Comparative Cultures Journal, Volume 5
“Forgiveness: Political Considerations”
2006-2007
Dr. Julia Nevárez, Editor
TABLE OF CONTENTS
“Rethinking Forgiveness”
Dr. Julia Nevárez
“Weimar Germnay: Reconciliation or Revenge?”
José Morales
“The Culture of Defeat: Finding Evidence of Revenge and Reconciliation in Weimar
Germany”
Catherine Stanczak
“What is Restorative Justice?”
Clarence Turner
“Philosophical Reflections on Personal and Political Forgiveness”
Dr. Charles Fethe
“Forgiveness: Considerations in Science and Religion vs. Political Violence,
Genocide and War”
Dr. John J. Stapleton
Rethinking Forgiveness – Dr.Julia Nevárez
This year’s theme on “Forgiveness: Political Considerations” have triggered fascinating
discussions within the faculty seminar monthly meetings. Some of the ideas we delved
into, concluded that forgiveness presupposes conflict and it is considered a possible
solution to complex, emotional and challenging problems and situations. One of the basic
questions we asked ourselves was: Why should we be concerned with forgiveness?;
and/or why is forgiveness relevant or important?
According to Derrida, we should only deal with the unforgivable, that which is easy to
forget does not really challenge us enough. The unforgivable, however, challenges our
most difficult, intricate and thorny issues. Therefore Derrida’s phrase to describe
forgiveness as the “madness of the impossible,” is always an unfinished process.
Forgiveness is a form of engagement with that which is most difficult and yet most
necessary. Similarly, Kristeva reminds us that forgiveness gives us the opportunity to
grow, to move on to test the possibility of placing ourselves in another different situation
and psychologically learn new ways of – basically – relating with ourselves and others.
These however, are approaches that deal mostly with individual experiences, from
philosophical and psychotherapy perspectives. We had and most likely continue to face
the remnants of conflicts that most certainly challenge our ability to forgive. Examples of
this challenging experiences at a broader social and political level are post-dictatorship
societies, post-apartheid societies, post-genocide societies and post-war societies. The
proliferation of attempts at dealing with these complex psychological and social
processes are at the core of, for example, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in
South Africa, and Restorative Justice which will be addressed by one of the papers
included in this selection. Forgiveness also provides us with the opportunity to examine
the conditions and consequences of specific acts, mostly of violence. In that regard
exercising forgiveness or for that matter receiving it, allows to better understand the
contextual factors from which problems, conflicts, injustice spurs and give us the
opportunity of once again be critical and human. These and other ideas will be
represented in the following selection of papers and hopefully allow us to know more
about ourselves and the complexities of forgiveness.
Weimar Germany: Reconciliation or Revenge? – Jose Morales
Following its defeat in the First World War the German people had the opportunity to
move on and reconcile with their defeat and learn from it, which at first the Germans
appeared to be doing, however the German people due in part to circumstances out of
their control ultimately chose the path of revenge. Following its defeat in World War I
the German people had to deal with an issue that all defeated people have to deal with
and that is the issue of how to deal with the defeat. The people of Germany as most
people around the world are a very proud and nationalistic people Historically the people
of Germany have always been used to being in a position of power such as with The Holy
Roman Empire and the Empire under King Wilhelm I and Otto Von Bismarck. Following
its defeat in World War I the German people must have been nostalgic for the times of
Otto Von Bismarck. They must have been looking for a charismatic leader like Bismarck
to bring Germany out of its humiliation and once again to the glory that it had achieved
before. The people wanted a leader who could deliver a speech like Bismarck’s historic
Blood and Iron speech.
In that speech Bismarck called the German people to arms to unite the different German
states, it was that speech which helped to reconcile the different German states and is
regarded as a glorious moment in German history. Specifically Bismarck said “Not by
speeches and majorities will the great questions of the day be decided but by iron and
blood.” (Bismarck, 1) The German people were not looking for someone to lead them to
another war but they were looking for someone to lead them out of their problems.
However not being able to find a charismatic leader at the time and facing a different
situation the German people had to deal with the Weimar government which many felt
was born due to their defeat. Germany however found different ways to reconcile with
their defeat.
One way to reconcile was to ignore their problems as when someone feels victimized
they sometimes tend to ignore their problem instead of directly confronting it. With all
the difficulties that Germany was going through a dance craze was sweeping the country.
This is described in the following quote “The dance phenomenon is usually explained as
a cathartic release of drives that have been repressed during war”. “If so the German
dance mania represents part of a more general dance explosion.” (Shivelbusch 267,) In
order for a victim to get away themselves from their problems or trauma they indulge
themselves in some sort of pleasure. Another sign that Germany was ready to move on
following its defeat was that some Germans saw the defeat as a way to achieve greatness.
One way concerned the capital city of Berlin ironically enough something good came out
of the war it put Berlin in the spotlight, and this gave the German people to make Berlin
an important European city this is demonstrated by the following quote “The world does
not quickly forget a capital that once threatened it and, conversely that capital develops a
hypersensitive, almost paranoid need to promote its own image.”(Shivelbusch, 277) The
fact that Germany was such a formidable force during the war has gotten world attention
for its capital of Berlin even though it had lost the war. This is an excellent form of
reconciliation looking for the bright side of a bad situation instead of just exclusively
concentrating on the bad.
Other signs of reconciliation and optimism from the German people came in their
attempts to improve the German cities by dotting them with skyscrapers this feeling was
aroused by loosing the war and the harshness of the treaty of Versailles, “The lost war
and the enormous reparation payments of the Versailles treaty led to a desperate
nationalism and to the idea that monumental symbolic gesture could demonstrate the
undestroyed German will to reemerge after the war” (Neumann, 150). This proved that
there was a will and a desire on the part of the German people to get on with their lives
and working to find ways to improve the German cities was one of those ways. This idea
was not universally popular however most of it support came from the conservative
Germans on the other side however the Liberal Germans felt that this idea could actually
divide Germany since it would almost represent a class hierarchy in which only the
wealthy live in the skyscrapers since they are the only ones who can afford to live in
them. Meanwhile the lower classes who could not afford to live in the skyscrapers would
live at the bottom of them. This would represent a class structure in which the higher
classes would be on top of the lower classes looking down on them. This idea is captured
in the following quotation, “Left-wing avant-garde architects in Germany did not share
enthusiasm for skyscrapers.” (Neumann 151) They felt that these structures represented
the forces of the past. Although there were attempts at moving Germany past its World
War I defeat this demonstrates that not everyone agreed with how this should be done.
Other Germans however felt that even though Germany had been defeated during the
War it should not portray itself as a victim. This was because they felt in doing so
Germany was not only hurting its pride but it was also preventing efforts in recovering
from its defeat in the war, “Emulating “successful” models and mortal propaganda may
help a society recover from an initial trauma, but it can also confine that society to a
mental ghetto.” (Shivelbusch, 215) In some cases a victim can choose to remain
traumatized by their experience or they can move on but if they choose to remain
victimized they will not only remain victimized for a long time but they will also be
unable to do anything else afterwards especially to move forward with their lives. This is
what that argument was stating that it was time for Germany to move forward rather than
dwell on the past. At the more personal level families despite living through difficult
times found way to put heir best face forward. One example of this is the Cornelius
family the father who is a professor has to guide his family through the difficult times
such as food rationing. Since the food is being limited the family has to find ways to get
an extra amount. One way is described in the following quotation “For no single
household is allowed more than five eggs a week; therefore the young people will enter
the shop singly, one after another, under assumed names and thus wring twenty eggs
from the shopkeeper for the Cornelius family.” (Mann, 183) This shows that even better
off families are having difficulties. Despite this the people especially the young people
find ways to deal with the problems. For example the family is having a party this is
demonstrated in a quote from Disorder and Early Sorrow “Each time a little prang goes
through him, of excitement and suspense, at the thought that the young people have
begun to fill the floor below. “And each time he smiles at himself again though even his
smile is slightly nervous, is tinged with the pleasurable anticipations people feel before a
party.” (Mann, 193) The Cornelius family is thus finding ways not only to deal with their
problems but they are also finding ways to forget about their problems even if it is just
for a very short time.
One question is where are the Allies (The United States, Great Britain, and France)
involved in reconciliation? Are the Allies aggressors who after defeating Germany were
revenge hungry and therefore imposed the harsh terms of the treaty of Versailles on
Germany? Or should Germany forget about getting revenge on the Allies and instead
concentrate on moving forward and building a better future for its people? While there
most likely is a feeling of resentment toward the Allies there are also signs of at least
some admiration if not at least for the Allies. One example of this is found in the story of
the Cornelius as the children at the party start dancing to music that sounds foreign to Dr.
Cornelius He describes it in the following manner “Their way of holding each other is
quite different and strange, and they move to the strains of the gramophone, to the weird
music of the world.” (Mann, 198)
However the influence of the United States expanded to other cultural areas of Germany
as well which demonstrated that Germany had the ability to reconcile with its defeat
instead of having feelings of hatred toward its enemies. Some Germans wanted to follow
the model that the United States used to go from a country of raw resources to being the
most industrialized country in the world. “European economists, entrepreneurs, and
engineers, however, made more progress toward identifying the methods they suspected
had facilitated America’s sudden leap to progress.” (Shivelbusch, 250) Essentially what
you have in this situation is that you have the “victim” learning from the “aggressor”.
This can be interpreted as a form of forgiveness since it is very unusual for the victim to
learn from the aggressor. The most common occurrence is for the victim to feel a sense of
hatred toward those who committed an “evil deed” against them.
One of the most amazing and unexpected developments to occur in Weimar Germany
was the sudden admiration for Henry Ford when at first he was scorned and the fact that
Germany would use his method to move forward. “He was described as a kind of
charlatan: “A relatively uneducated man full of futile, harebrained ideas for world
salvation.” “A personality not to be compared to the old capitalist barons Morgan,
Vanderbilt, etc… a loudmouth who supposedly produces 2,000 of his automobiles a
day.” (Shivelbusch, 265) However not too long after the German people’s opinion of
Henry Ford suddenly changed completely. “What happened next is history.” “The
German edition of Ford’s autobiography was published in November 1923, at the very
moment the German mark was stabilized.” The book was an overnight best seller and
Ford himself in the following decades became the messiah of a new religion of mass
production.” (Shivelbusch 265) Ford’s method for production was described in the
following manner “Service, Ford’s term for the entire process, was a system that united
employee, entrepreneur and consumer, supposedly rendering the concept of exploitation
obsolete.” (Shivelbusch, 265) This was an ironic situation in which Germany grew to
admire Henry Ford one of the most recognizable Americans although at first scorned he
became popular throughout Germany. This was another instance of Germany
incorporating aspects of American culture. One would think that the exact opposite
would occur that there would be strong feelings of resentment and hatred towards the
United States instead the exact opposite occurred you saw an explosion of American
influence throughout Weimar Germany in fact you saw American influence come to
Germany after it was defeated by the United States rather than before; another example of
this concerns the movie Metropolis it director was influenced by what he saw in the
United Sates. “Fritz Lange asserted that the original idea for the movie Metropolis was
conceived on a trip to the United States which he undertook with his producer Erich
Pommer in 1924 in order to study American film production and to promote his most
recent film, the great medieval epic Nibelungen. (Neumann, 146) This showed that even
in the German film industry there was American influence.
Ironically one person who expressed some admiration for the Allies was Adolf Hitler;
who would become the symbol of revenge and anathema to reconciliation. He admires
how the Allies were able to use propaganda efficiently against Germany. “For what we
failed to do the enemy did, with amazing skill and really brilliant calculation.” “I myself
learned enormously from this enemy war propaganda.” (Hitler, 176) This was also
unusual as Hitler was saying that maybe Germany was at least partially to blame for its
defeat in World War I and that maybe it could learn from its enemies so that if another
war breaks out Germany will have learned from its defeat. However this was only part of
Hitler’s ideas as his more prominent ideas scorned reconciliation and concentrated on
getting revenge.
Despite all of these signs of possible reconciliation Germany would ultimately end up
choosing revenge over reconciliation. Despite the fact that American culture reached
Germany there were still feelings of resentment toward the Allies for what the Germans
felt was the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty. In some of the stipulations of the treaty
Germany was forced to give up some of its territory. “As compensation for the
destruction of the cal mines in the north of France and as part payment towards the total
reparation due from Germany for the damage resulting from the war, Germany cedes to
France in Full and absolute possession, with exclusive right of exploitation
unencumbered and free from all debts and charges of any kind, the coal mines situated in
the Saar Basin.”(Treaty of Versailles, 1) Germany was also forced to give up territory
that it had captured from France following its victory in the Franco-Prussian War “The
territories which were ceded to Germany in accordance with the Preliminaries of Peace
signed at Versailles on February 26, 1871 and the Treaty of Frankfurt of May 10, 1871
are restored to French sovereignty as from the date of the Armistice of November 11,
1918 “The provisions of the treaties establishing the delimitation of the frontiers before
1871 shall be restored.” (Treaty of Versailles, 2) This also included Germany giving up
the possession of all of her overseas territories. “Germany renounces, in favour of the
Principled Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles over her overseas
possessions. (Treaty of Versailles, 3)
This was not the only humiliation that Germany suffered which made in want to
eventually seek revenge. Germany was also forced to reduce the size of its military. “The
German military forces shall be demolished and reduced as prescribed hereinafter.”
(Treaty of Versailles 2) The Allies also determined how large the size of the Germany
army should be and they even set a date as to when the reductions should be completed.
“By a date which must not be later than March 31, 1920 comprise more than seven
divisions of infantry and three divisions of cavalry.” “After that date the total number of
effectiveness in the Army of the States constituting Germany must not exceed 100,000
men, including officers and establishments of depots.” “The army shall be devoted
exclusively to the maintenance of order within the territory and to the control of
frontiers.” (Treaty of Versailles 2) Germany was also forced to take full responsibility for
the war. “The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the
responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and Associated
Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war
imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies. These harsh provisions
which were meant to weaken Germany instead served to anger the German people
motivating them to seek revenge and sparking World War II.
One event that helped to ruin any chance for reconciliation was the inflation that struck
Germany since it disrupted German life. The inflation caused the German currency to
decline in value and threw the lives of the German people into uncertainty just as the
situation with the currency was unpredictable. “Canetti came to recognize that the
removal of a particular basic prerequisite of social organization could set off a chain
reaction with enormous and incalculable consequences.” (Widdig 58) Economic
instability breeds uncertainty and political uncertainty sometimes with dreadful
consequences without a healthy stable economy the country cannot enjoy any kind of
stability. Inflation also revealed that the German people were very dependent on money
and that money had a certain stranglehold over people. “The artificiality of modern
society, its reliance on the precarious calculations and conditions of a monetary system
must as Canetti points out have shocked anyone who had dreamt of a modern society as a
large, seemingly organic community of people.” (Widdig, 61) One can ask what does
inflation have to do with reconciliation and revenge. When the economy is unstable
people tend to blame the government rather than get behind it thus dividing the country.
To make peace with your enemies you have to make peace with yourself.
The German people following the war did not reconcile among themselves as there
clearly were divisions among the German people. After being defeated in the war some
Germans rather than moving forward started looking for whom to blame for Germany’s
defeat. “Thus by the end of the war a mentality susceptible to a stab-in0the-back myth
was already in place across the political spectrum.” (Shivelbusch, 206) Germans were
also divided on the more personal level as was described by the experiences of Elias
Canetti: I often attended meetings, listening to the discussions that followed them on the
streets at night; and I watched every opinion, every conviction, and every faith clashing
with others.” (Widdig, 57) These show that even ordinary Germans were growing more
political arguing with on another over various issues. Some Germans were also angry by
the fact that Germany surrendered despite the fact that it had not suffered massive
devastation as other counties in Europe had suffered and the fact that it actually had
managed to penetrate enemy territory: “The German capitulation of 1918 was historically
unique not only in its suddenness but also because no other nation had ever laid down
arms while its forces were still so deep within enemy territory.” (Shivelbusch, 191) This
angered the German people because it showed that the Germany could have continued
fighting the war and did not have to surrender so quickly.
The true symbol of revenge is represented by Adolf Hitler; Adolf Hitler was a veteran of
the First World War and he had grown disgruntled with German politics and he was
especially bitter about Germany’s defeat in the war and by the terms imposed upon it by
the treaty of Versailles. After attempting to seize power in a failed coup attempt he spent
some time in prison. It was during his stay in prison that he wrote Mein Kampf which
translates to “my struggle”. In this book he outlines his beliefs which he would later
apply when ruling Germany. He asserts that had Germany won the war it would have
treated the Allies with respect he cites as an example the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which
Germany signed with a defeated Russia to the Treaty of Versailles: “I contrasted the two
peace treaties, compared them point for point, showed the actual boundless humanity of
the one treaty compared to the inhuman cruelty of the second, and the result was telling.
At that time I spoke on this theme at meeting of two thousand people and often I was
struck by the glances of three thousand hostile eyes. And three hours later I had before
me a surging mass full of the Holiest indignation and boundless wrath Again a great lie
had been torn out of the hearts and brains of a crowd numbering thousands, and a truth
implanted in its place.” (Hitler, 468) Hitler was asserting that while Germany treated the
defeated Russians with dignity the Allies intentionally humiliated Germany. It was the
harsh terms Treaty of Versailles that gave Hitler the support that he received b speaking
out against the treaty Hitler was able to rally much support.. The Treaty of Versailles
prevented Germany from ever reaching reconciliation both with itself and with its
enemies. “Hitler used the slogan The Dikat of Versailles with unparalleled and
unwearying monotony; and many marveled at its effectiveness. Repetition never
weekend it; on the contrary, it grew stronger over the years. What was the actual content
of this slogan? What was it that Hitler passed on to his audiences by it? To a German the
word “Versailles” did not so much mean the defeat, which he never really acknowledged,
as the prohibition of the army; the prohibition of specific and sacrosanct practices without
which he could not really imagine life. The prohibition of the army was like the
prohibition of a religion. The faith of his fathers had been proscribed, and it was every
man’s sacred duty to re-establish it. Every time it was used, the word “Versailles” probed
this wound and kept it bleeding, so that it was never closed. As long as the word
“Versailles” was uttered with sufficient force at mass meetings it was impossible for
healing to begin.” (Canetti, 181) This quotation perfectly captures why Hitler was the
major factor in preventing reconciliation he used the resentment caused by the Treaty of
Versailles to motivate the German people to seek revenge rather than reconciliation.
Hitler further prevented reconciliation among the German people by dividing them into
races. Hitler developed this concept of a “master race” which he called the Aryan race.
He argues against the mixing of the races stating: “ No more than nature desires the
mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a
higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over
perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow.” (Hitler, 286)
Hitler in this argument states that if a “higher” and a lower race mated than the “higher:
race would most likely disappear. Although Hitler targeted many groups blaming them
for all of Germany’s problems the was one group in particular that he targeted; the Jews.
Anti-Semitism was not a new phenomenon in Germany it goes back many centauries.
One of the most prominent being the German composer Richard Wagner he like Hitler
believed that Jew were not “true” Germans. Wagner states “The Jew speaks the language
of the nation in whose midst he dwells from generation to generation, but he speaks it
always as an alien.” (Wagner, 4) Hitler further dwells on Jews not being “true” Germans:
“The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan is represented by the Jew. In hardly any people
in the world is the instinct of self-preservation developed more strongly than in the socalled chosen.” (Hitler, 300) Hitler also argues that Jews had too much influence over
Germany and that Germany was worse off because of it: “It is thanks to the German
princes that the German nation was unable to redeem itself for good from the Jewish
menace.” (Hitler, 310) As was stated the German people were looking for a savior to pull
Germany out of these difficult items and to restore German pride similar to how Otto
Von Bismarck brought pride and power to Germany by unifying it. Hitler believed the
same thing: …for a people’s liberation from a great oppression or for the elimination of a
bitter distress, or for the satisfaction of its soul…Fate some day bestows upon it the man
endowed for this purpose, who finally brings the long yearned- for fulfillment.” (Hitler,
510).Hitler believed himself to be this Messianic figure although he would plunge
Germany and Europe towards war and devastation.
The troubles that Germany was going through and whether it should seek reconciliation
or revenge were also reflected in its cultural institutions. Films although normally a form
of recreation touch on serious issues and problems of the day such as politics and films
Weimar Germany were no exceptions. Two films in particular both by Fritz Lang
expressed these issues. One was the film Metropolis which touch on the topics of class
divisions shows the boss of the workers a man named John Freder live in these lavish
skyscrapers while the workers live underground in terrible conditions this goes back to
the point that left-wing critics of skyscrapers made that the skyscrapers represented a
social hierarchy in which the upper class would be on top since they could afford to live
there, while the lower classes represented by the workers would be down in the hierarchy
since they were too poor to afford such luxuries. There was on seen in particular that
warned against messianic figures that could divide Germany and lead to chaos. In the
movie a girl named Mary who is concerned about the plight of the workers is kidnapped
by a mad scientist and she is replaced by a robot that rallies the workers to revolt and take
control. After the workers take control they are unable to handle thing properly and the
city floods but the workers change and their living conditions improve through
reconciliation with John Ferder. (Metropolis) Another movie which captures Germany’s
troubled times is the movie M. In this movie a serial killer is terrorizing the people by
killing their children. This film expresses the Germans desire for revenge rather than
reconciliation by the scenes in which the people attack anyone who is talking with a child
so you have the people not trusting each other. One scene in particular shows the lack of
trust people have in the authorities. In this particular scene the people capture the
suspected serial killer but rather than bring him to the authorities to be tried and punished
the people take him to an abandoned factory and they try him themselves and totally
disregard the authorities. (M).This scene expressed the lack of confidence that the people
had in the authorities and the distance that existed between the ordinary people and the
authorities.
Germany despite it defeat in the First World War had the opportunity to go down a path
of reconciliation. For a moment Germany seemed to be heading in that direction despite
losing the war there were actually some bright sides the biggest being that Germany had
established a democratic government after years of being ruled by an autocratic
monarchy. However several events conspired to lead Germany down the path of one of
the most brutal and bloody dictatorships in history. This dictatorship would plunge not
just Germany but also most of Europe into destruction. One has to wonder if it was
possible despite all of the problems that it was facing for Germany to have chosen the
path of reconciliation rather than the path of revenge.
References
1) Shivelbusch, Wolfgang. “The Culture Of Defeat.” New York: Metropolitan Books,
2001
2) Mann, Thomas. “Death in Venice and Seven Other Stories.” New York: Vintage
International Edition, 1930.
3) Bismarck, Otto, Von. “Iron and Blood.” In Source Reader, Ed. Dennis B. Klein.
Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003, 1
4) Wagner, Richard. “Judaism in Music.” In Source Reader, Ed. Dennis B. Klein. Union
NJ: Kean University, 2003, 1-23
5) Modern History Sourcebook. “Treaty of Versailles.” In Source Reader, Ed. Dennis B.
Klein, Union NJ: Kean University, 2003, 1-3
6) Widdig, Bernd. “Culture and Inflation in Weimar Germany.” In Source Reader, Ed.
Dennis B. Klein, Union NJ: Kean University, 2003 53-75
7) Conetti, Elias. “Crowds and Power.” And trans. Carol Stewart In Source Reader, Ed
Dennis B. Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003 169-189
8) Neumann, Dietrich. “The Urbanistic Vision in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis.” In Source
Reader, Ed. Dennis B. Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003 143-154
9) Hitler, Adolf. “Mein Kampf. Ed and trans.Ralph Manheim New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1925
9) Metropolis. Dir. Fritz Lang 1927
10) M. Dir Fritz Lang 1931
The Culture of Defeat: Finding Evidence of Revenge and Reconciliation in Weimar
Germany - Catherine Stanczak
Weimar Germany was a republic that was born from humiliation and defeat. World War
I left Germany a defeated nation, one whose great reputation had been diminished.
World War I left the Germans in great turmoil and they looked for someone to hold
responsible for their chaos. It was from the ashes of World War I that Germany was able
to rise like the phoenix for a time and become known as the Weimar Republic. While the
Germans were able to rebuild themselves as a people and culture, they were never able to
forgive those that inflicted the wounds from World War I.
Germany entered into World War I as a great world power and emerged as a broken
country. According to the Versailles treaty, “The Allied and Associated Governments
affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all
the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals
have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of
Germany and her allies.”(Treaty of Versailles 2-3) The Versailles treaty was basically a
finger pointing at Germany, blaming them for the entire World War. Even though
Germany’s allies are mentioned, Germany takes the brunt of the punishment. The treaty
goes on to say, “The Allied and Associated Governments, however, require, and
Germany undertakes, that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian
population of the Allied and Associated Powers and to their property during the period of
the belligerency of each as an Allied and Associated Power against Germany.” (Treaty of
Versailles 3) The Versailles treaty was making sure that Germany knew it was at fault
and responsible for World War I. The treaty cut Germany down and ripped away its
status as a once world power.
Not only did the treaty greatly affect the country, but so did the memories of the World
War I battles. The war left many hardened and would remain in their minds forever. In
Ernst Junger's “The Storm of Steel”, he goes on to describe the battles of World War I
and how war has taken on a new light. Battles are fought more fiercely with new
technology and weapons, leaving people and towns in ruins. Junger states “…it seemed
that man, on this landscape he had himself created, became different, more mysterious
and hardy and callous than in any previous battle…For I cannot too often repeat, a battle
was no longer an episode that spent itself in blood and fire; it was a condition of things
that dug itself in remorselessly week after week and even month after month.”(Junger 4)
Junger felt that the Germans changed after this war, turning them into hardened people.
War had taken on a new front and Germans now wore the “steel helmet”, symbolizing the
new stage of warfare. (Junger 4)German men had forever been changed. World War I and
the defeat of Germany changed the mind sets of many Germans and altered their way of
life.
World War I left the Germans beaten and humiliated. Morale was low and frustrations
were high. Everyone was looking for someone to blame. The defeat of Germany could be
blamed on politics. The government of Germany was constantly battling revolutions from
the bourgeoisie and there was no strong government for Germany. Revolutions were
occurring Germany and many blamed the defeat of Germany on these revolutions. The
“stab in the back” theory arose, believing that “it was not the home front in its entirety
that had stabbed the military in the back but rather the revolution.”(Schivelbusch 207)
The political powers believed that the military were fighting a losing battle while there
was great strife within their country. Canetti agreed that many people believed this,
stating, “He…asserts the popular Loschstob legend, claiming that weak civilians and
leftist saboteurs in the hinterland had caused the defeat of the German army.”(Canetti 55)
Again, the problems within Germany could be seen as a cause for the German’s defeat.
An example of the conflict between politics and the classes could be seen in Rosa
Luxemburg’s “The War and the Workers”. According to Luxemburg, the war was
merely a battle of imperialism and was detrimental to the working class (Luxemburg 13).
Imperialism, though seen by the politicians as being advantageous, was harmful to the
working class. Luxemburg further stated “The actual problem that the world war has
posed to the socialist parties, upon the solution of which the destiny of the workers’
movement depends, is this: the capacity of the proletarian masses for action in the battle
against imperialism.” (Luxemburg 14) The war, to the working class, was only a way for
Germany to extend its borders. In the end, this would destroy the working class and the
economy of Germany. Luxemburg’s argument over World War I is only one example of
the discord amongst the people that could be responsible for the Germans losing the war.
Hitler blamed the loss of World War I on the Jews. Hitler believed that the Jews have no
culture of their own and latch on to any other culture, imitating it and ruining it (Hitler
302-3). Hitler further believes that the Jews, amidst the Germans, alter the German’s
economics, politics, culture and even religion (Hitler 326). The Jews would come into
the German world, and change it into a world of their own. Hitler states “If we pass all
the causes of the German collapse in review, the ultimate and most decisive remains the
failure to recognize the racial problem and especially the Jewish menace.”(Hitler 327)
Hitler believed that the true underlying causes for the Germans’ defeat in World War I
was brought on by the Jews. Hitler further states …”it was brought about by that power
which prepared these defeats by systematically robbing our people of the political and
moral instincts and forces which alone make nations capable and hence worthy of
existence.”(Hitler 327) By the Jews “ruining” the culture, politics, etc. of the Germans,
this in turn caused the German defeat. Germany was even doomed to fail even before
they entered into the war. According to Hitler, “…in August 1914, it was not a people
resolved to attack which rushed to the battlefield; no, it was only the last flicker of the
national instinct of self-preservation in face of the progressing pacifist-Marxist paralysis
of our national body…our people did not recognize the inner enemy, all outward
resistance was in vain…” (Hitler 329) Hitler felt that the true enemy of Germany was
within their boundaries, and any fight beyond them was futile. Therefore, Hitler blamed
the defeat of the Germans on the Jews and the fact that their contamination of the German
culture destroyed the chances of Germany being victorious.
Germany’s lack of propaganda during the war was also seen as a reason for their defeat.
Schivelbusch states “Ludendorff, for example, attributed German’s defeat not to the
material superiority of its enemies, but to their superior propaganda, equating propaganda
with the desire to win.”(Schivelbusch 215) Even leaders of Germany blamed their defeat
on propaganda. Hitler also agreed that propaganda brought about the defeat of the
Germans. Hitler stated “By representing the Germans to their [English and Americans]
own people as barbarians and Huns, they prepared the individual soldier for the terrors of
war, and thus helped to preserve him from disappointments.”(Hitler 181) Hitler believed
that war propaganda greatly fueled the fire for the English and Americans, increasing
their will to fight the Germans. This caused them to fight harder, making the defeat of the
Germans inevitable.
The Germans blamed their defeat on many, whether it was their own people, the Jews or
even war propaganda. The Germans, after their defeat, were further humiliated by the
treaty and blamed their issues on the treaty enforced by the Allied Powers. According to
the Versailles treaty, the Germans were forced to reduce the size of their army (Treaty of
Versailles 2) This, to Germany, was a great blow to their country. To the Germans “The
belief in universal military service, the conviction of its profound significance and the
veneration accorded it, had a wider reach than the traditional religions…Anyone who
excluded himself was no German.”(Canetti 180) To serve in the army of Germany made
a man a real German and gave him a sense of belonging. The reduction of the German
army caused another great blow to the men of Germany and their sense of belonging. Not
only were the men hurt by the defeat of war, but also by the fact that their military
services were no longer needed. According to Canetti, “…The prohibition of the army
was like the prohibition of a religion. The faith of his fathers had been proscribed, and it
was every man’s sacred duty to re-establish it.”(Canetti 181). To belong to the army of
Germany was to belong to Germany, and this right was taken from the men of Germany
and they needed to gain this right back.
The Germans, after their defeat, looked to blame anyone and everyone. The Germans
were crushed and humiliated by the aforementioned. To escape the thoughts of war, they
looked to themselves and their country. Pointing a finger was easy, but getting revenge
on the people who were to blame for the war was not. The Germans blamed many, yet
did not make retaliations against them. Instead, the Germans looked to themselves as a
way to better their country.
However, before the Germans could rebuild themselves, inflation occurred that damaged
them even more. Because of World War I, reparations were being made to the Allied
powers and the German mark was losing its value. The Germans, at first, thought that
everything was fine and they were enjoying the upswing of the economy. Some even
saw this time as being “lively” and “stimulating” (Schivelbusch 269). The Germans
seemed to enjoy themselves for a time until the catastrophe of inflation really hit them.
Once the truth of inflation occurred, the Germans were in a tailspin. The Germans and
“…middle class that believed itself for many years the master of its financial and
economic circumstances was forced to admit, with shame, that it was at the mercy of the
dictates of currency depreciation.”(Widdig 63) For a while, the Germans thought their
economy was doing well, until inflation made them realize that this wasn’t true and they
were at the “mercy” of money. To many, inflation “resulted in the loss of social status
and therefore inflicted shame.”(Widdig 65). The Germans felt defeated once again, this
time by money. At one point, “Individual objects, particularly ‘cultural goods’ that may
once have meant something to their owners, are carried up the Theresianum’s long
staircase to be transformed into money. Jewelry, works of art, and, as the pinnacle of
transformation, on the sixth floor of the state pawnshop, books-everything falls victim to
this crude institution of capitalist exchange value.” (Widdig 72) Germans were selling
off their culture just to get money and in doing this, losing themselves. This was yet
another blow to the Germans. Therefore, someone needed to be blamed.
Not only were the Jews to blame for the German’s defeat in World War I, but when
inflation occurred, most of the blame fell on their shoulders. Even before the World War,
the Jews were seen as “alien” and always were related to money (Wagner 4 & 7). The
foreign Jews and their knowledge of money were therefore to blame for the inflation.
“No one ever forgets a sudden depreciation of himself…unless he can thrust it on to
someone else, he carries it with him for the rest of his life…Something must be treated in
such a way that it becomes worth less and less, as the unit of money did during the
inflation. And this process must be continued until its object is reduced to a state of utter
worthlessness.”(Canetti 187). The Germans needed someone to blame after inflation and
take their anger out on due to the inflation. The Jews fit the mold perfectly. Canetti
stated” Their [Jews] long-standing connection with money, their traditional
understanding of its movements and fluctuations, their skill in speculation, the way they
flocked together in money markets, where their behavior contrasted strikingly with the
soldierly conduct which was the German ideal-all this, in a time of doubt, instability, and
hostility to money, could not but make them appear dubious and hostile.”(Canetti 187)
The Germans, who knew little about money, disliked the Jews for their great
understanding of money. The Germans looked to ostracize the Jews because of this
knowledge and looked down on the Jews. While the Germans were suffering monetarily,
the Jews were doing well. The Germans despised them for this.
With great turmoil surrounding them, the Germans looked to escape the thoughts of war
and money, retreating within their boundaries. Dancing became a large fad of this time.
“The dance craze may have served not only to discharge frustrated erotic desire but also
to act out the vertigo that the various collapses had produced in society.”(Schivelbusch
271). The Germans used dancing as a way to escape from the surrounding chaos. This
can also be seen in Thomas Mann’s story, “Disorder and Early Sorrow”. A family, while
dealing with inflation, still has parties and dancing is the main activity. Dancing was a
way to release tensions and stress. For a moment, the hardships of the times could be
forgotten.
The Germans also looked to their culture as a way to rebuild their morale. Germans
wanted to reconstruct their cities in the hopes that a great city would bring great power
once again. Germany believed that “The world does not quickly forget a capital that once
threatened it and, conversely, that capital develops a hypersensitive, almost paranoid need
to promote its own image. This need was abundantly clear in the post-1918 development
of Berlin as a technological, functionalist center.”(Schivelbusch 277) Germany knew
that it had to rebuild its country and its image. Germany admired the skyscrapers of
America, but not what they stood for. They believed that the American skyscrapers were
symbols of “rampant capitalism”(Neumann 149) The Germans then decided to
“Germanize” skyscrapers and “claimed that the Germans were destined to create, on a
higher cultural level, a valid and alternative to this American invention, revealing for the
first time ‘the true inner meaning of the skyscraper’”(Neumann 149). The Germans
believed that they could rebuild their great cities with a great cultural background.
Neumann states “The lost war and the enormous reparation payments of the Versailles
treaty led to a desperate nationalism and to the idea that a monumental symbolic gesture
could demonstrate the undestroyed German will to reemerge after the war…” (Neumann
150) The Germans felt that not only would the skyscraper represent their culture, but it
would also show that they were rising from the low status that they incurred after World
War I. The skyscraper would be a symbol of culture, nationalism, and their will to move
on.
After their cities, the Germans looked to the arts. The film industry began to grow greatly
in Germany. Fritz Lang made many movies such as “Metropolis” and “M”. Lang stated
“Germany has never had, and never will have, the gigantic human and financial reserves
of the American film industry at its disposal… For that is exactly what forces us to
compensate a purely material imbalance through an intellectual superiority.” (Lang 622).
Lang believed that while the Americans may have money, the Germans have their
intellect that will allow them to produce greater movies. The Germans believed that their
films were brilliant and “that German film technique will develop along the lines that not
only raises it to the level of an optical expression of the characters’ actions but also to
elevate the particular performer’s environment to the status of a carrier of the action in its
own right and, most important, of the character’s soul!” (Lang 623) Germans, through
their “film techniques”, will be able to connect with people and make their great movies
into something other than just entertainment. Many believed that their cinema was
superior and the world would see this. Some even saw these movies as an interpretation
of Germany’s society. Anton Kaes felt that the movie “M” by Fritz Lang may have been
a reflection of postwar Germany. In one scene, a trial is being held by the criminals to
determine the fate of a serial killer. Kaes stated “The mockery of the law and its
procedures is double-edged: it reflects cynicism of the Weimar judicial system, but, more
importantly, it allows Lang to shift the parameter of the ‘trial’ from the question of truth
and evidence to the question of retribution and the right to punish…”(Kaes 67) Kaes
believes Lang is trying to express through the “trial” that Weimar Germany still has not
forgiven others for the result of World War I and relates this to their need to blame and
punish someone for this. Through the cinema, the Germans were able to express their
culture and even their opinions.
The German defeat after World War I caused a great blow to its people. It demoralized
and humiliated them as a people. The Germans put the blame on everyone, from their
own people, to the Jews, and even propaganda. The Germans knew that they were once a
world power and could not grasp the fact that they were reduced to a broken country. It
was easier for them to put blame on others, than to admit defeat.
The Germans could not execute any real revenge on those who were to blame because
they were discouraged by the events that occurred after World War I. There is much
evidence of the Germans being dismayed and blaming others for it, but there is no real
evidence of revenge on anyone. Not only is there no revenge, but no reconciliation
amongst those who were to blame. There is much evidence of defeat, blaming and the
brief revival of their culture, but none of revenge or forgiveness. It almost seems that the
Germans looked to rebuild themselves as a culture, people, and nation before there was
the possibility of retaliating or forgiving anyone.
References
Canetti, Elias. “Crowds and Power.” And trans. Carol Stewart. New York: Continuum,
1973. In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B. Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003, 169189.
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf.
Junger, Ernst. “The Storm of Steel: From the Diary of a German Storm Troop Officer on
the Western Front.” In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B. Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University,
2003, 1-4.
Lang, Fritz. “The Future of the Feature Film in Germany.” Cinema from Expressionism
to Social Realism. 622-3. No date.
Luxemburg, Rosa. “The War and the Workers.” In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B. Klein.
Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003, 1-18.
Neumann, Dietrich. “Dancing on the Volcano: Essays on the Culture of the Weimar
Republic.” Columbia, SC: Camden House, Inc., 1994. In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B.
Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003, 143-154.
Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. The Culture of Defeat. And trans. Jefferson Chase. New York:
Henry Holt and Co., 2001.
Treaty of Versailles. In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B. Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University,
2005, 1-3.
Wagner, Richard. “Judaism in Music.” In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B. Klein. Union,
NJ: Kean University, 2003, 1-12.
Widdig, Bernd. “Culture and Inflation in Weimar Germany.” In Source Reader. Ed.
Dennis B. Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003, 53-65, 69-75.
Restorative Justice - Clarence L. Turner
The focal point of this paper is to get a better understanding of restorative justice. It will
give various definitions of restorative justice. It will also give examples of how
restorative justice operates.
The aim of restorative justice is to focus on negotiation, mediation, and peacemaking.
Applied to juveniles, the purpose of restorative justice is to incorporate non-punitive
strategies for delinquency control. “Restoration involves turning the justice system into a
healing process rather than a distributor of retribution and revenge.”(Siegel et al., 2006 p.
135). Restorative Justice is geared to make offenders more accountable for their actions.
The important aspect of achieving restoration is for the offenders to accept the
accountability and responsibility for the harm that their actions caused. (Siegel et al.,
2006 p. 135) As a whole, restorative justice is more of a non-punishment strategy for
delinquency.
According to Siegel, Welsh, & Senna there are seven key elements that explain
restorative justice (pp.466-67):
•
Victims and the community are central to justice processes
•
The first priority of justice processes is to assist victims
•
The second priority of justice processes is to restore the community, to the
degree possible
•
The offender has a personal responsibility to victims and to the
community for crimes committed.
•
The offender will develop improved competency and understanding as a
result of the restorative justice experience
•
Stakeholders share responsibilities for restorative justice through
partnerships for action.
As history may explain, restorative justice was more of a traditional approach. For a
more recent approach, many individuals look down upon restorative justice because it did
not reinforce the 90’s theme of “Toughness on Crime”. (Robinson & Raynor, 2006,
p.334). In the past many victims feelings were not even considered when it came down
to punishment. Restorative justice gives the victim more opportunities to have more of a
voice in the system. The victims are given a chance to meet the offender face to face. If
the victim does not wish to meet with the offender face to face, information will be
passed by a third party. (Evans, 2006)
As many can assume, restorative justice can oppose what retributive justice implies.
“[Retributive Justice] is not directed at changing the offender but only backwards,
confronting the offender with condemnation; it attributes the crime solely to the offender
who only reflects the general evil.” (Hassemer, 1983 as seen in Oswald, 2002 et al., p.
87) Retributive justice may also be known as just desert (you get what you deserve). This
type of justice is also known by the phrase “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.” As a whole
it is safe to say that America operates on the retributive justice approach.
As mentioned above, a fundamental purpose of restorative justice is to attempt to revive
rehabilitation. (Bazemore & Walgrave 1999 p. 35) One major problem, is, how can we
revive rehabilitation when in certain cases rehabilitation has proven not to work?
America is what many people may conceive of as a violent country. In fact, America has
the highest incarceration rate in the world. (Beckwith, et al., 2006). One main problem
with America is the way we treat our criminals. This is where the concept of restorative
justice comes into play. Restorative Justice is helping to transform the culture of prison
life from a dangerous environment filled with anger and hostility to caring and
compassion. (Walker & Sakai 2006, p. 61) This form of rehabilitation will show inmates
different ways to resolve problems the proper way.
Restorative justice practices are rapidly being used elsewhere in the criminal justice
system. British Columbia developed volunteerism in restorative justice and conducted a
survey of restorative justice volunteers. The study was aimed to: “document the
characteristics of restorative justice volunteers, examine the factors that motivate
individuals to initiate and sustain involvement in restorative justice, identify the skills and
qualifications that volunteers perceived to be useful for their role in restorative justice
and demonstrate how restorative justice volunteer’s experiences affect their involvement
in restorative justice.” (Dhami & Souza, 2005)
What was found was that restorative justice volunteers were generally a homogenous
group. Their motivations were both selfish and unselfish (this was associated with some
of the personal characteristics.) Lastly, for the most part volunteers were satisfied with
their roles. In addition to what was found some suggestion on restorative justice
practices was also found: volunteer recruitment efforts need to be more far reaching,
training curriculums need to have broader topics, expressing positive experiences with
restorative justices can help retain more volunteers for longer periods of time. (Dhami &
Souza, 2005)
Restorative justice is also practiced in New Zealand. It operates on a four level system.
The first part is system issues and it involves a conference between both parties. The
police, prosecutor or court may take action of further penalties if the conference is not
completed. Part two is the reparation aspect. In this part, the outcomes are reported,
which focus on the offender setting things right with the victim and community. These
outcomes may involve reparation, restitution, and community work. Part three is
prevention. This part addresses the underlying causes for the offending and its goal is set
at assisting the offender to keep his/her promises. The last and final part is monitoring.
The best way to monitor is on paper. Both parties write down what will be addressed.
This is the most crucial part when it comes down to the whole four part process because
this is where most plans fail. (MacRae & Zehr, 2004 p. 51)
Siegel, Welsh, & Senna (p.135) give a good example in explaining restorative justice.
They state:
Most people involved in offender-victim relationships actually know one
another or were related in some way before the criminal incident took place.
Instead of treating one of the involved parties as a victim deserving of sympathy
and the other as a criminal deserving of punishment, it is more productive to
address the issues that produced conflict between these people. Rather than take
sides and choose whom to isolate and punish, society should try to reconcile the
parties involved in conflict.
Community involvement is considered very effective component of restorative justice.
Considering that, the effectiveness of restorative justice ultimately depends on the impact
a person has in the community. If a person does not value or hold high prestige within a
group (community), then that person will be unlikely to accept responsibility caused by
their actions; therefore, community involvement is an essential factor when it comes to
restorative justice. (Siegel et al., 2006 p. 135) Knowing that, even the most effective
restorative justice programs will become a failure if offenders have no ties within the
community.
According to Fred Luskin, the major attribute to restorative justice is forgiveness. Luskin
believed that “just as everyone has hurt others, everyone has also been hurt in life;
hanging on to old wounds and carrying around resentment and hostility keeps people
unhappy; the energy it takes to imagine a just revenge for someone who was harmful can
be better used for creating a positive life. His philosophy focuses on self, basically
stating that the only person you have control of is self. .”(Walker & Sakai 2006, p. 60).
When speaking about restorative justice, many individuals may interpret it by its
components such as programs, ideas, policies, strategies, conceptual framework or
paradigm shift. (Bazemore & Walgrave 1999 p. 35). In fact, the Arizona State Correction
Department started a 10 week program that covers certain topics (i.e., substance abuse,
property crimes, drunken driving, child abuse, assault, domestic violence and murder).
Dora Schriro, Arizona’s State Corrections Director, believes “inmates are expected to
take a hard-hitting look at themselves and change some of the things they do.” (Program
Puts Inmates in Victims’ Shoes 2006 p.12). This program is expected to be statewide by
the end of the year. Its main focus is to repair harm caused by crime.
In conclusion, restorative justice is more of a non-punishment strategy for delinquency.
It addresses the issues that often produce conflict between two parties (offender and
victim) and, therefore tries to repair the conflict between the two. (Siegel et al., 2006 p.
466) The fundamental purpose of restorative justice is to oppose retribution
(punishment). In short the meaning of restorative justice is to repair a harm caused by
crime. It seems to me that America is at a standstill when it comes to treating our
criminals. A major suggestion is to evaluate other countries’ restorative justice methods
and see if they can be effective within the United States.
References
Bazemore, Gordon, Walgrave, Lode. (2006) Program puts inmates in victims’ shoes.
Corrections Today, 68 (7); 12.
Bazemore, Gordon, Walgrave, Lode. (1999) Restorative Juvenile Justice. Criminal
Justice Press. 35.
Beckwith, Curt G., Zaller, Nick, Rich, Josiah D. (2006) Addressing the HIV Epidemic
Through Quality Correctional Healthcare. Criminology & Public Policy 5 (1) 149-156.
Dhami, Kaur M., & Souza, Karen (2005). Volunteerism in community-based restorative
justice programs. American Society of Criminology.
Evans, Janice (2006)Integrating victims into restorative justice. Patrice (09503153). 18,
(4) 279-289.
Oswald M. E., Hupfeld, J., Klug, S. C., & Gabriel, U. (2002) Lay-Perspectives on
Criminal Deviance, Goals of Punishment, and Punitivity. Social Justice Research. 15, (2).
85-98.
MacRae, Allan & Zehr, Howard (2004) Family Group Conferences. Good Books 3-74.
Robinson, Gwen & Reynor, Peter (2006). The future of rehabilitation. Journal of
Community and Criminal Justice 53 (4) 334-346.
Seigel, Larry J., Welsh, Brandon C., & Senna, Josheph J.,(2006) Juvenile Delinquency.
Thomson Wadsworth 9th ed., 135-136, 466-467
Walker, Lorenn, Sakai, Ted. (2006) A gift of listening for Hawaii’s Inmates. Corrections
Today, 68, (7); 58-61.
Philosophical Reflections on Personal and Political Forgiveness – Dr. Charles Fethe
Abstract
This paper examines the question of whether the act of forgiveness, which has
traditionally been considered a prerogative of individual persons, can be incorporated into
the policies of public groups and political organizations. The paper offers an
interpretation of forgiveness which justifies its role in political policies, and it suggests
criteria for evaluating some of the benefits and risks in reconciliation policies based on
forgiveness.
Introduction
Throughout history, people have reflected on the question of what constitutes a good
person, a person of honor and virtue. There have been numerous approaches to
investigating this question, but one of the most insightful suggestions was offered by
Plato in his classic work, The Republic. Plato contended that to understand what makes a
person good and worthy of respect we must first know what makes a political society
worthy of respect, for the virtues of the state are simply the virtues of a person writ large.
This is indeed a fascinating analogy, perhaps the most famous analogy in the history of
political philosophy. Over the centuries philosophers and political theorists have given
much thought to determining where the analogy works and where it fails. In recent
times, the most intriguing efforts to understand and evaluate the analogy have centered
on a moral virtue that Plato and most of his successors would have dismissed as
irrelevant to political thought—this virtue is that of forgiveness. Forgiveness certainly is
an act we respect in individuals; whether it can be taken up by political groups or
incorporated into the function of a state is another matter.
Forgiveness is not a minor moral virtue. When Alexander Pope claimed that “To err is
human, to forgive divine” he was asserting a belief that had been pervasive in European
moral thought since the beginning of the Christian era. But to Pope and to most
Europeans the act of forgiveness represented a personal virtue. It had nothing to do with
government, politics, committees and commissions. This view has probably been the
traditional understanding of forgiveness for quite some time and so it came as a surprise
when organizations such as South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission put
issues dealing with forgiveness on the political stage. Many people applauded these
political groups for taking an evolutionary step in the understanding of forgiveness; but
others, while respecting the intentions of these organizations, questioned the premise that
forgiveness could function outside the relations between individual persons. These
skeptics of political forgiveness contend that if Peter robs Paul, Paul can forgive him but
court judges and political organizations cannot, although they may be lenient with Peter
and show him mercy. Even the great Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr took a
similar position: he believed that justice qualified as a useful political virtue but
forgiveness was an idealistic goal which cannot function in a broad, practical context. i
True forgiveness, he seemed to believe, is always personal, and rare. It does not thrive in
political environments.
Skepticism about political or group forgiveness has to be taken seriously, for it raises a
number of provocative questions. How do groups or political organizations acquire the
authority to forgive? What procedures do they use to decide who should be forgiven—is
it by majority vote of the members? If so, how was that policy determined? And how
does the judgment of forgiveness made by a political organization affect the judgments of
individuals? If the political group forgives a class of offenders, does that nullify the
judgments of victims who refuse to offer forgiveness and demand reparation?
These questions pose a challenge to the concept of political forgiveness, but in this paper
I would like to examine only one of the fundamental objections to taking forgiveness out
of the personal realm and setting it under the authority of social and political
organizations. This objection rests on the premise that the act of forgiveness is an
expression of personal feelings and attitudes, and since feelings and attitudes are
psychological phenomena which exist only in the minds of individuals, the act of
forgiveness can only be an individual and personal affair. On this view, individual
members of a political group may each practice forgiveness but the group as a separate
entity cannot.
I believe this argument rests on a misunderstanding of the true nature of forgiveness, and
so I would like to propose a better model for analyzing the act of forgiveness and
determining when it is justified and when it is not.
The nature of forgiveness
Forgiving one’s enemies is not an easy thing to do. It often takes courage and a measure
of self-discipline that many of us lack. It is this inner strength which gives forgiveness its
moral drama. But are these feelings and attitudes an essential element in offering
forgiveness? If they are, then it would seem that those who deny the possibility of social
or political forgiveness might be on the right track. After all, feelings are always
personal, even when they are expressed by political figures in a political context. When
presidential candidate William Clinton made his famous statement “I feel your pain” in
response to a supporter who was facing serious problems in his life, his assertion was on
a personal level and so he was not committing the Democratic Party to take a similar
stance. And even if President Clinton made the same statement under the same
circumstances after he won the election, he could not be committing the United States
government to feeling the same compassion. Feelings and attitudes lie within the psyche
of individuals; and so if they are the basis of forgiveness, the concept of political or group
forgiveness would indeed seem to be out of place.
There can be no doubt that acts of forgiveness are often motivated by personal feelings,
but I believe that emotions or attitudes are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for
forgiving. If I have seriously offended you and you state that you forgive me, then I have
been forgiven and I do not need to know anything about your inner feelings or attitudes.
Your statement of forgiveness can do the job by itself.
To say “I forgive you” is an example of what philosophers call a performative speech act.
When a person makes a statement which is a performative speech act, she is doing more
than just giving a comment or expressing a feeling: she is making a statement which
creates obligations and duties. Consider, for example, what you are doing when you
make a promise. Making a promise is a performative speech act; it has very little to do
with your inner feelings. When you make a promise, you are not simply stating what you
intend to do: you are making a verbal commitment, and you can be held responsible for
failing to do what you promised. An assertion of forgiveness fits this same pattern,
although with more moral complexity. ii
The speech act interpretation of forgiveness gives support to those who believe that
forgiveness can be practiced by political or social groups and not simply by individuals.
If forgiveness is a matter of making a statement which involves objective criteria and a
commitment to obligations and duties, then we would have good reason to accept it as a
public action which can be performed by political or social groups and their leaders. A
religious organization, for example, could not sensibly make a general expression of
group love, but it might take a public stance of forgiveness to those who had previous
been persecutors. This does not mean that all members of the church would agree with
this view, but full agreement of all members of a group is often not necessary. Policies
and commitments can be made without full agreement and so can declarations of
forgiveness.
If this interpretation of forgiveness is correct, then to understand forgiveness we must
consider what obligations the act entails and what circumstances are necessary for
making the act valid; for just as you cannot logically promise anything anywhere, so you
cannot forgive or be forgiven on a whim. There are rules and conditions governing the
act. I’ll offer a few examples.
An assertion of forgiveness creates a dyadic relation, a contract of sorts, between forgiver
and forgiven. One of the conditions for this contract to be successful is that those who
have committed the wrong must recognize their moral failure and be prepared to atone
for what happened. If, as is often the case, the offender does not admit to guilt and is not
open to remorse, then forgiveness would be inappropriate. Forgiveness is not a cure or
therapy for those who remain unalterably committed to wrong-doing.
There are also necessary restrictions on those who offer forgiveness. One restriction is
that forgiveness must be joined with leniency in dealing with the offender. If a political
organization adopted a policy of forgiveness to its now-defeated oppressors but then
inflicted violent punishment on those who were forgiven, their assertion of forgiveness
would have little meaning. An act of forgiveness which follows the same path as the
proponents of revenge and eye-for-an-eye justice would lose its moral identity. As is the
case with all serious moral judgments, there is no set rule to determining how far leniency
should go, but its role in forgiveness is essential.
Another restriction on those who offer forgiveness is that they must recognize that they
are making a commitment to foster the moral character of those who are forgiven. This
requires a sustained effort to keep the dynamics of forgiveness in place. The common
belief that we have the option of following a “forgive and forget “ policy distorts and
diminishes the role and duty of the forgiver, for it mistakenly assumes that forgiveness
can be a once-done deal, perhaps a feeling that comes and goes. But this is not so. Trudy
Govier makes the point well in her comment concerning the role of the moral community
in responding to people who have the willingness to recognize their wrongdoing and
attempt to do what is right:
“The question of forgiveness arises because no person can establish a moral
identity by himself. A person can, as a solitary individual, resolve to reform. But
alone, he cannot change his moral reputation, which obviously has public
dimensions. To escape a negative label a person needs the co-operation of other
people – the moral community. One who forgives will help in the fresh start by
offering a wrongdoer the opportunity to begin anew, allowing that better acts
and a brighter moral future are possible, and supporting restored status and
relationships. Such forgiveness is a matter of words, attitude, and action. Life is
a moral endeavor within which people should not be bound by past failures.” iii
Incorporating the perpetrator into the life of the moral community is certainly no
easy task. Indeed, if we are thinking of forgiveness offered by one individual to
another, it may often be too onerous a burden. Group efforts would work far more
effectively here. Indeed, we already have evidence of their success in the results of
political policies which were based on leniency, rejection of vengeance, and
recognition of the moral possibilities in those who once were motivated by hatred
and prejudice. It may well be that if these policies maintain their effectiveness,
political forgiveness will eventually outshine traditional person-to-person
forgiveness.
The justification of forgiveness
The problems concerning the validity of group or political forgiveness raise a number of
questions, but perhaps the most serious problem facing any advocate of forgiveness is the
moral question of determining when forgiveness should be given and when it should be
denied. This is obviously a complex and challenging issue, but I would like to make a
few closing observations which I believe should be taken into account in considering the
consequences of fostering a policy of forgiveness
Let us begin with some commonplace questions: Is it always wise to forgive? Are we
always taking the moral highroad when we choose not to be part of the great masses of
the unforgiving?
If we think of forgiveness on a personal level, I believe we would often sympathize with
those who reject forgiveness and refuse to put aside the rage which comes from thinking
about the wrong that was inflected on them. Consider, for example, the final scene in
Katherine Anne Porter’s brilliant short story “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall.” The
closing paragraphs describe the chaotic thoughts and feelings going though the mind of
the old lady in the moments before her death. All the strange and wonderful past events
of Granny Weatherall’s life are sweeping through her dying consciousness—the
memories of her children, her grandchildren, the joys of her life. But at the very moment
before death, one memory surges forward: she was a young girl waiting at the alter,
waiting to be married. The groom never appeared. The story and her life end with these
lines: “She could not remember any other sorrow because this grief wiped them all away.
Oh, no, there’s nothing more cruel than this – I’ll never forgive it. She stretched herself
with a deep breath and blew out the light.” iv
Should we say that Granny Weatherall was at the moment of her death a vindictive
person? Perhaps. But I think we should also recognize that there is a certain courage in
the way she ended it all. Sometimes it is easy to forgive, too easy.
I do not believe that we can readily provide the rules, the moral guidelines which would
help us to determine when a person should give up the fury of revenge and the demand
for personal justice; but if we consider forgiveness as an act of an organization or a
political entity, then we might gain a clearer understanding of the moral justification for
forgiveness.
When we think of public agencies and organizations, the most common arguments to
support policies of political forgiveness reflect consequentialist moral principles which
hold that the morally right action or policy is one which will provide the greatest benefit
and least harm to as many people as possible. There are many arguments to support the
belief that political forgiveness is a policy with long term benefits for everyone, even for
the forgivers themselves. Donald Shriver noted that the desire for revenge has a long and
penetrating history, and those who give little value to forgiveness may take to reviving
the memories of the past and adopting a policy of violence and delayed retribution: “The
world cringes at a Serb’s willingness to kill a Muslim in revenge for ancestors who
fought the battle of Kosovo in the year 1389; but in fact every nation has among its
citizens those who have vast unresolved sentiments against the descendants of some other
group of citizens. The majority of us are apparently a long way from ceasing to hold the
sins of the ancestors against their living children. Were the ancestors still living, we
might be willing to refight our wars with them.” v
This positive outlook on the beneficial consequences of a policy of forgiveness has often
been criticized as being too optimistic and lacking an understanding of the thinking of
those who might exploit the policy. Jeffrie Murphy, putting himself in the mind of the
perpetrator, comes to the conclusion that forgiveness may be an open door to
exploitation. “Those who have vindictive dispositions toward those who wrong them give
potential wrongdoers an incentive not to wrong them,” says Murphy. “If I were going to
set out to oppress other people, I would surely prefer to select for my victims persons
whose first response is forgiveness rather than persons whose first response is revenge.”
vi
There is no doubt that forgiving those who have committed serious and intentional wrong
opens the forgiver to risk. But this is a problem we face throughout life, whenever we
deal leniently with people who violated the rules of good and decent behavior. Suppose
we learned that criminals who are given a mild sentence for a serious act of violence are
often tempted to do it again. Does this lead to the conclusion that giving milder, more
lenient sentences should be abolished? I think a better conclusion would be that the
problem is not in the sentencing but in the failure to determine whether the perpetrator
has changed. We noted earlier that the act of forgiveness, especially on a political and
social level, is not a simple approach for dealing with those who have inflicted violence
on others. Forgiveness does not involve dismissal of past wrongs, and it does not naively
welcome with open arms people or groups who have been susceptible to the forces of
hate, contempt and prejudice. President Kennedy’s quip “Forgive your enemies but never
forget their names” is a good first step to a viable policy of forgiveness—but only a first
step. What we see developing now in many countries is a propaedeutic for forgiveness,
and an experiment in personal and social reform, an experiment which hopefully will
replace hatred with moral understanding. We have no certainty about what will work and
what will backfire. The military budget will not be cut to provide resources for
organizations promoting political forgiveness and reconciliation. But history shows us the
long-term effects of vengeance and retribution, and we would be foolish not to look for
alternatives. Perhaps we can take some comfort in the fact that one of the most influential
and revered moral leaders in history asked God to forgive his persecutors because “they
know not what they do.” Forgiveness must be an experiment in learning.
Forgiveness: Considerations in Science and Religion vs Political Violence, Genocide
and War – Dr. John J. Stapleton
Abstract
There is no weakness in forgiveness. It strengthens everyone. The offender need
not grovel and the magnanimous forgiver obtains peace of mind. “You do not make
Peace with your friends; you make Peace with your enemies.” 1 Pardon for Peace can
work where “Land for Peace” has not. Suicidal terrorists believe that if one is not afraid
of dying then one is not afraid of anything. Given that fanatics are fanatics because they
believe that what they believe is indubitably true, then forgiving fanatics 2 with Pardon for
Peace is logical defense against genocides because only tranquility of order ensures “Life
Is Worth Living.” Freedom from fear will ensue from forgiveness that dissolves antiAmerican anger 3 by aiding and abetting, for friend and foe alike, the universal passion
for freedom from want. Considerations of faith and forgiveness in science become
remarkably consistent with their nuances among comparative cultures in Russia, China,
Israel, US politics, Hindu religion, the Koran, the Bible etc. [Absent Pardon for Peace,
the radical anti-nuke suggested below maybe critical.]
Writer’s Perspective & Definition
From the writer’s perspective, seeking lifelong harmony instead of the dichotomy
and antipathy between science 4 and religion 5 , growing up during WWII, educated by
Religious men and women and launched into science by NSF response to Soviet’s
Sputnik (3Oct57), forgiveness herein means the act of forgiving offensive acts, errors or
1
Prime Minister Rabin, a martyr of Peace, insisted.
“The offender never forgives.” Russian proverb.
3
“He who forgiveth and is reconciled unto his enemy, shall receive his reward from God.” Koran, sura 42.
4
“It is in the lives of professional scientists who are religious believers that one finds the most convincing
answer to the question of whether science and belief are compatible.”
Russell Stannard, Science and the Renewal of Belief, Templeton Foundation Press 2004
5
Writer, taught science by Dominican Sisters, Fathers, and DeLaSalle Brothers, among others, lived and
learned in monasteries in NY, RI, DC, & NH as member of the Brothers teachers institute founded in
France in 1680.
2
omissions, deliberate or inadvertent, culpable or invincible ignorance, i.e. granting
pardon without harboring resentment. Considerations of faith and forgiveness in science
become remarkably consistent with their nuances among comparative cultures in Russia,
China, Israel, US politics, Hindu religion, the Koran, the Bible etc.
Five Considerations
1. There is no weakness in forgiveness. It strengthens all parties. The offender
need not grovel or beg. Peace of mind obtains in the magnanimous forgiver because
forgiveness heals and removes hatred or revenge as Hindu teach. “If you seek revenge,
prepare two graves,” the China proverb says. To forgive, excuse, pardon, and condone all
mean to refrain from imposing punishment on an offender or demanding apology or
satisfaction for an offense, such as the most notable and now admirable example of
President Ford pardoning President Nixon’s political violence to truth about the
Watergate cover-up. Ford’s true forgiveness, no quid pro quo as suspected 30 years ago,
replaced any fear of political reprisal in subsequent election Nov, 1976 and replaced
expiation with expectation for a better future. Such Pardon for Peace, in hindsight after
many years, offers the best hope cosmologically to turn “from chaos to the cosmos,” 6 as
the 1929 Hubble telescope began to turn eyes from the Depression towards a new
Expanding Universe.
Scientific Culture & Methods
2. We in science seeking truth must forgive and not hide our own foibles too,
mea culpa. Just compare your pencil point to the size of its erasure, if not already worn
out! “To err is human, to forgive is divine,” we are told but recent evidence reveals an
innate, moral compass indicating right and wrong including natural reciprocity,
independent of culture at first, then refined by it. Without corrective forgiveness of our
errors, we scientists would be frozen by fear of making errors like people who won’t get
off their butt lest they get kicked in it.
6
James Casey, Evolution, Faith and Co-Creation, Marist College, John Templeton Foundation
21Oct2006
Absent scientists own faith, the “substance of things hoped for,” we scientists could make
no venture, innovation or leap into the unknown to “think outside the box.” 7 A belief or
hunch prompts one to postulate a proposition without evidence. Next a what-if hypothesis
is formed by reasoning, observation, interpolation and extrapolation, at risk, to connect
the dots and extend the dots. This sparks a scientific theory that is confirmed or corrected
by laboratory experimentation and by peers independent testing of the theory. Ever open
to future scrutiny, very few theories become a natural law, such as Snell’s Law in optics.
“Correct one another and so you shall fulfill the Law.” 8 Would that weapons scientists
and engineers who let another genie out of the bottle, be compelled by Law to design also
the counter-measure to put weapons back in the bottle. Forgiveness by the US of WWII
waged by Japan may have induced reciprocal forgiveness by Japan of the atomic
weapons of mass destruction the US visited upon them and now dreads.
Belligerent enemies of the United States government would do themselves a lot of good
if they would consider how USA forgiveness (after unconditional surrender) of WWII
enemies led to tremendous prosperity there. Arabs and Americans would do well to recall
Israel Prime Minister Rabin, a martyr of Peace, who insisted, “You do not make Peace
with your friends; you make Peace with your enemies.” “Blessed are the peacemakers for
they shall inherit the earth.” But why did Land for Peace fail in Israel? If no one
presently has a vision of peace for the MidEast, it seems to be due to the eye-for-eye
retribution blinding everyone. How can they see eye-to-eye so as to agree and also agree
to disagree with civility? Gaze at an object and alternate shutting the left then right eye.
Each eye projects a different image to the brain and since two heads can not be in the
same place at the same time they do not see the same thing.
Family Rute Forgives Holocaust
3. No film or TV camera could capture Hitler’s Holocaust but first hand
descriptions by survivors made us shiver many Saturday evenings. Apparently this
7
“Acts of faith...actions taken specifically to test the truth of a seemingly reasonable but as yet unproven
claim—are an indispensable feature of scientific inquiry. Almost every experiment undertaken is such an
act—a leap into the unknown...”(Stannard)
8
Paul x:yy Correction in science by peer review is not unlike “advertisements” of a monk’s faults amid the
community of monks.
Family Rute had forgiven the Nazis yet tears after years showed they could never forget
that genocide. But “Never Again” did not prevent other genocides and wars since then.
As JFK is said to advise, “Forgive your enemies, but do not forget their names.” Family
Rute operated Ruta’s Bakery where the writer’s mother and sisters worked. Setting aside
atrocities and revenge, they could look to the future for their young children to become a
doctor, lawyer, teacher. Somehow their spoken dream conveyed their spirit and was also
realized by writer’s 3 children a half century later.
Conversely, instead of such forgiveness, venting anger and revenge as in the
horrific hanging of Saddam Hussein increases hatred. Killing killers for killing
perpetrates killing. Such revenge is the real weapon of mass destruction visited upon the
people of Iraq. I am afraid that “we have met the enemy and it is US,” spending 1.7
BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY for war mongers and profiteers of militarism but little
for peace. Freedom from fear and terrorism is linked to providing the enemies goods
necessary for subsistence towards freedom from want.
Reciprocity & Closure
4. The Principle of Reciprocity (x*1/x=1) weaves a “theistic tapestry” in expiation
side of forgiveness “at-ONE-ment” beyond Yom Kippur, Good Friday and “reciprocal
altruism.” From “In the beginning” 9 at one (1) the integrated reciprocal of x
∫
α
1
(1/x) dx = Ln(α)
is the natural logarithm by which our senses, as science, measure change (dx), such that
each
β
Sense, S=∫α (1/x) dx = Ln (β/α) and
1= ∫
9
Genesis 1:1 and also John 1:1
∞
-∞
p(x)dx where p(x)=probability/ providence.
The inordinate long pause at an unwritten comma in “...Forgive us our debts (,) as
we forgive our debtors” reveals our hesitation to forgive the errors of others even to get
reciprocal forgiveness. Nevertheless political opponents of science, too often selfrighteous cultures of religionists, pooh-pooh theory even the very well founded Darwin
theory of evolution as unproven and misconstrue science to be atheistic or ungodly and
try to design God in their own image and likeness. 10 They convolute scientific evidence
as well as distort out-of-proportion the sacred scriptures that tell a story of Promissory/
Probabilistic/ Providential “Co-Creation,” the incarnating Creator (Energy E personified)
empowering “the world,” 11 with eternal life, “Life Is Good,” not mere earthly man or
self-styled saved, chosen people. (how presumptuous).
Language : real world :: Energy : Matter :: Spirit : Creation :: Software : Hardware
Taking away the number 2 from 3 was easy but taking 3 from 2 violated closure 12
in culture of natural, counting numbers until Algebra taught us how to “think outside the
box” in the abstraction from positive to negative whole numbers.( way before credit card
culture) Back to square one, its diagonal √2 seems reasonable and rational but radical-two
is said to be irrational, as π in the sky, outside the box of ratios or fractions of whole
numbers, while √-1 is said to be imaginary (i) “cyclic” or “5th dimension” 13 yet is no
less real than any number. Supposing a leap to infinity (∞) gave balance, zero 0≡lim(1/x)
as x-->∞. Division by zero is indeterminate and ill defined but that did not deter Lorentz
and later Einstein from letting velocity v/ c=1 as in the relativistic mass m = mass at rest
m0 / √ [ 1 – (v/c)2] . Think out of that box now at v/c= √2 such that m= m0 /√ [ 1 – (v/c)2]
= m0 /√-1 = m0 / i = m0 i/i2 = -m0i. Negative mass? Anti-matter? Imaginary m0i3 to boot?
For some unknown convention, mathematicians do not like or forgive radicals left in the
10
“On the origin of Species,” Darwin wrote: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances
for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction
of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,
absurd in the highest degree.” Stannard
11
“God so loved the world,” (John 3:16) not just Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc., the entire world.
12
closure means the result or output of an operation falls within the same set as the input elements.
13
i≡√-1->i2= -1->i3= -i->i4=i0=1 ->i5= i ->i6=i2= -1....Perhaps the “cyclic” or “5th dimension” after the four
x, y, z, t Lawrence M. Krauss Hiding in the Mirror, Viking, New York, 2005.
denominator. Forgiveness of m0/0 and m0/i? A fluke or planet-saving, anti-nuke! But
forgive 1/i=i/i2=-i=i3 =i-1 ? Peace needs complex conjugates!
Beyond the rainbow, nonspectral magenta violates closure 14 and upends and amends
RCA color error of 1012 indeed alleging 0.3 second response time vs actual 0.3picosecond photochemical reactions due to known catalytic effect of enzymes. Forgiving that
self-serving rationalization to promote its television scheme suggests now biophysics
resonance, wireless brain i/o vibes, tuned sensitivities of amino-acid building blocks.
About to meet their all-forgiving maker, TV inventor Dr. Zworykin and Edward R
Murrow lamented consequences of their “weapon of television” as Dr. Teller rethought
releasing his genie H-bomb.
Solving all the differential equations in all the sciences without knowing the initial
conditions (Big Bang, Genesis etc.) is misleading in life 15 , as well as aliasing due to
subsampling in math and in SATs. Here we are in the IT information technology era yet
standardized single snapshot tests violate the very foundation of information theory, the
Shannon Nyquist Theorem of Sampling. In and among religionists, persistent arguments
battle over the beginning and end of human life, but avoid the healing power of common
ground in answering the key question, “What is Life?” Was there some “prebiotic protein
matrix” 16 ? If so when? How come?
The animating principle of life, call it soul or whatever, that is a spiritual entity animating
each individual in many churches which nevertheless argue over the matter and form and
timing of an immaterial, unobservable entity. Seems strange that “The Theologian”
Aquinas could not determine the moment the human soul is infused, and even stranger,
suicidal terrorists today have embraced Aquinas’ notion that if one is not afraid of dying
then one is not afraid of anything. Forgiving fanatics by proving to them de facto “Life Is
Worth Living” is best defense and least expense. 17 “Father forgive them for they know
not what they do.” Fortunately a once flat-earth-centered church that contradicted
14
Simplistically, magenta is the sum of red and blue light, but M=R+B is not found in the rainbow
Tom Mullin, Editor The Nature of Chaos, Oxford University Press, New York 1995
16
John F. Haught, Is Nature Enough?, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006 p55
17
Fanatics are fanatics because they believe that what they believe is indubitably true. Owen Flanagan, The
Problem of the Soul... New York Basic Books, 2002.
15
heliocentric Copernicus and Galileo 18 and launched crusades’ reactionary culture class of
unforgiveness, it is now embracing natural, applied and health sciences, even evolution,
but not yet married and women clergy. “God is father; more importantly God is mother
who wishes us no harm.”(PJPI) Suffering and death often evokes sympathy in words like
“It’s God’s Will.” Hell no, God is all good, incapable of evil in any faith or religion.
Rather it’s man’s causal ignorance that is overcome when the demand is grand, like
vaccine to beat polio in 1950’s and other diseases decades before.
Correction of science errors asserting rigidity instead of plasticity of brain cells 19 plus
forgiveness of that crafty serpent in Genesis story who tempted Eve might lead soon to
exploit viper thermalvision 20 as an alternative sight substitute for the blind. Why else
would the human tongue and forehead retain the 10 parts/ million temperature sensitivity
as the pit vipers? 21 We should not insult them by calling scoundrels “snake in the grass.”
The University (L. uni-veritas = one truth), seeks truth and makes “Intellectual Capital”
in the arts beauty and sciences correspondence of the mind to reality, veritably in
continual change, chaos for many. But isn’t academic intellectual property an oxymoron?
Burning books led to incinerating millions of good people 22 and contrary to intent of the
Internet “go teach all nations” $30/paper by the Google facilitator/enabler of copyright
abuse disintegrates pathways to truth.
Imperatives Think Light Speed
5. Amazingly the number of galaxies is comparable to the ≈100 billion =1011
neurons in human brain said to have up to 104 interconnects so 1011*104 =1015=250 bit
18
Galileo was a math professor in Pisa when convinced of Copernicus theory but both feared ridicule.
Inquisition and public penances are replaced now by sacrament of Reconciliation, which Catholics believe
effects what it signifies, namely moral confidence in receiving the (unearned) gratuitous gift forgiveness
19
Kandel, Eric et al Principles of Neural Science 4th ed. McGraw Hill 2000; Memory Mind to Molecules,
SciAm2000
20
Stapleton, JJ, Vision Thermalization (VTV) (U.S. Pat. App. # 20060028545) US Patents 4418359,
4343020, Omnispectravision SPIE Vol 270, 1981, 3 Color IR...SID 1982“one of the world leaders in this
highly skilled technology” depicted with “The infra-red tracking display system...” EE Times 48, March
17, 1980
21
Newman, E.A., Hartline, P.H., “The Infrared “Vision” of Snakes,” Scientific.American . March 1982,
116-127
22
“Truth is the first causality of war.”
patterns/second is consistent with 50bits/second cognitive capacity 23 . In other words it
takes only a femtosecond 24 (fs) to reject a misfit or incongruous item. We think with the
speed of light c=370nano-meters/1.234fs. Also amazingly, the number of axons in the
skin is comparable to the number of axons the retina feeds in to the optic nerve,
supporting quasi-retina skin’s extravision of invisible observables. Amazing grace, i.e.
creatures sharing in Creator, as Einstein said, “Physics is knowing the mind of God.” 25
Georgetown Theologian John F. Haught describes “imperatives” as what to be and acts of
cognition, one might list as adjective-noun, namely, attentive- experience, intelligent understanding, critical -judgment, responsible- decision, reasonable- compromise, and
moral -goodness (as in forgiveness.) 26 Organic culture forgive me, vegetation rejects
green, absorbs magenta, emits IR. Life’s critical “sticky carbon” 27
12
6C
<-- 3 2He4.0028 <--
3 (2 1H2.0141),
∞
traces back to element #1 and 1= ∫-∞ p(x)dx where p(x)=probability/ providence and
mass m 2(2.0141)-4.0028AMU produces fusion energy of the sun 28 E=mc2 and Teller’s
H-bomb, if not Big Bang. Forgive skeptics of the trinity mystery who embrace the trinity
of proton-electron-neutron p+e- no yet fail to explain how the electron (e-) does not
collapse into proton (p+) nor earth to sun. Conservation of Energy compels us to consider
the human being to be more than nominal 100 watt bulb =2000Calories/day switched off
at death and more than his/her remains in less sticky carbon ashes scattered by the winds.
Notwithstanding the Inverse Square Law, every word we speak travels forever about a
foot per millisecond 29 while other observables, articulated indicators of energy, spirit
23
R. Lucky, Silicon Dreams, St.Martin’s Press, New York, 1991
femtosecond =10-15s =0.000 000 000 000 001 second
25
Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Simon & Schuster, New York 1992 The very tight “fitness of
environment” for life is too great to be accidental or simple-minded so called “intelligent design.”
26
John F. Haught, Is Nature Enough?, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006 p150
27
“Experiments have shown that when an electrical discharge is sent through a mixture of gases similar to
that of the primitive terrestrial atmosphere, the small molecular building blicks of living matter (amino
acids and nucleotides, for instance) are duly formed.” Russell Stannard, Science and the Renewal of
Belief, Templeton Foundation Press 2004 He sees a “smooth gradation” from single H atom to human life..
28
E=mc2 = m/(με)=mass/(magnetic permeability*electric permittivity)=density*volume/(με); where
c/v=f(density)
29
millisecond =10-3 s =0.001 second = million nanoseconds
24
some say, travel forever at speed of light about foot per nanosecond, 30 as fast as we think
of our beloved dead. Amid the expanding universe cacophony of sounds and
electromagnetic radiations, envision recapturing, by synchronous detection, Captain
Video reflected back from a star 27 light-years away. 31
√2
1
1
space,
distance,
d2
time
travel
(t c)2
≈(t f λ)2
=λ2
d2-(tc)2
space-time-distance
Minkowski
Let v/c= √2 such that relativistic mass m= mass at rest m0 / √ [ 1 – (v/c)2] =
=m= m0 / √ [ 1 – (√2)2] =m0 / √-1 = m0 / i = m0 i / i2 = - m0 i = m0 i3
negative mass antinuke? beyond Lorentz &Einstein letting m--> ∞ as v/c-->1
References
Casey, James, Symposium Chairman, Evolution, Faith and Co-Creation, Marist
College 2006
Davies, Paul, The Mind of God, Simon & Schuster, New York 1992
Flanagan, Owen, The Problem of the Soul... New York Basic Books, 2002.
Haught, John F., Is Nature Enough?, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006
30
31
nanosecond =10-9 s =0.000 000 001 second = million femtoseconds
The films of Captain Video tv shows were destroyed to reclaim silver and other “remains” before video
tape.
Kandel, Eric et al Principles of Neural Science 4th ed. McGraw Hill 2000;
Memory Mind to Molecules, SciAm2000
Krauss, Lawrence M., Hiding in the Mirror, Viking, New York, 2005.
Lucky, Robert, Silicon Dreams, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1991
Mullin, Tom, Editor The Nature of Chaos, Oxford University Press, New York 1995
Stannard, Russell, Science and the Renewal of Belief, Templeton Foundation Press
2004
Stapleton, JJ, US Patents 4418359, 4343020, Omnispectravision SPIE Vol 270, 1981, 3
Color IR...SID 1982
“one of the world leaders in this highly skilled technology” depicted with “The infra-red
tracking display system...” EE Times 48, March 17, 1980; Vision Thermalization (VTV)
(U.S. Pat. App. # 20060028545)
i
For more on Niebuhr, see Donald Shriver, An Ethic for Enemies: Forgiveness in Politics
(NY: Oxford, 1995), p. 7
ii
The relation between forgiving and promising was early recognized by Hannah Arendt
in, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958), ch.. 33. Trudy Govier
briefly discusses the performative nature of forgiveness in her book, Forgiveness and
Revenge (NY: Routledge, 2002), p. 43.
iii
Trudy Govier, Forgiveness and Revenge (NY: Routledge, 2002), p. 44.
iv
Katherine Porter, “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall,” in Flowering Judas and Other
Stories (Harcourt, Brace and World, N.Y., 1958), p. 136. A similar and more detailed
example of refusing to forgive is in Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower (Shocken Books,
NY, 1976), pp. 9-99.
v
vDonald Shriver, An Ethic for Enemies: Forgiveness in Politics (NY: Oxford, 1995), p.
3.
vi
Jeffrie Murphy, Getting Even: Forgiveness and Its Limits (Oxford, New York, 2003),
pp. 19-20.