|
19 Oct 03 - 01:23 PM (#1038007) Subject: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST I wanted to start a thread separate from the Rush Limbaugh thread to discuss this subject, because for me, it isn't about Rush Limbaugh, but Paul Wellstone. For the past month and a half or so, I have been struggling with my own personal need for healing the wounds ripped open by the neo-cons in the wake of Paul Wellstone's death a year ago. Being a native Minnesotan and life long activist who worked on many of the same issues with Wellstone and many others on the radical left here in Minnesota and throughout the nation and world, I felt personally savaged by the media and political establishment's rape and assault on the Wellstone family survivors, and the memory of the Wellstones and the other people who were killed in the plane crash. I will never forget the horrendous treatment the broader community of people coming together to greive, in our time of greatest vulnerability, received from both the local and national media and political establishment. It is hard to describe how deeply wounded so many of us were by that soulless, vengeful savagery. So one year on, a lot of us are trying to come to grips with our need to heal those wounds and move on. Paul Wellstone never suggested that we not view the neo-cons as our enemies--he was always very clear about the allies/enemies thing. But one reason why Wellstone was begrudgingly admired by a handful of his enemies, was because of his integrity--especially his integrity as a warrior of the radical left. He didn't have to preach family values to others, because he lived them. His marriage and his family are a living testament of Paul Wellstone's values. And so that is where I looked for solace and healing when, over the past weeks, strong grieving emotions for the Wellstones and their legacy would occassionally overtake me in a private moment of reflection. The one thing that has saved me from becoming bitter and cynical about the Rush Limbaughs and neo-cons of this world, is the absolute certainty of the knowledge that it is always, always too easy to hate, and too easy to seek revenge. Yet, I am not much of a believer in forgiveness as the ultimate solution either. At the end of the day, I don't want to mirror or echo the hate, the venality, the greed, etc. of the neo-cons and their charlatan media whore champions. Which only leaves one way to work towards healing the wounds in me--to work very hard on digging deeper within myself to find the loving compassion I know lies beneath the hurt and betrayal, and to struggle with all my might to maintain whatever amount of personal integrity I have. The only way I know of doing that is to let Rush Limbaugh be Rush Limbaugh, and the neo-cons be the neo-cons. I know we won't ever defeat them once and for all, because evil is always present in this world. The only reasonable, IMO, thing we can do is our best to struggle against it, and stand up and work for what we believe in. I have no doubt that we are living through some very dark times right now--through yet another era of graft, greed, hate, and corruption. I know the world will not always be this way, which does make it a little easier to continue struggling against all these things I must oppose with every fiber of my being, because to do otherwise, including jumping on the vengeance bandwagon, would be a betrayal of who I am, not who the Rush Limbaughs of this world are. Rant mode off. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 01:29 PM (#1038013) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: wysiwyg Good toolbox HERE... ~S~ |
|
19 Oct 03 - 01:29 PM (#1038014) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: alanabit I agree with just about every word you have written. So why do you feel the need to remain completely anonymous? Please give yourself at least a pseudonym so that at least we can identify you when you post again. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 01:35 PM (#1038016) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: mack/misophist Not hating benefits the person refusing to hate. But we must never forget that our enemies do hate us. Their hatred is a significant portion of the fuel that fires their efforts. A man who refuses to hate must work twice as hard. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 01:38 PM (#1038018) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST Thanks for the thoughtfulness in providing a link to a counseling website WYSIWYG, but I don't view what I am going through as something that require counseling. I am a firm believer that grieving is normal, natural, and healthy. It doesn't require counseling, or religion, but an adult acceptance of the world as it is, and the desire to learn and grow. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 02:10 PM (#1038033) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST alanabit said: So why do you feel the need to remain completely anonymous? Please give yourself at least a pseudonym so that at least we can identify you when you post again. Why not just accept it as an interesting post? Not everyone wishes to communicate in the same way as you. That you found the post of interest should be enough. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 02:10 PM (#1038034) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Amos There is no reason to hate your enemies -- they are just stupid people, much like ourselves. But if you have the integrity of your position, you won't spend a lot of time loving them, either, until you have made sure they can't harm or overrule you. This requires knowing what you are standing for and why, though. A lot of people can't even state these things clearly. A |
|
19 Oct 03 - 02:17 PM (#1038040) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST I agree that it is much harder and a lot more emotional and intellectual work not to hate, than to hate misophist. But I'm not just talking about not hating, I guess. I'm also talking about loving one's self first, aren't I? As you pointed out, not hating one's enemies requires a ton of work. And reaching a level of maturity as an adult, where loving acceptance of one's self and one's own human frailties becomes somewhat routine regardless of the stresses we face, is a ton of work. Personal experience has also taught me that it usually entails a good amount of pain and suffering too. Maybe that is why it is so hard to maintain one's integrity over time. Enduring a good amount of pain and suffering isn't a choice many people choose to make, whether it is physical or psychic pain. And it is SO EASY to justify taking the easier way out of the pain, because you have a lot more company along that road, than you do the road to your own integrity. I don't feel like a saint about it though. It is actually fairly easy for me, because I'm a person who enjoys my solitude. So, while taking a stand for what I believe in (and I'm talking about taking a stand that results in negative consequences for me personally) is almost always really hard, for me, standing alone isn't so bad at all, because of the joy I find in solitude. If that makes any sense. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 02:19 PM (#1038041) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow If you love someone you want what is good for them. What is good for hateful and repulsive people is that they should cease to be hateful and repulsive, and that's what you want to happen to them. Think of loving them in that light and it's not so hard. It's not about feeling fond of them. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 02:23 PM (#1038043) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow And I agree with alanabit - pleasestick a pseudonym on that "GUEST" of yours. Otherwise, if this thread goes on, and I think it should, some other nameless GUEST is certainly going to chip in, and it'll become very confusing. Particularly if it's a hatefilled "GUEST" as some of them can be. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 02:25 PM (#1038045) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST Well McGrath, you must be a candidate for sainthood, because I don't love my enemies either. I just try and remain detached about them, and wary, certainly. That is quite wise, IMO. I also don't want to come off as holier-than-thou about this, because a) I'm no saint, and b) I'm not perfectly consistent about this. I struggle with feelings of hate too. But it usually doesn't take me long nowadays to realize I'm angry and frustrated and appalled, etc etc. But being angry, etc doesn't require me to hate. But not hating my enemies doesn't mean I have to love them, either, IMO. That would be much too Catholic a solution, for my tastes (I was raised Catholic). I'd much rather settle for being detached about them, and dancing with my own demons. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 05:22 PM (#1038094) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST,John Hardly "I know we won't ever defeat them once and for all, because evil is always present in this world." wow. I guess zealotry isn't the domain of the right is it? |
|
19 Oct 03 - 05:33 PM (#1038100) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow We're all of us by definition candidates for sainthood. That's one definition of a human being. Loving your enemy means you want them to stop them being your enemy. Wanting that to happen isn't that far out of reach. Maybe if you hated them, and wanted to hold on the the hate, you wouldn't want them to change, because that might get in the way of doing that. NB I'm writing this on the assumption that GUEST 19 Oct 03 - 02:25 PM is the same as GUEST 19 Oct 03 - 02:17 PM and GUEST 19 Oct 03 - 01:23 PM. However, as I pointed out in my last post, there's no reason some other GUEST might not be doing the posting, so I won't be responding to any further GUEST posts here without some kind of pseudonym (however temporary) attached to the GUEST, for the reasons I gave. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 07:39 PM (#1038131) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: wysiwyg Guest, that's a peer-to-peer healing thing, not a counseling thing, actually. ~S~ |
|
19 Oct 03 - 08:02 PM (#1038142) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: mg you could start by reframing your belief that they are evil. Not everyone who thinks differently than you is evil and needs to be smote by some such as yourself. Perhaps they are in thrall to their religious beliefs imposed by their culture. Perhaps they have very good intentions for humanity and see a different path to achieving it. mg |
|
19 Oct 03 - 08:05 PM (#1038143) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST Knowing evil when we see it has little to do with partisan political zealotry, John Hardly. There are plenty of evil doings going on across the political spectrum. In that, I include much of what the current and previous administrations have done. Politically, I'm a registered independent, which means I'm neither Democrat or Republican. So what sort of political zealot does that make me exactly? You seem (to me) to be suggesting that glossing over the evil acts our political leaders commit (and that most the population colludes with) is what, morally superior to naming the evil and standing up against it, because that might make us appear to those who are the evil doers and their collaborators perceive us as zealots? |
|
19 Oct 03 - 09:01 PM (#1038151) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Sorcha Wow. A lot to respond to here. Guest, I agree wholeheartedly with your views, but I really agree with alan and McGrath about a temp handle. A lot of us onccasionally post as Guest after logging out, but we use a new handle to differentiate us from oher Guests. I really only hate one person in my life, but it is soooo much trouble that I rarely bother. I would dearly love to have my sister back, but as long as she is married to the Sneaky Snake, I won't. Nuff said. Hang in, Guest, you are on the right track. |
|
19 Oct 03 - 09:31 PM (#1038157) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST I'm fully capable of distinguishing between people I disagree with politically, and people who are committing acts I believe to be evil. I disagree with many people about many things in the course of a day, much less a lifetime. Disagreement doesn't bother me, any more than people holding differing opinions from me does. But people engaging in evil, which I define according to my values, not anyone else's--I view as something very different. I once encountered a director of a nursing home whom I believe was the embodiment of evil, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with politics. And I called that man evil to his face, in front of his staff. Many people were deeply shocked by my behavior. So be it. That man, and the people who worked with him, know that I not only saw through the authoritarian veneer he hid behind as he committed some seriously evil acts against both the nursing home residents and it's staff, but that I was willing to risk his wrath and my job, to confront him and his evil doings. He was not fired, and he was not jailed, although both things should have befallen him for what he did (which included breaking the law). He was, however, reported to state authorities who regulate nursing homes. He was investigated, found guilty of the very evil acts of which I had accused him, and the nursing home (not him) received a warning. Like I said, most people will collude with the evil doers every time. That is how Enrons happen, and wars against impoverished third world countries who can't fight back happen, and that is exactly how now Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota won his Congressional seat in November 2002. IMO, the banality of evil is well protected by most of us. There are always those who will insist that politeness, or political correctness, or conforming to the dominant view, or fear of being ostracized or punished, or the desire to win at any cost--whatever the justification might be--demands we NOT name evil for what it is when it is confronting us. After all, no one wants to be called a zealot for speaking out, now do they? We all know that having the courage of one's convictions makes one a zealot, right? |
|
19 Oct 03 - 09:43 PM (#1038158) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Midchuck Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate -- and quickly. Robert A. Heinlein, in the Notebooks of Lazarus Long Peter. |
|
20 Oct 03 - 05:33 AM (#1038244) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow "...I really agree with alan and McGrath about a temp handle. And still no acknowledgement of this from the GUEST in question. I can't help feeling very suspicious about this. |
|
20 Oct 03 - 08:53 AM (#1038315) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Bobert There is a strong movement by many on the left to frame the issue of hating *behaviors and policies* of the neo-cons. This is an imporatnt difference if we are to capture the imagination of the American people. The neo-cons, after they displayed an 8 years hatred of Bill Clinton, turned the tables quite nicely in getting people to think that that hating the president is somehow veru un-American... So, we have to saty the course and learn the new comapny line 'er we're not going to get these dangerous people out... And we have to think as Jesus would about the way we think of our fellow man which is not inconsitent with hating bad policies and rude behaviors... Yeah, I know it is tough. But it's part of who we are and what we value, or should, as folks on left be or value... Bobert |
|
20 Oct 03 - 09:11 AM (#1038327) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Greg F. Perhaps they have very good intentions for humanity and see a different path to achieving it Equally valid assumptions are that perhaps they're assholes or fascists. |
|
20 Oct 03 - 09:20 AM (#1038337) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: mack/misophist "Perhaps they have very good intentions for humanity and see a different path to achieving it" Do you mean like Hitler, Lenin, and Mao? |
|
20 Oct 03 - 07:52 PM (#1038667) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: LilyFestre Personally, I find that hating someone or a situation takes up a great deal of energy that could be much better spent. Sure I bitch and moan about stuff....but then I do my best to move on to something more worthwhile. Hate doesn't change anything but the person doing the hating. Michelle |
|
20 Oct 03 - 08:50 PM (#1038690) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow Hating people spoils your aim. I meam that figuratively (though I believe it's true literally as well). |
|
20 Oct 03 - 08:51 PM (#1038691) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow As Che Guevara put it "A Revolutionary Is Motivated By True Feelings Of Love" |
|
21 Oct 03 - 12:53 AM (#1038762) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: LadyJean Have you ever met someone without a conscience? I have, more than once. Do NOT make such a person your friend. |
|
21 Oct 03 - 01:16 PM (#1039033) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST a person without a conscience is incapable of being a friend. |
|
21 Oct 03 - 02:04 PM (#1039072) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: DougR Evil is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it Guest? DougR |
|
21 Oct 03 - 03:52 PM (#1039150) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Amos So too, is Axis, Sir R! :>) A |
|
21 Oct 03 - 03:55 PM (#1039151) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk Returning to the original subject of the thread...I think it is unwise and unhealthy to hate anyone. Of hatred it is said that it consumes the vessel which contains it. Hatred, like all negative emotions, is very harmful to the nervous system and psyche of the one doing the hating, and it doesn't lead anywhere useful. As for "enemies", the wise person doesn't have any...although some unwise people may name him or her their enemy on occasion, due to their own misunderstanding. I have people I disagree with, but I don't have enemies. I have gone through periods of hating this or that person, not to any useful effect, I can assure you. To say that I strongly disapprove of a political group or their actions is not to say I hate the people involved in it. I may be concerned about them, and I may have to take action regarding them, but why get drawn into hating them? It's a toxic emotion. To recognize evil is prudent. To face it is courageous. To hate those practicing it is to fail to see them as the complete beings they are. The best way to proceed in life is to decide what you love and put your energy there, where it can do the most good, rather than staying focused on what you hate. I have to remind myself of this just as much and as often as anyone else, by the way. - LH |
|
21 Oct 03 - 04:26 PM (#1039171) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: mack/misophist Little Hawk: Your argument is impressive but it fails to take sociopaths, psychopaths, and the few willful bastards who do evil for it's own sake into account. I have it first hand that hating Hitler and hating Nazis helped a lot of men make it through WW2. |
|
21 Oct 03 - 04:31 PM (#1039175) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: InOBU There is no such a thing as evil. Evil is a void which can only be filled with love. Enguaging evil with hate, creates that same void in your own heart. Cheers Larry |
|
21 Oct 03 - 05:40 PM (#1039224) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow Being enemies doesn't necessarily mean that either of you hate each other. How does hating someone make it easier to defeat them, if defeating them is something you think needs to be done? |
|
21 Oct 03 - 06:09 PM (#1039234) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk It's the emotion of hatred I'm arguing against, Mack, not the legitimate courage and resolve to defend oneself against an attack. It's also natural to feel the emotion of hatred when under extreme threat from some persecutor, but it's still not a useful emotion...and it's particularly damaging when people hand onto it long after the threat has vanished. The Nazis did not see themselves as evildoers, they saw themselves as defenders of all that was good and decent. They saw themselves as the saviours of Western Christian society. (They weren't anything of the sort, but that's how they saw it!) The fact that their key leaders, such as Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and many others pandered so much to the emotion of hatred to establish a following pretty well guaranteed that the Nazi movement would end up being a very destructive one, and sow the seeds of its own demise. So, watch out for leaders who work hard on the hatred angle, I'd say. That would include both Mr Bin Laden AND the Bush administration, who are each intent on hating each other to the bitter end. I prefer warriors who respect their adversaries, honor them, and see in them a reflection of themselves...but it takes a lot of vision to do that, and it doesn't occur to most people most of the time. What made the Nazis strong and effective was their love of country, their patriotism, their discipline, and the other positive emotions that underlay their sense of duty. What made them weak and doomed them at last to a bitter defeat was their unthinking allegiance to the power of hatred. They finally had created just a few too many enemies. I think the same thing may happen to the USA eventually, if it persists in empire-building all over the world by military force and financial blackmail. You're right that hating Hitler and the Nazis was a strong motivator for Allied soldiers, but loving what they were fighting for was a stronger one, I believe. Everyone who willingly fights in a war fights primarily in defence of his own identity and that which he knows and loves. (which is exactly what most German soldiers were doing, but they had very misguided leadership at the top). To assume that the enemy is "evil" is a simplistic and usually highly inaccurate assumption...but it makes great sounding propaganda. Just ask Goebbels about that. As for sociopaths and psychotics...they are sick people. What good could it possibly do to hate a sick person? You don't have to hate him to stop him from hurting people, you just have to take appropriate actions...in defence of what you love. - LH |
|
21 Oct 03 - 07:02 PM (#1039274) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: akenaton Little Hawk, I havn't previously posted to this thread ,but your obviously heartfelt messages have impressed me deeply . I agree with everything you say ,and it all corresponds with my own personal phylosophy. From your words i'm sure you have found peace of mind and understanding. The things we all search for in life Best wishes Ake.. |
|
21 Oct 03 - 08:31 PM (#1039308) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk Thanks, Akenaton. I'm working on it...the old hatreds don't always die easily. I like your membername. - LH |
|
21 Oct 03 - 11:05 PM (#1039375) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Amos The emotion one feels in a period of hatred is an intense anger, usually, and an impulse to destroy the target of that anger. This is a perfectly legitimate and rational emotion under certain circumstances, such as hand-to-hand combat or even intense struggle for survival in some other venue. It is possible but much more rare to feel enthusiasm while fighting for one's life, but a good solid anger is not misplaced. When it persists after the actual moment, and goes on to inform a person's whole life, it becomes a misplaced emotion, the basis for neurotic or psychotic behavior. A |
|
22 Oct 03 - 03:06 PM (#1039845) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST DougR, No, I don't think evil is in the eye of the beholder--particularly when we are talking about the banality of evil, and how often the majority colludes with it. Although I do agree there is sometimes widespread disagreement on acts of evil and evildoers within a society that is sustaining evil acts and evil doers, as has been the case throughout history. For instance, many people around the world now agree that what the Bush administration is doing in the Middle East, is evil. And I would include the acts committed in the name of the US in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel, as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many people internationally also view the unilateral abrogation of the nuclear treaties by the Bush administration to be acts of evil. Another exampleis 9/11. Not too many people in the world see the events of 9/11 in any terms but evil ones, except for a small minority of people who support the evil acts of those evil doers. |
|
22 Oct 03 - 05:42 PM (#1039923) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Raedwulf Another exampleis 9/11. Not too many people in the world see the events of 9/11 in any terms but evil ones, except for a small minority of people who support the evil acts of those evil doers. Funnily, enough Mr (or is it Ms?) irritatingly anonymous Guest, the people responsible for that are resolute believers that what the Bush administration is doing in the Middle East, is evil. which is why they did the former. It rather makes a mess of your statement that I don't think evil is in the eye of the beholder, though I don't suppose you'll be able to see why. And give yourself a bloody handle!!! How many more times? Call yourself "Struggling with hate", or something, but refusing to and blankly ignoring members' perfectly reasonable requests to do so is grossly impolite. |
|
22 Oct 03 - 05:54 PM (#1039929) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow Well, I agree with Raedwulf about that GUEST's manners - but I can't follow the logic of the earlier bit. No doubt the September 11th organisers and perpetrators believed that "what the Bush administration is doing in the Middle East, is evil". That doesn't make what they did on Septemeber 11th any less evil. And the fact that what happened on Septemebr 11th was evil doesn't in any way mean that what Bushg is doing in the Middle East is any the less evil. Bush and Bin Laden clearly differ on a lot of things - but it seems fairly evident that they are agreed on one thing, and that is that, in the course of attacking what you believe is supremely evil, it is alright to kill thousands of innocent people. |
|
22 Oct 03 - 05:57 PM (#1039931) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow Well, I agree with Raedwulf about that GUEST's manners - but I can't follow the logic of the earlier bit. No doubt the September 11th organisers and perpetrators believed that "what the Bush administration is doing in the Middle East, is evil". That doesn't make what they did on September 11th any less evil. And the fact that what happened on September 11th was evil doesn't in any way mean that what Bush is doing in the Middle East is any the less evil. Bush and Bin Laden clearly differ on a lot of things - but it seems fairly evident that they are agreed on one thing, and that is that, in the course of attacking what you believe is supremely evil, it is alright to kill thousands of innocent people. |
|
22 Oct 03 - 07:00 PM (#1039956) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk In other words, "two wrongs don't make a right". You cannot defeat evil by imitating it. (But you may score a temporary "victory", and to many, if not most people...that is all that matters.) Movies and TV dramas are generally sustained and inspired by such primitive emotional scenarios, and this encourages such an attitude in people generally. The terrorist is invariably someone who believes he is responding to an unjustified attack or persecution upon his people (or some people somewhere) (or even animals or plants somewhere). Reacting emotionally in the most visceral way possible he lashes out in violence at the "evildoers", as he sees it...and usually kills or harms a whole bunch of innocent bystanders. The people he lashed out at then declare him a terrorist and practice counter-terrorism in return, using their own weapons of mass destruction...and kill or harm a whole bunch of innocent bystanders. If they're lucky, they may even get a few of the original terrorists, of course, but the game seldom ends there... In the 60's the Weather Underground did this, protesting the Vietnam War, racism, and capitalist exploitation of America. Their ideals were of the highest, their conscious intentions were laudable, their methods were violent and terrorist in nature. Bin Laden did it numerous times, culminating in the attack on the WTC. The American government has done it numerous times in a great many places, most recently in Iraq. The Israelis and the Palestinians do it to each other on a regular basis. It's all terrorism, and it's all a great shame. - LH |
|
22 Oct 03 - 08:08 PM (#1040021) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Bill D it is too much work to hate your enemies, either personal ones or societal ones (big difference) but it is energy well spent to know your enemies. There is nothing so satisfying as outflanking them on occasion, because you outwitted them. |
|
22 Oct 03 - 11:43 PM (#1040102) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: toadfrog Now, what is truly noble and virtuous is not to "love your enemies," which is truly an oxy-acetyline moron. That's right, tell 'em "oh, I love you, it's just yer filthy ideas I hate." "I'll pray for you every night, so that you see the light, like me! "That always goes over big. Sort of like the old saying "A soft answer turneth away wrath, and besides, it makes him madder than anything else you you could've said!" (Heh! Heh!) Rather, true virtue is not to have any enemies. I'm not sure I can achieve that blissful state, but you guys are probably more soulful than I. Hating sounds like a very exhausting activity. But perhaps it's unavoidable. |
|
23 Oct 03 - 02:02 AM (#1040133) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk If you go around telling your erstwhile enemies how much you love them, toadfrog...I see a great deal of trouble and embarrassment in your future. :-) They will not have the least idea what you are talking about (assuming you even meant it in the first place), and I don't believe for one minute that that's what Jesus had in mind when he gave those teachings. It almost invariably doesn't work. Did Jesus tell the moneylenders how much he loved them before he threw them out of the temple? Declarations of love are wasted on people who don't care. You're quite right that the wise and virtuous tend not to have any enemies...unless in the power of their wisdom they begin to effect noticeable social change! Then they suddenly have a whole lot of enemies, and very dangerous ones too. Witness what happened to Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc... To "love" people, in spiritual terms means: to wish them no ill, but rather wish them well at the deepest, most profound level. This does not mean you have to love their outward personality, their outward behaviour, or anything else they are projecting onto the world around them...nor does it mean you have to PUT UP WITH IT! I don't. Wrongdoers don't learn a thing if people put up with them, so the most loving thing you can do for them is not to put up with them. How else are they going to change? If you don't believe people have eternal souls...or if you don't believe that the soul is intrinsically good (regardless of the rotten outer personality it may be temporarily acting through, as a result of abject fear)...then what I've said may not make sense to you at all. And if that's the case, so be it. - LH p.s. And of all the abject fear in the World, organized religion has probably cast the biggest load of it on a suffering humanity in the last few thousand years, so don't think I'm talking for some fundamentalist church. I'm not. Then there are the military organizations...they've done a pretty good job of it too, specially since the invention of the A-bomb. When people are afraid and overcrowded, they turn nasty. Same thing happens with animals. I'm frankly surprised we're doing as well as we are, considering the pressures we're all under. |
|
23 Oct 03 - 08:11 PM (#1040725) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: DougR GUEST: It seems to me that you support my point. The people who are responsible for 9/11, and those who support them, do not view what they did as evil! In some of the Mid-Eastern cities there was rejoycing in the streets! Did they view that 9/11 tragedy as evil? Of course not! McGrath said it was so it must have been. One of the few times McGrath and I agree on something. :>) However, I stick by my statement. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. One more point: is it to be assumed that because a person's view of subject differs from others, that person should be hated? Because there is disagreement does it follow that one or the other is evil? My views on most political subjects discussed on the Mudcat differ from the majority here, but I certainly don't think those who view things differently are evil, nor do I hate them. Even Bobert! Even McGrath! :>) DougR DougR |
|
23 Oct 03 - 09:20 PM (#1040755) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow My point was that there was an essential similarity between the ethical position of Bin Laden and Bush (and those who agree with them). Both evidently believe that they are combatting something supremely evil, and that this justifies actions which mean the death of many thousands of innocent people. I think that the general view of people who believe this kind of thing is that, while killing thousands of innocent people is indeed evil, it is a necessary and therefore a justified evil, rather than a good thing in itself. I agree that in a real sense "evil is in the eye of the beholder" - people who are involved too closely in actions which are profoundly evil, such as September 11, are virtually certain to have found ways of justifying these to themselves. Only if you are "a beholder" - including victims in that term - can you see such actions for what they really are. In order to understand an adversary, which is important if you wish to anticipate what they might do, and how they might react, it is necessary to recognise that in their eyes what they do is either good or else a necessary evil. |
|
23 Oct 03 - 09:42 PM (#1040762) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Bobert Well, danged, Dougie! (The Bobert wipes a tear from his cheek...) I'z real glad that you don't hate me! Real glad. And I don't hate you either... Might of fact, I loves ya', even if you is a knucklehead... which, of course, you are.... And I love Mr. Bush, though he makes you look like Timothy Leary, but I'm purdy danged steamed at him fir all the stupid stuff he has done to our country.... But I don't happen to *like* anything about Mr. Bush. But, hey, Dougie, I like you!!! Sure do... Yer' gotta a sense o' humor. Mr. Bush only thinks than when other folks are gettin' hurt that it's funny... Bobert |
|
24 Oct 03 - 01:42 PM (#1041168) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Raedwulf I thought it was fairly obvious, McG. Those that flew the planes into the WTC did so because they believed they were justified. Justified by the fact that what America does to the ME (in their opinion) is evil. Killing is not against Islam. If you must, then you may do so, & they felt that they had to. Actually, it's not even against christianity (depending on how you translate the hebrew). This is not the argument that anonymous, craven, absent Guest makes. Guest seems to be a zealot whose argument is "what hurts me is evil". Perhaps not as rigidly so as some zealots, but notice that acts outside of Guest's cultural knowledge are automatically labelled as evil, regardless of the fact that they are justifiable by cultures that Guest seems to have no understanding of. I am not a monotheist, & I believe in neither absolute good, nor absolute evil. I will defend even Hitler from the charge of evil. I can apply many adjectives to him. I think he was a raving lunatic. Twisted, warped, misguided, foolish, narrow-minded, & self-blinded. But he did what he felt was justified & what he felt was *right*. We judge him because he lost, not because he was wrong. Is he therefore evil? Are *you* (whoever *you* are) so very, perfectly, absolutely, unequivocally right? Think again. Because that's what Adolf thought, too! Scary isn't it? I don't believe in Evil. I do believe in humanity, whose follies & graces have been conspiciously demonstrated throughout all history. Evil is deliberately acting against what you accept is right, & few do that. (N.B. I know that last remark is not watertight, but I cannot do better just now. I know what I mean, I hope someone else can make it plainer! ;) ) |
|
24 Oct 03 - 02:35 PM (#1041187) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST DougR, I understand what you are saying, and your point is certainly valid. There are no hard and fast rules that define evil once and for all, which is why people struggle (or if amoral, don't struggle at all) with these questions. I'm just trying to share my point of view with you, not win or be right about this. My point of view is informed by what many people refer to as the "reasonable person" standard. In other words, a reasonable person would agree that the events of 9/11 were evil acts, or that the indiscriminate bombing the Israelis have been engaging in over the West Bank and Gaza in the past couple of years, are evil acts. As are the suicide bombings. I think reasonable people can agree on that. That is the sort of thing I think reasonable people do agree on. There are always unreasonble people who will refuse to agree too though, as you pointed out about the perpetrators of 9/11 and their supporters. But that, in my mind, doesn't mean that evil is in the eye of the beholder, but that those people who don't see 9/11 as evil are unreasonable, regardless of what their reasons and justifications are for seeing 9/11 as an admirable, or even reasonable act. It is a subtle difference, and I apologize if I'm not articulate enough to describe the difference in a way that can be easily understood. My failing with words, I guess. |
|
24 Oct 03 - 02:48 PM (#1041196) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: DougR GUEST: I think we may have a problem with semantics. We are not that far apart. McGrath: I agree with your last post. Bobert: I wuv you too! DougR |
|
24 Oct 03 - 04:19 PM (#1041246) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Raedwulf Is GUEST the same GUEST wot started this thread? Does GUEST now begin to understand why so many of us would like to see an identifiable handle? |
|
24 Oct 03 - 09:52 PM (#1041390) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow I really think the best thing is to skip over the GUEST (nameless)posts. It's a pity because, among the various people who post that way, there is at least one and perhaps more (how can one tell?) who has things to say that can be worth reading. But reading and responding to such posts is merely encouraging the silly bugger to continue playing this silly game. If we could only ignore such posts maybe the person or people concerned would give up on it, and post in a more courteous and helpful way. As has probably happened a good few times in the past, and noone the wiser. |
|
24 Oct 03 - 10:23 PM (#1041407) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Bobert Not to mention, McGrath, that this particular GUEST has a more than certain "my way or the highway" attitude toward 9/11... How many folks that had nuthin' to do with 9/11 would GUEST go to war with? Why is it that 95% of the hyjackers were SWaudi and we've gone to war with non-Saudi countries? How come that on 9/12 the only airliners flying over the US were Saudi, picking up Bin Laden family members? How come the Bush and the Bin Laden familys have been tied so closely thru business deals for the last 2 decades? Yeah, GUEST, it's real easy fir you to sit back in yer' total anonomous and ignorant "safety den" and fire away as it you really actually know something. You don't! All you know is what you read off the bumper stickerds off the redfnecd picup truck in front of you. Like, get some facts to balance out yer stupidity... Bobert |
|
24 Oct 03 - 10:52 PM (#1041424) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Bobert Ahhhh, just a sidebar, Raedwulf, but what you have brought up here is quite relavent in the big picture. Because the *revisionists* have been so hard at work in sugarcoating history so that folks will think in terms of good and evil, it sometimes gets hard to find the gray areas. In 1938 there were over a half a million Nazis in the USA. They had camps where they sent their kids in the summer. They held conventions at Madison Square Gardens in New York. They were, like, big time! Then comes WW II and, whew, we can't be talkin' about American Nazis afterwards, can we? So everything got revised and so 99% of the American people don't know about these *facts*.... And the beat goes on.... Heck, it's been less than a year since the US invaded Iraq and the "revisionsits" are burnin' the midnight oil rewritin the *stories*.... Bobert |
|
25 Oct 03 - 05:08 PM (#1041729) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow "this particular GUEST" - but which one is it on any occasion? All it's possible to say is "the person who wrote this particular post on this particular day at this particular time said this. It's impossible to know whether it's the same as on any other occasion. Moreover, without that it's not even possible to know if what is written is written in the direct mode, and that it is meant to be taken straight, or in some would-be ironic mode, where it's meant to be interpreted as meaning something entirely other. I can't be fashed with that kind of nonsense. |
|
17 Jan 05 - 06:08 AM (#1380410) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: freda underhill .. hating one's enemies can lead to peculiar pastimes.. Rattling her chains - in jail January 17, 2005 sydney morning herald A woman who harboured a grudge against her husband's employer, has been sentenced to four months' imprisonment for terrorising the boss by making ghostly sounds at his castle-like estate. The 42-year-old woman, whose name was not released, was convicted on nuisance charges after she allegedly spent weeks masquerading as a ghost and making mysterious noises, Austrian television reported. Police captured the woman on videotape after the jittery owner, who employed the suspect's husband, begged authorities in the alpine province of South Tyrol to solve the mystery. The haunted owner had complained of hearing footsteps in the hallways and slamming doors late at night at the estate near Austria's southern border with Italy. It was unclear why the woman had become angry. AP |
|
17 Jan 05 - 09:22 AM (#1380535) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: LilyFestre Little Hawk, You wrote: "To "love" people, in spiritual terms means: to wish them no ill, but rather wish them well at the deepest, most profound level. This does not mean you have to love their outward personality, their outward behaviour, or anything else they are projecting onto the world around them...nor does it mean you have to PUT UP WITH IT! I don't. Wrongdoers don't learn a thing if people put up with them, so the most loving thing you can do for them is not to put up with them." ~It's a message I needed to read today on so many different levels. Thanks for posting it. :) Michelle |
|
17 Jan 05 - 10:26 AM (#1380580) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Peace There is a big difference between hating one's enemies and dealing with one's enemies. The assumption being made (I think) is that dealing with an enemy requires hatred. That is not so. Sometimes it's just 'takin' care of business'. |
|
17 Jan 05 - 10:43 AM (#1380596) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk I'm glad it had that effect on you, Lilyfestre. A wise person does not look for enemies. He looks for opportunities to do positive things in the World. It may be that someone decides he is their enemy, because of his positive activities. That happens, specially when those activities have a big effect. It happened in the case of Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many others. It seems that great good is annoying to certain people. :-) (Mainly because it threatens established power structures.) Well, there's no use hating those kind of enemies, because if you subscribe to the consciousness termed "hate", you start becoming just like them. It's a toxic emotion. What you have to do is continue to love the good in this World, and not waste your energy hating the evil. Those who love the good are quite good at defending it. Joan of Arc loved France dearly. Accordingly, she proved to be an excellent battle commander and defeated the English time and again when no other French commander had been able to do so for 75 years prior to her campaigns. Yet...it was noted time and again that she had great compassion for the English who fell in battle. She gave them far more generous terms in defeat than was customary, allowing them to leave surrendered fortresses with their horses and their weapons, as long as they would leave peacefully. Others at the time would have simply killed them all without mercy. She wept over slain enemy soldiers, pitying their families who would not see them again. These were powerful demonstrations of a person wise enough to fight for what she loved, yet not to hate her enemies. That is the wisdom given to saints, and it's a shining example to the rest of us. |
|
17 Jan 05 - 11:45 AM (#1380661) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: wysiwyg I think we sometimes confuse rage-- a momentary emotional reaction-- with hatred, a long-term, settled-in, chosen attitude and mindset. ~S~ |
|
17 Jan 05 - 01:48 PM (#1380732) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Tannywheeler Somewhere in the first 4 books of the New Testament Jesus is (reputed to be) talking about loving friends and hating enemies. He says (approximately): ...Pray for those who despitefully use you, for by so doing, you heap coals of fire on their heads. Brother Dave Gardner (anyone remember Bro. Dave? Where is he now?) was blunter: "Love yo' enemy -- drives 'em nuts!!!" (Bro. Dave: "Ah smoke tuhbakuh 'cuz it's a suhthun produk -- Ah'd smoke chains, if Ah could laht 'em.") Tw |
|
17 Jan 05 - 03:06 PM (#1380791) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: LilyFestre For given situations, I think hatred and rage certainly go hand in hand. Given time, I think rage subsides and depending on your nature and wants for yourself, hate can either grow or that can subside as well. Michelle |
|
17 Jan 05 - 03:28 PM (#1380813) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST,heric Romans 12, 20-21: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. ----------- When Alexander Haig was seen smoking Cuban cigars in Moscow, and questioned, he said "I like to think of it as burning their crops." |
|
17 Jan 05 - 04:05 PM (#1380838) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk Very good answer, Mr Haig! :-) When Pierre Trudeau was questioned by the press as to how he felt about being called an "asshole" by Nixon on the Watergate tapes, he smiled and said, "I've been called worse things by worse men." |
|
17 Jan 05 - 04:31 PM (#1380855) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST,Frank Guest, Paul Wellstone is a hero of mine. His book, The Conscience of a Liberal should be required reading for every political science and civics class in the country. It was a brilliant answer to Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative. Wellstone outlined a powerful agenda for liberals everywhere and his legacy is with us in these times. Anger has to be channelled. Hatred becomes an incapacitating response but there can be no illusions about what the Neo-cons are about. They want to have a single Party system in this country (very fascist) and destroy the liberal view. This will be impossible since most of the country agrees with much of the liberal viewpoint although some have been brainwashed to demonize what they think of as liberals. Liberals don't generally drive fancy cars as Paul Wellstone showed us. He traveled in a beat-up bus to talk to the people. He was about love and meeting the needs of the American people through public service. He was a man of conviction and carried this into his campaign. In short, he gave politics a good name. Nowadays we have a conciliatory and cowardly DLC that threatens the demise of the Democratic Party. Wellstone and Dean represent the true Democrats. Also Micheal Moore and Move On. We intend to turn our anger into action. It's the anger at injustice by a cold, heartless Administration and I for one want Bush to be alive and well enough to stand trial for his misdeeds. We can indict him at the polling booth once we reform the electoral system that is being co-opted by fraud and cheating through black boxes and state voting irregularities which disenfranchise Black Americans. If Martin Luther King were alive, he would have marched in Ohio and Florida to protect our voting rights. Paul Wellstone did not leave us a legacy of hate, but was a beacon and model for what we must do next, reclaim America through our moral values. Care for our children providing them with health insurance and a good public education regardless of whether they're rich or poor. Care for our elderly by not allowing their Social Security to be stolen. Care for our land keeping it secure from the rape of corporate polluters. Care for our young men and women in the service by bringing them home and keeping them out of harms way. Care for our Democracy by returning the political power to the people from the hands of wealthy corporate fat cats. Care for our working class by instituting unions that protect them. Care for our legal protectors who keep our citizens safe from irresponsible pharmaceutical payoffs to the FDA and those who jeapardize the health of employees. Take back our Democracy. Channel that anger and use it for justice and fairness. That's what Paul Wellstone was about. Frank |
|
17 Jan 05 - 04:56 PM (#1380866) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: PoppaGator On this day when we commemorate the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, let's give a moment's thought to his example, demontrating how to oppose and defeat one's enemies with love and non-violence. |
|
17 Jan 05 - 05:08 PM (#1380874) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST might not hurt to expand that thought to include opposing and defeating one's idealogical opponents here on the Cat without resorting to personal invectives or flaming. |
|
17 Jan 05 - 05:47 PM (#1380897) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: McGrath of Harlow Most of us do in fact generally avoid the personal invectives and flaming. What is harder to do is to resist falling into the tricks of debating - for example, when we ignoring the weak points in our own positions, and the strong points in those of the people we are arguing with. The aim of arguing here ought to be to try to get closer to the truth, and to get a clearer understanding of the views of those who disagree with, together with a clearer undewrstanding of what we ourselves actually think. (And I also think that we should avoid doing things which we know are seen as unfriendly and discourteous, such as posting as unnamed GUESTs.) |
|
17 Jan 05 - 05:51 PM (#1380899) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: wysiwyg (And I also think that we should avoid doing things which we know are seen as unfriendly and discourteous, such as posting as unnamed GUESTs.) Or such as continuing to post things like that, knowing full well it re-ignites the Guest controversy, each and every time. ~S~ |
|
17 Jan 05 - 07:10 PM (#1380979) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: *Laura* "Never hate anyone - it's too close to love and makes it hard to kill them if you have to" - Hugh Laurie. xLx |
|
17 Jan 05 - 07:45 PM (#1381011) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: LilyFestre I'm kinda of the mind that you can't hate someone if you haven't loved them. Michelle |
|
17 Jan 05 - 08:18 PM (#1381039) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Auggie Apologies to McGrath. I am the anonymous guest of 5:08. One computer, five users, well, you know the story. I knew the cookie was gone and just forgot to fill in the box. I'm not the Enemy. Please dont hate me :) |
|
17 Jan 05 - 08:25 PM (#1381044) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Auggie I find I'm also the unnamed 5:01 guest on the Martin Guitars Again thread. Once= a mistake. Twice= just plain stupid. It's OK to hate me after all. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 01:26 AM (#1381188) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk That's an interesting notion, Michelle, and there may be a great deal of truth in it. Hatred is often a reaction to the sense that love has been denied. In other words, people hate it when their dearest expectations are not met. The path of enlightenment involves, among other things, doing away with the whole concept of expectations and learning acceptance of what IS rather than longing for what only MAY be. That seems impossible to most people, and is a very, very hard thing to do, for sure. I think 2 things can cause hatred. 1. the sense that love has been denied or betrayed...and/or 2. extreme fear. But that which knows it cannot die (or even be damaged), does not fear. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 01:39 AM (#1381192) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST I was told by a reader of many self-help books that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 01:46 AM (#1381196) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: dianavan Know your enemy but do not hate him. It does more damage to yourself and gives him too much power. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 02:02 AM (#1381203) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk There is no opposite to love. People make up opposites to explain something they think is lacking. There is no opposite to heat, but people think there is, and they call it "cold". Cold is not a thing in itself, it's simply a perceived lack of heat. It's a no-thing. Heat is an energy wave. Cold is not. Love is like heat. Love is real, it's an energy, and it's a powerful thing. When people sense a lack of it they make up words and claim that there is the "opposite to love". Not so. There is no opposite to light either, but people think there is, and they call it darkness. Darkness is not a thing. You can't beam darkness into a lighted room. It doesn't exist. It's just a word to label a lack of light. A shadow is not a thing either. It is again, simply a noticeable blocking of some available light. Hate is not the opposite of love. Neither is indifference. Love is totally encompassing, totally vital, and it HAS no opposite. Hate is a fearful emotional reaction to a perceived lack or threat. Indifference is a complete lack of emotional reaction to something. Love is a power much greater than forms of emotional reaction...though it certainly can stir emotions in a useful direction. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 03:33 AM (#1381237) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Dewey If you go through you life thinking that everyone that disagrees with your position politically is an ENEMY, you weaken yourself. Whatever divides us weakens us. Politics is very divisive because people have closeds mind on the subjects before they even get started. The subject of poltics for example isn't quite that serious for me (LOL) though I have voiced my opinion before here and had to shut up by those that thought themselves tolerant, that SAY they want to love their enemies, but in reality can't stand their gutts for daring to disagree. Good Grief its bad enough that many see those that dis-agree with them as enemies, not alone the fact that they are having a difficult time loving their "enemies", And they say WE conservatives are the ones that are intolerant, Those that take Politics it too serious, only weaken themselves. President Clinton understood this which was why he was such a Giant of a politician and genius. You have to admit this is true reguardless of your political persuasion. As for the Wellstone family, their wonderful legacy of caring for the community is going to be overlooked by their partisanly making fools out of themselve by villifying everyone politically that they thought was different from their own liking. The way the Wellstone memorial service turned into a political rally just went to show the Wellstone's were more "enemy oriented" than thir so called "enemies" Booing Trent Lott, who was decent enough to take some time out of his day to honor Mr. Wellstone's memory and service to the country was unfair; as was talking about Political races during the memorial service itself. This was not only, a dishonor to Mr. Wellstone, but to the State that elected him. It didn't even give the Rest of the Conservative Minnesotans a chance to honor his memory. I am conservative myself, and though I would probably not have voted for Mr. Wellstone even if I had lived in Minnesota. I would have definitely liked to have had an un-biased oppportunity to pay homage to this wonderful human being without the divisive backlash of those who think one has to be a liberal (not just an American) to appreciate this representative who by the way represented us ALL reguardless of political persuasion. Like Governor Vertura said at the time, We were "Shamed and Duked" (the citizenry that is, by the intolerance of those who claim to have so much of it). I face this condescending, non-inclusive, non-open-mindedness rubbish on mudcat all the time. The other person (usually Conservative) is always wrong and the enemy. Having strong beliefs in politics is one thing, but ALWAYS being right is ALSO WRONG, and so is having so called "enemies" merely because one disagrees and is working in opposition to your un-inclusive plans. Optimistic people find common ground and learn from others and very often if they do not change their opinions poltical or otherwise, they can accept the other person's opinion or at least work around it somewhat for the beneficial good of all involved. I wish this tribal mentality of "enemies" on Mudcat was desolved, it does so little good and diverts us from the common good of what is beneficial, that is each other. Politics is mass histeria just like Religion can be and effects clarity of mind, decision and purpose, which is why the politicians love and use it so much. I have no hard time admitting this myself and I know of some liberal issues and causes that have changed my conservative opinion on various issues, but I can't hardly, or seldom do, learn anything.... if I think the other person is always the one in the wrong and. "Dangerous" based on my pre-concieved notions of the world. Sure Limbaugh says some dumb things that can un-knowingly spur hateful acts. But then again so does/did Malcolm X, Louis Farakan etc. And, I don't judge the whole movement of a politcal party based on a few rabble-rousers in one persusion of another, Such persons are not inclusive of any one party whether the Repulican party or not, there are rabble rousers in Libertarians, Conservatives, Socialists, Democrats etc.. THE ONLY ENEMY I HATE IS RELIGIOUS AND POLITCAL INTOLERANCE. (possibly I think the guest may have a little bit of this :-) I don't hate anybody, I get annoyed however by the vast amount of intolerance on the mudcat over things that really don't matter. People and their progress as citizens is more important than individual ways in which we all see the world. Whether through organized religion or politics. Anything that divides us is not of a spritual, creative, everlasting, benefit to the progress of mankind. Not to hurt your feelings Guest...but, this would indeed include the Wellstone rally. Wellstone was far ahead in the polls, even after his death when Mondale took over. However, it is my opinion (and it still it JUST my opinion) that his divisive rally didn't win him any swing votes, i.e. open-minded conservative that otherwise might have voted for him. He (Mondale after much cockiness and bragging) in fact lost voters that he once most likely had (prior to the Wellstone family speech) and went on to LOSE the election in droves. When Jesus said. "Love you enemies" he meant to look beyond them and and their current state of affair and faults and see the Good that is within them from outside of your own self-imposed ego. When Jesus walked into a room his very presents would light up the room, he radiated with energy and love, and he certainly could not have had some love towards others in this manner if he viewed himeself as seperate, different and an ENEMY of them. You can't give away something that you don't already posess yourself. So let's stop hating people over their politics and religion, this is far worse of US than it is of the particular religion/politics in which they practice! After all politcs and religion doesn't really effect us and our world as much as we THINK it does, and if it does it is becasue of our tribal mentality. Who we are as INDIVIDUALS is far more important than the so-called, leadership that represents us. Great moments that effected human civilization since the beginning of time always came from the bottom up, not from the so called leadership that was supposed to allegedly represent us and and was supposed to solve our so-called "problems" that resulted. Actually most problems we make are though ourselves and through our attitudes and beliefs toward other people and/or their beliefs towards us (i.e. tribal mentality) Let's be careful in making enemies (myself included) as it is more easier and rewarding to make friends, and you grow and learn more spiritual and intellectually from having done so in this capacity, than to worry about the sacredness of your politics, religion and/or ego. Dewey |
|
18 Jan 05 - 09:56 AM (#1381286) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST,Amos LH, just to keep the record straight, heat is not an energy wave. It is a measurement of molecular motion. As to love and hate, it is a truism that the magnitude of the break is directly proportional to the prior affection or connectedness experienced. That's why hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, as they say. A |
|
18 Jan 05 - 12:28 PM (#1381393) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: TheBigPinkLad >That's why hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, as they say. I suspect the word 'scorned' is redundant ... ;o) |
|
18 Jan 05 - 12:31 PM (#1381397) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull I need some new glasses, I thought it said= On Not Eating Your Enemies. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 12:42 PM (#1381404) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk What causes the molecular motion, Amos? Energy? Science is an attempt to describe reality with words (definitions), but words will always fall short of fully describing any reality. Reality can be experienced, but no series of words will ever serve to completely explain what is experienced. Words are mere conventions, agreed upon within a closed loop by those who already know those words. To someone else outside that particular loop, it doesn't matter. But...heat is perceivable, and will always be perceivable, regardless of what words you use to describe it. The same goes for Love and for Light. Without a knowledge of molecular vibration, you still have heat and you still experience it. Dewey, you are so right. Politics is the Great Divider. It sets people against each other who would otherwise be the best of friends. It has caused the unneeded deaths of billions. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 12:49 PM (#1381412) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Amos Thermal energy is defined as a molecular motion. It is measured by the metric we call temperature. Obviously energy is involved -- but there is a difference between energy in wave forms and energy manifesting in molecular motion which may be in any pattern or no apparent pattern. Just because energy is involved does not mean that "heat is an energy wave". That concept went out when we outgrew phlogiston theory. When you play energy over molecules they get excited, and move around, so obviously energy in wave form can induce heat--anyone who uses a microwave knows that. But to say they are the same thing is sloppy. Words fall short to the degree they are used sloppily. They can be quite good at paralleling experience, although no-one would ever claim they WERE experience. A |
|
18 Jan 05 - 01:07 PM (#1381425) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk Beautifully stated, Amos. You know your words very well indeed. By your standards I was using words sloppily. But isn't this like arguing about whether an art deco print is from the 1932 edition or the 1935 one? The point I was making was...that Love has no opposite, and neither do heat or light...except in the conventions of language. They are phenomena that happen along a scale of perception from most to least... LIGHT...less light...still less light....still less light...no light. We call "no light" "darkness". Darkness is not something in itself, it's just "no light". There is no opposite to light. There is no opposite to Love. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 01:37 PM (#1381450) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Amos "Opposites" are -- as you say -- only semantic constructs. In this universe, anyway, all qualities are infinitely gradual. Bi-polarism is a defect in the eye of the beholder. That's why artificial intelligence is such an oxymoron. Analog systems are infinitely gradual; binary systems are bipolar. Even though the transistors used in computers have a whole range of gradient values as outputs, we reduce them all to two for the sake of logic in its primitive two-valued form. (Well, three: true, false, and don't-give-a-shit). Genuine intelligence integrates huge numbers of variables flying through infinite gradations. A |
|
18 Jan 05 - 01:39 PM (#1381453) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk Yeah. I think the key problem in human perception, actually, is the belief in diametrical opposites. It spawns opposition and misunderstanding. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 06:55 AM (#1382152) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: 42 LH why do you think the process isn't dark, less dark, even less dark, light. ? j are you comparing dark to evil? shame on you. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 07:44 AM (#1382172) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Dewey So true Brother Little Hawk! So True Brother Amos! So True Sister Guest! I'm gonna go get a job today, instead of writing 'til 6:30 a.m. I'm Getting tired of Surviving on Little Debbie's Snacks and 99 cent double cheeseburgers from McDonald's. The New Bush Economy! (LOL) Just kidding (sort of :-) Actually, in truth things are going to be O.K.: I have found myself another silent invisible partner, and we are going to be a roaring success someday, despite the fact that I have not re-cognized him and the power of his position initially since our meeting. Since he is so, so good to me at making everything else work, I'm just gonna leave the business end to him (LOL) He is a tough partner though: found out he expects me to work every day feverishly for what it is I am called to do for him, though he is very nice in sharing the rewards with me of that work he is demanding of me. I better not disappoint this very important guy though, he is not big on disappointments, he is much more of a progress kind of guy by nature, as I'm sure all the rest of you here know that have ever met, heard, or saw him at any time yourself and at any turning point in your life. Dewey If it's gonna be its up to me (or I should say US!) My two year spiritual retreat to find myself is about over. Thank God! Sorry can't resist the following quote: "What is behind us and what is in front of us, pales in comparison to what lies WITHIN us" Ralph Waldo Emerson |
|
19 Jan 05 - 12:00 PM (#1382367) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk It's academic, 42. There is no such thing as dark...it's simply a lack of light. A lack is not something in itself. Nothing is not something. If you think it is, then find me a darklight that you can press a switch on and beam some darkness into a lighted room with. :-) And if you think this has ANYTHING to do with racial issues, you're dumber than I think you are! |
|
19 Jan 05 - 02:27 PM (#1382439) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Wolfgang It's easy: there is no such thing as hunger..it's simply a lack of nutrients in your body system. A lack is not something in itself....If you think it is, then find me something which makes a body filled with nutrients hungry. Actually, I could beam some darkness into a lighted room with a switch. We perceive dark and light only relative to the surroundings. So if I switched on a much stronger light outside of the room, the room would immediately look darker than before to us. Wolfgang (feeling academic) |
|
19 Jan 05 - 03:04 PM (#1382484) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Amos Hold on there. Hunger is CAUSED by a lack of nutrients, but it is a distinct transmission by the nerves and the brain, isn't it? Don't they send signasl they wouldn't otherwise? This is going over into the silly business of saying that pain isn't real because all physical reality is merely an illusion. This profound discovery fails to notice that the body is PART of the damnedillusion!! There was a faith healer named Neil Who declared, "Although pain is not real If I sit on a pin, And it punctures my skin, I dislike what I fancy I feel! Don't ask a thermometer not to believe in temperature!!:D A |
|
19 Jan 05 - 03:10 PM (#1382493) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk Yes, Wolfgang. :-) Hunger is a useful message from the nervous system, signalling a lack of nutrients. I did not say that there are so such things as messages, useful or otherwise. You can compose a message about anything, even something completely unreal. Example: Wolfgang, there is a large eggplant devouring your house! And your Russian Campaign game just spontaneously combusted, preventing you once again from achieving victory for either side in 1945! (completely untrue in both cases, but it IS nevertheless, a message...) |
|
20 Jan 05 - 06:57 AM (#1383042) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: 42 never crossed my mind LH. I'm surprised and offended the thought occurred to you. just a question of semantics and perception. j |
|
20 Jan 05 - 07:45 AM (#1383064) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: robomatic GUEST: I have a problem with your initiating post. First of all, no handle. You can preserve your anonymity while establishing a reference, and you should, particularly when you start a thread. There is a certain amount, a LARGE amount, of self-serving in presenting yourself as a victim (by association) of hate while presenting your opponents as hateful. Need I remind anyone this is one of the common attributes of the White Power movement, but a common enough technique of extremists through the ages. I was a fan of Sen. Wellstone, without knowing him or his activites that well. He was one of those people one is glad is 'out there', raising the quality of the debate. I remember the tragedy of the accidental deaths of Sen. Wellstone and members of his entourage and family, not to mention aircraft crew, as they were landing. I remember a somewhat confusing memorial function which was critiqued as to whether it was a true memorial for Wellstone and the spirit of his work, or a political gambit. It seemed to be not quite a dignified ceremonial commemmorance, not quite a rally. This confusion was represented in the press, and I shared it. I am not a regular listener to Rush Limbaugh and I do not consider him a neocon; the term seems to be relative to the person who uses it. I have no idea what 'savagery' is being referred to in the wake of Sen. Wellstone's passing. There have been some intriguing and interesting posts to this thread and I would have more to say, but the confusion introduced at the very inception by Guest has contributed to 'thread muddle'. |
|
20 Jan 05 - 09:12 AM (#1383133) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk The thought occurred to me cos I just can't resist bugging you now and then, 42. :-) |
|
20 Jan 05 - 10:54 AM (#1383218) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Greg F. Forgiveness, like compassion, could be extended only so far. For many former slaves, the teachings of Christianity and their recollections of bondage would never be easily reconciled. Harry Jarvis remembered working for "de meanest man on all de Easte'n sho', and dat's a heap to say." Early in the war, he fled the plantation, eventually joined the Union Army, and lost a leg in the Battle of Folly Island. Some years later, two white schoolteachers questioned him about slavery days, his escape and army service, and his intense religious conversion immediately after the war. "As you have experienced religion," one of the teachers asked him, "I suppose you have forgiven your old master, haven't you?" The question came unexpectedly, the glow immediately left the man's face, and he dropped his head. Upon recovering his composure, he straightened himself and gave his reply. "Yes, sah! I'se forgub him; de Lord knows I'se forgub him; but" - and now his eyes suddenly blazed - "but I'd gib my oder leg to meet him in battle!" The schoolteachers thought it best at this moment to terminate the conversation. (Armstrong & Ludlow: Hampton and its Students, 109-114 |
|
20 Jan 05 - 03:44 PM (#1383519) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST,Art Thieme I can honestly say I hate no one. All the bastards I hated are dead. Art |
|
20 Jan 05 - 03:51 PM (#1383525) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Once Famous i don't really hate anyone here. but then again, I don't think anyone here is a part of Hamas, are you? |
|
20 Jan 05 - 10:19 PM (#1383859) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Tannywheeler So, nobody remembers Brother Dave G, hunh? Tw |
|
20 Jan 05 - 10:23 PM (#1383861) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Bobert If we are all collectively God's creations then to hate one another is to hate oneself... Hate the behaviors... Not the man... Bobert |
|
20 Jan 05 - 10:27 PM (#1383866) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Little Hawk That's it, Bobert. In a nutshell. Jesus' teachings were not lost on you, ol' pal! People commit harmful, even terrible acts out of fear and ignorance (and a variety of misplaced assumptions which = ignorance). That is why Jesus said, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." |
|
21 Jan 05 - 07:56 AM (#1384155) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: freda underhill yep, Bobert, you got it in a nutshell. |
|
21 Jan 05 - 01:32 PM (#1384492) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: GUEST,Art Thieme What about disliking, disrespecting, and then deciding to avoid the person for the rest of my life. They were morons, cretins and all around heinous individuals for ever thinking up and then carrying out the behavior in question. (But they don't belong at Guantanamo.) Art Thieme |
|
21 Jan 05 - 03:22 PM (#1384583) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: Donuel politics is not always divisive. For example the robomatic post about Wellstone was the first time I could agree with anything I have seen him write. Meanwhile- some great contributions were found here in general |
|
21 Jan 05 - 03:34 PM (#1384595) Subject: RE: BS: On Not Hating One's Enemies From: robomatic Donuel - I'm touched, you define the meaning of that word anyway you want! Have a great weekend, artistic one. Robo |