UNDERSTANDING

 A different kind of progressive, I understand why a dear friend who made a good living and amassed a small fortune crawling around in attics in Arkansas Augusts resents paying taxes when he believes a large portion of them go to support able-bodied people who won’t work. I understand. I know that his beliefs don’t take into account the many truths and complexities of socioeconomic factors in America. I know he doesn't know the truth about taxation.

But I understand his feelings and we talk. What I can’t understand is mean-spirited people who, in the advancement of mythology or politics—yes I repeat myself—refuse to consider the despair of a young woman who finds that the man who impregnated her with the promise of eternal love and support has eschewed the responsibility of fatherhood and fled.

I don't understand the cruelty of men who would pass laws mandating that a woman die rather than receive the medical care prescribed by her doctor.

I don't understand the mendacity of lawmakers who give the male of the species a free ride in the whole abortion issue.

I just don't understand. Do you?

PROGRESS

 America seems to me to be entering a dark minefield. The fate of our country depends on passing through it in operatable condition.

In WWII, the American response to crossing a minefield was to halt progress while trained experts located and cleared a path, all the while under sniper fire.

The Russian Army used a different method. They simply marched troops through the field setting off mines until a path was clear. Their logic was the loss of troops by this method was about equivalent to the loss of troops through sniper fire and the method didn't require a halt.

I'm not sure what method is best for those of us who love our country. I do know that  one side in the battle3 has no scruples about dignity or goodness while the other does. Thus the choice may be either to halt while the evil strongholds are eradicated one by one, or to assume the standards of the opposition.

What do you think?

Civil War Writings

 I’m not expert on the Civil War. I don’t even consider myself particularly knowledgeable about that sad affair. But I have been interested in it since I was introduced to it as, I think maybe, an eighth grader. Over the many years I’ve probably read close to 200 or volumes about the war and its many battles, leaders, and settings.

From my latest binge, I’ve had an epiphany, helped by some recent volumes. A thought emerged that if one were to review the most famous works on the subject of the first 100 years after the war, and those written during the last 57 or so, one would hardly recognize it as the same historical event. It represents a bold example of a refutation of the well-known saying that the history of wars is written by the victors. 

Immediate histories of the Civil War came from the losers, or at least those who harbored a fascination with the losers. I’m not sure what this means or even if it is true. I do believe that if one were to look at the first period, it would be hard to find an account of how R.E. Lee’s army, during its two incursions into the north, captured free Americans and transported them to be sold as slaves to southern plantation owners. 

I’m currently reading “The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History,” edited by Gary W. Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan. Hope for some edification. Stay tuned.

A Study of Evil

 THE HARM

As is alarmingly clear at this point that defining evil is a torturous task and even attempting it requires a high level of presumption. In order to understand something, though, one must first define it in some way, even if the definition is operational or simplistic.

We have narrowed our definition of evil to actions between individuals or groups of individuals. Unfortunately this leaves the treatment inflicted upon the planet or our companion living species for another day’s work. We are busy enough with, as the college students of old used to cite, “man’s inhumanity to man.”

Now what must occur to reach the infamous label of evil? Let us assume, for our purposes, that evil includes, but may not be limited to, the following necessary acts perpetrated against others by direct action, orders, participation, or legality:

·       One may inflict gratuitous pain on another;

·       One may inflict physical or mental torture on another for arguable purposes;

·       One may set actions in progress that harm others for reasons unassociated with the safety of the state or planet;

·       One may murder for no biological gain;

·       One may deprive others of one or more necessary daily functions of life;

·       One may, without gain or provocation, destroy the stasis of another’s existence;

·       One may establish organizations that inflict evil;

·       One may, while possessing powers of intercession, remain silent and inactive in the presence of the above; or

·       One may, in a profession, a daily life, or position of authority, support or condone any of the above.

We now turn to establishing “ground-level points” at which one moves into a definable stage of participating in the above. Some prove easier than others. For example, most would agree that:

·       Genocide practiced against an innocent people is evil.

·       Preventable and senseless murder or maiming is evil.

·       Physical torture is evil unless measurable gain can be proven.

·       Mental torture is evil unless measurable gain can be proven.

·       Abuse of a child is evil.

·       A pursuit of greed that requires the impoverishment of others is evil.

·       Enslavement of a people who posses no legal rights against society or their masters is evil.

The above represent examples about which reasonable people would not argue, even (to most) when any of those occur through religious edict. Even within those, however, levels of comparison exist. Comedy sketches in popular film, for example, represent torture for gratuitous reasons inflicted by means of tickling the feet of another. Some laws preventing or reducing any of the above remain dormant due to the impossibility of enforcement. In the minds of many, religion takes priority, for example, over legal protection of children from many forms of abuse.

Finally, national mental states contribute to the relaxation of measures of prevention. The “Dirty Harry” films that began during a period of perceived high crime rates in America struck a responsive chord in a country still existing under the so-called “frontier mentality.” Laws are still appearing that empower vigilantism in our society. As a result, deaths and maimings in “but for situations” still dominate our national news. Such laws seem to rely upon the good nature of the populace, rather than its evil nature.

That brings up a topic to which we shall return. How are evil and goodness connected?

A Study of Evil

 EVIL AND SOCIETY

 Now we come to the moment of truth. We consider the individual in terms of evil—not a multitude, not a cult, not a religious sect, not an army, not a populace. We see only a person with a soul that permits an act of evil against another person or group of persons. We don’t deal with gradation. Instigating the murder of millions is evil. Remaining silent during the execution of evil is evil. Numbers, as we have noted, only tend to magnify, sanctify, intensify, and vilify evil according to its breadth and scope. It all begins with an individual action.

Let us begin by supposing that the act of evil deprives someone or some group of something which is necessary to enjoy not a grandiose life, but an average and acceptable condition of existence. That includes a long spectrum, ranging from the ability to vote in an election to the ability to breath, with the right to live free from pain and distress somewhere in between.

Within that broad spectrum, it seems reasonable to limit our search further. For example, here are some examples that may rise to the level of sin[i] or illegality,[ii] but not evil:

The procurement of sexual activity between two consenting adults;

Activities relating to dietary laws;

Minor financial deceit;

Violations of religious edicts not otherwise defined as evil;

Victimless crimes;

Failure to conform to societal or military edicts or laws:

Public nudity; or

Public profanity, as defined by someone or something.

Moving up the scale one notch are actions considered acceptable or normal in some sects but defined as evil in others. For example:

The beating of children as a training exercise;

Domination and/or abuse of women by men.

Racial discrimination;

Masturbation;

Sex with minors;

Prostitution;

Polygamy;

Sex or marriage to close relatives;

Public execution of criminals or deviants;

Same-sex love and/or marriage, or homosexuality in general;

Rape;

War or aggression;

Tattoos;

Usery;

Contraception; or

Unnatural sex acts as defined by the sect.

This complicates things further, but wait. Some among these have changed in context due to a sort of civil evolution. For example, polygamy enjoyed approval and participation by Judo-Christian ancestors but fell out of favor somewhere along the line, as did slavery among a large segment of the population. The execution of criminals in America evolved from public spectacles to near extension, now carried out in shameful quietude. Now to lighten this depressing journey up a bit: As the old comedy line suggests, masturbation has moved from an absolute, hell-promising sin guaranteed to produce blindness to the prohibition of, “just until you need glasses.”[iii]

With that, we will close and work on a modest definition.

---

[i] Let us use: “Any thought, word, or act considered immoral, selfish, degrading, shameful, detrimental to order, or alienating by a defined religious or societal group."

[ii] As defined by appropriate legal codes.

[iii] From the film Can I Do It Til I Need Glasses? distributed produced by Dauntless Productions and distributed by National American Films, 1977.

 FOCUS

We have reached the point where we must assign some value system to evil itself. Thus, we face the indomitable task of attempting a definition. Does this represent a cosmic case of hubris or is it a necessary step in understanding evil?

We gave narrowed our definition previously to the point of limiting it to an act of a person or group of persons against another person or group of persons. Eliminating the teaching or punishment to promote evil by the spirit world removed a great percentage of the historical treatment of our subject. We might term it “the great simplification.”

We are free to focus on human interaction, with perhaps some input from our biological cousins.

This will be difficult to the point of impossible one might say and that is true. Immediately, we find societal norms that define the same act as abhorrent to the point of capital punishment to an act that is lauded, even commanded by the polis.

Simply consider the act of same-sex love.

Or men’s dominance over women.

Or genocide.

Or the treatment of children, including the implanting of a vicious primal fear in the minds of the young by force-feeding the terrible prospect of being thrown into an eternal burning fire for the act of not following parental teachings.[1]

The last example becomes even more complicated by the teachings of the cult that promotes it. The punishment described, or the alternative—an eternity of undefined bliss—is not determined, according to some writings of the cult, by one’s interaction with living creatures, but by a consistent and fervent faith in an invisible being.[2] Complicating this particular instance further is the fact that the same teachings that govern this cult suggest that salvation (an eternity of bliss) is, conversely, obtainable by doing good.[3]

Let’s complicate things further. What about the fact that some historical icons of goodness began life immersed in evil?

What about the former slave runner who repented and fought against that evil trade, even to point of writing perhaps the most beloved hymn in the protestant faith?[4]

What about the rounder and royal companion in mischief who repented and gave his life in defense of his church?[5]

What about the Apostle Paul, considered by many to be one of the chief architects of Christianity, who by his own admission, first engaged in persecuting Christians before repentance?[6]

So it goes. And we have yet to touch the broad spectrum of evil. It runs from the murder of millions in an attempt to conquer the world to the suborning or absolution of evil in order to get a favored politician elected.

We have a rough road to hoe, as our rural ancestors would note. But, next we try.

---

[1] For a terrifying example, but one that will sound familiar to many Americans who grew up in the so-called “Bible Belt, see the account of installing this fear by James Joyce. (Joyce, J., & Deane, S. (1992). A portrait of the artist as a young man. London: Penguin.)

[2] Ephesians 2:8-9

[3] Romans 2:7

[4] Celebration Road Show & Newton, J. (1970) Amazing grace Hymn .

[5] Thomas à Becket, Chancellor of England (1155-62) venerated as a saint and martyr in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Anglican Communion.

[6] Galatians 1:13

 On the road and thinking today. More tomorrow.