forgive our enemies. How can we kill them while we are killing them? That is the contradiction. Somewhere along the line, Christain philosophers reasoned their way to the 'Just War' doctrine.

I'm not so interested in the last step, where someone could explain what makes a war just, but I am interested in learning about the first few steps on the road from Jesus' teachings to the 'just war' concept. It's seems pretty counterintuitive to go from 'forgive your enemy' to it's okay to kill your enemy, at least in some cicumstances. There's some heavy thinking going there and I've never studied it. Anyone know a divinity student?

Doh! Of course I meant:
How can we forgive them while we are killing them.

lewy14 (that is a 'w' isn't it. sorry!),
I did read you whole post. If anything, this thread is going to lose me my job!

Your arguments about the wacko-left owning the diversity debate are understandable. Though, I'm not as pessimistic about it as you. Most people aren't stupid. When they leave school and enter the real world, they'll see how stupid many of the po-mo ideas are. And in the real world, they'll have to work with everybody. They won't be able to form victim cliques as easily.

Also, most college students aren't in the pure liberal arts programs these days. Most are getting technical training - business, engineering, science, computer science, economics, accounting, finance - you name it. All these students are going to have finely tuned BS detectors. We don’t have to worry about those.

We don't even have to worry about the Liberal Arts in general. All of these technical graduates are going ask all the big questions at some point in their life, look at us. All that REAL scholarship is still there waiting to be tapped. It's NOT going away. Why do people buy into these 'sky is falling theories'? This to shall pass...

Obviously hate can never be eliminated. We can't even fight against it directly. Just look at the stupid hate crime laws. Well these reduce hate? No. Expressions of hate? Not likely. Personally, I'd rather know if someone hates me. Trying to bottle up human impulses is crazy, it will just pop out somewhere else. The hearts of men is where the change must happen. The more we live together and work together, the better.

Lurker, regarding po-mo and diversity: my point is that the left has so discredited "diversity" (which they pretty mcu define, operationally, as hatred of white people and western culture) that there is a backlash among sensible people. Whenever you start talking about diversity, the eyebrows start to raise - "he's one of those idiotarians" and the debate shuts down. What I want to do is reintroduce are reclaim these terms so reasonable people are free to express their support for them, which I find overly difficult right now.

Like you I'm pretty optimistic about the current batch of students, their quantitative and analytic skills, BS detection abilities, and distrust of their leftist professors.

I still want to work through the structure of the Islamist virus. I maintain it is not strictly sourced in islam, that leftist / totalitarian strains of western thinking have contributed to the DNA. It's a hybrid. And I disagree with Danial Pipes that "radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution". There are, or were, fundimentalist Islamic societies which were not infected with this virus (pre-Soviet Afghani pashtuns, for example). Right now there are plenty of "moderate" Muslims (educated young women in downtown Amman or Damascus, no hajib, pretty hot looking), who spout anti-american and anti-semetic tripe that's a combination of Chomsky, Goebels, and BinLaden. I think more work needs to be done on the structure of this virus and how it spreads in order to devise more concrete strategies for countering it.

The problem is that almost nobody likes my analysis. The LGF'ers think I'm an Islamic apologist or "whitewasher", the lefties think I'm "racist" and "imperialist", the mideast experts are just condescending. Maybe this can get a better hearing over here at WoC. I'm hoping. I'm going to keep at it. But right now I have to finish my laundry. Thanks again for listening.

lewy -

I maintain it is not strictly sourced in islam, that leftist / totalitarian strains of western thinking have contributed to the DNA. It's a hybrid. And I disagree with Danial Pipes that "radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution". There are, or were, fundimentalist Islamic societies which were not infected with this virus (pre-Soviet Afghani pashtuns, for example).

A.L.

I am here seeking wisdom. Lost my job over 3 years ago, separated from friends, wronged by relatives, friend I was taking care of died, lost house, vehicle, trying to start over. What presents itself repeatedly is anger that has caused dizziness, though not lately. I don't think it's adrenaline dumping, but it might be. I've had open mind about beliefs in one deity in various forms beginning with Roman Catholic childhood, exposure to Buddhisn and Hinduism, and other eclectic Christian churches like the Spiritualist and Unity churches. I have thoughts of killing selective individuals in my family, which prompts the Old Testament law "thou shalt not kill", and all the philosophies, religious and otherwise do not lend me any tools for coping with the anger and injustice in involved with the denial of my means to support myself and have what I believe is a fair share in the estate of my parents, moreover, my continuing desire to have things returned to me that belonged to me and were denied me by immediate family. I had lived my life forsaking all of the anger and injustice and now that I have lost all I had worked for all of my life, not by hurricane or tsunami, but by the society into which I was born that does not require that people plant their own crops or build their own houses, and the "third world" is where millions starve without the Internet. I talk to God and pray for forgiveness and to be shown the righteous path. I even expose myself to unconventional Biblical study groups trying to find a new way to live, after I thought I had already found my way. If I get physically sicker and lose it, and kill my relatives, will my God forgive me, and has His son already died for my sins I haven't committed yet. Justice now could forstall all of that, but I do not believe it is forthcoming. I have made peace throughout most of my lifetime until recently, whence it seems I have experienced the trials of Job. It's easy to say "blow up the Nazis" or "kill Osama", but these people did not have any effect on my world until recently, when disproportionate amounts of the U.S people's money was spent or was borrowed, allegedly to deal with these issues, but probably more to make a profit for one corporation in the U.S., KBR/Haliburton. Jesus got angry in the temple. Is anger a sin? My own brother works for KBR. He's probably mentally ill. Should I kill him? Should I kill my sister who is selfish? If I can prevent myself from killing them, will this help to end war? No answers and no questions here really. Should I fast and pray like Ghandi until I win the fight or fall? Elai, Eli, Elijah sabacht-honey won't you allow me one more chance? I used to believe He would never forsake me, but I was kinda knocked off my high horse here, blinded and my head hurts, but no Saul/Paul redemption on the road to Damascus in my crystal ball, which I lost to unemployment and bankruptcy anyway. Soon I'll be thin enough to pass through the eye of a needle and poor enough to enter the kingdom of heaven, but I still want, my things, my dead loved ones, the injustice to go away, the eternal paradise promised to the righteous, forgiveness of my sins, and vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord, but can I write down a list of those I would vote for to take vengenace upon? They burned down Watts in 1968, didn't they? Call out the riot police. I'm tearing myself up inside, piece by piecce. I am a man of constant sorrow, I've seen trouble all my days. I'm thinkin' back to Colorado, the state where my great great great grandpappy's son's family was partly raised... Anybody know where I can buy a unidentifiable gun without registering for it? I'm getting pretty dang tired of all the immigrants in this country, too. The 113,000 Vietnamese refugees from the war now number 1,000,000 with their descendants. Not bad at all. Immigrants from Mexico probably top 20 million over the last 20 years. But it's the quadrupling of the population and the dwindling of the acreage that I find disturbing. Is this the end of the world? Bring it on. Or shoot me. Lord God Jehovah, forgive me my sins and lead me righteous upon the path to eternal paradise. Let us pray the Lord's Prayer together. Magically, I've been given my daily bread, but when me ole mudder dies, I'll be headin' fer that Salvation Army Shelter. If my body were not broken, I could work as a slave, but I would die right quick, as an 8-hour day behind a desk is very depleting to me. Medicaid is not available to the single white male over 50 who is broke, disabled, and lives with his mother. I worked for over 25 years. Can I get the drugs I used to have? I've been a refugee for over three years. Where's my $2000 check? Can I get a refund on my social security? That's over $100,000. Would that be enough to buy my way out of this hell for another year or so? Enough to buy pills to end it all? Doctor Kevorkian, where are you? Gotta find my way to Oregon before the Supreme Court votes to prolong my pain and suffering. Now I'm not so angry anymore. Quite mad, though.