The following post is from a conversation in email correspondence between a friend, Andrew Wouldham, and myself. Andrew has given his permission to reproduce it here. Andrew's words are in blue. The conversation began with an email from Andrew attaching the first draft of his latest piece of thought-provoking creative writing entitled:
A CHILLING THOUGHT
Imagine you’re standing in an ice cream parlour and a well dressed young man walks up to you as you purchase your raspberry ripple.
“There is only one perfect flavour of ice cream and that is vanilla”. He says.
“Pardon”? You say.
“For your own sake you must eat no flavour other than vanilla”.
“What makes you say that”? You ask.
“Other flavours contain carcinogens; you risk a slow death should you eat them”.
“Why vanilla then”? You enquire.
“Vanilla ice cream is perfect and pure”.
“Why are you picking on me”? You puzzle.
“Your health is at risk and you must be saved”.
“Thanks for the warning but I’m happy with raspberry ripple”. You finish.
“Then I have no choice. You must not suffer a lingering death and you can not be allowed to poison the minds of others with your wilfully misplaced preferences”
He draws a gun and shoots you dead and then proceeds to execute anyone else in the parlour he finds eating flavours other than vanilla. For good measure he shoots the proprietor dead so that he may not sell anyone his tainted products.
Breaking news the following day details the horrific events at the ice cream parlour but ends with the good news that the perpetrator was detained. It subsequently comes out that he has been removed to a secure hospital for psychiatric evaluation.
Imagine you’re minding your own business in a newsagent’s shop and a well dressed young man walks up to you as you browse the bottom shelf.
“There is only one true god and his name is Arthur”. He says.
“Pardon”? You say.
“For your own sake you must worship no god other than Arthur”.
“What makes you say that”? You ask.
“Your soul is at risk if you worship false gods”.
“Why Arthur then”? You enquire.
“Arthur is the one true god”.
“Why are you picking on me”? You puzzle.
“Your soul is at risk and you must be saved”.
“Thanks for the concern but I’m happy with my own beliefs”. You finish.
“Then I have no choice. Your soul must be saved and you can not be allowed to poison the minds of others with your wilfully misplaced beliefs”.
He draws a gun and shoots you dead and then proceeds to execute anyone else in the shop he finds who does not immediately convert to the worship of Arthur. For good measure he shoots the proprietor dead for selling literature that may lead the minds of others from the true faith.
Breaking news reports this as a terrorist incident perpetrated by a religious extremist. In later programming discussion is entered into regarding the dogma and interpretation of the Arthurian religion and how it may give rise to extremism.
Please consider: What similarities? What differences?
My response:
Hi Andrew
Yes, your piece certainly set me thinking.
When someone says something to us with the intent to change our behaviour, there are several questions to which we are likely to want an answer, amongst them being:
- what motivates this person?
- is what they are saying true?
If we don't know the answers to these questions, then it is likely that we will take a judgment based on various assumptions - and this judgment is going to be affected by our own experience of life, by our personality, by our own beliefs, interests, values, expectations, attitudes, prejudices, etc.
The fact that the young man is 'well dressed' would reassure most people initially - the opposite of the stereotypical 'nutter'
[When you introduce the 'well dressed young man', you don't state he is a stranger. The reader might picture someone they know ... and this might affect their reading, so for example if I imagined the well dressed young man was my son, with our long-standing history of me encouraging him to eat healthy foods and go easy on the unhealthy foods, then the opening paragraphs take on a whole different meaning (friendly, jokey) to being addressed thus by a stranger.]
You ask 'What similarities? What differences?'
Seems to me the similarities are in the crime and in the fact that both individuals described in your piece are in a state where the balance of the mind is disturbed. The normal inhibitions that prevent us going round killing people who don't conform to our thinking are inoperative in your two characters.
In your piece, the difference is in the response society makes to the crime and to the unhinged individual. In the first, there is understanding that the person is deranged and needs help - that his mental health is being attacked from within and psychiatric intervention is necessary. In the second, this understanding is not so apparent. Thinking about it, seems like you have a valid point. Would it be better in our society if religious fanaticism were 'treated'? Bearing in mind the results of the BBC Prison Study (in that magazine** you lent me), it struck me that maybe it gives a clue to the way to de-programme religious fanaticism - if a true adherent of the faith (as I understand it, all the major religions value human life) were to appear to be a fellow prisoner and worked through the faith's scriptures and true values of the religion, there would be a greater chance of achieving the sort of rapport that would enable the de-programming, for the benefit of the individual's mental health and for the benefit of society. Would it also be better for society if the 'religious extremism' point were not made - as it has that unfortunate effect of destabilising society and creating rancour against individuals who may be peaceful, healthy, well-adjusted members of society, good citizens, yet adherents to a faith being smeared by the actions of a few?
I mentioned above those questions - motivation and truth - and naturally I spent some time thinking about your own motivation in writing this piece and sending it with a request for specific feedback. Perhaps one of the unspoken questions in your mind concerns the similarities and differences in Christian evangelism.
One of the differences between the examples in your piece and Christian evangelism is that the Christian is seeking to share Good News - the news that there is a loving God who longs to have a relationship with us; that there is the freedom of forgiveness, there is love, peace, hope and joy awaiting those who turn to Christ and accept his offer to buy us back from our slavery to sin. Life in all its fullness - NOW! The Christian evangelist isn't seeking to sell a doctrine or dogma out of insecurity, or out of a need to win points to buy 'pie in the sky' - the Christian evangelist rather issues the invitation out of love: Come and meet Jesus - receive the free gift that he offers, and the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life to help you in all situations. The motivation is love - love for the other person - and the desire to see the whole of Creation set free from evil, to see honesty, truth, justice, righteousness and love triumph. To see the 'healing of the nations' become a reality.
The question about whether the Christian gospel is true demands more time than I shall give it in this email - which is why I keep trying to encourage you to join an Alpha course. However, I can testify to the transforming power of God's love since I invited Him into my life.
I used to feel very lonely at times as a child - but looking back, it was to do with feeling isolated, alienated, ostracized, ashamed, guilty ... ratherthan to do with being alone. It was about not feeling accepted, feeling unworthy, unloved, unloveable. For much of my adult life things weren't much better, even though on the surface things got better. Looking back at that, I can definitely recognize how the choices I made affected how lonely I felt. Being alone was a relief. Being with other people emphasised the feelings of loneliness, which I have been known to define as 'the distance between who I am and who others perceive me to be'. Can you understand that? The idea that the 'real me' is unacceptable and in order to receive the acceptance and approval of others, I have to pretend to be someone I'm not, someone that fits in with another person's view of what's ok? I'll give you a silly example - I had a friend who had very strong opinions on what was right and what was wrong, and at some point I can remember her saying to me in horror-struck tones, "You don't hoover your kitchen, do you?" and me immediately denying that I hoovered my kitchen even though I did, regularly, and didn't even begin tounderstand why she might consider it such a terrible thing to do! I had developed an unhealthy personal value system, not understanding that lying, stealing and cheating were having an adverse effect on the 'inner me', the 'real me'. Amazingly I still thought I was a 'good person' - after all, I hadn't murdered anyone, and so far as I was concerned, my 'good deeds' no doubt outweighed my bad. The turning point came when I finally acknowledged somewhere deep inside that I WASN'T a 'good' person, much as I might want to be. Only then was the transforming power of God's forgiveness able to reach into my life and set me free from the things that were keeping me in that lonely place, hiding away inside myself. Only then was the transforming power of God's love able to reach into my life and affirm the 'real' me, and lead me to a place where I have learned to enjoy the company of other people, learned to love them.
Trish
Trish, Thanks. The intent of the piece was to do with the state of balance in the mind of the individual. Though largly, I admit, triggered by the issues with Muslim fanatisism (since that seems to be running rampant at the moment) I was concerned with the state regardless of religious affiliation and was not 'having a go' at Christian Evangelism, or even Islam, specifically. The comments on 'stranger' were interesting it may be as well if I make that specific. But the real crux was beautifully described when you came to the differences. It was this I was wondering about. To my mind the incidents are in essence the same but we do treat them differently. The question is why? I was also wondering, as you indicated, if it would be better to ignore the context of the criminals beliefs and deal just with the crime itself. Would we have the current climate of Islamophobia if the terrorists were labelled terrorists and not Muslim terrorists? Taking it further, are over zealous political views similar? The second world war and the rise of Nazism spring to mind, with all the horrors that envoked.
Would I be being cynical if I said, 'emphasising these details sells newspapers'?
I concur that a true adherant would have a better chance of 'deprogramming' a fanatic. I suspect they would simply dismiss atheistic individuals as less than worthy of listening to.
As to the individual's motivation and the truth of what they say. Does it really matter if what they say is true? Do they have the right to impose their view on anyone else? Motivated they clearly are but is their direction correct?
'The distance between who I am and who others perceive me to be'. A wonderful description and I can relate to it greatly. A lot of my adult life has been about how others perceive me and presenting an acceptable front to the world. Playing the part of a constable didn't help, after all people have (or at least I believe people have) certain expectations of their police.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Andrew
Hi Andrew
No, I didn't think you were 'having a go' at Christian evangelism, but I thought the points worth making anyway.
Yes, when thinking about the emphasis the media may give to the context of the criminals' beliefs, the more I find myself questioning whether only evil is served by this. It may lead to stigmatizing a group unfairly. Plus I had the mental image of other terrrorists celebrating the publicity of the crime and maybe thus imprinting other impressionable minds that such atrocity is to be praised.
I think you've missed the point with regards whether something is true or not. Agreed, we have free will - the point is not about whether something is true or not giving one the right to impose it on another in this instance (although of course when you were a constable, that would have been a key point!!!), the point is more to do with responsibility and response.
Research has produced evidence that smoking is harmful to health. There is now a legal obligation upon the tobacco companies to make that truth known each time they sell a packet of cigarettes. A rational response upon learning that truth would be to consider whether one wanted to ignore that truth and smoke anyway. Worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth brings the Christian to the point where he or she is asked to consider that his or her body is a 'Temple of the Holy Spirit' - is it a loving response to my body to do things to it which are not in my body's best interests? I am called to love others as I love myself - and if I haven't understood how to love myself, it will make it difficult for me to love others.
In your two scenarios, on each occasion the conversation wobbles off a rational course with the childish question "Why are you picking on me?" Perhaps you are emphasising that we are all fallible human beings here, I'm not sure. It did remind me of the line from a song I often listen to describing mankind as 'rushing helter-skelter to destruction with his fingers in his ears'.***
So to look at the first scenario, you make the point that the young man is 'well dressed'. He then produces information that suggests that the product is harmful to health. There is no indication that the shopkeeper intervenes at this point to chase him out of the shop or indicate in any way that this young man does not have a right to approach customers and provide this health warning. What is an appropriate response when someone provides information which helps us make a healthy choice over an unhealthy choice? Perhaps "Thanks for that - tell me more. What are the statistics?" (In other words, 'give me more information so that I can better assess my choices') or alternatively in your scenario perhaps to appeal to the shopkeeper: "Is this true? Who is this guy?"
If we love others and we know a way that promises better quality of life, do we have a responsibility to offer the other person the information which will help them make a better informed choice?
If we love ourselves, don't we have a responsibility to consider our choices and seek further information to better ascertain to what extent something is true?
That was more what I was getting at when I indicated that a person's motives in saying something and whether it was true would be important questions to consider if someone is aiming to change our attitudes or behaviour.
Hope this helps.
Trish
* "Conversation" by Theodore Zeldin published by The Harvill Press p 14
**Scientific American Mind Issue Volume 18 number 4, article on The New Psychology of Leadership
***"Adam" by Don Francisco:
Unashamed and naked in a garden that has never seen the rain,
Rulers of a kingdom, full of joy -- never marred by any pain,
The morning all around them seems to celebrate the life they've just begun;
And in the majesty of innocence the king and queen come walking in the sun
But the master of deception now begins with his dissection of the Word
And with all his craft and subtlety the serpent twists the simple truth they've heard,
While hanging in the balance is a world that has been placed at their command
And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan's hand.
And just before the evening in the cool of the day,
They hear the voice of God as He is walking
But they can't abide His presence now,
so they try to hide away;
But still they hear the sound as He is calling:
"Adam, Adam, where are you?
Adam, Adam, where are you?
Adam, Adam, where are you?"
In the stifling heat of summer now the gardener and his wife are in the field
And it seems that thorns and thistles are the only crop his stuggles ever yield
He eats his meals in sorrow 'til he sinks in to the dust whence he came
But all down through the ages he can hear his Maker calling out his name.
"Adam, Adam, where are you?
Adam, Adam, where are you?"
And though the curse has long been broken
Adams' sons are still the prisoners of their fears
Rushing helter skelter to destruction with their fingers in their ears
While the Father's voice is calling with an urgency I've never heard before
"Won't you come in from the darkness now before it's time to finally close the door!"
"Adam, Adam, where are you?Adam, Adam, where are you?Adam, Adam, I love you!"
No comments:
Post a Comment