The Cheapening of Forgiveness

lowauqr
http://willieshade.hostedwith.us/erectile8030.html erectile

kszr jnkaxe gxtspb aovtd
http://hernandezrandy.247ihost.com/helplinea1/erectial-dysfunction-medical-help.html erectial dysfunction medical help

bljk
http://helentrent.00bp.com/erectile0c/over-the-counter-medication-and-erectile-dysfunction.html over the counter medication and erectile dysfunction

bljk
http://helentrent.00bp.com/erectile0c/over-the-counter-medication-and-erectile-dysfunction.html over the counter medication and erectile dysfunction

sfzl tmnp mnbhvr
http://hernandezrandy.247ihost.com/helplinea1/erectile-disfunction-ambien-cr.html erectile disfunction ambien cr

xihs wunmad epwucgb hueajwm
http://carolinefuller.007sites.com/bush-hogd4/bush-political-cartoons.html bush political cartoons

xihs wunmad epwucgb hueajwm
http://carolinefuller.007sites.com/bush-hogd4/bush-political-cartoons.html bush political cartoons

nskbtl cqxea zhiu adglopz
http://ronaldwitt.vwebhosting.com/japanese8b/free-adult-video-sharing-website.html free adult video sharing website

sgfli pebj kflbr
http://hernandezrandy.247ihost.com/free-rap83/free-video-clips-from-porno-piano-teachers.html free video clips from porno piano teachers

wjzdbe
http://rachelwinsor.00bp.com/free-adu5f/xxx-free-mpeg-asian-girl.html xxx free mpeg asian girl

gaim enrmpxj sgvn sbeg
http://charmaineholloway.servik.com/erectileed/erectile-dysfunction-patch.html erectile dysfunction patch

xcplvyi hfslbr vinxyg
http://allanguess.007sites.com/what-aree8/homeopathic-cure-erectile-dysfunction.html homeopathic cure erectile dysfunction

xcplvyi hfslbr vinxyg
http://allanguess.007sites.com/what-aree8/homeopathic-cure-erectile-dysfunction.html homeopathic cure erectile dysfunction

jhldp qfscbpt
http://marymartin.0buckhost.com/erectiled2/blood-pressure-medicine-erectile-dysfunction.html blood pressure medicine erectile dysfunction

xgzrwpe spdwtu vjbr
http://kristenportwood.k2free.com/buspar-e88/erectile-dysfunction-2b-aphrodisiacs.html erectile dysfunction 2b aphrodisiacs

xgzrwpe spdwtu vjbr
http://kristenportwood.k2free.com/buspar-e88/erectile-dysfunction-2b-aphrodisiacs.html erectile dysfunction 2b aphrodisiacs

hvxune wnmalez asipf
http://dannythomason.007sites.com/esteem-vb3/alcoholism-and-erectile-dysfunction.html alcoholism and erectile dysfunction

hvxune wnmalez asipf
http://dannythomason.007sites.com/esteem-vb3/alcoholism-and-erectile-dysfunction.html alcoholism and erectile dysfunction

ixze payh jvgqxyz
http://julioison.my3gb.com/alcohol-57/erectile-dysfunction-internal-conflict.html erectile dysfunction internal conflict

nuqdkbz uiawmrn xnql gwrkqox
http://jamesdenton.freewebspace-us.com/naturalpfb/cavajet-impotence-treatment.html cavajet impotence treatment

zheymxc nzvsejq
http://antoniowall.bidsex.net/buspar-eb3/varicocele-erectile-dysfunction.html varicocele erectile dysfunction

bczrdeo
http://joanmanning.0buckhost.com/homopath5f/antidepressants-erectile-disfunction.html antidepressants erectile disfunction

bczrdeo
http://joanmanning.0buckhost.com/homopath5f/antidepressants-erectile-disfunction.html antidepressants erectile disfunction

unmsvtx kltao
http://corcoranjoanna.blackapplehost.com/erectilec4/natural-treatment-erectile-dysfunction.html natural treatment erectile dysfunction

unmsvtx kltao
http://corcoranjoanna.blackapplehost.com/erectilec4/natural-treatment-erectile-dysfunction.html natural treatment erectile dysfunction

uijq elcdxhy
http://terrycrespok.007sites.com/erection7a/electric-sexual-stimulation.html electric sexual stimulation

tscr zvnybl
http://loispierson.12gbfree.com/free-onlc1/free-adult-porn-video.html free adult porn video

laxvde qidh nfga
http://mauricelogan.freehyperspace2.com/free-sex92/asian-girl-from-cameraphone-video.html asian girl from cameraphone video

hcwok mtfzhn
http://thomasruffin.freehostingz.com/online-a22/mature-sex-pics-and-movie-galleries.html mature sex pics and movie galleries

hcwok mtfzhn
http://thomasruffin.freehostingz.com/online-a22/mature-sex-pics-and-movie-galleries.html mature sex pics and movie galleries

ujowrs znmasl jdri
http://michelemcge.hostingtribe.com/sleeping0d/free-furry-porn-movie-galleries.html free furry porn movie galleries

ujowrs znmasl jdri
http://michelemcge.hostingtribe.com/sleeping0d/free-furry-porn-movie-galleries.html free furry porn movie galleries

xheoq xwbt lbhw hgmjdiy
http://minniestangera.servik.com/black-ga4c/best-free-adult-video-sites.html best free adult video sites

tpxvj
http://vincentkuhlman.00bp.com/free-porf7/give-me-free-porno-of-black-teens.html give me free porno of black teens

cwrnud
http://juliannmiller.mycyberway.com/long-sex20/free-gay-porn-movies.html free gay porn movies

cigazf pnugv ikqfwuvbo giwdafzkh vbrnmf gckjyzh fklc

cigazf pnugv ikqfwuvbo giwdafzkh vbrnmf gckjyzh fklc

cigazf pnugv ikqfwuvbo giwdafzkh vbrnmf gckjyzh fklc

cigazf pnugv ikqfwuvbo giwdafzkh vbrnmf gckjyzh fklc

Thanks.! Do point this out whenever you can,love.

Dear Daniel,

We don't need to forgive the Islamics, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Pagans for their significant stupidity in not recognizing the obvious flaws in their religions. What we, as in all current members of said religions, need is to forget such religions ever existed. "Pink slip" the imams, clerics, rabbis, priests and medicine persons and get with the reality of it all.

Dear Susan

I have already read your next essay on holidays and family, and your comments on how to post. I am sorry, that it is largely my fault that we got off the subject of forgiveness, because I responded to a regular poster with an anti-Islamic agenda. Maybe this is a good lesson for me, just to ignore this guy in the future, when he posts in reply to you, and when he posts in reply to many of the other panelists.

I wanted to post here one last time, because you have actually provoked some new thought in me. The Chritian instruction is to love your neighbor, and to love you enemy and to do good to those that hate you. There really isn't any instruction to "forgive" except as a corrollary to this instruction.

If you regard this instruction seriously, it is quite a difficult and perplexing problem. Many Christians do not take this instruction seriously; they seldom give it any thought at all, so it seems to me. Their justification, I assume, is that the Holy Spirit motiviates them to accomplish this instruction, automaically, so I assume. But, often, usually, it doesn't work; they fail.

So, what can this mean, and how can we accomplish it? I think that is refers more to all of the interactions and difficulties of daily life, than to criminal assault and warfare.

I am not so sure that this Christian instruction is really applicable to such crimes as the Nazi holocaust, or to rape, or murder, or bank robbery. I think it refers more to altercations, such as you described between the woman and her daughter-in-law, during Thanksgiving dinner.

Violence, murder, rape, and robbery have never touched my life. So I have no enemies of this sort to love, nor to forgive. But in-laws spoiling the holidays is a constant threat. I think Jesus's instructions apply more to these kinds of things. When people try to take the personal instructions of Christ, and apply them to the a complex justice system, or to high-powered international politics, they don't make sense. But when you apply them to the people who live in your own house, and on your street, and the people who work next to you in the office, or people that you may come accross on a blog, then they are a little easier to understand, but still difficult to apply.

Terry,

No matter how you cut it, we are at War. And have been to some degree since WWI. Different names but still War. Even Bill Clinton had to deal with it. It is too bad that he had other interests that detracted him from finishing off some of the battles.

Here is a look at the ones from whom we should be seeking forgiveness. Although it would be understandable if we received instead their everlasting hatred instead.

From AP, a glimpse of the life of the Palestinian Refugee in Jordan:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JORDAN_REFUGEES_VOTE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-11-19-12-30-17

November 19, 2007

Palestinian Refugees Vote in Jordan

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:30 p.m. ET

BAQAA CAMP, Jordan (AP) -- Election time is a unique moment for Palestinian refugees in Jordan: A chance to try to improve their lot in their adopted land and press their dreams of returning to homes in what is now Israel.

Some in this squalid camp, where frustration and poverty are widespread, see little use in voting in Tuesday's parliamentary elections. But unlike Palestinian refugees elsewhere in the Middle East, refugees here at least have a voice -- Jordan is the only Arab nation that has given them the right to vote…

''We want all the perks and rights offered to Jordanian citizens,'' said Wael al-Sharif, a 40-year-old contractor who lives in Baqaa, home to 120,000 refugees, where raw sewage flows into the alleyway, creating an acrid stench as barefoot children play.

''We want to get on with our lives until we return to our long lost homeland,'' he said.

The refugees, Palestinians who lost their homes in 1948 and their descendants, say they are relegated to second-class status in Jordan.

They say government jobs, particularly in the royal palace, the foreign and interior ministries, army and intelligence are closed to them. So is the free university education offered to the Bedouin tribes who form the bedrock of support for Jordan's King Abdullah II.

The so-called ''1948 Palestinians'' who make up 1.9 million of Jordan's 5.5 million population, live mostly in 10 impoverished camps around the country, relying on U.N. aid -- a condition that imposes a degree of segregation from the rest of the population. Frustration among camp youth provides fertile ground for Islamic extremists.

An additional 800,000 Palestinians who fled their homes in the West Bank in the 1967 Middle East war are more integrated into the society because they lived under Jordanian rule between 1950 and 1967, when Israel seized the land.

The 1948 Palestinians have about 10 percent of parliament's 110 seats, a proportion they are expected to maintain after Tuesday's vote -- though they note that it doesn't reflect their 34 percent of the population…

Hey Jihadist,

Yup, but I only have to drive about 13 of the 50 miles on I95 North towards D.C. each morning. And you won't see me shaving on the way either - sounds dangerous!

Best rgards.

Hello Rick Jones:)

Good evening your time to you. Am fine and have been engaging in very unseemly blog catfights with some posters. They're fine as they are the ones who seem to relish them. Sick puppies all of us who do that.

I've just read Ms. Susan Jacoby's reason for her dismay and distate of posters not using real names here in her latest essay on Thanksgiving.

Yes, it would be more interesting if we all knew each other's real name and approximate location but not street address. Then again, I do find other people's handles very interesting - Candide, Lepidopteryx, Terra Gazelle, Duckphup to name a few.

So you live in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Many living there in fact seem to commute daily to Washington DC to work. Hope you're not one of them. It is quite a long drive to and fro, unless one is used to it. I've seen people shaving, putting make-up on, in that Fredericksburg/Washington commute.

Tnank you and best regards

"J"

Concerned -

Can we then assume by your initial comments above that you are by no means suffering from the absence of Gore and Kerry, but are instead an avid Bush supporter of the first order?? I guess that would make you a republican.

On the other hand, if this is the case, then you're supporting an evangelical born-again wonderkind that has been the front man for the ultra-right wing faction of the evangelical movement in our fair country for the past 7 years. These are the very ones that pushed for war in Iraq on religious principles as the 'new crusaders' - the avowed believers in Armageddon and assorted end-times enthusiasts. Bush's reasons admittedly were a bit more complex than his devout followers, what with his long family history of arms and oil. The born-again business and doing God's work were a recent embellishment on his already highly disordered personality. His own religious 'hypocrisy' has finally disenchanted those very evangelicals, not surprisingly. Throw Cheney in the mix (surely a man completely devoid of religious instincts), Wolfowitz, Perlman, et al. and you've got a recipe for disaster.

You must be feeling a least a smidgen of cognitive dissonance by supporting a war that was manufactured by religious ideologs and oil magnates. Since you don't believe in any of their deluded religious fantasies, how could you support their preemptive war? We are all very well acquainted with terrorism, but little did most folks suspect we were being led into war by our own contingent of religious fanatics from this end. For a closer look read 'American Dynasty' by Kevin Phillips.

I hope you're fully aware of the ironic features of the 'war on terror' that you're supporting along with the pernicious characters that have been leading the assault.

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

I update our War on Terror when there are significant comments from apparent Democrats who appear to still be suffering from the Gore and Kerry defeats. It is also a good idea to remind us that indeed we are at war. Something we seem to have forgotten quickly after 9/11.

With respect to other interests, for the fiftieth time, my synopsis of the flaws in the founders and foundations of the major contemporary religions. For your perusal:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds these acts of terror? The Islamic Shiite terror theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindus site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’. "

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

President Bush says this war on terror is a "new kind of war."

I think terrorism is not new; and barbaric assualts on civilization also is not new. And a power grab during a time of crisis is not new.

I think I have read all this stuff in history books, that it has all happened before. But you have to read a little to know that, of course.

(Sorry to have gotten off the subject; blame "Concerned." He is the one who has one, and only one interest, in all of this world of interesting things).

Terror is not an enemy, it is a tactics, an action (why not fight a "war on torture"?) the US is as guilty of as anybody else. The US can't even describe the "enemy" against whom they want to achieve a "victory". Nobody can achieve a victory against an abstraction - a specter, in line with the superstition that enhances it.

Is the fact that a Saudi girl gets whipped to death (show me your allies!) because she was raped by six guys anything else than terror?

"War on terror" - pepper spray into the eyes of the institutionalized stupidity.

Although this is off the subject, and I am being dragged into someone else's mania, "the war on terror" is a political slogan of the Republican Party, designed to consolodate the President's executive power so that he, Bush, can rule separately, and independently from the Congress and the Courts. And if anyone or any party, such as the traditional Democratic Party, opposes the President's policies associated with "the war on terror" then they are called traitors and accused of treason.

A leader is someone who leads, and someone whom people follow. President Bush does not have a knack for leadership and so must try to frighten people with his Republican slogan, "war on terror." He could have led all of America, together, in the struggle against terrorism; instead, he chose to separate one group off against another, to compensate for his own inadequacies as a leader, and now, this collossal mess is what we have.

I am aware that there is a terrorist threat directed against America. I just don't see the silly phrase "war on terror" as any more than a simpleton's political campaign slogan.

Mr. "Concerned-etc," just because you have bought into this "war on terror" slogan does not mean that the rest of us have, and no amount of repetitive "copy-and-paste" posting about it is going to convince anybody.

Daniel,

Observe closely. The status of our War on Terror has been updated with respect to the North Koreans, Libyans with some added somewhat out-of-date but relevant responses to terror.

Freedom -

I couldn't help myself....apparently bombing Pearl Harbor had a silver lining. The (American) Japanese now control Hawaii politically, and we're all driving Toyotas and Hondas (if we're smart). Japan has the world's second largest economy.

One wonders - how would we have concluded WWII if we hadn't snagged the a-bomb from the (already vanquished)Germans??

One could argue that it all turned out for the best, I suppose. I'm doubtful we'd be so lucky a second time in this day and age. Here's hoping we never find out.

Anonymous:

Regarding "A milestone in history," I guess the Japanese shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor, don't you think?

Jihadist was asking about Susan's appreciation for using real names. It is just that: an appreciation. I can understand that.

Concerned for yada-yada-yada-whatever says:

"Time again for the update on our War on Terror"

So? Why is it time for that? You have posted the EXACT same thing a number of times before. When would it ever be time again, for your stale old list of observations and grievances? What makes any particular time, "the time" to post, yet again, the things you have already posted many times before?

Good morning Jihadist:

"Why the sudden interest by Ms. Susan Jacoby for real names to be used by posters? Something happened? What's wrong with a psuedonym?"

We can't allow you to have the first and last word on this blog. How have you been?

I think that Susan is piqued at some of us who have been rather nasty with our posts, not you and me of course, while hiding behind anonymity. She will get over it. After all, we are all anonymous, even those who sign with our actual name.

It would be more interesting, don't you think, if we all new each others real name and approximate location (not street address, that might prove too dangerous)?

Why the sudden interest by Ms. Susan Jacoby for real names to be used by posters? Something happened? What's wrong with a psuedonym?

"Voltaire" is not a real or given name. So is "Silence Dogood". Karen Blixen did not use her real name either. Or Cary Grant. Or Greta Gabor. I could go on. Lots of writers and actors don't use their real names for any given reason.

What is it to anyone, and why does it matter to Ms. Susan Jacoby?

Concerned - you must be a charter member of the Bush advisory council, knowing what you seem to know about Iraq. Now we're there in order to contain a sectarian civil war that our occupation made not only probable by inevitable, and 'covertly' we're in Iraq in order to contain Iran - by our intimidating presence?? You did mention something about oil as well, I believe.

I say covertly because Bushco has yet to offer up that rationale so late in the game - how many years has it been since the WMD red herring went bust?? Surely we must be on rationale #4 & working hard on #5 by this time - so the 'Iran containment' hypothesis must be reason #6??

And what about Pakistan's containment?? Now there's a country with both Osama and real nuclear weapons, and with a population about on the verge of anarchy. I suppose we're in Afghanistan to contain Pakistan? It ain't working......any one paying attention to the news can see a perilous scenario developing in Pakistan. And the threat is clearly along the lines of uncontained nuclear weaponry (should the separately stored parts ever be brought together by the wrong people). Pakistan's highest profile nuclear weapons scientist has been doubling as it's most notorious global nuclear weapons dealer for years without restraint, despite full knowledge of his activities by both Pakistan and the USA. It's all right there in the news but not on the Bush agenda.

Furthermore, we plainly see that Iraq and it's various sectarian factions aren't remotely interested in democracy, nor is it's provisional
(duly elected?) government doing anything other than stuffing it's collective pockets while it has the chance. Governing is such a pain anyway, and often interferes with the short-term goals of 'elected' representatives (in Iraq and elsewhere).

I'll give you one thing - North Korea's situation at least is not complicated by the politics of religion. Not to mentioned being truly contained by China - certainly not by us.
They can be dealt with pragmatically, unlike the totally dissimilar situation in Iraq. For that matter, Bush seems to completely lack the presence of capable & pragmatic thinkers and problem solvers in his administration - over the years, if they dared disagree with the Bush doctrinaire policies they were gone in a heartbeat.

Ireland's warring factions just got old and died out - I think the fight finally went out of them. But then you never know about that younger generation. Odd how the self-governing south of Ireland has done just fine since it got out from under England's thumb. I doubt if religion was ever really the issue in northern Ireland after all, compared to the underlying conflict of England's territorial imperatives vs. the local will to self-govern. Time will tell there.

There will be much forgiving to be done down the road, even as there is today - an excellent topic of discussion and right on point.

Time again for the update on our War on Terror:

(or how are we spending USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate/contain global terror)

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Bahgdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!!

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. Although a bit dated, the terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends.

Rick wrote: “Susan, you certainly have a way with words. I would love to hear your advice to the Palestinians as to whether they should forget about the injustice done to them and get on with accepting the two-state solution, or continue to resist with every fiber of their being. My advice would be the latter.”

Susan is very much hypocritical and lacks any moral objectivity to be fair and just despite her rhetoric; her allegiance is to the state of Israel and the Jews no matter how egregious and barbaric their acts towards a defenseless and weak Palestinian population because they happen to have the bigger guns. In her columns we read countless times about the Jews being persecuted at one time or another but she never mentions the atrocities, the ethnic cleansing and the suffering they are causing on a daily basis in their desire to grab more land and achieve the dream of the greater Eretz-Israel in order to usher in the redemptive process. I dare say that she might be inclined to believe like some other Jews that “the Jews had been chosen by God, they were essentially different from all other nations and were not bound by the same rules and laws of other poeples.” And that “ the Jews are unique, holy, and set apart. God’s command to conquer the land is more important than the human and moral considerations of the national rights of the gentiles to the land.”

“In public life and law, justice is the domain that lies between revenge and forgiveness. In private life, fairness lies between forgiveness and unremitting hatred.”

“The absolute importance of reciprocity is apparent in considering the process of reconciliation as it applies to every offense from the most mundane violation of domestic order to the most grievous crimes against humanity.”

Susan, you certainly have a way with words. I would love to hear your advice to the Palestinians as to whether they should forget about the injustice done to them and get on with accepting the two-state solution, or continue to resist with every fiber of their being. My advice would be the latter.

It seems clear we have two universal constants
that define us as humans - war & religion. They're as inevitable as any natural catastrophe, and are seldom found one without the other.

The USA now has a new tradition of making war on countries that pose no threat - preemptive war is Bush's defining legacy. This solitary individual not only represents an entire nation, but has been given the power to create & perpetuate war where none existed. We can only hope he's gone before another one erupts in Iran - don't count on it.

The devastation of Iraq is indeed similar in scope to the burning of Columbia, SC (where I happen to live at the moment) though on a much larger scale. Of course Sherman thought he had a good reason and a just cause for decimating an entire city, just as the poster above reminded us of other 'justly' decimated cities later on in our illustrious war-oriented history. You can argue that 'at least the USA won that war' - I guess you'd be referring to WWII because nobody won the civil war, with 600,000 troops dead - and who knows how many civilians?
WWII probably left 20 times that number dead if you look at total causalties.

By comparison, the great flu epidemic early in the 20th century left approximately a similar number of dead behind just at a time when WWI was hitting it's stride. Talk about a double whammy!

On the other hand, we didn't win the Vietnam war and we damn sure aren't winning the war in Iraq -instead Bush's foreign policy & global war on terrorism in all the wrong places has generated global war in perpetuity as far as anyone can tell......

Yes, war is hell indeed. Sometimes it's also avoidable.

Anon,

To summarize with the famous quote of General Sherman describing his troops burning, pillaging and terrorizing Georgia and South Carolina, "War is Hell"!!!!!!

A milestone in history:
"The man who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima passed away last week at the age of 92. Paul Warfield Tibbets, Jr. did not die from war wounds or violently at the hands of other people, years before his time. He died in hospice care, in a bed, from heart problems and strokes.

In stark contrast, the more than 100,000 civilians who were killed at Hiroshima 62 years ago were burnt, melted, vaporized, in an apocalyptic act of warfare. Many died painful deaths over a period of days or weeks. Others saw family members consumed by flames. Most were far younger than Tibbets was when he finally died. Thousands were children.

Is now the wrong time to discuss this? Tibbets called it a “damn big insult” when a Smithsonian exhibit commemorating Hiroshima’s fiftieth anniversary attempted to capture some of the suffering. If he didn’t think that was the right time for such reflection, then perhaps now is as good as any.

Although, he was offended to see the victims remembered, he had said that he meant no insult himself when he reenacted the bombing in Texas in 1976, complete with mushroom cloud. He said he slept fine every night. He consistently affirmed he’d do it all over again.

People disagree on whether the nuking was a war crime. The 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey determined it had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. We know that Japan, demoralized from having dozens of cities obliterated in fire bombings, was extending peace feelers. “The Japanese were ready to surrender,” said Dwight Eisenhower, who as a general during that war believed the atom bomb was “completely unnecessary.” Admiral William D. Leahy, General Douglas MacArthur, and many other high officials at the time agreed.

Japan wanted only to keep its emperor. Understandably, the nation feared the consequences of the unconditional surrender that Truman and the Allies demanded. They had reason to fear brutalities exceeding the very harsh treatment of Germany under the Versailles Treaty after World War I, which had come after a mere conditional surrender.

Some have tried to rewrite history and have said that to win the war without nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have had to invade and suffer intolerable losses, that the atomic bomb “saved a million lives.” But there is no reason to doubt that Japan’s cause was lost by mid-1945--even without an invasion. Practically every major city was destroyed. The people were blockaded and starving. Then, perhaps as a show of strength to Stalin, the U.S. government nuked two of Japan’s remaining cities, introducing nuclear warfare to the world, and ultimately, allowed the Japanese to keep their emperor anyway.

Robert McNamara, who worked with Curtis LeMay in planning the pre-Hiroshima fire bombings of Japan, admitted in recent years that he and LeMay were acting as “war criminals.” Does this term apply to Tibbets?

We know Tibbets did not shy away from personal responsibility. He proudly took credit for planning the nuclear attack.

This raises uncomfortable questions: If your government orders you to slaughter tens of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, to whom and to what do you owe your loyalty? If you’re willing to take credit for your supposed acts of wartime heroism, should you also be ready to accept blame if it turns out you committed an atrocity?

Some might say it’s insensitive to ask now whether Tibbets was a war criminal. Indeed, there is no need to condemn this man upon his passing. Even if he was guilty of a war crime, he is now beyond the reaches of human justice.

But it remains crucial for us to consider the implications of what he did. It is important to our sense of individual responsibility in a world where, especially in times of war, people think mainly in terms of the collective. It is this fallacy in moral reasoning that leads otherwise decent people to commit unspeakable barbarities against their fellow man.

We must not lose track of the individual’s role, even in the chaos of war. For whatever we think of Tibbets, it is the refusal to view people as individuals, the branding of everyone as merely an expendable part of a larger group, which brought about the atomic bombings and so many other horrors of World War II."
by Anthony Gregory

Concerned - by googling Neanderthal burial practices you find much to digest regarding this ancient tradition. One article states that the most ancient sites dated at approximately 100,000 years were of modern remains (homo sapiens) whereas Neandethal sites were first dated at 70,000 BC - oddly enough. With paltry evidence one can only speculate, but the evidence points in an interesting direction.

The very fact of an early burial tradition indicates a conceptual awareness of death and transition not found in our primate cousins. Leaving bones, artifacts and even traces of clothing remnants behind seems to indicate a symbolic pre-occupation with life after death.

Neanderthal disappeared about 30,000 BC and evidence of burial practice among modern men shows it to be more prevalent going forward from about 25,000 years ago. It seems clear that the Shamanic tradition had become established early on in modern man's journey, and shamans were buried with totems and other tools of the trade - which of course was and still is religious ceremonies, rites and rituals.

Humans have confronted the mysteries of life and death and the forces of nature with what can only be defined as religious practices, albeit it primitive - it would seem for nearly as long as we have fossil evidence of our own existence as homo sapiens. Interesting stuff......

all the best -

Dear Ms. Bishop:

And I appreciate your using your own name. For one of the best books on this subject, read "Constantine's Sword" by James Carroll. It was published by Houghton Mifflin in 2003.
I was speaking historically, not personally. "Papal Sin," by Garry Wills, is another interesting work that touches on this subject.

Best regards,

Susan Jacoby

Susan Jacoby

The statement referred to in mine of November 16, 2007 9:02 AM was 'Christians have tended to "forgive" their enemies only after they have killed or converted them'. My post should have read:

Your statement 'Christians have tended to "forgive" their enemies only after they have killed or converted them' is both unproven and hurtful. Can you refer to any study, survey or authority that backs up this statement ? Or are you indulging in some wild generalisation animated by who-knows-what personal, religious or ethnic animus, Ms. Jacoby ?

Your statement > is both unproven and hurtful. Can you refer to any study, survey or authority that backs up this statement ? Or are you indulging in some wild generalisation animated by who-knows-what personal, religious or ethnic animus, Ms. Jacoby ?

Concerned - actually I wouldn't disagree with you in particular on any given point - I read the DNA theory article that you cited and it's long been estimated that homo sapiens (modern man) as a species has been around for somewhat less than 100,000 years. It's also known that our species had many progenitors - so our common ancestor had many preceeding common ancestors that were not homo sapiens (through successive approximation we finally got where we are today - whether by leaps and bounds or via a more gradual evolutionary process is debatable).

We did in fact exist contemporaneously with Neanderthal, but whether or not any inbreeding occurred is unknown - for mysterious reasons that species died out and we prevailed (obviously we had survival advantages, although they had a somewhat larger brain capacity). Maybe with our inherent nastiness we just exterminated the competition - that would make perfect sense!

Your view of Christianity is much more in line with the Gnostic view as it might be reified today. Or maybe even the Unitarian (or Deist) view, being non-trinitarian. As long as we don't attribute a singularly divine status to Jesus we can agree that he at least represents the highest and best aspirations for the human race, but is not alone as a messenger.

For the Gnostics, salvation came through direct knowledge of the Absolute, rather than by proxy.
I can agree with that. The Absolute cannot be interpreted as pertaining to a divine personality in this orientation - but people are forever insisting that God is a divine person.
This is a limitation of the human imagination.

Unfortunately what Jesus didn't leave was clear & explicit instructions on how to get where he was in terms of his spiritual achievements. Since I don't accept the idea of a self-existing personal Creator of the universe (in any sense that we could comprehend) we have to rely on embodied messengers of the Spirit (that which is eternal but which is not a creator) to explicitly help us find our way. Pre-Christian mysticism offered methods of developing the individual spirit - Pythagorus and the Egyptian Hermes Trismogestes both founded 'mystery' religions that focused on methods of achieving 'perfect' knowledge. Carl Jung showed us that the secret language and methods of the ancient alchemists were really referring to the development of the spirit (psyche) when they talked of converting dross to gold.

My personal preference is the philosophy of Buddhism (it's only a religion if you practice the proscribed rites and rituals, in my view).
The spiritual goal is clear-cut and the methods of achieving the goal are well defined. In this view all states of re-birth in the six realms is possible depending on the thoughts, actions, and 'evolutionary' status of each spirit at the moment of death.

In any event, many may meet in heaven, but few will remain.

Terry,

As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

And for $99.99, you can have NG determine what tree your ancestors fell from.

And your references for the Neaderthal burial objects are????

With respect to my current take on Christianity and religion in general: (references: the thoughts and books of Professors Schillebeeckx, Crossan, Borg, Chilton et al)

A-Z on a large church door: (and AA-ZZ on other church doors)

a. Communion is a fantastic Christian spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there.

b. Jesus lived and was crucified but did not bodily rise from the dead and did not die for our sins.

c. Jesus’ teachings serve the basis for living a good life but there are other teachings of comparable strengths.

d. Heaven is a Spirit State i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies allowed.

e. The Ascension and Assumption therefore did not take place.

f. Jesus' Spirit resides in Heaven (if it exists) with all the souls of deceased good people of any religion or of no religion therefore there will be no second coming.

g. Adam and Eve are myths making original sin mythological and Baptism symbolic.

h. There was therefore no Immaculate Conception.

i. Happiness in Heaven (if it exists) is not a gradient but is dependent on the number of souls present.

j. Purgatory is possible but has no Scriptural foundation.

k. Hell is possible but would God tolerate Satan spirits and contaminated souls?

l. God does not know the future.

m. Predestination should not be a word.

n. Canonization of the likes of Pio and Juan eliminates any consideration of papal infallibility.

o. Exodus should not be a word.

p. ditto for the Christmas manger.

q. The Old Testament is so full of untruths and embellishments, its content is of little historical relevance but of prime spiritual importance.

r. Confirmation is only symbolic of our adult acceptance of the Christ’s rules for humanity and our belief in God.

s. Dividing God into three parts violates the first Commandment.

t. Substituting God in place of any reference to the Holy Spirit or the Son of God works quite well.

u. Holy Orders is relevant but not complete without access by females and married members.

v. Religions are slowly converging.

w. As per Somerville, “Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door” i.e. there is no religion in Heaven (if it exists).

x. Lourdes et al as per Crossan prove faith heals but Mary plays no part. Miracles/healings are equally probable anywhere on earth but all miracles are limited in scope and limited to very few of any faith.

y. As per Crossan, “I said that there was hardly a single miracle I was sure of as an historical event even though I was absolutely sure that Jesus was a healer.

z. An act of contrition with repentance and life style changes by anyone of any faith or even no faith should be sufficient for soul cleansing.

Concerned - Neanderthal burial sites show evidence that this immediate relative of homo sapiens (albeit somewhat older) placed objects with the dead that may indicate a belief in an afterlife. At the very least, gives evidence of a practice that proves a recognition of death as a rite of passage....my hyperbole of 'forever' is certainly no less accurate than your oft-repeated statement that our ancestors started 'dropping out of the trees' 60,000 years ago. This has no basis in reality of course, since that time frame is exactly where Neanderthal and Cro-magnon (early homo sapiens) overlap.

They never got off the ground much less fell out of the trees - trees were not their forte. In fact, I doubt we've had brachiators in our immediate ancestral line for a few million years at least. Of course chimps are pretty good in the trees and orangs are amazing for their size, but they took that road 'less traveled' as a divergant primate species from our common ancestor (probably a small tarsier-like creature)some several million years ago.

In addition to an impressive level of artistry, the early cave paintings of homo sapiens are thought to depict an awe & reverance for life that might border on the religous - and early homo sapiens burial sites again show artifacts that seem to demonstrate a pre-occupation with an afterlife. Needless to say, these religious practices, rites and rituals were well developed and more sophisticated by the time we see the rudiments of civilized society taking shape some 7-8 thousand years ago.

So we can say this with certainty - religious behavior is universal throughout 'recorded' history and the small societal examples of seemingly non-religious populations (that you may have mentioned) such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia are anomalies rather than large-scale trends. That said, their brand of secular humanism may indeed be preferrable over any kind of religious fundamentalism that we could mention
- at a personal level I'd far prefer their decidely non-militaristic and less regimented, less restrictive, less religious, less legalistic and less authoritarian approach to life as compared to the USA, for example.

I'm not sure what you're position really is - are you a formerly religious (christian) person that has seen the light and become agnostic/atheistic in your view, or do you personally find some limited value in (certain) religions? You're highly critical but fail to firmly state your position and your own personal convictions (other than what you pejoritively classify as 'superstitious' beliefs).

My own approach to religion is generally comparative and fundamentally academic, rather than finding 'for or against' the basic tenets of a particular religion or religious faith. Curious people look for truth wherever it can be found, and science doesn't provide all the answers to all the questions. Before we had science we had religion to explain the mysteries of life. I grant you lots of folks still tend to confuse the two. I personally try to avoid it.

Religion has and will continue to have functions in society that practitioners of said religions may or may not be aware of. That's where it gets interesting for me.

Terry,

You noted:

"Religion clearly has survival value for both society and individuals, and has been with us forever." Forever? Hmmm, we started dropping out of the trees 60,000 years ago. Is that your forever? And there is some written and/or archeological reference to the religious aka superstitious thinking of said first hominids??

Just a clarification on the above comment about freedom from religion as an impetus to psychic & emotional wholeness. In Western terms, I'm thinking along the lines of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and self-actuatlization as the pinnacle of individual human development. Completely in synch with this idea is Jung's concept of individuation and the development of a healthy psyche free of cultural neurosis and the external influences that drive most human behavior. Both ideas are complex well beyond a few paragraphs.
These ideas became the mainstay of the Transpersonal Psychology movement associated with Esalen Institute back in the late 1960's and are alive and well today.

These peak inner achievements generally occur later in life, and are akin to the 'settled' or relaxed state of mind that follows satori or enlightenment experiences as a result of extended (eg. Zen) meditation. One result of these 'inner completion' experiences is an increased moral and perceptual clarity, among other benefits. This in turn is followed by a kind of autonomy that does not necessarily rely on external societal governors for either correct situational behavior or decision-making.

These functions and/or actions are not reactive in nature - they tend to occur spontaneously with an intuitive reading of the event at hand. This is not mysticism per se, but is the result of inner or 'psychic' development that is not necessarily commonplace. They are also a feature of skills developed in the practice of the martial arts.

Thus does a person become an 'outsider' by being an 'insider'. All is one, and one is all.

Jacob - I hope you've included the Mormons and Mitt Romney in that unholy number!! - I say that only because you seem to be stuck on Mitt for some undisclosed reason of your own!!

If we could extract a round number of people that were untainted by the religions of the world,
how big a commune would we need for the members of this new world order? I remember communes from the 1970s and even visited the famous Gaskins Farm in Tennessee one time many years ago - you can have commune life, no thanks. You never have a chance to wear your good clothes, for example.

But you make a valid point - people free of the subtleties and un-subtleties of religious persuasion (including all faiths and denominations) would in general (potentially) tend to be more advanced and more mature in both the areas of the psyche and the emotional realm (not that they're really separated).

In many ways they would be standing alone and apart from the crowd, even while functioning as an integral part of society (they would be 'Outsiders' per Colin Wilson's famous book of that title).

Here we need to discount the moral cripples, despots, tyrants and pyschopaths that have neither religion nor faith of any kind other than a continuous need for self-gratification.

Religion clearly has survival value for both society and individuals, and has been with us forever. The mis-management of religion as an enterprise and for political reasons is another matter altogether.

all the best ----

Francey - sorry I left you out....go along with Rationalist and Concerned the Christian and get an attitude adjustment. Your anti-semitic overtones give you away, but as to the rest of the world, well that takes in alot of territory.

And since when were you appointed the global spokesperson for the state of racism on the planet??

And to think that your spiritual savior was a Semite - go figure.

When your enemies abound, you live in a crowded house.

Rationalist & ally Concerned Christian - but not so liberated.

Congratulations on having an all time record number of enemies on your bizarre & strangely skewed list of terrorists and enablers - must be 500 million or more. Throw in another 500 million Buddhists (atheists you know) and now you've got a really impressive number of potential troublemakers.

Ye gads!! Can you spell Irrational (ist)?? - and somehow this all makes perfect sense!?

The both of you need professional help for your obsessive/compulsive disorder with paranoid features -

OH, Good!
Another opportunity for a Jew and her ever- ready posters to blast away at Christians.
As the whole world gets more anti-semetic.
Doesn't seem wise.

OH, Good!
Another opportunity for a Jew and her ever- ready posters to blast away at Christians.
As the whole world gets more anti-semetic.
Doesn't seem wise.

Yes, well the "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" types are reliable. What did you expect here?
Isreli Jews aren't big on forgiveness.
But big on cluster bombs. And occupation.
And begging for bombs.

My dear ***Converted the Christian now liberated***,
You are absolutely right, but You have to add more in Your 'good and cool- collected lists':-
They are "JACOBY" type Secularists, liberals, and Atheists.
In my view- these people are working in tandem and concerted way to glorify a religion which- so far have inflicted so much harm to us and our Human race and to our extinct Civilizations that once flourished in pre islamic Era in central Asia, middle east and over north Africa- were due to this dangerous religion and its practitioners to day.
Further I consider that the present day's Secularists, Liberals, commies and Atheists are in chain whose one end is hooked with Islam.
NB- The extinct civilizations are - Persepolis in Tehran, Shiba Civilization in Sudan Dar-fur and part of Chad, Genocide and extinction of Armenian civilizations, extinct civilization of Indonesia, where these Muslims destroy most of the ancient Hindu relics and 95% of the country's populace were forcefully converted to muslims. In Pakistan most of the ancient relics of vibrant ancient civilizations are destroyed, and very recently- in Pakistan near Afghan Border, the Muslim Zealots destroyed Lord Buddha's Statue - that was there for three thousand Years. so the lists are going on and on.

The problem with The Jihadist and Victoria and Eboo Patel and Pamela and John Esposito et al is that they continue to believe that Islam is the perfect religion whereas we know it is not. Once they come to grips with the flaws in their founders and foundations of their warmongering religion, then there will be no reminders of said issue.

Until then we must be cognizant of how dangerous any Muslim can be no matter what the outward appearance e.g. the seven Muslim doctors in the UK that attempted to destroy two UK airports.

The French say "To understand all is to forgive all." I say, BALONEY.
Some things are unforgiveable. And, for some other things, justice with a generous dollop of vengeance is the only proper response. And for wanton murder, the death penalty is the answer.

The French say "To understand all is to forgive all." I say, BALONEY.
Some things are unforgiveable. And, for some other things, justice with a generous dollop of vengeance is the only proper response. And for wanton murder, the death penalty is the answer.

The French say "To understand all is to forgive all." I say, BALONEY.
Some things are unforgiveable. And, for some other things, justice with a generous dollop of vengeance is the only proper response. And for wanton murder, the death penalty is the answer.

Should Cherokees forgive Americans for the Trail of Tears? Should North Americans at least consider apologizing for stealing a continent? It is interesting that examples of gross iniquity are so often sought overseas. In fact, there is no need at all to import these particular commodities; we have more than enough at home.

What constitutes an "unforgivable offense?" Is there some absolute standard which can be applied to determine which offenses ought not be forgiven? Perhaps a "forgiveness board" could be convened to provide us with a list of offenses that we do not need to forgive.

If I determine that an offense is unforgivable, then I make myself a permanent victim. My victimhood will ultimately become the center of my being, it will define and constrain me. It will harm me and it will harm those I love: my wife, my children, my friends.

Forgiveness is not allowing the perpetrator to "get off." Forgiveness is the victim moving on from resentment, from bitterness, from anger, from hatred. These thoughts and feelings distort people and ruin their lives- often more deeply than the offense did. Forgiveness allows the victim to stop being a victim.

Susan thank you for staying engaged in the discussion. People do get angry and type at the same time--not a great idea. forgive us.

Substantively you seem not to open your mind to the distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation. You decry the failure of some of us to recognize it; however I believe it is you who really doesn't get it.

Forgiveness is good for the victim, but it does not excuse the perpetrator on behalf of Society generally. I argue Society needs to be active as stated above in reconciling the perpetrator with the Society which abhors his behavior.

A victim can only forgive after a time of processing and acceptance of the loss. However, having reached that point, I believe you are wronng to counsel the victim to withhold forgiveness. Rather, forgive, but resolve to assist the prosecutor when she seeks justice for society.
It hurts to victim to carry the burden of society's need to call the perpetrator to account. Society's role is not to forgive but to reconcile.
Perhaps that means you are correct that forgiveness need not be given (by Society) (it rarely is!) but we are correct in saying forgiveness is necessary for the victim's health and should not be withheld just to keep the perpetrator on notice that you do not approve of him. Usually, he doesn't care.

That is not a Christian argument; it is an ethical argument. Christians who reach the same conclusion sometimes cite the Bible or quote Jesus, I don't (call me an independent thinker/Deist).
I was a bit hostile earier i believe because your writing seemed rightoeus (even if you are an atheist(?)--I don't know what you call yourself). At the same time you don't seem to regard the difference between the Christian sects as crucial to conversing with them/us.
(If you are an atheist then imho you are a Calvinistic one!) The Christians that are engaging you in discourse so aggressively are the kinds that believe in "free will": in salvation through repentance and good deeds, and a person being personally capable of choosing to be saved.
Again, they get to the right conclusion (I am always right!):)for the wrong reasons (usually uncritical belief in scripture, revelation, apocalyptic threats from authority figures or just plain fear). Join them for ethical and logical reasons in urging forgiveness, not it's being withheld.

I never intended so many copies. But the upload process took so long. Sorry.

Of course it is personal, but we do not have enough personal control for unforgivable offenses.

Forgiveness is not a way to let the offender off the hook. It is a way to free the victim and their friends. It is the ultimate self help. For that reason, it should be available to all in all events.

Of course it is personal, but we do not have enough personal control for unforgivable offenses.

Forgiveness is not a way to let the offender off the hook. It is a way to free the victim and their friends. It is the ultimate self help. For that reason, it should be available to all in all events.

Of course it is personal, but we do not have enough personal control for unforgivable offenses.

Forgiveness is not a way to let the offender off the hook. It is a way to free the victim and their friends. It is the ultimate self help. For that reason, it should be available to all in all events.

Of course it is personal, but we do not have enough personal control for unforgivable offenses.

Forgiveness is not a way to let the offender off the hook. It is a way to free the victim and their friends. It is the ultimate self help. For that reason, it should be available to all in all events.

Of course it is personal, but we do not have enough personal control for unforgivable offenses.

Forgiveness is not a way to let the offender off the hook. It is a way to free the victim and their friends. It is the ultimate self help. For that reason, it should be available to all in all events.

Which is why my hatred of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush will live, and grow, from beyond the grave!

Ms. Jacoby

I hope that you did not include my post in the group that you consider uncivil. I respectfully disagreed with you and challenged your statements.

I have actually read or skimmed all the comments on your post - quite time consuming, and many thoughtful comments as well as fluff.

I do not discern "personally insulting" comments although some are bordering on uncivil. However, you are perhaps too sensitive. At the expense of being labeled uncivil, I do think that, as another poster agreed, you got on your high horse and have written an inconsistent piece that really is not based on substance. As I tried to point out, your opinions are fine as opinions, but to write them out as pronouncements, as if based on empirical research was not warranted.

Mr. Malleck has asked what one might do as a judge. The answer is simple. A judge's sworn duty is to administer the law as written. If that means imposing a death penalty, although one may personally disagree with the death penalty as a form of punishment, it has to be imposed. Of course, a judge disagreeing with the death penalty may be more inclined to find extenuating circumstances than a judge who supports the imposition of the so-called ultimate sanction.

Ms. Jacoby, what I found almost too ironic for words is your inability to forgive bad grammar on an Internet comment board. It's almost too funny that in writing a column (or meditation, as you would rather say) on forgiveness, you find a way to castigate.

But, I digress.

On another note, in referring to Jesus' reported comments while on the cross (hmmm... if I don't capitalize it as Cross, am I guilty of bad grammar? Probably not, because the cross had not yet become famous or consecrated as the symbol of Christianity) you write: "On the cross, Jesus reportedly said, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' This is the Christian ideal. I wonder whether even Jesus would have offered forgiveness if he thought that the Roman soldiers knew exactly what they were doing and were having a good time watching men die in agony."

Let me parenthetically pride myself in my impeccable attention to grammar and syntax in that I changed the double quotation marks to single quotes for the quote within a quote!!!!!

You reflect on what Jesus might have done if he knew that the Roman soldiers knew what they were doing. Well, I'm not a Christian or a religious person, but perhaps the point is that Jesus is thought to be forgiving no matter what, i.e., it's an indulgence. On the other hand, it is not Jesus doing the forgiving for he is asking his Daddy (the big Kahuna) to forgive. Perhaps the message here is that forgiveness is not earthbound.

Most importantly, Jesus seems to be forgiving an act without scienter (your point, in essence).

The Lord's prayer contains this: "and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them who trespass against us." (BTW, I think it is grammatically more correct to say "forgive them" rather than "forgive those" but what's grammar when you're dealing with divine stuff?)

So perhaps the "Christian ideal" is only to forgive those who innocently or unknowingly commit wrongdoing, or to do it in exchange for divine forgiveness.

Some ideal.

I appreciate Susan Jacoby's theme regarding the cheapening of forgiveness. Seems to me that many people are uncomfortable with the wounds that the victims carry. Forgiveness and a sense that the victim can move on might help the onlookers feel better.

But I don't agree with her view that: "Without contrition on the part of the offender, forgiveness is simply a state of mind--a condition that may be emotionally or morally meaningful to the one who forgives but has no significance as a social bond, or as a medium for restoring civilized relations between the injured and the injurer." Forgiveness does improve the social bond in several ways. But not the forgiveness that glosses over the pain and anger of the hurt. So I agree that forgiveness should not be cheapened by others for the victims.

But Ms. Jacoby's objection to the antagonistic tone of some of the comments on her meditation seems naive or disingenuous. She used provocative language such as "TV talk show hosts(who)salivate" to interview adult survivors of abuse who have forgiven their abusers, or using this item as the examplar of the "American exaltation of forgiveness". That tone might have invited some of the invective in the comments, although it is also apparent that most discussions of religion or religious themes on this blog invite that tone at times.

I appreciate Susan Jacoby's theme regarding the cheapening of forgiveness. Seems to me that many people are uncomfortable with the wounds that the victims carry. Forgiveness and a sense that the victim can move on might help the onlookers feel better.

But I don't agree with her view that: "Without contrition on the part of the offender, forgiveness is simply a state of mind--a condition that may be emotionally or morally meaningful to the one who forgives but has no significance as a social bond, or as a medium for restoring civilized relations between the injured and the injurer." Forgiveness does improve the social bond in several ways. But not the forgiveness that glosses over the pain and anger of the hurt. So I agree that forgiveness should not be cheapened by others for the victims.

But Ms. Jacoby's objection to the antagonistic tone of some of the comments on her meditation seems naive or disingenuous. She used provocative language such as "TV talk show hosts(who)salivate" to interview adult survivors of abuse who have forgiven their abusers, or using this item as the examplar of the "American exaltation of forgiveness". That tone might have invited some of the invective in the comments, although it is also apparent that most discussions of religion or religious themes on this blog invite that tone at times.

"for atheists it is simply a personal, unilateral, decision not to hate another human. that requires no faith whatever. it is all about the forgiver."

And for your average secular religious American it isn't? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but by your logic all adherents of religions are incapable of being independant human beings, Right? Or is it that an adherent to a religion HAS to have faith to forgive? If that were true wouldn't it mean then that non-adherents of religion are incapable of forigiving? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, the fact that someone who otherwise wouldn't forgive does so because of religion is a good thing?

Regardless, I think many "Christian" bashers are confused about what it means to be Chrisitian or religious in general, probably what you have been exposed to is not in fact your average American piousness. There is this misguided view of religious people being guided sloely by their scripture, doctrine, leaders, etc. and not by their own moral conscience. The "blind sheep of religion" in the U.S. is a minorty, albeit they are the vocal crowd. This is no different than thinking that George Bush speaks for all Americans or that men like Bin Laden speak for all Muslims. It's absolute absurdity.

These are an embarassment to the people they claim to speak for.

Anyway, people on both sides are putting too much emphasis on religion (including Ms. Jacoby, your comment on Christians forgiving after conversion or death of enemies is entirely antiquated, maybe practiced by a superbly small minority at best.) You need to divorce yourselves from this idea that religion, itself is an argument. All religions including atheism (it's a religion whether you want it to be or not and if it doesnt really fall under the definition a lot of atheists are marketing it that way) is the reason for war, forgiveness, murder, happiness, marriages, etc etc etc.

Forgiveness is a personal choice for EVERYONE, not just reserved for those without faith. Everyone does everything because they want to. People who follow religions and still make their own choices do so because they want to. People who follow religion and do as they're told do so because they want to. Atheists who make their own desicions do so because they want. And atheists who just follow all the other atheists do so because it's their choice.

"for atheists it is simply a personal, unilateral, decision not to hate another human. that requires no faith whatever. it is all about the forgiver."

And for your average secular religious American it isn't? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but by your logic all adherents of religions are incapable of being independant human beings, Right? Or is it that an adherent to a religion HAS to have faith to forgive? If that were true wouldn't it mean then that non-adherents of religion are incapable of forigiving? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, the fact that someone who otherwise wouldn't forgive does so because of religion is a good thing?

Regardless, I think many "Christian" bashers are confused about what it means to be Chrisitian or religious in general, probably what you have been exposed to is not in fact your average American piousness. There is this misguided view of religious people being guided sloely by their scripture, doctrine, leaders, etc. and not by their own moral conscience. The "blind sheep of religion" in the U.S. is a minorty, albeit they are the vocal crowd. This is no different than thinking that George Bush speaks for all Americans or that men like Bin Laden speak for all Muslims. It's absolute absurdity.

These are an embarassment to the people they claim to speak for.

Anyway, people on both sides are putting too much emphasis on religion (including Ms. Jacoby, your comment on Christians forgiving after conversion or death of enemies is entirely antiquated, maybe practiced by a superbly small minority at best.) You need to divorce yourselves from this idea that religion, itself is an argument. All religions including atheism (it's a religion whether you want it to be or not and if it doesnt really fall under the definition a lot of atheists are marketing it that way) is the reason for war, forgiveness, murder, happiness, marriages, etc etc etc.

Forgiveness is a personal choice for EVERYONE, not just reserved for those without faith. Everyone does everything because they want to. People who follow religions and still make their own choices do so because they want to. People who follow religion and do as they're told do so because they want to. Atheists who make their own desicions do so because they want. And atheists who just follow all the other atheists do so because it's they're choice.

I have a constant problem in my family with this issue. A family member did another family member wrong, and I stepped in & stopped it. The wronged person in this case did not even realize she had been wronged, & when told so, did not accept it. I ended up being the family scapegoat for both the victim & the victimizer. The result has been to demonize me.

Since then, the victim has often told me I should just "forgive" her victimizer. I argued with her, & came to realize the issue in her mind was not really "forgiveness", it was denial. She didn't want me to forgive, she wanted me to forget.

I saw an episode of "Judging Amy" in which Amy's CSO told her about "Cheap Grace". He said forgiveness without remorse or restitution is called 'cheap grace' by a 19th century Catholic theologian named Dietrich Bonhoeffer; "real grace" has great cost. One must make restitution to deserve forgiveness.

In the Bible, there are many instances of restitution being prescribed. In Exodus 22:1, if a thief stole an ox, he had to pay back 5 "cattle". If he stole a sheep, he had to pay back 4 sheep. (I guess sheep weren't as valuable as oxen.) If he returned the original animal, he had to pay back double. Restitution was a big issue in ancient societies. The Code of Hammurabi has long lists of appropriate restitutions, too.

Our justice system does not require restitution. Why not? Why do thieves get put in jail in our society but not forced to make restitution to the victim?

Forgiveness is wisdom and wisdom is rare indeed and requires concentration, hard work and spiritual practice all things that are not talked about or known about in the official American press.

Having said that, one of the best arguments for forgiveness is that we lack the information to evaluate other people. We don't know the full circumstances, the motivation or the ultimate result of acts that appear to be "unjust" or even evil. We just can't tell what is really happening. The best we can do is to set up rules and proceed with enforcing them without rancor. Jesus said to "love your enemies" but he didn't say "don't have enemies" . You enforce rules and administer justice without hatred or moral judgement--that way justice is clean.

The cowardly reaction of the United States after 9/11, without even examining the facts of those events, in wild acts of hatred that have killed perhaps a million people is an example of justice being carried out in the heat of passion and hatred. It has invited massive corruption and is destroying our society as should be obvious, at least from the moral point of view.

With all due respect to a writer who has spent far more time researching this subject then I, I think you're dead wrong on at least one thing. Absolute forgiveness, if really felt, is a tool of great power for the one who gives it.

I'm not trying to say that there aren't unforgivable crimes; I believe there are. I'm not even saying that everything should be forgiven. On that point, I agree totally with Jacoby; it cheapens the value of the forgiveness if it is awarded continuously and without feeling, becoming a mere bagatelle.

It is precisely that unworldly quality that some unique and amazing people possess, the ability to forgive the unforgivable. Jesus had this trait (and yes, I would say that the Romans knew exactly what they were doing, if not to whom). So does, to take a current example, the Dhali Llama, who constantly preaches forgiveness for the very regime which oppresses his people and faith. The forgiveness demonstrated by these few should not be cast aside or ignored.

Atheists can forgive just as well as believers. In fact, perhaps easier. as has been noted, forgiveness is not about forgetting, nor is it about releasing the offender from justice. nor does it have anything to do with the offender asking for same. rather it is simply releasing the offender from your hatred of them for their offense. put another way, it is a refusal to judge the person as a person and maintain the position with them that they are evil (whether they are or not). for believers it is accepting the biblical statement, judge not, lest ye be judged (perhaps the most "honored in the breach" phrase in the bible). for atheists it is simply a personal, unilateral, decision not to hate another human. that requires no faith whatever. it is all about the forgiver.

Is Susan Jacoby getting into politics:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3079398009919678370&q=Ron+Paul&total=14512&start=20&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=4

For those who do not believe in God, what is there to forgive anyone. There is no wrong, only humans creatures acting out in their natural self. Who are you to tell another creature how to behave or act? Does the prey need to forgive the predator? The natural conclusion of atheism/evolutionary world view is life is a freak accident of nature and the strong survive. Tough luck if you are too weak to handle it.

"Without contrition on the part of the offender, forgiveness is simply a state of mind--a condition that may be emotionally or morally meaningful to the one who forgives but has no significance as a social bond, or as a medium for restoring civilized relations between the injured and the injurer. The absolute importance of reciprocity is apparent in considering the process of reconciliation ..." and so forth and so on.

YOu do not get it. Forgivenss is the part of revenge that you have control over. You don't control the reaction to that forgiveness by the one who offended you. You can't. You should not try. It is only YOUR response that truly matters to you. With one hand you offer that you are a forgiving person, with the other hand you offer that keeping score or reciprocation is also necessary. Wrong. But I'm sure it sells lots of books. God bless you and all you do.

The issue here is not forgiveness, but vengeance. If you do not forgive those who wrong you, you hold onto the right to give out vengeance. And in any civilized nation, vengeance will usually not be lawful.

The issue really being discussed is referred to in the Bible as "longsuffering". I do not have to forgive you to suffer long with you. As a matter of fact, I do not even have to like you to suffer long with you. Thats the whole idea of longsuffering. We do it even though you may not deserve it. It is also called mercy. Not getting the punishment even though you deserve it.

And for those who have spoken of my Lord, Jesus, let me respond. Susan: the Romans did know what they were doing. They knew they were putting to death a man. What they did not know what who that man really was. The creator of the world. If they had, they would not have continued. And Jesus died for everyone even when we were his enemies. Read Romans 5:6.

Jesus did not say "I forgive you" because there was no forgiveness of sins UNTIL He died. After His death, there is remission of sins. God can now forget them as far as the east is from the west.

It is hard for utopian relativists like Jacoby to believe in forgiveness.

For them, "the ends justify the means" and if the means are the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in a traditional religious, illiberal society...I am sure that neo cons like Hitchens and Jacoby have little problems with it.

You know they sure won't ask for forgiveness...it was in the best interest of the people...

"This is the Christian ideal. I wonder whether even Jesus would have offered forgiveness if he thought that the Roman soldiers knew exactly what they were doing and were having a good time watching men die in agony."

Actually, as God he knew exactly what was going on with those soldiers.

Christ said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." Remember, according to Christian belief, Christ came to this Earth for the purpose of being crucified--God made man murdered for our sins.

And I have realized of late that there is no sin so great that God will not forgive us, for we know what not we do.

But, also of late, I have been thinking that hell is the realization of the responsibility for the suffering we inflict on other intentionally and through tacit approval. God's punishment is not a fiery hell or death of the spirit, but the appreciation of Christ's command that we treat others as we would be treated. If we cannot have empathy for others in this life, we will see the errors of our wrongs in the next life. It is the only just and infinite punishment possible--to fully comprehend our sin.

I cannot always forgive, either. But, I do try to have compassion. I would not let another person abuse me, not just for myself though, but for them. Every incident of abuse is another burden for them to bear later.

Hi I have 2 comments if I may:

First in response to your comment: On the cross, Jesus reportedly said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." This is the Christian ideal. I wonder whether even Jesus would have offered forgiveness if he thought that the Roman soldiers knew exactly what they were doing and were having a good time watching men die in agony.

I believe the Roman soldiers knew exactly what they were doing, and torture was part of the punishment. What they did not know or believe was the Jesus was who he claimed to be.

Secondly, Forgiveness for me is a state of mind. And there are those that I have forgiven that a) have not been converted to my faith, and b) are still alive. In forgiving them, I've made a decision that I will not allow there injury to me to continue to hurt me. And even if I never hear I'm sorry, or talk to them again, that's okay.

Hi I have 2 comments if I may:

First in response to your comment: On the cross, Jesus reportedly said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." This is the Christian ideal. I wonder whether even Jesus would have offered forgiveness if he thought that the Roman soldiers knew exactly what they were doing and were having a good time watching men die in agony.

I believe the Roman soldiers knew exactly what they were doing, and torture was part of the punishment. What they did not know or believe was the Jesus was who he claimed to be.

Secondly, Forgiveness for me is a state of mind. And there are those that I have forgiven that a) have not been converted to my faith, and b) are still alive. In forgiving them, I've made a decision that I will not allow there injury to me to continue to hurt me. And even if I never hear I'm sorry, or talk to them again, that's okay.

Hi I have 2 comments if I may:

First in response to your comment: On the cross, Jesus reportedly said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." This is the Christian ideal. I wonder whether even Jesus would have offered forgiveness if he thought that the Roman soldiers knew exactly what they were doing and were having a good time watching men die in agony.

I believe the Roman soldiers knew exactly what they were doing, and torture was part of the punishment. What they did not know or believe was the Jesus was who he claimed to be.

Secondly, Forgiveness for me is a state of mind. And there are those that I have forgiven that a) have not been converted to my faith, and b) are still alive. In forgiving them, I've made a decision that I will not allow there injury to me to continue to hurt me. And even if I never hear I'm sorry, or talk to them again, that's okay.

I appreciate your point of view. Is Vietnam forgivable? After one million dead,3 million displaced and fabric of the society torn, is Iraq forgivable? For the common man on the other side, Bush is untouchable but you and I as Americans are within their reach and vonarable. After what we did to Iraq how do you define a terrorist or a terrorist state? Osama is misrble excuse for a human.. and far from any Islam qualities I know. Just because my government hides behind democracy and human rights should be forgiven for the same sins as Osama's???

WG:

You make an accurate distinction between defending others against evil and retaliating against evil. Those who would turn the other cheek would go so far as not to defend others against evil. You rightly reject such instant and complete forgiveness.

But what if defense is not an issue? The deed is done and then you catch the perpetrators. You ask if I mean to go past mere defense and go so far as to argue for retaliation as a moral duty. I do.

As you recognize, one of the purposes of criminal law, which always acts after the fact, is retaliation, or retribution to be fancy, or simply justice. If you can get the state to do the job for you, then that is all well and good. Count yourself fortunate. You might even have the luxury to personally forgive so as to help yourself.

But, as explained in my answer to Z-BOB, the rule of law does not necessarily apply. In that case, you have a moral duty to society to personally retaliate. If no apology or atonement (I said "absolution" which is inaccurate), then no forgiveness. You must fight back, even if it destroys you.

"Sometimes atonement to those we've hurt directly isn't possible, but we can try to atone in a larger sense by behaving differently in the future and by cautioning others, including our own country, from repeating the past."

Does this include the Iraq invasion?

Perhaps not, since the neo cons like Hitchens (and I assume Jacoby), are already calling for the invasion of Iran.

Your views produce a simplistic "us" v "them" mentality. Vengeance is the key - not forgiveness.

Are you sure you are an atheist, Susan?

You should more like an Old Testament girl to me...

Always back to the holocaust, isnt it?

Jacoby: "I know a number of Holocaust survivors who have found great meaning not only in raising their own families but in extending charity to those who have suffered greatly in more recent episodes demonstrating the human capacity for evil."

How about charity for the Palestinians who have be occupied, oppressed and segregated for 30 years??

Or charity to the victims of the Armenian holocaust - which Foxman and the Anti Defamation League have refused to recognize.

Are holocaust victims not members of the ADL? Where is the charity to these fellow victims?

Jacoby's versions of charity and forgiveness are merely and opportunistic virtues and political in nature.

And she feels that she can lecture Americans and Christians on forgiveness?

What hypocrisy!

Susan you nailed it again. Tired of that hokie forgiveness bull. What seems more plausibly useful to me is an understanding of the offense, but nothing more.

People say they forgive someone almost as a way of assuring their fragile selves that somehow 'because I'm bigger than the offender I will never stoop to that level'. How is that useful? How does mere petty politics better what occurs in the future.

Z-BOB:

I think your position, as you explain it in your post to me, assumes a rule of law that will punish evil doers, leaving you free to forgive them and save yourself from the evil necessity of hating and punishing them. I do not make that comfortable assumption.

You can't count on the rule of law throughout the world. Even in the U.S, not all evil is illegal, and not all illegal acts are caught or adequately punished. Where the rule of law is not up to the task, what then for forgiveness to unapologetic evil doers eager to do it again? Do you value your moral purity over the welfare of others? That's not moral.

(pardon the "repeat": with some typo corrections)

Please bear with me on this.

The "real cost of torture is not to the tortured but to the torturer"? Obviously, one can only say this if one has never been tortured; but even so, one must still ask: What is "the real cost of torture"? So, it "coarsens the moral fiber" of the torturer and his/her society "inevitably", but consider what it does or did to the tortured and his/her people! More real, not "inevitably" but immediately, often, totally devastatingly. Hey, ma'am, let's not get muddled as to who the victim is, the sufferer, the sinned-against. If we fall prey to that, we succumb inevitably to such inanities as "unconditional forgiveness" that you so rightfully heatedly denounced.

For what is missing in the picture drawn by "unconditional forgiveness"? The salient fact that harm has been done to someone--the tortured, the raped, the murdered, etc., has been erased from the scenario of the crime! It is compounding a crime --and I honestly think those who practice (and campaign, preached, etc.) for such abet and become veritable accomplices of crimes after the fact. Indeed, the "reverents," doctors/presidents-of-this-or-that who do so are worse than the actual torturers and other criminals they "benevolently" cuddle, being more pernicious in damaging humanity.

So, ma'am, I beg to disagree with you. For such as we are talking about here (torture and the like), forgiveness SHOULD be (and, anyway, any way, can not be but) a cultural imperative and not just a personal moral choice. Indeed, it is a moral choice because it is a cultural imperative (technically, a mores, a moral injunction of society). When a person "forgives," he/she always does so within a social milieu, a historical time, with consequent social effect. As a poet put it, "No man is an island..." Whatever we do or say or do not do or not say that involves another person, cannot merely be "personal."
.

This commentary shows a fundemental misunderstanding of forgiveness. Forgiveness is not something we give to another, it is a gift to ourselves.

Forgiving another is not the same thing as forgetting another's action.

Forgiveness is about releasing the poison of resentment from ones self. This is particularily important when the resentment is 'justified'. To swallow poison waiting for another to suffer is insanity.

I like what We All Commit Harm and Daniel had to say on this topic. It is difficult. I feel that forgiveness is an abstraction with many facets.

I definitely have forgiven my parents and siblings for all of their perceived faults/failings/offenses. I learned a long time ago that we must embrace life and move on. Chalk this up to the christian "love" doctrine.

Yes, I have forgiven some transgressions in life, but never forgotten. In some ways, I have forgiven everyone for everything. In other cases, I have forgiven no one for anything. I am both magnanimous and petty all rolled into one. Sometimes at the same time for the same transgressions by the same people. Life is complex and reverberates on so many levels of consciousness.

Vengeance is so satisfying! "Living well is the best revenge!" "Revenge is a dish best served cold!" There are so many good sayings about vengeance and revenge. So many good stories in literature (my favorite, "The Count of Monte Cristo").

Forgiveness is indeed a complex abstraction. There are many aspects to it, as pointed out by so many here. I cannot come up with a unified idealogy to practice consistently.

Daniel: You'll like this. I read somewhere that our suffering is part of what makes us unique -- without it, we have less identity. "Yes it was painful, but it was my pain! Don't take it away! It is an important part of me!"

Perhaps forgiveness/vengeance is also a part of the lifetime of experiences that give us individuality, that underscores our existence, that documents our participation in and interaction with our world. It is a part of us and, without a doubt, how we handle it is in part what defines us.

To Bob Crandall:

Bravo! Your comment made me think of something else--that we don't have to fully forgive ourselves for bad actions in order not to hate ourselves. But we all have to be honest with ourselves about the past. Sometimes atonement to those we've hurt directly isn't possible, but we can try to atone in a larger sense by behaving differently in the future and by cautioning others, including our own country, from repeating the past.

I rarely answer a comment personally, but I was impressed by the fact that you wrote under your own name. Whenever I see those television commercials urging parents to "listen to your kids" and let them join the army at age 17 (what does any 17-year-old know about war and death?), I'll think about what you wrote.

I can wish for or hope for forgiveness for my acts against humanity, but do not and can not expect or demand it. What is done is done and I have no idea what consequences beyond my own death this will have. I can realize a wrong and choose not to repeat it or support such actions from others. It does not have to drag my life down though.

Susan,

I just read your rejoinder posted at 4:06 p.m.

I feel very deeply offended because your claim that '... the best way to repair damage from the past is to vow, "I will not do unto others what was done unto me." '

I have asked FORGIVER above (at 2.;04 p.m.)" What would happen if you were a judge presiding a case? Would you forigve every criminal? Would you advise/encourage/force the defendant to frogive?

What if you were in the place of Caral Del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor for the International Tribunal on Yugoslavia? She got angry a few months ago when her frustration at the continuing success of war criminals Mladic and Karadzic to escape arrest by Serb authorities had apparenyly reahed a peak. One would have thought that, months later her anger would be worse. But, NO".

You are confusing three things : (i) the value of forgiveness to each individual; (ii) the optimal collective choice among a list of possible list of reactions -- including forgiveness -- to an offence committed by a memebr of that collective against another memeber of the same collective; (iii) the above two are meant to be resolved in an atemporal fashion; the third complication looks at the perpetrator, the victim, and the collective seeking an optimal choice among the list of reactions, if they have to continue to interact, and even then one has to model the parameters f that interaction.

I have questioned myself a lot, even during my sleep, at my immediate, very sincere reaction to a comment posted by Simon Wiesentahl on WAPO Faith Forum about the same general issue of interfaith dialogue, values, forgiveness, etc.

I have alwsy had a lot of respect, even admiration for the work that Mr. Wiesenthal does; yet, like may sympathisers of Palestinians, I have asked my self how does it happen that his compassion, his sympathy with victims of oppression, does noy extend to Palestinians. Mr. Wiesenthal's reaction to the question posed of him and of Khatami, among others, about the value of an inter-faith dialogue was " Never with fanatics".

I ignored the comment. Most bloggers did, too. The somebody asKed: "How come there is no reaction to the comment of an minent Nobel prize winner?" I immediately responded : "It was Mr. Wiesenthal who blocked the others out! Who is the fanatic? Me? President Khatami? ".

Mr. Wiesenthal never responsded: "The [German] Nazis who were responsible for the Holocaust". Nobodu answered that for him. Instead, there was a lot of blame put at the doors of Islam and Muslims and Bin Laden and Palestinians,, and Iranians, and Pakistanis and my insignificant self, of course.

The truth is: man's beahviour is regulated by 'bounded rationality'. It is beautiful to say "I will not do unto others what was done to me" and then turn around and BLOW MUSLIM NATIONS BACK TO THE STONE AGE BECAUSE ALL FOURTEEN OF THOSE WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WERE MUSLIMS. WORSE, HAVING WRONGLY INVADED IRAQ, IT WILL BE A SUPREME ACT OF CHRISTIAN REDEMPTION TO ATTACK IRAN AND PAKISTAN BECAUSE THE LATTER IS SEEKING TO ACQUIRE WMDs AND THE FORMER ALREADY HAS THEM. NEVER MIND THAT ISRAEL HAS MORE.

No, Susan. No, Mr wiesenthal.

I have values that I respect.

You look at yourselves in a mirror, including the mirror of reason, and decide for yourselves.

Daniel, you said:
"The center piece of Christianity is "love." But have no fear; there is no chance of Christian love suddenly breaking out in the land. Most Christians claim to love other Christians, but more often than not, they do not even pretend to love people who are not Christian. (I know its hard to admit, but it's the truth).

Christians say "love your neighbor as yourself; love your enemy, and do good to them that hate you; do unto others as they would do unto you." The Christians that I know and associate with seldom think about or puzzle over these things; they mostly ignore these instructions, untroubled. Sigh."

My reply, from a fellow Christian:
Sadly, you are right. Too many so-called 'Christians' skim the Gospels and return to Leviticus, because they think it's more 'fun'.

I reply to them: His yoke may be easy, and His burden light. But... the way of the Gospels is NOT easy. It is a continuing struggle, to love those who hate, to forgive your enemies. I have never been terribly good at that. But we must continue. It is a journey, not an end.

With respect,

Arminius

Well, Susan, it's like this:

There's a lot of angry and unhappy people out there: Christians, Muslims, and Atheists. And I don't think they're all necessarily angry at you; you just happen to be handy, and easy, and safe, to "throw a bomb at;" it is sort of like going home and kicking the dog.

If your essay about forgiveness "made someone angry," I am sure they were already angry at someone about something before they even read it.

You are dead wrong! Forgiveness and paying a "legal" penalty do not go together. People who commit crimes must face the legal ramifications, but forgiveness CANNOT be withheld from anyone or we CANNOT expect forgiveness from our Lord.

I essentially agree with the major points Ms. Jacoby makes. Over my lifetime there have been a few people who did truly awful things to me that I could never forgive, even if they had sincerely asked me to (which none of them did, BTW). If that makes me morally deficient, so be it. *I* think it has kept me from having the same awful things done to me more than once. As for those who say that if one cannot forgive, one cannot move on and is tortured by the hatred in their heart, I say poppycock! I get along just fine. I take the opposite view of those who say they can forgive, but not forget. I may not forgive someone, but I can certainly forget the offense enough such that it doesn't dominate my thoughts or lead me to take out my resentment on others. OK, maybe my ex was a jerk who doesn't deserve my forgiveness, and won't ever get it, but that doesn't eat away at me everyday, nor keep me from a happy marriage now. Why is that concept such a mystery? It seems perfectly natural and self-evident that witholding forgiveness is a self-protection mechanism and it need not lead to a life of self-loathing for the unrepentent unforgiver. As another poster put it, the whole idea of 'closure' is over-rated. Sometimes forgiveness makes sense, sometimes not, I don't worry my pretty little head about it, and I don't think God's gonna get me if I don't do 'better.'

.Please bear with me on this.

The "real cost of torture is not to the tortured but to the torturer"? Obviously, one can say that if one has never been tortured, but, even so, one must still ask: What is the "real cost of torture"? So, it "coarsens the moral fiber" of the torturer and hi/her society "inevitably" eventually, but consider what it does or did to the tortured and his/her people! More real, not "inevitably" but immediately, often, totally devastatingly. Hey, ma'am, let's not get muddled as to who is the victim, the sufferer, the "sinned-against." If we fall prey to that, we succumb inevitably to such inanities as "unconditional forgiveness" that you so rightfully heated denounced.

For what is missing in the picture drawn by "unconditional forgiveness"? The salient fact that harm has been done to someone--the raped, the tortured, the murdered, etc., has/have been erased from a portrait of the crime! It is compounded a crime--and I honestly think those who practice (and campaign, preach, etc.) for such abets and become veritably accomplices of crimes after the fact. Indeed, the "reverents," "doctorate-holders who do so are worse than the actual torturers and other criminals they "benevolently cuddle, being more pernicious the damage they inflict on humanity.

So, ma'am, I beg to disagree with you. For such as we are talking about here (torure and the like) forgiveness SHOULD be (and, anyway, any way, can not be but) a cultural imperative and not just a personal moral choice. Indeed, it is a moral choice because it is a cultural imperative (which is synonymous with the technical term: mores, or moral injunction of society). When a person "forgives," he/she always does so within a social milieu, a historical time, with consequent social effects. "No man is an island..." Whatever we do or say or not do or not say that involves another person, cannot merely be personal.
.

This incredibly well written article is sadly wrong on so many levels and shows a misunderstanding of what real forgiveness is. What is primarily communicated is a preoccupation with hatred and revenge. The author states "The American exaltation of forgiveness, by the way, is at odds with our position as the only nation in the developed world that endorses the death penalty." This is just one example that shows that the author doesn't understand the complexity of forgiveness. It does not mean that there are no consequences. A murderer can receive forgiveness from a victim's family and still be put to death. The family can decide not to hold ill-will or hatred in their hearts for this criminal while still valuing the justice that is rightly served by appropriate punishment. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

The Jihadist conveniently forgets 9/11, a unforgettable, unforgivable crime committed by members of her warmongering, koranic driven religion.

November 14, 2007 9:36 AM

You talk as if the Christians have never committed any unforgettable, unforgivable crimes. I could certainly say the same thing about the warmongering, bible-thumping crowd see way too often even in today's civilized world.

"Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone" - JC

btw, I am not a muslim.

Bob Crandall, Thank you for your service. Hopefully one day the leaders of this country will be as good as the soldiers that put their lives on the line for them.

Forgiveness is all to often cheapened in the superficial displays to which Jacoby refers. But forgiveness is more than a state of mind or a simple statement; it runs contrary to our very nature to forgive. This is the radical, scandalous call of Christ. In Christian theology, it is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can truly forgive another. We are called to forgive because of Christ's ultimate forgiveness of all. Without this framing, forgiveness becomes just an act or some moral high ground. Although the other person's request for forgiveness is ideal for reconciliation, he or she may never know how much we were hurt. We are to forgive them even without this repentence becuase none of us is completely blameless. Jesus said, "forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." But none of us can really know the weight of our wrongs or the depth of forgiveness.

What Susan says here is to the point on a vacuous moral position which our government has taken which is - my(our) safety justifies any action no matter how much it compromises and goes against the morals by which we purport to live and believe in.

As a young soldier in Vietnam I committed acts which violated the standards of my Christian upbringing, but were accepted and endorsed by most Christian churches in the U.S. I am responsible for my actions and know that I must understand and accept that I cannot ask for forgiveness nor should I expect any. The best I can do is not repeat such acts and to endorse and support humane and moral action on the part of myself and others.

Though I support our soldiers in harms way, I can not in good conscience endorse or justify the morally defunct position of the government that put them in their current position. There appears to be justification for our actions in Afghanistan; however, the torture and imprisonments which have resulted are an insult and attack on our position as a moral, humane people.

Sincerely,
Bob Crandall

There are several people here who have made the point that needs to be made - forgiveness is not about saying "oh, that's o.k." and merely allowing the other to continue their dirty work. Forgiveness is about being able to move on, not allowing the past to determine the future, or staying stuck in the past. On the matter of forgiveness and reconciliation, Jesus said that if you are going to offer your sacrifice on the altar, and realize that someone has something against you, go and reconcile yourself with them, then come and offer your sacrifice. He also said that, if you have a problem, try to resolve it with them first; if you cannot, take someone with you (a mediator, not a hit man!) as witness; if they still wil not, then go to the council; if they still will not, then let them be "as a Gentile or sinner," in other words, as one who is unconverted in this matter.

Forgiveness and reconciliation are, in some ways, connected. Reconciliation cannot always happen - the Bible acknowledges this in many places. It is something that should be aimed at, however, both in private and public disputations. To the biblical way of thought, the public form of this is justice, the purpose of which is not primarily to punish, but to reestablish relationship and heal the community. The community is not healed by "an eye for an eye."

As to reserving some acts from the act of forgiveness, it is, as several writers noted, ludicrous to think that Jesus didn't know what was going on - that many were gleeful at his death. His statement, in Luke, has to do with his self-identification(Luke 23:43). It provides a preface to the following statement, referring to him as the Chosen One, the Christ (Messiah), and the King of the Jews. It is his indicatin that, if they knew that he was, in fact, all of these things, they would not be crucifying them. In fact, they thought him a pretender.

It is precisely because of his position that he forgives. It is also regarded as an imperitave for all Christians, and the only petition in the Lord's Prayer that has such an imperitave connected to it ("for if you do not forgive your brother from your heart, neither will the Father forgive you."). The Lord's Prayer is the prayer of the coming kingdom of God. Jesus is saying that forgiveness - the letting go of past hurts and the desire for vengence - is an absolute requirement of that kingdom. If, as Christians, we pray, "your kingdom come," we are already asking for forgiveness for our enemies, so that we may enter that kingdom.

In the public sphere, forgiveness is absolutely necessary as well. Martin Luther King said that the spirial of violence (the "eye for an eye")can only be stopped if someone is willing to allow injustice be done to them without retaliating. Forgiveness, in the public sphere, does not mean releasing every prisoner. It does mean that justice is not about revenge, and prisons are not simply systems of retribution. One of the most serious problems we have, as a nation, is the rate at which we incarcerate people, and the rate of recidivism, because we see prison only as punishment, and understand justice as "getting even." There are, certainly, people in our prisons that are so violent that they should never be released into society, for the protection of society. But most will return. As it is, most are not prepared to return as productive members of society. At the same time, victims of crime are victimized again by a system intent only on punishment of the criminal, with little actual regard to compensation for the victimized.

In regard to individuals, then, forgiveness cannot be forced upon them - it must always be a free act. As far as society goes, however, it has much to do with public policy, and the kind of future we wish to build for ourselves.

One final thought. As another writer has already pointed out, our tendency is always to see ourselves as unjustifiably wronged. As is clear from some of the responses on this blog, unforgiveness quickly leads to demonization of the other, seeing other people in one-dimensional ways, and as worthy of harm. For centuries, Christians harbored hatred of Jewish people, refusing to forgive them for being "Christ killers," a lack of forgiveness that led directly to the Holocaust. On a personal level, lack of forgiveness leads directly to the destruction of relationships, of families, and of communities. As St.Paul pointed out, we are all "sinners" in this regard. An old friend of mine used to say, "When I point my finger at you, there are three pointing back at me." That is the other basis for Christians to forgive - we have all sinned. Forgiveness supposes that I do not stand in a more "righteous" position than the person whom I accuse.

I do not believe Ms. Jacoby's article is very well-informed. It certainly does not do justice either to Christian thought, or to the importance forgiveness plays in everyday life.

I think it is useful to make a distinction between forgiveness and forgetting.

I don't think someone can forgive if the offender did not apologize. If the offender does not apologize, then you don't have to forgive.

But it is important to not dwell on the offense, in the negative sense of dwell, because, as a previous poster wrote, such dwelling usually leads to negative emotions, and internalized anger, etc. If it leads to hate and resentment, then you've handed your life over to the offender. They still "control" you.

So in some sense it is vital to be able to "forget". To not hate or resent. That just destroys you.

All of these angry comments only underline the hypocrisy that surrounds the whole subject of forgiveness in American society. Of course it is possible to move forward, and lead a full and loving life, without extending unconditional forgiveness for a terrible injury. I think the best way to repair damage from the past is to vow, "I will not do unto others what was done unto me." People who were abused as children do not have to repeat that pattern; they can love their own children in the way that they were never loved. But that doesn't mean they have to forgive their own parents. I know a number of Holocaust survivors who have found great meaning not only in raising their own families but in extending charity to those who have suffered greatly in more recent episodes demonstrating the human capacity for evil. But this has nothing---nothing at all--to do with having "forgiven" the Nazis and those who abetted them. Perhaps a flicker--not a fire, but a flicker--of unforgiving memory is necessary to guard us against our own worst impulses and remind us that doing good is not always easy.

In my opinion forgivness is a privilage, not a right. Many times it is mistaken by the forgiven as permission to err again.

To simply turn the other cheek is asking for another punch in the mouth.

I wish it were'nt this way, but it is.

In my opinion forgivness is a privilage, not a right. Many times it is mistaken by the forgiven as permission to err again.

To simply turn the other cheek is asking for another punch in the mouth.

I wish it were'nt this way, but it is.

Ms. Jacoby is confusing two things; I can seek justice (through authorities), while at the same time forgiving. If I refuse to forgive, I compound my problem, whether or not the offending party sincerely requests forgiveness.

By the way, I find it extremely presumptious for Ms. Jacoby to say that Jesus did not understand the extent of the actions against him. He knew exactly what was done against him, and he demonstrated his love and wholeness by forgiving.

Ms. Jacoby is confusing two things; I can seek justice (through authorities), while at the same time forgiving. If I refuse to forgive, I compound my problem, whether or not the offending party sincerely requests forgiveness.

By the way, I find it extremely presumptious for Ms. Jacoby to say that Jesus did not understand the extent of the actions against him. He knew exactly what was done against him, and he demonstrated his love and wholeness by forgiving.

Ms. Jacoby is confusing two things; I can seek justice (through authorities), while at the same time forgiving. If I refuse to forgive, I compound my problem, whether or not the offending party sincerely requests forgiveness.

By the way, I find it extremely presumptious for Ms. Jacoby to say that Jesus did not understand the extent of the actions against him. He knew exactly what was done against him, and he demonstrated his love and wholeness by forgiving.

Dear Mike Lewis

Bingo!

You have proved my point exactly, about my problem with Christians. You said:

"I forgive Susan Jacoby for writing this self-righteous nonsense. It is her problem to decide whether or not to be contrite."

But your statement of apology was not sincere; it was delivered in a sort of mean and sarcast spirit.

This is Chrisitan forgiveness?

Thank you so much; I could not have asked for a more perfect example.

Hate will bind you to someone just as much as love will. Forgiveness is necessary for the offended. But forgiveness doe not mean, on a social level, that justice should not be sought. It also does not mean the offended shouldn't learn the lesson being taught.

I have a question for:

"Concerned The Christian Now Liberated"

Why do you blame Jihadist for 9/11?

She is often ironic and droll. She seems to be a conventional and conservative. All of us here know, with a high degree of certainty, that she has no connections to 9/11. So why keep bringing it up?

You post alot. We all know you hate Mohammed, Islam, and the Koran; you have said so many times, in words and phrases that are unvarying.

So? Why do you keep repeating it? Don't you have any sense or feeling or curiousity about each topic, in succession, to say something new, that you may have just thought of today? Why post the same comment several times a day, over and over again? I am sure it must be as tedious for you to write as it is for us to read.

I think that if you ever met Jihadist in person, and were intoduced to her, you would undoubtedly shake her hand, and say some polite thing to her like "pleased to meet you." You are only crude and mean to her because of the anonimity of this method of communicating. So why don't you admit it?

Try to imagine the people who post here as REAL people, like yourself, and try to be a little nice to them, and try to give us all some new and interesting things to read.

Why don't you give it a try? Maybe you would feel better if you did.

Susan Jacoby has written this because she has chosen not to forgive - someone, somewhere - and she wishes to justify it.

In addition to the ad hominem attacks against Christians, she seems to think that it is possible to "move on" from something while refusing to forgive. I posit that if one faisl to forgive, one has not moved on.

I forgive Susan Jacoby for writing this self-righteous nonsense. It is her problem to decide whether or not to be contrite.

Who did need his services then, ah?

Who did need his services then, ah?

I must deagree with you on the point that there are/is unforgivable offenses. Forgiveness and justice are separate act and must not be confused with one another. Forgiveness deals with the person that has been offended and is the will and desire to release the offender of the offensive act. This will absolve the offender of the sin of unforgiveness and begin the healing process, according to the bible. Forgiveness does not and should not require contrition becasue if you start down that road then how much is enough. Justice on the other hand is the fullfillment of the prescribe consequences for the offense. Justice really deals with the offender. I think that if you research what Christianity really teaches about forgiveness you wouldn't make these sweeping remarks that draw the worng conclusion.

Forgiveness is not a blank check....it requires responsibility on the other end as well.

Jacoby purposefully misrepresents the idea of forgiveness and then uses her manufactured misrepresentation to give a scalding critique.

This is her M.O. in most of these "discussions"

Another example of why aetheism is a morally and ethically bankrupt faith.

I must deagree with you on the point that there are/is unforgivable offenses. Forgiveness and justice are separate act and must not be confused with one another. Forgiveness deals with the person that has been offended and is the will and desire to release the offender of the offensive act. This will absolve the offender of the sin of unforgiveness and begin the healing process, according to the bible. Forgiveness does not and should not require contrition becasue if you start down that road then how much is enough. Justice on the other hand is the fullfillment of the prescribe consequences for the offense. Justice really deals with the offender. I think that if you research what Christianity really teaches about forgiveness you wouldn't make these sweeping remarks that draw the worng conclusion.

I must deagree with you on the point that there are/is unforgivable offenses. Forgiveness and justice are separate act and must not be confused with one another. Forgiveness deals with the person that has been offended and is the will and desire to release the offender of the offensive act. This will absolve the offender of the sin of unforgiveness and begin the healing process, according to the bible. Forgiveness does not and should not require contrition becasue if you start down that road then how much is enough. Justice on the other hand is the fullfillment of the prescribe consequences for the offense. Justice really deals with the offender. I think that if you research what Christianity really teaches about forgiveness you wouldn't make these sweeping remarks that draw the worng conclusion.

Dear Susan

I am making these comments from a Christian point of view. I feel I that must say this ahead of time, so that all of the sore-headed critics, whom you have pointed out, can all line up in their proper catergories to cast their insults back at me.

In you essay, I like the following sentence the best:

"In private life, fairness lies between forgiveness and unremitting hatred."

The center piece of Christianity is "love." But have no fear; there is no chance of Christian love suddenly breaking out in the land. Most Christians claim to love other Christians, but more often than not, they do not even pretend to love people who are not Christian. (I know its hard to admit, but it's the truth).

Christians say "love your neighbor as yourself; love your enemy, and do good to them that hate you; do unto others as they would do unto you." The Christians that I know and associate with seldom think about or puzzle over these things; they mostly ignore these instructions, untroubled. Sigh.

I think forgiveness seems to be so important among Christians, because, we, each of us, would like to be forgiven; it is more a self-directed, than other directed sentiment.

I believe that some people hold a bitter grudge, and others forgive easily because of their inner nature and pre-disposition, and not because of the church they attend, or a holy book that they may read.

People are just born, and made, a certain way. The labels "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Atheist" are pretty superficial when it comes to things like this.

And might I add that you can forgive someone, but the wrongdoer should still face the consequences of his/her actions. Forgiving someone doesn't mean they don't pay their debt to an individual, society, etc., for their actions. Susan, are you mistaking forgiveness for injustice? Jehovah is a God of justice, all his ways are right. So, while he forgives us for our sins, he still allows us to face the consequences of our actions (broken trust, lost relationships, jail time). Consequently, that's an example I think we would all do well to follow.

Susan,

Maybe the "uncivil and personally insulting tone" is due to your tone of of generalizations and smug outlook on religion. I can't speak for the grammar, or lack of grammar contained in these posts but when you open yourself to the web you are basically opening yourself to the world. Blogs and posts on the internet are commonly consider personal and less intellectual (maybe that will change in the future).

You speak so much against religion (notably Christianity) that your atheist beliefs hardly shine through. If you truly felt you are "in the right", why do you spend so much time attacking faith? Sometimes you come across as insecure even in your own beliefs.

You mentioned the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation. Indeed, reconciliation is the act of restoring to friendship or harmony, as per Webster. So, there must be some component of forgiveness in there? Reconciliation is the process of forgiveness. How can you have harmony without forgiveness in an imperfect world?

Susan Jacoby:
"
I repeat: forgiveness is not a simple subject. To say that forgiveness ought to be a personal choice rather than a cultural imperative is not to deny say that forgiveness is an essential virtue in personal life. "

There is an excellent discussion of forgiveness in _Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy_ by Donald B. Kraybill, Steven M. Nolt, and David L.

Among the Amish affected by the Nickel Mines Amish School shooting last year, forgiveness is so deeply ingrained in Amish culture that it is, indeed, a cultural imperative. As some of the Amish interviewed for that book indicated, forgiveness can sometimes be difficult and can be a repetitive act as the hurt of the transgression returns.

Forgiveness is separate from absolution, punishment and reconciliation. My act of forgiveness does not absolve the transgressor of responsibility for his action nor does it mean that society should not pursue due process as provided by law. While I forgive my transgressor, that does not mean that I am reconciled to them. I may recognize that a continuing threat exists and eschew all future contact with that person.

Society cannot forgive, it can only pardon, ignore or punish.

As a Christian (Holdemann Mennonite), I am called upon to forgive. It is quite clear from the text of Matthew 6:15 that God will only forgive those who forgive others' transgressions. That, however, does not make it any easier to forgive major offenses.

"Once again, I am dismayed by the uncivil and personally insulting tone of some of these comments. How is it that a short meditation on forgiveness can elicit such rage..."

Welcome to the internet. The Miami Herald found it necessary to censor its discussion pages. In Usenet, I have found it necessary to aggressively filter the offensive material. In some cases (soc.culture.german, among others) the Neo-N*zi hate spam has killed the discussion group.

Mike

I have forgiven my husband and the woman he's had a relationship with for 6 years (mostly emotional, some physical) countless times.

He begs for my forgiveness and keeps on hurting me anyway. He continues to lie to me, even about the small things, such as their communication by email and phone. I'm promised time and again that it isn't happening, when I find proof that it is.

So, now I need to forgive him for gaslighting me, and for the other misdeeds.

I think Ms. Jacoby's comment are helpful. So much talk of forgiveness is indeed superficial.

How does one forgive a continuing hurt?

How do I forgive myself for tolerating this bad behavior, which in turn, hurts my children (when I am unable to relate to them, or unable to do things with enthusiasm, because I am so worn down by this hurt?)

I know this is personal and anecdotal, rather than philosophical.

I am not seeing the power of forgiveness for myself.

One thing to also note about my first comment: it was a social decision to forgive - not a personal one! I agree that forgiveness cannot be an imperative - but that does not say that there is nothing wrong with withholding forgiveness. Sure, I don't care if one person or another doesn't forgive Hussein, Milosevic, Bin Laden, Mao, Stalin or whomever else. But, if as a whole, a society harbors unforgiveness, then it, as a whole, will suffer and will succumb to the same evils that were committed against it. Look at the historical examples, and you will see that forgiveness is and ought to be a social goal.

To go on with one's life while withholding forgiveness is, and I quote Lance Armstrong's ex-wife, "like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die." It doesn't work, plain and simple. I believe it is essential to forgive someone for their imperfections in order to move on with your life. Conversely, it is impossible to withhold forgiveness and move on. You carry that dead weight around for no good reason. What does withholding forgiveness pay off in the end? The other person couldn't care less and you end up bearing the burden. Susan, you sound like a pissed off 3-year-old who refuses to be placated. Yes, some of us have lived through horrible things. But, speaking from experience, the best way to move on is to pray for the other person and focus your energy on healing yourself. Withholding forgiveness is a total waste of energy.

the saying is not a literal one...it is figurative.

This part of the argument is misleading: "On the cross, Jesus reportedly said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." This is the Christian ideal. I wonder whether even Jesus would have offered forgiveness if he thought that the Roman soldiers knew exactly what they were doing and were having a good time watching men die in agony."

The author is suggesting that what the Romans "knew not what they were doing" was killing men in agonizing ways. This is ridiculous. Anyone with eyeballs standing before a cross would know that. What Jesus meant was "They know not that they are killing God." This twisting of the meaning of Jesus's words is indicative of what makes so many arguments based on religious interpretation suspect.

Yo Hewitt,

You sez: "In short, absolute forgiveness is immoral and anti-social, regardless of how it make you feel. You have a duty to fight back."

It seems to me forgiving is a reactive action in response to a grievance. By "fight back" do you mean defend or retaliate? If defend, and if your actions are for the sakes of others for whom you are responsible, you can make that argument easily. However, you (or the state) defend against a current or potential threat, not a past one. I don't think defense and forgiveness are in conflict because you don't forgive while being injured.

If you mean retaliate, and if the retaliation is to compensate others for whom you are responsible, you can make a more tenuous argument (interesting how retaliation sounds pettier in the abstract than in the real-world context of child abuse). I suppose the state's legal system is set up (in part) for this purposes.

But is it your DUTY to retaliate for yourself (after the fact)? Is there a situation in which, as an individual, forgiving an injury done to you is unjust? I don't think we must ever be required to hate as humans, but we must not always forgive as citizens and institutions.

Susan Jacoby I forgive you.

I'm a little confused by the various Christians who say forgiveness is a decision. Time to get your Bibles out folks! Forgiveness is not an option, but an obligation according to the Bible.

In the last year, I was the victim of what I believed was a severe injustice at the hands of others, that literally changed my life forever. For months I stewed in my hatred of them, until one day, I forgave them. I literally said to myself, "I forgive them." I immediately felt happier and felt like a giant weight had been lifted from my shoulders. I realized my hatred was tearing my soul apart; I literally felt less healthy before.

That said, of course I believe in imprisoning and punishing criminals and other immoral people. As someone just wrote, I can forgive someone, but I sure as heck am going to do everything in my power to prevent them from doing it again!

I dont see why we cant love and forgive bin Laden in the Christian sense. Do that for a moment or two and then kill him. Then go back to loving and forgiving him. The important thing is not how we feel about Osama, just as long as he dies.

Jacoby: "I wonder whether even Jesus would have offered forgiveness if he thought that the Roman soldiers knew exactly what they were doing and were having a good time watching men die in agony."

Wow, what an ignorant statement...

The forgiveness was given exactly for the deliberate cruelty and dehumanizing behavior of the guards (greater "civilization") that you mention.

Susan Jacoby's column is excellent. It goes to the heart of the dilemma of the person who has been abused or taken advantage of. On the one hand, one feels that by maintaining a grudge, one may be letting the abuser control one's life (and exert more pain). On the other, as Jacoby points out, blind forgiveness runs the risk of exposing the victim to more abuse, especially if the wrongdoer does not admit the error. I can say that this personally has been a tremendous (and on-going) issue for me: to what degree should one forgive those who have harmed us (especially close family members) when they express no remorse whatsoever.

Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada,

Actually the "shrink" you sent converted to the realm of reality and is now converting the world to the same reality that Islam is a warmongering religion with no saving graces.

Susan, perhaps you could elucidate your personal understanding of what it means to forgive someone. I, personally, am bewildered right now and wonder what it really is.

One can forgive and still punish a person. If someone attacks my family I will forgive him by not hating him but I will try my best to get the government to try him and have him sentenced appropriately. If I do not then I will be failing in my obligations to society. We must all pay our dues.

On the other hand if a person is verbally abusive to me I will go great lenghths to both forgive him by not having ill feelings towards him and to not take legal action against him.

If Jesus and Buddha had been taken literally with regard to their teaching about forgiveness then we would all be speaking German or Arabic today.

I feel the author is missing the point. Forgiveness should have nothing to do with external events (ie offender acknowledging wrongdoing, expressing condolence, etc.)

In Buddhist doctrine, it is believed that hate hurts the owner much more than anyone it is directed at. Similar to hate, witholding forgiveness essentially is the internal fostering of negative emotion towards another. Can you see how dangerous it can be to tie your emotional state to another's actions?

It would be similar to saying that you'll only find happiness when/if your partner, friends, or family treat you well. The actions of others is out of our control!! All that we can do in this world is manage our own response to the external events we are touched by.

Forgiveness in itself does nothing to perpetuate, promote, or bless other's wrong doing. Forgiveness is an internal process of releasing negative energy directed externally. This can never be anything but a healthy process.

I repeat: forgiveness is not a simple subject. To say that forgiveness ought to be a personal choice rather than a cultural imperative is not to deny say that forgiveness is an essential virtue in personal life.

There's a good reason why the South African Commission on Truth and Reconciliation (though it too has its critics) is not called the Commission on Truth and Forgiveness. Reconciliation does not necessarily imply that people must love or forgive one another, but that they must agree not to continue to practice violence on one another. That, it would seem, is a difficult enough goal for human beings to attain.

Once again, I am dismayed by the uncivil and personally insulting tone of some of these comments. How is it that a short meditation on forgiveness can elicit such rage--not to mention truly unforgivable grammar?

Kudos to Susan Jacoby for highlighting why misplaced expectations of forgiveness -- expectations from detached observers, cultural critics, and even family -- may even be more hurtful than helpful.

If parents teach their children that forgiveness is somehow a necessary, or automatic response to a wrong, then we will fail to show them the importance of distinguishing between right and wrong.

We will fail miserably as a democratic society if that is the end result of misplaced forgiveness

Desire creates the separation that it hates,
hate prevents the separation it desires.

I couldn't agree with you any LESS. I am a Christian and by God tells me that I am to forgive whether the offender repents or not.

You say...One may simply (and not so simply) go on with one's life in a manner that demonstrates love and compassion for oneself and others. Forgiveness is a personal moral choice. It should not be a cultural imperative.

It is not a personal, moral choice or a cultural imperative, it is a Biblical command. You cannot demonstrate love and compassion with an unforgiving heart.

I will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men, D&C 64: 10.

FORGIVER,

What you write concerns you as an indiovidual.

What would happen if you were a judge presiding a case? Would you forigve every criminal? Would you advise/encourage/force the defendant to frogive?

What if you were in the place of Caral Del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor for the International Tribunal on Yugoslavia? She got angry a few months ago when her frustration at the continuing success of war criminals Mladic and Karadzic to escape arrest by Serb authorities had apparenyly reahed a peak. One would have thought that, months later her anger would be worse. But, NO!

Why?

We realists know why.

Regards. And shake off your intellectual laziness and look up Game Theory in Wikipeida. What they have written is not too much off the mark, including where Game Theory has implications for morality and forgiveness.

Susan,

Your comments are too shallow. You have not probed the existing literature on forgiveness and your attempts to define a "Christian" belief system are uninformed.
1. Forgiveness is given by most thoughtful people once they accept the loss caused by the other. If you cannot accept the loss, you cannot heal from it. Forgiveness is a sign that the injured party has healed and can return to life
unburdened by resentment.
2. Society's role is to confront the perpetrator of the harm and attempt to have the perpetrator rehabilitated through compensation of the victim, acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and insuring the behavior will not be repeated. Punishment may be necessary to accomplish this. There is no need for the perpetrator to apologize as the victim will likely not benefit from personal expressions of regret.
3. The attempt by the victim to force the perpetrator to make amends is an unfair burden to force on the already hurt victim. That is why society must step up and do it, through legal or other proceedinngs.
4. Christian sects are all over the place on this. Calvinists are more likely to hold resentments, while Methodists and Anglicans might be bore forgiving. It is not consistent. Generalizing is counterproductive to understanding.
5. You are labeling things "good", "absolute good", etc. This reveals a dualistic world view on your part. You might be a Calvinist from what you have written. Manicheanism is the basis of all Christianity, of course, but the more fundamentalist (believing the KJV is the Word of God, eg) one is, the more the issue of forgiveness gets tied into the overall good/evil dichotomy that this (i would argue "primitive")
form of Christianity is bound to. Specifically, a Calvinist would consider the fact that we are all pre-destined to either heaven or hell; immediately detect the "reprobate" status of the perpetrator, and as one who considers himself to be among the "elect", feel a duty to his fellow "elect" not to forgive the reprobate sinner/perpetrator. But that is an inefficient way to resolve things for the future here onn Earth! Better to simply accept things as they are, applying logical principles aimed at society first securing the victim and helping her as much as possible, and secondly by having society, and not the victim, address the wrongs committed by the perpetrator in a formal way and thus reach a result all can hopefully live with in dignity. Good/evil judgments are not helpful in this (and one who has faith should be content that God will, indeed, sort'em out in the next life). So, forgiveness is not about good/bad or forcing a change in the perpetrator by the victim's insistence on apologies, etc. Forgiveness is a sign of mental progress in recovering from the loss inflicted. The victim can live in dignity irrespective of the perpetrator's behavior through healing, includinng both acceptance and forgiveness.

If you fail to forgive you probably feel that you are "in the right" and are absolutely sure of your position.

The need to assert one's "rights" usually comes from a position of weakness and fear. "They can't do that to me!" "They cannot think that I am weak!"

This leads to simplification of events: "it is us vs them" - "we are good, they are evil"

Look at 9/11, this was an attack described as a result of their "hatred of our freedom" when, in reality, it was the result of geo politics and an imperial American foreign policy: sanctions on Iraq that killed 100,000s (mostly young and old), bias in regards to Israel v Palestinians and the military bases on holy lands of Saudi Arabia.

Forgiveness and diplomacy are key to a rational foreign policy.

Jacoby is a NEO CON who would rather pre-empt and kill her enemies than look at complicated root causes of conflict.

Jacoby and neo cons like her only see differences/conflict and they try to impose their will on the world. When the world fights back - they see it as a justification to redouble their efforts.

One has no need for forgiveness when they are "right" ("righteous")

Jesus as the new psychodelic drug of today's aging "Boomers" is, to me a devout Christian sinner seeking forgiveness, the ultimate insult to the richly God-endowed minds of the 60s wasted then on drugs and now on making money off blogs instead of productive work; it is the very thing that shook Mother Theresa's faith. So Ms. Jacoby gets to pay this week's groceries and the high oil bill with a vapid declaration of her inability to forgive Osam binLaden, thus pseudo-philosophyzing and shallowly theologizing on how there's no absolute need to forgive. Geeee, I should like to point out that many of us suffered under a Communist class Holocaust, losing relatives and our youth to it, but we are not devoted to hating the Communists but rather to understanding them.

On my way to buy some history books-- in preparation for my retirement from health care-- at the Borders in the World Trade Center, I was witness to the 9/11 catastrophe-- the first plane hitting. What I can never forgive is my cowardly violation of the Hippocratic oath, hobbling out on crutches to the last "E" Train to safety. But as I ran out, I saw all those determined faces looking death in the eye, determined to save others. THAT is the I-can-never-forgive I think of always-- forgiving ME is impossible-- because when I called Albany that night to get an ER assignemnt, the tape on the State Emergency Assignment Office number simply said: WE HAVE MORE DOCTORS THAN SURVIVORS, PLEASE GO HOME.

But tragedy knows many exploiting parasytes. How do I know Ms. Jacoby is such a parasyte? Because she says not one word about the criminal negligence of leaving the pilot's cabin open after the 1970s decision, following a rash of skyjakings, to keep the pilot's cabin impenetrable and two skymarshals on every flight. Neither rule was followed, hence four planes were seized in ten minutes. An American Airlines official the next day explained on TV: the people in first class pay a lot of money for their ticket so they have a right to see that someone if flying this thing.

Can you forgive that Ms. Jacoby?

You see, what binLaden did I can understand with historical perspective. A bit more depth, for example, exposes the rational similarity to Pearl Harbor and why Japan did it. But the issue is not forgiving the "Japs" or binLaden; the issue is forgiving the avariscious fools blindly running America and our airlines, isn't it?

But that would be too tough for lightweight blogs, poor excuses for payed ads to carry. Sorry, Christianity-made-easy and self-serving has an obvious stink. Real Christianity remembers two things Jesus said:
(1) Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone.
(2)Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

There's reason, Ms. Jacoby, why we are paying $100 a barrel for oil to fill-er-up our SUVs, clearly linked to why we attacked Iraq and intended to attack Iran....Forgive yourselves and your SUV for causing so many of OUR kids to die in Iraq and let binLaden rest in peace, a while back having faced Allah, God, Jesus and maybe even Buddha to be judged. Judge thyself dear lady so that you may seem more honorable and sincere, less commercial and sleezy. I WILL INDEED PRAY FOR YOUR REDEMTION BY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WHO DIED FOR ALL OUR SINS, including binLaden's.

Forgiveness was a big selling point in Roman times, because it cuts down on clan violence. If another clan injures one of yours, if you can't forgive, you are obligated to injure one of theirs. And so it goes ...

I chose and choose to forgive others in my mind and in my heart without expecting anything from them. If I expect something from them, then I am not really forgiving them - then I am allowing them to somehow repay their "wrong" in some minute way. But, forgiveness, as Jesus teaches, is something offered as a free gift to others even despite the others' desires to commit the "wrong." But, for us creaturly humans, forgiveness is also, and perhaps more importantly, a gift we give ourselves. Does it benefit us to continue in rage and demand "justice" or "revenge" - no! Ultimately, we derive a greater benefit from forgiveness, and our souls are allowed to live freer less fettered lives. Perhaps the greatest lesson I have ever learned in forgiveness is taught to me by the Amish community that forgave the slaughtering of their children in the one-room schoolhouse recently. Why did they do that???...because their faith tells them that forgiveness is the only way to real peace. And, I'm not talking about the talk-show forgiveness you speak of; I am talking about hugging the widow at the man's funeral and financially helping out her and her family. What warmongerers, fascists, murderers etc. and people who commit unspeakable crimes really want is the security of having other hateful people like themselves to surround them. Why give them that gift and at the same time rob one's self of the peace of forgiveness?

"How dare Jacoby discuss morality in a public forum! Doesn't she know that by sharing her beliefs, she is threating the right of others to have their own beliefs.

Oh wait, I forgot. Athiests are allowed to foist their morality on the rest of us, as it doesn't have any basis in the major religions that the overhwleming majority of the wold belong. Thank goodness that Athiests can speak their mind, while doing such a great job of trying to prevent others from speaking theirs."

Mike - look around the rest of the page. There are multiple Christian authors on the board as well. Nobody is "preventing others from speaking their minds" here. Unless, of course, you're posting offensive comments.

Hewitt:

Thank you for your comment as restated here:

“So, not only is ignorance bliss, but so too is forgetfulness, right? Really, you are arguing the case for pacifism. You would forgive those who would hurt you without apology or absolution in order to keep yourself from becoming hurtful.
But pacifism is a fallacy. By not punishing evil, you enable evil. All evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing.”

It appears to me that you are confusing my comments on personal forgiveness from the “victim’s” standpoint with the social justice of proper punishment for those who violate the laws of our society. For instance, if someone commits a crime against me and is subsequently prosecuted for the offence, he/she should be punished in accordance with the severity of the crime. I, however, can forgive the perpetrator from the outset and, therefore, I will not suffer the reliving of the incident during the eternal NOW. Also, in general, pacifism would disallow self defence of the person or of the society in general. In no way am I advocating pacifism. Personal forgiveness is an entirely separate issue.

To find peace in every moment through forgiveness is not the abandonment of justice in circumstances of evil acts done by evil men but, instead, is the psychological manner by which we can free ourselves from the past.

The cheapening of Susan Jacoby: not believing in the full power of forgiveness and always being hostile to Christian thought.

“Forgiveness is a personal moral choice. It should not be a cultural imperative.”

Susan: Thank you for again not trying to simplify a very complex issue.

There is this incessant need in our culture to provide categories for people to have an identity under the assumption that people require micro-managing when moral questions arise.

“Forgiveness is a personal moral choice. It should not be a cultural imperative.”

Susan: Thank you for again not trying to simplify a very complex issue.

There is this incessant need in our culture to provide categories for people to have an
identity for support under the assumption that people require micro-managing when moral questions arise.

Susan:

You need to get a hold of the book "What's So Amazing About Grace?" by Phillip Yancey. In Christianity forgiveness is required for our own salvation. For one thing forgiveness frees us from being a prisoner to our own hate. Not forgiving can lead to becoming the same as those we refuse to forgive. If the other person doesn't recognize the act of grace they have been given, then they will ultimately pay the price for their decision. But the forgiver will still be free to be a loving person. By the way, Jesus knew exactly what the Romans were doing. Why do you think he spent the night before praying in blood in the garden?

I believe that forgiveness can only come from the offended party. If the offended party is dead, as is the case with 9/11, then full forgiveness can never be given.

Self-forgiveness and/or belief in Divine forgiveness mean nothing. They are ways for offenders to feel better about themselves while shirking responsibility for their actions. Only the offended can forgive.

I choose to never forgive Bin Laden and those who fomented 9/11. I may never forgive the Muslim ummah for their inaction to bring Bin Laden and others to earthly justice. I cannot forgive America for genocide against the rightful owners of this land.

Yes, there are some offenses that cannot be forgiven.

Interesting how the one task asked of Christians, they can not perform, FORGIVENESS.

I could quote the bible and other religious doctrines, but that would not amount to any real moral thinking.

Deciding whom deserves forgiveness, leads inot the question of whom thinks themself greater than all other people, placing judgemnent on others.

In Nichiren Buddhism, the understanding of "Both good and evil spring forth from the same mind," indicates all people are equally good or bad.

Christians figuring whom deserves forgiveness and whom does not, shows the shortcommings of Christianity.

Christians believe in God and yet do not follow those same teachings.

I would not want to be a Christian and judge others merits without full knbowledge of their karma; past acts, both presewnt and previous lives.

I think the Bible says, "Forgiveness is mine saeth the Lord"

I guess Christians are allowed to pick and choose their terachings the decide to follow.

Christians not feeling God today I guess.

Patrick

MAtt wrote (up there a bit) :
Your right. Its unforgivable that the United States has been meddling in the middle east since the 1950s, when we overthrew Iran's elected government and put a brutal dictator in power that would sell us cheap oil.

Its unforgivable that we are funding a military dictatorship in Pakistan with billions in tax payers dollars.

Its unforgivable that thousands of US soldiers have died for nothing in Iraq.

Its unforgivable that even after many many warnings from Islamic leaders, the USA continued its flawed foreign policy in the middle east, the result of which was 9-11, and all for greed.

Its unforgivable that with the money spent in Iraq, we could have purchased gas for ever car in America for over a year.

Its unforgivable that with the money spent in Iraq, we could have retro-fitted every car in the USA to burn pure ethanol 9 times over.

I could go on and on about our unforgivable offenses. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Obviously Susan thinks the bloody sins of America are the only forgivable ones.

I think that sums up my feeling on the subject. Plenty of guilt to go around. Sure it would have been nice if the terrorists had decided to forgive us for all our screwing around in the Middle East, but they decided it would be a better idea to fly planes into buildings. Of course we decided that the appropriate response was to bomb a country that had nothing to do with it. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives latter and where has it got us? An eye for an eye until the whole world is blind. We're getting there folks.

I will never forgive any act of Islamic terror. And why should I? I'm not aware of ANY terrorist ever asking for forgiveness. And why should they? They think they are paving their way to paradise on the corpses of infidels.

Even considering whether I should forgive them is demeaning. They are beyond forgiveness and beneath contempt. If you love your 7th century dustbowl kingdoms so much, why do you constantly leave just to stir up trouble? Stop trying to make the rest of the world Islamic when the Islamic world is a repressive heap of uncivilized garbage. Any culture where so-called "observant Muslims" feel an obligation to stone women to death for daring to show their hair in public is not worthy of respect or consideration.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated.

Hi, there!

Good to see you're still around!

Feeling better now that you've seen the shrink I sent you?

Cheers!

HEWITT,

No, Hewitt, the notion that an eye for an eye leaves us all blind assumes that we ALL, without exception, fall into the category of either being a victim of an act of aggression that leaves us without one eye or both or being a perpetrator of such a crime.

Most people go through life without committing any crime more grievous than missing a day or two from school by pretending to be ill, repaying their loan late, or telling white lies such as 'my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world (mine really, but REALLY, is, besides being a superb wife, an unparalleled lady gynaecologist and the most loving mother).

The othe shibboleth about crime and punishment is: let those who are without sin throw the firsts tone; I get angry at the drop of a pin, yes, but if I exclude that, I always itch to throw the first stone at the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, be they Osama Bin Laden, or Dick Cheney, or Saddam Hussein, or Jonas Savimbi, former Emperor Bokassa, Ferdinand Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Pol Pot, or former President Stroessner. The author of the erudite book "Crimes Aagsint Humanity", Geoffrey Robertson, would include Popes John Paul and Benedict among those, but I would just take note and stop short of making a pronouncement.

Z-BOB:

So, not only is ignorance bliss, but so too is forgetfulness, right? Really, you are arguing the case for pacifism. You would forgive those who would hurt you without apology or absolution in order to keep yourself from becoming hurtful.

But pacifism is a fallacy. By not punishing evil, you enable evil. All evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Mohamed Malleck touched on the right point, game theory, though he did not take it far enough. In repeated games of the prisoner's dilemma, the winning strategy is "tit for tat" followed by a return to unilateral cooperation. Pacifism only gets you a longer jail sentence, while the defector is rewarded for his evil. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma and http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html, where you can play the game online.

In short, absolute forgiveness is immoral and anti-social, regardless of how it make you feel. You have a duty to fight back.

With or without intending so, all of us offend others nearly on a daily basis. Without forgiveness, even if the world did not degenerate into violence or chaos, all of us would be greatly unhappy--that so many wrongdoers are walking around "unpunished" and "unapologetic."

I am certain that there are days when more than one person thinks of me as just as an unpunished and unapologetic person. I make mistakes. And sometimes I do things that I consider right but others consider wrong.

I am grateful for the forgiveness of others which enables me to wake up each morning and start anew in all of my imperfect relationships with family members, friends, colleagues and strangers alike.

Perhaps you are merely hung up on what the word forgiveness means. But it is ridiculous for you to speculate on whether Jesus would have conditioned his forgiveness. The question that you are wrestling with seems inappropriate, viz. finding some pragmatic schemata within which "forgiveness" fits. However, you really beg a few questions:

1. Is there a hierarchy of "good" deeds for you? You make the statement that unconditional forgiveness is not an absolute good. Is your concept of the absolute good a straw man? More importantly, in what way is unconditional forgiveness not a good? (And please stay on point because relativistic arguments, e.g. the angry victim, do not lead anywhere. Either there is an absoute good or not. I have a suspicion that for you no action in the moral field is absolute. This is not a criticism of relativism, but merely an exposition of your beliefs.

2. Is forgiveness really about the "sinner" or more about the "victim"?

3. Are you confusing forgiveness with a negation of consequences? Is the hatred and anger of a victim who has been wronged by one of the "untouchable" offenses a good thing? If that is the case, then why aren't victims allowed to mete out justice, which would be the only real closure to such feelings?

4. And finally, although this is not really a question, you title gives away your ultimate position: the only way that forgiveness is cheapened is when some arbitrary border is thrown up. Forgiveness, like belief, requires the type of leap into the unknown that Kierkegaard spoke of. Could a God "worthy of belief" really want Abraham to kill his son? If Abraham had killed his son, should he have been forgiven? Would God have forgiven him?

Okay that last question disobeys the rule hidden between the lines of paragraph 4. But to me forgiveness by definition must be unconditional. Justice is another topic.

I believe we're confusing several issues here.

Compulsion: Susan and some commenters, say or imply that no individual should be "compelled" to forgive. Surprisingly, even most Christians would agree with that. Forgiveness is a choice, even for believers.

Right and Wrong: That said, it is a separate question to say whether individuals "should" forgive or not. Clearly, Christ encourages it. For non-Christians, that fact should not constitute an argument either for agreeing or NOT agreeing.

Good for Society: It's still another question to ask whether forgiveness is "good for society." I believe that even most atheists would prefer to live in a community where wrongs are generally forgiven rather than one in which individuals feel emboldened to be angry and possibly seek retribution all the time, since the former society might tend to be less violent. Note, I said "might"--it's an empirical question that probably doesn't have a universal answer.

Good for Individual Psychologically: Finally, it's another question to ask what the psychological impacts are of forgiveness. As above, I urge other readers to consider that there may not be a universal answer to this question. Even for the same individual, forgiveness may be psychologically easy sometimes and other times very hard. Being psychologically easy or hard says little or nothing about whether forgiveness is good for the individual, for society, or for God. Plenty of "hard" things are "good," and plenty of "easy" things are "bad."

--

My personal view is that forgiveness is indeed a gift. It's a gift that can be easier to give than some people realize (at least until, say, they have a disobedient kid or an adulterous spouse who they choose to continue loving). And it's a gift that can be much more difficult and painful to give than practicing Christians such as myself sometimes are led to expect at church.

That said, I'd like to focus on the "it's sometimes easier than one expects" scenario mentioned above. Why is it most people are more willing to forgive a family member than a stranger, a member of the same political party than someone of the opposite party, ourselves more than others? In my view, it is because we wish to maintain a good relationship with and view of the wrongdoer. In other words, we extend forgiveness most often to people whom we consider to be part of some group or community.

My understanding of Christianity leads me to consider all people, whether "strangers" or not, as part of the same "body," what Martin Luther King called the "beloved community" of humanity. This does not mean that I'm not capable of seeing and (heavily sometimes!) empathising with the view that each of us is an island who must look out for number one, but over the course of my life, I have found that the former view has tended to serve me better (in a narrow selfish sense). I'm certain that it has served my communities better. Maybe it is "better."

"There are other ways of exacting justice from criminals. In public life and law, justice is the domain that lies between revenge and forgiveness. In private life, fairness lies between forgiveness and unremitting hatred."

That is an ingenious rationalization for maintaining bitterness, Susan. I'll try to remember that one.

Thank goodness, though, that it is not the basis for any organized moral thought, because it also happens to be wrong.

People can choose all sorts of things, Susan. They can forgive or not forgive. They can love or hate. They can kill or not kill.

But that doesn't mean that all choices are equal.

Forgiveness is a better choice, for a victim, for purposes of facilitating responsibility and reconciliation, and for purposes of not being blinded by irrational bitterness and hurt that blinds people to realities that they otherwise avoid and ignore for fear of facing that hurt.

You are free not to do it. And it has consequences. And the most serious consequence is that it distorts you view of people and yourself and your relationship with others.

Of course we must be concerned if people are dangerous or if they have seriously and genuinely taken responsibility. But that happens independently and concurrently with forgiveness, not as a prerequisite.

You are welcome to believe otherwise, Susan. And it will have consequences for your life that will be unfortunate for you, I'm sure.

But more important than your personal choices, I do think it's important to establish that there are empirically better choices for your life and for those around you.

Palestine, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, Lybia, Syria, and many other closed societies are reflections of populations with closed hearts, often, as much as closed governments. And those closed hearts have consequences for the way they view the world. There is a reason that Palestinians dance in the streets after 9/11 and Americans and Westerners shake their heads in disbelief.

Because stronger, liberal democratic cultures take forgiveness and compassion more seriously. And others do not. And the consequence is a coarsened culture, regardless (and reflective) of their views on capital punishment.

I think it's foolish to take the road you take, Susan. But it's equally important to me that most people know that forgiveness is the better road - for their own welfares, as much as for the welfares of those who have wronged them - even if you take the foolish road. At the very least, when people have mistaken beliefs, others can learn from their mistakes.

And your's is the one of the most serious mistakes that a person can make in their lifetime.

Ben Sutherland
http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/

"There are other ways of exacting justice from criminals. In public life and law, justice is the domain that lies between revenge and forgiveness. In private life, fairness lies between forgiveness and unremitting hatred."

That is an ingenious rationalization for maintaining bitterness, Susan. I'll try to remember that one.

Thank goodness, though, that it is not the basis for any organized moral thought, because it also happens to be wrong.

People can choose all sorts of things, Susan. They can forgive or not forgive. They can love or hate. They can kill or not kill.

But that doesn't mean that all choices are equal.

Forgiveness is a better choice, for a victim, for purposes of facilitating responsibility and reconciliation, and for purposes of not being blinded by irrational bitterness and hurt that blinds people to realities that they otherwise avoid and ignore for fear of facing that hurt.

You are free not to do it. And it has consequences. And the most serious consequence is that it distorts you view of people and yourself and your relationship with others.

Of course we must be concerned if people are dangerous or if they have seriously and genuinely taken responsibility. But that happens independently and concurrently with forgiveness, not as a prerequisite.

You are welcome to believe otherwise, Susan. And it will have consequences for your life that will be unfortunate for you, I'm sure.

But more important than your personal choices, I do think it's important to establish that there are empirically better choices for your life and for those around you.

Palestine, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, Lybia, Syria, and many other closed societies are reflections of populations with closed hearts, often, as much as closed governments. And those closed hearts have consequences for the way they view the world. There is a reason that Palestinians dance in the streets after 9/11 and Americans and Westerners shake their heads in disbelief.

Because stronger, liberal democratic cultures take forgiveness and compassion more seriously. And others do not. And the consequence is a coarsened culture, regardless (and reflective) of their views on capital punishment.

I think it's foolish to take the road you take, Susan. But it's equally important to me that most people know that forgiveness is the better road - for their own welfares, as much as for the welfares of those who have wronged them - even if you take the foolish road. At the very least, when people have mistaken beliefs, others can learn from their mistakes.

And your's is the one of the most serious mistakes that a person can make in their lifetime.

Ben Sutherland
http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/

"There are other ways of exacting justice from criminals. In public life and law, justice is the domain that lies between revenge and forgiveness. In private life, fairness lies between forgiveness and unremitting hatred."

That is an ingenious rationalization for maintaining bitterness, Susan. I'll try to remember that one.

Thank goodness, though, that it is not the basis for any organized moral thought, because it also happens to be wrong.

People can choose all sorts of things, Susan. They can forgive or not forgive. They can love or hate. They can kill or not kill.

But that doesn't mean that all choices are equal.

Forgiveness is a better choice, for a victim, for purposes of facilitating responsibility and reconciliation, and for purposes of not being blinded by irrational bitterness and hurt that blinds people to realities that they otherwise avoid and ignore for fear of facing that hurt.

You are free not to do it. And it has consequences. And the most serious consequence is that it distorts you view of people and yourself and your relationship with others.

Of course we must be concerned if people are dangerous or if they have seriously and genuinely taken responsibility. But that happens independently and concurrently with forgiveness, not as a prerequisite.

You are welcome to believe otherwise, Susan. And it will have consequences for your life that will be unfortunate for you, I'm sure.

But more important than your personal choices, I do think it's important to establish that there are empirically better choices for your life and for those around you.

Palestine, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, Lybia, Syria, and many other closed societies are reflections of populations with closed hearts, often, as much as closed governments. And those closed hearts have consequences for the way they view the world. There is a reason that Palestinians dance in the streets after 9/11 and Americans and Westerners shake their heads in disbelief.

Because stronger, liberal democratic cultures take forgiveness and compassion more seriously. And others do not. And the consequence is a coarsened culture, regardless (and reflective) of their views on capital punishment.

I think it's foolish to take the road you take, Susan. But it's equally important to me that most people know that forgiveness is the better road - for their own welfares, as much as for the welfares of those who have wronged them - even if you take the foolish road. At the very least, when people have mistaken beliefs, others can learn from their mistakes.

And your's is the one of the most serious mistakes that a person can make in their lifetime.

Ben Sutherland
http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/

Perhaps you are merely hung up on what the word forgiveness means. But it is ridiculous for you to speculate on whether Jesus would have conditioned his forgiveness. The question that you are wrestling with seems inappropriate, viz. finding some pragmatic schemata within which "forgiveness" fits. However, you really beg a few questions:

1. Is there a hierarchy of "good" deeds for you? You make the statement that unconditional forgiveness is not an absolute good. Is your concept of the absolute good a straw man? More importantly, in what way is unconditional forgiveness not a good? (And please stay on point because relativistic arguments, e.g. the angry victim, do not lead anywhere. Either there is an absoute good or not. I have a suspicion that for you no action in the moral field is absolute. This is not a criticism of relativism, but merely an exposition of your beliefs.

2. Is forgiveness really about the "sinner" or more about the "victim"?

3. Are you confusing forgiveness with a negation of consequences? Is the hatred and anger of a victim who has been wronged by one of the "untouchable" offenses a good thing? If that is the case, then why aren't victims allowed to mete out justice, which would be the only real closure to such feelings?

4. And finally, although this is not really a question, you title gives away your ultimate position: the only way that forgiveness is cheapened is when some arbitrary border is thrown up. Forgiveness, like belief, requires the type of leap into the unknown that Kierkegaard spoke of. Could a God "worthy of belief" really want Abraham to kill his son? If Abraham had killed his son, should he have been forgiven? Would God have forgiven him?

Okay that last question disobeys the rule hidden between the lines of paragraph 4. But to me forgiveness by definition must be unconditional. Justice is another topic.

"There are other ways of exacting justice from criminals. In public life and law, justice is the domain that lies between revenge and forgiveness. In private life, fairness lies between forgiveness and unremitting hatred."

That is an ingenious rationalization for maintaining bitterness, Susan. I'll try to remember that one.

Thank goodness, though, that it is not the basis for any organized moral thought, because it also happens to be wrong.

People can choose all sorts of things, Susan. They can forgive or not forgive. They can love or hate. They can kill or not kill.

But that doesn't mean that all choices are equal.

Forgiveness is a better choice, for a victim, for purposes of facilitating responsibility and reconciliation, and for purposes of not being blinded by irrational bitterness and hurt that blinds people to realities that they otherwise avoid and ignore for fear of facing that hurt.

You are free not to do it. And it has consequences. And the most serious consequence is that it distorts you view of people and yourself and your relationship with others.

Of course we must be concerned if people are dangerous or if they have seriously and genuinely taken responsibility. But that happens independently and concurrently with forgiveness, not as a prerequisite.

You are welcome to believe otherwise, Susan. And it will have consequences for your life that will be unfortunate for you, I'm sure.

But more important than your personal choices, I do think it's important to establish that there are empirically better choices for your life and for those around you.

Palestine, Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, Lybia, Syria, and many other closed societies are reflections of populations with closed hearts, often, as much as closed governments. And those closed hearts have consequences for the way they view the world. There is a reason that Palestinians dance in the streets after 9/11 and Americans and Westerners shake their heads in disbelief.

Because stronger, liberal democratic cultures take forgiveness and compassion more seriously. And others do not. And the consequence is a coarsened culture, regardless (and reflective) of their views on capital punishment.

I think it's foolish to take the road you take, Susan. But it's equally important to me that most people know that forgiveness is the better road - for their own welfares, as much as for the welfares of those who have wronged them - even if you take the foolish road. At the very least, when people have mistaken beliefs, others can learn from their mistakes.

And your's is the one of the most serious mistakes that a person can make in their lifetime.

Ben Sutherland
http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/

How is it that cultural Jews - like Jacoby or Hitchens - are allowed to use Jewish logic/tradition (in this case, against forgiveness) and are still allowed to call themselves atheists??

Very tricky...Jacoby

A great way to attack other religions Christianity or Islam) under the guise of atheistic "objectivism"

Your right. Its unforgivable that the United States has been meddling in the middle east since the 1950s, when we overthrew Iran's elected government and put a brutal dictator in power that would sell us cheap oil.

Its unforgivable that we are funding a military dictatorship in Pakistan with billions in tax payers dollars.

Its unforgivable that thousands of US soldiers have died for nothing in Iraq.

Its unforgivable that even after many many warnings from Islamic leaders, the USA continued its flawed foreign policy in the middle east, the result of which was 9-11, and all for greed.

Its unforgivable that with the money spent in Iraq, we could have purchased gas for ever car in America for over a year.

Its unforgivable that with the money spent in Iraq, we could have retro-fitted every car in the USA to burn pure ethanol 9 times over.

I could go on and on about our unforgivable offenses. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Obviously Susan thinks the bloody sins of America are the only forgivable ones.

Forgiveness is a central theme for anyone who is attempting to live a mindful life where every moment is free from selfishness and, instead, full of peace and joy. Without forgiving those who have “wronged” “you” then “you” are the one who suffers. In other words, since the psychological effects of not forgiving someone are to cause the non-forgiving person to suffer over past events or phenomena, true forgiveness frees the one forgiving from suffering due to memories of the past. This psychological “freedom from the past” through forgiveness allows us to live completely in “this” moment with a deep understanding that your part of the “kingdom of heaven” is always in the NOW. If you do not forgive, you cannot truly live in this moment which is where all things exists.
By teaching us to even forgive our enemies, wasn’t Jesus Christ showing us the way to truly live in the moment and not let past transgressions enter our psychological perceptions and, thereby, mask the moment. We all hate the actions of tyrants, terrorists, murderers, etc. but when we realize that the person behind the actions acted selfishly to achieve their “sinful” act, it is the victim who suffers further by “reliving” the past by not truly forgiving the act. To repeat part of an earlier post:

If one looks deeply into their existence, one can determine that humans are not separate entities from the rest of the universe. In other words, we as physical beings are intimately connected to other “things” in the universe. We cannot survive without water, oxygen, vegetables, fruit, etc. and, therefore, we are a “part” of the “whole” Our ability to distinguish ourselves from other humans or animals or plants is an evolutionary strategy for self survival. But when you combine our intellectual abilities of conceptualization with our self awareness, we “create” a complex selfish entity. Within our thoughts over our lifetimes, we create an entity of self that attempts to protect itself from others and attach itself to people and to things. In Christian terminology this selfishness is defined as sin. Selfish acts and thoughts always cause the selfish person to suffer. Also, since in true reality we are part of all things, when we are selfless in thoughts and acts, we are one with “god“. However, when we are selfish in thoughts and acts, we are separate from “god”.

To not forgive is to allow the “self” to be psychologically central and, thereby, disallow the condition of oneness with “god” (which is our true nature).

The Jihadists did not and would not forgive the United States for violating their sacred soil and putting U.S. troops and a military airfield in their holy land of Saudi Arabia.

Just one of the results of their lack of forgiveness was 9/11.

Now we will not forgive them.

Where will it end?

Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada,

Hmmm, then there is the Islamic terror and torture theocracy of Iran. No forgiveness in that country since it practices the warmongering of the koran, i.e. your religion's book of peace!! What a joke!!!!.

How dare Jacoby discuss morality in a public forum! Doesn't she know that by sharing her beliefs, she is threating the right of others to have their own beliefs.

Oh wait, I forgot. Athiests are allowed to foist their morality on the rest of us, as it doesn't have any basis in the major religions that the overhwleming majority of the wold belong. Thank goodness that Athiests can speak their mind, while doing such a great job of trying to prevent others from speaking theirs.

How dare Jacoby discuss morality in a public forum! Doesn't she know that by sharing her beliefs, she is threating the right of others to have their own beliefs.

Oh wait, I forgot. Athiests are allowed to foist their morality on the rest of us, as it doesn't have any basis in the major religions that the overhwleming majority of the wold belong. Thank goodness that Athiests can speak their mind, while doing such a great job of trying to prevent others from speaking theirs.

Bin Laden is a bad man and will kill for his beliefs. Now should he be blamed for 3900 soldiers death and 6000 soldiers injured? What about the homeless soldiers that returned from Iraq/Afghanistan? The US Treasury being robbed by the White House? The corruption of sub prime as was done by the GOP friends? Thousands of Americans who have lost their homes, jobs and pensions. American Children without Health Care.
The 9 Trillion dollar debt Bush/Cheney have created. Yes blame Bin Laden and stupid people will believe the lies, but educated Americans know better. We listen to GOP paid Journalist spread the propaganda and the Media report what the White House tells them. Then we read the truth in the foreign press/media. Bin Laden was used as a front for plans the GOP had made when Clinton was in office. America does have a true enemy who is destroying this once Great Nation. Yes the enemy is from within and it has taken control of the White House and the US Government. So keep spreading the lies in hopes somebody will believe it but the truth is out now. This Administration had a plan to invade 7 Middle Eastern countries and steal oil while Israel was looking to take the land. Only one person stood in the way of the Bush/Cheney plan and that was God. The plan backfired because it was done by Evil Satan worshippers as we see the GOP perverts, child molesters and those who hire prostitutes are GOP Law Makers.

You can forgive someone without liking them or condoning their behavior or action(s).

Withholding forgiveness is more damaging to the withholder than to the person(s) needing forgiveness. You are the one holding the hurt/grudge/animosity. They, in all likelihood do not know or care.

In many cases, a lack of forgiveness is underpinned by a lack of understanding.

But, most of all, forgiveness is an act of compassion -- compassion for oneself.

Search the gospels. There isn't a single quote of Jesus explicitly offering his forgiveness to anyone, although of course there are many instances of his speaking of forgiveness.

Instead, Jesus loves. That is, he acts toward wrongdoers in exactly the same way that he would act toward them in the absence of their wrongs, that is, in a way many of us would act only AFTER our wrongdoers have apologized and/or received "justice." Love is the manifestation of Jesus's forgiveness--already complete.

I don't comment on this feature of the gospels, other than to say that it is the example Jesus set.

I am saddened by your suggestion that some actions (i.e. sins) should not be forgiven. While I agree with you that the offering of forgiveness should be a personal choice not one supplied by the collective, I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that forgiveness is unnecessary.

When you forgive someone, you are NOT absolving them of their actions against you. You are NOT saying what they did was acceptable, or that they should take no responsibility for their actions. You are NOT saying that you want to forge a relationship with this person. You are saying that you are letting go of the pain they caused you and continue to cause you every time you think of what they did.

The Romans had been killing people for enjoyment for years prior to the death of Jesus. I'm fairly confident that the Romans weren't the only ones getting a kick out of watching Jesus hang on the cross and die. Everyone involved knew what crucifixion was, they had witnessed it before. By making the argument that Jesus was forgiving people without understanding their intents shows just how little you know about your Biblical History or even the Bible story itself.

I know from personal experience how hard it is to forgive, but forgiving does not mean forgetting. Forgiving is not about absolving the other person, it is about releasing hate and hurt from yourself.

I know that unwittingly I have hurt numerous people in my life, as has everyone else. I hope that one day all of those people choose to forgive me my stupidity and selfishness and I hope, Susan Jacoby, that those people you have hurt in your life choose to forgive you. God Bless.

Susan,

Not your best effort. I agree with you on many points, mostly regarding forgiveness without having the guilty party acknowledge any wrongdoing...but I agree with another poster here that it's easy to become inconsistent when you're galloping into the sunset on your high horse.

This is a good piece, but not profound enough. It is Game Theory that offers the best approach to ALL morality topics including the 'science of compassion', 'forgiveness'. Currently, Game Theorists are working on the notion of 'the optimal penal code' that allows two or more parties in situations of conflict, (engaged in so-called 'infinitely repeated games' or games otherwise formulated, with 'bounded rationality' and 'limited, asymmetrical, evolving information that become endogenous to the strategies') to inflict 'optimal' penalties on the transgressors (those who adopt counter-productive strategies) so that their behaviour converges to 'optimal' in the least number of moves and at lowest cost to the aggrgate of players.

That was the very complex theory.

At the concrete level, Susan wrotes : " It is both a personal issue and, as demonstrated by Bishop Tutu's efforts toward reconciliation in South Africa, a social issue of vast importance. In the United States, however, the very word "forgiveness" has been cheapened by both secular and religious psychobabble implying that unconditional forgiveness, even when unaccompanied by any acknowledgment of responsibility on the part of the wrongdoer, is an absolute good."

Susan is being very selective on the South African and American experience. Wouter Basson, known as Dr. Death, is widely acknowledged to be an evil character in South Africa. In my recollection, he never really repented in front of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; he even argued convincingly that his monstrous methods were inspired by American practice; the last I knew he was still free and practising medicine and even teaching in South Africa; all this whilst the family of 'people's doctor' Abubakar Asvat (who was allegedly murdered by Winnie Mandela's football club because he had treated Stompy Sempei, and therefore knew too much, when the latter had been savagely attacked as an apartheid collaborator by the same football club at Winnie's request) has still been discouraged from seeking redress in an unacceptably painful and blind sacrifice in order
to further national harmony!

NO! 'Forgiveness', I always shout with all my might, is the hypocrite's lie for cowardice and lack of courage when it is, even to the slightest extent, imposed from outside.

Yesterday, I read an article from IHT that we need less dialogue between Islam and Christianity and more debate, frank exchange. Indeed, the Christian ideal that Susan refers to translates into the exact extreme opposite in terms of Chrstain practice, precisely because the ideal is untenable. In reaction, just like a pendulum swinging to the opposite extreme, Christian practice has swung to the opposite practice that 'might is right' MIGHT IS RIGHT.

By contrast, Islamic theory and practice do not diverge --- everyone has a right to ask an eye afor an eye, but it is better to forgive, PROVIDED, provided that there exists no evidence, at the time of forgiving, that the act of forgiveness could result in a greater harm coming to society.

I cannot tell whether, by allowing Wouter Basson to go free so far, by encouraging - the family of Abubakar Asvat to forgive-- possibly not quite according to their free will, by lending a blind eye to the recent revelation that former South African President De Klerk had had knowledge of, and apparently acquiesced to, the murder of girls in their sleep only five days before he was about to receive the Nobel Peace prize, we are promoting human welfare by forgiving or aggravating the crime. But, it has now become perfectly clear that those who were sceptical when one apartheid era perpetrator of crimes washed the feet of Reverend Chicano, he was calculating that that act of repentance might get him off the hook. The evidence now is clear that humanity's welfare would not have been served had he gotten off the hook, had he been undeservedly forgiven.

Rumsfeld and Cheney should not be underservedly forgiven either if the International Criminal Court concludes to their guil, upon their being tried somehow, whether in absentia or by whatever legal way can be devised for them to be tried for war crimes.

I respectfully disagree with the following points all in the same paragraph of your piece:

"The American exaltation of forgiveness, by the way, is at odds with our position as the only nation in the developed world that endorses the death penalty."

Considering that you also emphasize that there are other ways of punishing crime, it appears that you have confused cause and condition. What you object to is the nature of the punishment, i.e., capital punishment, not the issue of forgiveness. If what you say is correct, then even incarceration is at odds with forgiveness. This is just a lot of words that do not mean anything substantive. The issues with punishment do not involve forgiveness, but rather, many other factors. Some are accountability, revenge, retribution, deterrence, social order, predictability of consequences, a societal need to have a system of laws and enforcement, etc. - not exhaustive or of equal importance, but surely nothing to do with forgiveness. Perhaps the parole system deals with some of that.

"In my essay on torture last week, I noted that the real cost of torture is not to the tortured but to the torturer, that torture inevitably coarsens the moral fiber of the individual who imposes it and the society that sanctions it."

Again, a lot of words, but not based on anything empirical but merely your sense of it which is fair enough, but you have no experience either as a torturer (I hope) or as a recipient of torture (that I know of) to be able to make this sort of statement. Many people - not including me - justify torture in extreme circumstances with the unrealistic "ticking bomb" scenario being the prime example. There are amoral torturers to be sure - no more coarsening needed. However, there may be perfectly moral people who make a rational, but in my view not acceptable, decision to go ahead with torture.

I am not as ready as you are to condemn others because they don't agree with your view.

"I view the death penalty in exactly the same way. This does not mean, however, that naive forgiveness is the alternative to the death penalty for criminals. There are other ways of exacting justice from criminals. In public life and law, justice is the domain that lies between revenge and forgiveness."

Other rational people have viewed the death penalty as perfectly okay within a system of laws justly and evenly administered. And, as noted, you are merely talking about which penalty to impose. Some might say any period of lock up in a prison is harsh and amoral - why not let the convicts live in reasonable housing, isolated from the rest of society except for working hours where they are allowed to work for a reasonable wage and under strict supervision? Is it better to make them work for a dollar a day and do menial tasks and be subject to abuse?

I think it's way too easy to get off on your high horse about this stuff without realizing that you are not being consistent.

BTW, I see the death penalty as a total waste of time and impossible to administer evenly given our society's perceptions of races and stereotypes about criminals. Also, it is no deterrent. Therefore, I oppose it, but it is not, for me, a moral issue. I recognize that for many it is.

"In private life, fairness lies between forgiveness and unremitting hatred."

I have no clue what this meaningless abstraction means. In private life, fairness lies in being fair. Sometimes that involves forgiveness, sometimes you are better off ignoring some people. It does little good to feel hatred because it is a feeling that YOU feel, not the other person. Now, if you could take your hatred and turn it into action, that's where the moral issue might arise - what are you justified in doing on the basis of hatred and should you let hatred be the impelling force.

There's a lot of justified anger in my past.
Things done to me that have such a strong emotional tag to them that they will never be expunged from my psyche. Cognitive therapy, anger management, flooding, etc. have no effect.
"Forgiveness" in my case consists of putting it behind me and getting on with my life without obsessing over retribution. But it certainly doesn't mean I've forgotten about it or will ever allow them the opportunity to hurt me again.

The biggest problem is stopping myself from engaging in displacement. From committing my own set of atrocities on those who don't deserve it. The cycle of gratuitous violence and harm has to stop. And it seems to me that there are a lot of people in the same boat.

These comments aren't interesting enough, although many of you sound smarter and better read than I. I'm all for beating on Christian values, but can we make this spicier and more relevant to political and social life?

Susan says that forgiveness is a personal choice, which I agree with--someone's own moral decisions don't really concern me unless they harm others. She also says, somewhat awkwardly, that forgiveness is balanced with "hatred" to create justice; i.e. we need sticks as well as carrots to maintain society, so universal forgiveness is impossible for the state. But, is it ever universally "bad" on a socio-political, extra-governmental level to forgive? If I choose not to remain angry and thus be motivated to induce change or resist oppression, is my behavior foul? Is it ever unjust to forgive on a personal level? I haven't figured this out, but I think it would be interesting to hear Susan answer this. Or you guys.

I've never understood forgiveness. When one suffers a wrong, whether real or imagined, perpetrated by a spouse or someone with whom one must continue living and interacting, some sort of accommodation must be arrived at if the peace of mind of the wronged is to be restored. Often, I believe, the accommodation is more along the lines of part understanding, part self-examination, part self-delusion, and part watchfulness for the signs that the wrong may be repeated. I think all of this is often packaged, in the mind of the wronged, as forgiveness, and the perpetrator is so informed.

When the offense is perpetrated by a stranger, as in a crime, the victim, in an effort to learn to live with what happened to him or her, invokes the same thoughts as above with the added hope for restitution and/or punishment of the perpetrator. When the latter isn't forthcoming, the victim is left with insufficient grounds for forgiveness, but is often pursuaded to proclaim that they have forgiven the criminal.

Forgiveness, in my view, benefits the victim in that it helps the victim live with what happened, but often lets the perpetrator off scott-free or at least, does nothing to pursuade the perpetrator to change his or her behavior.

Unfortunately, that leaves forgiveness a delusion. Not protected in any way, the victim learns that the forgiven is often without remorse and feels free to probe the extent to which he can get away with repeating his offense. Thus, forgiveness is a waste of the victim's time and emotion.

Better to understand that the offense reflects a real flaw in the perpetrator's character, and to the extent necessary, address the flaw and the probability of future destructive behavior. In a marital or otherwise close relationship this approach is applied daily, forgiveness notwithstanding. In the case of criminal behavior this approach is well established, again, forgiveness notwithstanding.

Try applying this approach to the 9/11 atrocities; the character flaws in evidence are clear, the probability of future destructive behavior certain. Forgiveness, in any form, has no place in our (the victims') list of options.

I've never understood forgiveness. When one suffers a wrong, whether real or imagined, perpetrated by a spouse or someone with whom one must continue living and interacting, some sort of accommodation must be arrived at if the peace of mind of the wronged is to be restored. Often, I believe, the accommodation is more along the lines of part understanding, part self-examination, part self-delusion, and part watchfulness for the signs that the wrong may be repeated. I think all of this is often packaged, in the mind of the wronged, as forgiveness, and the perpetrator is so informed.

When the offense is perpetrated by a stranger, as in a crime, the victim, in an effort to learn to live with what happened to him or her, invokes the same thoughts as above with the added hope for restitution and/or punishment of the perpetrator. When the latter isn't forthcoming, the victim is left with insufficient grounds for forgiveness, but is often pursuaded to proclaim that they have forgiven the criminal.

Forgiveness, in my view, benefits the victim in that it helps the victim live with what happened, but often lets the perpetrator off scott-free or at least, does nothing to pursuade the perpetrator to change his or her behavior.

Unfortunately, that leaves forgiveness a delusion. Not protected in any way, the victim learns that the forgiven is often without remorse and feels free to probe the extent to which he can get away with repeating his offense. Thus, forgiveness is a waste of the victim's time and emotion.

Better to understand that the offense reflects a real flaw in the perpetrator's character, and to the extent necessary, address the flaw and the probability of future destructive behavior. In a marital or otherwise close relationship this approach is applied daily, forgiveness notwithstanding. In the case of criminal behavior this approach is well established, again, forgiveness notwithstanding.

Try applying this approach to the 9/11 atrocities; the character flaws in evidence are clear, the probability of future destructive behavior certain. Forgiveness, in any form, has no place in our (the victims') list of options.

Hatred is a corrosive force. None can hate without affecting themself. Indeed, it is my belief that one cannot hate without hating oneself.

As long as you hate or resent, you allow those emotions to affect or even govern your actions. You give control of your life to the one you hate.

Forgiveness allows us to release that hatred, allows us to carry on with our lives. It's necessary not an easy thing to forgive. Sometimes, I find myself having to repeat the act.

Forgiveness does not imply that there should be no atonement or that society should forgo due process. If I forgive you, that does not mean that you are absolved from responsibility for your actions. It's still up to you to atone for the offense. Sometimes the atonement is as simple as an honest, heartfelt apology. In other cases, that atonement involves accepting society's retribution for your actions.

For a Christian, the issue should be pretty clearcut, if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven:

"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
(Matthew 6:15, KJV)

That seems pretty clear-cut to me. Jesus may have died for your sins, but that death will have been in vain (in your case) unless you forgive others.

Mike

To me, the most idiotic concept ever introduced into our modern society is "closure." I doubt that any human who has been severely wronged or has experienced a terrible loss can truly "close out" that portion of their lives and move on. We all deal with terrible things as best we can and in our own ways, some better than others, and although we may move forward, we have been changed nonetheless and must adapt. If forgiving another is what it takes to move forward, then go for it.

Precisely... Some of these Christian "values" leave me scratching my head....

WHY? Is a question more people need to ask instead of blindly following...

You do NOT have to forgive in order to move on in life. Forgive if you want to. If not, wipe the person out of your life, and make the personal decision to be happy for yourself.

But this silly belief that to forgive is divine... Give me a break!

Same silly belief for abortion - I firmly believe that many women "suffer" because they believe that in order to be a GOOD person, they should suffer. It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

These "values" do a lot of harm in my opinion.

There was a post some time ago, where christians were upset that their paster wasn't giveng them advice on how to behave towards gays! What a great example that these people do not THINK FOR THEMSELVES!

I feel sorry for these "believers" but don't forgive them for the harm they do to others by inflicting their "values" on society.

Well said Susan. I agree: forgiveness is a decision for the person who has been wronged. No one else has a right to say that the wronged person must forgive. For some, the decision to forgive another who has wronged is them is a healthy choice and a way to put a bad incident behind them. Some crimes can't be forgiven easily or at all.

I won't judge anyone on their ability or inability to forgive. I would only encourage them to make the best (for them) decision they can make to deal with a bad incident and move forward with their lives.

The Jihadist conveniently forgets 9/11, a unforgettable, unforgivable crime committed by members of her warmongering, koranic driven religion.

If there is an apology (admitting you were wrong) and absolution (setting right what you have done wrong), then forgiveness is necessary for a society. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.

But, forgiveness without an apology or absolution is a sin; it enables evil. It is a pat on the back of the criminal that says "that is the past, we need to move on, what's done is done, and I'm so sorry you feel bad about that."

"I forgive you"

A statement to say, one is moving on after the perpetrator/s of the crime against one, or one's loved ones, is appropriately punished by law to one's expectation.

What else can victims and their families do to undo the crime, or to bring back the victims (if dead due to the crime)?

I wish I can remember who was it who said, "I can forgive, but I can never forget." Not quite a statement of being vengeful or revengeful or harbouring hatred, but being prudent in remembering that man is capable of crimes, be amoral about it, to justify it when contemplating and committing the crime, and when caught and meted out justice, to state repentence and seek forgiveness when there is no way to rationalise the crime.

The perpetrator/s always contend, to the point of cliches that:

- the victim/s deserve it (rape and/or murder)

- the victim/s is asking for it (rape and/or murder)

- the victim/s was willing (rape)

- it is for the good of the perpetrators (state crimes)

- it is for the good of the victims (state crimes)

- the perpetrators insisted they are the victims that necessitate them pursue measure that incidentally are seen as "victimising" others in retrospect.

"Forgiveness is a personal moral choice. It should not be a cultural imperative." - Susan Jacoby.

Yes, forgiveness is a personal choice - to retain moral and ethical values, to recover dignity, self-worth and self-esteem and move on and not let one be intimidated nor defined by the perpetrators of the crime for the rest of one's life.

But it is also a cultural imperative, specifically in crimes committed against one's group or country or both.

The Chinese and South Koreans, among others, have never forgiven the Japanese for crimes committed during World War II, and the Japanese have never really showed genuine repentence or remorse or compensation for the crimes.

Victims who lived through crimes, and having seen the true nature of the perpetrators who committed the crime against them, are wont to recognise the "sincerity" or otherwise, of the perpetrators in seeking forgiveness.

Thank you and best regards

"J"