Forgive, Refuse, or Walk Away

[Zhukov]

The famous Nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal, recently died.

He often posed an ethical question based on an experience in his life, and I'll pose that question here. Respond with whether or not you think he did the right thing and why, and what would you have done.

Forgiveness is a truly divine and amazing act. It is not something to be taken lightly and given without thought, but something which should be deeply considered and given from the deepest recesses of one’s heart.

...

In his book The Sunflower, Simon Wiesenthal poses an extremely difficult and thought-provoking question: You are a prisoner in a concentration camp. A dying Nazi soldier asks for your forgiveness. What would you do?

...

First of all, we must consider the background events and the fact that this is not simply a theoretical question thrown at us out of nowhere. Mr. Wiesenthal is an actual Holocaust survivor. During World War II he spent months in a German death camp and experienced the horrors and tortures first-hand. While imprisoned in this camp, Wiesenthal was brought into a room with a dying German soldier to listen to his deathbed confession. [Completely randomly. It's not as if Mr. Wiesenthal was famous at this point. He was just another jew, picked at random, by the requests of a dying Nazi, who knew he was dying and felt the need to confess his sins and ask forgiveness from a jew] Wiesenthal sat quietly and listened as the Nazi described the atrocious acts which he had committed against the Jewish people. [His included burning buildings full of jews to the ground.] The dying man begged Wiesenthal’s forgiveness, as a Jew, for unspeakable crimes. Wiesenthal actually felt tinges of compassion for the man, and did a noble thing by simply hearing him out, but after the soldier had said his piece, Simon Wiesenthal walked quietly out of the room. Since that day, Wiesenthal has had doubts about his decision. He has never actually said that he was wrong for not giving the Nazi soldier the forgiveness he sought, but it has obviously been something weighing heavily on his mind for many years. Now he asks our opinion: "What would you do?"

What would you do?


text from http://www.remember.org/imagine/limits/k_sawyer.htm, with my emphasis and [additions].

 

[USViking]

The famous Nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal, recently died.

He often posed an ethical question based on an experience in his life, and I'll pose that question here. Respond with whether or not you think he did the right thing and why, and what would you have done.



What would you do?


text from http://www.remember.org/imagine/limits/k_sawyer.htm, with my emphasis and [additions].

I would have spat in the Nazi's face, and never
felt of moment of disquiet over it thereafter.

 

[5stringJeff]

Forgiveness is such a multi-facted act...

First, one cannot forgive someone unless a) the person asking forgiveness has transgressed, and b) the person being asked one the one transgressed against. For instance, if I hit person A, I can't ask person B to forgive me, because person B wasn't harmed; I have to ask person A for forgiveness. So before we can ask whether the prisoner has the right to extend forgiveness. In the example, the dying soldier has committed attrocities against the ethnic group of the prisoner, and likely against people the prisoner knew, loved, etc. So we may conclude that the prisoner can extend forgiveness.

Should he? Why do we extend forgiveness in the first place? Forgiveness in its purest essence is an expression of love. We hold a person's worth to be greater than the transgression we have received; therefore, we forgive. But how can someone hold one person's life in higher esteen than the lives of the dozens, perhaps hundreds that were hurt or killed at that man's hands? The answer is that we are to value all lives, not just some lives, because all lives are precious in the eyes of God - not just Jews, and not just "good people." We must also consider how much we ourselves have been forgiven. Christ died for the sins of the world, so that God would be able to forgive all people's sins. So if we have been forgiven of acts that are punishable by death, then we should be much more willing to extend forgiveness to others for lesser sins.

Therefore, yes, the prisoner should forgive the guard.

 

[USViking]

Forgiveness is such a multi-facted act...

First, one cannot forgive someone unless a) the person asking forgiveness has transgressed, and b) the person being asked one the one transgressed against. For instance, if I hit person A, I can't ask person B to forgive me, because person B wasn't harmed; I have to ask person A for forgiveness. So before we can ask whether the prisoner has the right to extend forgiveness. In the example, the dying soldier has committed attrocities against the ethnic group of the prisoner, and likely against people the prisoner knew, loved, etc. So we may conclude that the prisoner can extend forgiveness.

Should he? Why do we extend forgiveness in the first place? Forgiveness in its purest essence is an expression of love. We hold a person's worth to be greater than the transgression we have received; therefore, we forgive. But how can someone hold one person's life in higher esteen than the lives of the dozens, perhaps hundreds that were hurt or killed at that man's hands? The answer is that we are to value all lives, not just some lives, because all lives are precious in the eyes of God - not just Jews, and not just "good people." We must also consider how much we ourselves have been forgiven. Christ died for the sins of the world, so that God would be able to forgive all people's sins. So if we have been forgiven of acts that are punishable by death, then we should be much more willing to extend forgiveness to others for lesser sins.

Therefore, yes, the prisoner should forgive the guard.

Numerous people, and groups of people (including all Nazis)
have been of negative worth, and as badly as me, you, and
Wiesenthal may have sinned, none of our sins bear the least
comparison to the sins commited by the dying Nazi in this vignetette.

I do not think there is any moral imperative to forgive such sins,
and Wiesenthat did not forgive them, although he did not express
himself as forcefully as I would like to have.

In a similar vien, I would harbor no thoughts of forgiveness for
the members of present international terrorism. I suppose it
does not harm, though, if others do wish to forgive them,
as long as this forgiving nature does go so far as to spare the
earthly life of any one of them.

 

[Avatar4321]

I know they wouldn't deserve forgiveness. But I think Id forgive them regardless. Especially if i knew I was dying. As much to make things right before God as with this person. But you know I don't deserve forgiveness either, so I know Id want to forgive others who dont deserve it just because I want forgiveness myself.

With that said, I hope I would be able to live up to that when I was actually faced with that dilemna.

 

[Nienna]

Forgiveness in its purest essence is an expression of love. We hold a person's worth to be greater than the transgression we have received; therefore, we forgive.

Excellent! Tried to rep you, but must spread the love!

 

[USViking]

Forgiveness in its purest essence is an expression of love. We hold a person's worth to be greater than the transgression we have received; therefore, we forgive. !

Excellent! Tried to rep you, but must spread the love!

How anyone can say that a mass murderer's worth is greater
than the transgressions suffered by his victims, or that love is
any defence against such people is beyond me.

These two posters are not expressing true love and forgiveness,
they are expressing a perverted caricature of them.

 

[dilloduck]

Excellent! Tried to rep you, but must spread the love!

Agreed--Forgiveness is giving and an act of gratitude for the ability that we were given to do it. It doesn't release anyone of responsibility but it will cleanse the forgiver to better conduct further acts of kindness.

 

[no1tovote4]

How anyone can say that a mass murderer's worth is greater
than the transgressions suffered by his victims, or that love is
any defence against such people is beyond me.

These two posters are not expressing true love and forgiveness,
they are expressing a perverted caricature of them.

Buddha said, "Hate only begets more hate only love can conquer hate..."

Hate uses far more energy and takes conscious effort to continue. Forgiveness doesn't mean you must forget that you were ever a victim, and does not mean you hold him blameless. Forgiveness understands that he has harmed you, but doesn't dwell in the anger.

"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.
"Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me."
Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
You too shall pass away.
Knowing this, how can you quarrel?

..... A more accurate but less poetic translation:

3. The hatred of those who harbor such ill feelings as, "He reviled me, assaulted me, vanquished me and robbed me," is never appeased.

4. The hatred of those who do not harbor such ill feelings as, "He reviled me, assaulted me, vanquished me and robbed me," is easily pacified.

5. Through hatred, hatreds are never appeased; through non-hatred are hatreds always appeased -- and this is a law eternal.

6. Most people never realize that all of us here shall one day perish. But those who do realize that truth settle their quarrels peacefully.

I would forgive the guard.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm a knuckle draggin ape I guess, I don't get the "Forgive" concept.
Really I don't..Forget, maybe. Forgive Nope. To me that's like something never happened.

 

[USViking]

Buddha said, "Hate only begets more hate only love can conquer hate..."

Hate uses far more energy and takes conscious effort to continue. Forgiveness doesn't mean you must forget that you were ever a victim, and does not mean you hold him blameless. Forgiveness understands that he has harmed you, but doesn't dwell in the anger.

Buddha was wrong.

Modern tyrannies, with their industrial age
killing machines, have had it in their power
to kill all who dissent, and do not defend themselves.

The only defences against them are containment,
and counterattack.

Hatred of tyrrany, and the mass murder following
in its wake is normal, and it is useful. It is easier
to kill someone you hate, without the baggage of
whether he should, in some etherial philosophical
sense, be forgiven.

Also, you do not really think love can conquer
modern terrorism, do you?!

Forgiveness doesn't mean you must forget that you were ever a victim, and does not mean you hold him blameless. Forgiveness understands that he has harmed you, but doesn't dwell in the anger.

I would forgive the guard.

I usually do not presume to know people better
than they know themselves.

I make an exception for those who claim they
would forgive concentration camp guards.

You would not forgive him.

 

[no1tovote4]

Buddha was wrong.

Modern tyrannies, with their industrial age
killing machines, have had it in their power
to kill all who dissent, and do not defend themselves.

The only defences against them are containment,
and counterattack.

Hatred of tyrrany, and the mass murder following
in its wake is normal, and it is useful. It is easier
to kill someone you hate, without the baggage of
whether he should, in some etherial philosophical
sense, be forgiven.

Also, you do not really think love can conquer
modern terrorism, do you?!

No, that is why I included the more accurate translation it isn't love that Buddha stated. But hate cannot either, hate is an emotion that takes away from you personally and gives nothing back. Without hate one can actively seek to end terrorism through warfare with an understanding of why you are doing something. That killing is easier with an active hate doesn't give hate any special value to me. The assumption that because you do not hate them that you cannot defend yourself is an incorrect assumption.

I usually do not presume to know people better
than they know themselves.

I make an exception for those who claim they
would forgive concentration camp guards.

You would not forgive him.

You should not presume to know. If the guard was going to live I would turn him in after I forgave him so that he could spend the prison time he deserves for his crime. That he is not going to live changes nothing, his karma will find him, it is unnecessary for me to hold hate for him to receive his just due.

Forgiveness does not absolve one from responsibility for their actions it simply absolves you from having to relive for your whole life that which has made you angry as you must in order to keep that fire burning.

 

[USViking]

One thing which occurs to me after having read
so many smug and self-congratulatory expressions
of a moral imperative to forgive even the worst criminals,
is whether the self-congratulators are against the
death penalty (which has with almost no doubt been
inflicted on many people innocent of the crimes they
were accused of).

I do not want to turn this into a death penalty thread,
but I am curious as to how anyone so forgiving as
several of the posters here might square their views
on forgiveness with their views on the death penalty,
if they support the death penalty.

Whadda ya gonna do?- murmur sweetly "I love you,
I forgive you" to the condemned wrench as you strap
him into the chair, and proceed to throw the switch?

Ger real.

 

[no1tovote4]

One thing which occurs to me after having read
so many smug and self-congratulatory expressions
of a moral imperative to forgive even the worst criminals,
is whether the self-congratulators are against the
death penalty (which has with almost no doubt been
inflicted on many people innocent of the crimes they
were accused of).

I do not want to turn this into a death penalty thread,
but I am curious as to how anyone so forgiving as
several of the posters here might square their views
on forgiveness with their views on the death penalty,
if they support the death penalty.

Whadda ya gonna do?- murmur sweetly "I love you,
I forgive you" to the condemned wrench as you strap
him into the chair, and proceed to throw the switch?

Ger real.

Why would one exclude the other? Explain how one getting their due by statute has anything to do with my forgiveness?

I think that you and I have a different definition of forgiveness. Somehow I think you believe that forgiveness is absolution, I do not.

 

[Mr. P]

...

I think that you and I have a different definition of forgiveness. Somehow I think you believe that forgiveness is absolution, I do not.

I think about forgiveness as an absolute not an absolution, I guess that's why I have a hard time understanding it.

 

[Abbey Normal]

On this topic, I would recommend an excellent book I have read called The Hiding Place. It is the true story of a Christian concentration camp survivor's faith and her ability to forgive, by Corrie ten Boom. If you check the readers' reviews on Amazon, you will see that this is a moving and beautiful story of faith in the midst of horror, and ultimately, forgiveness. I would highly recommend the book for anyone who seeks to understand the incredible possibility of forgiveness, in the face of the most vile circumstances and treatment.

Here is Amazon's short summary of the book:

"The Hiding Place proves that the light of God's love can penetrate even the darkest recesses of despair, places like the Nazi extermination camp at Ravensbruck. After protecting Dutch Jews in a secret room in their home, Corrie ten Boom, her sister and father were discovered, arrested, and imprisoned. Only Corrie survived, but her faith in God remained strong-so strong that, after the war, she could forgive a former camp guard in a face-to-face meeting. More than just a spellbinding adventure, The Hiding Place is a life-changing story."

 

[USViking]

No, that is why I included the more accurate translation it isn't love that Buddha stated.

No what?

And wasn't Buddha an unconditional pacifist?

But hate cannot either, hate is an emotion that takes away from you personally and gives nothing back. Without hate one can actively seek to end terrorism through warfare with an understanding of why you are doing something. That killing is easier with an active hate doesn't give hate any special value to me. The assumption that because you do not hate them that you cannot defend yourself is an incorrect assumption.

I do not feel I have lost anything by my hatred
of Nazis and terrorists.

What is it you think I may have lost?

I am not at all sure we can effectively defend ourselves
to the death without some strong aversion to our
opponents, call it "hate", "loathing", or wharever.

You should not presume to know.

I will persist in doing so, anyway.

If the guard was going to live I would turn him in after I forgave him so that he could spend the prison time he deserves for his crime. That he is not going to live changes nothing, his karma will find him, it is unnecessary for me to hold hate for him to receive his just due.

The "just due" of a person such as the guard
does not include dying in a state of tranquility,
and such a state might well have been fostered
if Wiesenthal had held the views you say you hold.

Forgiveness does not absolve one from responsibility for their actions it simply absolves you from having to relive for your whole life that which has made you angry as you must in order to keep that fire burning.

You still need to explain exactly how justifyable
anger actually harms the person experiencing the emotion.

I would be most suprised if any concentration camp
survivors ever went a day without anger. I would
not blame them a bit.

Seems you would.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...I would be most suprised if any concentration camp
survivors ever went a day without anger. I would
not blame them a bit.

Seems you would.

Read Corrie ten Boom's book, referenced above. It might just amaze you. It surely amazed me.

 

[no1tovote4]

No what?

And wasn't Buddha an unconditional pacifist?

I forgot to answer the no what part so I will in this edit. No, I do not think that love will conquer modern terrorism, nor do I think that hatred will, this was the reason I provided a more accurate translation than the poetic version that seems to pervade english translations of his words. Buddha said that non-hate will conquer hate but hatred will not conquer hate. I provided the full translation so you could understand what he meant. If you keep reliving the past so that your anger might burn and your hatred live you cannot continue to grow. If you get past your hatred by not reliving the past you can move on and continue to grow.

That doesn't mean that all Buddhists are also unconditional pacifists. You are presuming again to know what I believe. Buddha told his followers to use their minds and find their Path, and not to dogmatically believe in what he had to say.

I do not feel I have lost anything by my hatred
of Nazis and terrorists.

What is it you think I may have lost?

Time and energy, the same result can be made without the hatred and no advancement of spirit can be made while nurturing it.

I am not at all sure we can effectively defend ourselves
to the death without some strong aversion to our
opponents, call it "hate", "loathing", or wharever.

You can have a strong aversion to their actions and a strong desire to end it by any means without a personal hatred of them as persons. That you are not at all sure doesn't mean that I am incorrect or that you are right.

I will persist in doing so, anyway.

This is fine, I did not say that you had to follow me. I stated that I would forgive and gave the reasons why I would do so, I don't believe I ever stated that you too had to do so.

The "just due" of a person such as the guard
does not include dying in a state of tranquility,
and such a state might well have been fostered
if Wiesenthal had held the views you say you hold.

I already stated, I would turn him in after I forgave him, that you choose to conveniently ignore such a statement doesn't mean that I didn't make it or didn't mean it. If the guard was going to die, as in made his confession on his death bed, it wouldn't matter if I hated him the result would be the same. If he made his confession before that the result would also be the same, all without my hatred.

You still need to explain exactly how justifyable
anger actually harms the person experiencing the emotion.

I have explained it, that you give it no value doesn't change its value to me. You cannot spiritually continue to grow while holding on to this world by reliving that which gives you hate. In order to keep the hatred you must continue to relive it or it will burn out.

I would be most suprised if any concentration camp
survivors ever went a day without anger. I would
not blame them a bit.

Seems you would.

I would be surprised if I left without anger, I would also be surprised if I kept that anger throughout my life. Anger and hatred are not the same thing. I would have to work through my anger and hatred so that I could move on with my own growth and not live in the actions of others.

 

[USViking]

Why would one exclude the other? Explain how one getting their due by statute has anything to do with my forgiveness?

Explain how the statute is exempted from your
apparently unconditional moral stance that all
criminals should be forgiven.

I think that you and I have a different definition of forgiveness. Somehow I think you believe that forgiveness is absolution, I do not.

You seem to mean "forgiveness" in the very
restricted sense of not personally resenting.

I think there are few if any people who could
live up to this test, and I do not see the benefit
to those who might live up to it. Can you do
any better than "karma"?