Caste

And

Class in the South



Movie Poster



SPOILERS AHEAD

YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!!

I recently saw the film The Help, based on a book by Kathryn Stockett.1 The movie was directed by Tate Taylor and stars Viola Davis as Aibileen and Emma Stone as Eugenia and Octavia Jackson as Minny in the main roles.

Remembering

9/11

Ground Zero

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the attacks in New York City and in Washington D.C. that killed c. 3,000 people.1 This event has had and will continue to have a large and significant effect on life, politics and culture in our world. Here I will simply talk about my own recollections about and thoughts concerning 9/11.

Moral Cretinism Part V

God Bless Genocide

Cultural areas in North America in 1492

On February 9, 2011 a column appeared by Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association in which Bryan Fischer stated his opinion that the dispossession of the American Indians from the great majority of the U.S.A. was moral and ethical;1 the piece is an excellent example of moral idiocy. Below I will give the article in italics with my comments plain characters.

Libertarian Absurdities

The following is a long Blog posting I made at another Blog.1

No.15

I'm beginning to understand why some leftists loathe libertarians despite the latter's supposed irrelevance: Libertarians can actually defend the morality of their position quite easily; leftists cannot despite their identity as the most moral and enlightened.

The mere existence of libertarians is a painful reminder that there are those who actually stick to moral principle. This causes some leftists much pain, hence the use of strawmen and distortions. Their unwillingness to confront libertarianism as it actually is reflects the bankruptcy of their arguments.

The idea that Libertarians stick to moral principle is shall we say debatable. As for the use of strawmen and distortions that of course is a very familiar Libertarian technique.

To get to strawmen and distortions first, go to any libertarian website say Mies or Cato and you will find them replent with strawmen and distortions. For example perhaps the most flea dog of all the distortions is the notion that government is generally evil, (and in some libertarian language all evil). This is pure agit-prop relying for its effect on pure polemic and also based on the tired and simple-minded binary notion of an absolute distinction between private and public. I.E., private production goods etc., are good public (i.e., Government) is bad. This is coupled with the notion that collective action is by definition bad and individuals must act as individuals as much as possible. Coupled with this is the notion that individuals should not be coerced. The assumption usually implicit but sometimes explicit is that the only "real" source of coercion is public or government power.

Now it is clear to me that many libertarians are not the slightest opposed to private power, utterly unaware about how that easily blends into public or governmental power. Thus many Libertarians are absolutely incapable of seeing Corporations as governmental like bureaucracies of power. They also seem to have a great deal trouble recognizing private power as in reality often coercive. Often they live in a dream world that the only real coercive power is governmental. They also live in the dream world of everyone being responsible for themselves and a desire to reduce the ability of individuals to act collectively on the grounds that it is coercive. Yet when large private authoritarian institutions act coercively they ignore these limits on individuals freedom by talking as if individuals are free to leave / choose.

A particularly hilarious piece about this nonsense is a series of articles about how great Somalia is without government, ignoring that Somalia may have no formal government, but it is run by a series of clan based bureaucratic like systems which regiment and control life in a very authoritarian way.

What is further amusing is the solution that Libertarians suggest to if private power screws you, (i.e., pollutes your water); well just sue!? Thats right litigate, litigate litigate! After gutting governmental power to an absolute minimum if a big holder of private power screws you just go to the courts and sue. No doubt the fact that one side as vastly greater power than you in terms of wealth etc., will make no difference in how long it takes or what sort of decision the courts make. Yeah right! Of course the courts will also receive the massive and huge funding that will be necessary to deal with the vast increase of cases they will have to deal with. And of course this won't represent a vast increase in judicial power and the influence of lawyers in our society.

Sarcasm aside it is also obvious to me that a Libertarian society will see the growth of corporations into the gap left by government in effect replacing government with something that in present day North America is even more authoritarian.

Of course one of the more interesting features of Libertarianism is its implicit and at times explicit contempt for democracy. Basically contempt for people acting collectively. Democracy is characterized as hopelessly corrupt and well "evil", because it could lead to a individuals rights being abridged in a fundamental way.

Now I realize that the above doesn't characterize all Libertarians but I've seen it in far too many.

As for the moral argument. You really think they can easily defend their position morally? Well since a certain species of Libertarianism seems to think that individuals are atomized and entirely separate from all others and should act in their own (hopefully) enlightened self interest. Ah but self interest might require collective action and even worst coercion! Of course frequently this atomized view of human relations leads to a celebration of the ideal Libertarian society as all against all. Of course since humans form groups this view of basic human nature is false. Of course the biggest moral problem with Libertarianism in this form is that all to many Libertarians have no problem and no awareness of private power and coercion, (aside from the fact that this Manichean duality is an illusion). It appears that the exercise of such private power to screw people over, so long as it doesn't involve the evil of government, raises no problems with many Libertarians. Thus a wealthy merchant during a famine using his private power to hoard grain during a famine in hopes that prices will go up raises no moral problem in this singularly blinkered view.

Further it is of interest that to many Libertarians the liberty that matters is the ability to make money, own property etc., and that restrictions on that ability, like unions, child labour laws pollution controls etc., are unacceptable restrictions on liberty. Translated their liberty to screw others for their advantage. Basically the right to manage, property and make money trump everything else. Thus we get many Libertarians voting for the Republicans because they lower taxes, sacrificing other liberties for that. Also given this tendency of so many Libertarians to vote Republican; so much for sticking to moral principles. Of course of the most embarrassing examples of Libertarian sellout is Penn Jillette's paling around with Glen Beck, wingnut for quite a while. Yep standing up for real moral principles there.

As for other moral principles we get the following nonsense from some Libertarians, i.e., that a starving mob looting a train load of someone else's grain during a famine is utterly morally reprehensible and they have no moral problems with the person in question not just hoarding and moving the grain but shipping it out of the famine area if he can get a higher price elsewhere. Doesn't that at least raise a moral issue? But of course the right to manage and control ones own property trumps everything else and if it screws you over just sue and wait years, if it come at all, for the settlement.

Thus we read in Libertarian screeds stuff about personal responsibility. Thus I have read how about during famines feeding the starving with free or cheap food, would destroy the price mechanism and interfere with the magic invisible hand and besides people must learn to prioritize and be rational and giving them food might just encourage them to continue to be lazy and irrational. Yes nothing like having a few of your nearest and dearest starve to death in front of you to encourage rational sensible behavior. Either that or rely on completely voluntary agencies which might or might not, depending on if your cause is fashionable at the time, have the resources to help you. But at all costs any sort of coercion to help others is to be avoided. Meanwhile coercion must be employed to enable people to enjoy to the full their property rights.

In the end much Libertarianism is simple selfishness. I have / want mine and to keep it all for myself without feeling any guilt about others.

Now of course the central hypocrisy of Libertarian hatred of coercion is their general lack of interest in private power or coercion as they separate that from public coercion i.e., government.

Now a consistent Libertarian position must at a minimum be against private power / institution of coercion that restrict peoples freedom. I would suggest that a consistent Libertarian position must be against the Corporation and must be against those private power institutions that inhibit peoples ability to choose. And if they really believe that suing as a solution to private power screwing you. I would like to see a comprehensive and detailed description of how such a system would work especially about how its decisions would be enforced. Of course a thoroughly consistent Libertarian position is not much different from Anarchism.

Finally I would like to see a lot less of the Manichean bullshit / lies Libertarians spout when they talk about government.

Some people might object that I'm creating a caricature of a Libertarian position above. Sorry to say but its all stuff I've read about or heard in the last year.

1. See Dispatches From the Culture Wars Here

Pierre Cloutier

“The Banality of Evil”

Adolf Eichmann  

In 1963 Hannah Arendt wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,1 a book from which the term “The Banality of Evil” entered into popular consciousness. Like a lot of such influential works it seemed to have been far more discussed than actually read. I have discussed Hannah Arendt’s works before, in that case it was her Origins of Totalitarianism.2 Here her focus is how one single individual reacted to the stress of being caught up in a totalitarian institutional structure and in this case contact with that institution led to a disastrous erosion of his personal integrity and morality.

Hannah Arendt was struck by the contrast between the pathetic and small man that she saw and heard in the trial in Jerusalem and the monstrousness of the deeds he organized and presided over.

Eichmann was and remained in her eyes a paltry, insignificant, man. A boring small minded bureaucrat, whose imagination was limited and whose obliviousness was positively awesome. Eichmann did not impress her as some sort of paragon of evil. He was simply pathetic.

Arendt for example quotes Eichmann has saying regarding his guilt:

With the killing of Jews I had nothing to do. I never killed a Jew, or a non-Jew, for that matter –I never killed any human being. I never gave an order to kill either a Jew or a non Jew; I just did not do it.3

This helps in Arendt’s eyes set up the image of a small minded petty man whose lack of imagination is and was breathtaking. Of course it is also self-serving nonsense. It ignores basic law in which if for example you give a gun to someone knowing that the person you give it too will kill with it and who they will kill, you are guilty. Certainly in this case helping to round up people so that they can be murdered is murder. The fact that you didn’t pull the trigger is irrelevant to the question of guilt. Eichmann is being a moral retard here.

Eichmann was born in 1906 in a small German town in the Rhineland. To be blunt there is absolutely nothing about his life that sticks out until 1932 when he joined the Nazi party. Before his trial, while he was being questioned Eichmann mentioned that he had several Jewish relatives and friends and on one occasion helped one relative, who was half Jewish according to the Nuremberg laws immigrate to Switzerland and he later helped a Jewish couple emigrate at the request of another relative. Eichmann used those examples to show that he didn’t hate Jews. Of course other Nazi’s could have made the same claim on the same basis. It can be dismissed as self serving and if not that self deceptive.4 it is also ironic that after Eichmann joined the Nazi party he briefly had a Jewish mistress.5

In 1934, in the hope of securing good employment Eichmann joined the S.D., or Security service for the S.S. He swiftly became the S.D. expert of “Jewish Affairs”.6

A detailed outline of his career which was to involve him in one of the greatest crimes in history has he with ruthless efficiency organized the hunting out, deportation to their deaths of millions of men women and children need not be given here.7

A few highlights should be remembered which are pertinent to Hannah Arendt’s interpretation of Eichmann. According to Eichmann on July 31 1941 Eichmann had a meeting with Reinhard Heydrich head of the Reich Security Office and a SS General. According to Eichmann Heydrich told him that “The Fuhrer [Hitler] has ordered the physical extermination of the Jews”.8 Later Eichmann was at the infamous Wannsee meeting that helped plan the full implementation of the “Final Solution”.9

Perhaps the incident that most characterized Eichmann’s whole personality is the process by which in 1944 he negotiated and organized the deportation of the Hungarian Jewish community and the zeal with which he carried it out in the teeth of a rapidly deteriorating military situation.10

During the closing period of the war Eichmann despite Heinrich Himmler’s express order to stop the killings, Eichmann continued to zealously carry out his task.11

Perhaps the most telling indication of Eichmann’s actual state of mind regarding the acts he was involved with is the following quote attributed to him:

I will jump into my grave laughing, because the fact that I have the death of five million Jews [or "enemies of the Reich," as he [Eichmann] always claimed to have said] on my conscience gives me extraordinary satisfaction.12

How Eichmann’s claim, repeated at trial, makes much of difference to the horror of the quote is a mystery. For in the Nazi ethos and world view Jews by definition were enemies of Germany. (Of course given that Eichmann was involved in rounding up Jews for killing during the war those were the only “enemies of the Reich”, he could possibly be referring to.

After the war Eichmann managed to hide and with the aid of various individuals and organizations he was able to escape to Argentina were he was kidnapped by Mossad agents (Israeli Secret Service), taken to Israel, tried in 1961 and executed in 1962.13

Hannah Arendt covered the trial for The New Yorker magazine and she was fascinated by the extraordinary mediocrity of the man.

Hannah Arendt viewed Eichmann has a bureaucrat and in her opinion:

He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing.14

Further Hannah Arendt says:

Eichmann was not Iago and not Macbeth, and nothing would have been further from his mind than to determine with Richard III “to prove a villain.” Except for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, he had no motives at all.15

In Arendt’s opinion Eichmann was the boring faceless mass man who had no real ideas of his own, who could immerse himself into a task and quite forget the consequences and nature of what he was doing. Eichmann raised all sorts of issues for Hannah Arendt because:

The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal.16

Hannah Arendt’s view of Eichmann has been criticized for being unconvincing at least in part. It is further thought that in some sense she was fooled by Eichmann into thinking he was just a faceless bureaucrat. It is interesting that Hannah Arendt’s own work provides some of the evidence that Eichmann was anything but a faceless bureaucrat.

For example Hannah Arendt does quote Eichmann’s infamous line about jumping into his grave happy. She however introduces the line with:

Bragging was the vice that was Eichmann’s undoing. It was sheer rodomontade when he told his men during the last days of the war: [then the quote]17

Quite unconvincing. But then Hannah Arendt seems to accept Eichmann’s portrayal of himself as not “really” hating Jews. So of course this comment which if anything indicates hatred must be whisked away with an airy dismissal. Similarly Eichmann’s zeal in continuing his job after Himmler had ordered it stopped is similarly dismissed as indicating a lack of imagination and an eagerness to please the man Eichmann thought has his true leader Adolf Hitler.18

Eichmann during his trial repeatedly stated ad-nauseum that he had no personal hatred of Jews. Not surprisingly given Eichmann’s own behavior the court in Jerusalem didn’t believe him. What is surprising is Hannah Arendt’s willingness to credit this. It is and remains unbelievable. What also is clear is that Hannah Arendt deliberately downplayed / ignored evidence that indicated that Eichmann did in fact hate his victims. For example that quote from Eichmann in which he talked about the “satisfaction” it gave him knowing he had helped to murder five million human beings, indicates not a mindless bureaucratic attitude towards his task but as a fanatic who carried out his task with zeal. Eichmann’s “explanation” that he referred to “enemies of the Reich”, is simply an admission that the quote was accurate, in reflecting his fanaticism, for by definition in the Nazi world view Jews by definition were “enemies of the Reich”, including helpless men, women and children. So Eichmann’s clarification is nothing more than a coded evasion that he probably hoped his Judges would not notice.19

Further the evidence indicated that Eichmann performed his task with zeal and energy. The evidence indicates that Eichmann could not rest until his task was performed.20

As for Eichmann’s defence that he was merely obeying orders it can be dismissed as self serving tripe, so is his absurd declaration that this absolves from feeling any guilt. In his interviews before the trial and during the trial itself Eichmann portrayed himself as a mere conveyor of orders and that as such his mere obedience to orders made him guiltless of any crime. In this carefully constructed mythos Eichmann argued that only those who gave the orders to him were guilty of anything and that he was guilty of nothing. Further there was no question of him even for a moment questioning these orders. In fact Eichmann argued that to do such a thing was simply unthinkable. The implication being that to disobey an order was in his eyes so mortally threatening that it constituted something in his eyes morally unthinkable. Eichmann further took upon himself the attitude that he was the victim of his superiors taking advantage of him. Whining self centeredness seems to have characterized Eichmann during the trial.21

In Eichmann’s presentation of himself he also argued that he was so constricted by his orders that he had little room for maneuver and of course refusing to carry out his orders was of course unthinkable and quitting unthinkable. That would be dereliction of duty, abandoning ones post.22

It was more than anything Eichmann’s continual repetition of this that helped to convince Hannah Arendt that Eichmann was a mindless indeed thoughtless bureaucrat who simply didn’t know what he was doing. It is also a self serving lie. It is absolutely clear that Eichmann knew what he was doing and further that he had an enormous amount of discretion which he exercised with great ruthlessness in the service of violent anti-Semitic notions he had since early on.23

All of this was part of Eichmann’s campaign to show that because he was not motivated by hatred, did not intend to “really” harm his victims, that he was innocent. In other words because his inner state of mind was pure his actual deeds were irrelevant. That this is contemptible is of course obvious. Eichmann was arguing that because he didn’t “really” hate his victims and “really” didn’t intend them harm he was innocent. Rather like a murderer saying since I bore no malice against the person I stabbed knowing full well they would die; I am innocent!

Eichmann’s statement above that he never killed anyone is of course an evasion and a deliberate self serving lie. He organized the rounding up of people so they could be murdered and he full well knew it. Just like someone who arranges for someone to be a spot X so they can be killed is a murderer, so is Eichmann. The fact that he didn’t personally kill someone is irrelevant to the issue of his guilt. As for all this showing Eichmann’s lack of imagination. I don’t think so. It shows instead Eichmann’s cunning, his desperate attempt to avoid taking responsibility in a court of law. This is the tactic of a petty murderer trying to avoid taking responsibility for his acts. In Eichmann’s case this also involved arguing that his inner “purity” of motive that was abused by his superiors made him innocent regardless of his deeds. It was and remains pathetic.

As for the superior orders defence considering how he disobeyed Himmler’s orders to stop in the fall of 1944 that can be dismissed as a self serving lie also. The fact that he carried out his task with zeal and a lot of discretion, to say nothing of gratuitous cruelty indicates he wanted and desired to carry out his orders. His claim that it was simply unthinkable not to carry out his orders is again a self serving attempt to hide the fact he approved of what was done and carried it out to the best of his ability. Also his pose as a victim was also just that at pose and a lie and an excuse for him to feel sorry for himself. If he had been truly opposed to these orders, as he claimed he would have found a thousand bureaucratic ways to sabotage them not carry them out with zeal. It was not lack of imagination that stopped him from doing so but simple desire to carry out his orders. The experience of numerous European countries during World War II in which their bureaucratic machines slowed down and sabotaged the Final Solution indicates what he could have done if he had “really” opposed it. Finally he could have quit at anytime. He choose not to do so not because it was unthinkable but because he wanted to continue his task.24

It appears that the pathetic gyrations and rationalizations of Eichmann convinced Hannah Arendt that Eichmann was indeed a thoughtless, unimaginative bureaucrat who bore no ill will against his victims. Thus it seems that Eichmann did indeed “fool” Hannah Arendt into thinking that he was “banal” and “ordinary”. In Eichmann Hannah Arendt saw not an ogre of horror but an unthinking everyman for whom her contempt was unbounded.

But if Eichmann “fooled” Hannah Arendt he outsmarted himself. For she concluded that the death sentence was just.

Why? Let me quote Hannah Arendt who is here delivering what she suggests as a verdict for the court:

“We are concerned here only with what you did, and not with the possible non criminal nature of your inner life and of your motives or with the criminal potentialities of those around you. You told your story in terms of a hard-luck story, and, knowing the circumstances, we are, up to a point, willing to grant you that under more favorable circumstances it is highly unlikely that you would ever have come before us or before any other criminal court. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that it was nothing more than misfortune that made you a willing instrument in the organization of mass murder; there still remains the fact that you have carried out, and therefore actively supported, a policy of mass murder. For politics is not like the nursery; in politics obedience and Support are the same. And just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations - as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world - we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang."25

Hannah Arendt argues that Eichmann’s (alleged) lack of base motives, his lack of hatred for his victims, his very ordinariness make him if anything more guilty and responsible and hence the death penalty even more appropriate.

Further Hannah Arendt argues that death is appropriate not because Eichmann deserves death - after all considering the scope and scale of his crime his personal death is ludicrously insignificant as a punishment – but because his presence among us is so defiling and polluting that he must be removed by death from among us.

If in Eichmann’s case the evil he personified is less banal than Hannah Arendt thought there still remains on earth far too many individuals who are in spirit and deed like Adolf Eichmann.

 

Hannah Arendt

 

1. Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, rev’d edition, Penguin Books, London, 1965.

2. Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism, New edition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1973.

3. Arendt, 1965, p. 22.

4. IBID, pp. 27-32.

5. IBID, p. 30.

6. IBID, pp. 36-39.

7. See Wikipedia, Adolf Eichmann Here, and Arendt, 1965, pp. 151-219.

8. Arendt, 1965, p. 83.

9. IBID, pp. 112-124.

10. Adolf Eichmann and Arendt, 1965, pp. 194-202.

11. IBID, Arendt, 1965, pp. 145-147.

12, IBID, pp. 46, a slightly different version is available from Adolf Eichmann. It goes:

I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction.

13. Arendt, 1965, pp. 234-243, Adolf Eichmann.

14. Arendt, 1965, p. 287.

15. IBID.

16. IBID, p.276.

17. IBID, p. 46.

18. IBID, pp. 194-204.

19. For the Nazi world view regarding Jews see Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Vintage Books, New York, 1997, pp. 80-128, Jackel, Eberhard, Hitler’s World View, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS, 1972, pp. 47-66, Herf, Jeffrey, The Jewish Enemy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS, 2006, pp. 50-91, Dawidowicz, Lucy S., The War Against the Jews, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1975, pp. 3-22, Weiss, John, Ideology of Death, Elephant Paperbacks, Chicago, 1996, pp. 271-287, 325-341.

20. See Adolf Eichmann, Lozowick, Yaacov, Malicious Clerks, in Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem, Ed. Aschheim, Steve E., University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2001, pp. 214-225, Cohen, Richard I, A Generation’s Response to Eichmann in Jerusalem, in Aschheim, pp. 253-277, at 266.

21. Arendt, 1965, pp. 135-150.

22. IBID.

23. Footnote 20, see also Arendt, 1965, pp. 195-205. Regarding Eichmann’s anti-Semitism he had been a member of an anti-Semitic fraternity in 1930 and further in the mid 1930’s had authored viciously anti-Semitic reports as part of his job full of standard Nazi propaganda. See Lozowick.

24. Footnote 20, Arendt, 1965, pp. 162-180.

25. Arendt, 1965, pp. 278-279.

Pierre Cloutier

Moral Cretinism
Part IV
Conducted Tours

Map of East Timor

In December 1975, after months of covert military attacks and in fulfillment of plans going back at least a year Indonesia invaded the Portuguese colony of East Timor. The next 24 years were characterized by brutal repression, mass murder, starvation and at times something close to genocide.1 During much of this time period East Timor was ignored by the western media. In western complicity in the invasion was abundant. From both President Ford and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saying during a visit to Indonesia that they had no problem with an invasion but hoped it would be over with quickly.

Below is an excerpt from a Telegram giving the minutes of a meeting between Suharto (the Indonesian Dictator) and President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger. After Suharto outlines the Indonesian plan to invade and occupy East Timor the following exchange took place.

42. Ford- We will understand and not press you on the issue. We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have.

43. Kissinger- you appreciate that the use of US made arms could create problems?

44. Ford- We could have technical and legal problems, You are familiar with the problem we had on Cyprus although this situation is different.

45. Kissinger- It depends on how we construe it, whether it is in self defence or is, a foreign operation. It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly, We would be able to influence the reaction in America if whatever happens happens after we return. This way there would be less chance of people talking in an unauthorized way. The President will be back on Monday at 2:00pm Jakarta time. We understand you problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned.

46. Ford- It would be more authoritative if we can do it in person.

47. Kissinger- Whatever you do, however, we will try to handle in the best way possible.

48. Ford- We recognize that you have the time factor. We have merely expressed our view from our particular point of view.

49. Kissinger- If you have made plans, we will do our best to keep everyone quiet until the president returns home.

50. Do you anticipate a long Guerilla war there?

51. Suharto- There will probably be a small Guerilla war…2

Later the United States supplied arms, air craft etc., for the invasion and subsequent repression. Further state department officials defended Indonesian actions and denied / down played Indonesian atrocities in East Timor.3

The United States in alliance with other states managed to make any UN attempt to stop or deal with the Indonesian invasion of East Timor ineffectual.4 Countries like Australia also engaged in what amounts to appeasement. Australia recognized legally and formally the Indonesian annexation of East Timor.5

Other western countries and others like Japan and the Soviet Union do not have much better records. During all this something like 150-200 thousand died out of a population of c. 800 thousand.6

During the Indonesian occupation (1974-1999), various journalists, diplomats and others were allowed on guided tours of East Timor. Many of those people were official or semi-official individuals who simply regurgitated Indonesian propaganda. In many respects they served a similar role to the fellow travellers who boosted Stalin’s Russia in the 1930’s, and told outrageous fabrications about what was actually going on.7

On April 25 / 26th 1991 for a book8 on East Timor a colloquy was held at the American University in Washington D.C. During this colloquy several representatives of the US State department and a certain Harold W. Maynard (Lt. Col. US Air Force Retired) were asked for their views on the matter of East Timor.

After other participants in the colloquy have described the various horrors of murder, starvation, torture, repression etc., etc. in East Timor. Mr. Maynard describes his impressions.

Mr. Maynard admits he flew in Indonesian Army helicopters with army interpreters and only visited for a period of seven days, but he decides that his “impressions” and “vignettes” are worth telling.9

First Mr. Maynard talks about Australian journalists getting a story wrong then he says:

I suspect that many times what we hear from East Timor about human rights violations is a case they got the facts wrong. I’m not telling you that human rights violations don’t take place. But they have to be very carefully checked.10

This is of course in many respects fellow traveller talk. It is clear that Mr. Maynard is rather partial to the side of Indonesia and its army. Thus we learn that the Indonesian army is exercising forbearance; that they could crush the opposition but draconian methods would violate their values. Thus a campaign characterized by widespread, torture, repression, massacre and countless atrocities is actually one of civilized forbearance!11 Of course for Mr. Maynard all allegations of atrocities against the Indonesian army must be carefully checked, (rather hard to do given the state of repression in East Timor), since an obviously favoured state / army is being accused.

But of course we then hear the familiar trope of those who pooh-pooh human rights abuses. We hear about economic development. First we hear that human right abuses are exaggerated, then we hear that even if they happen economic development is what counts. Thus Mr. Maynard says:

I don’t think even those who cry correctly about human rights violations in East Timor can deny that the roads have been dramatically improved, there are television stations where there had been none before, along with the stores, and the marketplaces, and the rest of that.12

Isn’t it interesting people “cry” about human rights abuses, i.e., behave irrationally when what really counts are roads and Television stations! Yup once again it is thinking similar to Mussolini made the trains run on time and Stalin built numerous factories.

Like so many of the conducted tours of the past Mr. Maynard’s “impressions” are that people are not afraid. Much like the fellow travellers to Stalin’s Russia during the 30’s he sees no fear instead he sees contentment and of course the East Timorese are not interested in politics but only in bettering their lot economically.13

Commonly in repressive societies, including those favoured by right wingers people being repressed are assumed to be a-political and only interested in economic improvement. An excellent example of this was American right-wing attitudes towards South Africa in the 1980’s.14

It seems never to have occurred to Mr. Maynard that what he saw and heard was managed. But then considering his attitude / bias it is unlikely he needed much management.

Mr. Maynard cannot claim that there are no human rights abuses in East Timor, so he instead goes into a peroration about how the human rights situation can only be improved by dealing with the problem locally. Mr. Maynard rejects the idea that it can be settled “by being internationalized and publicized”.15 Of course what he means is that he wants it settled by the Indonesians and that he desires that those outside Indonesia cease talking about it and doing anything about it. What Mr. Maynard wants is silence so that Indonesia can solve the East Timor problem.

Later like a good fellow traveller he says:

I encourage you to judge them by their own value system, and not by the words and value system we use.16

Indonesia under Suharto’s “values” included mass murder, torture, repression and rule by the corrupt kleptocracy of Suharto’s family and their cronies. Of course their “values” included such things as the great anti-Communist massacre of 1965-1966 and many other cases of murderous repression. Yes they should be judged according to those “values”!17

Then Mr. Maynard quotes from the soldier oaths and other bits about how soldiers in the Indonesian army swear to uphold “humanitarian values”, and “defend truth and justice”; no doubt while murdering, raping, pillaging and torturing. Why Mr. Mr. Maynard takes these bromides seriously is hard to take but then he is a fellow traveller and when the favoured state says something words count more than actual behaviour.18

Mr. Maynard then says that you must accept that East Timor is part of Indonesia. That the issue is non-negotiable and besides politics is irrelevant what counts is improving the economic well being of the people. Of course implied in all this is that what the people of East Timor want politically is irrelevant. Mr. Maynard accepts the political views of the Indonesian’s or to be specific of the government and the army. That the invasion was a naked act of aggression, characterized by a truly hideous level of brutality is ignored as irrelevant and Mr. Maynard wishes it to be forgotten.19

There follows a piece of advice about how to deal with the Indonesian armed forces which consists of telling people to exercise deference to the Indonesian army and be respectful. The following is quite revealing of Mr. Maynard’s attitude:

The guest in someone else’s house does not ransack the drawers, does not go in through the basement, does not publicize the diaries. If you are in Indonesia you are still a guest in Indonesia.20

What Mr. Maynard is saying is that when going to Indonesia to check out the human rights situation or East Timor; one does not investigate; one does not check government claims. One does not publicize the secret crimes of the regime. Guests should be deferential to the state. Of course this is also a dig at those individuals who went to East Timor supposedly as tourists but actually to check out the human rights situation. Mr. Maynard, who a little later mentions Amnesty International, seems to think that Amnesty when investigating human rights abuses in Indonesia / East Timor should not investigate. Thus Mr. Maynard says regarding Amnesty:

I think very few of us would be inclined to invite people into our own home in our own country if, when they come through the door, we know we are under the inquisition. If you start in with that approach I think it’s going to fail in the end.21

Mr. Maynard thus repeats the standard Indonesian Army / government attitude / opinion regarding Amnesty International. Thus Mr. Maynard shows he is a mouthpiece for the Indonesian army / government. The bottom line is that the government / army refused Amnesty’s requests because it did not want Amnesty to document the massive on-going abuses. It was in other words typical shoot the messenger logic. A powerful indication of Mr. Maynard’s biases is his comparing an Amnesty investigation to an “inquisition”. No doubt questioning people about possible repression, torture etc., is an “inquisition” of the alleged torturers etc. It’s also of interest that Mr. Maynard does not refer to the Indonesian Army / government as engaged in a “inquisition”, despite mass, murder, repression, torture, forced labour etc. One must always stand up for one’s ‘holy state’ I suppose.
 

 East Timorese being tortured

 

Later Mr. Maynard reiterates his desire, reflecting that of the Indonesian government that:

I think the time has come to put the question of East Timor sovereignty behind us and to put the 1975 events behind us and address what is good for the people, recognizing that many people think that they carry the flag of the people and that probably all of them have some part of the truth.22

Of course what was revealed in 1999 was that the great majority of the people of East Timor wanted nothing to do with being part of Indonesia. Mr. Maynard does not want to remember the sordid facts of the 1975 invasion or obviously of the atrocities that followed. He wants those to be dropped down the memory hole and forgotten. Of course his implicit assumption is that Indonesian rule is ‘good’ for the people of East Timor. Of course the “good” Mr. Maynard is talking about is economic betterment which of course in his implied view of things is all the people of East Timor should be concerned with.23

Mr. Maynard after discussing the alleged mania of Indonesian officials to collect stats, (Maynard doesn’t question whether the stats are valid), says using a metaphor that perhaps people are perceiving different parts of an Elephant and that everyone should check their sources. Mr. Maynard then says regarding his impressions:

But I don’t think that my impressions are any less valid than yours.24

Earlier Mr. Maynard said after other travellers to East Timor had described a situation of extreme repression and violence that:

I have been twice to East Timor and travelled around extensively and what you described I did not see. If you ask government officials, whether they’re American officials from the State Department, the CIA, or AID [ie USAID, US Government Overseas Aid Program], or Department of Defense, or Australian government officials, or French and German, by and large they do not see what you have described. Now, there are several things that might be going on. Number one is that they are imbeciles; number two is that they are insensitive; or number three, maybe it’s an elephant and each of us has a different part of the elephant that we are describing.25

Subsequent events and investigations revealed in abundance that Mr. Maynard’s “impressions” were indeed valueless. Like the fellow travellers to 1930’s Russia with their guided tours Mr. Maynard was not only deceived he wanted to be deceived. The same is true of the various government officials he is referring to. Of course realpolitik also played a role basically those governments supported Indonesia so of course they would not see / notice things that might damage the relationship. Mr. Maynard sets up a straw man. No one believes they are imbeciles but describing them as both insensitive and moral imbeciles seems right. They didn’t see because it was not in the interest of their governments to see. The record is clear East Timor under Indonesian rule was a thoroughly horrible place to live in; of course the degree of horror varied over time.26

In the same passage quoted above Mr. Maynard wonders:

My question for you is, if all the things you describe have been taking place and this is the greatest holocaust in this century by proportion, why is it that so many governments are ignoring it?27

Aside from indicating that Mr. Maynard does not want to believe that the horrors actually happened, is Mr. Maynard really so oblivious to realpolitik? I frankly think it is merely a pose given that Mr. Maynard thinks everyone should just accept the realpolitik of the invasion and occupation of East Timor and move on.

But like any good fellow traveller Mr. Maynard shortly before he is finished, along with dismissing the idea of the East Timorese people deciding their future says:

What I’m saying is my impression, with the exception of sullen people in Iliomar, was that the people were very happy. So my impression is that the people are happy with the Indonesian government as opposed to a viable alternative of which I see none.28

Yep like a fellow traveller in Stalin’s Russia Mr. Maynard sees happy people, but then given his mindset he would perceive happy people and not notice the others, if any on his conducted tour. Of course subsequent events, like the Santa Cruz massacre on November 12, 1991 would indicate that people were not happy with Indonesian rule. Of course so would the referendum of August 30, 1999 during which a little over 78% of the East Timorese voted for independence would indicate just how happy the East Timorese were to be part of Indonesia.29

On that suck up note lets us bid good bye to Mr. Maynard fellow traveller.

Later in the Colloquy a US State department official, (who remains un-named) states official US policy that work should be done to improve things in East Timor but that the Indonesian occupation should be accepted. Of course there is the usual stuff about dealing with “realities” rather than as implied airy idealism. The same official then declares it unlikely that East Timor was brought up during Ford’s visit to Indonesia in 1975. As indicated by the document quoted at the beginning of this post that is false.30

The official then goes on to wonder why the Portuguese government is so concerned now when in 1975-1976 they supported Indonesia getting East Timor. He also brings up the Goa comparison. (Goa was a small Portuguese colony on the coast of India. Invaded and occupied by India in 1961). Aside from ignoring that perhaps the Portuguese now recognized that going along with Indonesia on this was immoral, perhaps the horrible human rights abuses in East Timor have something to do with it. Further it does not appear that the inhabitants of Goa did not want to be part of India. This is of course different from East Timor. Obviously raising the issue of Goa is just an example of changing the subject.31

Another State Department official later acknowledges that perhaps knowing Portuguese would help while checking things out in East Timor. The official then admits that the languages used are Indonesian and English. Of course what is interesting is that no one discusses that the visits are guided tours during which the State Department officials will see what their Indonesian guides want them to see, and frankly what they want to see. In other words what will favour State Department policy which is in favour of Indonesia.32

In the Colloquy are a number of experts from Indonesia who are incredibly and amazingly obtuse to say nothing of to one degree or other suck up servants to power.33 It is amazing that the other participants tolerated the presence of these apologists for terror and fellow travellers.

Subsequently the Santa Cruz massacre exposed as hollow the argument that East Timorese were happy or even accepted Indonesian rule. Meanwhile brutal Indonesian repression and torture continued.

In 1996 Bishop Belo of East Timor and Jose Ramos-Horta are awarded the Noble Peace Prize for their efforts to bring peace to East Timor.

In 1998 because of a severe economic crisis and bent up frustration caused by decades of brutal autocratic rule, and corruption the Suharto regime collapses. The new President B. J. Habibie agrees to allow East Timor to have a referendum under UN Auspices to decide East Timor’s future.34

Elements in the Indonesian Military set up Militias in East Timor, which with the covert and overt support of the Indonesian military and police carry out a campaign of intimidation, torture and murder to intimidate the voters in the months before the referendum. Despite all this, including rumours that the Indonesian army and the Militia’s intend to devastate East Timor if the independence vote wins, the people of East Timor choose independence. Afterwards the Militias and the Indonesian army devastate East Timor creating over 250,000 refugees and destroying the economy and killing well over 1000 people.35

It will take decades for East Timor to recover from the brutal rule of Indonesia that people like Mr. Maynard white washed.36

Political Rally East Timor 1998

 

1. Taylor, John G., East Timor: The Price of Freedom, Zed Books, New York, 1999, pp. 68-131, Chomsky, Noam, & Herman, Edward S., The Political Economy of Human Rights, v. 1, Black Rose Books, Montreal, 1979, pp. 129-204, Chomsky, Noam, Towards a New Cold War, Pantheon Books, New York, pp. 337-370, Chega! Final Report of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor, 2005, Here.

2. Embassy Jakarta Telegram 1579, From The National Security Archive, East Timor Revisited, Here.

3. See Chomsky, 1979 & 1982, see also East Timor at the Crossroads, Ed. Bentley, G. Carter & Carey, Peter, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1995,. The colloquy entitled Dimensions of Domination, Ed. Bentley, G. Carter, is on pp. 161-194, at pp. 166-171.

4. IBID, Gunn, Geoffrey, C., A Critical View of Western Journalism and Scholarship on East Timor, Journal of Contemporary Asia Publishers, Sydney Australia, 1994, pp. 109-134.

5. IBID Gunn, Fernandes, Clinton, Reluctant Saviour, Scribe Publications, Melbourne Australia, 2004, pp. 13-25, Kingsbury, Damien, East Timor: The Price of Liberty, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2009, pp. 48-50.

6. Estimates vary see Kiernan, Ben, Blood and Soil, Yale University Press, Harvard CONN, 2007, 578-580, and The Demography of Genocide in South East Asia, 2003 at Here. See also Chega! Executive Summary, p. 48 which gives a minimum figure of 102,000 killed at Here.
 

7. See Caute, David, The Fellow Travellers, Revised Edition, Yale University Press, Harvard CONN, 1988. Especially see pp. 64-139.

8. See Bentley, pp. 161-194.

9. IBID, Maynard’s first impressions are pp. 173-176, the quotes are p. 173.

10. IBID, p. 175.

11. See Footnote 1.

12. Bentley, Maynard’s impressions p. 174.

13. IBID, pp. 174-175.

14. See Minter, William, King Solomon’s Mines Revisited, Basic Books, New York, 1988.

15. Bentley, Maynard’s impressions p. 175.

16. IBID, p. 175.

17. Chomsky, 1979, pp. 205-217, Kiernan, 2007, pp. 576-578, Challis, Shadow of a Revolution, Sutton Publishing, London, 2001, pp. 104-108. 191-196. The anti-Communist massacres of 1965-1966 killed 500,000 – 1,000,000 people.

18. Bentley, Maynard’s impressions quoting the Indonesian soldier’s oath, p. 175.

19. IBID, pp. 175-176.

20. IBID, p. 176.

21. IBID, p. 176.

22. IBID, p. 179.

23. See Gunn, pp. 207-236.

24. Bentley, Maynard’s impressions p. 180.

25. IBID, p. 169.

26. See Footnote 1.

27. Bentley, Maynard’s impressions p. 169.

28. IBID, p. 181.

29, Kingsbury, pp.60-65, 71-76, Taylor, pp. 213-214, 227-228, van Klinken, Helene, Taking the Risk, Paying the Price, in Guns and Ballot Boxes, Ed. Kingsbury, Damien, Monash Asia Institute, Victoria Australia, 2000, pp. 43-68.

30. Bentley, USSD1’s impressions p. 187.

31. IBID, p. 188.

32. IBID, USSD2’s impressions pp. 189-190.

33. Footnote 8. Just read the entire colloquy it has some truly stomach turning passages.

34. Taylor, pp. 213-223.

35. Kingsbury, 2009, pp. 65-76, Taylor, pp. 223-230, Nevins, Joseph, A Not So Distant Horror, Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 2005, pp. 81-135, van Klinken, Kingsbury, Damien, The TNI and the Militias, in Kingsbury, 2000, pp. 69-80, Bartu, Peter, The Militia, The Military and the People of the Bobonaro District, in Kingsbury, 2000, pp. 81-98., McDonald, Hamish, Masters of Terror: The Indonesian Findings, in Masters of Terror, Ed. McDonald Hamish & Tanter, Robert, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, New York, 2006, pp. 13-20, KPP HAM, Full Report of the Investigative Commission into Human Rights Violations in East Timor, in Hamish et al, pp. 21-66, Ball, Desmond, Silent Witness: Australian Intelligence and East Timor, in Hamish et al, pp. 177-202.

36. Just how difficult it as been so far see Kingsbury, 2009.

Pierre Cloutier

The Origins of the first Servile War

Diodorus’ Version

Map of Sicily

In the years after Rome’s defeat of Carthage, (201 B.C.E.), Rome became the economic center of the Mediterranean the result was a spectacular growth in the Roman economy which was keeping pace with the spectacular growth of Roman political / military power. The island of Sicily, Rome’s first province out side of Italy, experienced significant economic growth; however the engine of this growth was a huge increase in the numbers of slaves, most of whom were imported into the country en mass to satisfy the insatiable demands of the Romans for agricultural produce and livestock products. The result was the mass importation of human beings to be agricultural workers and shepherds.1

In like manner those that had large possessions in Sicily bought up whole gaols to till their lands – some they shackled, others they overcharged with hard labour, and branded and stigmatized everyone of them: so that such a multitude of slaves, even a deluge, overflowed all Sicily, that the excessive number may seem incredible to all that hear of it; for all the rich men of Sicily vied with the Italians for pride, covetousness, and vicious practices; for many of the Italians who had great numbers of servants, accustomed their shepherds to that degree of rapine and licentiousness, as that they suffered them to rob and steal for want of necessary subsistence from them themselves.2

So says Diodorus the first century B.C.E. Greek historian.

Diodorus further says:

The slaves, distressed by their hardships and frequently outraged and beaten beyond all reason, could not endure their treatment. Getting together as opportunity offered, they discussed the possibility of revolt, until at last they put their plans into action.3

Later Diodorus says:

Because of the superabundant prosperity of those who exploited the products of this mighty island, nearly all who had risen in wealth affected first a luxurious mode of living, than arrogance and insolence. As a result of all this, since both the maltreatment of the slaves and their estrangement from their masters increased at an equal rate, there at last, when occasion offered, a violent outburst of hatred. So without a word of summons tens of thousands of slaves joined forces to destroy their masters.4

Slave owners, not only treated their slaves brutally but they did not feed them, further they encouraged the slaves to rob and plunder to satisfy their needs. They also imported large numbers of slaves to work in the mines of Sicily. This was especially true of the slaves in the country side who were employed as shepherds and herdsman. The result was a massive increase in lawlessness and eventually many slaves became brigands involved in attacking travellers, engaging in murder and pillaging homes. Large areas of the Sicilian countryside became unsafe. Further attempts to control the widespread brigandage were thwarted by the slave owners who benefited by the brigandage in so far as it reduced the cost of the upkeep of their slaves.5

Slaves working in a mine

Finally Diodorus says concerning the Italians who after the second Punic war (218-201 B.C.E.), invested and bought land in Sicily:

The Italians who were engaged in agriculture purchased great numbers of slaves, all of whom they marked with brands, but failed to provide them sufficient food, and by oppressive toil wore them out … (Note there is a gap here in Diodorus account)6

If the above was the background to the slave revolt in Sicily, (c. 136-131 B.C.E.), the spark that stated the revolt was the behaviour of a man named Damophilus and his wife Megallis. Diodorus writes:

There was a certain Damophilus of Enna, a man of great wealth but insolent manner; he had abused his slaves to excess, and his wife Megallis vied with her husband in punishing the slaves and in her general inhumanity toward them. The slaves reduced by this degrading treatment to the level of brutes, conspired to revolt and to murder their masters.7

The slaves sought the advice of a fellow slave named Eunus, who had the reputation of being a wonder worker and psychic. He became the leader of the revolt and he told them to go ahead with their plans.8

Damophilus is described by Diodorus as insolent, and cruel towards his slaves along with being luxury loving and arrogant. Diodorus says that Damophilus:

...emulated not only the luxury affected by the Italian landowners in Sicily, but also their troops of slaves and their inhumanity and severity towards them.9

Diodorus was in many respects, as indicated by his history as having an anti-Roman / anti-Italian bias.10

Diodorus then describes Damophilus as extravagant and luxury loving and a total boor, along with being very wealthy. Damophilus also branded and tortured his slaves on a regular basis; chaining his slaves and devising along with his wife Megallis ways to torment their slaves.11

For example:

On one occasion when approached by a group of naked domestics with a request for clothing, Damophilus of Enna impatiently refused to listen. “What” he said, “do those who travel through the country go naked? Do they not offer a ready source of supply for any one who needs garments?” Having said this, he ordered them bound to pillars, piled blows on them, and arrogantly dismissed them.12

Well the revolting slaves seized control of the city of Enna and captured Damophilus and his wife Megallis just outside the city. The slaves chained and bound them and abused them. Later Damophilus was dragged out in front of an assembly of slaves were upon he was killed in the following manner:

Hermeias and Zeuxis, men bitterly disposed toward him, denounced him as a cheat, and without waiting for a formal trial by the assembly, the one ran him through the chest with a sword, the other chopped off his head with an axe.13

Regarding Damophilus’ wife Megallis her fate was as follows:

He (Eunus) gave Megallis to the maidservants to deal with as they might wish; they subjected her to torture and threw her over a precipice.14

The slaves did not similarly deal with the rest of Damophilus’ and Megallis’ family. Damophilus and Megallis had a daughter who the revolting slaves treated well because she was:

…seen to show consideration throughout, and this was because of her kindly nature, in that to the extent of her power she was always compassionate and ready to succour the slaves.15

In another place Diodorus describes this women, whose name is unknown has:

…remarkable for her simplicity of manner and kindness of heart. It was always her practice to do all she could to comfort the slaves who were beaten by her parents, and since she also took the part of any who had been put in bonds, she was wondrously loved by one and all for her kindness.16

The result of her kindness was that she was treated with consideration by the revolting slaves and escorted to safety to the home of relatives who lived in the Sicilian city of Catana.17

The lesson is clear Damophilus and Megallis reaped their deserved reward for their brutal treatment of their slaves, but their daughter who treated them with kindness reaped the deserved reward for her kindness and humanity.

For has Diodorus says regarding Damophilus, Megallis and their daughter and the larger message:

Thereby it was demonstrated that the others (other slave owners) were treated as they were, not because of some “natural savagery of slaves,” but rather in revenge for wrongs previously done.18

…

Although the rebellious slaves were enraged against the whole household of their masters and resorted to unrelenting abuse and vengeance, there were yet some indications that it was not from innate savagery but rather because of the arrogant treatment they had themselves received that they now ran amuck when they turned to avenge themselves on their persecutors.

Even among slaves human nature needs no instructor in regard to a just repayment, whether of gratitude or revenge.19

Diodorus’ account is in many ways unusual. His sympathy for the slaves was for his time not very common. He apparently believed that arrogance, brutality and pride reaped or should reap the reward of punishment. It is also clear that Diodorus felt very strongly that slaves deserved and were entitled to decent and fair treatment. Further masters who abused their slaves richly deserved the “reward” of drastic punishment. It is quite obvious that Diodorus had little sympathy for abusive slave owners who were killed by their slaves.

Further Diodorus clearly views slaves as moral agents, who could recognize right and wrong and that they had the right, so to speak, to take revenge and also to take note of acts of kindness and consideration.

Such an attitude was unusual at the time when slaves were habitually viewed as less than human and usually not recognized as agents. The general attitude of antiquity seems to have been one of fear and contempt. Slaves were the “other” not quite human and certainly not aware moral agents. Acts of vengeance or rebellion were frequently attributed to the alleged innate qualities of being a slave. Diodorus instead viewed it as rebellion against the basic human decency of the slaves being outraged by arrogant and brutal slave owners.20

From this Diodorus doesn’t just draw a moral concerning the treatment of slaves but a judgement concerning the obligations and behaviour of elites.

Not only in exercise of political power should men of prominence be considerate of those of low estate, but also in private life they should - if they are sensible – treat their slaves gently. For heavy-handed arrogance leads states into civil strife and factionalism among citizens, and in individual households it paves the way for plots of slaves against masters and for terrible uprisings in concert against the whole state. The more power is perverted to cruelty and lawlessness, the more the character of those subject to that power is brutalized to the point of desperation. Anyone whom fortune has set in low estate willingly yields place to his superiors in point of gentility and esteem, but if he is deprived of due consideration, he comes to regard those who harshly lord over him with bitter enmity.21

Thus Diodorus comes to a conclusion that elites should treat their less fortunate neighbours with consideration and at least minimal respect not simply because it is the due and right of those less fortunate but also out of sheer self interest.

In antiquity the attitude of elites, i.e., the rich, to the poor, (which was the great majority of the population), and especially slaves was one of snobbish contempt mixed with not a little fear. Ascribing basic human decency or feeling or moral values to such people was unusual. These attitudes were reflected in the literature produced during those times given how the great majority was produced by and for the elites of the time and so reflected the conceits and snobbery of those elites. Diodorus in his attitude towards the so-called lower orders, especially slaves indicates a belief in their basic human dignity and in their moral value.22

Medieval Portrait of Diodorus

1. Urbainczyk, Theresa, Slave Revolts in Antiquity, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2008, pp. 10-11, Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, Bradley, Keith R., Indiana University Press, Indianapolis IN, 1989, pp. 50-55.

2. Diodorus, The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian, v. 2, J. Davis Military Chronicle Office, London, 1814, p. 621-622.

3. Diodorus, Book 34/35, s. 4, quoted in Yavetz, Zvi, Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Rome, Transaction Books, Oxford, p. 15. (Book is a collection of source material on the Servile wars in ancient Rome).

4. IBID, s. 26, p. 19.

5. IBID, s. 27-31, pp. 20-21.

6. IBID, s. 32, p. 21.

7. IBID, s. 10, p. 16.

8. IBID, s. 5-11, p. 16.

9. IBID, s. 34.

10. Urbainczyk, pp. 81-90, Sacks, Kenneth S., Diodorus Siculus and the First Century, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1990, pp. 142-154, 157-159.

11. Yavetz, Diodorus, Book 34/35, s. 34-38, pp. 21-22.

12. IBID, s. 38, p.22.

13. IBID, s. 14, p. 17.

14. IBID, s. 15, p. 17

15. IBID, s. 13, p. 17.

16. IBID, s. 39, p. 22.

17. IBID, s 13, 39, pp. 17, 22.

18. IBID, s. 13, p. 17.

19. IBID, s. 40, p. 22.

20. Footnote, 10.

21. Yavetz, Diodorus, Book 24/35, s. 33, p. 21.

22. Footnote 10.

Pierre Cloutier

Moral Cretinism Part IILying and Murder 

In a past posting I discussed a morally repugnant piece of garbage that sought to excuse the Khmer Rouge. Well I’ve just found a piece of crud that in some respects outdoes that bit of slime ball idiocy.

It comes from the website Answers in Genesis or AIG for short.1 In this piece a Mr. Bodie Hodge answers the question about whether or not it is ever right to lie.2 Mr. Hodge makes a complete hash of it.

Below I will quote the full E-Mail exchange with my comments concerning Mr. Hodge’s morally cretinist views.

You, know I almost hate to do this because I know how much email you guys handle. . . But I want to respond to Bodie Hodge’s “contradictions” article on Rahab’s “lie”. Bodie is almost always right on the mark and is probably my favourite feedback man, but in this case I have to take exception to his saying that it is always wrong to lie . . . The ninth commandment says we should never bear false witness against our neighbour (or anyone). But if the Nazis are looking for Jews, and you know where they are, it would not be wrong to lie, in order to protect them, nor would this be bearing false witness “against” someone . . . I think in the same way the Israeli midwives lied to the Egyptians about the birthing of male babies in Moses’s day . . . I know its a rare exception, but there may be other circumstances when it might be appropriate to “lie”, although obviously, 99% percent of the time it would be wrong . . . Keep up the good work, all of you, your ministry is the most awesome in the world, just blows me away. M.H.3

Scene from the movie Sophie's Choice

Now Mr/s M.H., is of course giving to moral absolutists an extreme example just to see if they are willing to bend their un-bendable moral absolutism in order to do good. Or even to realize that this is a morally difficult situation and sometimes you have to commit one sin to avoid a greater one and/or to do good. Of course being a Fundamentalist moral cretin our analyst fails spectacularly.

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis and thanks for the comments. I know this can be a touchy subject, but please bear with me as I try to explain. Keep in mind that I, too, am not perfect but will try to answer as scripturally as possible. (Also, sorry for the length—but this feedback will allow me the breadth that I did not have with the contradiction article on Rahab on the website.)4

To refine Mr. Hodge’s position. Scripturally means to him sections of the Bible I like, interpreted the way I like. Further Mr. Hodge elevates the detailed word of the Bible above mere human considerations and that includes other people’s lives and of course this is a form of idolatry. And of course he forgets that bit about the word kills but the spirit gives life.

Righteous Lies?

Bearing false witness is a lie, and in Hebrew the word for false in Exodus 20:16 is sheqer, which literally means “lie.” It is derived from the Hebrew word shaqar, which means “deal falsely, be false, trick, and cheat.” There are many verses in the Bible that reaffirm the Ninth Commandment, and a couple are:5

Well first of all a word is interpreted in context with other words, and the text does say bear false witness. It seems clear that it is referring to judicial and judicial like proceedings and is not intended to be a blanket prohibition of all lying regardless of circumstances or situations. So it seems that the commandment against bearing false witness does not ban lying in all situations. It is of interest that Mr. Hodge ignores context in order to get the result he wants.

Leviticus 19:11
You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.

1John 2:21
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

The devil is the father of lies (John 8:44), and one lie to God the Holy Spirit was worthy of instant death for Ananias (Acts 5:3–5). Paul points out that even if he were to lie for the glory of God, he would be deemed a sinner for such an act:

Romans 3:7
For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, thy am I also still judged as a sinner?6

Note that Mr. Hodge then cherry picks appropriate quotations to back up the view that he is obviously taking that lying is indeed a heinous sin. I note he selects passages which in his opinion support an absolutist interpretation of the prohibition against lying. It is of interest that Rabbi’s of the rabbinical age that began before Jesus and lasted until 500 C.E., argued the notion that in order to save a life you could break many of the Mosaic laws. Because some divine commands, like the duty to preserve innocent life have priority over others.

It is of interest that he quotes the Bible about the Devil being the father of lies, which is fascinating, so lying to save someone, can only be prompted by the Devil. How fascinating.

This all of course assumes that Mr. Hodge is quoting the passages properly and in context, an assumption that may not be accurate.

In light of such passages, does a “righteous lie” really exist? The most common example sent to me was envisioning the Holocaust and being placed in the position of lying to potentially protect someone’s life. Like most, if placed in such a difficult situation, it would be very difficult. In fact, I could never be sure what I would do, especially if it were a loved one.7

A bit of dawn breaks in Mr. Hodge’s head. He admits that he would not know what to do and that he would be sorely tempted to lie. However this dawn is only temporary and Mr. Hodge reverts back to mindless obedience to the literal word.

But consider for a moment that we are all already sentenced to die because we are sinners (Romans 5:12). It is going to happen regardless. If a lie helps keep someone alive for a matter of moments compared to eternity, was the lie, which is high treason against the Creator, worth it?8

So Mr. Hodge elevates lying to “high treason” against God. Wow! Is this any lie? Well it appears to be the case with Mr. Hodge. So is Mr. Hodge really saying that lying to save an innocent life is punishable by eternal damnation? In effect Mr. Hodge is saying that being a murderer / accessory to murder is a lesser sin than lying! So helping to murder an innocent human being despite its violation of so many passages in the Bible, i.e., “thou shall NOT kill". (Here in the King James Bible sense of murder) is nothing compared to a lie. And note Mr. Hodge does not even talk about graduations of lies. Does lying like when you told some body she looked good in that dress when they did not a lie that will damn you for eternity? Well it appears from Mr. Hodge that yes it does.

I further note that this turns God into a monster obsessed with a rule that is in the circumstances utterly trivial.

But then we here the real reason why you should not lie. It does not make any difference because you’re going to die anyway and compared to eternity it is trivial. So by this calculus murder is trivial, after all death is going to happen anyway. So why pray tell live at all! In other words other people’s lives don’t matter very much. Our Mr. Hodge is not finished however.

It would be like sitting in a cell on death row and when the guards come to take your roommate to the electric chair, you lie to the guards and say you don’t know where the person went—while your roommate is hiding under their covers on the bed. Does it really help? Since we are all sinners (Romans 3:23), death is coming for us, and there is an appointed time (Ecclesiastes 3:2).9

Well Mr. Hodge the analogy is bad. First of all the people we are lying to protect are INNOCENT. Secondly if we lie they have a better chance of surviving. Third the authorities (Nazis') in this case are violating every commandment in the book including thou shall not kill. The fact is the Nazis' can not be sure, unlike the inmate in this case that there is anyone there and it is possible for you to save them by lying and you would almost certainly get them killed by telling the truth. The appointed time stuff is interesting is Mr. Hodge stating that God decided when the innocents who were murdered in the Holocaust died it was their “appointed time”? If so then Mr. Hodge is saying God is responsible for their deaths. Once again God the monster.

Proverbs 12:19
The truthful lip shall be established forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment. Is it worth sinning against God to try to buy a moment of time next to eternity—intentionally lying is foolish and would only harm the extent of your own life (Ecclesiastes 7:17). Let’s look further at Scripture for an example of a situation where a lie could have saved a life.10

Once again Mr. Hodge states that intentionally lying is wicked because it is foolish. Let me get this, lying to save an innocent party from wrongful death etc., is foolish but telling the truth and being an accessory to murder is wise!? But then we see the secret meaning Mr. Hodge’s vomits. Mr. Hodge states that it would harm the extent of your own life. In other words God is such an anal retentive asshole that he would damn you for saving an innocent by lying. However if you tell the truth and are an accessory to murder he will reward you with eternal joy in heaven. Besides what is an innocent being murdered anyway compared to your eternal bliss in heaven? They would eventually die anyway?!

The self centered moralistic idiocy of this to elevate one owns sense of “proper” moral behavior over the lives of others beggars belief.

It is of interest to note that Mr. Hodge seems to think truth all the time is a good thing because in the end it pays well.

Stephen

Stephen in Acts 6–7 preached Christ, and men came against him. This culminated with a question by the high priest in Acts 7:1who said: “Are these things so?” At this point, Stephen could have done a “righteous lie” to save his life so that he could have many more years to preach the gospel. However, Stephen laid a long and appropriate foundation for Christ—then preached Christ. And they killed him.

But this event triggered a persecution that sent the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19) and peaked with Paul (who consented to Stephen’s death) coming to Christ and taking the message to the Gentiles and writing several books of the New Testament. The Lord had a greater purpose for Stephen—even though it cost him his life. Keep in mind, however, that this, and other examples, are about the person in question—not another.11

Aside from the fact that Stephen’s hypothetical lie was to save himself not others and so doesn’t meet the situation described at all. The other problem is that given that human beings want to go on living and who in their right mind would blame Stephen for lying to save himself. That he did not shows enormous courage and faith. Since God is supposed to be forgiving I rather suspect he would forgive a lie designed to save one’s own life.

Of course the question in the Nazi hypothetical is aside from the considerable courage required to hide these people, remember hiding someone is a form of deception, it requires considerable courage to lie, deceive etc., to keep those people safe.

Do We Know What God Had in Mind?

I often wonder if a Nazi soldier asked if someone was there hiding and they told the truth before God, could the Lord have in mind a greater purpose? Could God have used that person to free a great many people who ultimately died in the Holocaust? Or have done something to stop the war earlier? Or cause a great number of Jews and Nazi’s to come to know Christ? It is possible, but we simply cannot know. And one should not dwell too long on “what ifs” anyway.12

The question is not what God had in mind but what these men had in mind. What they had in mind was rounding up these innocent, (yes I’m overusing the word); people in order to kill them. Given that that was their objective lying to stop them carrying it out seems reasonable. As for what God had in mind!? What the hell are you implying? Are you saying that somehow the Holocaust was part of God’s plan?!

This paragraph is utterly revolting. Mr. Hodge seems to be implying that by telling the truth in this hypothetical situation that somehow this is part of God’s plan to save souls. That this is a greater purpose. No doubt the Holocaust was also part of God’s “greater purpose”. What a monstrous conception of God.

But then the great purpose is to get more people to “know Christ”, little matters like saving their lives are nothing compared to that.

The implication seems to be that by telling the truth and helping to murder these innocents these people find Christ and are saved and are rewarded with an eternity of bliss. No doubt those innocents who are murdered and do not find Christ get an eternity of suffering in hell.

It is also of interest that Mr. Hodge seems to not realize that by lying, hopefully successfully, these liars help prevent the Nazi soldiers involved of being guilty of murder. But then what their doing is nothing compared to lying according to Mr. Hodge.

No doubt, there is great value in the truth (John 8:32). As fallible, sinful human beings, our imperfect thoughts may not be able to comprehend what God has in mind, and we need to strive to trust God when He speaks on this subject, regardless how hard it may be. We need to place our faith fully in Christ and trust in God in all things—and not lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).

I’m not saying this to be “preachy,” because I really don’t know what I would do in such a situation. However, I would pray that the Lord would grant me the wisdom to know what to say and how to say it—but more preferably—how to avoid being in that situation in the first place.13

So we should just trust God and avoid using our god given brains. This is known as abdication of responsibility. It is also called cowardice.

Mr. Hodge then again admits he would not know what to do in this situation. Again admitting he might do the right thing and lie his head off. He would of course pray about saying the right thing. Why pray, THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO LIE!!! But then the cowardice comes in, Mr. Hodge would try to avoid getting in that situation. Just how would he do it?

I would suspect he would simply refuse to help so he would not have to lie. He would refuse to help innocent people because he just cannot lie even to save their lives. Well if that is the case he should definitely refuse to help them if he lacks the moral courage to lie to save them and would prefer to sacrifice their lives on the altar of his “moral” code.

The fact is by agreeing to hide them the person doing so is agreeing to do what is necessary to keep them safe and this includes an enormous amount of deception and yes, lying. Further Mr. Hodge conveniently forgets that by refusing to obey the Nazi rules against sheltering Jews, the hiders were disobeying Paul’s injunction that the authorities are ordained by God and should be obeyed. If Mr. Hodge cannot do any of this he should not be hiding these people at all.

If Forced into This Situation . . . What Then?

Let’s consider again the Nazi-Holocaust situation: there seems to be a conflict in the situation to lie before God to try to save someone else’s life. The result is often called the “greater good” or “lesser of two evils.”

I’ve been told in the past that the lesser of these two evils would be to lie to save a life—hence the common phrase “a righteous lie.” This is often justified by appealing to the command to love our neighbor (Romans 13:9).

But how does God view this, remembering that God is a discerner of our motives. To God, a lie for selfish motive was worthy of death to Ananias. But, in fact, just one sin is worthy of death (Genesis 2:17). (This should be a reminder that we should continually praise God for His grace that is bestowed upon us). But let’s look at Scripture again. The two greatest commandments are:

Mark 12:28–31
Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first1 commandment of all?” Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Jesus tells us that all the commandments can be summed up into these two statements. But of these two, the first is to love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. So, this would trump the second. Our actions toward God should trump our actions toward men. Peter also affirmed this:

Acts 5:29
But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first—before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?14

The moral cretinism is now full blown. After mentioning the very obvious lesser of two evils argument Mr. Hodge engages in some really twisted scripture pulling to justify his stance of truth telling at all costs; including the lives of innocent people.

Of course Mr. Hodge’s quote about one sin is worthy of death is of course to imply that lying to the Nazis about innocent people being hidden by you is a crime worthy of death, i.e., eternal punishment. Of course being guilty of murder by telling the truth is of little consequence. Opps! Hold it. God frowns upon murder. What about “thy brother’s blood cries out from the earth”. It is that which I think God will reproach these truth tellers for at judgment. I further note that God condemned Cain for murdering his brother not for Cain lying about knowing where his brother was.

Firstly Jesus’ commandment about is about loving God and part of the proof of loving God is loving your neighbour, how does it show love of God to condemn your neighbour to death?

Then Mr. Hodge goes into a favorite Fundamentalist mantra; obedience. Yep we should obey God and never argue or disagree with him but like mindless automatons obey him. Or at least Mr. Hodge’s version of him. But in the end blind obedience to God and some, in the circumstances, trivial rule trumps simple human decency. We owe absolute obedience to God. Yet just how are being obedient to God if we by not lying treat our neighbour badly. Condemn them. Damn them. In this twisted case our selfish need to please God, in the way Mr. Hodge thinks God should be pleased, trumps our duty to our neighbour. Just how God is going to be impressed by that is beyond me. Further obedience to God requires that we obey a sinful, genocidal regime and cooperate in sending innocent (there’s that word again) people to their deaths. It in other words requires and mandates obedience to the orders of a thoroughly vile regime. This is called capitulation to evil.

Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life—keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.

As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ’s approval (Luke 22:31). Regardless, if one were to lie or not, Jesus Christ is in control of timing every person’s life and able to discern our motives. It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).15

Now starts the weaselling and sophistical attempts to evade the consequences of telling the truth in this case.

Mr. Hodge weasels quite grotesquely. He argues that we don’t know for sure that it would save a life. Really! The great majority of Jews who were caught by the Nazis were murdered. The majority of survivors were those who had fled or were hidden. Those who survived the camps were the young and the fit, (and only a minority of those) at least when they entered the camps. The elderly, very young, infirm, pregnant women etc., were first on the list to be murdered. So it was an extremely good bet that they would die.

Besides does one need the certainty of saving someone? No of course not. Telling the truth would have in the circumstances the near certainty of getting them killed lying at least as the chance of saving them. So of course you lie.

But of course Mr. Hodge evades accepting responsibility by saying you can’t be sure they would die. That is crap it would be in the circumstances virtually certain. So guess what you would be responsible for not lying and sealing their fate.

Of course even if one puts aside the issue of death. There is the fact that telling the truth, assuming it doesn’t get them killed, would condemn these innocents (yes that word again) to terrible, undeserved suffering which if you lie you have a chance of preventing them from enduring.

There is more crap about lying possibly not preventing the search. So what! Lying has a hell of lot better chance of preventing the search than not lying. Mr. Hodge continues to try to evade the issue that telling the truth might get someone killed by postulating a hypothetical.

As for the nonsense about we all die eventually anyway. What an inhuman evil way to conceptualize death, and human suffering, but then it always easier when someone else is suffering and dying. It is of note that our author states that God (Jesus Christ) is in control of the “timing” of everyone’s life. This of course means that God is responsible for the Holocaust and we should not thwart God’s ordained times for people, even if they are innocents, (yeah once again that word), to die.

We should not worry about what might happen in the future to those innocent (yet again) people for ours is not the future to see que sera, sera! This is pure abdication of responsibility for other people. I wonder does Mr. Hodge plan at all for his future? If he does, does he realize that he is not placing his faith in God and letting God reign?

Of course God gave us brains and not to think about the future and the consequences of our acts is simple cowardice. What Mr, Hodge is considering is an act of incredible hubris, that of putting a very narrow conception of “morals” above others. The arrogance is breathtaking.

Mr. Hodge also never considers the possibility of refusing to answer the question at all and therefore avoiding lying. But then I strongly suspect there is an element of obeying authority even if they are Nazis in his analysis.

Of course the problem with saying nothing is that it would almost certainly be interpreted as an admission that you are hiding someone. And that would doom the people you are trying to save as much as a yes.

As for trusting in God is it not remarkable that Mr. Hodge is writing for a blog, (AIG) that is actively trying to get Creationism taught in schools. Just why are they not trusting to God and letting God reign? Why are they actively doing anything at all? Not a lot of faith in God it seems.

Wow, you put a lot of work in to that answer Bodie, and from a biblical basis too. I agree with you 100% about lying to protect yourself, that could be interpreted as mere cowardice, and I think most of your biblical examples dealt with that. However there is a scripture in Exodus ch.1 vs. 15–22, in which the Jewish midwives are told to kill all the male babies they delivered but refused to do so. When asked why they hadn’t destroyed the babies, they told the Egyptians the Hebrew women simply gave birth faster than the Egyptian women, and had the babies before the midwives got there. Vs.17 however says that the Jewish midwives saved the male children alive, so here they are lying not only to save the male babies but probably to escape punishment from the Egyptians. Vs. 20 says that God dealt well with the midwives for doing this. I think this is one of the rare examples or cases where lying would truly not be offensive to our Creator. At any rate, I think this scripture shows that not all lies are equal, at least to my mind. In that most lies are done for self advancement, self protection, greed, etc., but some are done at least with the intention of protecting others, their reputations or physical selves. I can’t fault your stance though, your conscience and the Word must be your guide. Keep up the good work.—M.H.

Ms/r M.H., is in my opinion being very kind to Mr. Hodge, who deserves nothing but contempt. But he raises an interesting example from scripture of lying for a good cause.

I looked up the passage about the midwives, and I, personally, don’t believe they lied. Scripture doesn’t really say they did. Please see the context:

Exodus 1:15–22
Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.” Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. And so it was, because the midwives feared God that He provided households for them. So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.” Naturally, their fear of God led them to refuse the order to murder. It makes more sense to me that they could have informed the Hebrew wives what the Pharaoh had commanded, and, thus, many of the Israelite women were giving birth before the midwives would arrive so they would not be in a position of killing the child. Perhaps the midwives took their time to arrive as well. That would allow the children to survive and the midwives to speak the truth to Pharaoh. What would make pregnant mothers more vigorous or lively to have the child born? Make them aware that if they do not give birth quickly their child’s life may be in danger. There are any number of ways the mothers and midwives could have avoided it.

With humbleness in Christ, Bodie16

What a convoluted stew of crap. Mr. Hodge is desperately trying to save his (im)moral position regarding lying so he comes up with this absurd piece of drivel. And we get the usual false humility that ill conceals a Everest of pride and conceit.

The text clearly says that the midwives “saved the male children alive” this seems to imply that the midwives performed their duties has midwives and lied about it to Pharaoh. This common sense explanation makes sense unlike Mr. Hodge’s absurd distortions and fantasizing.

But then it appears that to Mr. Hodge lying is a worst sin than participating in murder.

Strangely people like Mr. Hodge have no problems with killing in war or killing in self defence, this despite the fact that the Bible condemns killing or at least murder. It seems never to occur to him that protecting one self or others may justify lying as it does killing in self defence etc. But then others have thought like Mr. Hodges. Immanuel Kant for one.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was famous for his categorical imperative that it was always wrong to lie even to a murderer looking for a victim. This is quite accurately characterized as stunningly inhuman and frankly evil. The convoluted philosophical nostrums that Kant engaged in to justify this repellent stew boil down to the notion that lying is so evil that enabling murder is just not as wicked. Of course only someone living in a provincial backwater like Königsberg, obsessed with philosophical minutia, and little understanding of real life could possibly have advanced such a repellent and evil notion. But then to Kant his philosophical abstractions were more important than real people.17

In the case of Mr. Hodge we have a similar idea, in this case his inhuman, evil idea of what God demands trumps human decency. Mr. Hodge seems to hope he would have the courage to tell the truth and thus be a murderer, or at least an accessory to attempted murder, thus earn his reward in heaven. Well I hope he never has anyone taking refugee with him.

In Erasmus' Praise of Folly he ridicules some of the Scolastics for thinking that it is:

...better to let the whole world perish down to the last crumb and stich, as they say, than to tell a single tiny insignifigant lie.18

Erasmus viewed views as such no-nothing nonsense. As the commentary of the above noted passage says:

That a lie may not be told to save the world from destruction admirabily illustrates the way the scholastics derived moral norms from absract principles rather than human needs. Lies are intrinsically evil. The end does not justify the means, and no extrinsic end can therefore justify a lie. The application of abstract principle is logical, but the resulting norm takes no account of charity or compassion.19

Thus Mr. Hodge like Kantshows a stunning lack of compassion and basic humanity, but like the scholastics their principles trumped human decency.

I do not know what I would do in a similar situation. I would hope I would hide these people and, yes, lie through my teeth to keep them safe.

1. Answers in Genesis, Here

2. Hodge, Bodie, Feedback: A Righteous Lie, in Answers in Genesis, Here.

3. IBID.

4. IBID.

5. IBID.

6. IBID.

7. IBID.

8. IBID.

9. IBID.

10. IBID.

11. IBID.

12. IBID.

13. IBID.

14. IBID.

15. IBID.

16. IBID.

17. Kant, Immanuel, On a Supposed Right to tell Lies from Benevolent Motives, in Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics, Kongmans, Green and Co, London, 1898, can be found at Online Library of Liberty, Here.

Here is a sample of Kant’s reasoning:

If, then, we define a lie merely as an intentionally false declaration towards another man, we need not add that it must injure another; as the jurists think proper to put in their definition (mendacium est falsiloquium in præjudicium alterius). For it always injures another; if not another individual, yet mankind generally, since it vitiates the source of justice. This benevolent lie may, however, by accident (casus) become punishable even by civil laws; and that which escapes liability to punishment only by accident may be condemned as a wrong even by external laws. For instance, if you have by a lie hindered a man who is even now planning a murder, you are legally responsible for all the consequences. But if you have strictly adhered to the truth, public justice can find no fault with you, be the unforeseen consequence what it may. It is possible that whilst you have honestly answered Yes to the murderer’s question, whether his intended victim is in the house, the latter may have gone out nobserved, and so not have come in the way of the murderer, and the deed therefore have not been done; whereas, if you lied and said he was not in the house, and he had really gone out (though unknown to you) so that the murderer met him as he went, and executed his purpose on him, then you might with justice be accused as the cause of his death. For, if you had spoken the truth as well as you knew it, perhaps the murderer while seeking for his enemy in the house might have been caught by neighbours coming up and the deed been prevented. Whoever then tells a lie, however good his intentions may be, must answer for the consequences of it, even before the civil tribunal, and must pay the penalty for them, however unforeseen they may have been; because truthfulness is a duty that must be regarded as the basis of all duties founded on contract, the laws of which would be rendered uncertain and useless if even the least exception to them were admitted.

To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is therefore a sacred unconditional command of reason, and not to be limited by any expediency.

The above reasoning is sublime in its idiocy. Note Kant very carefully avoids dealing with the issue of what happens if you answer yes and the murderer comes in and kills the person. Or if the person is cowering in a corner within your line of sight. So you know he is in the house. I note that Kant stupidly states that you are responsible if you lie to a murderer but are not responsible if you tell the truth and the murderer kills that person because you told the truth. The convoluted hypotheticals of Kant about the person not being there if you tell the truth, blah, blah, are evasions of the issue. We can speculate all we like. The bottom line is protecting that person from being murdered.

To state that being truthful is an unconditional duty not limited by any sort of expediency is simply evil. But then Kant believes that lying is a greater sin than being an accessory to murder. To call Kant’s position disgusting, immoral, evil etc., is to state the unvarnished truth.

18. Erasmus, Praise of Folly, Penguin Books, London, 1971, p. 156.

19. IBID, p. 156 Note 102.

Pierre Cloutier