John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
@ 2009-07-08 10:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
On Speaking Ill of the Dead
A bit of advice to my fellow conservatives: 

Do not speak ill of the dead.

I think you know to whom I refer, do you not?

A second bit of advice to my fellow Christians:

Do not speak ill of the dead.

Let us suppose that you are a wretched man, recently died under unseemly circumstances, whose life was made all the more wretched by fame. Oh? Do we not believe fame brings wretchedness? It brings its own temptations and its own sorrows that we private people, we happily private people never hunted by the sharkpacks of the press, never bloodlet by the parasites of wealth,know nothing of. It is like having a genii in a bottle: a very ignorant, somewhat diabolical genii, who will gleefully grant you the very wish that is your deepest wish, even if it destroys you. 

Let us suppose you are a wretched yet famous man, who, passing through the horror of the grave, suddenly finds yourself, awed and surprised and terrified, at the gates of the Country of Endless Joy. And here at the gate sits your Creator, who made you for far finer things that what you have made of yourself, and now you must answer to Him. You must answer not for your public image, but for your innermost secret thoughts. You must answer for things no one else knows, not even your closest friends. Your heart will be measured in a balancing scale against a feather, and if your heart is heavy with sin, you will be thrown into an outer darkness, where the only sound is a wailing that does not end. But if the other pan of the balances lifts, the gates of bliss shall open.

How can you not pray, O Christians, for someone facing that judgment seat? You will stand there too someday. Your every word, including whether or not you spoke ill of the dead who cannot defend themselves, will come out of your own mouth to accuse you, and He who searcheth hearts will search yours.

When a man is alive, he can defend himself from criticism, whether justified or slanderous. When a man is dead, the angel of death who once passed over Egypt, sparing no first born of that land, stands at our elbow when we speak of the dead: and if he wears a helm of darkness, as the pagans feigned, we shall not see him, despite how real he is. 

Remember, before you open your mouths, O my fellow Conservatives, O my fellow Christians, that your time on earth in not immortal either.



(57 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]ilion7
2009-07-08 03:12 pm UTC (link)
Not all "speaking ill of the dead" is gossip.

Not all truth need be said; yet to refuse to "speak ill of the dead" when it is appropriate to do so is to slander the other dead.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Silence is not applause.
[info]johncwright
2009-07-08 04:16 pm UTC (link)
I politely but strongly disagree. To say nothing when a famous man dies, even if he had repulsive flaws, in nowise detracts from the heroic qualities of dead heroes: it is not slander to Fred Astaire if I fail to participate in slandering Michael Jackson.

We have all seen people who use their alleged love of truth merely as a cloak to utter unforgivable insults. If you actually thought the angel of death was standing behind you with his black sword raised, would you be so quick to utter contempt toward a stranger?

Do not think you know someone simply because you have heard what the press says of him--the press has a thousand tireless and shameless tongues, no two of which speak the same mix of half-truths.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Silence is not applause. - [info]ilion7, 2009-07-09 01:46 pm UTC
Re: Silence is not applause. - [info]johncwright, 2009-07-09 07:42 pm UTC
Did you not *choose* that title? - [info]ilion7, 2009-07-10 01:12 pm UTC
Re: Did you not *choose* that title? - [info]fpb, 2009-07-10 01:55 pm UTC
Re: Did you not *choose* that title? - [info]ilion7, 2009-07-10 02:32 pm UTC
Re: Did you not *choose* that title? - [info]johncwright, 2009-07-20 05:46 pm UTC
Re: Did you not *choose* that title? - [info]ilion7, 2009-07-20 07:02 pm UTC
Re: Did you not *choose* that title? - [info]johncwright, 2009-07-20 11:51 pm UTC
Re: Did you not *choose* that title? - [info]ilion7, 2009-07-21 01:49 am UTC

[info]juliet_winters
2009-07-08 03:16 pm UTC (link)
A nice call for decorum. Thank you. We can not know the state of his soul when he passed. Even so, glorying in his death is vile.

(Reply to this)


[info]robert_mitchell
2009-07-08 03:33 pm UTC (link)
Tricky. Of Mr. Jackson's soul we know very little. The morality play that was his life, and the moral that "if your famous enough, you can get away with Anything" are things that must be countered. Humans seem to need role models, and his public life was as a role model for the other side. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

(Reply to this)

I figured it out by the middle graf
[info]carbonelle
2009-07-08 04:20 pm UTC (link)
I thought, "Reagan?" Then; "Stalin, maybe?"

ilion7 is right: there are those whot need to be ill spoke of, for a variety of reasons.

The recently dead, yes, that'd be wise. Not only for (as juliet_winters points out, decorum's sake) but for the sake of any survivors who might be grieving.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I figured it out by the middle graf
[info]rlbell
2009-07-08 05:07 pm UTC (link)
The aspects of the lives of Reagan, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Hitler that people disagree with are all public acts, some may even be sins, but they are public sins. We are allowed to dissect them. We may even be obliged to dissect them.

The british police used to have (may still have) a policy of destroying the files of cases they have against deceased suspects. They would keep the evidence around if something came up to steer the investigation somewhere else, but they have refused to identify a dead suspect, even if they were certain that the suspect was the perpetrator.

There is this christian idea of detraction. It comes up most often when dealing with children and tattletaling. However, adults need to keep detraction in mind. Calling someone out as an alchoholic can be useful if the purpose is to get them to stop drinking, but it should be done as privately as possible. Calling someone out as an alchoholic to pull down their reputation is wrong, even if it is true. After the alchoholic has died, it really is too late to say anything about it.

Celebrity gossip is pettier than detraction (to be detraction, it must be discussing something hidden that you know to be true), it is the petty desire to feel that celebrated people are living worse lives than you and indulging in the pleasures of rash judgement and calumny.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mrmandias
2009-07-08 04:35 pm UTC (link)
I don't think this is based on any personal animus towards Mr. Jackson. I believe that the attack on the unseemly orgy of hypocritical public grief is an attack on the cult of the celebrity. I for one cheer those attacks on.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]necoras
2009-07-08 05:44 pm UTC (link)
There's some of both. It's the hero worship I don't get. I saw one article about a small town somewhere with a quote from local to the effect that "MJ is bigger than Jesus to some of us! For the a lot of us they're about even."

Really? A singer has been equated with divinity? What???

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]headnoises, 2009-07-08 09:25 pm UTC

[info]johncwright
2009-07-09 07:45 pm UTC (link)
"I believe that the attack on the unseemly orgy of hypocritical public grief is an attack on the cult of the celebrity. I for one cheer those attacks on."

As do I. By all means, let us hang the press. They have betrayed both their professional ethics, their manhood, and perhaps even the nation. The cult of celebrity is horrid.

But let us not speak ill of the dead. The angel of death is listening.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

This was well said.
[info]botticelli_s
2009-07-08 04:38 pm UTC (link)
A good and timely reminder of the truth. I tremble with terror when I contemplate my inevitable judgment; I can do nothing but beg for mercy. Fortunately, Mercy is abundant. May we all be immersed in it.

(Reply to this)


[info]joecool385
2009-07-08 04:55 pm UTC (link)
So what's the statute of limitations on ill-speaking of the dead? Can I speak ill of Hitler? Stalin? Nero? Pilate? Herod? Is there some point, after a certain amount of time has passed, that I can speak ill of Jackson?

Or is this a "love the sinner, hate the sin" scenario, where I should not speak ill of any dead, no matter how much time has passed, but can decry the dead's actions? Can I take this opportunity to speak against pederasty, so long as I don't name names? And if so, does this mean I should watch my tongue when decrying mass murder, lest I defame the dead?

Your words are very wise, Mr. Wright. I just want to know how I should apply them.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncwright
2009-07-09 07:48 pm UTC (link)
"So what's the statute of limitations on ill-speaking of the dead?"

Seven years.

"Can I speak ill of Hitler? Stalin? Nero? Pilate? Herod?"

You may vaunt over fallen enemies, to be sure.

"Or is this a "love the sinner, hate the sin" scenario, where I should not speak ill of any dead, no matter how much time has passed, but can decry the dead's actions?"

Yes.

"Can I take this opportunity to speak against pederasty, so long as I don't name names?"

Yes. Merely call your own sins to mind before you open your mouth.

"And if so, does this mean I should watch my tongue when decrying mass murder, lest I defame the dead?"

Yes. Why accuse someone of mass murder who is not guilty of it?

"Your words are very wise, Mr. Wright. I just want to know how I should apply them."

Like everything, in moderation. Use some of that common sense and common decency that so many sarcastic people find so contemptible.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Proposed Addendum
[info]bogwader
2009-07-08 06:25 pm UTC (link)
Very well said!! However, I will ask that you consider adding... Do not speak too well of the dead.

It is important to differentiate between speaking ill of the dead and speaking out against those who glorify or downplay the sins of the dead. When George Tiller was killed, the media published accounts of people saying that he was a good man and was now with God in heaven. I will not condemn Tiller, but I will absolutely question those who pronounce him a saint, and thus having had a life worth emulating.

While we are all flawed and will have to stand in account for our own sins, we must be cautious that we not allow others to fall into sin due to our silence. If a wretched man is posthumously proclaimed great, should we not have the courage (tempered by tact) to ask why?

(Reply to this)


[info]fpb
2009-07-08 07:36 pm UTC (link)
Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux aeterna luceat eis. Requiescant in pace; amen.
Speaking ill of the dead is four-fifths of a historian's work, so I'm afraid I have a problem here. But I think the problem many people had was with the recent hysteria and hypocrisy, not with any wishing... ahem... a certain person in Hell. My feeling was: suppose a man died who, one, was almost certainly a paedophile, two, had used his wealth to pay off probable victims (the Catholic Church in the USA and Ireland has been tarred and feathered for that by the same people who now waste hours of air time on Someone's funerals), and, three, had shown in the most basic way possible that he hated his own race and was, in effect, a racist against himself. Suppose a man like that died. And suppose that the media brought in several members of his race, including the son of a great martyr for equality, and spoke endlessly of his charity work, without once speaking of his probable perversion and certain self-hatred? May God forgive him, indeed, and bring him to everlasting life; but forgiving does not mean forgetting, let alone pretending that bad and questionable things never happened. Personally, I rate Jackson fairly high both as a showman and as a musician, and certainly would not be without some of his best songs; and I feel that deserves recognition. Too many media talking heads have paraded their musical narrowness or insensitivity with an extra helping of pomposity and prejudice. But there is very little about Jackson's public life, other than his music, that deserves the kind of orgiastic wallowing in sentimentality we have been subjected to. I may be speaking some ill of the dead, but the ill I am most affronted by is from the living.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

IMHO:
[info]wooandyay
2009-07-08 09:16 pm UTC (link)
Check out my post below.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sun_stealer
2009-07-09 12:35 am UTC (link)
Well yes, but there is a difference between criticizing the dead and dancing on their grave. My thoughts on the matter was that we should remember him as an artist, not as a man, and perhaps a short prayer for his quite likely-damned soul and then be done with it. Let the dead rest, one might celebrate his artistic work, but should not celebrate his life, and one most certainly should not spend endless hours focusing on him to the detriment of the republic and the world. His death should have merited a brief mention in the news, 15 minutes at best, not this endless, schizophrenic orgy alternating between canonization and tearing him apart, once again I should say, to the detriment of the Republic. I suspect this shiboleth is done out of the media's cult of celebrity and to distract the American people from the important political events. In the past two weeks, Obama(by which I mean him and the entire progressive aparatus that has usurped our country) has allied with dictators to intimidate the Honduran republic, pushed for cap & trade, pushed for socialized healthcare, admitted the election-stealing Al Franken to the Senate, and lastly has had his butt handed to him by the Ruskies and betrayed our East European allies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2009-07-09 05:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]johncwright, 2009-07-10 04:22 pm UTC

[info]ilion7
2009-07-09 01:49 pm UTC (link)
Just so.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2009-07-09 04:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ilion7, 2009-07-10 01:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2009-07-10 01:48 pm UTC

[info]johncwright
2009-07-09 07:54 pm UTC (link)
Mr. Jackson was cursed with wealth and fame. Those who dream of wealth and fame might regard this as a blessing, but, to him, it was a curse. He had the power to destroy himself more completely than a poorer man, and he failed the test. May God forgive him, indeed, and bring him to everlasting life.

I am not speaking of forgetting the ills done by the dead, and historians, above all, must be scrupulous in preserving the memory of things past, good and bad, without favoritism.

I agree with you about the media talking heads. They are alive, and they affront all sober men.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]annafirtree
2009-07-08 08:17 pm UTC (link)
I don't get why we should speak any differently of someone when they are dead from when they are alive. If something is uncharitable to have said when they are dead, why is it not uncharitable when they are alive, too? You said the living can defend themselves and the dead cannot. But I should think it the other way around, if anything. The dead are beyond being able to be hurt by us; the living are not.

Of course, urging people towards more charity in the case of Michael Jackson could certainly be called for.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncwright
2009-07-10 04:24 pm UTC (link)
"I don't get why we should speak any differently of someone when they are dead from when they are alive."

Because when he is alive, he can speak out in his own defense. It is cowardice speak ill of one who cannot answer back.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]annafirtree, 2009-07-10 09:30 pm UTC
Charity, too - [info]carbonelle, 2009-07-12 07:20 am UTC

[info]wooandyay
2009-07-08 09:21 pm UTC (link)
Found this blog from a friend's Facebook page. Hello, I'm Elliot. Lol

Here's a couple of websites all of you might find interesting and informative:
http://trashselector.com/evan-chandler-i-lied-for-my-father-im-sorry-michael/ (sorry about any offensive ads that might pop-up, it's just the link I found)
http://kingofpopmichael.info/the-false-abuse/

In response to fpb's post, he wasn't a racist, he had a disease. It's called vitiligo, and here's the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vitiligo . I don't think he was a pedophile (read below) and I'm fairly confident he didn't "pay off" his "victims" (see above). Please don't bad mouth someone and then call it a day without finding the facts.

In my opinion, MJ was just a man who never got a chance to live his own childhood and so got stuck trying to get those years back. And in an attempt to make sure other kids got theirs, he created Neverland Ranch where thousands of kids got a chance to enjoy themselves in a fun environment. Michael Jackson wasn't a pedophile, he was just a kid himself. And all this talk about whether or not he was a pedophile (btw check your definitions here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation&sc=WR_20090707), or a psycho, or whatever, does more harm than good, since it leaves everyone with a bad taste in their mouth. "Well, was he...?" "Gosh, I dunno, but let's not talk about it...." So I would just suggest that instead of simply refraining from speaking ill of the dead, we instead seek the truth, for everyone's sake.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fpb
2009-07-08 09:25 pm UTC (link)
I disagree, but I don't intend to argue the matter further. Had we worlds enough and time...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]wooandyay, 2009-07-08 09:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]wooandyay, 2009-07-08 09:46 pm UTC

[info]xander25
2009-07-08 10:56 pm UTC (link)
Thank you.

(Reply to this)


[info]sun_stealer
2009-07-09 12:20 am UTC (link)
When I read the first sentence, for a moment, I was unsure if you were referring to Michael Jackson or Robert Mcnamara. I'm ashamed to admit, when I heard of the death of the latter, the first words out of my mouth were, "Good riddance!" I felt a little guilty afterwards. I suppose this was my confession.

(Reply to this)


[info]axiem
2009-07-09 04:34 am UTC (link)
I do agree in general that we would not solely speak ill of the dead. Even men as vile as Hitler and Stalin had their redeeming qualities. Though I think we should not shy from the truth about the dead--the dead were once men as we are men, and should not be glorified as we should not. Though many attempt to speak truth and do indeed speak ill. It is a fine line.

Theologically, though, I wonder what the point of asking God for mercy on the souls of the dead is. Has not God already made His judgment clear on the sins of men? Should his mercies be subject to the whims of our wishes? I am not sure what good beseeching God would do, but merely as a reminder that we need God's mercy ourselves.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ilion7
2009-07-09 01:53 pm UTC (link)
"Theologically, though, I wonder what the point of asking God for mercy on the souls of the dead is. Has not God already made His judgment clear on the sins of men? Should his mercies be subject to the whims of our wishes? I am not sure what good beseeching God would do, but merely as a reminder that we need God's mercy ourselves."

That's a good point which deserves to be repeated.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]fpb, 2009-07-09 04:58 pm UTC
God has no grandchildren - [info]ilion7, 2009-07-10 01:35 pm UTC
Re: God has no grandchildren - [info]fpb, 2009-07-10 01:43 pm UTC
by that argument - [info]marycatelli, 2009-07-09 02:18 pm UTC
Re: by that argument - [info]johncwright, 2009-07-09 07:58 pm UTC
Re: by that argument - [info]marycatelli, 2009-07-11 01:13 am UTC
Re: by that argument - [info]johncwright, 2009-07-20 05:49 pm UTC
Prayers for the Past Have Value - [info]leptopus, 2009-07-09 02:24 pm UTC
tough sell
[info]gryphmon
2009-07-09 03:06 pm UTC (link)
Asking human beings not to be unduly judgemental of others is apparently a tough sell. Its a wonder Jesus didn't crack a few heads together when trying to sell the same message. Remember when there used to be such a thing as Christian Charity? The only proper expression here should be pity. I people feel the need to find fault with someone, they should perhaps find the nearest mirror. Although of course human beings are not qualified in the end to judge even themselves. Not being God, we never have enough information to make an informed evaluation of someone.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: tough sell
[info]fpb
2009-07-09 04:55 pm UTC (link)
“Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality.”
(from the Pope's last encyclical)

Discuss.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: tough sell - [info]cronolink, 2009-07-12 02:44 am UTC
Re: tough sell - [info]fpb, 2009-07-12 03:46 am UTC

(57 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…