"... but then he was abruptly halted ..." - Kent Haruf, d. 11/30/14

excerpt from Benediction, Kent Haruf
“And so we know the satisfaction of hate. We know the sweet joy of revenge. How it feels good to get even. Oh, that was a nice idea Jesus had. That was a pretty notion, but you can't love people who do evil. It's neither sensible or practical. It's not wise to the world to love people who do such terrible wrong. There is no way on earth we can love our enemies. They'll only do wickedness and hatefulness again. And worse, they'll think they can get away with this wickedness and evil, because they'll think we're weak and afraid. What would the world come to?

But I want to say to you here on this hot July morning in Holt, what if Jesus wasn't kidding? What if he wasn't talking about some never-never land? What if he really did mean what he said two thousand years ago? What if he was thoroughly wise to the world and knew firsthand cruelty and wickedness and evil and hate? Knew it all so well from personal firsthand experience? And what if in spite of all that he knew, he still said love your enemies? Turn your cheek. Pray for those who misuse you. What if he meant every word of what he said? What then would the world come to?

And what if we tried it? What if we said to our enemies: We are the most powerful nation on earth. We can destroy you. We can kill your children. We can make ruins of your cities and villages and when we're finished you won't even know how to look for the places where they used to be. We have the power to take away your water and to scorch your earth, to rob you of the very fundamentals of life. We can change the actual day into actual night. We can do these things to you. And more.

But what if we say, Listen: Instead of any of these, we are going to give willingly and generously to you. We are going to spend the great American national treasure and the will and the human lives that we would have spent on destruction, and instead we are going to turn them all toward creation. We'll mend your roads and highways, expand your schools, modernize your wells and water supplies, save your ancient artifacts and art and culture, preserve your temples and mosques. In fact, we are going to love you. And again we say, no matter what has gone before, no matter what you've done: We are going to love you. We have set our hearts to it. We will treat you like brothers and sisters. We are going to turn our collective national cheek and present it to be stricken a second time, if need be, and offer it to you. Listen, we--

But then he was abruptly halted.” 

Hating the "hate" - or something like that

How is is we've gotten to the point that, whatever side of the current political/social/religious/etc. divides we're on, any person who holds an opinion opposite ours is a "hater?"

No group is spared the indignity of large numbers of their rank and file seeming to be incapable of any more intelligent, mature, and productive dialog than ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and puerile accusations that the other person is a "hater."  I put it in quotes because most of the time, the writer or speaker (in my seldom humble opinion) seems to have no idea what hate is when they encounter it.

Yes, there are dark, hate-filled people out there, who are angered by anything that they think threatens them or their sense of status quo.  But not everyone who has similar reservations is a "hater."

For example - on the issue of gay marriage.  It IS hateful to say "Those damn gays are trying to destroy the sacred institution of marriage!!"  It is NOT hateful to say "I have problems with extending the definition of marriage to same sex unions."  There's a world of difference between the two, but some people choose not to see it.  

On the other side, it ISN'T hateful to say, "I don't understand how you can impose your standards on other people's relationships."  It IS hateful to say "You're all just a bunch of fascists, unable to deal with your own sexuality, so you try to repress mine!!"  Clearly, there is a difference in tone and intensity, and the people who say one are not the same people who say the other.

There's a great middle ground between this emotional violence and passivity.  I think sometimes our society is immersed in a mixture of co-dependence, with vast groups dependent upon someone else for their sense of well being, and passive-aggressive behavior, where people don't communicate boundaries, they just sit on their thumbs until they've been "pushed too far" and lash out in anger.

I know for a fact that it's possible to firmly, but calmly and respectfully, discuss matters of concern.  I've had plenty of experiences where discussions go from frustration and alienation to respectful disagreement, where both parties retain their personal power and neither ends up backed into a corner, angry and fearful.  Unfortunately, too many people either lack the confidence that allow this, or are simply unwilling to make this effort.

Sometimes I get angry over that fact (nothing *makes* me angry - I choose to be or not be), but more often I am fearful (not *made* fearful, but ... ) over the consequences for our society.

Both sides act like they're on a sinking ship, afraid to let loose of anything for fear they'll be lost.  But if they're both on the verge of losing, who's left to win?

I don't have to agree with you.  I don't even have to like you or respect you.  But for the sake of my personal integrity, I have to treat you with respect for your valid concerns, uncoupled from your possible excesses.  For my sake, I have to be willing to express myself fairly and firmly at the same time.  Will our disagreements magically go away?  Not at all.  But we'll learn to live with them better.

I'll end with two quotes I firmly embrace:

“If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility” - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

"I shall not try to change anything that I think or anything that you think (insofar as I can judge of it) in order to reach a reconciliation that would be agreeable to all.  On the contrary, what I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between people who remain what they are and speak their minds." - Albert Camus