skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I come from a people who gave the Ten Commandments to the world. Time has come to strengthen them by three additional ones, which we ought to adopt and commit ourselves to: thou shall not be a perpetrator; thou shall not be a victim; and thou shall never, but never, be a bystander. -Yehuda Bauer, professor (b. 1926) This sounds good but I think it is mistaken. For one thing, Bauer's eleventh commandment is already covered in greater detail in the original ten, as is Bauer's thirteenth. Number twelve is problematic in that sometimes being a willing victim is the way to ultimate victory. Noble martyrdom is a valid way to resist evil, in some circumstances. I say "valid" because I am not referring to so-called "martyrs" whose aim to kill and destroy innocent lives. On the other hand, maybe Bauer is right. A true victim is always an Object, whereas a true martyr is clearly a Subject. (A less significant criticism: the proper form of the verb with "thou" is "shalt," not "shall.")
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. - Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S. (1809-1865) It would be good to know the context in which this statement was made. I hope that it doesn't reflect Lincoln's well-considered opinion, because it is extremely shallow. It equates religion with morality, which is a mistake, and then reduces morality to sentiment. How one feels about an action is hardly an adequate basis for moral action.
We are so accustomed to disguise ourselves to others that in the end we become disguised to ourselves. -Francois, duc de La Rochefoucauld, moralist (1613-1680)I believe this is true. According to Thomas de Zengotita, author of Mediated: How the Media Shapes your World and the Way You Live in It, this is a particularly acute problem in our day.
Wars are the side-effects of nationalism. -Yahia Lababidi, writer (b. 1973)This is definitely not true. Wars were part of history long before nationalism. I have some sympathy for the sentiment that lies behind this statement, which I take to be the view that nationalism can lead to unnecessary strife and destruction among peoples, but the statement is still not true. And I would not say, as I think Lababidi probably would, that nationalism is completely mistaken or even evil, but rather that it is becoming increasingly anachronistic.
