Simple duty hath no place for fear

May 21, 2011 By Fred Clark 81 Comments

He rose, slow cleaving with his steady voice
The intolerable hush. “This well may be
The Day of Judgment which the world awaits;
But be it so or not, I only know
My present duty, and my Lord’s command
To occupy till He come. So at the post
Where He hast set me in His providence,
I choose, for one, to meet Him face to face,
No faithless servant frightened from my task,
But ready when the Lord of the harvest calls;
And therefore, with all reverence, I would say,
Let God do His work, we will see to ours,
Bring in the candles …”

Or, in other words:

Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let the prophets and the diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream, for it is a lie that they are prophesying to you in my name; I did not send them, says the Lord.

Filed Under: Uncategorized 81 Comments
← Older Comments
  • Lori

     And to nitpick, in Finland, we don’t use the word “retarded”, since Finland doesn’t speak English :p.  

    I’m aware. I was simply assuming that Finnish has a word that equivalent to retarded or would be translated as retarded. 

  • hapax

    They are a danger to me, every living thing I care about, and the human race in general. This cancer _must_ die.

    Also,
    how do you know that the people who believe what, in the end, is a
    batshit insane proposition, are not going to turn violent once proven
    wrong? How do you know this isn’t going to go the way Jim Jones did? If
    there’s a large gathering of them, can the government really take the
    risk?

    You may not have meant these words the way they come across to me, but I hear more than a whiff of eliminationist rhetoric here, that is frankly very scary.

    It wouldn’t take much tweaking to turn this into a call for genocide.

    In addition, “How do we KNOW that X won’t turn out to be EEBILL” is a very poor argument to base policy on.  “Who knows what those cultists / foreigners / dark-skinned folks / Jews / People Not Like Us are *really* up to?” is an age old tactic for calling out the mob with torches and pitchforks.

    From the news reports I’ve heard this morning, people have reacted almost exactly the way anyone who has studied millenial cults would have predicted:  most are ashamed and saddened and are trying to put their life back together, not turning violent or suicidal.  Some are frantically clinging to their predictions, insisting it really DID happen, we just don’t realize it.  Many have turned to “spiritualizing” their previously concrete predictions, and are gaining from that further inspiration to do “good works” (for a certain value of “good”) as a result.

    I guarantee that practically everyone you meet believes something that can be (rudely and in an Othering fashion) to be a “batshit insane proposition” — whether that their God speaks to them in personal terms, or that people who know nothing about finance can get rich very quickly by investing in foreign currency trading, or that working hard and going to a good school is the key to social and economic success.

     Most of us simply refuse to have our beliefs disconfirmed, despite ample evidence.  When we can’t ignore the results, we usually try to pick up the pieces and get on with life.  Very few of us turn violent.

    And those tiny minority who do lash out in anger and despair should be treated exactly the same way that we treat all other violent offenders.  That is, with prompt legal and medical response, based on what they actually DO, rather than our vague suspicions and paranoid worries.

  • Izzy

    Yeah.

    I’m perfectly okay with mocking this crap. This crap deserves to be mocked. But most cults *aren’t* externally violent. Exceptions exist, sure, but they’re rare enough that I don’t think they justify governmental force.

    Admittedly, I’m conflicted in certain cases: I think the government *should* intervene in, for example, a lot of the FLDS cults, because what goes on there is pretty clearly child abuse. In general, I don’t think you should get to fuck up your kids to fit your Bizarro idea of faith, whether that’s physically or emotionally. But simply gathering to wait for the end of the world? Enh. I’d be more worried about the precedent forced dispersion set than anything else. 

  • Anonymous

     I agree what several people have said earlier: you should mock the living hell out harold camping for selling such a blasphemous lie.

    But don’t you DARE to mock or insult the people who have become the victims of this travesty, because that isn’t helping.

  • vsm

    Actually, Finnish doesn’t really have a word like ‘retarded’, in the sense that it would have once been official terminology but now avoided. ‘Vammainen’ is used officially and by activists, but it’s also sometimes used as an insult (it is of course not cool to use it like that, and I’m not trying to defend my compatriot).

    Politics of language in general aren’t that big in Finland. Some terms for professions have been changed, but you still encounter the older gendered words fairly often. A notable case is the term for the Speaker of the Parliament, which still includes ‘man’ at the end, despite a woman having presided over the office for almost a decade. Much fun was had from the way she was officially addressed as Mrs. Speech-Man (there’s no Ms. equivalent in Finnish either).

    Funnily enough, it would be pretty simple to make Finnish gender-neutral, since the grammar already is. The same third person singular pronoun covers all genders, and nouns don’t have genders like in some other European languages.

    Sorry if this was really boring.

  • Lori

     

     Sorry if this was really boring.  

    Don’t apologize. It’s not boring at all. If there’s one thing slacktivist has plenty of it’s language nerds. 

  • Anonymous

    Well I also learned something new, so I am not complaining either

  • Mackrimin

    WTH? Their supposed willingness to pollute the environment has nothing to do with how you treat a public gathering.

    Their willingness to pollute the environment has everything to do with how long they think the world will last.

    The
    cancer you’re referring to is people. When you say that this cancer
    must die it sounds to me like you’re at least as much a danger to them
    as they are to you.

    The cancer I’m referring to is the idea that the world will end tomorrow or anytime soon. If I made it sound like I was referring to people, then I’m sorry, that was not my intention.

    I don’t know
    what they were thinking, but experience gives me a pretty good idea
    what they’re not thinking. This isn’t the first end of the world group.
    Name one other time when people standing around waiting for God to call
    them home suddenly went on a rampage and started harming bystanders.

    This entire blog entry is about them harming bystanders.

    The
    People’s Temple didn’t harm random outsiders because the world didn’t
    end (they weren’t a doomsday cult). They harmed specific outsiders who
    were perceived as a threat to the group (helping members to leave
    the compound). They then committed mass suicide because their leader
    told them that the government was going to come for them.  Not at all
    the same situation.

    Oh come on. You yourself said they harmed outsiders (people helping members leaving the “church”). Then you said the members committed a mass suicide.

    _Really_, is this your counter-argument for government intervention?

    I’m
    not in favor of the government using force against a group just because
    the government is nervous. Especially when the nervousness isn’t backed
    by evidence. That’s a little too fascist for my taste.

    I’m not asking for your favor. I’m asking for your understanding for _why_ the government might be nervous. And since your answer seems to be along the lines of “the previous group didn’t harm anyone who didn’t try to help the victims, prior to their mass suicide”, I’d say that the government was not “fascist”, but wise indeed. Indeed, that kinda seems like “evidence” to me.

    For the record, “fascist” is synonym for “corporatism”, according to Benito Mussolini, who invented the concept. You already pretty much have it in the US, so stop using it as a synonym of “totalitarianism”, which is a related but not equal concept.

  • Mackrimin

    You may not have meant these words the way they come across to me, but I
    hear more than a whiff of eliminationist rhetoric here, that is frankly
    very scary.

    It wouldn’t take much tweaking to turn this into a call for genocide.

    Well, no. I didn’t mean this as genocide. I meant it as a call against what I consider a particularly stupid and dangerous idea.

    That there might be confusion between the two – that a diatribe against an idea might be confused with a call to murder people – might be a call to cynicism for some.

    In
    addition, “How do we KNOW that X won’t turn out to be EEBILL” is a very
    poor argument to base policy on.  “Who knows what those cultists /
    foreigners / dark-skinned folks / Jews / People Not Like Us are *really*
    up to?” is an age old tactic for calling out the mob with torches and
    pitchforks.

    However, it _is_ a perfectly fine argument to send security forces out on. In fact, that’s how they’re usually employed – on fear that X will turn to EEBILL. That’s their _job_: to _ensure_ that X _won’t_ turn to EEBILL. That’s why security forces _exist_.

    Mind you, none of this is defending what any security forces actually did – since I have no idea what they did – but simply arguing your (abstract) argument against employing them because of mere suspicion. I’m simply assuming that they reacted in a professional manner, rather than simply shooting or tear-gassing everyone. I might be giving them too much credit here.

    And those tiny minority who do lash out in
    anger and despair should be treated exactly the same way that we treat
    all other violent offenders.  That is, with prompt legal and medical
    response, based on what they actually DO, rather than our vague
    suspicions and paranoid worries.

    That’s nice. Now, how do you propose that’s done – by sending in the professionals? To where this minority might be present? Such as sending security troops to watch the end-of-wolders?

  • Anonymous

     There is christianity and there is christianity, please be careful when you are talking about other people.

  • hapax

    However, it _is_ a perfectly fine argument to send security forces out
    on. In fact, that’s how they’re usually employed – on fear that X will
    turn to EEBILL. That’s their _job_: to _ensure_ that X _won’t_ turn to
    EEBILL. That’s why security forces _exist_.

    No, it is NOT.  Not unless you live in a world where Philip Dick’s precognitive “PreCrime” units exist.

    Security forces exist to stop evil that is in the process of occurring.  Security forces that operate on the principle of preventing evil that MIGHT occur, maybe, because “Hey, it could happen”, are a totalitarian nightmare.

    By your argument, I should be arrested and thrown in jail immediately, because there’s a fear that I might abuse my children, murder my husband, and blow up an abortion clinic. 

    After all, Christians have been known to do such things.  Isn’t it better for the safety of everybody to ensure that I don’t?

  • Lori

    Their willingness to pollute the environment has everything to do with how long they think the world will last. 

    Which has absolutely nothing to do with how security forces should treat a gathering of believers. 

    This entire blog entry is about them harming bystanders. 

    The blog entry is about the harm done to Campings followers, not the harm that Campings followers might do to bystanders. What part of that is unclear to you? 

    Oh come on. You yourself said they harmed outsiders (people helping members leaving the “church”). Then you said the members committed a mass suicide. 

    Yes, the People’s Temple harmed (a small number of) outsiders (who were believed to pose a direct threat to the group). That happened under very different circumstances than Campings followers were in. The two situations are not equivalent. Again, the People’s Temple wasn’t a doomsday cult and what happened to them had nothing to do with beliefs about the end of the world. If you’re not able to understand that I really don’t know what to say. 

     I’m not asking for your favor. I’m asking for your understanding for _why_ the government might be nervous 

     I understand why the government might be nervous. I simply don’t agree that the government’s nervousness is actually warranted and I certainly don’t think that being nervous is a good reason for sending security forces after a group of people who haven’t actually done anything. Notice that none of Campings followers have actually gone berserk and harmed bystanders. You can trump up the fear factor all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that the worst case didn’t happen and there’s no evidence that it will. 

     However, it _is_ a perfectly fine argument to send security forces out on. In fact, that’s how they’re usually employed – on fear that X will turn to EEBILL. That’s their _job_: to _ensure_ that X _won’t_ turn to EEBILL. That’s why security forces _exist_.  

     Is this really how it works in Finland or is this just your fantasy about how it ought to work? Either way it definitely isn’t how things are supposed to work here. 

  • chris the cynic

    Not at all boring.

    Thank you for sharing.

  • Mackrimin

    The
    blog entry is about the harm done to Campings followers, not the harm
    that Campings followers might do to bystanders. What part of that is
    unclear to you?

    The blog entry is about the harm that Rapture believers – which include _both_ Campings and his followers – might do to others and themselves. What part of _that_ is unclear to _you_?

    Yes,
    the People’s Temple harmed outsiders (who were believed to pose a
    direct threat to the group). That happened under very different
    circumstances than Campings followers were in. The two situations are
    not equivalent. 

    Again, the People’s Temple wasn’t a doomsday
    cult and what happened to them had nothing to do with beliefs about the
    end of the world. If you’re not able to understand that I really don’t
    know what to say.

    The People’s Temple wasn’t a doomsday cult, and it resulted in hundreds of people dying. Camping’s followers _are_ a doomsday cult: why _wouldn’t_ it result in people dying?

    I
    understand why the government might be nervous. I simply don’t agree
    that the government’s nervousness is actually warranted and I certainly
    don’t think that being nervous is a good reason for sending security
    forces after a group of people who haven’t actually done anything.

    And I think it is. I think that having a weird cult gathering for their end-of-the-world party is a _very_ good reason to send in security troops to ensure that nothing bad happens.

    We might just have to agree to disagree here.

    Notice
    that none of Campings followers have actually gone berserk and harmed
    bystanders. You can trump up the fear factor all you want, but that
    doesn’t change the fact that the worst case didn’t happen and there’s no
    evidence that it will.

    And that’s good. Now, are you a psychologist? Could your _predict_ that none of them would go berserk? Would you be willing to take the _responsibility_ for such a prediction? Do you think _anyone_ would?

    Is this really how
    it works in Finland or is this just your fantasy about how it ought to
    work? Either way it definitely isn’t how things are supposed to work
    here.

    Dunno where “here” is, but yes: I’d send in troops to watch a doomsday cult that’s about to realize their doomsday is not going to happen. This is in accord of the time-honoured principle of “better safe than sorry”.

    And, in fact, I kinda think that’s how things worked “here” too, it’s just that the security forces were more discreet.

  • chris the cynic

    The People’s Temple wasn’t a doomsday cult, and it resulted in hundreds
    of people dying. Camping’s followers _are_ a doomsday cult: why
    _wouldn’t_ it result in people dying?

    Why would it?

    Or to put it another way,

    The People’s Temple wasn’t named Mackrimin, and it resulted in hundreds of people dying.  You are named Mackrimin: why wouldn’t you result in people dying?

    I can do it too, but I’m not sure what asking, “Why wouldn’t X?” acomplishes.

    -

    Also, “disperse” and “watch” are two different verbs.  Two very, very different verbs.

  • Lori

     

     The blog entry is about the harm that Rapture believers – which include _both_ Campings and his followers – might do to others and themselves. What part of _that_ is unclear to _you_? 

     

    Please quote the part of the blog entry that is about Camping’s followers harming bystanders, especially in a way that requires the intervention of security forces. 

  • Lori

     

     The People’s Temple wasn’t a doomsday cult, and it resulted in hundreds of people dying. Camping’s followers _are_ a doomsday cult: why _wouldn’t_ it result in people dying? 

    Logic is not your strong suit is it?

    Or, what Chris the Cynic said.

    Now, are you a psychologist? 

    I majored in psychology as an undergraduate and worked in the field for a number of years after I graduated, so yes I sort of am a psychologist. 

  • Mackrimin

    Why would it?

    Because we have plenty of people convinced the world will end gathered in a single place? And because they’re all going to realize they were fooled?

    Of course it could – and likely would – go just fine, but still, the chances always exist that things could turn ugly.

    The People’s Temple wasn’t named Mackrimin, and it resulted in hundreds of people dying.  You are named Mackrimin: why wouldn’t you result in people dying?

    What makes you think I haven’t (dum-dum-dum)?

    I’m sorry, but you’re doing a non-sequiter here – after all, I’m not making any prophesies of any kind.

    I can do it too, but I’m not sure what asking, “Why wouldn’t X?” acomplishes.

    Indeed you can. What about it?

  • Mackrimin

    Logic is not your strong suit is it?

    Logic…

    Jim Jones did not head a doomsday cult.
    Jim Jones’s followers drank poison.
    Therefore, any doomsday cult is safe.

    Again, I’m not defending dispersing a gathering of such people through tear gas or other such measures. I’m just saying that I can understand why a government might want to send in troops to watch over it. Why is this so difficult to understand?

    Or are you suggesting some variant of “idiots who believe this crap get what they deserve”?

    majored in psychology as an undergraduate and worked in the field for a
    number of years after I graduated, so yes I sort of am a psychologist.

    So the next time a doomsday cult gets their doomsday disproved by reality, _are_ you going to take the responsibility of convincing the government to send nobody to watch over how it goes?

  • Mackrimin

    No, it is NOT.  Not unless you live in a world where Philip Dick’s precognitive “PreCrime” units exist.

    Yes, it IS. In this world there policemen are routinely send to any large gathering of people to ensure everyone plays nice.

    Security forces exist to stop evil that is in the process of occurring. 
    Security forces that operate on the principle of preventing evil that
    MIGHT occur, maybe, because “Hey, it could happen”, are a totalitarian
    nightmare.

    Security forces, like all other forces, are preferentially employed on pre-emptive basis. That, of course, does not mean that they could or should jail people pre-emptively; it just means they’re send where trouble is likely to occur.

    By your argument, I should be arrested and thrown in
    jail immediately, because there’s a fear that I might abuse my children,
    murder my husband, and blow up an abortion clinic.

    I haven’t argued any such thing. Where the heck do people get these ridiculous ideas?

    After all, Christians have been known to do such things.  Isn’t it better for the safety of everybody to ensure that I don’t?

    Well, you certainly make convincing arguments for putting yourself under evaluation for weird paranoia. I dunno if you’re a danger to anyone.

  • MaryKaye

    One of the things my “weird cult” (I’m Wiccan) has been fighting for here in the US is the right to peacefully assemble and practice our religion.  Despite community fears, we would prefer that the government did *not* send police every time we have a public celebration, unless the celebration is going to reach the size where it needs monitoring simply because it is a large group of people.  (That is, I am happy to have a police presence when we reach a size where other gatherings also have a police presence.  The cops at the 20K anti-war protest were fully justified simply by the presence of 20K people.  But our 60-person Beltaine is another matter.)

    Having police at a peaceful gathering is very intimidating.  It scares off people who might want to participate and sends a discouraging message to those who do participate.

    Furthermore–as others have been saying–”disperse” is not “monitor”.  I don’t see any way to read “disperse” other than what would be, in the US, a violation of the basic right of assembly.  I know we are not talking a US situation here, but if this happened to me at home I would be furious.  “The right of the people peaceably to assemble…shall not be infringed.”

    I am pleased to say that in my city at least we are achieving this goal.  We sign up for public-park space, have our celebrations and go home.  The police are not called in.  (The sign-ups are just to ensure fair sharing of the park shelters.)  I would want that for other believers (and non-believers) as well, even the ones with whom I disagree strenuously; just as I hope that my Christian neighbors will tolerate my revels in the park even if they disagree strenuously with my faith.

    Or in other words, Camping’s followers believe a lot of things I think are dangerous and harmful nonsense.  But they should still get to meet together and talk about what they believe, and should not be dispersed unless they do something unlawful.  Otherwise my freedom to do the same is undermined.

  • Lori

     

     Jim Jones did not head a doomsday cult.
    Jim Jones’s followers drank poison.
    Therefore, any doomsday cult is safe.

     

    If this is your understanding of what I was saying then the problem definitely lies with you. 

  • Rikalous

    [blockquote]Because we have plenty of people convinced the world will end gathered
    in a single place? And because they’re all going to realize they were
    fooled?

    Of course it could – and likely would – go just fine, but still, the chances always exist that things could turn ugly.[/blockquote]

    Do you go on a berzerker rampage when your beliefs are proven wrong? Do you know anyone who goes on berzerker rampages when their beliefs are proven wrong?

    [blockquote]I’m sorry, but you’re doing a non-sequiter here – after all, I’m not making any prophesies of any kind.[/blockquote]

    I’m afraid you’re the one making non-sequiters. Your argument that Camping’s followers will kill people is based on fallacious logic that could be used to “prove” anything about anyone, and is therefore a bad argument. If you want to argue that people who make prophecies are inherently dangerous, go ahead, but that’s not the argument you made.

    [blockquote]I haven’t argued any such thing. Where the heck do people get these ridiculous ideas?[/blockquote]

    Once you take away the idea that people are only punished for the crimes they have committed, not the crimes they might commit in the future, or that members of their demographic or a similar demographic have committed, then there’s no reason not to punish any random Christian so they don’t bomb an abortion clinic, or any random environmentalist so they don’t send airports mail bombs, or any random axe owner so they don’t go on an axe murdering spree. As far as I know (and you’d think it would have made the news) no member of Camping’s cult had a history of violence or criminality, and the aforesaid cult never advocated violence or criminality (it being sinful and unworthy of the chosen people) so there is no reason to suspect that any of them would suddenly become violent or criminal.

  • Lori

     Housekeeping note: html requires instead of [ ]. 

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I reckon I could avoid using _any_ word in the future. However, you have not given me any reason to do so, and since the word “retard” refers to someone of retarded development which, from all I’ve seen, is exactly what end-of-worlders are, I see no reason to do so. So… Do you have some reason to wish this? Apart from a reflexive reluctance to an use of an “ugly” word?

    Well, I went with a simple, polite request rather than making a song and dance about it because those can be tiresome for all involved. But since you asked, yeah, I have a reason. In the English-speaking world (not just the US), the noun ‘retard’ has been used as an insult against people with intellectual disabilities for at least 20 years. I have a brother with an intellectual disability, as well as some friends with intellectual disabilities, and I’ve seen how the use of ‘retard’ in this way hurts them. At various times other people have pointed out how words I use inadvertantly hurt people, and I’m grateful to them for doing so. I’m kind of not into hurting people, especially people who tend to be marginalised as it is.

    BTW, I’ve only ever heard ‘retard’ used as a slight against someone’s intelligence, whereas you seem to be equating it with emotional/psychological/intellectual immaturity. I’ve never come across it in that sense.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    If there’s one thing slacktivist has plenty of it’s language nerds.

    I really think the addition of the qualifier “language” was unnecessary here :)

  • Rikalous

    Thanks for the tip.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    At the risk of bringing Muphry’s law down on myself: it’s “non-sequitur”

    Also, people weren’t dropping non-sequiturs. What they were engaging in were faulty syllogisms.

  • Josh

    I’m all for the “Stop the r-word” campaign, and I do my best to explain to students that it’s a coarse and stigmatizing word, to say the least; but do people seriously say “mentally challenged” when referring to intellectual disability? It sounds like a parody euphemism.

  • hapax

    but do people seriously say “mentally challenged” when referring to intellectual disability?

    Yep.

    (forgive the snark, I didn’t design the site.  However, fwiw, “mentally challenged” wipes the floor with “intellectually disabled” at Googlefights.)

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Interesting. I’ve never heard it used by anyone with intellectual disability themselves–everyone I know just sticks with ‘intellectual disability’ in a very matter of fact way. ‘Mentally challenged’ sounds pretty off to me. Maybe it’s a regional difference.

← Older Comments