ETHICS AND MORALITY- WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FORGIVE? PARTS 1-2.

 

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FORGIVE? PT 1.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FORGIVE?  PT 1.

It is Suppose to be one of the Most "HUMANE" Acts one Person can do for another.  That no Matter How Much you have been hurt by SOMEONE ELSE, be it MENTAL , PHYSICAL, OR BOTH, TO "FORGIVE" THE ACTIONS AGAINST YOU IS CONSIDERED TO BE NOBLE AND VIRTUOUS. 

Yet, at the same Time, even though "FORGIVENESS" IS SUPPOSE TO BE A VOLUNTARY DECISION BY THE "VICTIM",  IF IT IS NOT OFFERED, THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN HARMED IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE COMMITTED A MORAL TRANSGRESSION AGAINST THE ONE WHO VICTIMIZED THEM.

It is a Fascinating example of how Some People Believe that taking the "HIGH ROAD", especially if They are Talking about someone elses Victimization, must be part of the ROAD TO RECOVERY IN OVERCOMING THE PAIN AND ANGUISH THAT HAS BEEN INFLICTED ON THEM.

HOWEVER, JUST WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FORGIVE ANOTHER?  Does it Mean the Same Thing to Everyone, or DOES THE DEFINITION OF "FORGIVENESS" CHANGE DEPENDING ON THOSE INVOLVED, OR PERHAPS THE SITUATION/EVENT THAT LED UP TO SUCH A DECISION POSSIBLY BEING MADE.

Let's Create a Basic Example.

-  An Individual Decides to Act in a Way that is considered a FREE CHOICE.

-  This Action may result in the Direct Harming of Another, and it is 

a possibility that any Reasonable Person would be aware of.

-  Ignoring the Possible Consequences, the Individual Acts, and Harm

comes to someone else, who in no way contributed to the NEGATIVE 

RESULT that has been Inflicted on Them.

STOPPING HERE, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES OR DEVELOPMENTS WOULD YOU CONSIDER "FORGIVENESS" AS A JUSTIFIED EXPECTATION OF THE "TRANSGRESSOR",  AND A MORAL REQUIREMENT OF THE "VICTIM?"  IF SO, WHAT WOULD "FORGIVENESS" CONSIST OF...

END OF PART 1.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FORGIVE? PT 2.

I Ended Part 1 with an example, and a "WHAT WOULD YOU DO?" Question.  However, You may have noticed that Answering such a Challenge isn't easy. Nor should it be. "FORGIVENESS" is not the Simplistic Concept Many would have you believe, for it contains Different Elements and Levels that are Unique to each Situation.

Those who believe that Short and Quick Resolutions are the Answer to Resolving Conflicts, sometimes begin Their Advice with words like the following;

-  "He's really sorry for what he did, you should forgive him."

-  "She's not like that usually, it won't happen again, don't worry about it."

-  "You pushed the Wrong Buttons, you know how they are.  Watch it 

next time."

THIRD PARTY INDIVIDUALS are usually the ones to offer such "ADVICE."  Either by Design, Ignorance, or Fear, They seek to place the BURDEN OF RESOLVING THE SITUATION ON THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN HARMED, OFTEN WITHOUT ANY SANCTIONS AGAINST THOSE WHO HAVE CAUSED THE SUFFERING. 

It is just another CASE OF BLAMING THE VICTIM.

So where do We Start?  How and When should "FORGIVENESS" BE OFFERED, AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?

How about Defining "FORGIVE."

THIS IS THE DEFINITION TAKEN FROM THE MERRIAM- WEBSTER DICTIONARY.

: to stop feeling anger toward (someone who has done something wrong)

: to stop blaming (someone)

: to stop feeling anger about (something) : to forgive someone for (something wrong)

THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA- BERKELEY "GREATER GOOD."  THE SCIENCE OF A MEANINGFUL LIFE, WEBSITE.

What Is Forgiveness?

Psychologists generally define forgiveness as a conscious, deliberate decision to release feelings of resentment or vengeance toward a person or group who has harmed you, regardless of whether they actually deserve your forgiveness.

These Definitions are fairly close to others I came across, and all have Basically the same things in common.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT THINGS THAT SHOULD BE NOTICED:

-  BOTH DEFINITIONS REQUIRE NOTHING FROM THE INDIVIDUAL(S) WHO HAVE CAUSED THE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL TRAUMA.

-  BOTH USE THE TERM "FEELINGS,"  AS A NEGATIVE DESCRIPTION REGARDING HOW THE VICTIM CONTINUES TO PERCEIVE THE PERSON AND ACTIONS THAT HAVE HURT THEM.

THIS LEADS US TO THE FOLLOWING:

IS "FORGIVENESS" JUST ANOTHER FORM OF "ACCEPTANCE", SINCE NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN THE "VICTIM" AND THE "PERPETRATOR?"

WHY IS CONTINUING TO JUDGE THOSE WHO HAVE HARMED YOU SOMETHING THAT MUST BE OVERCOME, IF THE INDIVIDUAL(S) INVOLVED HAVE NOT ALTERED THEIR PERSONAL BEHAVIOR, WHICH MAY CONTINUE TO CAUSE PAIN AND SUFFERING TO YOU AND OTHERS? 

END OF PT 2.

THIS ANALYSIS IS AS TRUE NOW, AS IT WAS 8 YEARS AGO.

(I FIRST PUBLISHED THIS ARTICLE ON 7/12/2016.  THE ONLY THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED ARE: THE REPUBLICAN PARTYS LOYALTY TO THE FAR-RIGHT ELEMENT OF THE GOP HAS INCREASED, WITH THEIR OBEDIENCE TO DONALD TRUMPS IRRATIONAL AND HATE-BASED RHETORIC BEING VIRTUALLY UNOPPOSED BY THE LEADERSHIP. WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IS THE ALMOST COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR PROPER INTELLECTUAL ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE WHEN THE GOP FORMS ANY PART OF THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA. TO THEM VOTER IGNORANCE, IRRATIONALITY, AND PERSONAL PREJUDICES ARE TO BE EXPLOITED AT ANY COST.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

HATE CHRONICLES. THE KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING THE MINDSET, MOTIVATIONS, AND GOALS OF THE FAR-RIGHT FANATIC. #1.

It is a mistake for Progressives to think that those who make up the Most Conservative Elements of the "NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY" ARE ALL CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH. WHILE THEY MAY VOTE AS A BLOC,THE PRIMARY MOTIVATION DIFFERS FROM GROUP TO GROUP.

While They are usually Packaged Together, ULTRA CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS HAVE REALIZED THAT FINDING THE ONE KEY ISSUE THAT DRIVES CERTAIN GROUPS OF VOTERS TO THE POLLS, OFTEN WILL TURN THEM INTO LOYAL ALLIES, who will support an agenda full of Issues They may care little about.

It could be GUN CONTROL, SAME- SEX MARRIAGE, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, IMMIGRATION LAWS, REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE etc. THE STRATEGY IS TO PUT FORTH AN UNCOMPROMISING, RIGID, AND VITRIOLIC POINT OF VIEW ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE, APPEALING TO THE BASER ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE.

THE REASON: TO LEARN OF THE ONE ISSUE THAT EACH SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL VOTERS MOST IDENTIFIES WITH, AND MANIPULATE IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.

IT'S A TACTIC THAT REQUIRES NO INTELLECTUAL EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE LISTENER.THERE IS NO NEED TO UNDERSTAND, OR EVEN CARE ABOUT THE OPPOSITIONS POINT OF VIEW. IT PLAYS ON RAW EMOTION, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR CONTEMPLATION OR REFLECTION.

THE INDIVIDUAL IS ENCOURAGED NOT TO THINK ABOUT AN INTELLECTUAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE OPINION THEY ARE SUPPORTING, BUT TO REACT TO THE WORDS OF THE AUTHOR AND\OR SPEAKER, AND ACCEPTING THE MESSAGE AS TRUE, AND WORTHY OF SUPPORT.  THIS, IN TURN, ENCOURAGES AGREEMENT WITH OTHER OPINIONS THAT ARE EXPRESSED THE SAME WAY.

VLAD AND DONALD, IT WAS A GOOD PLAN...BUT HUMANITY IS MORE THAN JUST SYCOPHANTIC SELF-CENTERED YES MEN...PART 5.

 

You needed a Candidate that would appeal to a section of the Electorate who, while not necessarily being a majority, would be Vocal and Loyal Enough to stand by that Candidate no matter what. In other words, a section of the population who are so Self-Centered, Rigid and Lacking any real Intellectual Depth, that you can do or say anything, and as long as you; 

- Feed Their Egos.

- Promote Their Prejudices.

- Reinforce Their Ignorance.

- Encourage Their Hatreds.

You will have a group of Americans who will care about nothing but putting you In Office, and keeping you there. CRIMINAL ACTS, EVEN TREASON, ARE NOT STUMBLING BLOCKS. RIGGING AND MANIPULATING VOTE TOTALS ARE JUST A NECESSARY PART OF ESTABLISHING A FASCIST UTOPIA.

That didn't bother you, did it Donald? POWER, FAME, NOTORIETY, etc is all that matters. Destroying our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC was just the price of doing business. When you were given that opportunity, was it just Sycophantic Members of the GOP that approached you, or was it also your future BFF PUTIN, and his GRU INTERNET STRIKE FORCE? YOU WOULD BE THE MOST POWERFUL MAN ON EARTH, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER HOW YOU GET THERE, RIGHT? HEY, HITLER, STALIN, POL POT, IDI AMIN etc., DIDN'T REACH THE HEIGHTS OF POWER BY CARING ABOUT THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS, WHY SHOULD YOU?

BUT WAIT, SOMETHING ELSE HAD TO BE DONE, BEFORE YOU OPENED YOUR MOUTH...

TO BE CONTINUED... 

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT RELIGION? PT 2.(UPDATE)

 

In Part 1, I quoted Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. I pointed out that this section of the Constitution, along with the First Amendment, are the only two places that religion is referred to in the entire body of the document.   I will now quote from the Bill of Rights, the section that references religion.

First Amendment-  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There you have it.  These two passages make it clear what role religion would play in the development of the new republic, and at no time do they contradict each other. 

- Congress would not address the subject of religion in any way.

- There would be no religious test to hold public office.  One need only swear allegiance to the Constitution. 

However, Now we have JUDGES IMPOSING THEIR OWN PERSONAL CHRISTIAN BELIEFS ON DECIDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CERTAIN ISSUES. IN OTHER WORDS, IT MUST PASS THEIR "RELIGIOUS TEST." These are CHRISTIAN FASCISTS WHO ARE SEEKING TO UNDERMINE AND DESTROY THE CONCEPT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR ALL BY LEGALIZING THEIR OWN FAITH AND CRIMINALIZING OTHER FAITHS.

- Since Religious Freedom is considered a right that every American has, it cannot be taken away.  In other words, creating and passing legislation that removes this right is not possible.

For those who claim that the founding fathers had an agenda that would establish Christianity as an essential part of our legal system, and that it is justified within the body of the Constitution, ignore certain details.  None of the following appears within the ratified document;

• God.
• Jesus.
• Christian or Christianity.
• Prayer.
• Bible.
• Old or New Testament.
• Sin.
• Heaven or Hell.

In fact, the only word that could possibly be a reference to a Supreme Being is the use of the term "Lord".  However, this word is used only once in the following fragment; "...in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...".  This was a common way that dates and times were presented in print, and was not considered to be an expression of faith.

It's amazing that many of todays Lawmakers wish to regulate public policy according to the faiths and beliefs of certain segments of American society.  This completely ignores the obvious intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.  Why would they make it the law of the land to require no religious test to hold public office, and then seek to Legislate by Doctrines found in certain faiths?