Year: 2004

Mercy Even For Monsters

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby writes:

YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar
faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims
he sent to early graves.

In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows,
hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at
Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid
a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George
Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had
died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul
of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his
agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the
sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline
terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who
inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich?
Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil — as indeed
Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize — but
God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity [SOURCE].

Mr. Jacoby’s depth of feeling here is obvious, and there may be merit to much of what he says, but I must take issue with him with regard to two points.

First, President Bush was giving voice to an authentic Christian sentiment that is required by the gospel. "God bless his soul" is the attitude that Christians are required to take regarding all individuals, no matter how evil. We may not always say it, but we are obliged to will the good of others no matter what their past may be.

This does not mean that we must not hold individuals accountable for their actions. The Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges that the state has the right to use the death penalty and that there are circumstances in which its use is warranted. Perhaps Yasser Arafat should have swung for his crimes. That’s at least an arguable position. But no matter what his crimes may have been, we must always hope for repentance.

Perhaps Mr. Jacoby misunderstood what the President said. Perhaps he thought that he was somehow expressing approval regarding Arafat’s soul–i.e., declaring it to be a good one by invoking God’s blessing upon it. But I doubt this. Mr. Jacoby probably understood that the President was not certifying the blessedness of Arafat’s soul but praying for it, as required by the Christian duty of praying even for one’s enemies (and certainly President Bush has not regarded Arafat as a friend and ally in the past).

Perhaps Mr. Jacoby might say "Fine. Perhaps President Bush has a Christian duty to wish the salvation of monsters like Arafat, but I’m not a Christian. I’m Jewish, and my people have suffered mightily at the hands of this particular monster."

I don’t think that this would be a successful way to deflect the issue, for the attitude of mercy even for one’s enemies is rooted in the Jewish Scriptures as well as in the Christian. Read the book of Jonah. That’s the whole point of the book. In the book the prophet Jonah is sent to the city of Nineveh, Mesopotamia (which now goes by the name of Mosul, Iraq). At the time, Nineveh was the capital of Assyria, which was a persecutor of Israel. Jonah preaches judgment against Nineveh at God’s command, but he is disappointed when the city repents and God spares it.

In fact, Jonah is so angry with God that he prays to die:

"Now, O LORD , take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live."

But the LORD replied, "Have you any right to be angry?"

Jonah went out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made
himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen
to the city. Then the LORD God provided a vine and made
it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his
discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the vine. But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the vine so that it withered. When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun
blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and
said, "It would be better for me to die than to live."

But God said to Jonah, "Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?"

"I do," he said. "I am angry enough to die."
    
But the LORD said, "You have been concerned about this vine, though you
did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died
overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and
twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their
left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that
great city?" [Jonah 4:3-11].

Today we may not realize the political overtones to this passage because we don’t know enough about the history of the period, but the passage is extremely pointed. You see, the Assyrians weren’t regarded by the Israelites as being as bad as the PLO is regarded by Israelis. They were regarded far, far worse. The PLO has made life for Israelis hard, but it hasn’t been able to accomplish the goal of conquering and subjugating Israel or deporting its population out of the nation. The Assyrians did. They did all those things, and Nineveh was their capital.

So Jonah was more motivated than Jacoby to want to see God’s wrath fall upon the enemies encountered in his day. But God showed the prophet that he was wrong, that he had no right to be angry about the salvation of his enemies, and that God looks upon even the enemies of his chosen people and wills their repentance and salvation.

Neither (and this is the second point I want to take issue with) can Mr. Jacoby be confident of Arafat’s damnation. No matter what Arafat’s outward actions may have been, and no matter how late in life he persisted in them, repentance can take place in the heart even in the last moment of life. We can’t know whether that happened, but God does. As the Jewish Scriptures also say:

The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart [1 Sam. 16:7].

Red State Widows' Mites

Some years ago I was reading a book of interviews by ultra-liberal "journalist" Bill Moyers. One interview was with economist Peter Berger, who has studied the effects of capitalism on different countries around the world (and who is also a sociologist specializing in religion). Berger points out that capitalism tends to maximize the potential for freedom in given countries but will not of itself guarantee a free society. Much of Berger’s work has focused on the development of capitalist societies in Asia.

In the interview, Moyers showed his agenda by trying to get Berger to sign off on the idea that Asians are more spiritual, more generous, than Americans.

Berger would have none of it.

He argued that, by comparison to Americans, Asians on average tend to be more materialistic and less willing to donate to charitable causes. He stated that Americans give far more money (proportionate to our standard of living) than those in Asia, where charities simply cannot raise money the way American charities can.

I’m no expert in Asian economics, so I don’t know whether what Berger said is true (and, as always, I’m cautious about generalizations). Perhaps some of the Asian folks and Americans living in Asia can comment on whether they think Berger’s claim is accurate.

But if Asian charities can’t raise support the way American ones can (proportionate to the local standard of living) then the reasons might be several: For example, most Asians have suffered endless years of oppression by brutal governments,

which would incline anybody look out for their own interests. Also, Asia as a continent has not (yet) been Christianized, and thus the charitable imperative that is present in Christianity may not have taken root there the same way it has here.

The Christian imperative to give may play a role in giving here in America as well.

HERE’S AN ANALYSIS OF WHICH U.S. STATES ARE THE MOST CHARITABLE POPULATIONS.

Each state is given a "Having Rank" based on its average adjusted gross income per person and a "Giving Rank" based on the average itemized amount of charitable donations per person. These figures are related to each other ("Rank Relation") by subtracting the "Giving Rank" from the "Having Rank." The resulting "Rank Relations" for each of the 50 states are then compared to each other to determine the state’s overall place in the Generosity Index.

For example, the least-generous state is New Hampshire. It has a "Having Rank" of 9 (the 9th most income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 48 (meaning 47 states give more money on average per person than New Hampshire). This means its "Rank Relation" is -39 (9 – 48 = -39), which is the worst ranking in the nation.

By contrast, the most generous state is Mississippi. Its "Having Rank" is 50 (making it the least income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 5 (only 4 states give more money on average per person than Mississippi). This means that its "Rank Relation" is 45 (50 – 5 = 45), which is the highest ranking in the nation.

When you examine the full list of states, a pattern emerges: The most generous states are all red.

In fact, you don’t hit a blue state until you reach the 26th item on the list (New York). All of the blue states are thus in the lower half of the generosity index.

Why this is is an interesting question. It may be due in part to the fact that there are more red states than blue states. But not one blue state in the top half of the list? There were 18 blue states and not one of them is in the top 25 for generosity? All 18 blue states are in the bottom 25 states in terms of charitable giving? There’s more going on here than just the predominance of red states.

An obvious possible factor is the higher percentage of practicing Christians in such states (this is something that should be checkable via some number-crunching).

I also wonder whether another factor may also be in play: Many of the blue states (such as where I live: California, number 29 on the list) have more social welfare programs in place via the government. Many have conjectured that creating government-mandated benevolence will depress personal benevolent giving (and thus rob individuals of the chance to exercise the virtue of charity).

It would be interesting to see some number-crunching on whether that is the case.

As it is, the "Have Not" states are the most generous givers.

This brings to mind the story of the Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41-44)–and the fact that "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7).

Red State Widows’ Mites

Some years ago I was reading a book of interviews by ultra-liberal "journalist" Bill Moyers. One interview was with economist Peter Berger, who has studied the effects of capitalism on different countries around the world (and who is also a sociologist specializing in religion). Berger points out that capitalism tends to maximize the potential for freedom in given countries but will not of itself guarantee a free society. Much of Berger’s work has focused on the development of capitalist societies in Asia.

In the interview, Moyers showed his agenda by trying to get Berger to sign off on the idea that Asians are more spiritual, more generous, than Americans.

Berger would have none of it.

He argued that, by comparison to Americans, Asians on average tend to be more materialistic and less willing to donate to charitable causes. He stated that Americans give far more money (proportionate to our standard of living) than those in Asia, where charities simply cannot raise money the way American charities can.

I’m no expert in Asian economics, so I don’t know whether what Berger said is true (and, as always, I’m cautious about generalizations). Perhaps some of the Asian folks and Americans living in Asia can comment on whether they think Berger’s claim is accurate.

But if Asian charities can’t raise support the way American ones can (proportionate to the local standard of living) then the reasons might be several: For example, most Asians have suffered endless years of oppression by brutal governments,
which would incline anybody look out for their own interests. Also, Asia as a continent has not (yet) been Christianized, and thus the charitable imperative that is present in Christianity may not have taken root there the same way it has here.

The Christian imperative to give may play a role in giving here in America as well.

HERE’S AN ANALYSIS OF WHICH U.S. STATES ARE THE MOST CHARITABLE POPULATIONS.

Each state is given a "Having Rank" based on its average adjusted gross income per person and a "Giving Rank" based on the average itemized amount of charitable donations per person. These figures are related to each other ("Rank Relation") by subtracting the "Giving Rank" from the "Having Rank." The resulting "Rank Relations" for each of the 50 states are then compared to each other to determine the state’s overall place in the Generosity Index.

For example, the least-generous state is New Hampshire. It has a "Having Rank" of 9 (the 9th most income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 48 (meaning 47 states give more money on average per person than New Hampshire). This means its "Rank Relation" is -39 (9 – 48 = -39), which is the worst ranking in the nation.

By contrast, the most generous state is Mississippi. Its "Having Rank" is 50 (making it the least income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 5 (only 4 states give more money on average per person than Mississippi). This means that its "Rank Relation" is 45 (50 – 5 = 45), which is the highest ranking in the nation.

When you examine the full list of states, a pattern emerges: The most generous states are all red.

In fact, you don’t hit a blue state until you reach the 26th item on the list (New York). All of the blue states are thus in the lower half of the generosity index.

Why this is is an interesting question. It may be due in part to the fact that there are more red states than blue states. But not one blue state in the top half of the list? There were 18 blue states and not one of them is in the top 25 for generosity? All 18 blue states are in the bottom 25 states in terms of charitable giving? There’s more going on here than just the predominance of red states.

An obvious possible factor is the higher percentage of practicing Christians in such states (this is something that should be checkable via some number-crunching).

I also wonder whether another factor may also be in play: Many of the blue states (such as where I live: California, number 29 on the list) have more social welfare programs in place via the government. Many have conjectured that creating government-mandated benevolence will depress personal benevolent giving (and thus rob individuals of the chance to exercise the virtue of charity).

It would be interesting to see some number-crunching on whether that is the case.

As it is, the "Have Not" states are the most generous givers.

This brings to mind the story of the Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41-44)–and the fact that "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7).

John McWhorter Is A Linguist . . .

. . . and I enjoy reading his stuff. Have several of his books on my shelves.

He also does a little politics, and from what I have seen his politics are far more sane than another linguist-turned-political-commentator (Noam Chomsky).

IN THIS ARTICLE MCWHORTER ARGUES WHY AFRICAN-AMERICANS NEED TO BECOME A SWING VOTE.

He’s right. At present African-Americans vote so solidly for one party that neither party is incentivized to go out of its way to foster their interests. The way to gain influence with parties is to make it clear to them that you will not support them if they don’t look out for your interests.

That’s one reason I’m happy that the Catholic vote can’t presently be taken for granted by either party. In the old days, Catholics voted solidly Democrat–and they got taken for granted. Now they are starting in a greater way to vote based on principle (e.g., support of life issues) than on partisan grounds. This means that both parties have a reason to take the principled Catholic voter seriously, as he represents a body that–like Evangelicals–can swing an election.

Republicans cannot take pro-lifers for granted either. Almost enough Evangelicals stayed home in 2000 to cost Bush the election. This time the GOP get-out-the-vote effort focused strongly on Evangelicals. The same clout will be wielded by pro-life Catholics in future elections if real progress (in the form of anti-Roe SCOTUS appointments) is not made in advancing the pro-life cause.

Catholics will have this clout as long as they vote–or withhold their votes–based on principle rather than on party.

Where The Wild Things Catholics Are

Since we’ve been looking at maps of the U.S. with different data on them, let’s look at where Catholics live.

Catholicstates

Click the map to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Incidentally, don’t forget that population density doesn’t tell you overall population. For example, my home state of Texas is less Catholic-dense than neighboring states Louisiana and New Mexico, but its population is so much larger that it has more total Catholics. Rhode Island, by contrast, is the most Catholic-dense state in the nation, but its population is so tiny that most states have more Catholics than it does.

Where The Wild Things Catholics Are

Since we’ve been looking at maps of the U.S. with different data on them, let’s look at where Catholics live.

Catholicstates

Click the map to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Incidentally, don’t forget that population density doesn’t tell you overall population. For example, my home state of Texas is less Catholic-dense than neighboring states Louisiana and New Mexico, but its population is so much larger that it has more total Catholics. Rhode Island, by contrast, is the most Catholic-dense state in the nation, but its population is so tiny that most states have more Catholics than it does.