site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   3109 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 21, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This isn't a question but rather a statement. But I would like to hear what you think.

So I didn’t care for Charlie Kirk, and I’m not Christian (though I think they're pretty cool in general). But the fact that Erika Kirk, his widow, stood up and forgave the man accused of murdering her husband is staggering.

In an era where public life is fueled by score-settling and astounding cruelty this feels like a rare moment of moral progress. It’s counter-cultural in a good way: mercy instead of vengeance.

Here's an article from The Guardian about it

It's especially notable when you compare this act to yesterday’s generation of right-wing Christian political leaders, who would’ve absolutely doubled down on punishment and wrath. Can you imagine, fucking, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Falwell or Robertson forgiving someone that murdered their spouse? Yeah right.

And just to remind us of the previous era that needs to finish going the way of the dinosaurs, Trump himself openly said on stage right next to her that he hates his enemies and doesn’t care what Erika just said about what Jesus says about forgiveness.

To see Erika Kirk take the opposite stance, forgiveness, love, mercy, is unexpectedly hopeful. I am appreciating the small bit of moral progress on the Christian right here.

It's cute, but also something of a virtue-signal; Christians will get a huge stiffie over it, and she can rely on others to take her "vengeance" for her (not that she necessarily wants it).

What would it mean to not "forgive"... to proclaim a desire for vengeance? If so, that seems like a much more staggering path. Even after seeing his previous career, Trump's words at the funeral are the ones that are shocking to me, as I have no wish for ill to befall my American political opponents and indeed would like policies that I oppose to prove me wrong by being beneficial. (For one, it costs me money when the economy is bad!) All this to say that I think that you are simultaneously too cynical about basic standards for human behavior and not nearly cynical enough about the extent to which this is a cost-free, potentially calculated position: Erika Kirk doesn't legally really get any say in the punishment already.

It's not cynical from a Christian perspective, to my knowledge of Christianity. You, as a person, are enjoined to forgive on a spiritual level, but that has very little to do with the state executing temporal justice. Executioners in the Middle Ages used to have swords with prayers for the victim's soul engraved on them. A lot of people in this thread seem to be running on some sort of behaviourist model where Christians can't actually believe what they claim to believe, but in my experience they actually often do.

My point is that if Erika Kirk did not genuinely forgive her husband's murderer and inwardly longed for violent vengeance, her taking a public stance either way almost certainly has zero impact on the actual outcome. Indeed, I would argue that there are strong incentives, both social and financial, to take on the forgiveness stance. While I am not doubting her sincerity (and I certainly approve of these incentives' continued existence as a plus for contemporary Christianity), I am not impressed by it.

'Turning the other cheek' is more about breaking cycles of vengeance through forgiveness and not holding a grudge.

In other words her act is more of a call against retaliatory acts of violence against the Left and nothing about absolving the criminal from his need to face Justice.

This might be a small scale question itself but wasn't it about non-resistance to active persecution in the original text?

How did "if someone slaps you turn the other cheek to also be slapped" turn into "oh, I forgive you, but I make no promises for that judge over there or that cop I just called"?

The notion that Christians ought to forgive everyone no matter what is usually defended with Luke 23:34, where Jesus asks God to forgive those involved in his crucifixion (which implies that he himself forgives them). But there’s a problem with this: it’s not actually clear who Jesus is speaking about, whether that’s the Pharisees who have the greater sin involved in the crucifixion, or whether it’s the soldiers just obeying orders, or whether it’s the public who are celebrants of the event. Some scholars believe this only applies to Pilate’s soldiers, who were involved in obeying orders but not the cause of the evil. I think this is reasonable because the utterance occurs in the middle of the description of the soldiers engaged in an action: “there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And they cast lots to divide his garments”. If the forgiveness were intended for everyone, it would be more clear to articulate this later in the event where there would be no confusion that he is speaking at large to all gathered.

Pope John Paul II famously advocated for his (failed) assassin to be pardoned. I think he did it to make the religious point beyond doubt, but I believe justice for criminals is something that is pro-social and needs to happen. You can imagine a Christian fanaticist society according to your interpretation and its likely outcomes.

John Paul II advocated for the Turkish failed assassin to be pardoned after he had already spent decades in jail and had a lengthy sentence for previous crimes waiting for him in his home country to which he would immediately be deported. The Spanish failed assassin he did not intervene in the judicial process of, and after his release from prison he became a human rights lawyer and now works for the EU.

Jesus' prescriptions were all about making the aggressor view you as a human, not so much as non-resistance. It's resistance through excessive submission.

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

In order:

If someone slaps your right cheek, present them your left cheek. Most people are right handed, so to strike a right cheek they need to use the back of their hand, which denotes an inferior. If you turn your cheek, you are demanding that they slap with the palm of their hand, something that would denote an equal.

Jesus does not say, "Let him beat you up to a pulp."

If anyone sues your for a tunic, let him have your cloak as well. This would leave you naked, which is not allowed. You are shaming the person who sued you for your tunic.

Go the extra mile - you are acting like it was your choice to carry the Roman soldier's gear. The Roman soldier can only force you to carry their gear for one mile, but by going two miles you're shaming them.

The message is - by humbling yourself just the same amount you've already been humbled, you can shame your opponent A Lot.

"I forgive you," is comparatively a small sacrifice next to actually losing her husband. But by saying it she is shaming the killer and everyone knows it.

Regardless of her forgiveness, society has a need to keep dangerous killers off the streets. Even if Erika began advocating for the killer's release, every judge, police officer, etc has a higher duty to keep the killer imprisoned.

The original interpretation of the phrase was to mean 'force your enemy to respect you'.

Scripture is best looked at as if it was a philosophy text, meant to be interpreted in the historical context of the time. A lot of scripture is like this; for example, 'If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles' is often interpreted to mean that Christians should meekly and gladly submit to slavery - ah, no. Law of the time allowed for Roman soldiers to force conscription to carry military equipment, but only for a mile.

Meaning scripture isn't telling you to meekly submit, but instead 'If someone seeks to enslave you, force them to break the law'.

As for why modern interpretation of scripture tends to lean this way... Look, I'm no Historical Biblical Scholar, but I'd have to say there's a horde of reasons with no single golden bullet. I could probably go off on a semi-long, barely incoherent rant about that, really.

I do not think this is a valid interpretation of the text. How do you interpret "Love your enemies" or "pray for those who persecute you"? Where do you see your interpretation being modelled by Jesus or his disciples in the rest of the text? Where do they force their opponents to break the law? Peter cuts an ear off one of the men arresting Jesus; Jesus heals the man on the spot. How does that mesh?

I do not think this is a valid interpretation of the text. How do you interpret "Love your enemies" or "pray for those who persecute you"?

I don't know, I'm not a bibical scholar. I did say my knowledge was limited, and I'd imagine the various translations for the Sermon on the Mount is rife with a whole host of implications; I've heard enough griping about how 'meek' in modern language isn't what Jesus was referring to for his time to eye the modern translation of the bible with skepticism.

Where do you see your interpretation being modelled by Jesus or his disciples in the rest of the text? Where do they force their opponents to break the law?

Well, I don't know. Again, I'm not a bibical scholar. Armed and active resistence displayed in scripture isn't common; most of it is filled with rhetorical brilliance and navigating an unstable political situation.

But that doesn't matter, because in that instance Jesus was arguing for passive resistence, the equivalent of lawfare for the time. Which is smart; going active against a numerical opponent isn't exactly wise...

Peter cuts an ear off one of the men arresting Jesus; Jesus heals the man on the spot. How does that mesh?

Peter was kitted up to strike a roman legionaire sent to arrest a Son of God. (Which god? The romans didn't know.) That implies he was armed and capable; not exactly the image of a pacifist group. As for why the heal, well, you could argue alot of interpretations, depending on how you view things, and I don't consider such that important.

And while not breaking the law, Jesus had no issue resorting to violence as needed, as he did for the money changers, or noting what should be done for those that harm children.

Meaning scripture isn't telling you to meekly submit, but instead 'If someone seeks to enslave you, force them to break the law'.

Striking someone just once isn't a violation of the law?

I was referring to the forced conscriptions Romans could do on civilians.

Key point, they could conscript you for one mile, but anything beyond that was illegal. Hence, 'go with them two miles'.

This is good, no?

Yes, I think it is.

As a culture warrior, this seems like an eminently disadvantageous move. Attempting to lose gracefully when both sides' blood is up and they're out for more of it just means that your side gets plowed under more easily. Specifically, the Left can leverage this as "stop arguing about this, see how the widow takes it, there's the moral authority you must now follow, cease your fighting", and then turn around and promote more violence against the Right, while the Right sends conflicting in-group signals about whether they should fight back or lie down and let themselves get trampled harder.

I'm sorry, but for me the Culture War doesn't become less damaging when the Right just forgives the left for literally murderign their spokespeople. I'm sure the Widow is quite distraught at present, and not obliged to serve my political cause, and perhaps it is the Christian thing to do, but strategically it's downright stupid and, if it does anything at all, will only invite more attacks.

I'm sorry, but for me the Culture War doesn't become less damaging when the Right just forgives the left for literally murderign their spokespeople.

That's fair and completely understandable. I would absolutely not forgive and I would see that the perpetrator paid in full and would desire to personally squeeze the life out of them and I might tell the world.

But I'm also not broadcasting my Christian virtues to the world. It is not my moral-political framework. But it's theirs, and seeing a political figure show actual Christian commitment after decades of listening to hypocrisy from the Christian political right is refreshing! It makes me feel this movement could be a force of actual good and not just a slightly lesser evil!

It's prudent. And healthy. Forgiveness is not primarily for the guilty party to benefit from. It's for your own good. Carrying hate is bad for the body, mind, spirit. You gotta forgive to move on and create space for new love. You don't have to tell the criminal or anyone else you've done it.

Well she just told the whole world.

But the fact that Erika Kirk, his widow, stood up and forgave the man accused of murdering her husband is staggering.

Not nearly. Christians to get a mental hard on from this things. (not saying anything about her sincerity, just that it is in character)

If people give themselves mental hard-ons for doing good things that's... still good right?

Many argue that true virtue is altruistic, which only occurs when the result of your action is bad for you personally.

I am not a Christian and I do not feel qualified to judge what constitutes a moral progress for a Christian. And even less qualified to pass any judgement on the widow and how she deals with the horror that entered her life. But as myself, for my own selfish reasons, I'd like my leaders be more like Trump. Being rewarded in the next life is not enough for me. I am not a Christian saint. I want bad people to be punished in this life, on this Earth, in front of my eyes. That's why we pay enormous money to the structures of government - to ensure things happen as they should here on Earth, not in the next life. Some Christians may not care about it, fine, but I do. And I do not see how mercy and love alone are going to protect me from people who were overjoyed by this murder - and all the previous murders - and already are itching for the next one and preparing the lists of candidates. I do not see any way to kumbaya out of it, sorry. I don't mean of course the right should start mirroring the left and descending to the depths of depravity that bluehairsky personalities are wallowing in. But to feel certain revulsion towards them and to have a plan to seriously address the threat they are presenting is something that I feel appropriate.

I suppose "forgiveness" is not well defined here.

I didn't parse her as saying his killer should go free and live his best material life from this point forward. More like she does not hold hate in her heart towards him nor is pursuing a campaign to punish him with maximum suffering.

A good Christian is not necessarily compelled to stop by he wheels of justice from grinding him to bits if the operators so deem it necessary. I think they very much see the functions of the state as a bit distinct from their religion and something that they needn't overly concern themselves with.

Yes, but somebody needs to make the wheels of justice grind. And for those people, forgiveness may not be the best priority. I agree that those may not be the concern of the widow, but they are certainly a concern for me as a member of the society, which wants the criminals like this murderer ground very thinly.

I see everyone cheering for this but I think it’s not ideal. The right act here is to not forgive, because the offender is not repentant, and you should only forgive if someone recognizes their wrong and wishes earnestly to change. And even then, in such a case, it is still acceptable not to forgive, because the Christian conception of judgment (as in what Christ says) is that we are judged by the judgment we pronounce and measured with the measure we mete out. If you judge correctly, you do not face the same punishment than you demand of another. Loving your enemy, which is obligatory, does not mean eroding justice; you can love your enemy and not forgive, because he isn’t repentant or because he is just too evil. Though regarding this latter thing, you are supposed to always forgive a brother, ie fellow Christians, but this is a specific class of people, not just everyone in the world, and it is still written that they must be repentant. Remember that Jesus didn’t forgive Judas. There are a lot of people that Jesus doesn’t forgive, for much “smaller” infractions per Matthew 25, and they are sent into eternal flames.

It’s good optics, an especially sharp contrast to the gravedancing we saw last week. But it isn’t especially surprising for serious Christians. Pope John Paul II famously forgave the man that shot him, which was especially meaningful as he directly requested (and was granted) a pardon for the assassin. That said, I am too pessimistic to think this will do anything. I think the media landscape is too fragmented. The vast majority of leftists will simply never hear her remarks. And even if they do, echochambers will ensure they are provided with readymade dismissals to avoid ever feeling an unpleasant “are we the baddies?” thought.

I think of Bin Laden’s aphorism that people will prefer the strong horse. Ultimately the left is killing their enemies and celebrating it, that seems like strength to me. Forgiving them feels like a flavor of Trudeau style “if you kill your enemies they win” cuckoldry, which is vaguely repulsive to most. I’m not sure which will prove the more powerful influence

Ultimately the left is killing their enemies and celebrating it, that seems like strength to me.

To a first approximation, anyone can kill anyone. Doing so doesn't meaningfully require strength. Doing so without repercussions, sure, but that's not what happened here.

I don't think this is true. I think most humans are generally unwilling to murder, either out of instinct, moral training, or fear of consequences. Finding someone both willing and able to murder your opposition is, I'd guess, rare.

I agree. That means that strength is not the main bottleneck to murder though.

I guess unless we define strength using the edgelord xianxia "absence of scruples and willingness to do anything to anyone to advance your own interests" definiton.

Does this mean she will ask for clemency at the sentencing hearing? I don't want to say it's easy to say you forgive your husband's murderer at his own funeral, but there aren't actually any negative consequenses for saying that. I suspect that this is virtue signaling.

It's also bad game theory. "The Left" didn't kill Charlie Kirk, but Tyler Robinson DID kill Charlie Kirk. It's okay to retaliate against him specifically.

She has said that she doesn't want input into the sentencing, that she'd rather let the state decide. That's a perfectly valid Christian path, I believe - forgiveness of the soul does not imply foregoing justice in this world. That's how Christian societies remained functional and (reasonably) lawful for millennia.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats