I don’t want to make excuses for the behaviors of many of the people and groups about which/whom we post here on the forum. I’m not saying that those who do harm on a scale grand or small ought to have a “sympathetic priesthood” that countenances all their acts and omissions.

I do want to point out that I think it is too easy and simplistic to assume that every agency, group, government to which we as individuals are opposed necessarily are totally and monolithically souled-out to evil. That’s a little like saying all whites are “Anglos”, or all Christians share a particular prejudice, or all Moslems are closet terrorists, or all Jews are greedy control-freaks.

Maybe I'm just hoping that our enemies are wracked by self-doubt and Sartre-eque angst.

Here’s something I read this morning. The bibliographical particulars are:

Norton, Perry L. Church and Metropolis. New York: Seabury Press, 1964.

“The affluent person is not an obviously deprived person. He may, of course, be deprived of many important things in life; but unless he chooses to reveal it, this anxiety can easily remain submerged, invisible to the individuals whom he meets. This has been the fate of the decision-maker.”

“Now, a distinction should be made among decision-makers. First, there are those whose work decisions will not, in fact, have a significant effect upon the lives of people-at least not in terms of the numbers affected. Second , there is the man whose work decisions will affect people in the long run; but if he ponders about this, he will insist that “other things are changing too,” and will ask, “How can I know whether it is my decision or someone else’s which is really affecting people?” The third type includes the man who perceives quite clearly that his work decisions will affect people-and that very soon and drastically.”

“This third type deserves serious consideration. Many individuals in this category truly agonize over the implications of the decisions they are called upon to make. Often they find themselves caught between the pragmatics of job survival and the “oughtness” of things as they understand them. The pragmatics are obvious and persuasive. The oughtness is less clear and depends entirely upon the individual...”

“If anyone thinks that the protagonist of this little drama is principally concerned about his own job security, then he is missing an important dynamic aspect of contemporary professional work. Our friend really is less concerned for his personal security than he is for the oughtness, or rightness, of the decision he has to make.”

“THIS IS A MAJOR POINT FOR US TO KEEP IN MIND. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REGULARLY PUT THEIR JOBS ON THE LINE. THEY WALK CONSTANTLY IN THAT TWILIGHT TENSION. AND BE SURE OF THIS, THEY SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES IN A SOCIETY THAT PLACES A PREMIUM ON CONFORMITY AND ON BEING A “GOOD COMPANY MAN.”...When you talk with them, you have to understand that they are not primarily concerned with their own personal job security nor with the “things” (however these may be described) which are happening to them personally. The questions they will ask of those who listen will more likely be something like this:

“Don’t people see what is happening?”

“Won’t people look behind the obvious?”

“What are the long-range consequences of this thing?”

“They are concerned with the things that are happening-the decisions behing made now which are going to influence the lives of people in the future. I don't think the clergy are adequately prepared to enter into fruitful dialogue with these people. Consider the situation of - and then imagine an encounter between him and many aparish minister. Would the full complexity of his situation be adequately comprehended? (Norton, 30-33)