.
.
This is a detail of The Last Judgement by Michaelangelo
The painting is in the public domain.
I just saw a great article about the death of Jesse Helms, and prepared a thoughtful comment about it.
As I posted the Comment, I noticed that the author had chosen to Approve Comments.
This practice is abhorrent to me, so I deleted the comment I had just composed.
Nevertheless, I am still interested in discussion about the late Senator from North Carolina.
Is the great obstructionist, the anti-Civil Rights Warrior, the race-baiting bigot, the anti-gay crusader, the pork-barrel spendthrift in Hell?
I remain entirely fair and balanced on this subject.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 127
As a "fair and balanced" moderator, I have to ask some "experts", "How much worse is Jesse Helms than the Emperor Nero?"
I don't even know that there is a hell but I do know that he was a mole on the butt of the world.
Too bad he lasted so long.
Yes, yes, Sharon.
You have the flair for "fair and balanced" commentary that makes you a natural for Faux News.
Before they become toast, or a very large Pot Roast.
It is ironic that you believe in the existence of such a place. I suppose you'll say it's hypothetical though.
That's a judgement in and of itself.
If this article were a theological discussion, and not a light-hearted gloss on current events, I would adopt a different tone and a different perspective.
Yes, Sue, you, me, everyone is less and more than we believe ourselves to be.
None of us ever operate out of entirely pure motives, because there are no choices free of moral ambiguity or free of self-interest..
We are all under "judgement" at all times - and the criterion, as Jesus sometimes remarked, is the measure by which we judge.
Both Falwell and Helms were quite free in impugning the motives of others, in using any instrument however cruel or dishonest to wage their battles (very little of "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" in any of Falwell's ouevre), and in reflecting on the eternal fate of their opponents.
I would be interested in hearing some glib self-righteous reflections on why this is inappropriate in discussing them.
How is this different from believers telling the rest of us we will go to hell? Or telling us to go to hell?
I think people who make the rest of us live in hell live there with us. No one can possibly feel good about himself knowing that so many hate him.
If I believed in hell, I would think the people who kept electing him belong there.
Now that I think of it, why do believers think it is using their lord's name in vain to say, "GOD damn," if he is the only one allowed to damn? Wouldn't that make it an accurate statement?
The thing that you fail to distinguish, all the time, is that there are always going to be people in any group that defile its intentions and principles. You have this sweeping mindset that all liberals and all atheists are good and intelligent people, and all non-liberals and all believers are bad and unitelligent people. What can you really say to such glib philosphy? Ignorance is bliss? Enjoy!
Oh, Sharon, there's a huge difference between perceiving someone to be a certain way and judging them to damnation, but I wouldn't expect you to understand, so just make believe I didn't say that. You're good at pretend, aren't you?
You are misled.
"Sue, you judge people as much as the next person..." Talk about "unsupported tones"...
No, Sandy, I don't think you missed anything.
Dannielle spoke of no one but Jesse Helms.
Peter asked us to compare him to one other person.
Sharon mentioned that her son had called her, but spoke ABOUT Jesse Helms.
De spoke ill of no one except the people already in hell, and didn't suggest they all came from any certain population.
SUE made the first reference to "groups of people"
Peter defended someone.
Jeff referenced his personal beliefs, spoke only of Jesse Helms.
De asked if we'd seen egocentric nutcases, called no one by name.
Stephen stayed on topic – Jesse Helmes.
Ruth stayed on topic – Jesse Helmes.
I responded to Sue's comment.
Charlie made a totally irrelevant statement, hoping to insult others.
Jeff made me smile.
I would have made that one statement and been gone, but I know people don't like it when they address a comment and the person never comes back, so I addressed the commentators who addressed me.
I really didn't mean to crash the party. Carry on....please...
If Hell exists - and God is indeed just - I suspect it's populated not only by rapists, murderers and others who caused harm for their own gratification, but also a whole host of holier-than-thou types who were more driven by a lust for power than divine inspiration, who used hatred, intolerance and fear to seduce the like-minded and the readily led. If this is reality, I could readily see him there.
If God is, however, the vindictive petty tyrant of Helmes' vision, with the morals and temperament of a spoiled child, Helmes is likely in Heaven with no other companions but those of his own mind and inclination, with no one left to marginalize, oversee or lord over, no one left to hate. Hell would likely be a better existence (and, if Helmes IS in Heaven, I will glad head elsewhere).
In any case, up yours, Helmes.
Sue, please defend this "sweeping generalization" using any examples from the article or my comments above.
As Sandy pointed out above, I don't see any examples that compare to yours.
Serious response (as per Sue's requirements): I don't believe in heaven or hell (or any personal existence after death). I can, however, entertain the thought that these propositions are true. So: if there's a hell as described by Christian tradition, no, I don't want Jesse Helm to go there. I don't want anyone to go there, and I don't think any god who would send any of his own imperfect creations to such a place for all eternity could in any sense be described as just.
I can only think of one offhand. On a recent article, I believe it was you who said that only conservatives delete comments. You dismissed one of the two examples I gave because I didn't mention the person's name. What I so conveniently for you forgot, was that the very person whose article it was had deleted one of my comments ahwile back because he thought it was racist. Taken out of context, it might sound racist to someone with a racist mind, (and I don't remember the context now because it was several months ago) but I'll repeat it here. It was a question asking something to the effect of whether they'd have to change the name of the white house to the black house if Obama became president. He deleted that comment. I think there was another comment of mine from that thread that he deleted too, and it was just a comment about what I thought of his article. If this site would allow me to go back that many pages, I'd be happy to point them both out to you.
So there's just one sweeping generalization that proves my statement. Only conservatives delete comments.
That's a very humanitarian response, An*k*.
I don't doubt that there is a liberal, possible a few, who deletes comments. I make that generalization because I have seen dozens of liberal-haters doing so, and have not seen liberals doing it. I think the generalization works, but would still appreciate the names or links when you see liberals deleting comments. I will hound them the same as I do the haters.
(You weren't the only one who made that claim, Sandy.)
Hopefully, that cured him.
I do agree with Stephanie on this, presuming God and hell exist:
If God is, however, the vindictive petty tyrant of Helmes' vision, with the morals and temperament of a spoiled child, Helmes is likely in Heaven with no other companions but those of his own mind and inclination, with no one left to marginalize, oversee or lord over, no one left to hate.
A little heavy perhaps but Jesse should gain justice at last.
Is he in hell or not, I don't know. He certainly would be at home in such place, but that, thankfully, is not my decision.
If God is, however, the vindictive petty tyrant of Helmes' vision [and of most of the Old Testament] with the morals and temperament of a spoiled child, Helmes is likely in Heaven with no other companions but those of his own mind and inclination, with no one left to marginalize, oversee or lord over, no one left to hate.
I think a new hierarchy of bullies would quickly arise in that environment, and a class of "no-goods" would be identified and kicked around accordingly.
Isn't that happening already, with the "they aren't real Christians claims?
Sue remionds me that I have not been a responsive host.
"Personally, I don't believe in heaven or hell."
I did not expect a theological discussion, Jeff, although there have been some interesting and provocative questions in the comment thread. There are no historic creedal statements in the history of the Church that address the subject of hell. You are not obliged to believe in hell.
"Don't pick on Nero."
This would make a great title of your next book, Peter J.
Of course the history of Nero was written by his enemies, he had so many of them. Was there any part of the Roman establishment that he did not threaten?
The world is full of egocentric nucases of all religious and non-religious persuasions, but I have noticed the phenomenon you are citing, De M
:-)
My favorite is James Dobson who, in a televised interview, came very close to making the blasphmous declaration that he decided who was a "Christian" in the political arena.
It is a holiday week-end, so I have not been keeping up with the media.
I am sure that there will some effort to portray him as an equal-opportunity offender - a kind of crusty old colorful and harmless curmudgeon.
That would be a travesty. The hateful old bigot was one of the most hateful inciters of racial sterotypes and racial fear in this country.
One certainly hopes so, Dame Ruth.
His legacy is toxic.
This was my assumption, Sandy.
I thank you for pointing it out, and for detailing the progress of the comment thread.
My comments were directed at the late, unlamented, Jesse Helms; I am not sure why Sue put herself in the same category.
I didn't see any reference to "Conservatives" or "liberals", other than those of Sue, Charlie.
Based on this Comment thread, it is more accurate to say that Conservatives are quick to complain and easily confused.
I don't have to notice or wonder, because I have Uchu
Ever notice how many egocentric nutcases there are touting religion on tv?
"I would suppose that only egocentric, non-believers could make such a judgment, since those of us who believe in a higher power know that it is not our place to judge another human being."
I interpreted this to mean that you disapproved of "judging" Jesse Helms.
When I offered a short riff on the subject of "judgement", and asked why it was inappropriate to make judgements of the same kinds that Helms made, you wrote:
" When did I say it was inappropriate for you or the people who think like you, Peter? "
The answer to that question would be - "in your first comment."
I trust that you will keep us informed about any stray prophecies or warnings that we should be noticing.
Does it count if I listen to accordian music?
"In any case, up yours, Helms."
Juan, I agree and disagree with what you are saying.
"The hate this man condoned and help create , is still alive and well. "
Thee is plenty of hate, plenty of cynical manipulation of fears and anxieties, but I believe that some of the particular nastiness that Jesse Helms practiced is not as common in public discourse.
Kathy S., I promised not to venture back into theology, so I will say only that your "vision" has a very long and distinguished history.
My thanks to all who left comments.
That's what I thought, Sandy.
Ever since you published your article, I have been recalling various TV evangelists once successfully forgotten.
Just a day or two ago, I was trying to recall the name of a ( forerunners to Jim and Tammy Faye Baker ) couple from Akron Ohio.
Imagine the horror of waking up with Rex Humbard (or Maude Aimee) on one's mind.
I think your scenarios are just and fitting, Sam.
Pioneer Televangelist-Rex Humbard
I don't know why I should be the only suffering from traumatic images of him.
Yay me!
Burn, baby, burn.
Burn, baby, burn. "
Our polls never close, Ina.
I actually missed a very large part of the merriment.
Oh yes, Sharon, anyone who can sneak a few loaded words into every mention of the story is a good candidate for Faux News.
These creepy anti-gay crusaders always turn out to be scumbag closet cases.
Helms was just waiting for a good excuse to hang out in the dark room.
"I've been a devil all my life,
But I never knew Hell 'til I met your wife
So here's your wife and I wish you well --
If I'd kept her any longer, she'd have ruined Hell."
So, my comment was intended as a humorous response in response to a humorous question.
If I hope for Cosmic Justice, it will be not "traditional hell" for Helms, but for the chance to have full realization of all the harm, injustice, and evil he orchestrated and abetted to be revealed to him, with a full comprehension of his own responsibility. Death is not a requirement for this sort of hell, actually, which is why a full life sentence is intended to be a worse punishment than a death sentence. It also allows a chance for redemption, which has passed for Helms.
An appropriate humorous reference, and a thoughtful comment, too.
I thought the way to Hell was paved with good intentions.
:-)
I stated, "I would suppose that only egocentric, non-believers could make such a judgment, since those of us who believe in a higher power know that it is not our place to judge another human being."
You stated, "I interpreted this to mean that you disapproved of 'judging' Jesse Helms."
That's not so at all. It would have been much more accurate to have inferred that those, like myself, who believe in a higher power do not judge others to damnation, so we would also not judge Jesse Helms. It would be much more characteristic for those without a belief in a higher power to do so, since it is not of their belief that it's wrong to make such judgments.
You stated, "When I offered a short riff on the subject of "judgement", and asked why it was inappropriate to make judgements of the same kinds that Helms made, you wrote" "When did I say it was inappropriate for you or the people who think like you, Peter?" You stated, "The answer to that question would be - "in your first comment."
I assume that you can see now that if you had interpreted my first comment correctly, the answer that you derived was not there at all. I hope I've cleared up your confusion with as little complaint as possible.
I don't know how you can complain of assumptions by any other person when you lead off with howlers like this one, Sue.
So the likes of James Dobson, Ralph Reed, Donald Widmon, Jesse Helms, Jerry Falwell are "egocentric nonbelievers"?
They routinely declare judgements about the spiritual conditions of others and pronounce a decision about the eternal destiny of others.
Do you pretend that your comment was not a "disapproval" of this light-hearted poll about Helms?
Maybe it's just me, but when some one says, " you are acting like an egocentric infidel" I interpret that as "disapproval".
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
You seem to know more about those so called Christian leaders than I do, so I'll leave it to you to spread the gospel of non-faith based on their faulty teachings. I should know much better than to involve myself in specious Gather threads with a whimsical sophist. Shame on me for the waste of my time and my keystrokes.
What I thiink is obvious, Sue, is that you lash out with a premise of moral superiority that is mistaken and unsupportable.
If "only egocentric nonbelievers would say that someone is in Hell", then Jesse Helms is an egocentric nonbeliever along with Dobson Falwell, Reed, Bauer, and all the other Pharisees named above.
Sue, your separation of yourself with "those of us" on what is obviously the "good" side of your argument is what I think makes it obvious you are judging those on the other side. Did you not mean to do that? I often throw out "those of us" to purposely make that statement, so I assumed you were doing the same.
I am still waiting to hear how Jesse Helms is not "an egocentric non-believer", since he made the sort of judgements that you identify with that sort of person.
Would you please point out where I've ever made one comment about Jesse Helms in this thread? After that, would you please tell me why I should have to either defend or corroborate anything about which I haven't commented?
I think Jesse Helms is visiting with Satan as we speak. Satan is explaining to Jesse the rules of Hell and Jesse is explaining to Satan why the rules do not apply to him. We reap what we sow, therefore I think Jesse is busy reaping the rewards he so desperately wanted in hell.
Hmmm. Considering the title and the purpose of the article...umm...why are you here again? Not to comment on Jesse Helms as you freely admit.
"Would you please point out where I've ever made one comment about Jesse Helms in this thread?"
Okie dokie. I'll quote:
"I would suppose that only egocentric, non-believers could make such a judgment, since those of us who believe in a higher power know that it is not our place to judge another human being."
That fits him to a tee and the title of the article. So...umm...who WERE you referring to if not him?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Now I'm confused again, Sue. You say, "Since those of us who believe in a higher power know that it is not our place to judge another human being," how could this not be taken lightly? Those of YOU, know, and those of US think hell is a joke to begin with.
I thought that by pointing out HOW your comments are confusing to others, and asking questions, I might be able to lead you to an explanation that would make sense to everyone.
You can call this how you want, but if I make a statement that no one seems able to understand, I consider that MY problem, not theirs.
Shame and humility will not be wasted, here...but I feel for you all...
Jesse Helms spent a lifetime expounding hate and intolerance -including his speculations about the eternal fate of people whom he feared or disliked.
There was no high-minded claptrap such as Sue wrote: " those of us who believe in a higher power know that it is not our place to judge another human being. "
Sue can't have it both ways.
Jesse speculated darkly and often, and with "judgement" about others.
Either he (and all the other pontificaters about public virtue) belongs in the category of "egocentric non-believers" or her laughable premise is wrong.
It's that simple, but Sue keeps playing games about "communication" and "tone" that obscure the fact of her thoughtless judgemental assumption of moral superiority.
Is it "egocentric non-believers" who do not believe in eternal punishment, or moral absolutists who rush to judgement in their need to see things in black and white (an unusual chice of words about Jesse Helms) ?
.