I love the Solzhenitsyn quote and use it often. I use it especially to express the point that good and evil do not adhere to classes, races, and other groups, but to the willful acts of individuals.
As Solzhenitsyn says, we all have good and evil resident in our hearts, and our job is to compress the evil into the smallest corner possible.
What if the broad, overwhelming majority of “others” do not ascribe to the same thoughts and goals? What if that majority, indeed, fights against them, even violently?
So many courageous people risking their very lives and family by speaking out. All I currently risk is social ostricization and verbal/written attacks when sharing 'unpopular' facts and points of view.
Friends who took their cat to the vet a few days ago received a follow-up email referring to their male cat as "they."
Although our friends found this ludicrous, they reverted to a liberal stance when spouse and I said we found it worse than ludicrous; thus began a long and futile discussion.
This morning I wondered whether the email was simply a form letter that for the sake of convenience didn't make distinctions and so resorted to the ungrammatical plural pronoun. Lazy.
Using 'they' for all has been inducted into the language usage hall of fame. John McWhorter defends it. To my ear -- and tongue -- it's dancing around the sex of the person like dancing around the race of the criminal. It implies that recognizing the sex of the person is somehow forbidden. Using 'they' makes it forbidden. No. A thousand times no. I will not elide the sex of people with plural pronouns as if there's something wrong with it. Even worse are the so-called (narcissists) "non-binaries" who insist upon it. I recently read Miranda July's "All Fours," in which she refers to her child as a 'they' to such an annoying -- child abuse -- degree -- when will this stop. It's just so...stupid.
I used to casually use the singular “they” and now I find myself making a point of writing or saying “he or she” (because those are the only options for human beings or other mammals). That said, I am sympathetic to those who say that in many situations, the sex of the third party in question is indeed irrelevant. It would be nice to have a singular non-gendered option for sentences like “who left their sunglasses on the table?”
I've always used the singular indefinite "they," and it's been around in English for a long time. But I agree that "he or she," unwieldy as it is, is the most rational response to the pronoun nonsense.
True. I think it depends on what stage of life the verbal attacks occur and how much support from others one has in fighting back against the hurtful words. When verbal attacks are directed by adults to children, the scars definitely remain, even if the adult the child then grows into is unaware of how deep the hurt went.
I was repeating what I was told to help me deal with the unkind words of others.
I was simultaneously taught that I should never be unkind. Everyone makes mistakes, and when I have inadvertently hurt someone else with careless words, I have always endeavored to immediately address the situation.
I'm no saint, but my mother was. I strive to live my life honoring hers.
I know I remember the times my younger self hurt others more than the times I felt hurt. I once said that to my students. Careful, I said, because twenty years from now you'll squirm in shame at the careless or nasty things you've said to people.
They wanted me to tell them what I said. I'm too embarrassed, I replied. You know, sometimes we just don't think twice before we open our stupid mouths. I wonder whether they took it to heart; they did seem impressed.
True. The “others” are a certain eastern religion and the cult of Woke. Both are extremely inhumane. It’s a war with a very different kind of battlefield. And I find for myself that a belief in something spiritual is necessary for this fight.
The spirituality is evidenced on both sides. To remain standing, we must take off our idealistic rose-tinted glasses, understand and accept reality, and act accordingly.
Yes, of course. But even those who seek to undermine our core values understand that in order to take control, they’ll have to play by the rules established to create our republic. Then what ?
Except "they" didn't follow the rules of the Constitution. And some still don't, like those liberal judges. Or opening our borders to non citizens. Or...almost getting away with shutting down free speech.
I guess adhering to our Constitution is one answer. It got ignored in countless ways in the covid, global movement era--in which we still are somewhat stuck. We are like Brer Rabbit stuck in tar residue.
Thank you Leah for this reminder that we truly are one nation under God, however we personally define that. Appreciate the timely and necessary challenge to our collective current state of intense polarization. America may be flawed because we human beings are flawed, but I certainly do not see anything 'better' out there in the world right now!
The reference to Lincoln and the Gettysburg address got me thinking. Part of me wonders if the South did not have the right to leave the Union when it no longer suited its purposes. Or isn’t that what free people are permitted to do, have the government that represents them? Yet, at the same time there were those in our country who found slavery so morally repugnant that they were willing to fight a war to end it and keep the union together. Although this question was settled by force of arms, I think most today stand on the side of those who were willing to fight to preserve the union and end slavery. So I ask if it was moral and just to fight a war to end, black Chattle slavery is it not equally moral and just to fight a war to resist socialism, a philosophy that ultimately enslaves its subjects. Today is my last day in Budapest, where we saw the torture and execution cells run by the former communist government. There is not a socialist nation past or present that does not use terror to enforce its mandates, Some may say that people should be permitted to elect a socialist if they choose. I am wondering about your thoughts on this issue. Mine are quite clearly that socialism is a Bacillus unsuited to American liberty and must be resisted and stamped out no matter where it is found. New York may not elect a socialist and the Jew hating commie should be deposited back to Ugsnda.
In our most recent episode of Unfriended (youtube), it occurs to me that Obama, Harris, and Mamdani come from a bag of political paradigms, plucked from oblivion and groomed by the Deep State because they can 'win' elections based on skin tone combined with a certain pulchritudinous aspect to their rather caucasian features. In the episode, we recall how Obama came out of nowhere, and now Mamdani, with very little political experience, comes out of nowhere, and Harris -- a clear idiot -- was also put up like a dark-skinned good looking doll. Despite the voters' rejection of this communist "socialist" endeavor on behalf of the "democrat" party, the Party is still pushing socialism/communism.
Rhe shallow TFP article on how Gen Z became socialist posits that they can't afford real estate in the big cities where they live, and that they languish in roommate situations well into their 30s. It occurred to me that this is the problem. They don't get married young like people used to do, and start building a life with a spouse. Instead, they protract their adolescence in group housing situations when they'd be better off sharing an apartment with a spouse. They then, in this perennially youthful state expect the government to support them.
At the same time, I recall looking for work when I first arrived in New York after teaching in a foreign country. In a job interview for a publisher, the interviewer told me that the pay is low but 'people room together,' as if...as if....(I was in my late 30s already) this were a desirable situation?
Add to this that securing an apartment in NYC is next to impossible, even with perfect credit, the apartment goes to the person with a guarantor.
I remember the olden days in Chicago when one could get an apartment without a job, then get the job, and onward. Many of the job listings that come my way do not pay enough to qualify for an apartment -- it's as if one must make 90 grand or more. I'm not going to vote for Mamdani, of course, but the anxiety is real, and I feel it too.
NYC residents pay federal,state and city income taxes along with sales taxes. They also subsidize other in health care and utility bils along with an idiotic system of rent control that punishes those who do not live in rent control buildings add this all up, and you can see the problem lies in New York City’s corruption and devotion to government incompetence and interference.
At bottom, money is a key issue--we can't get away from that reality. And this sytem is literally sucking us dry in all kinds of ways. It has gone too far so that it is destroying itself along with economic security. Cheap Chinese goods have run their course. and now we have, in ways, lots of young people who, unable to afford a car, a house, a family, etc., who will maybe buy into "it's free" if you elect me. Scary.
The creation of Islam was social engineering. It began as a reactionary cult opposed to the relative liberalism of Christianity as compared to the other forms of social organizations extant. Communism and its corrupting step child Socialism is social engineering. It began as a cult enamored with the fevered thoughts of an angered man who cloaked his theory of social organization in the garb of science lending it legitimacy in a time when science was revered by proud progressives. Any social engineering that is imposed requires strict adherence to the ideology. Islam cuts off the heads of apostates, Communists put a bullet in the heads of Kulaks.
Western Liberalism arose naturally as an expression of human nature, the expression being what happens when people work hard to better themselves within a moral society. It wasn’t written out as a manifesto with rules like Sharia. It’s messy and hard to pin down, as it’s pluralistic which creates internal stress, but it’s the best thing going as it tracks to human behavior (as expressed in human rights).
The Civil War between the states was really our last battle between the northern colonies that were the primary cause of the American Revolution, and the southern colonies who were much more aristocratic and Loyalist during the battle with Britain. The Civil War was necessary for the long-term establishment of the United States as a beacon of Liberalism.
Unfortunately the best part of Liberalism is also its Achilles Heel. Pluralism was its great strength. It was cleverly attacked in the 1960s by introducing cultural relativism intent on destroying the natural melting pot of our country. It has worked amazingly well: Pluralism now is a cudgel that divides us.
And Islam doesn't mix with the State. Freedom of religion I think implies that state respect religions, and religions respect the state. You can't appeal to the right of freedom of religion established by the state, if you fundamentally seek to deny the state.
I believe your analogy (slavery / socialism) makes good sense and can be expanded to include Islam. The question then is, how do we convince a majority to agree with us and then act. My gut says, though I have not yet studied the Civil War in great detail, that getting people to act, was the biggest challenge to Lincoln.
I studied the “Civil War” for many years: read about Lincoln, the ‘Lost Cause,” all the great (and not-so-great) battles, visited the battle fields. But I didn’t really understand anything until I delved into the society -the people who caused it all, lived through it all, and came out the other side lost, hopeful, or just mad as hell.
One thing I’ve learned, studying the diaries, letters, and other first-hand accounts of those people - the Democrat Party has not changed very much. It may moo like a cow now, but it still waddles like the same old duck, if you just stand at a distance and observe.
Hi Bruce I embrace both truths. The South had a right to secede but slavery was such an obvious moral evil and so divisive it had to go. History teaches a Civil War was the only way to purge the evil. My question is: do any of our current moral dilemmas rise to that remedy? I don’t think so.
Hopefully we're not going to have to fight a war to stop that one.
But now that you cause me to reflect on it, I suppose we are just sending it to the states, where it becomes a states' rights issue, which sounds awfully familiar in the context of a civil war.
At risk of stirring the Civil War Hornet's Nest, yes, there were Other Issues, but slavery kinda sticks out as one that was too big to slough off to the states. In the context of today, yes there are Other Issues; in fact, they are Legion -- the one that I cited was the most Absolute that my little mind could conjure. A person smarter than me could perhaps do better.
It has always been my perspective that the South did, indeed, have as much right to secede as the original colonies had to break away from Great Britain. But their cause was not a moral one.
I've often wondered if the evils of racism might not have been more quickly eliminated if the South *had* been allowed to secede peacefully. With the spectre of slavery continually before the people of the North as the practice of that 'evil' nation to the south, greater sympathy might have been aroused for those who managed to escape it. And there would have been more opportunities to escape, since slave catchers would have been 'enemy aliens' instead of being protected by law. Indeed, by repealing all the laws that protected slavery, the North would have made the risk of escape from slavery even more of a temptation. And with Britain determinedly fighting the slave trade on the high seas, the increasing dollar value of slaves (due to scarcity) would likely have made it painfully clear that hiring workers was cheaper than maintaining an enslaved workforce.
Good point. Socialism is fundamentally the imposition of slavery by the government (The Party). As such, it very much justifies fighting to prevent, if necessary. In fact, it demands it.
I didn't know how to square this with the right to free speech. I think we need to separate socialistic policies, which can't be debated, from socialist government.
Socialist government is authoritarian, uni-party, and ruthlessly suppresses freedom of speech. Very much like the regime of the previous administration, and unlike the supposedly autocratic Trump.
This touches on the main reason why I find the Democrat Party morally repugnant. I used to vote Democrat, but noticed during Obama's second term the demonizing rhetoric that turned the opposition into an "Evil." Then there's pitting races and classes against each other, and the stupid, stupid, stupid assertion that cuts are being made in order to line billionaire's pockets. They are seething with hatred, while accusing the opposition of seething with hatred. Add to this that they insult the country, wailing about cuts to social safety nets while insisting that everyone and their criminal uncle is entitled to move here from their chicken farm in Venezuela.
Many discussions (youtube) lately posit that the globalist project has not worked; we need to make nationalism great again. I find myself agreeing to that. Part of the loss of identity people seem to feel can be tied to insistence that one belongs nowhere and everywhere at the same time. Plus, the formation of a stable family is only for the most dedicated persons, while everyone else is fleeing commitment at the slightest provocation.
"One nation, under God" (and I remember vividly my child self with my hand over my heart facing the flag draped over the chalkboard) ordains feeling as one in a NATION blessed by God, but also following God's laws to treat everyone in that nation as an equal. But we do have to see our country as a large family of people related by nation instead of some rag tag open border free for all in order to achieve that. The D party also needs to stop -- and this makes me sickest of all -- stop with 'black community' and so on -- and start talking about AMERICANS.
So agree UnderDog. A nation that has lost its founding ethics/morals/beliefs cannot and will not stand. Nationalism is the way out now. People have to believe in "nation" again. Of course, it cannot go to something like Nazi Germany in the process. But, that was a racial move, with an underbelly of control/authoritarianism behind the racism.
The irony is that the Left is focused on race, and assigning guilt to a certain race — that’s the Nazi playbook. That’s the Maoist, Stalinist, Pol Pot playbook. They hurl the Nazi assertion at Trump, but Trump is for all intents and purposes working to preserve the NATION, not a particular race.
During Reconstruction, the Democratic Party told the “black community “ that Republicans intended to re-enslave them in the North, were cannibals, even that they were demons sent by Satan himself. Only Democrats, their former owners, could protect them from such evil. Having kept the average slave in ignorance, they managed to pull this wool over an astonishing number of eyes.
The last mass lynching of blacks occurred in North Georgia in 1959. The crime was covered up for years by the Democrat Party because several of the perpetrators were prominent local Dems. Five years later, the Party proclaimed itself the “Party of Equal Rights.”
By love it, I mean, the founding ideals, the concept of one nation, yes, under God, it's very obvious successes. Acknowledge its flaws, but forgive those that are in the past, as we work to identify and build consensus and rectify those most problematic in the present.
Good thoughts to ponder on a beautiful summer morning. There are a lot of basic values sprinkled into this essay which are the basic pillars of our Judeo-Christian society. In my humble opinion, secular people who are not practicing any religion, should be able to see that these basic values are critical to our joint experiment. And most in fact do. The trouble begins when factions seek to undermine these basic values. It seems to me that our system of justice has been designed to force compliance with these basic values, which was a brilliant thing to do. But on this morning I wonder if our system of justice will be able to deal with those who seek to use the system against us. Who seek to introduce a different basic set of values that are antithetical to the values that we in fact hold dear. It may be said in hind sight that we needed a constitutional amendment in order to protect against these intruders. Time will tell.
As one of those “secular people who are not practicing any religion,” I do indeed recognize the importance of these values. We neglect/discard them at our peril.
So true. Faith certainly doesn’t guarantee moral values in thought or action. However, universal ethical standards such as The Golden Rule are derived and followed by simple logic.
Endowed by Our Creator is anachronistic to a modernist view. Yet the same people proposed our first right is freedom of religion. By the people whose founding statement acknowledged a Creator.
Denying a Creator is, to me, to deny the soul. It implies we are nothing more than a mechanistic assemblage of what we perceive as atoms. What can be more soul destroying than that?
I think that it was one of those Adams guys who observed that the Constitution was suitable for a moral populace. Oooh that nasty God-shaped hole again.
I capitulate. Here: John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other...."
I appreciate these noble sentiments and ideals to pursue: We are all equal in God’s eyes; each of us is a flawed human; we should look for the good in others; forgiveness is a virtue; seek to understand; strive to heal our divisions; above all, love one another (which might not entail liking the other).
While striving to do these things, to live them out in daily life, I’m also aware that some people are simply evil and will not reciprocate. They are beyond redemption, in my studied opinion. Satan, the devil, has entered them and uses them to sow discord.
John 13 records that Judas betrayed Jesus after Satan entered him.
Job and Zechariah in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) speak of God confronting Satan.
1 Peter teaches that Satan prowls like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour, and St Paul in Ephesians tells us to put on the armor of God to stand firm against the devil.
The Gospels record how Satan tempted Jesus, offering him power over the whole world if Jesus would worship him. But Jesus defied Satan, saying that His devotion was reserved only for God the Father, whereupon Satan departed, his efforts all for naught.
My point in referencing the Bible, which speaks of the devil or Satan many more times, is that well-meaning people, believers in One Nation Under God, aren’t the only inhabitants of this great nation. Some people resist being One Nation Under God. They don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God, for one thing, and see no reason to follow Him. Many of them have been captured by Satan - devoured by him one might say, and are only doing evil. The Bible doesn’t say to love or embrace Satan, but to confront and resist him by putting on the armor of God.
Thus, it seems fair to ask, are we allowed an exception to loving our neighbor if our neighbor has become the embodiment of evil? Can we, as humans capable of reason, make that distinction? I confess that I do.
I think if we are trying to follow God's commandment to love one another *as He loves us,* there are no exceptions because He has none. Every person is His creation, capable of receiving the Goodness that is His essence.
The question is: what does loving the neighbor look like? We can likely all agree that it doesn't mean agreeing with people who oppose our values or our God, or supporting or tolerating the ways we see them harm others or society. Love might look "mean" by today's standards. It might look like a struggle sometimes, a battle.
I think loving others as God loves us requires us to try seeing the good in someone, try keeping it in focus even as we stand against the wrong we see that person doing or buying into. It means not caving to the ever-present temptation to elevate ourselves above them and write them off as evil or stupid or hopeless; it means not caving to the temptation to assume with certainty that we understand the situation and that we're better for it. I think it means grounding ourselves in humility about ourselves and curiosity about others.
So in pondering your questions at the end, one thought that comes to mind is that I don't know anyone who "embodies evil." Maybe I'm uniquely fortunate in this way, but I suspect that none of us actually sees the whole person, regardless who they are. Jesus said "by their fruits you shall know them" and so I think moral judgment of behaviors is sanctioned and makes sense in creating rational boundaries for safety and order in our lives, our families, and our communities and country. But that's not the same thing as spiritually judging the soul of another as "evil," as presuming they "embody" evil.
Ultimately I think when it comes to standing up for goodness in the world, our best hope of achieving it is to contribute to it: be the change we wish to see. We can't control other people's hearts or choices, but if we want to live in a world where people feel connected to each other in kindness, in courage, in generosity towards one another, we can elevate that vision by living it ourselves. Which means keeping our critical focus as much on our own hearts and actions as on those of others. Humility and curiosity can be—should be—the ground we cultivate under our feet.
What you write is the ideal Leah. And I agree with what you are saying. But then there is...reality. How many people today are so damaged (too many medicines, poisons, hurt as children, mental issues, poverty) so that they simply won't fit into the ideal ever. We have people running around the western nations with machetes and knives and cars, who want to physically hurt people. They come from nations that don't have any idea of our "ideal" culture. They seek to take us over. Pandora's box is now open. But some are also right here--homegrown. I despair about being able to return to the "ideal" nation that I grew up in myself. Sure, culture can be a double-edged sword that hurts some but provides ground rules for most. But we have lost the "ideal" now. We are in a whole new era now--modernity has detached people from place and family--and things are still way too fuzzy to see where it is all going.
Louisa, Jesus literally welcomed the sinners and ate with them. Which horrified the Pharisees. Jesus defended his actions by stating he came to call sinners, not the righteous. See Mark 2:13-17. Jesus is a healer for those with spiritual sickness, even those you might call ‘evil’.
I don’t disagree with what you are saying Matt. I am just saying that it is necessary to get people to the table which today seems nigh on impossible. And I am saying spiritual sickness is one thing but actual medical insanity is another and that maybe something has gone really wrong in our environment that is causing people to be violent. Jesus can heal yes, but one has to open and ask.
In my current view, some of our authorities (and those w/ claims of being influencers which appear to have ‘authority ‘but really don’t) are horribly out of alignment with God. That is at root of ‘what has gone wrong’. So, you are correct to call them out, as Jeremiah, Isaiah, Micah and other prophets in the OT did. They are misusing that power. God turns away from those doing so.
As a Christian, whenever I read these OT warnings, it is my understanding they were all pointing towards to one true prophet, Jesus Christ. And his life, ministry, death for all sins and then resurrection, give us a New Covenant. And the cornerstone of that new contact is Forgiveness. It was given to each of us, even if we don’t think we deserve it.
My point is only to remind that to continue granting that gift of forgiveness to others, our hearts have to be open and postured to give it. Call it half glass full approach. Even to people who have badly sinned, forgiveness is the door that allows a walk back to the light. If our hearts are too filled with doling out judgment however there sometimes can be too little space for reconciliation w/ those who have gotten out of alignment w/ God, but then seek to return to goodness and truth. You are right, that a person has to be open to ask. And our ears must also be open to hear ☺️
Thank you, Leah. You’re a better person than I am - being sincere to say this.
However, I truly see evil in some people. They are Satan’s minions, captured by him to become evil. Satan “entered” Judas.
Perhaps this is at the root of our differences: I do believe in Satan, as revealed at various places in the Bible. And, after all, Scripture is where the nature of God and His enemy are on full display. Jesus taught us to love even our enemies, but I can’t square that with putting on the armor of God to resist Satan, who prowls around, wanting to devour (enter) us.
Again, thank you for your inspirational teaching. I admire you greatly! Have a wonderful day.
Can't we love the sinner, hate the sin? I agree there are perhaps some extreme Hitlerian cases where this may be impossible for any earthly person. Or that it may simply be impractical, especially if we believe force of arms is justified to resolve earthly grievances.
“They declared me unfit to live/Said into that Great Void my soul’d be hurled/they wanted to know why I did what I did/Sir, I guess there’s just a meanness in this world”:Bruce Springsteen “Nebraska”
Interestingly, knowing some Greek scholar types, the original more accurately translates as "condemn not, that ye be not condemned." This suggests that it is less about making a moral judgment—which is a requirement in a society that wants moral order—and more about being careful not to make spiritual judgments about the final state of another person's soul.
I've read this many many times, over many many years, and at foundation, the trick is to believe there is an Endower, not a human, who the "it" is doing the disclosing to Solzhenitsyn. That's okay, I also don't understand why "The Great Gatsby" is a great novel.
Hi Mr Karg Gatsby is an easy read with obvious symbolism about our relationship with wealth, history, and personal ethics. “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past”. Everyone sometimes stares at that light at the end of the dock and wonders who is there…and how they made us who we are.
Oh, how to answer you without, without, without, what? Embarrassing myself too much? I've met them all, dined with them all, even deflowered a few. If I wanted their wealth I would have taken it. I take pleasure in good prose, metaphor, clever turns of a phrase, but I hate to see it wasted on these people. By the way, the movie was even worse, but well photographed.
Smartest thing I read recently was Mark Twain's diary of Eve -- the one with only one name.
You hate to see good prose wasted describing shallow, vacuous people?
I guess that was kind of the point of Gatsby, the whole thing was an excess of indulgence in pursuit of vain pleasures, looking for meaning in worldly people and things. Maybe wasting good prose on them was a meta-analogy?
My impression is that most National Anthem singers don’t think about the lyrics as they sing, but rather about how much melisma they can cram into each note. I blame the influence of Star Search, et al., where contestants were encouraged to sing more loudly, and with more embellishments, than necessary.
My favorite National Anthem rendition is Linda Ronstadt’s at the 1988 World Series at Dodger Stadium.
As for Mike Rowe, has anything he’s ever said not make great sense?
I’m a long suffering Seattle Mariners fan. But I love baseball all around and will never ever forget Kirk Gibson’s pinch hit walk off homer off Dennis Eckersley to win Game 1 of the ‘88 series. One of the top World Series moments I ever saw.
Billiamo, over the past weeks I’ve been returning to your tremendous JIP post on favorite Yiddish proverbs. Want to thank you again for your share. Each of those proverbs contain a distinct richness.
I love your posts Leah Rose, but I have to ask: what happens when people are manipulated via propaganda so that what they think is "good" is weaponized in evil ways, so that they miss the whole of the bigger picture? I also don't think you can detach the need of money/prosperity from the whole of classical liberalism that sought to detach from monarchy and its controls, especially monetary controls. The tea in the harbor was about taxes after all.
Thanks, Louisa. I think I'm not clear what you're getting at. Or what you think my meaning is...? We certainly live in a world in which evil exists and people believe and do (and excuse) terrible, horrific things, often in a cause that feels righteous to them. I'm not saying that doesn't matter. I'm not sure how that fact negates the value of us individually doing our part to be the change. Doesn't it make it more compelling a call, rather than less?
Of course we individually must be part of “the change.” But, also, isn’t that what many liberals today think they are doing? The change I want is a return to a culture that I knew growing up—where people could afford to form families, etc. I can’t impact that no matter what I do as the system is too broken now for the well being of way too many of us. And not just here but across the western nations. We are all overwhelmed with that reality—which stands in contrast to how and why this nation was formed. Maybe Trump et al can turn around some of the corruption, but it will take much more as the current system is deeply embedded—globally. The economic has overcome the ideal.
Thank you Leah Rose. I found your essay to be very thought provoking. If I think about the subject matter too deeply, my head will spin off. I do enjoy articles of this nature. Great job Leah and Celia.
Wow!! This is so superbly written. Such fabulous calls to live rightly! I’ve been pondering our deep divisions over the last few days, so this is timely for me. Thank you for these thought-full and -provoking words, Leah, and thank you for running this, Celia.
Wonderful essay /speech that remains salient and true in all times. Ever so important to hold open our hearts in warm welcome to those sleepers who are awakening.
I must admit I’m less than good about adhering to this myself. Most of us (other than actual sociopaths) presumably think (or can convince ourselves) we are doing the right thing for the right reasons, and that those who disagree with us are at best misguided, and at worst evil. It’s hard to admit you might have been wrong about something.
I recently heard something to the effect that every genocide has been committed for a "good" cause...in other words, justified as for the benefit of society. We are indeed to prone to self-righteous reasoning...as opposed to genuinely righteous thinking.
Anthony Trollope wrote a terrific book called He Knew He Was Right. It's about a man who's paranoiac and demanding, who abuses his wife, but simply believes he is right.
Very much like my brother-in-law. Luckily, though, without a wife.
Everyone finds a reason to behave badly, including the chemically unbalanced.
I was not at all religious. It happened both suddenly, and "slowly, then all at once". Belief in a Creator came suddenly. Religiosity took much longer.
I love the Solzhenitsyn quote and use it often. I use it especially to express the point that good and evil do not adhere to classes, races, and other groups, but to the willful acts of individuals.
As Solzhenitsyn says, we all have good and evil resident in our hearts, and our job is to compress the evil into the smallest corner possible.
What if the broad, overwhelming majority of “others” do not ascribe to the same thoughts and goals? What if that majority, indeed, fights against them, even violently?
As Eli Weisel said, “silence is not an option”. We have to take a stand, if only on a keyboard.
So many courageous people risking their very lives and family by speaking out. All I currently risk is social ostricization and verbal/written attacks when sharing 'unpopular' facts and points of view.
Friends who took their cat to the vet a few days ago received a follow-up email referring to their male cat as "they."
Although our friends found this ludicrous, they reverted to a liberal stance when spouse and I said we found it worse than ludicrous; thus began a long and futile discussion.
This morning I wondered whether the email was simply a form letter that for the sake of convenience didn't make distinctions and so resorted to the ungrammatical plural pronoun. Lazy.
Using 'they' for all has been inducted into the language usage hall of fame. John McWhorter defends it. To my ear -- and tongue -- it's dancing around the sex of the person like dancing around the race of the criminal. It implies that recognizing the sex of the person is somehow forbidden. Using 'they' makes it forbidden. No. A thousand times no. I will not elide the sex of people with plural pronouns as if there's something wrong with it. Even worse are the so-called (narcissists) "non-binaries" who insist upon it. I recently read Miranda July's "All Fours," in which she refers to her child as a 'they' to such an annoying -- child abuse -- degree -- when will this stop. It's just so...stupid.
No, I say.
No.
In fact, hell no.
Under Dog: I think I’m willing to die on that hill.
Nah, a form letter seeking to do that would have used “it” to describe the kitty, or used its name.
S/he has always sufficed. "They" is definitely "woke."
I used to casually use the singular “they” and now I find myself making a point of writing or saying “he or she” (because those are the only options for human beings or other mammals). That said, I am sympathetic to those who say that in many situations, the sex of the third party in question is indeed irrelevant. It would be nice to have a singular non-gendered option for sentences like “who left their sunglasses on the table?”
I've always used the singular indefinite "they," and it's been around in English for a long time. But I agree that "he or she," unwieldy as it is, is the most rational response to the pronoun nonsense.
Thank you for doing that RMW.
Truly my honor. Besides I am compelled. I cannot not do it.
Me too.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
Such an important lesson in that axiom. Too bad parents don’t share it any more.
While I mostly agree, I think many of us can recall words that have left psychological scars more painful than physical ones we’ve received.
True. I think it depends on what stage of life the verbal attacks occur and how much support from others one has in fighting back against the hurtful words. When verbal attacks are directed by adults to children, the scars definitely remain, even if the adult the child then grows into is unaware of how deep the hurt went.
I was repeating what I was told to help me deal with the unkind words of others.
I was simultaneously taught that I should never be unkind. Everyone makes mistakes, and when I have inadvertently hurt someone else with careless words, I have always endeavored to immediately address the situation.
I'm no saint, but my mother was. I strive to live my life honoring hers.
I know I remember the times my younger self hurt others more than the times I felt hurt. I once said that to my students. Careful, I said, because twenty years from now you'll squirm in shame at the careless or nasty things you've said to people.
They wanted me to tell them what I said. I'm too embarrassed, I replied. You know, sometimes we just don't think twice before we open our stupid mouths. I wonder whether they took it to heart; they did seem impressed.
No doubt we are a nation under siege from within and without. Yet here we do still stand, broken and unbalanced tho we may currently be.
Good Lord how low have we gone? “They” is plural. Cut my balls off and I’m still singular (despite missing a pair) 😾
Thanks for the chuckle.......
But "they" are gone forever ...
True. The “others” are a certain eastern religion and the cult of Woke. Both are extremely inhumane. It’s a war with a very different kind of battlefield. And I find for myself that a belief in something spiritual is necessary for this fight.
The spirituality is evidenced on both sides. To remain standing, we must take off our idealistic rose-tinted glasses, understand and accept reality, and act accordingly.
Look within. Simplistic ja, but that's all you can control. We haven't found the Answer in 249 years!
That “majority” - under our system of government can take control.
Check mate.
Game over.
How then do we prevent such a majority ?
I was thinking more of the majority of the 8 billion people that live outside our country.
Mars ?
I think that has already been claimed by China.
Alpha Century ?
Claimed, but not reached, by the Robinson Family. 🙃
This is why we are a republic, not a democracy
Yes, of course. But even those who seek to undermine our core values understand that in order to take control, they’ll have to play by the rules established to create our republic. Then what ?
Except "they" didn't follow the rules of the Constitution. And some still don't, like those liberal judges. Or opening our borders to non citizens. Or...almost getting away with shutting down free speech.
I guess adhering to our Constitution is one answer. It got ignored in countless ways in the covid, global movement era--in which we still are somewhat stuck. We are like Brer Rabbit stuck in tar residue.
See my thoughts above!
America: Love it, or Leave it
Thank you Leah for this reminder that we truly are one nation under God, however we personally define that. Appreciate the timely and necessary challenge to our collective current state of intense polarization. America may be flawed because we human beings are flawed, but I certainly do not see anything 'better' out there in the world right now!
The reference to Lincoln and the Gettysburg address got me thinking. Part of me wonders if the South did not have the right to leave the Union when it no longer suited its purposes. Or isn’t that what free people are permitted to do, have the government that represents them? Yet, at the same time there were those in our country who found slavery so morally repugnant that they were willing to fight a war to end it and keep the union together. Although this question was settled by force of arms, I think most today stand on the side of those who were willing to fight to preserve the union and end slavery. So I ask if it was moral and just to fight a war to end, black Chattle slavery is it not equally moral and just to fight a war to resist socialism, a philosophy that ultimately enslaves its subjects. Today is my last day in Budapest, where we saw the torture and execution cells run by the former communist government. There is not a socialist nation past or present that does not use terror to enforce its mandates, Some may say that people should be permitted to elect a socialist if they choose. I am wondering about your thoughts on this issue. Mine are quite clearly that socialism is a Bacillus unsuited to American liberty and must be resisted and stamped out no matter where it is found. New York may not elect a socialist and the Jew hating commie should be deposited back to Ugsnda.
In our most recent episode of Unfriended (youtube), it occurs to me that Obama, Harris, and Mamdani come from a bag of political paradigms, plucked from oblivion and groomed by the Deep State because they can 'win' elections based on skin tone combined with a certain pulchritudinous aspect to their rather caucasian features. In the episode, we recall how Obama came out of nowhere, and now Mamdani, with very little political experience, comes out of nowhere, and Harris -- a clear idiot -- was also put up like a dark-skinned good looking doll. Despite the voters' rejection of this communist "socialist" endeavor on behalf of the "democrat" party, the Party is still pushing socialism/communism.
Rhe shallow TFP article on how Gen Z became socialist posits that they can't afford real estate in the big cities where they live, and that they languish in roommate situations well into their 30s. It occurred to me that this is the problem. They don't get married young like people used to do, and start building a life with a spouse. Instead, they protract their adolescence in group housing situations when they'd be better off sharing an apartment with a spouse. They then, in this perennially youthful state expect the government to support them.
At the same time, I recall looking for work when I first arrived in New York after teaching in a foreign country. In a job interview for a publisher, the interviewer told me that the pay is low but 'people room together,' as if...as if....(I was in my late 30s already) this were a desirable situation?
Add to this that securing an apartment in NYC is next to impossible, even with perfect credit, the apartment goes to the person with a guarantor.
I remember the olden days in Chicago when one could get an apartment without a job, then get the job, and onward. Many of the job listings that come my way do not pay enough to qualify for an apartment -- it's as if one must make 90 grand or more. I'm not going to vote for Mamdani, of course, but the anxiety is real, and I feel it too.
This is very long, but: https://youtu.be/Ky9mEw9FifI?si=V60zCFA3s8s84XRI
NYC residents pay federal,state and city income taxes along with sales taxes. They also subsidize other in health care and utility bils along with an idiotic system of rent control that punishes those who do not live in rent control buildings add this all up, and you can see the problem lies in New York City’s corruption and devotion to government incompetence and interference.
It isn't just NYCity Bruce. It's everywhere now. The system has gone too far and is "killing its young."
At bottom, money is a key issue--we can't get away from that reality. And this sytem is literally sucking us dry in all kinds of ways. It has gone too far so that it is destroying itself along with economic security. Cheap Chinese goods have run their course. and now we have, in ways, lots of young people who, unable to afford a car, a house, a family, etc., who will maybe buy into "it's free" if you elect me. Scary.
Benny Johnson just posted a clip of AOC bragging about being approached by one of those groups when “I had no thought of becoming a politician!”
They knew a useful idiot when they saw her.
The creation of Islam was social engineering. It began as a reactionary cult opposed to the relative liberalism of Christianity as compared to the other forms of social organizations extant. Communism and its corrupting step child Socialism is social engineering. It began as a cult enamored with the fevered thoughts of an angered man who cloaked his theory of social organization in the garb of science lending it legitimacy in a time when science was revered by proud progressives. Any social engineering that is imposed requires strict adherence to the ideology. Islam cuts off the heads of apostates, Communists put a bullet in the heads of Kulaks.
Western Liberalism arose naturally as an expression of human nature, the expression being what happens when people work hard to better themselves within a moral society. It wasn’t written out as a manifesto with rules like Sharia. It’s messy and hard to pin down, as it’s pluralistic which creates internal stress, but it’s the best thing going as it tracks to human behavior (as expressed in human rights).
The Civil War between the states was really our last battle between the northern colonies that were the primary cause of the American Revolution, and the southern colonies who were much more aristocratic and Loyalist during the battle with Britain. The Civil War was necessary for the long-term establishment of the United States as a beacon of Liberalism.
Unfortunately the best part of Liberalism is also its Achilles Heel. Pluralism was its great strength. It was cleverly attacked in the 1960s by introducing cultural relativism intent on destroying the natural melting pot of our country. It has worked amazingly well: Pluralism now is a cudgel that divides us.
Islam (submission) and socialism (submission) have a lot in common. The theology differs, as the leftists who overthrew the Shah found out.
Both are fundamentally anti-freedom, and thus antithetical to human flourishing and anti-American.
Freedom of religion and Islam don't go together.
And Islam doesn't mix with the State. Freedom of religion I think implies that state respect religions, and religions respect the state. You can't appeal to the right of freedom of religion established by the state, if you fundamentally seek to deny the state.
Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's ...
I believe your analogy (slavery / socialism) makes good sense and can be expanded to include Islam. The question then is, how do we convince a majority to agree with us and then act. My gut says, though I have not yet studied the Civil War in great detail, that getting people to act, was the biggest challenge to Lincoln.
I studied the “Civil War” for many years: read about Lincoln, the ‘Lost Cause,” all the great (and not-so-great) battles, visited the battle fields. But I didn’t really understand anything until I delved into the society -the people who caused it all, lived through it all, and came out the other side lost, hopeful, or just mad as hell.
One thing I’ve learned, studying the diaries, letters, and other first-hand accounts of those people - the Democrat Party has not changed very much. It may moo like a cow now, but it still waddles like the same old duck, if you just stand at a distance and observe.
Thank you for the insights.
Hi Bruce I embrace both truths. The South had a right to secede but slavery was such an obvious moral evil and so divisive it had to go. History teaches a Civil War was the only way to purge the evil. My question is: do any of our current moral dilemmas rise to that remedy? I don’t think so.
Not entirely sure that cutting healthy body parts off of children doesn't.
Hopefully we're not going to have to fight a war to stop that one.
But now that you cause me to reflect on it, I suppose we are just sending it to the states, where it becomes a states' rights issue, which sounds awfully familiar in the context of a civil war.
At risk of stirring the Civil War Hornet's Nest, yes, there were Other Issues, but slavery kinda sticks out as one that was too big to slough off to the states. In the context of today, yes there are Other Issues; in fact, they are Legion -- the one that I cited was the most Absolute that my little mind could conjure. A person smarter than me could perhaps do better.
It has always been my perspective that the South did, indeed, have as much right to secede as the original colonies had to break away from Great Britain. But their cause was not a moral one.
I've often wondered if the evils of racism might not have been more quickly eliminated if the South *had* been allowed to secede peacefully. With the spectre of slavery continually before the people of the North as the practice of that 'evil' nation to the south, greater sympathy might have been aroused for those who managed to escape it. And there would have been more opportunities to escape, since slave catchers would have been 'enemy aliens' instead of being protected by law. Indeed, by repealing all the laws that protected slavery, the North would have made the risk of escape from slavery even more of a temptation. And with Britain determinedly fighting the slave trade on the high seas, the increasing dollar value of slaves (due to scarcity) would likely have made it painfully clear that hiring workers was cheaper than maintaining an enslaved workforce.
Good point. Socialism is fundamentally the imposition of slavery by the government (The Party). As such, it very much justifies fighting to prevent, if necessary. In fact, it demands it.
I didn't know how to square this with the right to free speech. I think we need to separate socialistic policies, which can't be debated, from socialist government.
Socialist government is authoritarian, uni-party, and ruthlessly suppresses freedom of speech. Very much like the regime of the previous administration, and unlike the supposedly autocratic Trump.
Beautiful. What we are is God’s gift to us. What we become is our gift to God. We are One with the All.
This touches on the main reason why I find the Democrat Party morally repugnant. I used to vote Democrat, but noticed during Obama's second term the demonizing rhetoric that turned the opposition into an "Evil." Then there's pitting races and classes against each other, and the stupid, stupid, stupid assertion that cuts are being made in order to line billionaire's pockets. They are seething with hatred, while accusing the opposition of seething with hatred. Add to this that they insult the country, wailing about cuts to social safety nets while insisting that everyone and their criminal uncle is entitled to move here from their chicken farm in Venezuela.
Many discussions (youtube) lately posit that the globalist project has not worked; we need to make nationalism great again. I find myself agreeing to that. Part of the loss of identity people seem to feel can be tied to insistence that one belongs nowhere and everywhere at the same time. Plus, the formation of a stable family is only for the most dedicated persons, while everyone else is fleeing commitment at the slightest provocation.
"One nation, under God" (and I remember vividly my child self with my hand over my heart facing the flag draped over the chalkboard) ordains feeling as one in a NATION blessed by God, but also following God's laws to treat everyone in that nation as an equal. But we do have to see our country as a large family of people related by nation instead of some rag tag open border free for all in order to achieve that. The D party also needs to stop -- and this makes me sickest of all -- stop with 'black community' and so on -- and start talking about AMERICANS.
So agree UnderDog. A nation that has lost its founding ethics/morals/beliefs cannot and will not stand. Nationalism is the way out now. People have to believe in "nation" again. Of course, it cannot go to something like Nazi Germany in the process. But, that was a racial move, with an underbelly of control/authoritarianism behind the racism.
The irony is that the Left is focused on race, and assigning guilt to a certain race — that’s the Nazi playbook. That’s the Maoist, Stalinist, Pol Pot playbook. They hurl the Nazi assertion at Trump, but Trump is for all intents and purposes working to preserve the NATION, not a particular race.
Morality today is empathy with the superficial and the shrill.
During Reconstruction, the Democratic Party told the “black community “ that Republicans intended to re-enslave them in the North, were cannibals, even that they were demons sent by Satan himself. Only Democrats, their former owners, could protect them from such evil. Having kept the average slave in ignorance, they managed to pull this wool over an astonishing number of eyes.
The last mass lynching of blacks occurred in North Georgia in 1959. The crime was covered up for years by the Democrat Party because several of the perpetrators were prominent local Dems. Five years later, the Party proclaimed itself the “Party of Equal Rights.”
"They are seething with hatred, while accusing the opposition of seething with hatred"
So true.
I think the solution is this
America: Love it, or Leave it
By love it, I mean, the founding ideals, the concept of one nation, yes, under God, it's very obvious successes. Acknowledge its flaws, but forgive those that are in the past, as we work to identify and build consensus and rectify those most problematic in the present.
A VERY tall order often.But nobody promised "fair."
Good thoughts to ponder on a beautiful summer morning. There are a lot of basic values sprinkled into this essay which are the basic pillars of our Judeo-Christian society. In my humble opinion, secular people who are not practicing any religion, should be able to see that these basic values are critical to our joint experiment. And most in fact do. The trouble begins when factions seek to undermine these basic values. It seems to me that our system of justice has been designed to force compliance with these basic values, which was a brilliant thing to do. But on this morning I wonder if our system of justice will be able to deal with those who seek to use the system against us. Who seek to introduce a different basic set of values that are antithetical to the values that we in fact hold dear. It may be said in hind sight that we needed a constitutional amendment in order to protect against these intruders. Time will tell.
As one of those “secular people who are not practicing any religion,” I do indeed recognize the importance of these values. We neglect/discard them at our peril.
I agree, thank you.
So true. Faith certainly doesn’t guarantee moral values in thought or action. However, universal ethical standards such as The Golden Rule are derived and followed by simple logic.
Endowed by Our Creator is anachronistic to a modernist view. Yet the same people proposed our first right is freedom of religion. By the people whose founding statement acknowledged a Creator.
Denying a Creator is, to me, to deny the soul. It implies we are nothing more than a mechanistic assemblage of what we perceive as atoms. What can be more soul destroying than that?
I think that it was one of those Adams guys who observed that the Constitution was suitable for a moral populace. Oooh that nasty God-shaped hole again.
I think Adams Sr?
I capitulate. Here: John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other...."
I appreciate these noble sentiments and ideals to pursue: We are all equal in God’s eyes; each of us is a flawed human; we should look for the good in others; forgiveness is a virtue; seek to understand; strive to heal our divisions; above all, love one another (which might not entail liking the other).
While striving to do these things, to live them out in daily life, I’m also aware that some people are simply evil and will not reciprocate. They are beyond redemption, in my studied opinion. Satan, the devil, has entered them and uses them to sow discord.
John 13 records that Judas betrayed Jesus after Satan entered him.
Job and Zechariah in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) speak of God confronting Satan.
1 Peter teaches that Satan prowls like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour, and St Paul in Ephesians tells us to put on the armor of God to stand firm against the devil.
The Gospels record how Satan tempted Jesus, offering him power over the whole world if Jesus would worship him. But Jesus defied Satan, saying that His devotion was reserved only for God the Father, whereupon Satan departed, his efforts all for naught.
My point in referencing the Bible, which speaks of the devil or Satan many more times, is that well-meaning people, believers in One Nation Under God, aren’t the only inhabitants of this great nation. Some people resist being One Nation Under God. They don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God, for one thing, and see no reason to follow Him. Many of them have been captured by Satan - devoured by him one might say, and are only doing evil. The Bible doesn’t say to love or embrace Satan, but to confront and resist him by putting on the armor of God.
Thus, it seems fair to ask, are we allowed an exception to loving our neighbor if our neighbor has become the embodiment of evil? Can we, as humans capable of reason, make that distinction? I confess that I do.
I think if we are trying to follow God's commandment to love one another *as He loves us,* there are no exceptions because He has none. Every person is His creation, capable of receiving the Goodness that is His essence.
The question is: what does loving the neighbor look like? We can likely all agree that it doesn't mean agreeing with people who oppose our values or our God, or supporting or tolerating the ways we see them harm others or society. Love might look "mean" by today's standards. It might look like a struggle sometimes, a battle.
I think loving others as God loves us requires us to try seeing the good in someone, try keeping it in focus even as we stand against the wrong we see that person doing or buying into. It means not caving to the ever-present temptation to elevate ourselves above them and write them off as evil or stupid or hopeless; it means not caving to the temptation to assume with certainty that we understand the situation and that we're better for it. I think it means grounding ourselves in humility about ourselves and curiosity about others.
So in pondering your questions at the end, one thought that comes to mind is that I don't know anyone who "embodies evil." Maybe I'm uniquely fortunate in this way, but I suspect that none of us actually sees the whole person, regardless who they are. Jesus said "by their fruits you shall know them" and so I think moral judgment of behaviors is sanctioned and makes sense in creating rational boundaries for safety and order in our lives, our families, and our communities and country. But that's not the same thing as spiritually judging the soul of another as "evil," as presuming they "embody" evil.
Ultimately I think when it comes to standing up for goodness in the world, our best hope of achieving it is to contribute to it: be the change we wish to see. We can't control other people's hearts or choices, but if we want to live in a world where people feel connected to each other in kindness, in courage, in generosity towards one another, we can elevate that vision by living it ourselves. Which means keeping our critical focus as much on our own hearts and actions as on those of others. Humility and curiosity can be—should be—the ground we cultivate under our feet.
What you write is the ideal Leah. And I agree with what you are saying. But then there is...reality. How many people today are so damaged (too many medicines, poisons, hurt as children, mental issues, poverty) so that they simply won't fit into the ideal ever. We have people running around the western nations with machetes and knives and cars, who want to physically hurt people. They come from nations that don't have any idea of our "ideal" culture. They seek to take us over. Pandora's box is now open. But some are also right here--homegrown. I despair about being able to return to the "ideal" nation that I grew up in myself. Sure, culture can be a double-edged sword that hurts some but provides ground rules for most. But we have lost the "ideal" now. We are in a whole new era now--modernity has detached people from place and family--and things are still way too fuzzy to see where it is all going.
Louisa, Jesus literally welcomed the sinners and ate with them. Which horrified the Pharisees. Jesus defended his actions by stating he came to call sinners, not the righteous. See Mark 2:13-17. Jesus is a healer for those with spiritual sickness, even those you might call ‘evil’.
I don’t disagree with what you are saying Matt. I am just saying that it is necessary to get people to the table which today seems nigh on impossible. And I am saying spiritual sickness is one thing but actual medical insanity is another and that maybe something has gone really wrong in our environment that is causing people to be violent. Jesus can heal yes, but one has to open and ask.
In my current view, some of our authorities (and those w/ claims of being influencers which appear to have ‘authority ‘but really don’t) are horribly out of alignment with God. That is at root of ‘what has gone wrong’. So, you are correct to call them out, as Jeremiah, Isaiah, Micah and other prophets in the OT did. They are misusing that power. God turns away from those doing so.
As a Christian, whenever I read these OT warnings, it is my understanding they were all pointing towards to one true prophet, Jesus Christ. And his life, ministry, death for all sins and then resurrection, give us a New Covenant. And the cornerstone of that new contact is Forgiveness. It was given to each of us, even if we don’t think we deserve it.
My point is only to remind that to continue granting that gift of forgiveness to others, our hearts have to be open and postured to give it. Call it half glass full approach. Even to people who have badly sinned, forgiveness is the door that allows a walk back to the light. If our hearts are too filled with doling out judgment however there sometimes can be too little space for reconciliation w/ those who have gotten out of alignment w/ God, but then seek to return to goodness and truth. You are right, that a person has to be open to ask. And our ears must also be open to hear ☺️
Yes. Jesus did that. All that I can do is what I can do.
I think there's a spiritual war with a religion that seeks global domination, theologically and governmentally.
Thank you, Leah. You’re a better person than I am - being sincere to say this.
However, I truly see evil in some people. They are Satan’s minions, captured by him to become evil. Satan “entered” Judas.
Perhaps this is at the root of our differences: I do believe in Satan, as revealed at various places in the Bible. And, after all, Scripture is where the nature of God and His enemy are on full display. Jesus taught us to love even our enemies, but I can’t square that with putting on the armor of God to resist Satan, who prowls around, wanting to devour (enter) us.
Again, thank you for your inspirational teaching. I admire you greatly! Have a wonderful day.
Can't we love the sinner, hate the sin? I agree there are perhaps some extreme Hitlerian cases where this may be impossible for any earthly person. Or that it may simply be impractical, especially if we believe force of arms is justified to resolve earthly grievances.
“They declared me unfit to live/Said into that Great Void my soul’d be hurled/they wanted to know why I did what I did/Sir, I guess there’s just a meanness in this world”:Bruce Springsteen “Nebraska”
Once again, with feeling: More easily said than done.
Indeed—as are so many growth opportunities. I don't think it's easy. I hope I didn't imply otherwise.
Judge not lest ye be judged
Interestingly, knowing some Greek scholar types, the original more accurately translates as "condemn not, that ye be not condemned." This suggests that it is less about making a moral judgment—which is a requirement in a society that wants moral order—and more about being careful not to make spiritual judgments about the final state of another person's soul.
Indeed, there is a difference between discernment and condemnation, which is obscured by the word 'judgment.'
I've read this many many times, over many many years, and at foundation, the trick is to believe there is an Endower, not a human, who the "it" is doing the disclosing to Solzhenitsyn. That's okay, I also don't understand why "The Great Gatsby" is a great novel.
Hi Mr Karg Gatsby is an easy read with obvious symbolism about our relationship with wealth, history, and personal ethics. “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past”. Everyone sometimes stares at that light at the end of the dock and wonders who is there…and how they made us who we are.
I love that line, love that book.
Oh, how to answer you without, without, without, what? Embarrassing myself too much? I've met them all, dined with them all, even deflowered a few. If I wanted their wealth I would have taken it. I take pleasure in good prose, metaphor, clever turns of a phrase, but I hate to see it wasted on these people. By the way, the movie was even worse, but well photographed.
Smartest thing I read recently was Mark Twain's diary of Eve -- the one with only one name.
You hate to see good prose wasted describing shallow, vacuous people?
I guess that was kind of the point of Gatsby, the whole thing was an excess of indulgence in pursuit of vain pleasures, looking for meaning in worldly people and things. Maybe wasting good prose on them was a meta-analogy?
It was a treat to read this beautiful essay first thing this morning—especially after having watched this just before bed last night. Thank you:
https://youtu.be/9FrmdtdbcAQ?si=C4m04bYQIBjeh3Gc
(The atrium of the Louisville Hyatt is 18 storeys high)
A lovely rendition of our national anthem. I agree with Mike Rowe that too often the anthem is a vehicle for a showy performance: https://youtu.be/CLhFxCXnEoc?si=hFWj0ZNqRAZtm0Hg
My impression is that most National Anthem singers don’t think about the lyrics as they sing, but rather about how much melisma they can cram into each note. I blame the influence of Star Search, et al., where contestants were encouraged to sing more loudly, and with more embellishments, than necessary.
My favorite National Anthem rendition is Linda Ronstadt’s at the 1988 World Series at Dodger Stadium.
As for Mike Rowe, has anything he’s ever said not make great sense?
Did she sing it again in 1988? The gem I know of is Linda singing it in 1977 WS. And she nailed it so, so perfectly.
Matt, I stand corrected. It was the 1977 series (the magnificent 1988 series tends to supersede all others for me):
https://youtu.be/3MbkSrK5spM?si=kCLF-IgK6YWhoa7H
I’m a long suffering Seattle Mariners fan. But I love baseball all around and will never ever forget Kirk Gibson’s pinch hit walk off homer off Dennis Eckersley to win Game 1 of the ‘88 series. One of the top World Series moments I ever saw.
I still tear up when I see footage of him limping around the bases into home.
Who is Mike Rowe?!
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Rowe
Cool !
Billiamo, over the past weeks I’ve been returning to your tremendous JIP post on favorite Yiddish proverbs. Want to thank you again for your share. Each of those proverbs contain a distinct richness.
Matt, you made my day. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing the clip. I especially enjoyed the applause at the end of the rendition.
It’s become a wonderful tradition. Imagine being there in person …
It might be worth the trip!
Wow, that was stunningly beautiful, it brought tears to my eyes. Thanks for posting it, you just made my day!
I love your posts Leah Rose, but I have to ask: what happens when people are manipulated via propaganda so that what they think is "good" is weaponized in evil ways, so that they miss the whole of the bigger picture? I also don't think you can detach the need of money/prosperity from the whole of classical liberalism that sought to detach from monarchy and its controls, especially monetary controls. The tea in the harbor was about taxes after all.
Thanks, Louisa. I think I'm not clear what you're getting at. Or what you think my meaning is...? We certainly live in a world in which evil exists and people believe and do (and excuse) terrible, horrific things, often in a cause that feels righteous to them. I'm not saying that doesn't matter. I'm not sure how that fact negates the value of us individually doing our part to be the change. Doesn't it make it more compelling a call, rather than less?
Of course we individually must be part of “the change.” But, also, isn’t that what many liberals today think they are doing? The change I want is a return to a culture that I knew growing up—where people could afford to form families, etc. I can’t impact that no matter what I do as the system is too broken now for the well being of way too many of us. And not just here but across the western nations. We are all overwhelmed with that reality—which stands in contrast to how and why this nation was formed. Maybe Trump et al can turn around some of the corruption, but it will take much more as the current system is deeply embedded—globally. The economic has overcome the ideal.
Thank you Leah Rose. I found your essay to be very thought provoking. If I think about the subject matter too deeply, my head will spin off. I do enjoy articles of this nature. Great job Leah and Celia.
Wow!! This is so superbly written. Such fabulous calls to live rightly! I’ve been pondering our deep divisions over the last few days, so this is timely for me. Thank you for these thought-full and -provoking words, Leah, and thank you for running this, Celia.
Thanks so much, Sally. I'm gratified to know it resonated.
Wonderful, Leah! Thank you!
Wonderful essay /speech that remains salient and true in all times. Ever so important to hold open our hearts in warm welcome to those sleepers who are awakening.
I’m neither religious nor a biblical scholar, but this verse seems apt: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A3-5&version=KJV
I must admit I’m less than good about adhering to this myself. Most of us (other than actual sociopaths) presumably think (or can convince ourselves) we are doing the right thing for the right reasons, and that those who disagree with us are at best misguided, and at worst evil. It’s hard to admit you might have been wrong about something.
I recently heard something to the effect that every genocide has been committed for a "good" cause...in other words, justified as for the benefit of society. We are indeed to prone to self-righteous reasoning...as opposed to genuinely righteous thinking.
Anthony Trollope wrote a terrific book called He Knew He Was Right. It's about a man who's paranoiac and demanding, who abuses his wife, but simply believes he is right.
Very much like my brother-in-law. Luckily, though, without a wife.
Everyone finds a reason to behave badly, including the chemically unbalanced.
I was not at all religious. It happened both suddenly, and "slowly, then all at once". Belief in a Creator came suddenly. Religiosity took much longer.