Faculty Seminar on Comparative Cultures 2007

“Forgiveness: Political Considerations”

Table of Contents

“Rethinking Forgiveness”…………………………………………..Dr. Julia Nevárez

“Weimar Germnay: Reconciliation or Revenge?”………………José Morales

“The Culture of Defeat: Finding Evidence of Revenge and Reconciliation in Weimar

Germany”……………………………………………………………..Catherine Stanczak

“What is Restorative Justice?” ……………………………………Clarence Turner

“Philosophical Reflections on Personal and Political Forgiveness”………Charles Fethe

“Forgiveness: Considerations in Science and Religion vs. Political Violence,

Genocide and War”…………………………………………………John J. Stapleton

“Rethinking Forgiveness” ……………………………………………...Julia Nevárez

This year’s theme on “Forgiveness: Political Considerations” have triggered fascinating

discussions within the faculty seminar monthly meetings. Some of the ideas we delved

into, concluded that forgiveness presupposes conflict and it is considered a possible

solution to complex, emotional and challenging problems and situations. One of the basic

questions we asked ourselves was: Why should we be concerned with forgiveness?;

and/or why is forgiveness relevant or important?

According to Derrida, we should only deal with the unforgivable, that which is easy to

forget does not really challenge us enough. The unforgivable, however, challenges our

most difficult, intricate and thorny issues. Therefore Derrida’s phrase to describe

forgiveness as the “madness of the impossible,” is always an unfinished process.

Forgiveness is a form of engagement with that which is most difficult and yet most

necessary. Similarly, Kristeva reminds us that forgiveness gives us the opportunity to

grow, to move on to test the possibility of placing ourselves in another different situation

and psychologically learn new ways of – basically – relating with ourselves and others.

These however, are approaches that deal mostly with individual experiences, from

philosophical and psychotherapy perspectives. We had and most likely continue to face

the remnants of conflicts that most certainly challenge our ability to forgive. Examples of

this challenging experiences at a broader social and political level are post-dictatorship

societies, post-apartheid societies, post-genocide societies and post-war societies. The

proliferation of attempts at dealing with these complex psychological and social

processes are at the core of, for example, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in

South Africa, and Restorative Justice which will be addressed by one of the papers

included in this selection. Forgiveness also provides us with the opportunity to examine

the conditions and consequences of specific acts, mostly of violence. In that regard

exercising forgiveness or for that matter receiving it, allows to better understand the

contextual factors from which problems, conflicts, injustice spurs and give us the

opportunity of once again be critical and human. These and other ideas will be

represented in the following selection of papers and hopefully allow us to know more

about ourselves and the complexities of forgiveness.

The Culture of Defeat: Finding Evidence of Revenge and Reconciliation in Weimar

Germany - Catherine Stanczak

Weimar Germany was a republic that was born from humiliation and defeat. World War

I left Germany a defeated nation, one whose great reputation had been diminished.

World War I left the Germans in great turmoil and they looked for someone to hold

responsible for their chaos. It was from the ashes of World War I that Germany was able

to rise like the phoenix for a time and become known as the Weimar Republic. While the

Germans were able to rebuild themselves as a people and culture, they were never able to

forgive those that inflicted the wounds from World War I.

Germany entered into World War I as a great world power and emerged as a

broken country. According to the Versailles treaty, “The Allied and Associated

Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies

for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and

their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by

the aggression of Germany and her allies.”(Treaty of Versailles 2-3) The Versailles

treaty was basically a finger pointing at Germany, blaming them for the entire World

War. Even though Germany’s allies are mentioned, Germany takes the brunt of the

punishment. The treaty goes on to say, “The Allied and Associated Governments,

however, require, and Germany undertakes, that she will make compensation for all

damage done to the civilian population of the Allied and Associated Powers and to their

property during the period of the belligerency of each as an Allied and Associated Power

against Germany.” (Treaty of Versailles 3) The Versailles treaty was making sure that

Germany knew it was at fault and responsible for World War I. The treaty cut Germany

down and ripped away its status as a once world power.

Not only did the treaty greatly affect the country, but so did the memories of the

World War I battles. The war left many hardened and would remain in their minds

forever. In Ernst Junger's “The Storm of Steel”, he goes on to describe the battles of

World War I and how war has taken on a new light. Battles are fought more fiercely with

new technology and weapons, leaving people and towns in ruins. Junger states “…it

seemed that man, on this landscape he had himself created, became different, more

mysterious and hardy and callous than in any previous battle…For I cannot too often

repeat, a battle was no longer an episode that spent itself in blood and fire; it was a

condition of things that dug itself in remorselessly week after week and even month after

month.”(Junger 4) Junger felt that the Germans changed after this war, turning them into

hardened people. War had taken on a new front and Germans now wore the “steel

helmet”, symbolizing the new stage of warfare. (Junger 4)German men had forever been

changed. World War I and the defeat of Germany changed the mind sets of many

Germans and altered their way of life.

World War I left the Germans beaten and humiliated. Morale was low and

frustrations were high. Everyone was looking for someone to blame. The defeat of

Germany could be blamed on politics. The government of Germany was constantly

battling revolutions from the bourgeoisie and there was no strong government for

Germany. Revolutions were occurring Germany and many blamed the defeat of Germany

on these revolutions. The “stab in the back” theory arose, believing that “it was not the

home front in its entirety that had stabbed the military in the back but rather the

revolution.”(Schivelbusch 207) The political powers believed that the military were

fighting a losing battle while there was great strife within their country. Canetti agreed

that many people believed this, stating, “He…asserts the popular Loschstob legend,

claiming that weak civilians and leftist saboteurs in the hinterland had caused the defeat

of the German army.”(Canetti 55) Again, the problems within Germany could be seen as

a cause for the German’s defeat. An example of the conflict between politics and the

classes could be seen in Rosa Luxemburg’s “The War and the Workers”. According to

Luxemburg, the war was merely a battle of imperialism and was detrimental to the

working class (Luxemburg 13). Imperialism, though seen by the politicians as being

advantageous, was harmful to the working class. Luxemburg further stated “The actual

problem that the world war has posed to the socialist parties, upon the solution of which

the destiny of the workers’ movement depends, is this: the capacity of the proletarian

masses for action in the battle against imperialism.” (Luxemburg 14) The war, to the

working class, was only a way for Germany to extend its borders. In the end, this would

destroy the working class and the economy of Germany. Luxemburg’s argument over

World War I is only one example of the discord amongst the people that could be

responsible for the Germans losing the war.

Hitler blamed the loss of World War I on the Jews. Hitler believed that the Jews

have no culture of their own and latch on to any other culture, imitating it and ruining it

(Hitler 302-3). Hitler further believes that the Jews, amidst the Germans, alter the

German’s economics, politics, culture and even religion (Hitler 326). The Jews would

come into the German world, and change it into a world of their own. Hitler states “If we

pass all the causes of the German collapse in review, the ultimate and most decisive

remains the failure to recognize the racial problem and especially the Jewish

menace.”(Hitler 327) Hitler believed that the true underlying causes for the Germans’

defeat in World War I was brought on by the Jews. Hitler further states …”it was

brought about by that power which prepared these defeats by systematically robbing our

people of the political and moral instincts and forces which alone make nations capable

and hence worthy of existence.”(Hitler 327) By the Jews “ruining” the culture, politics,

etc. of the Germans, this in turn caused the German defeat. Germany was even doomed to

fail even before they entered into the war. According to Hitler, “…in August 1914, it was

not a people resolved to attack which rushed to the battlefield; no, it was only the last

flicker of the national instinct of self-preservation in face of the progressing pacifist-

Marxist paralysis of our national body…our people did not recognize the inner enemy, all

outward resistance was in vain…” (Hitler 329) Hitler felt that the true enemy of Germany

was within their boundaries, and any fight beyond them was futile. Therefore, Hitler

blamed the defeat of the Germans on the Jews and the fact that their contamination of the

German culture destroyed the chances of Germany being victorious.

Germany’s lack of propaganda during the war was also seen as a reason for their

defeat. Schivelbusch states “Ludendorff, for example, attributed German’s defeat not to

the material superiority of its enemies, but to their superior propaganda, equating

propaganda with the desire to win.”(Schivelbusch 215) Even leaders of Germany blamed

their defeat on propaganda. Hitler also agreed that propaganda brought about the defeat

of the Germans. Hitler stated “By representing the Germans to their [English and

Americans] own people as barbarians and Huns, they prepared the individual soldier for

the terrors of war, and thus helped to preserve him from disappointments.”(Hitler 181)

Hitler believed that war propaganda greatly fueled the fire for the English and Americans,

increasing their will to fight the Germans. This caused them to fight harder, making the

defeat of the Germans inevitable.

The Germans blamed their defeat on many, whether it was their own people, the

Jews or even war propaganda. The Germans, after their defeat, were further humiliated

by the treaty and blamed their issues on the treaty enforced by the Allied Powers.

According to the Versailles treaty, the Germans were forced to reduce the size of their

army (Treaty of Versailles 2) This, to Germany, was a great blow to their country. To the

Germans “The belief in universal military service, the conviction of its profound

significance and the veneration accorded it, had a wider reach than the traditional

religions…Anyone who excluded himself was no German.”(Canetti 180) To serve in the

army of Germany made a man a real German and gave him a sense of belonging. The

reduction of the German army caused another great blow to the men of Germany and

their sense of belonging. Not only were the men hurt by the defeat of war, but also by the

fact that their military services were no longer needed. According to Canetti, “…The

prohibition of the army was like the prohibition of a religion. The faith of his fathers had

been proscribed, and it was every man’s sacred duty to re-establish it.”(Canetti 181). To

belong to the army of Germany was to belong to Germany, and this right was taken from

the men of Germany and they needed to gain this right back.

The Germans, after their defeat, looked to blame anyone and everyone. The

Germans were crushed and humiliated by the aforementioned. To escape the thoughts of

war, they looked to themselves and their country. Pointing a finger was easy, but getting

revenge on the people who were to blame for the war was not. The Germans blamed

many, yet did not make retaliations against them. Instead, the Germans looked to

themselves as a way to better their country.

However, before the Germans could rebuild themselves, inflation occurred that

damaged them even more. Because of World War I, reparations were being made to the

Allied powers and the German mark was losing its value. The Germans, at first, thought

that everything was fine and they were enjoying the upswing of the economy. Some even

saw this time as being “lively” and “stimulating” (Schivelbusch 269). The Germans

seemed to enjoy themselves for a time until the catastrophe of inflation really hit them.

Once the truth of inflation occurred, the Germans were in a tailspin. The Germans and

“…middle class that believed itself for many years the master of its financial and

economic circumstances was forced to admit, with shame, that it was at the mercy of the

dictates of currency depreciation.”(Widdig 63) For a while, the Germans thought their

economy was doing well, until inflation made them realize that this wasn’t true and they

were at the “mercy” of money. To many, inflation “resulted in the loss of social status

and therefore inflicted shame.”(Widdig 65). The Germans felt defeated once again, this

time by money. At one point, “Individual objects, particularly ‘cultural goods’ that may

once have meant something to their owners, are carried up the Theresianum’s long

staircase to be transformed into money. Jewelry, works of art, and, as the pinnacle of

transformation, on the sixth floor of the state pawnshop, books-everything falls victim to

this crude institution of capitalist exchange value.” (Widdig 72) Germans were selling

off their culture just to get money and in doing this, losing themselves. This was yet

another blow to the Germans. Therefore, someone needed to be blamed.

Not only were the Jews to blame for the German’s defeat in World War I, but

when inflation occurred, most of the blame fell on their shoulders. Even before the

World War, the Jews were seen as “alien” and always were related to money (Wagner 4

& 7). The foreign Jews and their knowledge of money were therefore to blame for the

inflation. “No one ever forgets a sudden depreciation of himself…unless he can thrust it

on to someone else, he carries it with him for the rest of his life…Something must be

treated in such a way that it becomes worth less and less, as the unit of money did during

the inflation. And this process must be continued until its object is reduced to a state of

utter worthlessness.”(Canetti 187). The Germans needed someone to blame after inflation

and take their anger out on due to the inflation. The Jews fit the mold perfectly. Canetti

stated” Their [Jews] long-standing connection with money, their traditional

understanding of its movements and fluctuations, their skill in speculation, the way they

flocked together in money markets, where their behavior contrasted strikingly with the

soldierly conduct which was the German ideal-all this, in a time of doubt, instability, and

hostility to money, could not but make them appear dubious and hostile.”(Canetti 187)

The Germans, who knew little about money, disliked the Jews for their great

understanding of money. The Germans looked to ostracize the Jews because of this

knowledge and looked down on the Jews. While the Germans were suffering monetarily,

the Jews were doing well. The Germans despised them for this.

With great turmoil surrounding them, the Germans looked to escape the thoughts

of war and money, retreating within their boundaries. Dancing became a large fad of this

time. “The dance craze may have served not only to discharge frustrated erotic desire but

also to act out the vertigo that the various collapses had produced in

society.”(Schivelbusch 271). The Germans used dancing as a way to escape from the

surrounding chaos. This can also be seen in Thomas Mann’s story, “Disorder and Early

Sorrow”. A family, while dealing with inflation, still has parties and dancing is the main

activity. Dancing was a way to release tensions and stress. For a moment, the hardships

of the times could be forgotten.

The Germans also looked to their culture as a way to rebuild their morale.

Germans wanted to reconstruct their cities in the hopes that a great city would bring great

power once again. Germany believed that “The world does not quickly forget a capital

that once threatened it and, conversely, that capital develops a hypersensitive, almost

paranoid need to promote its own image. This need was abundantly clear in the post-1918

development of Berlin as a technological, functionalist center.”(Schivelbusch 277)

Germany knew that it had to rebuild its country and its image. Germany admired the

skyscrapers of America, but not what they stood for. They believed that the American

skyscrapers were symbols of “rampant capitalism”(Neumann 149) The Germans then

decided to “Germanize” skyscrapers and “claimed that the Germans were destined to

create, on a higher cultural level, a valid and alternative to this American invention,

revealing for the first time ‘the true inner meaning of the skyscraper’”(Neumann 149).

The Germans believed that they could rebuild their great cities with a great cultural

background. Neumann states “The lost war and the enormous reparation payments of the

Versailles treaty led to a desperate nationalism and to the idea that a monumental

symbolic gesture could demonstrate the undestroyed German will to reemerge after the

war…” (Neumann 150) The Germans felt that not only would the skyscraper represent

their culture, but it would also show that they were rising from the low status that they

incurred after World War I. The skyscraper would be a symbol of culture, nationalism,

and their will to move on.

After their cities, the Germans looked to the arts. The film industry began to grow

greatly in Germany. Fritz Lang made many movies such as “Metropolis” and “M”. Lang

stated “Germany has never had, and never will have, the gigantic human and financial

reserves of the American film industry at its disposal… For that is exactly what forces us

to compensate a purely material imbalance through an intellectual superiority.” (Lang

622). Lang believed that while the Americans may have money, the Germans have their

intellect that will allow them to produce greater movies. The Germans believed that their

films were brilliant and “that German film technique will develop along the lines that not

only raises it to the level of an optical expression of the characters’ actions but also to

elevate the particular performer’s environment to the status of a carrier of the action in its

own right and, most important, of the character’s soul!” (Lang 623) Germans, through

their “film techniques”, will be able to connect with people and make their great movies

into something other than just entertainment. Many believed that their cinema was

superior and the world would see this. Some even saw these movies as an interpretation

of Germany’s society. Anton Kaes felt that the movie “M” by Fritz Lang may have been

a reflection of postwar Germany. In one scene, a trial is being held by the criminals to

determine the fate of a serial killer. Kaes stated “The mockery of the law and its

procedures is double-edged: it reflects cynicism of the Weimar judicial system, but, more

importantly, it allows Lang to shift the parameter of the ‘trial’ from the question of truth

and evidence to the question of retribution and the right to punish…”(Kaes 67) Kaes

believes Lang is trying to express through the “trial” that Weimar Germany still has not

forgiven others for the result of World War I and relates this to their need to blame and

punish someone for this. Through the cinema, the Germans were able to express their

culture and even their opinions.

The German defeat after World War I caused a great blow to its people. It

demoralized and humiliated them as a people. The Germans put the blame on everyone,

from their own people, to the Jews, and even propaganda. The Germans knew that they

were once a world power and could not grasp the fact that they were reduced to a broken

country. It was easier for them to put blame on others, than to admit defeat.

The Germans could not execute any real revenge on those who were to blame

because they were discouraged by the events that occurred after World War I. There is

much evidence of the Germans being dismayed and blaming others for it, but there is no

real evidence of revenge on anyone. Not only is there no revenge, but no reconciliation

amongst those who were to blame. There is much evidence of defeat, blaming and the

brief revival of their culture, but none of revenge or forgiveness. It almost seems that the

Germans looked to rebuild themselves as a culture, people, and nation before there was

the possibility of retaliating or forgiving anyone.

Works Cited

Canetti, Elias. “Crowds and Power.” And trans. Carol Stewart. New York: Continuum,

1973. In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B. Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003, 169-

189.

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf.

Junger, Ernst. “The Storm of Steel: From the Diary of a German Storm Troop Officer on

the Western Front.” In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B. Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University,

2003, 1-4.

Lang, Fritz. “The Future of the Feature Film in Germany.” Cinema from Expressionism

to Social Realism. 622-3. No date.

Luxemburg, Rosa. “The War and the Workers.” In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B. Klein.

Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003, 1-18.

Neumann, Dietrich. “Dancing on the Volcano: Essays on the Culture of the Weimar

Republic.” Columbia, SC: Camden House, Inc., 1994. In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B.

Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003, 143-154.

Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. The Culture of Defeat. And trans. Jefferson Chase. New York:

Henry Holt and Co., 2001.

Treaty of Versailles. In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B. Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University,

2005, 1-3.

Wagner, Richard. “Judaism in Music.” In Source Reader. Ed. Dennis B. Klein. Union,

NJ: Kean University, 2003, 1-12.

Widdig, Bernd. “Culture and Inflation in Weimar Germany.” In Source Reader. Ed.

Dennis B. Klein. Union, NJ: Kean University, 2003, 53-65, 69-75.

Restorative Justice - Clarence L. Turner

The focal point of this paper is to get a better understanding of restorative justice.

It will give various definitions of restorative justice. It will also give examples of how

restorative justice operates.

The aim of restorative justice is to focus on negotiation, mediation, and

peacemaking. Applied to juveniles, the purpose of restorative justice is to incorporate

non-punitive strategies for delinquency control. “Restoration involves turning the justice

system into a healing process rather than a distributor of retribution and revenge.”(Siegel

et al., 2006 p. 135). Restorative Justice is geared to make offenders more accountable for

their actions. The important aspect of achieving restoration is for the offenders to accept

the accountability and responsibility for the harm that their actions caused. (Siegel et al.,

2006 p. 135) As a whole, restorative justice is more of a non-punishment strategy for

delinquency.

According to Siegel, Welsh, & Senna there are seven key elements that explain

restorative justice (pp.466-67):

Victims and the community are central to justice processes

The first priority of justice processes is to assist victims

The second priority of justice processes is to restore the community, to the

degree possible

The offender has a personal responsibility to victims and to the

community for crimes committed.

The offender will develop improved competency and understanding as a

result of the restorative justice experience

Stakeholders share responsibilities for restorative justice through

partnerships for action.

As history may explain, restorative justice was more of a traditional approach.

For a more recent approach, many individuals look down upon restorative justice because

it did not reinforce the 90’s theme of “Toughness on Crime”. (Robinson & Raynor, 2006,

p.334). In the past many victims feelings were not even considered when it came down

to punishment. Restorative justice gives the victim more opportunities to have more of a

voice in the system. The victims are given a chance to meet the offender face to face. If

the victim does not wish to meet with the offender face to face, information will be

passed by a third party. (Evans, 2006)

As many can assume, restorative justice can oppose what retributive justice

implies. “[Retributive Justice] is not directed at changing the offender but only

backwards, confronting the offender with condemnation; it attributes the crime solely to

the offender who only reflects the general evil.” (Hassemer, 1983 as seen in Oswald,

2002 et al., p. 87) Retributive justice may also be known as just desert (you get what you

deserve). This type of justice is also known by the phrase “eye for an eye, tooth for a

tooth.” As a whole it is safe to say that America operates on the retributive justice

approach.

As mentioned above, a fundamental purpose of restorative justice is to attempt to

revive rehabilitation. (Bazemore & Walgrave 1999 p. 35) One major problem, is, how

can we revive rehabilitation when in certain cases rehabilitation has proven not to work?

America is what many people may conceive of as a violent country. In fact, America has

the highest incarceration rate in the world. (Beckwith, et al., 2006). One main problem

with America is the way we treat our criminals. This is where the concept of restorative

justice comes into play. Restorative Justice is helping to transform the culture of prison

life from a dangerous environment filled with anger and hostility to caring and

compassion. (Walker & Sakai 2006, p. 61) This form of rehabilitation will show inmates

different ways to resolve problems the proper way.

Restorative justice practices are rapidly being used elsewhere in the criminal

justice system. British Columbia developed volunteerism in restorative justice and

conducted a survey of restorative justice volunteers. The study was aimed to: “document

the characteristics of restorative justice volunteers, examine the factors that motivate

individuals to initiate and sustain involvement in restorative justice, identify the skills and

qualifications that volunteers perceived to be useful for their role in restorative justice

and demonstrate how restorative justice volunteer’s experiences affect their involvement

in restorative justice.” (Dhami & Souza, 2005)

What was found was that restorative justice volunteers were generally a

homogenous group. Their motivations were both selfish and unselfish (this was

associated with some of the personal characteristics.) Lastly, for the most part volunteers

were satisfied with their roles. In addition to what was found some suggestion on

restorative justice practices was also found: volunteer recruitment efforts need to be

more far reaching, training curriculums need to have broader topics, expressing positive

experiences with restorative justices can help retain more volunteers for longer periods of

time. (Dhami & Souza, 2005)

Restorative justice is also practiced in New Zealand. It operates on a four level

system. The first part is system issues and it involves a conference between both parties.

The police, prosecutor or court may take action of further penalties if the conference is

not completed. Part two is the reparation aspect. In this part, the outcomes are reported,

which focus on the offender setting things right with the victim and community. These

outcomes may involve reparation, restitution, and community work. Part three is

prevention. This part addresses the underlying causes for the offending and its goal is set

at assisting the offender to keep his/her promises. The last and final part is monitoring.

The best way to monitor is on paper. Both parties write down what will be addressed.

This is the most crucial part when it comes down to the whole four part process because

this is where most plans fail. (MacRae & Zehr, 2004 p. 51)

Siegel, Welsh, & Senna (p.135) give a good example in explaining restorative

justice. They state:

Most people involved in offender-victim relationships actually know one

another or were related in some way before the criminal incident took place.

Instead of treating one of the involved parties as a victim deserving of sympathy

and the other as a criminal deserving of punishment, it is more productive to

address the issues that produced conflict between these people. Rather than take

sides and choose whom to isolate and punish, society should try to reconcile the

parties involved in conflict.

Community involvement is considered very effective component of restorative justice.

Considering that, the effectiveness of restorative justice ultimately depends on the impact

a person has in the community. If a person does not value or hold high prestige within a

group (community), then that person will be unlikely to accept responsibility caused by

their actions; therefore, community involvement is an essential factor when it comes to

restorative justice. (Siegel et al., 2006 p. 135) Knowing that, even the most effective

restorative justice programs will become a failure if offenders have no ties within the

community.

According to Fred Luskin, the major attribute to restorative justice is forgiveness.

Luskin believed that “just as everyone has hurt others, everyone has also been hurt in life;

hanging on to old wounds and carrying around resentment and hostility keeps people

unhappy; the energy it takes to imagine a just revenge for someone who was harmful can

be better used for creating a positive life. His philosophy focuses on self, basically

stating that the only person you have control of is self. .”(Walker & Sakai 2006, p. 60).

When speaking about restorative justice, many individuals may interpret it by its

components such as programs, ideas, policies, strategies, conceptual framework or

paradigm shift. (Bazemore & Walgrave 1999 p. 35). In fact, the Arizona State Correction

Department started a 10 week program that covers certain topics (i.e., substance abuse,

property crimes, drunken driving, child abuse, assault, domestic violence and murder).

Dora Schriro, Arizona’s State Corrections Director, believes “inmates are expected to

take a hard-hitting look at themselves and change some of the things they do.” (Program

Puts Inmates in Victims’ Shoes 2006 p.12). This program is expected to be statewide by

the end of the year. Its main focus is to repair harm caused by crime.

In conclusion, restorative justice is more of a non-punishment strategy for

delinquency. It addresses the issues that often produce conflict between two parties

(offender and victim) and, therefore tries to repair the conflict between the two. (Siegel et

al., 2006 p. 466) The fundamental purpose of restorative justice is to oppose retribution

(punishment). In short the meaning of restorative justice is to repair a harm caused by

crime. It seems to me that America is at a standstill when it comes to treating our

criminals. A major suggestion is to evaluate other countries’ restorative justice methods

and see if they can be effective within the United States.

References

(2006) Program puts inmates in victims’ shoes. Corrections Today, 68 (7); 12.

Bazemore, Gordon, Walgrave, Lode. (1999) Restorative Juvenile Justice. Criminal

Justice Press. 35.

Beckwith, Curt G., Zaller, Nick, Rich, Josiah D. (2006) Addressing the HIV Epidemic

Through Quality Correctional Healthcare. Criminology & Public Policy 5 (1) 149-156.

Dhami, Kaur M., & Souza, Karen (2005). Volunteerism in community-based restorative

justice programs. American Society of Criminology.

Evans, Janice (2006)Integrating victims into restorative justice. Patrice (09503153). 18,

(4) 279-289.

Oswald M. E., Hupfeld, J., Klug, S. C., & Gabriel, U. (2002) Lay-Perspectives on

Criminal Deviance, Goals of Punishment, and Punitivity. Social Justice Research. 15, (2).

85-98.

MacRae, Allan & Zehr, Howard (2004) Family Group Conferences. Good Books 3-74.

Robinson, Gwen & Reynor, Peter (2006). The future of rehabilitation. Journal of

Community and Criminal Justice 53 (4) 334-346.

Seigel, Larry J., Welsh, Brandon C., & Senna, Josheph J.,(2006) Juvenile Delinquency.

Thomson Wadsworth 9th ed., 135-136, 466-467

Walker, Lorenn, Sakai, Ted. (2006) A gift of listening for Hawaii’s Inmates. Corrections

Today, 68, (7); 58-61.

Philosophical Reflections on Personal and Political Forgiveness - Charles Fethe

Abstract: This paper examines the question of whether the act of forgiveness, which has

traditionally been considered a prerogative of individual persons, can be incorporated into

the policies of public groups and political organizations. The paper offers an

interpretation of forgiveness which justifies its role in political policies, and it suggests

criteria for evaluating some of the benefits and risks in reconciliation policies based on

forgiveness.

Key words: forgiveness, political forgiveness, performative speech acts

Introduction

Throughout history, people have reflected on the question of what constitutes a good

person, a person of honor and virtue. There have been numerous approaches to

investigating this question, but one of the most insightful suggestions was offered by

Plato in his classic work, The Republic. Plato contended that to understand what makes a

person good and worthy of respect we must first know what makes a political society

worthy of respect, for the virtues of the state are simply the virtues of a person writ large.

This is indeed a fascinating analogy, perhaps the most famous analogy in the

history of political philosophy. Over the centuries philosophers and political theorists

have given much thought to determining where the analogy works and where it fails. In

recent times, the most intriguing efforts to understand and evaluate the analogy have

centered on a moral virtue that Plato and most of his successors would have dismissed

as irrelevant to political thought—this virtue is that of forgiveness. Forgiveness

certainly is an act we respect in individuals; whether it can be taken up by political

groups or incorporated into the function of a state is another matter.

Forgiveness is not a minor moral virtue. When Alexander Pope claimed that “To

err is human, to forgive divine” he was asserting a belief that had been pervasive in

European moral thought since the beginning of the Christian era. But to Pope and to most

Europeans the act of forgiveness represented a personal virtue. It had nothing to do with

government, politics, committees and commissions. This view has probably been the

traditional understanding of forgiveness for quite some time and so it came as a surprise

when organizations such as South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission put

issues dealing with forgiveness on the political stage. Many people applauded these

political groups for taking an evolutionary step in the understanding of forgiveness; but

others, while respecting the intentions of these organizations, questioned the premise that

forgiveness could function outside the relations between individual persons. These

skeptics of political forgiveness contend that if Peter robs Paul, Paul can forgive him but

court judges and political organizations cannot, although they may be lenient with Peter

and show him mercy. Even the great Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr took a

similar position: he believed that justice qualified as a useful political virtue but

forgiveness was an idealistic goal which cannot function in a broad, practical context.i

True forgiveness, he seemed to believe, is always personal, and rare. It does not thrive in

political environments.

Skepticism about political or group forgiveness has to be taken seriously, for it

raises a number of provocative questions. How do groups or political organizations

acquire the authority to forgive? What procedures do they use to decide who should be

forgiven—is it by majority vote of the members? If so, how was that policy determined?

And how does the judgment of forgiveness made by a political organization affect the

judgments of individuals? If the political group forgives a class of offenders, does that

nullify the judgments of victims who refuse to offer forgiveness and demand reparation?

These questions pose a challenge to the concept of political forgiveness, but in

this paper I would like to examine only one of the fundamental objections to taking

forgiveness out of the personal realm and setting it under the authority of social and

political organizations. This objection rests on the premise that the act of forgiveness is

an expression of personal feelings and attitudes, and since feelings and attitudes are

psychological phenomena which exist only in the minds of individuals, the act of

i For more on Niebuhr, see Donald Shriver, An Ethic for Enemies: Forgiveness in Politics

(NY: Oxford, 1995), p. 7

forgiveness can only be an individual and personal affair. On this view, individual

members of a political group may each practice forgiveness but the group as a separate

entity cannot.

I believe this argument rests on a misunderstanding of the true nature of

forgiveness, and so I would like to propose a better model for analyzing the act of

forgiveness and determining when it is justified and when it is not.

The nature of forgiveness

Forgiving one’s enemies is not an easy thing to do. It often takes courage and a measure

of self-discipline that many of us lack. It is this inner strength which gives forgiveness its

moral drama. But are these feelings and attitudes an essential element in offering

forgiveness? If they are, then it would seem that those who deny the possibility of social

or political forgiveness might be on the right track. After all, feelings are always

personal, even when they are expressed by political figures in a political context. When

presidential candidate William Clinton made his famous statement “I feel your pain” in

response to a supporter who was facing serious problems in his life, his assertion was on

a personal level and so he was not committing the Democratic Party to take a similar

stance. And even if President Clinton made the same statement under the same

circumstances after he won the election, he could not be committing the United States

government to feeling the same compassion. Feelings and attitudes lie within the psyche

of individuals; and so if they are the basis of forgiveness, the concept of political or group

forgiveness would indeed seem to be out of place.

There can be no doubt that acts of forgiveness are often motivated by personal

feelings, but I believe that emotions or attitudes are neither necessary nor sufficient

conditions for forgiving. If I have seriously offended you and you state that you forgive

me, then I have been forgiven and I do not need to know anything about your inner

feelings or attitudes. Your statement of forgiveness can do the job by itself.

To say “I forgive you” is an example of what philosophers call a performative

speech act. When a person makes a statement which is a performative speech act, she is

doing more than just giving a comment or expressing a feeling: she is making a statement

which creates obligations and duties. Consider, for example, what you are doing when

you make a promise. Making a promise is a performative speech act; it has very little to

do with your inner feelings. When you make a promise, you are not simply stating what

you intend to do: you are making a verbal commitment, and you can be held responsible

for failing to do what you promised. An assertion of forgiveness fits this same pattern,

although with more moral complexity.ii

The speech act interpretation of forgiveness gives support to those who believe

that forgiveness can be practiced by political or social groups and not simply by

individuals. If forgiveness is a matter of making a statement which involves objective

criteria and a commitment to obligations and duties, then we would have good reason to

accept it as a public action which can be performed by political or social groups and their

leaders. A religious organization, for example, could not sensibly make a general

expression of group love, but it might take a public stance of forgiveness to those who

had previous been persecutors. This does not mean that all members of the church would

agree with this view, but full agreement of all members of a group is often not necessary.

Policies and commitments can be made without full agreement and so can declarations of

forgiveness.

If this interpretation of forgiveness is correct, then to understand forgiveness we

must consider what obligations the act entails and what circumstances are necessary for

making the act valid; for just as you cannot logically promise anything anywhere, so you

cannot forgive or be forgiven on a whim. There are rules and conditions governing the

act. I’ll offer a few examples.

An assertion of forgiveness creates a dyadic relation, a contract of sorts, between

forgiver and forgiven. One of the conditions for this contract to be successful is that those

ii The relation between forgiving and promising was early recognized by Hannah Arendt in, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958), ch.. 33. Trudy Govier briefly discusses the performative nature of forgiveness in her book, Forgiveness and Revenge (NY: Routledge, 2002), p. 43.

who have committed the wrong must recognize their moral failure and be prepared to

atone for what happened. If, as is often the case, the offender does not admit to guilt and

is not open to remorse, then forgiveness would be inappropriate. Forgiveness is not a cure

or therapy for those who remain unalterably committed to wrong-doing.

There are also necessary restrictions on those who offer forgiveness. One

restriction is that forgiveness must be joined with leniency in dealing with the offender.

If a political organization adopted a policy of forgiveness to its now-defeated oppressors

but then inflicted violent punishment on those who were forgiven, their assertion of

forgiveness would have little meaning. An act of forgiveness which follows the same

path as the proponents of revenge and eye-for-an-eye justice would lose its moral

identity. As is the case with all serious moral judgments, there is no set rule to

determining how far leniency should go, but its role in forgiveness is essential.

Another restriction on those who offer forgiveness is that they must recognize that

they are making a commitment to foster the moral character of those who are forgiven.

This requires a sustained effort to keep the dynamics of forgiveness in place. The

common belief that we have the option of following a “forgive and forget “ policy

distorts and diminishes the role and duty of the forgiver, for it mistakenly assumes that

forgiveness can be a once-done deal, perhaps a feeling that comes and goes. But this is

not so. Trudy Govier makes the point well in her comment concerning the role of the

moral community in responding to people who have the willingness to recognize their

wrongdoing and attempt to do what is right:

“The question of forgiveness arises because no person can establish a moral

identity by himself. A person can, as a solitary individual, resolve to reform. But

alone, he cannot change his moral reputation, which obviously has public

dimensions. To escape a negative label a person needs the co-operation of other

people – the moral community. One who forgives will help in the fresh start by

offering a wrongdoer the opportunity to begin anew, allowing that better acts

and a brighter moral future are possible, and supporting restored status and

relationships. Such forgiveness is a matter of words, attitude, and action. Life is

a moral endeavor within which people should not be bound by past failures.”iii

Incorporating the perpetrator into the life of the moral community is certainly no

easy task. Indeed, if we are thinking of forgiveness offered by one individual to

another, it may often be too onerous a burden. Group efforts would work far more

effectively here. Indeed, we already have evidence of their success in the results of

political policies which were based on leniency, rejection of vengeance, and

recognition of the moral possibilities in those who once were motivated by hatred

and prejudice. It may well be that if these policies maintain their effectiveness,

political forgiveness will eventually outshine traditional person-to-person

forgiveness.

The justification of forgiveness

The problems concerning the validity of group or political forgiveness raise a number of

questions, but perhaps the most serious problem facing any advocate of forgiveness is the

moral question of determining when forgiveness should be given and when it should be

denied. This is obviously a complex and challenging issue, but I would like to make a

few closing observations which I believe should be taken into account in considering the

consequences of fostering a policy of forgiveness

Let us begin with some commonplace questions: Is it always wise to forgive? Are

we always taking the moral highroad when we choose not to be part of the great masses

of the unforgiving?

If we think of forgiveness on a personal level, I believe we would often

sympathize with those who reject forgiveness and refuse to put aside the rage which

comes from thinking about the wrong that was inflected on them. Consider, for

iii Trudy Govier, Forgiveness and Revenge (NY: Routledge, 2002), p. 44.

example, the final scene in Katherine Anne Porter’s brilliant short story “The Jilting of

Granny Weatherall.” The closing paragraphs describe the chaotic thoughts and feelings

going though the mind of the old lady in the moments before her death. All the strange

and wonderful past events of Granny Weatherall’s life are sweeping through her dying

consciousness—the memories of her children, her grandchildren, the joys of her life. But

at the very moment before death, one memory surges forward: she was a young girl

waiting at the alter, waiting to be married. The groom never appeared. The story and her

life end with these lines: “She could not remember any other sorrow because this grief

wiped them all away. Oh, no, there’s nothing more cruel than this – I’ll never forgive it.

She stretched herself with a deep breath and blew out the light.”iv

Should we say that Granny Weatherall was at the moment of her death a

vindictive person? Perhaps. But I think we should also recognize that there is a certain

courage in the way she ended it all. Sometimes it is easy to forgive, too easy.

I do not believe that we can readily provide the rules, the moral guidelines which

would help us to determine when a person should give up the fury of revenge and the

demand for personal justice; but if we consider forgiveness as an act of an organization or

a political entity, then we might gain a clearer understanding of the moral justification for

forgiveness.

When we think of public agencies and organizations, the most common

arguments to support policies of political forgiveness reflect consequentialist moral

principles which hold that the morally right action or policy is one which will provide the

greatest benefit and least harm to as many people as possible. There are many

arguments to support the belief that political forgiveness is a policy with long term

benefits for everyone, even for the forgivers themselves. Donald Shriver noted that the

desire for revenge has a long and penetrating history, and those who give little value to

iv Katherine Porter, “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall,” in Flowering Judas and Other Stories (Harcourt, Brace and World, N.Y., 1958), p. 136. A similar and more detailed example of refusing to forgive is in Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower (Shocken Books, NY, 1976), pp. 9-99.

forgiveness may take to reviving the memories of the past and adopting a policy of

violence and delayed retribution: “The world cringes at a Serb’s willingness to kill a

Muslim in revenge for ancestors who fought the battle of Kosovo in the year 1389; but in

fact every nation has among its citizens those who have vast unresolved sentiments

against the descendants of some other group of citizens. The majority of us are apparently

a long way from ceasing to hold the sins of the ancestors against their living children.

Were the ancestors still living, we might be willing to refight our wars with them.”v

This positive outlook on the beneficial consequences of a policy of forgiveness

has often been criticized as being too optimistic and lacking an understanding of the

thinking of those who might exploit the policy. Jeffrie Murphy, putting himself in the

mind of the perpetrator, comes to the conclusion that forgiveness may be an open door to

exploitation. “Those who have vindictive dispositions toward those who wrong them give

potential wrongdoers an incentive not to wrong them,” says Murphy. “If I were going to

set out to oppress other people, I would surely prefer to select for my victims persons

whose first response is forgiveness rather than persons whose first response is revenge.” vi

There is no doubt that forgiving those who have committed serious and

intentional wrong opens the forgiver to risk. But this is a problem we face throughout

life, whenever we deal leniently with people who violated the rules of good and decent

behavior. Suppose we learned that criminals who are given a mild sentence for a serious

act of violence are often tempted to do it again. Does this lead to the conclusion that

giving milder, more lenient sentences should be abolished? I think a better conclusion

would be that the problem is not in the sentencing but in the failure to determine whether

the perpetrator has changed. We noted earlier that the act of forgiveness, especially on a

political and social level, is not a simple approach for dealing with those who have

inflicted violence on others. Forgiveness does not involve dismissal of past wrongs, and it

v ?Donald Shriver, An Ethic for Enemies: Forgiveness in Politics (NY: Oxford, 1995), p. 3.

vi Jeffrie Murphy, Getting Even: Forgiveness and Its Limits (Oxford, New York, 2003), pp. 19-20.

does not naively welcome with open arms people or groups who have been susceptible to

the forces of hate, contempt and prejudice. President Kennedy’s quip “Forgive your

enemies but never forget their names” is a good first step to a viable policy of forgiveness

—but only a first step. What we see developing now in many countries is a propaedeutic

for forgiveness, and an experiment in personal and social reform, an experiment which

hopefully will replace hatred with moral understanding. We have no certainty about what

will work and what will backfire. The military budget will not be cut to provide resources

for organizations promoting political forgiveness and reconciliation. But history shows us

the long-term effects of vengeance and retribution, and we would be foolish not to look

for alternatives. Perhaps we can take some comfort in the fact that one of the most

influential and revered moral leaders in history asked God to forgive his persecutors

because “they know not what they do.” Forgiveness must be an experiment in learning.

"Forgiveness: Considerations in Science and Religion vs Political Violence,

Genocide and War" - John J. Stapleton

Abstract:

There is no weakness in forgiveness. It strengthens everyone. The offender need

not grovel and the magnanimous forgiver obtains peace of mind. “You do not make

Peace with your friends; you make Peace with your enemies.” 1 Pardon for Peace can

work where “Land for Peace” has not. Suicidal terrorists believe that if one is not afraid

of dying then one is not afraid of anything. Given that fanatics are fanatics because they

believe that what they believe is indubitably true, then forgiving fanatics2 with Pardon for

Peace is logical defense against genocides because only tranquility of order ensures “Life

Is Worth Living.” Freedom from fear will ensue from forgiveness that dissolves anti-

American anger3 by aiding and abetting, for friend and foe alike, the universal passion for

freedom from want. Considerations of faith and forgiveness in science become

1 Prime Minister Rabin, a martyr of Peace, insisted.2 “The offender never forgives.” Russian proverb.3 “He who forgiveth and is reconciled unto his enemy, shall receive his reward from God.” Koran, sura 42.

remarkably consistent with their nuances among comparative cultures in Russia, China,

Israel, US politics, Hindu religion, the Koran, the Bible etc. [Absent Pardon for Peace,

the radical anti-nuke suggested below maybe critical.]

Keywords:

Pardon for Peace, Promissory/Probabilistic Co-Creation, Intellectual Capital

Writer’s Perspective & Definition

From the writer’s perspective, seeking lifelong harmony instead of the dichotomy

and antipathy between science4 and religion5, growing up during WWII, educated by

Religious men and women and launched into science by NSF response to Soviet’s

Sputnik (3Oct57), forgiveness herein means the act of forgiving offensive acts, errors or

omissions, deliberate or inadvertent, culpable or invincible ignorance, i.e. granting

pardon without harboring resentment. Considerations of faith and forgiveness in science

become remarkably consistent with their nuances among comparative cultures in Russia,

China, Israel, US politics, Hindu religion, the Koran, the Bible etc.

Five Considerations

1. There is no weakness in forgiveness. It strengthens all parties. The offender

need not grovel or beg. Peace of mind obtains in the magnanimous forgiver because

forgiveness heals and removes hatred or revenge as Hindu teach. “If you seek revenge,

prepare two graves,” the China proverb says. To forgive, excuse, pardon, and condone all

mean to refrain from imposing punishment on an offender or demanding apology or

satisfaction for an offense, such as the most notable and now admirable example of

President Ford pardoning President Nixon’s political violence to truth about the

Watergate cover-up. Ford’s true forgiveness, no quid pro quo as suspected 30 years ago,

4 “It is in the lives of professional scientists who are religious believers that one finds the most convincing answer to the question of whether science and belief are compatible.” Russell Stannard, Science and the Renewal of Belief, Templeton Foundation Press 20045 Writer, taught science by Dominican Sisters, Fathers, and DeLaSalle Brothers, among others, lived and learned in monasteries in NY, RI, DC, & NH as member of the Brothers teachers institute founded in France in 1680.

replaced any fear of political reprisal in subsequent election Nov, 1976 and replaced

expiation with expectation for a better future. Such Pardon for Peace, in hindsight after

many years, offers the best hope cosmologically to turn “from chaos to the cosmos,”6 as

the 1929 Hubble telescope began to turn eyes from the Depression towards a new

Expanding Universe.

Scientific Culture & Methods

2. We in science seeking truth must forgive and not hide our own foibles too,

mea culpa. Just compare your pencil point to the size of its erasure, if not already worn

out! “To err is human, to forgive is divine,” we are told but recent evidence reveals an

innate, moral compass indicating right and wrong including natural reciprocity,

independent of culture at first, then refined by it. Without corrective forgiveness of our

errors, we scientists would be frozen by fear of making errors like people who won’t get

off their butt lest they get kicked in it.

Absent scientists own faith, the “substance of things hoped for,” we scientists

could make no venture, innovation or leap into the unknown to “think outside the box.”7

A belief or hunch prompts one to postulate a proposition without evidence. Next a what-

if hypothesis is formed by reasoning, observation, interpolation and extrapolation, at risk,

to connect the dots and extend the dots. This sparks a scientific theory that is confirmed

or corrected by laboratory experimentation and by peers independent testing of the

theory. Ever open to future scrutiny, very few theories become a natural law, such as

Snell’s Law in optics. “Correct one another and so you shall fulfill the Law.”8 Would

that weapons scientists and engineers who let another genie out of the bottle, be

compelled by Law to design also the counter-measure to put weapons back in the bottle.

Forgiveness by the US of WWII waged by Japan may have induced reciprocal

6James Casey, Evolution, Faith and Co-Creation, Marist College, John Templeton Foundation 21Oct20067 “Acts of faith...actions taken specifically to test the truth of a seemingly reasonable but as yet unproven claim—are an indispensable feature of scientific inquiry. Almost every experiment undertaken is such an act—a leap into the unknown...”(Stannard)8 Paul x:yy Correction in science by peer review is not unlike “advertisements” of a monk’s faults amid the community of monks.

forgiveness by Japan of the atomic weapons of mass destruction the US visited upon

them and now dreads.

Belligerent enemies of the United States government would do themselves a lot of

good if they would consider how USA forgiveness (after unconditional surrender) of

WWII enemies led to tremendous prosperity there. Arabs and Americans would do well

to recall Israel Prime Minister Rabin, a martyr of Peace, who insisted, “You do not make

Peace with your friends; you make Peace with your enemies.” “Blessed are the

peacemakers for they shall inherit the earth.” But why did Land for Peace fail in Israel?

If no one presently has a vision of peace for the MidEast, it seems to be due to the eye-

for-eye retribution blinding everyone. How can they see eye-to-eye so as to agree and

also agree to disagree with civility? Gaze at an object and alternate shutting the left then

right eye. Each eye projects a different image to the brain and since two heads can not be

in the same place at the same time they do not see the same thing.

Family Rute Forgives Holocaust

3. No film or TV camera could capture Hitler’s Holocaust but first hand

descriptions by survivors made us shiver many Saturday evenings. Apparently this

Family Rute had forgiven the Nazis yet tears after years showed they could never forget

that genocide. But “Never Again” did not prevent other genocides and wars since then.

As JFK is said to advise, “Forgive your enemies, but do not forget their names.” Family

Rute operated Ruta’s Bakery where the writer’s mother and sisters worked. Setting aside

atrocities and revenge, they could look to the future for their young children to become a

doctor, lawyer, teacher. Somehow their spoken dream conveyed their spirit and was also

realized by writer’s 3 children a half century later.

Conversely, instead of such forgiveness, venting anger and revenge as in the

horrific hanging of Saddam Hussein increases hatred. Killing killers for killing

perpetrates killing. Such revenge is the real weapon of mass destruction visited upon the

people of Iraq. I am afraid that “we have met the enemy and it is US,” spending 1.7

BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY for war mongers and profiteers of militarism but little

for peace. Freedom from fear and terrorism is linked to providing the enemies goods

necessary for subsistence towards freedom from want.

Reciprocity & Closure

4. The Principle of Reciprocity (x*1/x=1) weaves a “theistic tapestry” in expiation

side of forgiveness “at-ONE-ment” beyond Yom Kippur, Good Friday and “reciprocal

altruism.” From “In the beginning”9 at one (1) the integrated reciprocal of x

1 (1/x) dx = Ln()

is the natural logarithm by which our senses, as science, measure change (dx), such that

each

Sense, S= (1/x) dx = Ln (/) and

1= - p(x)dx where p(x)=probability/ providence.

The inordinate long pause at an unwritten comma in “...Forgive us our debts (,) as

we forgive our debtors” reveals our hesitation to forgive the errors of others even to get

reciprocal forgiveness. Nevertheless political opponents of science, too often self-

righteous cultures of religionists, pooh-pooh theory even the very well founded Darwin

theory of evolution as unproven and misconstrue science to be atheistic or ungodly and

try to design God in their own image and likeness.10 They convolute scientific evidence

as well as distort out-of-proportion the sacred scriptures that tell a story of Promissory/

Probabilistic/ Providential “Co-Creation,” the incarnating Creator (Energy E personified)

empowering “the world,”11 with eternal life, “Life Is Good,” not mere earthly man or self-

styled saved, chosen people. (how presumptuous).

9 Genesis 1:1 and also John 1:110 “On the origin of Species,” Darwin wrote: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Stannard11 “God so loved the world,” (John 3:16) not just Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc., the entire world.

Language : real world :: Energy : Matter :: Spirit : Creation :: Software :

Hardware

Taking away the number 2 from 3 was easy but taking 3 from 2 violated closure12

in culture of natural, counting numbers until Algebra taught us how to “think outside the

box” in the abstraction from positive to negative whole numbers.( way before credit card

culture) Back to square one, its diagonal 2 seems reasonable and rational but radical-two

is said to be irrational, as in the sky, outside the box of ratios or fractions of whole

numbers, while -1 is said to be imaginary (i) “cyclic” or “5th dimension” 13 yet is no less

real than any number. Supposing a leap to infinity () gave balance, zero 0lim(1/x) as

x-->. Division by zero is indeterminate and ill defined but that did not deter Lorentz

and later Einstein from letting velocity v/ c=1 as in the relativistic mass m = mass at rest

m0 / [ 1 – (v/c)2] . Think out of that box now at v/c= 2 such that m= m0 / [ 1 – (v/c)2]

= m0 /-1 = m0 / i = m0 i/i2 = -m0i. Negative mass? Anti-matter? Imaginary m0i3 to boot?

For some unknown convention, mathematicians do not like or forgive radicals left in the

denominator. Forgiveness of m0/0 and m0/i? A fluke or planet-saving, anti-nuke! But

forgive 1/i=i/i2=-i=i3 =i-1 ? Peace needs complex conjugates!

Beyond the rainbow, nonspectral magenta violates closure14 and upends and

amends RCA color error of 1012 indeed alleging 0.3 second response time vs actual

0.3pico-second photochemical reactions due to known catalytic effect of enzymes.

Forgiving that self-serving rationalization to promote its television scheme suggests now

biophysics resonance, wireless brain i/o vibes, tuned sensitivities of amino-acid building

blocks. About to meet their all-forgiving maker, TV inventor Dr. Zworykin and Edward

R Murrow lamented consequences of their “weapon of television” as Dr. Teller rethought

releasing his genie H-bomb.

Solving all the differential equations in all the sciences without knowing the

initial conditions (Big Bang, Genesis etc.) is misleading in life15, as well as aliasing due

12 closure means the result or output of an operation falls within the same set as the input elements.13 i-1->i2= -1->i3= -i->i4=i0=1 ->i5= i ->i6=i2= -1....Perhaps the “cyclic” or “5th dimension” after the four x, y, z, t Lawrence M. Krauss Hiding in the Mirror, Viking, New York, 2005.14 Simplistically, magenta is the sum of red and blue light, but M=R+B is not found in the rainbow15 Tom Mullin, Editor The Nature of Chaos, Oxford University Press, New York 1995

to subsampling in math and in SATs. Here we are in the IT information technology era

yet standardized single snapshot tests violate the very foundation of information theory,

the Shannon Nyquist Theorem of Sampling. In and among religionists, persistent

arguments battle over the beginning and end of human life, but avoid the healing power

of common ground in answering the key question, “What is Life?” Was there some

“prebiotic protein matrix”16? If so when? How come?

The animating principle of life, call it soul or whatever, that is a spiritual entity

animating each individual in many churches which nevertheless argue over the matter

and form and timing of an immaterial, unobservable entity. Seems strange that “The

Theologian” Aquinas could not determine the moment the human soul is infused, and

even stranger, suicidal terrorists today have embraced Aquinas’ notion that if one is not

afraid of dying then one is not afraid of anything. Forgiving fanatics by proving to them

de facto “Life Is Worth Living” is best defense and least expense.17 “Father forgive them

for they know not what they do.” Fortunately a once flat-earth-centered church that

contradicted heliocentric Copernicus and Galileo18 and launched crusades’ reactionary

culture class of unforgiveness, it is now embracing natural, applied and health sciences,

even evolution, but not yet married and women clergy. “God is father; more importantly

God is mother who wishes us no harm.”(PJPI) Suffering and death often evokes

sympathy in words like “It’s God’s Will.” Hell no, God is all good, incapable of evil in

any faith or religion. Rather it’s man’s causal ignorance that is overcome when the

demand is grand, like vaccine to beat polio in 1950’s and other diseases decades before.

Correction of science errors asserting rigidity instead of plasticity of brain cells19

plus forgiveness of that crafty serpent in Genesis story who tempted Eve might lead soon

to exploit viper thermalvision20 as an alternative sight substitute for the blind. Why else

16 John F. Haught, Is Nature Enough?, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006 p5517 Fanatics are fanatics because they believe that what they believe is indubitably true. Owen Flanagan, The Problem of the Soul... New York Basic Books, 2002.18 Galileo was a math professor in Pisa when convinced of Copernicus theory but both feared ridicule. Inquisition and public penances are replaced now by sacrament of Reconciliation, which Catholics believe effects what it signifies, namely moral confidence in receiving the (unearned) gratuitous gift forgiveness19 Kandel, Eric et al Principles of Neural Science 4th ed. McGraw Hill 2000; Memory Mind to Molecules, SciAm200020 Stapleton, JJ, Vision Thermalization (VTV) (U.S. Pat. App. # 20060028545) US Patents 4418359, 4343020, Omnispectravision SPIE Vol 270, 1981, 3 Color IR...SID 1982“one of the world leaders in this

would the human tongue and forehead retain the 10 parts/ million temperature sensitivity

as the pit vipers?21 We should not insult them by calling scoundrels “snake in the grass.”

The University (L. uni-veritas = one truth), seeks truth and makes “Intellectual

Capital” in the arts beauty and sciences correspondence of the mind to reality, veritably

in continual change, chaos for many. But isn’t academic intellectual property an

oxymoron? Burning books led to incinerating millions of good people22 and contrary to

intent of the Internet “go teach all nations” $30/paper by the Google facilitator/enabler of

copyright abuse disintegrates pathways to truth.

Imperatives Think Light Speed

5. Amazingly the number of galaxies is comparable to the 100 billion =1011

neurons in human brain said to have up to 104 interconnects so 1011*104 =1015=250 bit

patterns/second is consistent with 50bits/second cognitive capacity23. In other words it

takes only a femtosecond24 (fs) to reject a misfit or incongruous item. We think with the

speed of light c=370nano-meters/1.234fs. Also amazingly, the number of axons in the

skin is comparable to the number of axons the retina feeds in to the optic nerve,

supporting quasi-retina skin’s extravision of invisible observables. Amazing grace, i.e.

creatures sharing in Creator, as Einstein said, “Physics is knowing the mind of God.”25

Georgetown Theologian John F. Haught describes “imperatives” as what to be and acts of

cognition, one might list as adjective-noun, namely, attentive- experience, intelligent -

understanding, critical -judgment, responsible- decision, reasonable- compromise, and

moral -goodness (as in forgiveness.)26 Organic culture forgive me, vegetation rejects

green, absorbs magenta, emits IR. Life’s critical “sticky carbon”27

highly skilled technology” depicted with “The infra-red tracking display system...” EE Times 48, March 17, 198021 Newman, E.A., Hartline, P.H., “The Infrared “Vision” of Snakes,” Scientific.American . March 1982, 116-12722 “Truth is the first causality of war.”23 R. Lucky, Silicon Dreams, St.Martin’s Press, New York, 199124 femtosecond =10-15s =0.000 000 000 000 001 second25 Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Simon & Schuster, New York 1992 The very tight “fitness of environment” for life is too great to be accidental or simple-minded so called “intelligent design.”26 John F. Haught, Is Nature Enough?, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006 p15027 “Experiments have shown that when an electrical discharge is sent through a mixture of gases similar to that of the primitive terrestrial atmosphere, the small molecular building blicks of living matter (amino

6C12 <-- 3 2He4.0028 <-- 3 (2 1H2.0141),

traces back to element #1 and 1= - p(x)dx where p(x)=probability/ providence and

mass m 2(2.0141)-4.0028AMU produces fusion energy of the sun28 E=mc2 and Teller’s

H-bomb, if not Big Bang. Forgive skeptics of the trinity mystery who embrace the trinity

of proton-electron-neutron p+e- no yet fail to explain how the electron (e-) does not

collapse into proton (p+) nor earth to sun. Conservation of Energy compels us to consider

the human being to be more than nominal 100 watt bulb =2000Calories/day switched off

at death and more than his/her remains in less sticky carbon ashes scattered by the winds.

Notwithstanding the Inverse Square Law, every word we speak travels forever about a

foot per millisecond29 while other observables, articulated indicators of energy, spirit

some say, travel forever at speed of light about foot per nanosecond,30 as fast as we think

of our beloved dead. Amid the expanding universe cacophony of sounds and

electromagnetic radiations, envision recapturing, by synchronous detection, Captain

Video reflected back from a star 27 light-years away.31

acids and nucleotides, for instance) are duly formed.” Russell Stannard, Science and the Renewal of Belief, Templeton Foundation Press 2004 He sees a “smooth gradation” from single H atom to human life..28 E=mc2 = m/()=mass/(magnetic permeability*electric permittivity)=density*volume/(); where c/v=f(density)29 millisecond =10-3 s =0.001 second = million nanoseconds30 nanosecond =10-9 s =0.000 000 001 second = million femtoseconds31 The films of Captain Video tv shows were destroyed to reclaim silver and other “remains” before video

tape.

References

Casey, James, Symposium Chairman, Evolution, Faith and Co-Creation, Marist

College 2006

Davies, Paul, The Mind of God, Simon & Schuster, New York 1992

Flanagan, Owen, The Problem of the Soul... New York Basic Books, 2002.

Haught, John F., Is Nature Enough?, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006

Kandel, Eric et al Principles of Neural Science 4th ed. McGraw Hill 2000;

Memory Mind to Molecules, SciAm2000

Krauss, Lawrence M., Hiding in the Mirror, Viking, New York, 2005.

Lucky, Robert, Silicon Dreams, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1991

Mullin, Tom, Editor The Nature of Chaos, Oxford University Press, New York 1995

1

2

space, distance, d2

timetravel(t c)2

(t f )2

=2

d2-(tc)2

space-time-distanceMinkowski

1

Let v/c= 2 such that relativistic mass m= mass at rest m0 / [ 1 – (v/c)2] = =m= m0 / [ 1 – (2)2] =m0 / -1 = m0 / i = m0 i / i2 = - m0 i = m0 i3

negative mass antinuke? beyond Lorentz &Einstein letting m--> as v/c-->1

Stannard, Russell, Science and the Renewal of Belief, Templeton Foundation Press

2004

Stapleton, JJ, US Patents 4418359, 4343020, Omnispectravision SPIE Vol 270, 1981, 3

Color IR...SID 1982

“one of the world leaders in this highly skilled technology” depicted with “The infra-red

tracking display system...” EE Times 48, March 17, 1980; Vision Thermalization (VTV)

(U.S. Pat. App. # 20060028545)