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.
Will There Ultimately be Justice?
I’m one of those dinosaurs who actually cares about the truth. I despise people who lie, and especially people who lie and think there’s nothing wrong with it.
For a long time, my friends have told me that in politics, lying is baked in the cake. I refuse to accept that lying must be accepted in politics, but I guess I have to expect that there are people who say it’s a necessary evil.
But when it comes to the media, the lying and distortions are so monumental that I can’t help wondering how those people sleep at night. Do they even try to explain their actions to others? Do they believe that Republicans really are evil and they deserve to be punished and ousted from office? And most of all, I wonder if they believe that acting on those beliefs is justified through any means necessary?
How do they explain their actions to their children?
Their decisions would mean that they think that their agenda is more important than truth. Their actions are necessary even if they destroy the lives of innocent people. They would justify their behavior because they have their own moral code, conveniently supported by moral relativism.
I wonder if any of those “journalists” are religious? Do they believe in G-d? Do they think there will be any consequences for their behavior which would be judged sinful in the eyes in G-d?
Or do they think there is no G-d?
Or do they believe that they are superior to G-d?
Or that secretly they actually are G-d?
In my own life, I don’t focus on consequences in the afterlife; I’m most concerned with doing the right thing in this life, with being an honorable person to those whose lives I touch, and hope the rest will take care of itself.
But I want to believe, have to believe, in accountability for malicious acts.
And I hope that G-d will see the need for ultimate justice, either on earth or in heaven, for those in the media who lied or distorted information or destroyed the lives of others.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Ooo. That one gets me. too. A prostitute iirc who was righteous and listed in the Christian hall of faith, so to speak.
I don’t recall her being described as righteous, but that she acted upon the basis of faith in G-d and was commended for that faith.
Are faith and righteousness identical? I don’t believe so, but that’s for another conversation.
Yes, you are right. No, they are not identical.
They don’t necessarily believe in God, but they think they are god-like with their power . . .
It is said that Satan’s first sin was a prideful, I will be like God.
I feel kinda dumb. Rahab was in the Book of Joshua. I’m not as familiar with the Prophets as I am with the Five Books of Moses. But I did want to add that I had no problem with her “lie.” It’s a bit extreme an example, but remember that lots of people saved Jews in the Holocaust by lying, and I’m not so certain that without a dramatic miracle, the spies would have been saved. Also, her family was saved by her helping the men.
I don’t understand: Are you saying it’s okay to lie in a good cause? Like to save lives? Because I suspect there’s a few news personalities that would agree with that.
I’m saying where death is imminent. Not when people are hysterically making up future possibilities of disasters.
Yes, but you have to be selective in your definition of “good.”
Ah. (He nods his head knowingly.)
I’ll give you an example:
Wife: Did you have steamy, hot sex with Sandra Bullock last night?
Stad: No.
Wife: Good. Otherwise, you’d be a dead man.
Here, the definition of “good” is Stad (or at least his fantasy) stays alive . . .
Trust me, I promise never to tell your wife: Were you lying?
Didn’t someone call out “You lie!” at Obama during the State of the Union speech?
There was supposedly a study on some non-human primates which were trained to push a button to get a treat. This experiment presented them with the option of treat vs seeing pictures of high ranking members of the troop. They tended to view the pictures pretty frequently.
As with so many bedrock truths revealed in the Bible, this one is a paradox. The commandment says “thou shalt not…” and yet there are moments when the commandment is broken, and even must be broken.
Believe it or not, there were Dutch Christians (and doubtless others) who debated whether it was acceptable to lie to save their Jewish compatriots; I found this peculiar when I first learned of it (yes! lie! And do it well!) but it is an indication that they took their faith seriously. Since their faith underpinned their self-sacrificing courage, it’s hard to argue that it was silly or excessively dogmatic.
I had a conversation long ago with a Catholic friend about the commandment “thou shalt not kill.” I can’t remember what my original position was, but ultimately I concluded that we live and act in the tension between “thou shalt not” and “sometimes, you must,” the absolute and the exception. That the least we can do, when lying, is to acknowledge, with fear and trembling, that this is what we are doing. Like the earnest Dutch Christians who lied to save Jews, but understood themselves to be risking something important in so doing.
The human tendency is to believe, far too easily, that his or her own circumstances constitute the exception. “Yes, abortion is wrong, but if my mistress doesn’t have one…” or “yes, adultery is wrong, but we’re In Love, and besides, I saw the face of Jesus in my pancake this morning, so surely this is the one time God won’t object…”
Hence, the absolutism in the commandment; if any wiggle-room is allowed, on grounds of realism, (Rahab needed to lie, Jael needed to trick Sisera into her tent and drive a spike into his head) there will be nothing but wiggling, lying and murdering. If the culture tells you that Trump is Literally Hitler, then lying (and worse) becomes acceptable. And of course, if you don’t actually believe in the Ten Commandments (that is, if you don’t understand them as commands from a terrifying sovereign God, but merely the general rules required for ordinary human intercourse) “exceptions” will present themselves far more often, and require far less in the way of internal, let alone public, exculpation.
Well, there’s the concept that sometimes the wicked prosper because while they have managed to do G-d’s will in some things–for which reward is in fact due–they’re going to get all the due reward in this world. In the next one, not so much. On the other hand, suffering in this world can have multiple purposes for the non-wicked: some of us take hints, some need a 2×4 upside the head to get the idea. And sometimes suffering in this world can lessen the purifying suffering of Gehinom.
My understanding is that the both the Masoretic Hebrew and Greek Septuagint language is better understood not as “kill” but as “murder” or “unjustly kill” – the difference is massive.
It’s the same with lying – many translations have “do not bear false witness”, which is a subtle but notable difference with more juridical implications.
In any case, in WWII, the Archbishop of Athens, when the Nazis invaded Greece, ordered all of his clergy to issue baptismal certificates to any who asked for them, since those would stymie the Nazis trying to round up Greek Jews. He’s credited with saving, I think, around 50 thousand people this way.
There are laws, and there are laws. I like the quote Borepatch heads his blog with:
I think you can fairly assume “no” to the answer to these questions. Some (maybe ten) years ago a person addressing several hundred “journalists” asked the audience how many of those journalists had a friend who was an evangelical Christian. Less than ten hands went up (out of several hundred people). If they don’t have a friend who is an evangelical Christian, I think it basically certain that they have no religious beliefs or practices of their own, at least beliefs or practices that involve a deity like that described in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.
All the things you detest are fundamental to a socialist state. As to your question, why are adherents stubbornly blind to the fallacies, it seems to me that the generalization would be passionate intensity, studiously express or otherwise. The scope of the specifics would range from no where else to go to the reason for one’s existence. I’ve had numerous conversations with my son about this thing, but they invariably turn to passionate intensity, and in that there is no pathway.
Now that is fascinating–and scary!
Look at my picture, then look at a picture of Sandra Bullock. I think the answer is obvious . . .
My representative, Joe Wilson. I wish I could claim I told him to say that . . .
Susan, many years ago in my church the pastor invited a police officer to speak to us about crime. He told us that from the smallest crimes all the way through to murder, crime was about selfishness. For politicians who lie, it is simply one of their tools to leverage what they want. And what they want is more power.
More recently our new pastor’s wife asked how much does a person on the local school board make? The answer was not very much. She then wondered why anyone would spend money on a billboard in an effort to win election to such a poorly compensated position. I had read the platform of the person on the billboard, and I told her, “It wasn’t about the money, but the power.” I don’t think she believed me. I’m not sure at her age I would have believed me either.
Good company: At one point Alito mouthed “not true”.
But Alito’s “comment” related to something nasty Obama said about SCOTUS, right?
In one sense, justice has been served on the media: a significant portion of Americans now no longer believe, or are skeptical of, most everything most journalists say or write. We realize they are little more than Leftist propaganda machines.
Over the course of a few years I went from regularly watching multiple broadcasts to rarely (never?) turning to a cable or mainstream news channel, and I’m hardly the only one as ratings can attest. I don’t feel deprived; there are some good specific reporters/writers for news and for opinion.
I believe so.
So that time, it was okay—indeed, necessary?
Though I agree that Obama was and is a liar (and doubtless was lying at that moment), it was a huge mistake to yell it out during a speech.
It is unlikely that Americans listening at home noted (or even noticed) what the exclamation was in response to (heck, many folks here can’t remember) but they definitely noticed and noted the disrespect. And yes, it was very easily and plausibly described as “unprecedented” and, of course, “racist.”
In that situation, Obama’s response (ignoring the accusation and continuing with the speech) looked liked dignity and forbearance.
Nothing was gained and much was lost. IMHO.