Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
About That “Spark of Divinity”
I agree with Nancy Pelosi. There’s a “spark of divinity” in every person on earth, even the worst.
One reason I stopped listening to Mark Levin is that I couldn’t stand his habit of calling bad guys “cockroaches.” It reminded me too much of Rwanda. The frenzy of murder that overcame that country in 1994 was preceded by a radio campaign denouncing the Tutsis as cockroaches.
All mass-evil starts that way, doesn’t it? First, you dehumanize. You treat whole groups of people as something less than individuals created by God and endowed by Him with unalienable rights; you treat them as a menace. You make it okay to loathe them and heap contempt on them. You make it even seem like anyone who denounces and kills them is doing society a favor.
There’s an argument to be made that when we’re talking about actual, violent criminals, we are doing society a favor when we kill them. But, personally, I think even there—barring the case of stopping a crime-in-progress (like a school shooting)—we actually do more harm than good to society when we give the state power to put people to death.
I don’t mean that violent criminals don’t deserve death; they do. The fact that they’re persons—that they have reason and free will; that they’re made from love and for love—means that they’re capable of real evil. Animals aren’t. I think it was Shakespeare who wrote: “Lillies that fester smell worse than weeds.” The more dignified a being is on the ontological scale, the worse its corruption. But the power to kill is corrupting too.
On the whole, I think our society would be much better off if we were to recover the conviction that each and every person, even the worst, most destructive criminals, carries a spark of divinity. So, I’m with Nancy Pelosi on that point.
I propose that we all agree to stop dehumanizing M13 criminals by calling them “animals,” if the Democrats will agree to stop dehumanizing babies-in-the-womb by calling them “clumps of cells” and stop treating them in law as anything less than individuals who come with a spark of divinity and an unalienable right to life.
We’d be so much better and more humane a society.
Published in General
You think @katievs was saying MS13 are good people? We know that there are good people and bad people. But that in the end all are people. Which is why we both judge them so harshly. No one would judge an animal as guilty for killing, what can an animal do but what is in its nature? We judge MS13, Putin, and neo-nazis so harshly because they act against their divinely ordained natures as children of God. They abuse their fellow brothers and sisters, and revel in their sin. But this does not make them animals, but terribly sinful humans.
Now with respect to the animals comment I think this was much ado about nothing because to call bad and violent people animals is a common colloquialism. Trump isn’t making some ontological point. I think though it is far more troubling that instead of offering the simple and correct defense of Trump on this, that people are trying to make the point that in fact MS13 and similar groups in fact forfeit their humanity. As a basic theological point I don’t think they can do that, and we can not treat them as if they had. Certainly as a Christian you can not say they are beyond redemption, and if they can be redeemed are they not precious to God?
If people like members of MS-13 have deliberately doused the ‘spark of divinity’ within themselves, disregarded it in others – and are acting in a bestial way as a result – the term is an apt one. Pace, “San Fran Gran Nan”.
That is nonsensical. Thousands upon thousands of animals are judged and put to death on a regular basis for attacking humans and pets.
And yes, there are humans who are beyond redemption.
It’s clear that their behavior is bestial, so I don’t dispute Trump’s shorthand characterization of the people who engage in it as such.
I read this the other day and find it suitable to this situation:
And to invoke Nancy Pelosi as one who upholds a “spark of divinity” in every human is outrageous. From the link, her full “spark of divinity” quote:
Mrs. Pelosi clearly only speaks like this when it is to her political advantage. She clearly does not recognize the dignity and worth of babies in the womb with her support of unlimited access to abortion.
@katievs, I agree with you with every fiber of my being: the Torah tells us that each person is invested with a spark of the divine. It means that each person has power, and responsibility – and is deserving of respect for the potential that is within their soul.
That people choose evil does not mean that they are not capable of good. And dehumanizing anyone is how we dehumanize ourselves and destroy our prospects of creating a holy society.
Thank you for this post.
How is it theologically unsound? Christ referred to the scribes and Pharisees as snakes, which are animals.
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” Matthew 23:33
I disagree it is theologically unsound. Maybe I’m wrong.
I think you’ve hit on part of the problem. We have a very limited vocabulary to describe the various types of evil behavior and the people who engage in it.
And to call torturers “animals” would make my veterinarian daughter say, “You don’t know animals!”
Which brings up a really good point. Pit bulls have been adopted by many people who find them to be wonderful dogs to live with. Apparently, the viciousness is all in the training or lack of it.
Which is true also of much of human behavior. It is partly the result of a person’s upbringing, and we don’t know how much is nature versus nurture. We guess about this, but we really don’t know for sure.
We had a case on Cape Cod of an infamous spy named anonymous who had compromised the entire coded communication system that the military and State Department used throughout the world. He and his son caused tremendous damage to our communications systems. The Walkers lived down the street from me–I didn’t know them, but their home was physically near mine, and I drove by it every day.
As a mom, I had a lot of trouble finding the son to be as guilty as the father. If you’ve grown up around this attitude and you’ve not known anything else, it would be very difficult to escape that thinking process. I thought the father would end up having a much tougher conversation with G-d than the son will have.
But there’s a larger point I’m trying to make. We just don’t know what makes people the way they are. I think we should always protect ourselves but with as little judgment as possible. G-d was very clear to us that he would take care of that. We don’t need to do this.
I think all of this misses the point of what Pelosi’s real meaning was. She wasn’t upset because Trump didn’t recognize some theological point about sparks of divinity. Rather, she was trying to characterize his statement as racist. Her theological point was clearly in the service of that aim. If Trump had called a white suburban school shooter an animal, she would have said nothing at all about either sparks of divinity or racism.
A prime example of my last comment :)
Isn’t this in the Torah?
I don’t see any harm in the term.
I had a lady friend once, she sent me a link to a song, “I want to f*** you like an animal”.
Now beyond the joke in that, we use the term “animal” to designate strength or character traits that are not typical in humans. “Animal magnetism”.
On my iPad i can’t figure out the way to paste the link, but Fox reports today that the MS13 gent who stabbed a 15 year old boy to death as a ritual bears the nickname “animal”. Go figure.
I’d like to see less concern about Mr Trump calling merciless, cruel, subhuman, troglodytes “animals” and more concern for the innocent teenagers they kill. And maybe a few executions of these animals.
But hey, that’s just me.
I wish this was the PIT. I want to know ore about line two! :)
The second line goes… aw, never mind.
Not necessarily. Killing doesn’t categorically mean dehumanizing. You’re absolutely correct that the Torah specifies capital punishment for some wrongdoing. However, in Deut 21:23 it also states:
This is for someone condemned by a Sanhedrin authorized to impose capital punishment; in such a case, even should the condemned criminal be completely repentant, full atonement can only be attained by being subjected to a valid court imposed death sentence.
In our degenerate days in which we have no proper Sanhedrin, Maimonides’ ruling might be germane. For “king,” “duly constituted authority” could be read:
*Warning and proof including two witnesses are required for a Sanhedrin to impose capital punishment.
**Accidentally killing someone you hate might get you a death sentence from the Heavenly court, but it’s not a capital crime in the Sanhedrin’s ambit.
Nine Inch Nails – Closer
No, I won’t post the video.
You got it! And the video is great!
And so was my lady.
After all of the conversations I’ve had on Ricochet, this is perhaps one of the more Catholic thoughts I’ve discovered and grown to value more and more. From SSM, to abortion, to adultery, and beyond: few people are either all good or all bad. All of us are imperfect and sinners. It’s worth talking as if we really believed that. Even when it’s difficult to do, like with MS13.
However, like Tom, in some cases I wouldn’t feel compelled to stir myself to object.
I don’t follow this at all well myself, but I have been trying to. If people scatter in response to something, a cockroach simile might be employed, but that isn’t the same as calling those people cockroaches.
I can see how you’d say this. And I agree to the extent people are noticing because it’s Trump. However, picayune as it might be, I don’t see anything about the basic point to object to. I believe in humanity and redemption even for the most horrible people doing the most horrible things. Good thing for them (and me) that it’s not my job to parse out the redemption – far too few would get it from me.
The quote I posted came from Catholic lawyer Thomas Crown. I can’t find where he said that or what else he said.
President Trump obviously wasn’t trying to make a theological point, he was just pointing out the obvious truth. As Crown said, the use of the idiom “animals” is well-worn and uncontroversial in American English, particularly when speaking about people like MS-13 gang members.
Theologically, we are made in the image of God, as is made clear in Genesis.
Was Jesus speaking theologically when he railed against the scribes and Pharisees? Probably not. He was angry and probably used well-worn language. He loved them unconditionally, i.e., willed their good, but wasn’t afraid to call them out for what they were.
I’ll give the same to President Trump. And I’ll concede that the President wasn’t making a theological argument and probably can’t make a theological argument (contrast what he said to Pelosi who thinks she is speaking theologically but just makes a fool of herself). But he did speak the truth in this case. Those gang members are “animals”.
All members of MS13 are animals.
This is a great post, thanks for it.
One of the great Socratic insights is that by acting unjustly, one damages oneself more significantly than the other. To treat something other than it is, is to act unjustly, and criminals, whatever their crimes, remain human beings. When we treat them as animals, the real damage is the degradation we do to ourselves.
Wasn’t it WFB who said that he could think of reasons to kill someone, but never to be rude to them?
I don’t take any advice from Nancy Pelosi, especially in the light of the fact that she is an advocate of abortion. She believes in the killing of the innocent, her inability to recognize the spark of divinity of the unborn, and then presumes to lecture us on the spark of divinity in cold blooded killers is a bit odd. She is a heretic, and her support of Planned Parenthood is more than just schism, it is heresy.
Man deals in judgement, God deals in mercy. Nancy Pelosi has betrayed her baptismal, and confirmation vows. She is on the road to spending a lot of time in eternity with MS-13 gang members. If she thought for a moment that illegal immigrants would vote Republican she would be on the Mexican side of the border cutting their feet off with a hatchet so they couldn’t make the crossing. She is a detestable woman.
In utero voting is the solution.
Oh goodness, that’s not what I mean!
I don’t mean that if we stop calling M13 gang members animals, the left will give up on abortion.
I mean that we should use Nancy Pelosi’s rhetoric to publicly press our cause.
“Yes, you’re right. Every person—even heinous criminals who definitely need to be locked up—have a spark of divinity. This is exactly why abortion is so terrible. In-utero babies have that divine spark too, and further, they are the most vulnerable and completely blameless among us. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about protecting them from being killed than we are about protecting violent criminals from being called animals?
And while we’re at it, if we’re going to agree not to use de-humanizing words against M13, can we also agree that they ought not to be used against the police? Or against Trump supporters, or against racists?
Would you agree to that, Nancy Pelosi?
I think Trump’s intent (in what he said) was to ensure the protection of Americans. I think Granny Pelosi’s intent (in what she said) was to skewer Trump.
I think it’s best if we separate these issues.
Regarding derogatory terms for people who commit evil, I’m okay with it. Public shaming and opprobrium is warranted and too infrequently employed in these times. Everybody’s a winner — gets a trophy — and everybody goes to heaven. Uh, no.
I think the misuse of dehumanizing terms (calling conservatives Nazis) is starting to work against the Left, so, strategically, I hope they keep it up. The truth will out.
I’m not a fan of third-person mercy, although I acknowledge, love is the only means of conversion. But, the murdered aren’t around to forgive and I don’t care to speak for them or their loved ones who suffer their loss. Dennis Prager just did an Ultimate Issues Hour on the biblical view of the death penalty (By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette). I agree with him that not killing heinous murderers is degrading of human dignity. I’ve never understood the logic that says otherwise.
My preference would be to revert to the old West where the preacher (priest) accompanies the guilty to the gallows where he says, “May God have mercy on your soul.” Because that’s His prerogative, not ours.
My objection isn’t to “derogatory” terms, but to de-humanzing terms—terms that encourage us to view and treat a human person as sub-human.
Avoiding such terms does nothing to prevent us from calling evil acts, attitudes and behaviors evil, nor from taking necessary measures to protect society from their predations.
I’ve said nothing about mercy. Nor is my argument against the death penalty grounded on what criminals deserve.
Rather it’s grounded on what’s best in terms of establishing a civil and humane society, and on whether it’s a good idea for the state to have the power to put a person to death.