Well said. It’s important to speak out on these topics rather than ‘tch tching’ and believing that saying nothing is sufficient.
I would substitute tolerance for forgiveness. A tolerance that might disagree with a point of view but does not seek to destroy the person for a “wrong” point of view. We are so judgmental, but it matters as you point out when it affects education and public discourse.
My own annoyance, more than that the arrogance of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, was the intolerance of this group. I recall in DC they arrived to set up an encampment. Media swarmed to interview the group as to their causes, but the “leaders” insisted that every person on the march speak in their convoluted fashion of passing the message (that got skewered like the kids’ game) from the speaker to the person with the microphone. They spoke of their comradeship developed on the march. The media folks warned of news deadlines and they eventually left well before anyone had a chance to describe their messages. They were as hidebound a radical left group as any right wingers.
I want to push back a bit on tolerance. I see tolerance and forgiveness as quite different. Forgiveness involves engagement between the parties. Tolerance can be realized at a distance. Moreover, as I like to tell my students, tolerance is a grudging virtue, in that we tolerate what we otherwise can't stand. Better to tolerate than annihilate, to be sure. But respect, appreciation, and ultimately, love, are much better. In re Occupy, I can't comment on their demeanor overall. I wasn't very involved. But having the "correct" political position does not translate into kind or humane behavior. Too often, the opposite, as all is subsumed by the cause.
Your use of the term “forgiveness” was in the context of a cry for recognizing that when a mistake is made and admitted, by letting go and moving on, by accepting the apology without forever condemning the individual to cancel culture hell, we demonstrate our human and ethical selves.
My use of the term “tolerance” was in the context of accepting an error to which a person admitted and apologized without the forever condemnation.
So, I believe we were at the same place as we define what we mean by our terms.
I think I reacted strongly to the term “forgiveness” because of its religious connotation. For me it implies a Christian arrogance of superiority by the forgiver who assumes a Christ-like bearing by forgiving them because they know not.
Thanks, Marvin. I agree that forgiveness can be condescending and patronizing. I also bulk at the "cheap grace" employed in merely bestowing forgiveness on another and the sinner goes on to sin another day.
I ask if you might look to the Jewish version of forgiveness that is well developed in the tradition. If person B perpetrates a violation against A, B needs to apologize, but also demonstrate that there has been a turning of the heart, best exemplified by deeds, most aptly an act of restitution. If B seeks forgiveness and is rebuffed three times, the moral onus falls on A. In short, forgiveness is not merely bestowed. It emerges out of a process that seeks to reintegrate the one who offends into the community.
So like this approach . . . perhaps without the formula . . . but as a way to restore equilibrium. Some of my Irish/American relatives carried their perceived grudges to the grave, harping on the wrong but refusing to return to their prior affections. Appreciate the insight.
Well said. It’s important to speak out on these topics rather than ‘tch tching’ and believing that saying nothing is sufficient.
I would substitute tolerance for forgiveness. A tolerance that might disagree with a point of view but does not seek to destroy the person for a “wrong” point of view. We are so judgmental, but it matters as you point out when it affects education and public discourse.
My own annoyance, more than that the arrogance of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, was the intolerance of this group. I recall in DC they arrived to set up an encampment. Media swarmed to interview the group as to their causes, but the “leaders” insisted that every person on the march speak in their convoluted fashion of passing the message (that got skewered like the kids’ game) from the speaker to the person with the microphone. They spoke of their comradeship developed on the march. The media folks warned of news deadlines and they eventually left well before anyone had a chance to describe their messages. They were as hidebound a radical left group as any right wingers.
I want to push back a bit on tolerance. I see tolerance and forgiveness as quite different. Forgiveness involves engagement between the parties. Tolerance can be realized at a distance. Moreover, as I like to tell my students, tolerance is a grudging virtue, in that we tolerate what we otherwise can't stand. Better to tolerate than annihilate, to be sure. But respect, appreciation, and ultimately, love, are much better. In re Occupy, I can't comment on their demeanor overall. I wasn't very involved. But having the "correct" political position does not translate into kind or humane behavior. Too often, the opposite, as all is subsumed by the cause.
Appreciate the distinction. . . will have to think about this.
Tres bien!
Your use of the term “forgiveness” was in the context of a cry for recognizing that when a mistake is made and admitted, by letting go and moving on, by accepting the apology without forever condemning the individual to cancel culture hell, we demonstrate our human and ethical selves.
My use of the term “tolerance” was in the context of accepting an error to which a person admitted and apologized without the forever condemnation.
So, I believe we were at the same place as we define what we mean by our terms.
I think I reacted strongly to the term “forgiveness” because of its religious connotation. For me it implies a Christian arrogance of superiority by the forgiver who assumes a Christ-like bearing by forgiving them because they know not.
I do like the idea of engagement
Thanks, Marvin. I agree that forgiveness can be condescending and patronizing. I also bulk at the "cheap grace" employed in merely bestowing forgiveness on another and the sinner goes on to sin another day.
I ask if you might look to the Jewish version of forgiveness that is well developed in the tradition. If person B perpetrates a violation against A, B needs to apologize, but also demonstrate that there has been a turning of the heart, best exemplified by deeds, most aptly an act of restitution. If B seeks forgiveness and is rebuffed three times, the moral onus falls on A. In short, forgiveness is not merely bestowed. It emerges out of a process that seeks to reintegrate the one who offends into the community.
So like this approach . . . perhaps without the formula . . . but as a way to restore equilibrium. Some of my Irish/American relatives carried their perceived grudges to the grave, harping on the wrong but refusing to return to their prior affections. Appreciate the insight.
Brilliant article. Cancel culture creates innocent victims and forgiveness is necessary!
Thanks, Jean. Yes. It is one of the more pernicious and small-minded phenomena of our times.