It’s easy enough to see that in the dreadful event that the administration tries to prevent elections in two or in four years, on the basis of some declared emergency or other such excuse, there are people right here in our midst who will happily accept that judgment, or who will at least say that nobody should reject it because there might be facts we don’t know and nuance to the question. And that – not the evil itself, but the halfwittedness of ordinary folk – is the thing I most fear.
7 Likes
Just the other day, someone on Facebook used the phrase “…investigative journalist Laura Loomer…” It seemed to explain a lot.
3 Likes
So many personal experiences of the past few months have lead me to ponder the famous phrase coined by Hannah Arendt in her book about Adolph Eichmann: “the banality of evil.”
I am horrified as I watch people I know and like fall victim to their own gullibility—and they defend (or deny) great evil that is right in front of them. (And, yet again, evidence and basic logic reaches them not a bit. Anything disliked can simply be denied. Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway said some years ago with a straight face: “We have alternate facts.” If I were to write a book about the present situation in Washington, I might use that as a title.)
I must say that I’m personally shaken by my personal experiences with this banality of evil. I anticipate that I will be losing long-time friends in the next few months.
3 Likes
Hi Allen
Losing friends over politics seems like a bad outcome. Why do you think your point of view is so different than theirs? This seems like deep emotional attachments vs logical attachments to points of view.
Would you be friends with someone who was an advocate of the policy that some people shouldn’t get due process when arrested and deported by the state?
How about if they advocated the policy that people of Jewish descent wear a yellow star of david on their clothes in public? What’s so different about their point of view from yours?
3 Likes
I agree.
The choice will be theirs, not mine. (Of course, I have my limits. If they knowingly advocate abominable evil, I will certainly terminate any personal relationship.)
Among the reasons:
(1) I don’t consider political stances which are unrelated to the teachings of Jesus Christ to be tests of Christian faith. (For example, I don’t consider one’s view of the size of government, the particulars of how the borders should be secured, and how much power the president should have to be essential Christian doctrines. I certainly am not prone to anger about them when someone holds a different viewpoint.)
(2) I don’t restrict myself to partisan echo chambers.
(3) I care about evidence and verifiable facts.
(4) I don’t make decisions based on emotions concerning tribal identity.
Those are just a few.
That’s exactly what I’m getting at with #4 above.
7 Likes
Got it.
My wife has found herself in a similar situation with a life long friend. It got contentious but they seem to be working through it.
Is the most important issue for you the deportation that is going on as @Rumraket is suggesting?
^^^^THIS. And that doesn’t even get into the right-wing political stances that directly violate the teachings of Jesus Christ.
One would think that those who claim to be Biblical literalists would take this particular direct teaching literally:
Matthew 25:41-45
Jesus said “‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. … Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’ And [I] will answer, ‘… when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
7 Likes
How many strangers have you taken into your home, Bill?
Maybe ten years ago it wouldn’t have made sense to lose friends over politics, although I’m not even sure about that. Today, some people have such incredibly differing values that it simply doesn’t make sense to remain friends.
I agree we only have so much time with the people we spend time with but deeply understanding people and their values can be tricky.
Mathew 7
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Running our country is pretty complex.
I see moral (based on Judeo-Christian principles) challenges on both sides of the political spectrum and this is why I am a registered independent.
What is the value requiring deep understanding behind not caring about people not being given due process before being detained and deported? How do you determine that the deportation is legal if there is not a court hearing?
In a country that values individual freedom including the freedom from persecution from the government, isn’t due process supposed to protect exactly from that kind of governmental overreach?
6 Likes
Hi Rum
It appears that Denmark is tightening up on importation. Do you think this NYT article is accurate?
Answer my questions instead.
3 Likes
I think talking politics with somebody who confuses “importation” with “immigration” is an inherently fruitless endeavor.
3 Likes
I agree due process is important.
There are circumstances where it is not the right choice. Self defence or legal protection of a citizen is an example. A known criminal or someone from a criminal origanization that enters a country illegally is another example.
“A known criminal” = Donald Trump
“a criminal origanization” = The Trump Organization
2 Likes
Sealioning is no less irritating on this subject than anywhere else. But its consequences will be much more catastrophic. Bill is providing us an object lesson in what Hannah Arendt was describing.
4 Likes
And how would we know we are dealing with a known criminal or they have entered the country illegally, if not by being given due process where the state has to present their case based on evidence to a judge?
Known to be a criminal by whom, how? How do we know it isn’t just a case of political persecution, or scapegoating?
Why do you appear to not even understand how utterly crucial it is that your country’s government respects their own laws?
6 Likes
I agree a country should respect its own laws. That’s why there are court battles going on right now.