|
This editorial was written in 2004. It was not submitted or published as it stands, due to another editorial of a similar nature that was published around the same time. The editorial is adapted from a discussion thread response I made on a Suite101 discussion board in the Religion and Spirituality Community. I would reference it for you here, but the thread appears to have been removed.
Ó 2004,
Dan Cooper
Contributing Editor, Vintage and Classic Cars
Guest Author, Fake News
In an AP news story this morning by Jay Reeves, I learned that at least one of the victims who survived the bombing episodes of confessed bomber Eric Rudolph, intends to speak, face to face, to Rudolph at his first sentencing hearing. It seems Rudolph continues to remain defiant when admitting to setting the deadly explosions in Birmingham and Atlanta.
Former nurse, Emily Lyons, was critically injured in the 1998 blast outside a Birmingham abortion clinic. As a result of her permanent injuries she has had multiple operations, has lost one eye and is no longer able to work. Now, when presented with the opportunity to meet Rudolph, Lyons said that she "hopes to get some glimmer of response from Rudolph when she comes face to face with the anti-abortion extremist in court…"
Rudolph claims to be a devout Christian and according to the story, "said the bombings were motivated by his hatred of abortion and a federal government that lets it continue."
Since Rudolph is also accused of bombings in Georgia, the story also says, "Rudolph's [second] sentencing in Georgia is set for Aug. 22, and victims of the Atlanta bombings will have a chance to speak then."
At this point I have some questions for these victims who see some sort of value to meetings with Rudolph, and a need for some sort of dialog with him. I ask the first question remembering some of the "dialog" here at the R/S community of Suite101.
First, when does the value to dialog cease to be relevant and meaningful for either or both participants in a case where the obvious differences between the parties are so striking that communication itself seems improbable if not impossible?
And then I must also ask, does Lyons’ motivation to speak face to face with her attacker represent a personal strength on her part, or a weakness? Does it represent in some way a vaguely similar lack of appreciation for the motivations and mindset of the perpetrator responsible for the atrocities to which he has proudly confessed? Does it represent a lack of cognitive appreciation somehow like that of the monster, himself, who obviously cannot relate to the positions (or in his case, even the very existence) of those he maims, kills and terrorizes? Except, perhaps, for some form of morbid curiosity, who in their right mind would desire to face such a so-called "devout Christian" for dialog, or even just to see if a sane response can be elicited?
And finally, this question: When must we face the fact that radical extremism cannot be "cured" by any presentation of facts, principles, examples of moral integrity or even legal action?
|
