|
In Reply to: confusion and christian anarchy? from below up here posted by marina on April 18, 2002 at 09:33:32:
"You should see me most of the time, still taking care of the willful damage some have perpetrated, as a single parent, how much I weep. There are some periods that not a day goes by without me having a good cry. This is one of those periods. I do not need to post that to show off to anybody."
But you already have. Weeping is significant, and evidence that one's sense of justice and fairness has been trodden on, invaded, trespassed. Yet it also may be used as a kind of "emotional arm-twisting" to further validate yourself as the plaintiff in any situation and draw attention away from the others (ray?) involved in any complaint.
Surely you have suffered. Magnifying your own sufferings and those of your own, at the exclusion of the credibility of others, can, however, only serve to sway, not to enlighten and elucidate.
It does seem that frequently, in reading your posts, you are going through another rough period, and the emphasis being that NOW you should be given the floor, if at ANY time, since your sufferings at THIS time, again, are so great. If you are always going through the roughest of periods, will not your credibility wane if it is seen only as a means of leverage to continually be suffering more than others, even if it is the fact? Is, in fact, your suffering the greatest? It does seem so in your own eyes, sorry to say, and I mean no offense in saying this. It is just an observation.
I had a fellow to lunch the other day who has been married three years, and in the first year of his marriage, found that he had a cancerous mass in his brain...
"What is it with some of you lovey-dovey at any cost people that you just cannot understand that making people accountable for a crime IS a godly deed or better yet, a moral imperative?"
"Making" justice is not always an easily achievable goal, not being "god", and not having omniscience (any of us). "Imperatives" aside, there be allowance for the possibility that over time, circumstances may have changed considerably, including the specific circumstances of the alleged offenders. Making SPECIFIC people accountable for a SPECIFIC CRIME may be justified, as long as one's emotions do not reign, distorting the truth, creating a situation of general revenge, and inconsistent justice. What is just and fair may not be evident in the light of one's own personal anger. Sorry to say, the emotions are capable of taking compensatory justice far beyond the realm of fairness. As valid as is the emotional impact of any abuse is to the victims, this emotional element may not be the best guideline even for equivalent retribution.
Marina, as usually is the case, your complaint, and your allegation, is highly charged with emotion, "bewilderment", a state to which there is no "answer", no valid "reason". It is as if there can be no proper response, in effect, to your complaint. To respond is to be seen, in itself, a crime, and furthering the unjust cause. This kind of validation based on the emotional content of a case is the basis of "vigilante justice", and mob rule. In the pursuit of truth, justice, and not merely revenge, it may become necessary to throw out the emotional content of the case in order to dispense a clarity that provides justice with proper clothing, and not merely a naked demeanor. I am not saying that emotions are to be dispensed with. I am only suggesting that they must be held in check in order to achieve an honest and productive outcome. It is the difference between useful power and a mere explosion.
I also weep, and believe that it is good for one to weep. I believe we all need a good cry at times over the state of things on the earth, including our own personal world, and that of others, both for the heights and the depths, the glories and the ignominies. I value most those works of art that move one to tears, whether it be music, movies, or books, yet in the light of day, justice is not always dispensed most readily by following one's emotion.
