Virtual Illusions

Richard Cohen in his 12/18/2001 op-ed extolled the virtues of anger. I’m here to disagree.

Anger is a broadsword of an emotion. It is used with great utility in fighting for your life but it is indiscriminate. It makes no subtle distinctions it groups large number of people together as one because anger is the broadsword in comes and sweeps across the room in broad strokes.

Mr. Cohen admits this himself but doesn’t realize it. When he speaks of the “sensation of power and clarity” he is speaking about that happens when you stop being concerned about the consequences of you actions. It happens when you decide it is too difficult to discern innocent from the guilty and so you wrap yourself up in your justification pull out your broadsword and start swinging.

It fails to capture the complexities of living in a modern, global world. Nations, tribes, faiths and cities are not homogeneous there is no where for that anger to be directed. Anger is the precursor to the Jihad and pogrom. It is a crusade and a witch hunt. It leads to the persecution of the innocent.

It is the ultimate arbiter of the us vs them mentality. If you think your justification makes you special what do you think has propped Osama Bin Laden up all these years? It is anger that drives him and his followers. In his equation we have wronged him and his people. He claims a grieved status and uses his anger as a weapon against us.

Anger is what led many of my friends to call for the nuking of Afghanistan after Sept 11th, we now know their are millions of innocents in Afghanistan. People who agree with us. People who want to be our friends and allies.

Anger leads to hate and vengeance not justice.

Anger is never “so pure” or “so clean” the moment it is given credence it becomes dirtied. The moment you choose anger over justice you have started using it to justify actions. Action that wouldn’t have stood on their own merits. You’ve landed yourself squarely in the ends justify the mean camp. You’ve entered the mindset of the terrorist.

Find those actually responsible and bring them to justice in a dispassionate way. Do not take glee in your anger for it will lead you astray.

The world can admire us for seeking justice, but for our anger they can only return their own anger.

Justice, News, Philosophy/Religion, Politics

Work has kept me from keeping up with this (or any other) board, but I thought I’d drop in and seek some philosophical guidance.

Today’s WashingtonPost had an op-ed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57400-2001Dec17.html) about how we should go ahead and feel angry. Actually it acts as cheerleader for anger.

While thinking about this I noticed a lapse in my own either vocabulary or understanding.

As a good jedi I try to avoid anger because that way leads to hate, vengeance and the dark side. The thing that you should be led to is justice but I noticed I lacked the emotive linkages or at least the words for the linkages.

The only candidate the came to mind was sorrow, but sorrow seems to suggest third person vantage point. It almost precludes the grieved status that would require justice for yourself it could only be called for someone else.

Or is the goal of justice a purely intellectual goal with no emotional base at all?

Any help?

–Zafkiel

Justice, News, Philosophy/Religion, Politics

http://www.myinky.com/ecp/letters_to_the_editors/article/0,1626,ECP_769_909435,00.html

To the editor:

Rep. John Hostettler displayed his usual misunderstanding and ignorance in his letter (Dec. 6) to the Courier & Press. The American Civil Liberties Union and like-minded groups aren’t about restricting the right to religious expression. They’re just keeping the government out of it. I can understand why this bothers Hostettler, but that’s just tough. It isn’t his job as an elected official to promote God. I sincerely doubt God needs Hostettler’s, or any official’s, endorsement.

It’s simple: Christians have the right to post the Ten Commandments, “God Bless America” or any other religious expression on their own property: lawns, barns, T-shirts, trucks, churches and anything they own. On taxpayer property, they have the same right to post their religious expressions as an atheist has the right to post “God Is Dead.” Governments, and government agencies, don’t have the right to do it at all.

“Separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution, but if we’re going to nit-pick over which words are in the document, why don’t we start with words such as church, Bible, Ten Commandments, Scripture, sin, Jesus, Christian, Christ, heaven, hell and God? The difference is, the principle of separation is there, even if the actual term is not. Some may say this is a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. I’ll defer to the opinion of the Supreme Court, which certainly knows more about it than Hostettler or I.

Americans have never granted, and never will grant, officials the power to endorse any religion. They simply don’t have the authority. It’s their job to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. It isn’t their job to promote their private religious beliefs on the taxpayer dime. The cases in our history where officials have made religious proclamations in their official capacities only prove that they were willing to exceed their authority, nothing more or less.

Thousands of Americans are dead due to terrorism from religious extremists. Considering this, it’s appalling that the government would waste a single moment passing meaningless resolutions to endorse God. Don’t they have more constructive things to do right now?

James L. Hartley

Henderson, Ky.

News, Philosophy/Religion, Politics