Could you forgive a killer?

Human garbage.

Very strong words Simon. But before using these words and calling someone human garbage take a long look at yourself. Your past history . Have you ever killed? even an animal, an insect. Stolen. Even a paperclip. lied? What right do you have to say these aggressive words. Hitler thought the jews were human garbage. and i think you would agree that this attitude is pretty deranged?

If we want the world to change then we have to change ourselves. It takes courage to forgive. Hate just breeds hate. Be courageous and practice love and kindness and generosity. People are basically good, some are really ill and confused and in desperate need of help. No one is garbage.

Also without evil there can be no good. just as black needs white to exist saints need sinners. This is the way life is. You cannot have up without down. It a relative concept and a conventional truth.

Its interesting that this discussion has brought up some pretty strong reactions. Thanks for starting it.

Doreen that is a terrible thing to say.
It is us humans that are responsible for own actions.
What sort of God would he be if we all had to live our lives like automata?

Doreen, why do you say that we are treated badly by our God for others badness?
We are responsible for our own actions. If we choose to live our lives in a way that excludes God that is our choice.
If we open ourselves to God or Christ then we discover something special. If we exclude Him then we will never know.
We can never say what we would do unless we have experienced the same tragedy. We all react differently to stress and horror.

No way…If it happened to a loved one of mine let’s say one of my daughters.I would have no problem being his executioner.

The original question is: Could you forgive a person who had killed a loved one ?

People, not necessarily you Norman, have said what they would do , what should be done and so on. There has been little acceptance of human condition such as mental illness just braggardly 'throw them on the rubbish heap' or 'what I would do' type comments. Not from you albeit. We are not all ultimately responsible for what we do and this is where no space is allowed for the yet unknown state of Roof's mind. I am not saying that if he proves to be ill then it is all alright. Try reading some criminology, there is a vast difference between 90 odd percent of people who kill, mainly 'domestic' crimes and the less than a single percent who do this kind of thing. To one degree or another they are not 'normal', even planning and working up to such a crime is often fanatically approached in a way that is far from the norm. In this case, even hours before Dylann Roof went to the church seminar, friends say he was quite 'normal'. We cannot speculate what happened, we simply do not know. yet people are pre-judging and saying he should not be forgiven. That takes away the compassion of the people who did that as well as pre-judge him.

I have in no way defended Hitler, I simply tried to look at a highly flawed person who tried to act out some kind of perfection. I also tried to make the point that there were some far worse people waiting in the wings if one of the many attempts on him had succeeded there would probably have been a bloodbath of some of the others and some of the potential successors make him look almost liberal. The world was spared that. I did not imply you approved of napalm bombing, it was a general comparison about people who overlook it.

It was in fact during Kennedy’s presidency that the United States made their new commitment to Vietnam. They sent in 18,000 advisers, authorised the use of napalm, defoliants (agent orange), free fire zones and jets to keep the demilitarised zone free. That several tens of thousand non-combatant civilians lived in that 'neutral' zone was of no consequence. By July 1963 Buddhist priests had begun to set themselves on fire to protest corruption in the South Vietnamese government. Kennedy's response was to help overthrow the South Vietnamese president. That year Vietnamese generals overthrew the Diem government and murdered him. President Kennedy sanctioned the overthrow, partly out of fear that Diem might have created a neutral coalition government including Communists as Laos did in 1962. Up until then less than 150 Americans had died but the USA had killed quite a few thousand Vietnamese, mainly using chemical weapons. By the time they withdrew in 1975 it was hundreds of thousand civilian deaths and still only a couple of hundred US military deaths. Neither is acceptable but the fact that in 1962 and up until his assassination in November 1963 Kennedy had presided over that was brushed under the carpet and he became all but a saint. Had Germany won the war, Hitler would have been more or less sanctified no doubt, thank providence it never happened. But then there was 'Uncle Joe' who oversaw far more murder than Hitler. None of these people compare with a 21 year old.

In essence, whilst we use their names, we blame the nations these people led. Yet at various points in time they are our 'friends', forgiven or their crimes overlooked. Personally I would put the likes of Blair and Bush, along with Kennedy and on the basis of what was done in Algeria alone, even de Gaulle, naturally Pol Pot, Idi Amin and a fair few others in the same bag as the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Yet the countries that followed them are 'forgiven'. A young man, about whom we can only speculate, cannot be forgiven, the people who forgave clearly wrong and on a we know best basis justice becomes the rule of mob which is best.

Then people have the gall to criticise human rights sector workers who are primarily trying to put peaceful order into the world and seeing an end to the conditions that encourage the likes of Dylann Roof to occur.

No one is wrong and no one is right Norman. It's personal opinion, that's why I posed the question. I can't ever see me forgiving in such a situation but I won't condemn anyone who has an opinion contrary to mine. I may question an opinion maybe which is what any discussion forum is about surely ?

Ok Catharine that's fine but.... huge assumption - you don't know that....:-)

Brian, thank you for the elucidation. There was me thinking it was a rather simple matter of recognising good v. evil. Silly me.

Back to weightier matters then, rather than listening to the simple folk songs.

Brian, a slightly curious discourse I feel. I think we all know the background to Hitler and even the very few good points he had in the early days, but you appear to be defending him and his merry gang of cutthroats. You say killing Hitler wouldn't have changed anything? Of course it would have done, I can't see how you can say that.

I did make what I thought was a rationale reply regarding cultural differences, but acknowledging they exist in no way means I condone many of their practices. As you know I too have been exposed to cultures from Australia to Estonia and many places in between, and have worked in most, so I do claim some personal knowledge - and yes, prejudice in several instances. I also don't see where I 'avoided the original question', obviously my English must be less than I thought it was.

The problem with a discussion of this type and I am as guilty as any, is the danger of 'cherrypicking' examples to support a case. You make a further odd assumption that in some way I approved the use of Napalm in Vietnam, where that came from I do not know, and again having worked in Vietnam it is doubtful that many would have agreed with that, but don't forget it was not just Kennedy, but if anything Lyndon Johnson who ordered this. I think History is already re-assessing Kennedy's place anyway.

Then 'preaching what I will never do' - as in? Never forgiving what I see as evil? Sorry but that is the man I am. I do have strong opinions, and have lived long enough, travelled pretty far and wide, to have some fair basis for most of them.

Likewise, and it may surprise you, I also don't have the need for understanding and/or forgiveness for any of my opinions or indeed actions. Could I personally kill someone? Who knows, but sometimes the idea at least is attractive, and I suspect I could in the context of the opening question.

I DO believe we are all ultimately responsible for what we do, personally. If we always blame others for everything then we haven't grown up in my view. Of course there are the mentally ill, but to put ALL perpetrators of vicious crimes into this convenient pocket is an insult to the genuinely ill.

As to flack on myself Brian, I am a big boy now, and I think I can handle just about anything of that nature that is handed out to me.

Finally a further odd word you have used about people 'will always brag about what they would do....' Brag? I haven't noticed that element in any of the posts. A certain anger yes,moral frustration yes, but 'brag? I don't think so.

In fact Norman, Catharine is one of the few people on topic. The question is 'Could you forgive a person who had killed a loved one ?' which she is closer to than most other people who are saying what they would do, people should do, vengeance, Hitler, whatever else bar forgiveness, which you have several times over dismissed plus introduced animals and all else. Then you ask Catharine which sheet she is singing from! Yours is an opera score whilst others are singing a simple folk song when comparing who is singing what from which sheet.

Brian, I sincerely hope that now you are not going to blame the police for everything?

God help us all if they all chucked it in and said 'stuff it fend for yourselves'. Ditto with the armed forces who most Humanists hate, until the fascists are storming up the High Street.

Your comment about 'giving them guns and turning them into killers' has little merit as the armed forces provide discipline over such matters which doesn't happen with random elements who get hold of guns. I speak of course of the armies of civilised Nations.

Have you tried the 'flowers & choccies' approach lately ?

Peter, I wonder if you would mind passing that on to SWMBO? She remains resolutely unimpressed!

I forgive you for everything Norman, you are perfection personified.

Now, isn't it your round ?

Catherine - what one are you singing from then? Everyone else seems on-topic.

Actually I have a GREAT idea! Let's just all forgive everybody everything?

Little touch of murder? No probs, A hug is all that is needed. How about a dash of terrorism? Just fun and games from some poor immature lads, they'll grow out f it (unlike their victims, but that's just a bit of a shame really). Rape? Well of course boys will be boys won't they, and she probably asked for it. What about the fun of some old-fashioned thuggery? What's wrong with beating up and killing (sometimes) old ladies for their pensions? Nothing at all, it was all the fault of their parents. Paedophiles? In their genes really isn't it, so can't be their fault, and three-year old kids should really recognise them shouldn't they?

Cruelty to animals? Well they are lesser beings aren't they, and didn't God give us humans 'dominion' over them? Sanctioned on high as it were. Bit of genital mutilation is merely part of a 'culture' so we really shouldn't complain about that should we. Maybe time to re-introduce some oldcultures of Britain like bear-baiting, hare coursing and other lively pursuits?

How about another Holocaust? Oh, yes of course some others are already planning that aren"t they? Nothing to worry about and pity about the Jews I suppose, but it's forgivable isn't it? Let's all go out and hug a terrorist today, and the world will be wonderful.

What a lovely roseat world we would live in if we just gave compassion and forgiveness to the perpetrators? But just a small caveat, wouldn't there be just the slightest danger of us all becoming victims? Ah, I forgot, we could just keep forgiving couldn't we?

There you go, problem sorted. Pity about those who got hurt in the process, but that's in the past isn't it, and if they are dead there's not much we can do about that?

You're quite right in saying that we don't know until we're thrust into that situation, Simon. At my current level of personal "evolution" I find myself watching TV dramas where the complete, evil villain does his serial nasties to multiple innocents - and then just gets shot - and I find myself feeling cheated that they didn't get to die slowly and horribly - but more “deservedly”.

So I guess I've still got some way to go before “forgiveness".

BTW, I tried to post this reply MUCH earlier but the system wouldn't let me for some reason. Not the first time this had happened.

Something that is inherent exists in someone as a permanent and inseparable attribute. Until that day he had no record of violence and people who knew him had no reason to believe he was capable of such a thing or every likely to do so. So it is safe to use that word. That is why I qualified by saying his is (now) potentially dangerous. At 21 years of age, if it was latent he would probably already have a nasty past, it was there within latent or potent. It came out the other day and may be the only time in his life, albeit there will be no further opportunity. You find it easy to use hateful words but are they just words or should some of us worry? Think about it. Then think about Dylann Roof and up until last week who was the scarier of the two of you?

I cannot believe such comments. If you ever do anybody any wrong do you expect to get away with it cold bloodedly or would you prefer that if you were caught, despite having the full force of the law against you somebody would express just a little sympathy for Donna. Also, this kind of statement dismisses the forgiveness those people were offering in which they believe. That is demeaning, almost inhumane. I thought we lived in a compassionate civilised world where people understood such things as the compassion of others and did not just so easily trash them!

I am 'Huming Rights' people and I understand the difference between good and bad very well. Yes, Hitler would have been locked up in a secure unit. He was a product of the avoidable WW1 that if it had been avoided would not have brought about the extremity of change in Europe that led to WW2. The little corporal would not have been conscripted, wounded and temporarily blinded, would not have ended up in Vienna trying to become an artist living with a Jewish prostitute who supported him with her earnings and gave him syphilis. Alois Schicklgrübe, Adolf's father had tried to prevent his son ever becoming an artist. He was turned down for art studies several times. He struggled to become and artist. He was bitter, disillusioned, syphilitic and many analysts have said how clearly manic depressive he was. So, a perfect case of somebody who was anything but balanced. He was incredibly charismatic when he was manic. Because I can understand his emotive speeches, totally laden with utter drivel, I can also see how he drew people to him. Privately he preferred to be with his dog. I think he believed in what he did because the people who implanted anti-Semitic nationalism in him were all very charismatic and easy for him to emulate. He also attracted some very strange people. Goebbels was a clever man but obsessive because of his own flaws, Himmler was a bundle of inferiority complexes, all the more dangerous for it. Hess was simply nuts, Goering simply greedy in every sense, including for power. But Hitler somehow contained them with his charisma. Had any of them ever deposed him, Heydrich was a likely suspect and probably assassinated by Gestapo rather than Czechs, however had he succeeded real evil would have been released. Before he got where he was Hitler should already have been locked up somewhere safe. The western allies wanted to lock him up for the rest of his days, as they Hess, after a show trial. Hess was kept in Spandau until the end, he should have gone to the Karl Bonhoeffer clinic to be locked in a secure cell under heavy sedation, probably what Hitler deserved too. Killing him would have changed none of what happened but holding him alive would have humiliated those who had supported him, perhaps more appropriate than the blunt tool of execution. But we were never to know, as we know.

So yes, arbitrarily killing Hitler and Himmler would have been morally thin ice. If it can be justified then the assassination of John Kennedy who had blood for what was happening in SE Asia cannot be wept and wailed over as it is. In the light of the innocent people burned to death or disfigured for life with napalm bombs, then logically one could call that great American hero a war criminal who deserved to die. So Norman, tread very carefully when you make comparisons and watch out for flack yourself.

As for other cultures, perhaps that is why you are avoiding the original question about forgiveness and cannot see that those who are forgiving are culturally so different to you. That is where you should look and not preach what you will never do.

As for my tears, They were as much frustration at my impotence to change things. Working with children and seeing traumatised and wounded young lives, even a few dead kids in the street is also heart breaking. We were evacuating street children who were trying to survive within the battle zone. Children who had nothing already but even their nothing was being destroyed and taken from them around them. You would cry too. Not fear, I have absolutely no fear of death or I would have left what I have done for many years long, long ago. In my tiny, insignificant way I wanted (still want) to make the world a better place. In that sense I have failed, but I will not give up until they nail a lid over me. As for compassion, morality and such things, I have them, have never lost them as impartial I am able to appear. A life for a life, violence to pay for violence is never justifiable in any form. However, people will always brag about what they would do yet given that decision...