|
|
|
#42
03-14-2008, 05:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Joe,
I don't know if that woman is a nut or not but I think she's evil. She is certainly hate-filled and mean-spirited, at best. Of course she belives what she said. Does that make it any less evil or twisted? Hitler believed what he said too. Would you hate to hear him called a nut? The apostle Paul, before he was converted, killed Christians. He believed what he said too and probably would have gone on killing Christians if the Lord hadn't struck him blind to get his attention. Unfortunately, God doesn't seem to do things like that in this day and age. BlueGirl 
|
|
#43
03-14-2008, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#44
03-14-2008, 08:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It appears this case is rare, perhaps exceedingly so. However, I mention it because I believe it is extremely dangerous to be unaware of the possibility of encountering someone who may embody evil. Not acknowledging this remote possibility leaves one open to extreme harm. As rare as it is, it is important that we remain open to the possibility that this m m m m might happen. I believe that it can. (about 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 times - I'm not sayin' everyday.) In more everyday terms, I agree with Joe. Typically, people are not deliberately 'being' evil, or deliberately causing harm. But I am very carefully aware that there may be the rare person who has somehow 'become' evil. Or acts 'as if' so - in which case, our response to them must be one of self preservation and preservation of other innocents. If someone is in fact 'evil,' our response to them will fail if it is based upon an assumption they are not, leaving us open to greater harm. Eyes wide open, alert to possible surprises, that's all I'm saying.
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#45
03-15-2008, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
At risk of hijacking, I find it VERY relevant to understanding your post, Zerbie: how do you define "evil"?
I don't think it's all that rare to find evil people, which led me to question my definition of the word. I've got one, in terms of the vocabulary you use, and i'm ok with it, and still think there's entirely too many people out there who fit the bill.
|
|
#46
03-15-2008, 11:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
An evil *act* will be easier to deal with conceptually than thinking that a *person* is evil. Evil actions are far more numerous than evil people (assuming there are any evil people, but I do think there may have been a few of those.) Evil acts can run the gamut from knowingly goading others into acts of violence against an innocent third party, seeking out somebody to bash with a baseball bat for a Friday night thrill, urinating on a sleeping homeless person knowingly for laughs, the list could go on. Anything done with cruelty and a willingness or intention to harm or hurt or degrade life could possibly be placed in the category of evil action. More 'iffy' is the question of whether extremely harmful acts done unknowingly or in the intention of getting a 'good' result can be categorized as 'evil' acts. Possibly. Let's try an example. If one deliberately teaches others that gays are a horrific danger to civilization, that can plant an idea in the mind of, let's say, an ignorant 14 year old kid who might gun down a gay classmate. Thus, the words of the first person are responsible (indirectly of course, and surely not solely, yet still responsible as they are part of the cause) for the murder of one child and the imprisonment of another. For the record, I use that scenario as an example because it is fresh on our minds, NOT because I think that Kern (the original topic of this discussion) had anything to do with or is in any way responsible for that incident. I am simply searching for ways to relate cause and effects, NOT saying that Kern was part of the recent events in CA. Maybe it's a bad example, but it is the one which came to mind. Alecto, if you are seeing a lot of evil people in this world then it seems you are perhaps using the term 'evil person' very liberally. If we identify every evil act as done by someone who must be evil, then I can see coming up with many evil people. However, one evil act does not necessarily make a person *an evil person,* I believe. So I am curious how you define evil, Alecto. To what degree do you separate the person from the actions, if you do? I love the points made by Nate and Joe, that quite probably, the Kern woman (going back to our original topic, finally  ) actually intends to be doing good. Personally, I find it questionable when someone deliberately slanders an entire group in such an extreme way and despite such an outpouring of concerned opposition on the side of love and equality that they *could* believe they are doing something good - BUT I'm not in her head and I haven't witnessed the complexity of thoughts and emotions over the years that led her to logically conclude her position is 'right.' Maybe she does think she's doing something good. And if she does believe it's good, then her action is evil but She Is Not. If this scenario is the case, she herself is also a victim of homophobia, albeit a victim who perpetuates the same evil she herself is victim of. Nate and Joe are right; if this is the case, it is a sad one.
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#47
03-15-2008, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I would love for us to move away from these moral labels of others and ourselves. Right, wrong, good, bad, evil, good, nice, mean, fun, boring are all just moral labels we inflict on others and ourselves. Who do we think we are that we can make these sort of judgments of others actions? Thes3e labels don't serve us well and they are the source of a system of violence. As we move away from the labels, we also move away from violence.
|
|
#49
03-15-2008, 02:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
  My whole point in the supposedly judgment-laden post was that I was avoiding making any. I was sure I hadn't made ANY, but have been deliberately suspending any kind of judgment since I don't know what she believes or intends. Funny, since I think of myself as one who rarely comes down with a judgment. Maybe that isn't accurate. You have me confused, Joe. Now you've pointed out that I said she deliberately slandered. Yes, I was absolutely sure it was deliberate and I'm still sure it was/is slander. Is it a moral judgment if that's what it in fact is? Or is it just an observation? Yes, I assumed she was deliberate, because I don't see how one can slander an entire class of people by accident. Maybe one can. Maybe she did. I don't know. It is interesting that I couldn't see a possibility of her words NOT being deliberate slander. It NEVER occurred to me it might not be deliberate, or I would have qualified the statement. From what little I've heard of her responses since the outpour of confrontation, it seems like she is quite deliberately defending the position after the fact. Therefore it does seem deliberate to me, at least in her hindsight. What you're hoping for will probably never happen, Joe, if you're hoping that we can all get away from what we know and what we've witnessed/experienced when new input (like Kerns' remarks) comes along. We have to pin our thoughts somewhere. But I appreciate you opening us to assumptions we don't know we're making. That is helpful. I suppose it would be good to have noticed something like this might NOT be deliberate. I've always known that slanders like what came out her mouth are, well, slanderous. That's so foundational, I cannot imagine someone not knowing that's what they are doing. Sure I'd like to get away from lots of assumptions, but something so foundational is going to be really difficult to change, and sometimes, when it has to do with basic human decency, you will find me a tad inflexible here or there. That doesn't mean I want to label the whole person away as bad. I will rarely, rarely ever want to do a thing like that. See, you've got me defensive now. Anyway, I'm happy to settle for: her actions were despicable, and maybe she really just doesn't understand that yet.
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#50
03-15-2008, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just because the opportunity is here, I am taking it. Sorry if I cross the line of devil's advocate.
Quote:
What if Sally Kern said this to you about something you said that you really believed in? How would you feel? You might say to yourself or her, "Despicable, what are earth are you saying, my words are congruent with my faith" Could we choose to settle for.... Observation without judgment or diagnosis (What did Rep. Kern do exactly as said like it was recorded by a tape) How did it make you feel (be sure it is an emotion) What need of of yours' was not met by her statements or action? What would you like to be different and why?
|
|
#51
03-15-2008, 06:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This is not about my personal needs. Why are you putting things into such terms?
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#52
03-15-2008, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It isn't about you Zerbie, but I was using your post an an example. Maybe I didn't present it in the best way.
|
|
#53
03-15-2008, 11:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
We didn't connect on whatever we were just talking about. But I do believe our positions aren't THAT much different from one another.
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#54
03-16-2008, 03:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
She's enjoying it.
Quote:
__________________
Nothing bad can ever happen. ~God
|
|
#55
03-16-2008, 04:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why can't you just say the truth of how you feel about the comments Kern made, say what you think in a truthful way does not mean condemnation. You can point out that not only are the comments hurtful but not factual. To me how does that express hatred and violence? To me condemnation is judgment call ,for example, her words do condemn homosexuals as not normal, spreading an agenda, trying to infiltrate schools to get to young kids(Probably left out the word pedophile, perhaps she knew that would really get her in hot water) But her words in effect demonize gays as dangerous and with evil intentions.
This is the same ol' song and dance people hear from the religious right over and over again, LGBT's are not portrayed as people or human beings but they apparently see LGBT people as subhuman and not worthy of respect or fair treatment but as unworthy sinners of the worst sort who are going to hell; also words used , depict us as demonic, disease bearers, subversive,out to destroy the fabric of our society and traditional marriages and families. Anything they can use as a weapon to dehumanize and denigrate LGBT people. They have no qualms about stripping LGBT people of equal rights and have no empathy what-so-ever about those who suffer because of this type of oppression. You just don't walk over to someone like that and treat them with kid gloves, you confront them honestly and speak your truth , you can do that without expressing hostility or attack, but you can let them know that their words foster animosity and hatred toward gays and distort the truth and spread misconceptions and stereotypes that are hurtful.. That is a world of difference than wishing them harm or hoping they go to hell (or maybe fall off a cliff or some other vindictive fantasy)or some other malicious intent. You don't wish the person ill, but you stand for your truth and speak up assertively, but do not fall into the same trap of demonizing them.When people cannot identify with the humanity in others ,it is easy to hate or see them as "not human" or degenerate. History is replete with such examples, look at the Nazi's propaganda of the jewish people as they set out to destroy them; Jewish people were the worst kind of "animal", spread disease, were criminals ,abnormal, pathological,perverted,threatened children,violate the bible.......according to Nazi viewpoint (refer to:http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html) Sound familar? Sounds like people haven't learned lessons from history and what this kind of prejudice and fear mongering foster.It did bring about the holocaust after all. The destruction and suffering of innocent people. Last edited by ladyinred; 03-16-2008 at 05:20 AM.
|
|
#56
03-16-2008, 06:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
I get the frustration, but you guys were doing really good.
Quote:
Quote:
Technically, I don't think Joe sees evil. He sees it like A Course In Miracles sees it, as a call for love. A need for love, a need to overcome fear, etc. In principle, non-existent. As ACIM states, love has no opposite, and if love has no opposite, logically, evil must then be the love of the absence of love. I read it asked once, "who is evil?" The response was, "A person who loves evil." I recognize my own hatred. I make it a point to keep tabs on my love of it.
__________________
Nothing bad can ever happen. ~God
|
|
#57
03-16-2008, 08:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm with ya Patrick
Quote:
 When I read it, it reminds me of the mind training methods that are used by Buddhists ect. I see a great deal of the methods of nonviolence in it.Having the perception of evil may be something quite different that the actuality of it. How about we put it into stark terms? (perhaps annoying, stupid, or unhelpful) But was Jeffrey Dahmner just killing people for the fun of it or can his actions be seen as a call for love? I think you can may a case for the latter- twisted though his actions may be. And there's another way to put it, just because someone is certifiably 'mad' doens't make that person evil, just mentally ill. The action of a mentally ill person isn't evil, is it? Though I can see why it could be seen as such. ' I think these matters are matters of perspective. I agree with Joe on one huge thing: the ability (which I personally believe bears some kind of training) to 'see' the actions of others in a context larger that the one offered by the person making/taking the action. Just supposing Ms. Kern does in fact have a gay son. Her subsequent actions words and actions, though they be twisted, could be seen that 'call for love'. Sure. She may be enjoying all the hoopla right now it, but that's what ego's do when run amok. Does her actions heal the (we suppose) breach with her son? No. In Course in Miracles terminology, Ms. Kern (her ego that is) is choosing to be 'right' over being 'happy'. I do not doubt that the desire is there within her (in fact I would bet on it- buried though it may be under a ton of fundi belief) to be 'happy' with her son. What she probably can't face is her own hate- so must project it outward. Simple psychological math. Ergo: what is her need? To love her son without judgement. To do that she's going to have to drop some baggage along the way. And isn't that we're all about? Addressing the stuff she's carrying, and not the person? Back to Zerbie's thought: can the person carrying the baggage become the baggage? Good question. Sounds like another thread to me.
__________________
Be the love you seek. Last edited by Daniel; 03-16-2008 at 08:37 AM.
|
|
#58
03-16-2008, 09:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Daniel is correct, I don't see evil. I do not really believe in evil. I believe in needs and that not every strategy to meet our needs is the best one.
It is true, I do not believe in god. I struggle with wording things perfectly for those who do believe, so I do not offend them. Otherwise, I find they close their ears and hear nothing I say. I have never read a course in miracles, but have been told I should. Quote:
I believe, we must choose words that do not condemn or reward, but express feelings and needs. The reason for this is that justice must be restorative not punitive or it only promotes more violence. Read Marshall Rosenberg's book "Speak Peace" or "Nonviolence Commmunication" to learn more....
|
|
#59
03-16-2008, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
One last thing for Daniel and it is just a note: People with mental illness like to be refered to as people with a mental illness. Not, the mentally ill. They are not their disease.
|
|
#60
03-16-2008, 09:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thank you for the correction
Quote:
This does, of course, open up interesting territory insofar as those who veiw gayness as an illness. In that sense, we are seen as one and the same. This also reminds me of something Gore Vidal said- though I can't remember the exact words- but he was opposed to the whole idea of people calling themselves gay or homosexual. He was implying- of course- that what people do is not synonymous with what they are. I believe he saw the matter as the difference between being a noun and a verb.
__________________
Be the love you seek.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
