As many of you know, I work with people who’ve lost their jobs. As part of the counseling I do, I frequently refer to the stages of emotional reaction to the tragedy of job loss. The sequence is identical to that experienced following a divorce. It goes, shock, fear, anger and blame, shame, and despair. I admit, when I lost my job, I went through each one of these emotions, and I’m somewhat embarrassed to say, my favorite was anger and blame. The other four are directed inward; they lead to depression and loss of confidence. Anger is directed outward, toward a deserving target.

Giving vent to this anger can feel quite pleasurable, even therapeutic to some. Car bashing, taking aim at your ex’s face on a dartboard, writing a critical, tell-all memoir, suing your former employer for discriminatory treatment: all are manifestations of what I think is a totally understandable desire to inflict pain and suffering on those who inflict pain and suffering on us. Tit for tat. And it feels good.

I always warned my clients, however, about the boomerang nature of anger. When we send out anger and resentment toward a deserving target, it rarely has any effect on the perpetrator of the injustice. Instead, it circles back and causes more pain for the sender. If a jobseeker criticizes a former employer who terminated his employment unfairly, that jobseeker will most likely not be hired. If a divorcee goes on and on about what a scumbag her ex-husband was, even if it was true, there will probably not be a second date any time soon. We may not want to hear an angry person first-hand, but we certainly like to see anger portrayed on the big screen.

Who among us did not inwardly cheer when we saw Paul Newman and Robert Redford outwit the bad guy with their motley assemblage of grifters in “The Sting”? Who did not rejoice when watching the three skilled-but-unappreciated office workers string their reprehensible boss up like a piece of meat in the movie “9 to 5? Some of you men may have been grimacing with discomfort instead of cheering.

We seem to really like movies with revenge themes. In addition to “9 to 5” and “The Sting,” consider “Bitter Moon,” “Cousin Bette,” “Diabolique,” “Fatal Attraction,” “Heathers,” “The First Wives’ Club,” “Wuthering Heights,” “Frankenstein,” “Carrie,” “Dirty Harry,” “Thelma and Louise,” “The War of the Roses,” “Moby Dick,” “Hamlet,” “Unforgiven,” “The Searchers,” “The Bed,” “The Verdict,” and “Sons of Katie Elder” to name only a few. Somehow, justice delivered at the hand of the victim seems a great deal more satisfying than that delivered by a court of law, years after the fact. We especially enjoy watching people get their just desserts by means of a well-orchestrated sting or cleverly devised entrapment operation, intelligence winning over might, more satisfying and less bloody than some acts of vengeance.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tapped into the American passion for revenge films when he announced in February the coming attraction, “Gulf War II: The Vengeance” as even better than the original. “If you thought the first one was good, just wait until you see the sequel,” he declared, saying that the soon-to-be-unleashed war would feature special effects beyond anything seen in the original.”

There is a well-documented argument going around that has many learned people in agreement that the war against Iraq is actually part of a master plan concocted, written, and publicly espoused by key members of the Bush administration to take over the oilfields of the Middle East and expand American hegemony throughout the world. This plan was written eleven years ago.

Whether you believe in this theory it’s been interesting, to say the least, to observe how the Bush Administration has led the nation to include Iraq as a target of our collective desire for vengeance after 9/11 in spite of the fact that that country did not attack us, Al Qaeda did, did not spawn any of the people who did attack us, Saudi Arabia and Yemen did, does not have nuclear weapons as does North Korea, does not have weapons of mass destruction that we’ve been able to find, as does Russia, and that probably wouldn’t collaborate with Al Qaeda anyway because they detest each other.

We don’t like bin Laden or Saddam, but we know where Saddam is, he put a contract out on George Sr., and his country, weakened by a decade of sanctions is oil-rich. The fact that Bush was able to convince 58% of the population and Tony Blair that this makes sense is astounding to me and to you as well, I imagine.

There is a fascinating book on this subject, first published in 1972 called Violence and the Sacred by Rene Girard. The author draws from myth, Freud, Greek tragedy and more to build his argument that violence, a natural emotion found in humans and animals, is an integral component of a sacred belief system. Here are some excerpts from the book that can easily be applied to the Iraq tragedy: “Once aroused, the urge to violence triggers certain physical changes that prepare men’s bodies for battle . . . It is more difficult to quell an impulse toward violence than to rouse it . . . Violence is frequently called irrational. It has its reasons, however, and can marshal some rather convincing ones when the need arises. Yet these reasons cannot be taken seriously, no matter how valid they may appear. Violence itself will discard the reasons for violence if the initial object remains persistently out of reach and continues to provoke hostility. When unappeased, violence seeks and always finds a surrogate victim. The creature that excited its fury is abruptly replaced by another, chosen only because it is vulnerable and close at hand . . . [There is even] a species of fish that, if deprived of its natural enemies (the male rivals with whom it habitually disputes territorial rights), turns its aggression against the members of its own family and destroys them.” I guess that’s the rationale for the man who has a bad day at work, comes home, and kicks the dog.

Another book by the same author, called Scapegoat, discusses the drive of individuals and countries to find someone on whom to pin blame, guilt, and subsequently, punishment. With the Romans, it was Jesus; with the Nazis, it was the Jews; with the Bush administration the scapegoat appears to be Saddam Hussein.

The following is a message written by a Buddhist leader of Vietnam 30 years ago. Substitute “Iraqi” for “Vietnamese,” and think.

Each day the war goes on, the hatred increases in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process, they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but [instead] the image of violence and militarism. . .

On the other hand, in a book called, The Virtues of Vengeance, Peter French argues that vengeance has fallen into undeserved disrepute. He examines vengeance as a moral concept, bringing in a discussion of the relevant issues of honor, moral authority, evil, the rationality of revenge, and proportionality in punishment. He concludes by saying that mere condemnation, ostracism, or even imprisonment are inadequate responses to certain heinous acts, and even though I’m a pacifist, I tend to agree with him. Some Nazi war criminals were given mere prison sentences. They never had to suffer in the same way their victims did. The Hutus who dismembered their enemies, people who use torture, people who destroy the lives of children . . . I’m a very gentle, non-vengeful person, but part of me wants people like that to suffer.

Texas courts seem to agree with Mr. French, sort of. Yes, we execute more convicted criminals than any other state, and we are tough on crime. So, it is surprising to some people to learn that in Texas, murder, one of the Big Crimes condemned by all religions and all courts, is excused if committed in the heat of passion, a crime spurred by the insane desire for vengeance when cuckolded. It is said that “vengeance is a dish best served cold,” but in Texas, cold, premeditated vengeance will garner a prison sentence, while murder, even a double murder if committed in the heat of romantic humiliation will get you clean off. As a people, we seem to understand and accept the moral rightness of revenge in certain situations, in spite of our ethical teachings to the contrary.

Speaking of ethical teachings, we’ve all heard the biblical quote, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” used as an excuse for the death penalty or other retribution. But it’s actually another example of what the politicians are always complaining about: pulling quotes out of context. The actual passage reads, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Remember that? It goes on, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto me. Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Similar admonitions are found at the core of all the world’s great religions, each of which in its own way promotes peace and brotherhood among all people. So why didn’t we just do that? Why didn’t the inhabitants of one of the largest Christian countries in the world capitalize on the outpouring of good feelings sent our way after 9/11 and turn the other cheek? Why did we feel we should follow the example of Israel (now there’s a role model) and take out another country instead of just those guilty of the 9/11 attack. These are not good times for those who favor forgiveness and pacificism. It seems as though Everybody is teed off with Somebody, and they all want revenge. Consider these quotes:

• I think jail time would be wonderful, and I’d like to pick the jail that he goes to. – about Bernie Ebbers, CEO of WorldCom by a bankrupt employee.
• We call on the Arabs and Muslims to burn the land under the feet of the American invaders, especially our brothers in Saudi Arabia because this war is against the Islamic nation. – Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi to residents of an impoverished shantytown in Iraq.
• We will continue to demolish the homes of suspected Palestinian militants and suicide bombers; we believe it discourages attacks. – an unnamed Israeli soldier. [Seems to be working well.]
•  He’s trying to hide his assets from the IRS, but I know everything, and I’m telling. – paraphrased statement of Mrs. Jack Welch, President of GE during their divorce hearing
• They violated the trust, so we have the right to take defensive measures [and hunt down and kill Palestinian militants] to make sure that terrorist activities don’t take place. – Raanan Gissin, an aide to Ariel Sharon.

In a book called Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Terrorism, Mark Juergensmeyer relates what he has learned from studying religious terrorists, whom he says he finds in every religious tradition. [I’m sure he doesn’t mean UUs.] The common thread is a view of life as a cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil. This is especially worrisome because President Bush has stated repeatedly that he sees our current worldwide conflict in precisely this elemental way. The problem lies with both Hawks and Doves. When a person is demonized, portrayed as one-dimensionally representing all that is bad, it is impossible to negotiate with that person. He has become Satan. It is not productive. Religious terrorists see their actions as religiously motivated, “an act of faithful defiance of evil” that restores honor and demonstrates devotion to God. In other words, they believe that God is pleased with and saves them because of violent behavior when the cause is just.

This idea is not newly born with Al Qaeda. The first crusade, called in 1095 by Pope Urban II, urged holy warriors to sacrifice their lives just as Jesus gave his on the cross. And, interestingly, in the same way that the families of suicide bombers today are rewarded both materially and by increased respect, the Pope 1200 years ago promised that the noble deaths of the crusaders would earn the forgiveness of debts and garner rewards to their families. [Many of you know that in some churches, the Lord’s Prayer says “forgive us our debts” and in some, “forgive us our sins.” It’s all about money, isn’t it?] Inspired by a theology that rewarded sacrificial violence and that justified the destruction of God’s enemies as a holy act, Christian knights 1200 years ago began slaughtering Jews in the Rhineland and Muslims in the East.

With the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, God became more “reasonable.” Now we have to have reasonable justification to destroy our enemies. As the President has so eloquently said, “It’s payback time!” James Benet wrote in the New York Times of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “This strategy of peace through pain is the same one adopted by the Bush administration . . . so far (it) has brought only more pain.”

Alfred North Whitehead made the following observation about violence. “There are times when violence is a last resort in personal or national defense, but the most it can do is stop something. It can stop a violent aggressor, but it can never create. It can never console. It can never bring peace. It can never repair what has been lost.” The same is true with vengeance. If we think back to the revenge movies mentioned earlier, after the hero has hunted down the perpetrators, after he has violently paid them back for their sins, he is never shown as being smiling, happy, rejoicing in his triumph. Violent retribution is a particularly unsatisfying activity. However, a sting well done is a different story entirely.

The definitive example of the self-destructive effects of the desire for vengeance is Moby Dick. Captain Ahab sacrifices everything in his obsession with the whale that took his leg. Vengeance cannot live alongside other, saner emotions. It destroys peace of mind, inspires obsession, and separates a person or a country from civilized society.

After the 9/11 bombing, I wrote a letter to the editors of both the Austin American and the Longview News-Journal, describing what I thought was a brilliant idea. It was printed in Longview, but not in Austin. Probably just as well. As a concept, it was kind of “out there;” I’m not sure even Unitarians thought it was a very good idea. But you will, I’m sure, agree that it is totally devoid of vengeance. My plan was that we show the Israelis how to deal constructively with an attack and confound the terrorists at the same time by actually living our so-called religion, that we walk the walk of Christianity and turn the other cheek. Since we knew that Osama bin Laden was holed up with the Taliban, my plan was that we build a refugee camp in Pakistan or in Iran that would advertise the best about America and cause Al Qaeda supporters to question their motivation for hating us. The “camp” would include good hospitals, schools, shops, mosques, museums, concert halls, clean water, affordable homes, and freely elected local leaders. We could’ve built such a paradise on a fraction of what it cost us to bomb Afghanistan, and no innocents would have died. If your enemy becomes your friend, there’s no need to hate him. It’s easy for me to be magnanimous, of course. Although I grieved at the senseless, terrifying loss of so many bright souls, I lost no one close to me on 9/11. People who did were perhaps more inclined to want vengeance. Here’s a story of someone who has a right to hate, but who chooses not to.

You may have heard about her, even in Longview. Her name is Jaqueline Saburido. In 1999, she was a foreign student at the University of Texas, very pretty, the only child of a Venezuelan businessman and his wife. Life was very good. She was riding in a van with five other foreign students, coming home from a party, when they were involved in an accident. The driver of the other car, an 18-year old high school senior, had been party-hopping, showing off the new specially outfitted GMC Yukon he had bought with money he had inherited from the death of his father three years earlier. Drunk and speeding, he fell asleep at the wheel, crossed over the line, and hit the van. Two of the students died; the other three were injured. There was a fire. Jaqueline Saburido was burned. I could describe her injuries, but I won’t. I have pictures. After two and a half years, she has had more than 40 surgical procedures. She should have died. She didn’t. She should be filled with anger and hatred the way others were. She isn’t. In 2001, she testified at the trial of the driver, then 20 years old. Instead of anger, she felt compassion. She said, “It did break my heart to see him in this situation, to see him handcuffed, but the problem is, you have to make decisions before you go out drinking . . . and putting other lives at risk.” During her testimony, Jaqueline Saburido said, “Even if it means sitting here in front of cameras with no ears, no nose, no eyebrows, no eyelids, and no hair, I will do this a thousand times if it will make someone make a wise decision.” She is now back in school, continues to undergo medical treatment, and is a stunningly effective voice against drunk driving. Although her body is still wracked with pain, her days are busy, her life is full, and she has neither the time nor the desire to be held back by the self-destructiveness of vengeance. She has a life to live.

Kathy Lansford
3/30/03