Are white supremacists bad people?

[inocente]

I hope you can see with me, then, that justice begins with mercy, and since mercy is a matter of the heart, the Catholic approach involves much more than an application of logic, even though “habitual right thinking” is part of the whole picture (see the CCC refence in my post above)

No, Paul’s command is do not even eat with them. They are evil and evil is irrational. Therefore logic won’t work. Therefore cut them off to force them to see logic. Paul is right, and it isn’t rocket science. Their view is pure evil, and no one can accommodate evil. Have no mercy for evil. Evil never deserves mercy.

 

[IWantGod]

No, Paul’s command is do not even eat with them. They are evil and evil is irrational. Therefore logic won’t work. Therefore cut them off to force them to see logic. Paul is right, and it isn’t rocket science. Their view is pure evil, and no one can accommodate evil. Have no mercy for evil. Evil never deserves mercy.

I would argue that their point of view should not be allowed any power in the public square. But at the same time God loves them, and thus there is a question of mercy. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

 

[IWantGod]

I think you are picking up on the human desire to be in control, to dominate, which I think is an accurate observation. We are born with the capacity, and compulsion, to ingroup/outgroup thinking, which has been studied in pre-lingual babies.

Can you relate to the ingroup/outgroup thinking? It is also very present in political affiliations.

This type of behavior is evident in children. Ingroup/outgroup thinking is present everywhere in society, not just in racists. We have countries warring with each other. You have political groups beating up each other. Religious groups being violent and discriminating one another. You have football hooligans. But there are always those who do not fall in to that type of thinking because they realize the damage it causes… This type of behavior is self destructive.

It seems clear that we are all competing with each other at every level of our conscious existence. The bottom line is that we live in a pluralistic society and we have to learn to accept difference and learn to get along with each other.

 

[OneSheep]

No, Paul’s command is do not even eat with them. They are evil and evil is irrational. Therefore logic won’t work. Therefore cut them off to force them to see logic. Paul is right, and it isn’t rocket science. Their view is pure evil, and no one can accommodate evil. Have no mercy for evil. Evil never deserves mercy.

Sorry, you left this part out of your commentary on my post. What do you have to say for this?

Love of Enemies.[aa] 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors[ab] do the same? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?[ac] 48 So be perfect,[ad] just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Like I said, you are speaking from a well-formed conscience. Because of this formation, you will not likely do violence upon others. You are to be commended for this.

Jesus invites us not to let go of our conscience, but to let mercy, rather than fear and resentment, be our guide.

Do you see the contrast between forgiving someone (or some group) and thinking evil of them?

 

[OneSheep]

This type of behavior is evident in children. Ingroup/outgroup thinking is present everywhere in society, not just in racists. We have countries warring with each other. You have political groups beating up each other. Religious groups being violent and discriminating one another. You have football hooligans. But there are always those who do not fall in to that type of thinking because they realize the damage it causes… This type of behavior is self destructive.

Yes, it is evident in pre-lingual babies, it is part of our nature. So it is possibly more accurate to say that all of us “fall in to” that type of thinking, but with conscience development we learn to become aware of the thinking as it arises, and then with the understanding that it is a matter of the flesh, we can acknowledge the thoughts as emotionally-based, and then turn toward prayer, understanding, mercy, empathy, etc.

It seems clear that we are all competing with each other at every level of our conscious existence. The bottom line is that we live in a pluralistic society and we have to learn to accept difference and learn to get along with each other.

I very much agree with you. If one starts with the question, “Why did the incarnation happen at that point in history?”, one can conclude that the incarnation was strategically situated between a tribal world and a pluralistic one. The tribal model is the evolutionary construct of our default ingroup/outgroup thinking, as such innate thinking aids that model and the tribal need to survive and thrive. The pluralistic model is doomed to perpetual animosity unless there is a means of dealing with the human compulsion toward ingroup/outgroup thinking. Jesus’ emphasis on loving enemies, loving neighbors, forgiving people, using the outgroup (Samaritans) as models of right behavior, etc., takes us beyond what comes naturally, the natural animosity that people often express even here on the CAF.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes, it is evident in pre-lingual babies, it is part of our nature. So it is possibly more accurate to say that all of us “fall in to” that type of thinking, but with conscience development we learn to become aware of the thinking as it arises, and then with the understanding that it is a matter of the flesh, we can acknowledge the thoughts as emotionally-based, and then turn toward prayer, understanding, mercy, empathy, etc. .

Yes you are correct to say that we all begin with ingroup/outgroup thinking. But i also think that ones individual natural temperament can play a part in how far we take ingroup/outgroup thinking.

How do we explain why some people become racist and others do not?

I very much agree with you. If one starts with the question, “Why did the incarnation happen at that point in history?”, one can conclude that the incarnation was strategically situated between a tribal world and a pluralistic one. The tribal model is the evolutionary construct of our default ingroup/outgroup thinking, as such innate thinking aids that model and the tribal need to survive and thrive. The pluralistic model is doomed to perpetual animosity unless there is a means of dealing with the human compulsion toward ingroup/outgroup thinking. Jesus’ emphasis on loving enemies, loving neighbors, forgiving people, using the outgroup (Samaritans) as models of right behavior, etc., takes us beyond what comes naturally, the natural animosity that people often express even here on the CAF.

Very interesting. I agree:thumbsup:

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it would depend on what kind of “white supremacist” one is talking about.

150 years ago, probably most of the European world considered non-Europeans to be truly “inferior” in ability. They looked at things in the non-white world, and saw a lot of chaos, and a lack of societal accomplishment.

Now, they could have taken a look at the Japanese in 1880 and realized non-whites were capable of doing the very same things Europeans were capable of doing, but for the most part, the non-white world was primitive. A Japanese could also have taken a look at how “white” people lived in Siberia and concluded that “whites” were inherently inferior, and by and large that’s exactly what they believed. A lot of them still do. There was, however, an interlude during which that conclusion on the part of the Japanese led to immense atrocities. That’s a different thing. That’s hate.

But regardless, the evidence undoubtedly seemed compelling to them. It wasn’t a matter of hatred or ill will, it was just a matter of reaching factually incorrect conclusions.

There have been studies suggesting that whites are the intellectual superiors of blacks and that Asians are the intellectual superiors of both. How much of that is cultural and how much of it is inherent, I don’t think anybody knows. But regardless, that’s not a “hateful” kind of conclusion, it’s just a conclusion drawn from certain studies. it does not imply ill will of any kind.

One might accuse, e.g., Kipling of being a “white supremacist” in that he seemed fairly clearly to think Europeans (particularly Brits) innately superior to “natives” of various sorts. But he also accepted the idea they were souls equal in the eyes of God and entitled to the respect a human owes another human.

I don’t see that as necessarily evil in its time. We presently have better evidence of the capabilities of non-whites and can reasonably be blamed for insisting they are somehow inferior.

There are some who see non-whites as some kind of enemy that must be suppressed or dominated or even eliminated. That’s hate; i.e., a desire to harm another.

It seems to me nobody should truly believe in the inherent superiority of one “race” over another, because it’s contrary to known facts regarding individuals, even if some studies show differences in the aggregate. To me, insisting on it is not necessarily evil so long as one keeps it to oneself and doesn’t act on it.

What’s truly evil is the desire to harm. What’s even more evil is taking action on it.

 

[OneSheep]

I think it would depend on what kind of “white supremacist” one is talking about.

150 years ago, probably most of the European world considered non-Europeans to be truly “inferior” in ability. They looked at things in the non-white world, and saw a lot of chaos, and a lack of societal accomplishment.

Now, they could have taken a look at the Japanese in 1880 and realized non-whites were capable of doing the very same things Europeans were capable of doing, but for the most part, the non-white world was primitive. A Japanese could also have taken a look at how “white” people lived in Siberia and concluded that “whites” were inherently inferior, and by and large that’s exactly what they believed. A lot of them still do. There was, however, an interlude during which that conclusion on the part of the Japanese led to immense atrocities. That’s a different thing. That’s hate.

But regardless, the evidence undoubtedly seemed compelling to them. It wasn’t a matter of hatred or ill will, it was just a matter of reaching factually incorrect conclusions.

There have been studies suggesting that whites are the intellectual superiors of blacks and that Asians are the intellectual superiors of both. How much of that is cultural and how much of it is inherent, I don’t think anybody knows. But regardless, that’s not a “hateful” kind of conclusion, it’s just a conclusion drawn from certain studies. it does not imply ill will of any kind.

One might accuse, e.g., Kipling of being a “white supremacist” in that he seemed fairly clearly to think Europeans (particularly Brits) innately superior to “natives” of various sorts. But he also accepted the idea they were souls equal in the eyes of God and entitled to the respect a human owes another human.

I don’t see that as necessarily evil in its time. We presently have better evidence of the capabilities of non-whites and can reasonably be blamed for insisting they are somehow inferior.

There are some who see non-whites as some kind of enemy that must be suppressed or dominated or even eliminated. That’s hate; i.e., a desire to harm another.

It seems to me nobody should truly believe in the inherent superiority of one “race” over another, because it’s contrary to known facts regarding individuals, even if some studies show differences in the aggregate. To me, insisting on it is not necessarily evil so long as one keeps it to oneself and doesn’t act on it.

What’s truly evil is the desire to harm. What’s even more evil is taking action on it.

What I see from you post is that while you understand the mentality of valuing groups of people based on their successes/industrial advances, you do not condemn the people who have this mentality even though you do not share it. Thank you for bringing this forth, the superiority mindset is misguided, of course, because advancements rely on much more than capability. I think we agree that racial superiority is an untruth.

What I am trying to flush out on this thread are the resentments people have toward those with supremacist ideologies, such that the label “bad” follows. For example, a person of normal conscience would claim that a person who has desire to do harm, and especially take action on it, is an “evil” person. However, all of us Americans with such conscience could very normally look at each other as “good people” while we claim, for example, that the people of Daesh are good to harm, and we actively participate in their annihilation.

While I am not trying to talk moral equivalency at all, what I am pointing out is that the desire to do harm is very often tied with the desire for justice. People of white supremacist ideology want justice, justice as they see from their own experiences. We as a society resent the Daesh militants, for understandable reasons, and supremacists resent those of color for their own understandable reasons. Jesus call us to understand and forgive, which does not eliminate the want for justice, but changes a bit the way we go about it.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes you are correct to say that we all begin with ingroup/outgroup thinking. But i also think that ones individual natural temperament can play a part in how far we take ingroup/outgroup thinking.

How do we explain why some people become racist and others do not?

Very interesting. I agree:thumbsup:

Well, if “racist” just has to do with ingroup/outgroup thinking, then racism is the rule, not the exception. However, when we couple such thinking with resentment and the desire for justice, we get what we label “hate groups”, which I think is what we are most concerned about.

So if I, brought up a racist, encountered what I experienced as injustice from the race I found inferior, then I could very well hold onto resentment and end up with a “hate” mentality. (Refusing to forgive the outgroup.)

The example I gave Ridgerunner is the way we Americans feel toward Daesh. I think it is culturally correct to hate them, and we don’t think twice about it, nor do we lament their destruction; we actively seek it. Those of white supremacist ideology have a different set of injustices they react to. (What they see as injustice, of course.)