The tragic events last week in Charlottesville, Virginia stand as a reminder that the actions of some of us express staunch opposition to what we might call Good. Steve Tanner, writing under the umbrella of 500 Pens: an anti-hate news project, offers an annotated list of thoughtful actions we might take when confronting hate in EveryDayLife. In Mr. Tanner’s own words:
By arming ourselves with a solid understanding of best practices, we can all be ready to respond properly — and safely — when acts of hate unfold before our eyes. Every situation is unique, but the following list is meant to serve as a guide for how to best respond to acts of hatred and bigotry. ~Steve Tanner
His brief list of suggestions includes the following.
- Draw Attention Away From Hateful Protests and Demonstrations
- Do Not Engage with the Attackers
- Focus on Protecting the Attacked Person
- Alert the Police and Other Authorities When Appropriate
- Prepare in Advance
Food for thought: Consider the principle of the “golden rule” which appears in some form in almost all major religions and which forms the basis of Good to which this blog often refers. Does a “hate stance” espoused by a group seeking to exclude others fall within the definition of a golden rule-type Good? (Do not answer too quickly. This so-called golden rule is not the same as “live and let live”.)
For example, a white supremacist might be perfectly willing to live in peace as long as non-white folks (and in some cases Jews) live elsewhere. While some hate groups essentially preach genocide, others simply do not want to have to deal with others they do not considers to be “us”. Is this a non-Good stance? What are the criteria for Good? How can we effectively express Good—treating others as we wish to be treated—in a pluralistic society? Perhaps the deeper question is this: What are the requirements for a pluralistic society sustaining itself within the idea of Good? What does freedom look like in such a context?