Confronting Evil

March 27, year 2

Dear Dee,
I have a favor to ask. I am eligible to apply for a transfer to a California prison in November after I have been here for 18 months. Could you do some research on Lompoc? That is where all of Nixon's guys went and used to be known as "Club Fed." I'd also like to get some info on Terminal Island in Long Beach.

I feel like a very privileged UU, thanks to you. I need only tell you what is troubling my soul and I get a sermon in the mail that is tailored to address that condition. It's almost like having a vending machine that dispenses sermons to order. I know finding just the right one at the right time must be time-consuming for you, so I want to express my deepest gratitude for your enduring kindness.

This morning I read "Confronting Evil," which you sent in response to my on-going distress about the "cat-kicker" (see The first principle--really? March 13 blog) and those like him with whom I spend my days. I won't say that, upon finishing it, the clouds parted and clarity descended from on high, but the material did give me plenty of food for thought whereas previously, I was just bashing my head against the unyielding wall that was the First Principle.

This, of course, was geared toward those who were still wrestling with the fallout from 9/11. I have to say that I found it easier to see the point of view of the men who brought down the World Trade Center than that of the person who kicked the cat. (I started to write "idiot" rather than "person" so I guess that's progress.) The terrorists, at least, believed they were combating evil rather than doing something evil on the spur of the moment for their own amusement.


For all the points of view expressed in this sermon, the one that made the most sense came from the woman who served as a chaplain at the ruins of the twin towers and who said, "There are some people who have something wrong with them." That is most definitely the case here where many are suffering from arrested emotional development. One theologian in the sermon posits, "Evil is that which dehumanizes." That is common here. We have one large man here who likes to shove older men out of his way when walking down a hallway. For many here, older people are just in the way. (Mexicans, however, are culturally disposed to respect their elders.)

One passage that did make me stop and think evoked the Quaker concept that there is something of God in every individual. This dovetails perfectly with my own concept of God as an intelligent field of energy, a part of which inhabits every living thing. It is the spark of life that we think of as the soul, though I extend it to animals, plants, anything that lives. So that would mean that even the "cat-kicker" has God inside him. Food for thought, indeed.

But I wavered back in the other direction when I read, "If we back away from our affirmation of the sacred potential, the inherent worth of every person, aren't we agreeing with Hitler and bin Laden that some people should be eliminated?" Yes, we are. Would not the world have been a better place if Hitler had been assassinated early in the war? Same with bin Laden. The fact that they endorsed that idea doesn't make it wrong, particularly where they themselves are concerned.

And there was some sense to what the non-UU religious liberal wrote: "Human behavior is a bell curve. The overwhelming majority are good folks, some few are saints, some are sociopaths, psychopaths, evil people." How does one argue with that logic?

There was also great sense to the idea the first principle does not claim that every person has worth and dignity, but that it attributes them as values; that the world is a better place if we treat everyone as though they have worth and dignity, even if they do not return the favor.

Lots and lots to think about, but at least I don't feel stuck anymore.

Love, Kent