I’ve been re-reading a couple of classic youth novels for
book club, and I’m reminded that, in order to become a classic, a piece of
literature needs to touch our desire to understand and strive for what is right, just,
and civilized.
Black Beauty was
published in 1877. It’s the story of a horse’s life—told from the point of view
of the horse, in England when horses were necessary for most transportation. Horses are servants to humans, nothing to be done about that. But
there’s so much about the way they’re treated that determines whether they can
be a good servant.
Nineteenth Century England is somewhat far off, and yet
there’s some wisdom that transcends.
While Black Beauty is still at his first master Squire
Gordon’s, he is cared for by a good and skilled stable master named John, and
his assistant James. John has come upon a scene of a young man trying to force
his pony to jump a fence that is too high. The pony keeps refusing, and
eventually tips the boy into a thorn hedge. John, rather than helping the boy
out, allows him to learn from the scratches, and then lets the father know what
has happened—letting them stop worrying after the riderless pony has arrived
home, and letting them know the pony was not at fault. The father sees the need
to do some teaching with his son.
Back home, John tells the incident to James, and James
remembers an incident with that boy at school. James had found the boy catching
flies, pulling off their wings, and enjoying watching the resulting torture.
James had whopped him, and then explained himself to the school master.
“Of course I said fair and square at once what I had done,
and why; then I showed the master the poor flies, some crushed and some
crawling about helpless, and I showed him the wings on the window sill. I never
saw him so angry before; but as Bill was still howling and whining, like the
coward that he was, he did not give him any more punishment of that kind, but
set him up on a stool for the rest of the afternoon, and said that he should
not go out to play for that week. Then he talked to all the boys very seriously
about cruelty, and said how hard-hearted and cowardly it was to hurt the weak
and the helpless; but what stuck in my mind was this: he said that cruelty was
the devil’s own trade-mark, and if we saw anyone who took pleasure in cruelty
we might know who he belonged to, for the devil was a murderer from the
beginning, and a tormentor to the end. On the other hand, where we saw people
who love their neighbors, and were kind to man and beast, we might know that
was God’s mark, for ‘God is Love’” (p. 59).
I’m thinking this is much different from a likely teacher’s
response today. A no tolerance policy for fighting wouldn’t even wait for an
explanation; the protector against cruelty would be punished.
I have no fondness for flies and feel no compunction about
using a flyswatter if they enter my home, but that’s different from inflicting
torture. There are studies and statistics showing that adult predators were
often cruel to animals and small creatures as children. Black Beauty is fiction. But somehow that long ago society knew
animal cruelty was wrong way before the studies.
Also, today the teacher would hardly be allowed to mention
the devil and God as his reasoning against cruelty.
And yet this paragraph is rather satisfying for a lover of
civilization.
Later in the story, James, the assistant, moves on to a new
job, and is replaced with a 14-year-old boy who needs an opportunity to learn a
trade. There is an instance when Joe, the new boy, is getting along well, and is
riding Black Beauty on an errand. They pass a brick field, where a man is
beating his horses to pull his overladen cart out of mud. Joe calls to him to
stop. He points out that the wheels are too stuck, and beating the horses won’t
help them move the cart. Joe offers to help unload some of the bricks. The
man—angry and drunk—tells him to mind his own business, and continues whipping
the horses.
Joe goes to the house near the brickyard and finds the
brickyard owner and tells him what is happening. The man thanks him. Later he
has him testify to a magistrate. And young Joe does it all bravely.
When Joe gets home, John notices he is upset and has Joe
tell him what happened. Then he says,
Right, Joe! You did right, my now, whether the fellow gets a
summons or not. Many folks would have ridden by and said ‘twas not their business
to interfere. Now, I say, that with cruelty and oppression it is everybody’s
business to interfere when they see it; you did right my boy (p.88).
There are things we know about being civilized. We need
people with a desire to be good. And we still have some innate understanding of
what that looks like.
As we’re reminded in the Ten Commandments, we need to honor
God, life, family, property, and truth. And we have additional lists like this
one in I Corinthians 13, reminding us what pure love entails: being long
suffering, kind, not envious, not thinking oneself above others, not unseemly
(crude, inappropriate, coarse), not self-serving, slow to anger, avoiding evil
thought, no joy in vice, but finding joy in truth.
And, one of my favorites, an admonition from Paul, Philippians
4:8, reminds us what to fill our minds with:
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever
things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be
any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Do we have a taste, a preference, for these things? Isn’t it
better to strive for civilization—with good, kind, humble, truthful
people—rather than savage people, who are unkind, quick to anger, vengeful,
prideful, evil thinking liars?
And isn’t it better to be with civilized people who value
life, liberty, and property for themselves and others, rather than live among
those who seek to take away life, liberty, and property from those who disagree
with them, or those who live differently, or those they dislike for whatever
reason?
We suffered yet another savage tragedy this weekend. There
can be no sympathy for the perpetrator who killed as many as fifty people in
Orlando, Florida. He is dead, after a three-hour standoff. He was an Islamist terrorist.
Orlando tribute photo from here |
There is something particularly savage about mass murdering and
claiming it’s for your religion.
Religion is our search for how to live the best possible
life. We can share our religions, but we cannot force others to believe.
Religions can and do define what behaviors qualify as good
enough for belonging, for calling oneself by that religion’s name. But the
power ends before coercion. Before force. Before physical punishment. The
ultimate punishment a religion has a right to inflict is
excommunication—removing one’s name from the membership. That is for serious
wrongdoing, and usually for the unrepentant continuing wrongdoer.
No religion has authority to physically punish its members.
And no religion has a right to condemn and mete out punishment on nonbelievers.
A so-called religion that condones these things is a usurper of political
authority masquerading as a religion.
I suspect there’s a lot I do not want in my lifestyle that
the victims this weekend chose for theirs. It was a gay bar; I don’t drink
alcohol, and I don’t have sex outside of marriage. I’m like a lot of religious
people.
But the idea that anyone would murder them is abhorrent.
Murder is far deeper into savagery than anything those victims might have been
doing. That should be so obvious that everyone who can be comfortable living in
civilization must see this truth.
I do not know anyone who wishes for the death of people
whose lifestyle is different. I do not know anyone who hates people whose
lifestyle is different—even though we get defined as haters simply for not
agreeing to embrace and approve of things that are antithetical to our religious
beliefs.
There is nothing civilized about terrorism. There is no
excuse for it. It is a delight in cruelty and killing that most of us can
hardly imagine—even though in this country we’ve now faced 86 terrorist incidents since 9/11/2001. Almost without exception, the
terrorist plots we face are Islamist. Their behavior has the mark of the devil,
who is “a murderer from the beginning, and a tormentor to the end.” They lack “God’s
mark, for ‘God is Love.’”
Terrorism can’t be condoned, given excuse, or tolerated. It
needs to be prosecuted, prevented, and wiped out. Every tool at our disposal
should be used, especially common sense.
If someone is Muslim, I’m afraid they will continue to be
burdened with the necessity of proclaiming their difference from radicals who
condone terrorism. We civilized people will continue to honor them and embrace
them as they do so. But it is unfortunately true that the terrorists trying to
murder us do it in the name of Islam.
The failure of this administration to acknowledge this basic
fact is hurting all of us—including the peaceful Muslims.
If we are less safe from terrorists, then we have greater
need to defend ourselves. Yet this administration blames our right to defend ourselves with arms,
while avoiding identifying the terrorists’ beliefs.
Armed security at that gun-free nightclub might have helped.
And people were prevented by law from arming themselves at many of the
terrorist tragedies worldwide.
It cannot be about disarming law-abiding citizens; it must
be about disarming terrorist plotters. You do that by identifying them. Our
civilization is at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment