Mayaculpa: Religious belief -- of whatever stripe -- is the curse of the world. Mankind will never live in peace until he rejects all religious belief. [This is one of many comments that claim religion is the source of all violence in the world.]It seems each of us, Democrat or Republican, left or right, has transformed the Oslo gunman into a demonic archetype with which to bash the other. Reading these comments gives me pause to consider my words more carefully before I wield them. If there are any lessons to be learned here, perhaps we should take an honest look at our anger and Venn before we vent.
Ralphlynn: I'm passionate about Christ and Christ alone, but true Christianity never advocates for violence unlike Islam. [Christian exceptionalism at its finest.]
DougLenatSux: Breivik works for Israeli intelligence and the attacks were in retaliation for Norway's statement that it would recognize an independent Palestinian state. [A pitchfork conspiracy theorist with a distinct anti-Israeli (and anti-Semitic) flavor.]
Ralphlynn: I say bring back the cruscades [sic] to knock off the uneducated … as they pose more of a threat than anyone. [A Christian Eliminationist in full regalia.]
JAYnLA: Why does this shooter remind me of Michelle Bachman?
ssa5: I bet the Tea Losers have already sent out invitations for this loser to join them. In fact I am sure Bachman and Palin are sending love letters at this very moment.
Ssearthquake: Breivik is nothing but a brain washed lunatic turned terrorist who is influenced by right wing fundementalists like the "Tea baggers" of the USA who will not stop until they see the US economy destroyed.
[As much as I loathe TeaHoos, these comments shocked me as examples of over-the-top hyperbole from our side of the partisan divide. Suddenly, our own domestic politics are viewed through the lens of the Oslo massacre, as certain presidential candidates are erroneously and gratuitously equated with mass murder. Finally two more comments …]
Taddmike: As a Freemason in America, I was shocked to see the alleged shooter in Masonic gear. I just wanted to put it out there that any anti-Muslim sentiments the alleged shooter has are NOT indicative of the true tenets of our peaceful organization. With that said, I can safely speak for our international Brethren when I say we are heartbroken for the families of the victims. We pray for them all.
WhatARipOff1: Our ideology [note: mathematical 'greater than' sign does not reproduce in Blogger] your ideology. Gotta love politics.
Monday, July 25, 2011
The Oslo Massacre and the Zen of Venn
My Zen of Venn comment under Captain Fogg’s post (91 Dead in Oslo) was not intentionally directed at anyone in this forum, all of whom I count as among my closest and dearest friends and whose voices I cherish. Perhaps I should qualify what I said by mentioning this story at the CNN website, Who is the suspect in the Norway attacks? What struck me were the comments beneath the story … that were far more revealing than the story itself. Here are some noteworthy examples:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For reference, my original comment (with slight moficiation) is posted here:
ReplyDeleteWhenever the words ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ appear in the same sentence, tempers flair and we almost always end up marooned for the night at the Impasse Motel. Perhaps the cephalopod should say a few words.
Understandably, we are all shocked and horrified by the massacre in Norway, and understandably, there will always be angry villagers brandishing pitchforks in want of slaying the monster … and punishing the mad scientist who created the fiend.
When hot emotions demand justice, let us apply the cool reason of Venn Diagrams to religion and politics to avoid erroneous or overbroad generalizations.
In several comments, it has been rightly pointed out that the Venn diagram of religion contains subsets of saints and sinners, do-gooders and zealots, and every shade in between. Similarly, a Venn diagram of politics will contain subsets of statesmen and despots, do-gooders and demagogues, and every shade in between.
Even a Venn diagram of the Republican Party will reveal subsets of political belief ranging from Abraham Lincoln to Joseph McCarthy (although I am willing to concede that the progression of the former into the later seems to be the current evolutionary course of the GOP).
With respect to the intersection of religion and politics, we must still exercise caution. This intersection is likely to contain subsets that include the Reverend Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi and the Reverend Welton Gaddy in addition to the far less than revered Jerry Falwell. My point: Even at the intersection of religion and politics, there are good guys and bad guys. So let us be extra cautious in how we brandish our categorical pitchforks.
If we are in search of a common thread that characterizes all monsters, again, we must be cautious. A Venn diagram of all monsters and murderers is likely to contain subsets of authoritarians, bigots, bloodthirsty dictators, religious extremists, schizophrenics hearing voices in their heads, and sociopaths. Again, there are no easy and definitive answers here, and we should be circumspect before hurling gratuitous epithets in anger.
Nevertheless, we owe ourselves a heartfelt discussion on this terrible and painful tragedy, but we should keep these caveats in mind.
We look at anything and make of it something to substantiate our convictions. The Arizona shooter, the psychotic with a Glock was put into a box and impaled upon the pin of "ardent Atheism" by none other than the Huffington Post. Just google atheist and shooter and you'll get many examples. Try Christian, Muslim and probably Martian for that matter.
ReplyDeleteSure this guy flipped out because he was a Mason, a Conservative, a Liberal, a blond, a Scruby Seperatist -- anything you need to grind the old axe and eveyone seems to have some rusty old thing that needs grinding.
Bellum omnium contra omnes.
Why isn't a mass murderer just a mass murderer? Why do so many people insist on assigning membership in some group to a person who has clearly demonstrated deviant behavior, not group behavior. Of course humans can be violent but we can also choose to forego violence. If life is as nasty, brutish, and short as the Hobbesian perspective presents, then suicide by age 21 should be the norm. What reason is there to live if one truly believes that human beings are worthless hypocrites?
ReplyDeleteThere are those of us who recognize that the gunman isn't a demonic archetype; he's a troubled human being who deviated from the covenant that we tacitly enter into when we agree to live together in communities. Isn't it our responsibility to speak that truth rather than giving up on the ability of humankind to be better than we are?
Why can't we discuss the affiliations of a mass murderer; the groups of like minded people he belongs to? The "lone gunman" archetype seems to be used far too often.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, if he were a Muslim we would hear much about that, but we're less likely to allow such questions if he belonged to some other group. Many have seen this as a warning that we're so obsessed with Islam alone, we're not noticing the dangerous people wearing different uniforms.
He's more than a troubled human being. We're all troubled human beings, but we're not all members of groups who want to exclude other groups from our country and by violence if necessary. The exclusion of other groups has been part of human belief systems since prehistory. It's part of the Bible. and my post serves to ask the question "why can't we leave this behind? Why can't we abandon such divisive tribalism and acknowledge that covenent?"
Here's another question. Why can't we discuss the tendency of our species to form tribes based on what we look like, where we come from, what our customs are and all those superficial things without it being seen as an attack on our personal beliefs?
There was nothing whatever in my post that could be fairly twisted into a condemnation of religion and if asking why people can't stop finding justifications for our vicious tendencies is not suitable for this forum, then I have to ask what is?
Captain and Sheria,
ReplyDeleteAll valid points even if seemingly contradictory (the Octopus has cultivated a connoisseur’s appreciation of paradox).
The incident in Norway has opened a debate on the failures of multiculturalism in Europe and, most especially, the failures of integration. There is finger pointing on all sides of the argument, and a million words can be written about the homogeneous populations of EU countries with rural ‘localized’ economies adjusting to globalization. In Europe, it is easier to merge fellow Europeans into an economic block; it is a far more daunting task to merge populations from more distant and disparate cultures. At least in North America, we have a mythos of the Great Melting Pot.
During my years of living abroad, I recall two conversations. A plumber came to my condo in Paris to fix a leak. As a new arrival, my French language skills were not yet up to snuff, and he admonished me by saying: “We hold no prejudices against anyone from anywhere in the world as long as you become French,” which meant “learn the language and the ways of France if you intend to live here.”
A decade earlier, I was living in England, and my live-in girlfriend at the time was a Danish woman. We spent the summer months with her family in Aalborg (pronounced Ole-borh). One day, her brother-in-law, a procurement officer for NATO who spoke fluent English, said to me (paraphrase): “We like people … people of every nation … but at the end of the day we prefer the company of our own kind. I even stay away from Copenhagen [pronounced Koben-Hah-Oon)].”
I have found soft-core provincialism virtually everywhere I have traveled … an aspect of human nature I suppose.
Family pathology is another matter. Consider this news account: The Breivik family divorced in 1980 when the kid was a year old; no contact between the father and the son in 16 years; “He was very difficult,” recalls to the father. What does this paucity of information tell us?
Whether the son presents an example of “acquired’ versus ‘congenital’ sociopathy is difficult to determine at this point. Both forms are characterized by a lack of self-control, no empathy or conscience, and no moral understanding or motivation.
There are case histories of families who have ‘disowned’ their congenitally impaired offspring. “I have other kids to raise,” is a common refrain. Once exiled from all family contact, these kids stumble through life … with tragic consequences.
I categorically reject the disclaimer of the elder Breivik. There are also families who make special provisions for their offspring, i.e., those with Down syndrome, birth defects, and autism spectrum disorders, as examples. Why cast out their congenital sociopaths as disposable trash and leave them on the doorstep of society for whatever fate awaits them?
Yes, there is much more to this story, but I hesitate to follow the pack and point fingers.
An afterthought on the distinction between ‘acquired’ versus ‘congenital’ sociopathy. ‘Acquired’ means exactly what it says; a person is not born this way but acquires this condition somewhere along a hardscrabble path of life, probably attributable to brutal mistreatment. IOW: Monsters made, not born. Once acquired, the condition is irreversible. Is the Oslo gunman an example of ‘acquired’ sociopathy? Perhaps. An emotionally cold, detached, self-centered, and self-preoccupied father who guards his “peace and tranquility’ can account for ‘acquired’ sociopathy in the son.
ReplyDelete“Congenital’ sociopathy means what it says; a person starts life this way and remains this way, the veritable “bad seed’ as popularized in literature. IOW: Monsters born, not made.
How do we account for quotes of the Unabomber and other right wing groups in the gunman’s manifesto? Are these quotes connected to a real conspiracy? Not necessarily.
Delusional content always has a cultural component. When we look at other types of mental disorders, voices in the head and alter personalities are often drawn from the popular culture around us. The gunman may be sick but not stupid. He can read books, surf the Internet, and explore whatever artifacts in our culture may appeal to his disturbed imagination. That is why I hesitate to attribute connections or conspiracies, until more is known. We may never know. Sociopaths also confound law enforcement officials with falsehoods and subterfuges and take their dirty secrets to the grave.
Captain, sometimes it really sn't about you. :) my comment was in response to the issue that Octo raised about characterizing the gunman as a "demonic archetype." I think that our tendnecy as a society to do so allows us to avoid the reality that sometimes acts of violence are commited by madmen. We always want a reason for such ats wbecasue it's really scary to think that sometimes there is no reason, at least not one that makes sense to anyone except the madmen.
ReplyDeleteMy remarks had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with our perceptions of human nature. Of course we are continually seeking to understand the why of our behavior, particulaly when it comes to violence and anti-social patterns of behavior. I don't think that there is any one philosophy or belief that promotes violent behavior. I think that's a far too simplistic explanation for the complexities of human behavior. however, n either do I believe that human beings are doomed to give in to our allegedly innately violent natures.
I am a bit puzzled about the reference to "why people can't stop finding justifications for our vicious tendencies..." as a topic of discussio. I haven't noted that anyone in this forum has offered justifications for humankind's capacity for violence. There is a world of differene between offering justifications and exploring causation.
I don't know what the gunman's reasons were. The headlines today are already tossing around the term insane. His lawyer says that he is cold. He claims to belong to groups that so far no evidence of their existence has been presented. I like Octo's discussion of on the distinction between ‘acquired’ versus ‘congenital’ sociopathy. When I wrote my observation regarding a mass murderer just being a mass murderer, my meaning was that perhaps the gunman is simply a sociopath. I didn't have Octo's sophistication and didn't contemplate the distinction between acquired versus congenital sociopathy, but it makes sense to me.
Three things you do not discuss in America; sex, religion and politics.
ReplyDeleteI do understand that those that identify as Christians do not want to be associated with this deranged mass murderer. Or any other murdering nutjob and they have a point in that this is NOT their brand of Christianity. Just as most Muslims do not want to be associated with 9/11 because that's not their brand of Islam. But our humanity demands to know why he did this.
Most of these types, Eric Rudolph and Timothy Veigh are two that come to mind, do work alone when carrying out their craziness but that craziness came from somewhere.
Unfortunately, most of the poison that has seeped into their core comes from fringe groups they hang out with that couch their hate and inflammatory rhetoric in religious or political ideology.
Take a little paranoia, a little religous or political fervor, a little racism or other prejudice and you have an explosive cocktail just waiting for ignition.
I guess what I'm saying is we need to see the bigger picture as to how this demented mind was shaped and call out those that feed this kind of sickness.
All,
ReplyDeleteI am not forcing this view on anyone; am merely presenting other reasons why I am holding back my opinion for the moment.
Sheria:
ReplyDelete"I am a bit puzzled about the reference to "why people can't stop finding justifications for our vicious tendencies..." as a topic of discussio. I haven't noted that anyone in this forum has offered justifications for humankind's capacity for violence."
There is a large world beyond this forum and I write for other forums with other readers as well.
Some of the most vicious and prolonged violence is not the act of a single or small group of madmen, a lone gunman. Sometimes those lone shooters have absorbed their hate from angry groups who are none the less not as violent. Do we protect infected value systems by insisting on the "madman acting alone" and ignoring the support groups he associated with?
The inquisition lasted 500 years. The torture of scientists, the murder and expulsion of Jews, the slave trade, the extermination of the Cathars, the rape of Jerusalem. Are such things inevitable in any culture despite it's professions of goodness? Are they inevitably infiltrated and sometimes led by bad people because it's hard to criticize something people are taught to defend as good?
Is it all too human for evil to take refuge in and flourish within human institutions whether they be religious, political or otherwise? Can evil men hijack a Democracy? Isn't that a timeless and important question?
Is racism growing in Norway and will there be more incidents? They're asking themselves that question.
I think it's appropriate to ask why such things happen, because they were simply not acts of impulse or of what we usually call madmen, but madmen sometimes spring from such places. That's why some countries have hate speech laws.
No, sometimes, usually it's not about the Zone, much less anyone in it. Sometimes I'm addressing the public in general.
Brievik had his justification: J.W. Booth, Charles Manson and Vlad Lenin. Sometimes you have to ask why we sit by and allow value systems of positive value to be hijacked or look the other way and Norwegians are asking themselves how such a xenophobic, racist, bigoted sickness has invaded their culture. Some are questioning the obsession with perverted Islam when their own right wing faction has it's madmen fomenting rage. It's a good question, I think, and no question is inappropriate, in my opinion.