15 Sep Evil vs. Good
We have heard much about evil lately. Again and again, it has been in the news.
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though, is evil? This is what I am wondering. I think not. And it most certainly is not the duty of mere man to execute judgment against evil humans.
Good and evil are properly in the eye of God, and it never behooves human beings to play God. I assume that in the eye of the young Utah man who shot Charlie Kirk last week, what he saw through the scope of his .30-06 Mauser 98 bolt-action rifle was the face of evil, and that such evil must be punished.
The actual evil seems to have been (1) the shooter putting himself in the place of God and deciding he had the ability to discern evil in his fellow man, and (2) deciding that he (the killer) had the authority to carry out God’s vengeance. Not even that, however, is for me to judge.
“Fighting” Evil
A long-time friend of mine wrote the following on Facebook a few days after the murder of Mr. Kirk, an avowed Christian: “We (referring to Christians) must direct our anger redemptively by entering into the field of battle like a warhorse, courageously fighting for Truth in our families, communities, churches, and nation.”
I don’t know that it lowers the temperature of our political waters to call on others to enter the “field of battle,” to do anything “like a warhorse,” or even to “fight.” To me, this well-intended sentiment echoes too closely the tone at the top set by our current president with his raised fist and “Fight! Fight! Fight!” after being shot in the ear.
But neither seems as unhelpful as that same president’s son bemoaning, hours after Mr. Kirk, a conservative, was shot, “I’m sick and tired of seeing the bullets, they’re only going one way.” When I heard this live on television, it struck me both as untrue and as a call to revenge violence.
I’m fairly sure there have been even less subtle dog whistles on the outer reaches of the internet.
We all have been made sadly aware of the mentally disturbed and fanatical people in our fallen world who heed such calls and “go to war,” as the Minnesota individual phrased his actions in making a list of political targets and then shooting Rep. Melissa Hortman, Sen. John Hoffman, and their spouses, right across the river from my house.
This all sounds like how gangs retaliate when one of their members is shot. It is how the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other. Revenge killings are an age-old form of evil.
Overcome Evil with Good
We should be above revenge violence now. More importantly, we should understand history well enough and have enough self-control to steer way clear of encouraging such acts.
Have we not all seen and learned from Westside Story, Romeo and Juliet, and similar literary classics? These works are labeled “tragedies” for a reason. Is it also not likely that Mr. Kirk’s shooter himself believed he was heroically heeding a call to violence? I suspect so.
Nobody “fights” evil by murdering anyone, no matter how evil the person was. Nor does anyone reduce evil by alluding to the need for more of it. Not even by using militaristic and “good versus evil” language.
We must choose our words carefully, listening to them with the ears of anyone who may hear them. This is true even when evil has been done and we are angry about it.
Written by Quentin R. Wittrock, founder of Principle Based Politics.
Look for his periodic posts, as this blog and the Extremely Non-Extreme podcast explore and promote the ideas of principles and non-extremism in politics.
Principle Based Politics does not endorse or support any particular political candidate or party.
Veronica Schmidt Harvey
Posted at 13:18h, 17 SeptemberWell said and a good reminder to be curious rather than judgmental.
Gary Russell
Posted at 14:27h, 17 SeptemberVery well-articulated, Quentin and I like what Veronica said also. The “curious” approach has really been a great technique for me over the last ~6 years or so. I’ve also witnessed that many/most of us feel the deep need to “have an opinion” on everything. From Charlie, to tariffs, deportations and Gaza. On the one hand, I applaud the ‘critical thinking’ to listen and form a thought but it’s not always necessary. What if we didn’t? What if we just listened and said “I feel for all involved and am hopeful for a solution”. And what if we reduced our use of labels such as “radical”, “authoritarian”, socialist”? What if that went further and included “left”, “right”, “progressive” and even “evil”? Maybe then we could see each other without applying a label to what “we” are or “they” are.
Trudy Johnson
Posted at 17:05h, 17 SeptemberGreat reading Quentin and agree!
Raymond J Lynch
Posted at 19:19h, 17 SeptemberExcellent point of view Quentin. As you pointed out this isn’t a political issue but a human issue. We as a society need to respect opinions that differ from our own carrying out debates of words.
Dave Glesne
Posted at 21:04h, 17 SeptemberA thoughtful post on good and evil, Quentin. One point is worthy of clarification. Considering the sensitivities in the current politcal arena, it is perhaps not surprising to see the reference to Christians being angry at death and the call to enter the “field of battle” with the energy and passion of a warhorse, as not helpful in lowering the temperature of our political waters. Such language may sound to our ears like an additional call to revenge violence. But that would not be faithful or true to the context and its meaning. The context was Jesus being angry – even furious – at death and evil as he stood before the tomb of his good friend Lazarus. The word in Greek in John 11 describes the anger of a warhorse charging into battle. Jesus was furious at death and all the separations it brings. Throughout his earthly ministry, Jesus was continually at war with sin and evil and death. They were the enemies he came into this world to do battle against and defeat. Now the call to his followers is to follow his example and to likewise war against sin and evil and death. No revengeful violence against a political opponent. Rather, a constant and warhorse-like fierceness against principalities and powers of evil that stand behind human beings. The point being made is that as Jesus harnassed his anger redemptively in raising Lazarus from the dead, his followers should likewise harness their anger at death redemptively by standing parssionately and boldly in the field of battle for Truth as he did. Granted, one needs to be wise in the language one uses with different audiences who might hear something very different than what is actually being said. Yet, I think it is worthy of clarification here.
Quentin
Posted at 21:42h, 17 SeptemberThank you for the clarification, Dave. The Facebook post was about Christian reactions to Charlie Kirk’s murder, with Jesus’ reaction to Lazarus’ death as an example for channeling anger toward redemption. But Lazarus was not a political figure, and he had not been murdered. I was referencing the timing and word choices in the context of the Kirk shooting and rage that shooting provoked.
DKnight
Posted at 02:54h, 18 SeptemberYes, we must choose our words carefully. We must not make the fires burn hotter–although I may do some of that here. Yes, both sides say awful things about the other. BUT–we have listened and watched the “media”- (90% of the “media” is pro-democrat and anti-republican–even with FOX getting the better ratings–as I have noted in past posts)–together with a legion of democratic politicians–call Trump a nazi and a fascist since 2015. Every republican presidential candidate in my lifetime–since Reagan–has been called a nazi at one time or another. Moderate/mushy republicans like Romney and McCain suffered the same insults. During the last election cycle, the other leading republican candidate–DeSantis–was called a nazi. Literally every host on CNN/MSNBC has somehow compared Trump to a nazi or a fascist at some point–Dana Bash–Jake Tapper–Nicole Wallace–Morning Joe–all of them. Sometimes one side is worse than the other–that is simply reality. We had riots all over the country a few years back–not protests–riots–all from one side. Colleges/universities/professors have been intolerant of any conservative or libertarian views for a generation. Much of what I am now typing, I have alluded to in past posts on this site. I have been harshly critical of Biden–but I haven’t called him a fascist or a nazi. Why? Because Biden does not deserve that. I have never heard anyone call Obama a nazi. Nobody used that pejorative on Gore or Clinton or Kerry. Trump is not a fascist or a nazi. Charlie Kirk is not a nazi or a fascist. This is one of the dangers of leftism. There is a revolutionary and utterly intolerant component of leftism. And, I do not believe any of the so-called studies about right wing extremism being worse than leftist extremism. In our current era, leftist extremism is more prevalent, more revolutionary, more intolerant and more dangerous. There are awful examples of killings in both directions–as we had in MN. Yet, the language from the left is clearly more inflammatory. Yes, words and insults and rhetoric matter. If somebody is a nazi–or a fascist–shooting them becomes justifiable to a demented person. Evil becomes explainable–when it really isn’t. Although many of the readers of this blog will adamantly disagree, it is one side that is the bigger problem. Let’s live in the real world.