Friday Morning Reflections on Evil

I didn’t expect to find genocide in the Bible.

As part of some research I was doing while writing a novel, I had to go back and re-read Ezra and Nehemiah. I knew they existed in the Bible, but never gave much thought to it. The endless list of names that returned from Babylon to Israel is quite mind numbing, like reading the endless rules in Leviticus or Numbers. And it wasn't like Ezra or Nehemiah play a critical role in Christian theology so I've always skimmed it. But this time, because I was forced to, I read the stories for the first time, or should I say I noticed the stories for the first time. And it shocked me to my core. For it was a story of a form of genocide; cultural genocide to be more exact.

The Israelites (or more accurately the Judahites) return after 70 years of exile in Babylon. They find the Temple ruined but surprisingly a lot of people. These people welcome the exiles and offer to help with the rebuilding of the Temple and the walls around Jerusalem. It talks about how the people that were left behind kept their faith while their leaders were taken away. Then something surprising happens; Ezra refuses their help, calls them impure, accuses them of marrying outside their race, orders them to divorce their foreign wives and children...all the while using the Bible, and God, as justification.

I was truly shocked. I thought I read it wrong. But I was right. That's what Ezra/Nehemiah says. The words are as clear as day.

Then I realized a pattern. It goes like this:

Problem → Thought → Word → Ritual → Law → Theological/Ideological Framing → Dehumanization/Othering → Moral Absolutism → Justified Harm

This pattern is not only seen in Ezra/Nehemiah, but unfortunately throughout history whenever we commit great acts of evil to each other.

---

Let's breakdown Ezra/Nehemiah according to this Pattern/Framework:

1. The Babylonian exile (587–538 BCE) shattered Israel’s national and religious identity. After Persia allowed their return, the exiles faced a fragmented society, with Jerusalem in ruins and their covenant with God seemingly broken. The presence of “people of the land”—locals who had intermarried and adopted mixed religious practices—threatened the exiles’ vision of a restored, pure Israel. This crisis of identity and survival demanded a clear path to reestablish their distinctiveness.

>> The Problem

Description: A crisis or need—economic, social, cultural, or political—creates urgency and uncertainty, driving societies to seek control through simplistic solutions.

Context: Ezra 1–2 describes the return under Cyrus’ decree, highlighting the exiles’ small numbers and the challenge of rebuilding amidst a mixed population.

2. The exiles developed the belief: “To survive and honor God, Israel must be pure, free from foreign influence.” This had a kernel of truth—covenant fidelity was central to Israelite theology (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:1–6)—but scapegoated the “people of the land” as threats to purity, ignoring their shared history or potential for inclusion.

>> The Thought

Description: A partial insight, often scapegoating or reductive, emerges to explain the problem, carrying emotional weight but lacking nuance.

Context: Ezra 9:1–2 reflects this thought, as leaders report that intermarriage with locals has “mingled the holy seed with the peoples of the lands,” framing it as a existential danger.

3. Ezra, a priest and scribe, articulated this purity narrative through public readings of the Torah and sermons. He interpreted texts like Deuteronomy 7:3 (prohibiting intermarriage with Canaanites) as a mandate to exclude all non-exiles, including Samaritans and others. His teachings, delivered with priestly authority, framed intermarriage and mixed practices as abominations, rallying the community around purity.

>> The Word

Description: The thought is articulated through speeches, texts, or propaganda, gaining authority by invoking trusted sources.

Context: Ezra 7:10 notes Ezra’s role in studying and teaching the Law, while Ezra 9:3–15 shows his dramatic response to intermarriage, shaping public opinion through fasting and prayer.

4. The exiles implemented exclusionary rituals, such as public confessions, forced divorces of foreign wives, and bans on intermingling with locals. These acts—often performative, like Ezra’s public mourning or Nehemiah’s wall-building—cemented the idea of purity in daily life, creating a stark divide between “us” (exiles) and “them” (people of the land).

>> The Rituals

Description: The word becomes communal practice, normalizing the idea through repeated acts that foster group cohesion.

Context: Ezra 10:10–11 records Ezra’s call for the people to “separate yourselves” from foreign wives, leading to mass divorces (Ezra 10:16–44). Nehemiah 13:23–27 reinforces this by punishing intermarriage.

5. The purity ideology was formalized into community laws and temple policies. Nehemiah’s reforms, such as barring non-Israelites from the temple (Nehemiah 13:1–3) and enforcing Sabbath observance (Nehemiah 13:15–22), gave legal weight to exclusion. These laws redefined who could claim Israelite identity, marginalizing anyone with foreign ties.

>> The Law

Description: The ritual is codified into policies or institutions, embedding the idea in systemic structures that resist change.

Context: Nehemiah 10:28–30 shows the people swearing an oath to avoid intermarriage and uphold the Law, institutionalizing purity as a legal obligation.

6. Ezra and Nehemiah framed purity as God’s direct command, rooted in the Torah and the covenant. They presented exclusion as a sacred duty to restore Israel’s holiness, twisting texts like Leviticus 19:2 (“Be holy, for I am holy”) to justify separation. This theological framing cast the exiles as God’s elect, with the “people of the land” as defilers of divine will.

>> The Theological/Ideological Framing

Description: The law is sanctified as divine or natural, invoking theology or ideology to claim cosmic authority.

Context: Ezra 9:11–12 cites “the prophets” to argue that intermarriage pollutes the land, while Nehemiah 13:26 invokes Solomon’s fall to reinforce the divine mandate.

7. The “people of the land,” including Samaritans, were Othered as impure, idolatrous, and unworthy of God’s covenant. Terms like “abomination” (Ezra 9:1) and “pollution” (Ezra 9:11) dehumanized them, framing them as threats to Israel’s survival rather than neighbors with shared heritage. This erased their individuality, making exclusion feel righteous.

>> The Dehumanization/"Othering"

Description: The targeted group is stripped of humanity, cast as “Other” through language or stereotypes, severing empathy.

Context: Nehemiah 13:3’s expulsion of “all those of foreign descent” and Ezra 10’s mass divorces treated mixed families as contaminants, not people, echoing de Beauvoir’s “Other.”

8. Purity became an absolute moral imperative: to be Israelite was to be pure, and to be impure was to defy God. Dissenters, like those who resisted divorce or inclusionists, were cast as traitors to the covenant. This absolutism justified exclusion as a divine necessity, shedding guilt for the harm caused.

>> The Moral Absolutism

Description: The ideology is declared the sole moral truth, framing opposition as evil and adherence as righteousness.

Context: Ezra 10:8 threatens to confiscate property and exile anyone who doesn’t comply with the divorce mandate, showing how dissent was equated with apostasy.

9. The exiles’ policies caused cultural harm, often described as cultural genocide. Forced divorces (Ezra 10:44) broke families, marginalized Samaritans, and erased mixed communities’ legitimacy. The “people of the land” were excluded from worship and civic life (Nehemiah 10:28), their identity delegitimized. The exiles saw this as restoring God’s favor, not as harm, mirroring Arendt’s banality of evil in their unreflective obedience to “God’s law.”

>> The Justified Harm

Description: The moralized ideology sanctions harm—violence, exclusion, or erasure—executed without guilt as a perceived moral act.

Context: The long-term impact—seen in the Samaritan schism and lasting ethnic tensions—shows how this harm reshaped the region’s social fabric, justified as divine will.

---

It's a rather simple Pattern/Framework:

1. Problem: A crisis or need.

2. Thought: A scapegoating or simplifying insight.

3. Word: Articulation through propaganda, texts, or sermons.

4. Ritual: Practices embedding the idea in society.

5. Law: Codification into policy or institutions.

6. Theological/Ideological Framing: Sanctifying the idea as divine or natural.

7. Dehumanization/Othering: Casting the group as less human or “Other.”

8. Moral Absolutism: Declaring the ideology as absolute truth.

9. Justified Harm: Sanctioned violence or exclusion, without guilt.

---

So I applied this Pattern/Framework to other historical examples:

Let's start with the most obvious. 

[Slavery and Institutionalized racism in America.]

1. Problem

Colonial America’s economy, built on agriculture, faces a labor shortage. By the 17th century, European settlers need cheap, scalable labor to sustain plantations. Post-Civil War, white society grapples with integrating freed Black people while maintaining economic and social control.

2. Thought

Africans are “savage” or “inferior,” fit for servitude. This idea, rooted in European ethnocentrism, suggests Black people are naturally suited to labor, not freedom, ignoring their diverse cultures and humanity.

3. Word

Pro-slavery sermons cite Genesis 9:25 (Curse of Ham) to claim divine sanction for Black enslavement. By the 19th century, pseudo-scientific racism—texts like Samuel Morton’s Crania Americana—asserts Black inferiority. Post-slavery, Jim Crow rhetoric frames Blacks as threats to white society.

4. Ritual

Slave auctions, whippings, and plantation hierarchies embed Black subjugation. Post-1865, lynchings, Black Codes, and segregation (e.g., “whites only” signs) ritualize racial control, normalizing violence and exclusion in daily life.

5. Law

Slave codes (e.g., Virginia’s 1705 laws) legalize enslavement, denying Black rights. The U.S. Constitution’s Three-Fifths Clause (1787) codifies partial humanity. Post-Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896) and redlining (1930s) institutionalize segregation and economic exclusion.

6. Theological/Ideological Framing

Christianity is twisted to justify slavery—Ephesians 6:5 urges slaves to obey masters. Later, Social Darwinism and white supremacy frame Black oppression as natural, aligning with “progress.” White society is cast as divinely or biologically ordained to rule.

7. Dehumanization/Othering

Africans are labeled “chattel,” “three-fifths human,” or “beasts.” Post-slavery, stereotypes like “criminal” or “lazy” (e.g., minstrel shows) strip Black people of individuality, making them threats to be controlled, not equals to be embraced.

8. Moral Absolutism

Slavery is God’s will; abolition is heresy. Later, white supremacy is moralized as necessary for societal order—segregation and policing protect “civilization.” Opposing this is framed as betrayal of divine or natural law.

9. Justified Harm

Enslavement brutalizes millions—whippings, rape, family separations. Post-slavery, lynchings (4,000+ from 1882–1968), mass incarceration (e.g., 13th Amendment’s loophole), and ongoing disparities (e.g., wealth gaps) perpetuate harm, justified as maintaining order. The harm feels endless, a wound still bleeding.

>> Reflection:

The cycle begins with economic need but ends in systemic violence, with Dehumanization/Othering (Black people as property or threats) enabling guilt-free oppression. Imagine witnessing a slave auction or a 1960s protest, realizing the “moral” rhetoric masks cruelty.

---

How about something broader, less violent on the surface but equally troublesome.

[Women's rights]

1. Problem

Patriarchal societies, from ancient times to modernity, need to maintain male dominance to control property, lineage, and power. By the 19th century, women’s push for suffrage and equality threatens this order.

2. Thought

Women are “naturally” inferior or complementary—designed for domesticity, not leadership. This idea, rooted in tradition, assumes male supremacy is universal, ignoring women’s contributions and capabilities.

3. Word

Religious texts like Genesis 2:18–24 (Eve as “helpmeet”) and 1 Timothy 2:12 (women’s silence) are preached to justify subordination. Philosophers like Aristotle (“woman is defective”) and Enlightenment thinkers reinforce this. Anti-suffrage pamphlets (19th century) call women’s rights “unnatural.”

4. Ritual

Denying women education, property, or public roles becomes routine. Practices like foot-binding (China), corseting, or excluding women from professions embed their inferiority. Anti-suffrage rallies and public shaming of feminists ritualize resistance to change.

5. Law

Coverture laws (e.g., England’s 17th–19th centuries) strip married women of legal identity. In the U.S., women are denied voting rights until 1920 (19th Amendment). Workplace discrimination laws (e.g., unequal pay) persist into the 20th century.

6. Theological/Ideological Framing

Christianity frames women as submissive to God’s order (Ephesians 5:22–24). Secularly, biological determinism (e.g., Freud’s theories) claims women are “naturally” emotional, not rational. Patriarchy is cast as divine or scientific truth.

7. Dehumanization/Othering

Women are reduced to roles—“wife,” “mother”—or objects of desire. Stereotypes like “hysterical” or “weak” (e.g., 19th-century medical diagnoses) strip their agency, casting them as “Other,” unfit for equality.

8. Moral Absolutism

Patriarchy is God’s or nature’s design; feminism is rebellion. Women’s submission is moralized as virtuous, while independence is sinful or unnatural. Opposing male authority threatens societal collapse, justifying control.

9. Justified Harm

Domestic violence, forced marriages, and economic exclusion are normalized. Women face legal barriers (e.g., no voting until 1920) and social punishments (e.g., shaming suffragists). The harm—centuries of silenced voices—feels like a slow, systemic erasure.

>> Reflection:

The cycle turns women’s humanity into a threat, with Theological/Ideological Framing sanctifying their subordination. Picture a woman in 1850, reading banned feminist tracts, her defiance sparking against a “divine” order.

---

How about one we know exists, but choose to avoid looking at because it makes us uncomfortable.

[Indigenous peoples; US, Canada and Australia]

1. Problem

European colonization (16th–19th centuries) demands land and resources. Indigenous populations in the USA, Canada, and Australia control vast territories, obstructing settler expansion.

2. Thought

Indigenous peoples are “savages,” unfit for civilization. This belief, rooted in European superiority, assumes natives lack culture or rights, ignoring their complex societies and land stewardship.

3. Word

Manifest Destiny (USA, 1840s) declares divine right to conquer. Australia’s terra nullius doctrine denies Indigenous land ownership. Missionaries and colonial reports (e.g., Canada’s 1830s dispatches) call natives “heathens” needing salvation or removal.

4. Ritual

Forced removals (e.g., Trail of Tears, 1830s USA), massacres, and residential schools (Canada/Australia, 19th–20th centuries) embed Indigenous inferiority. Scalp bounties and “civilizing” missions ritualize violence and erasure.

5. Law

The Indian Removal Act (1830, USA), Canada’s Indian Act (1876), and Australia’s assimilation policies (e.g., 1909 Aborigines Protection Act) codify displacement and control, stripping Indigenous rights to land and culture.

6. Theological/Ideological Framing

Christianity justifies colonization as a divine mission to “save” heathens (e.g., Doctrine of Discovery, 15th century). Enlightenment ideas of progress frame Indigenous cultures as “primitive,” destined to vanish before civilization.

7. Dehumanization/Othering

Natives are called “wild,” “childlike,” or “vermin” (e.g., colonial propaganda). Stereotypes in media (e.g., “savage” in dime novels) erase their humanity, making them obstacles to progress, not people with rights.

8. Moral Absolutism

Colonization is God’s or progress’ will; Indigenous resistance is evil. Settlers believe eradicating native cultures ensures civilization’s triumph, framing assimilation or extermination as moral necessities.

9. Justified Harm

Massacres (e.g., Wounded Knee, 1890), forced sterilizations, and cultural erasure via boarding schools (e.g., “Kill the Indian, save the man”) kill millions and destroy cultures. Ongoing marginalization (e.g., reservation poverty) continues the harm, justified as progress.

>> Reflection:

The cycle obliterates Indigenous humanity, with Dehumanization/Othering enabling mass violence. Imagine a native child in a residential school, whispering their forbidden language, defying the “civilizing” mission.

---

And perhaps the most difficult of them all.

[The Holocaust]

1. Problem

Post-WWI Germany faces economic collapse, unemployment, and national humiliation under the Versailles Treaty (1919). A scapegoat is needed to restore pride and stability.

2. Thought

Jews are responsible for Germany’s woes—economic, cultural, and moral. This anti-Semitic trope, rooted in medieval prejudices, blames Jews for capitalism, communism, and societal decay.

3. Word

Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925) and Nazi propaganda (e.g., Der Stürmer) vilify Jews as conspirators. Speeches and films (e.g., The Eternal Jew, 1940) spread lies of Jewish control, amplifying fear and hatred.

4. Ritual

Boycotts of Jewish businesses (1933), public humiliations, and Kristallnacht (1938) normalize anti-Semitism. Swastikas, book burnings, and Hitler Youth rallies embed Jew-hatred in daily life.

5. Law

Nuremberg Laws (1935) strip Jews of citizenship, ban intermarriage. Later decrees mandate yellow stars and ghettoization, codifying exclusion and paving the way for extermination.

6. Theological/Ideological Framing

Nazi ideology casts Aryans as a divinely ordained race, with Jews as their cosmic enemy. Christian anti-Semitism (e.g., Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies) is co-opted, framing Jews as Christ-killers and moral threats.

7. Dehumanization/Othering

Jews are labeled “vermin,” “parasites,” or “subhuman” in propaganda. Caricatures and films depict them as greedy or dangerous, erasing their humanity and making them targets for elimination.

8. Moral Absolutism

The “Jewish problem” must be solved for Germany’s survival. The Final Solution is framed as a moral necessity, with Nazis believing they’re cleansing the world. Dissent is betrayal of the Reich.

9. Justified Harm

The Holocaust murders six million Jews through ghettos, forced labor, and death camps (e.g., Auschwitz). Perpetrators, from SS officers to bureaucrats, act without guilt, seeing their work as righteous. The scale of death is unimaginable, a void of humanity.

>> Reflection:

The cycle’s speed—from economic crisis to genocide in two decades—is terrifying, with Moral Absolutism justifying industrial-scale murder. Envision a Jewish family hiding, hearing propaganda on the radio, their fear a testament to the cycle’s power.

I can list out hundreds of examples in our collective history where this pattern emerges; the Rwandan genocide (Hutu vs. Tutsi), the treatment of the Rohingya people in Myanmar, LGBTQ+ people today, anti-immigrant policies being enacted across many countries today, the division between the 'elites' and 'working class people' as a central theme of politics today. The list is endless. 

And it tells a troubling story about us.

---

The Framework (details) fully written out:

1. Problem: A crisis or need.

A crisis, need, or disruption—economic, social, cultural, or political—creates urgency and uncertainty. Societies seek explanations or solutions to restore stability, often under pressure. This vulnerability sets the stage for scapegoating or oversimplification, as fear amplifies the need for control.

Examples: Post-WWI Germany’s economic collapse; post-exilic Israel’s need for identity; colonial demand for land.

Dynamics: Fear, scarcity, or loss of status drive collective anxiety, making simplistic answers appealing.

2. Thought: A scapegoating or simplifying insight.

A partial insight or belief emerges, often containing a kernel of truth but distorted by bias or scapegoating. It identifies a group or factor as the cause of the problem, offering a seductive, reductive narrative. This thought is embryonic, not yet rigid, but carries emotional weight.

Examples: “Jews undermine Germany”; “Samaritans taint Israel’s purity”; “Homosexuality threatens family values.”

Dynamics: Cognitive shortcuts (e.g., stereotyping) and confirmation bias shape the thought, appealing to existing prejudices or fears.

3. Word: Articulation through propaganda, texts, or sermons.

The thought is articulated—through speeches, texts, sermons, or propaganda—gaining clarity and authority. It’s packaged for mass consumption, often invoking trusted sources (scripture, science, tradition) to lend legitimacy. The word spreads, shaping public perception and rallying supporters through books like Mein Kampf and movies like The Eternal Jew.

Examples: Hitler’s Mein Kampf; Ezra’s Torah readings; using the Bible to justify anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination [Leviticus 18:22], [Leviticus 20:13].

Dynamics: Rhetorical tools (metaphors, repetition) and trusted voices (leaders, clergy) amplify the idea, making it feel universal.

4. Ritual: Practices embedding the idea in society.

The word becomes practice, embedded in communal behaviors or traditions. These repeated acts—exclusions, ceremonies, or punishments—normalize the idea, weaving it into the social fabric. Rituals make the abstract tangible, fostering group cohesion around the belief.

Examples: Kristallnacht violence; Ezra’s forced divorces; anti-LGBTQ+ purity pledges.

Dynamics: Social conformity and group identity reinforce the ritual, creating a sense of belonging for adherents and alienation for targets.

5. Law: Codification into policy or institutions.

The ritual is codified into policies, institutions, or legal systems, giving it structural power. Laws formalize exclusion or hierarchy, embedding the idea in the state or community’s framework. They appear objective, masking their ideological roots, and resist change due to institutional inertia.

Examples: Nuremberg Laws; Nehemiah’s purity decrees; DOMA (1996).

Dynamics: Bureaucracy and legal precedent entrench the idea, shifting it from cultural to systemic oppression.

6. Theological/Ideological Framing: Sanctifying the idea as divine or natural.

The law is sanctified as divine, natural, or universal, invoking theology, philosophy, or pseudo-science. This framing elevates the idea beyond debate, claiming cosmic or moral authority. It co-opts trusted belief systems, twisting them to serve the agenda.

Examples: Aryan supremacy as destiny; biblical purity in Ezra; “natural” gender roles in patriarchy.

Dynamics: Appeals to transcendence or inevitability (God, nature, progress) silence dissent, aligning the idea with ultimate truth.

7. Dehumanization/Othering: Casting the group as less human or “Other.”

The targeted group is stripped of humanity, cast as “Other”—subhuman, dangerous, or defective. Language, imagery, and stereotypes (e.g., “vermin,” “savages,” “abominations”) erase empathy, making the group an abstract threat rather than individuals. This step severs moral connection, enabling harm.

Examples: Jews as “rats” in Nazi propaganda; Samaritans as impure; women as “helpmeets.”

Dynamics: Psychological distancing (de Beauvoir’s “Other”) and fear-mongering dehumanize, normalizing exclusion and violence.

8. Moral Absolutism: Declaring the ideology as absolute truth.

The ideology is declared the sole moral truth, framing adherence as righteousness and opposition as evil. This absolutism eliminates nuance, casting the targeted group as an existential threat that must be eradicated for the greater good. It sheds guilt by cloaking harm in virtue.

Examples: Nazi “Final Solution” as salvation; Ezra’s exclusion as God’s will; anti-LGBTQ+ laws as biblical fidelity.

Dynamics: Binary thinking (us vs. them) and moral self-righteousness (Arendt’s banality of evil) justify extreme measures.

9. Justified Harm: Sanctioned violence or exclusion, without guilt.

The moralized ideology sanctions harm—violence, exclusion, or erasure—executed without guilt. Perpetrators see themselves as agents of justice, whether through genocide, systemic oppression, or cultural destruction. The original problem is forgotten, and the harm becomes self-sustaining.

Examples: Holocaust death camps; Samaritans’ marginalization; conversion therapy; slavery’s brutality.

Dynamics: Institutional power, societal complicity, and moral disengagement (Bonhoeffer’s critique) enable harm to scale, often over generations.

---

So I have two questions for all of us:

1. How does a half-pregnant thought, arising from a real need, imbued with some form of truth...end up not only creating such acts of violence, but justifying it?

2. Where in this process did our moral failing occur? Where did Bonhoeffer's 'stupidity' win, and when was Arendt's 'banality of evil' allowed to exist? 

---

When do cracks appear:

I don't have answers for these questions, but I can identify key moments we fail:

1. At the moment of crises:

Exploiting the Crisis: The initial "problem" creates a vacuum of uncertainty and anxiety. This fertile ground allows simplistic explanations, often scapegoating a particular group, to take root. The "half-pregnant thought" offers a seemingly clear cause and solution, which is emotionally appealing in times of chaos.

2. When our deepest fears and anxieties require an answer:

Emotional Resonance Over Rationality: The "thought" often taps into pre-existing biases, fears, or historical grievances. This emotional resonance gives it power, even if it lacks factual basis or nuance. People are more likely to embrace a narrative that confirms their feelings, especially when feeling threatened.

3. When we seek a messiah to guide us to the Holy Land:

The Power of Articulation and Authority: When the "thought" is articulated by influential figures ("the Word"), it gains traction and legitimacy. Invoking trusted sources—religious texts, scientific authority, tradition—lends it weight, even if the interpretation is flawed or deliberately twisted.

4. When evil is experienced in small drips:

Normalization Through Repetition and Ritual: Repeated articulation and the embedding of the idea in communal practices ("Ritual") normalize it. What initially might seem extreme gradually becomes accepted as the status quo, especially when reinforced by social pressure and group identity.

5. When evil is institutionalized:

Systemic Entrenchment Through Law: Codifying the idea into laws and institutions ("Law") gives it a veneer of objectivity and permanence. This makes it harder to challenge, as it's now embedded in the very structure of society.

6. When we seek absolution over guilt:

Moral and Cosmic Justification: The "Theological/Ideological Framing" provides the ultimate justification by claiming divine or natural mandate. This elevates the idea beyond human debate, making opposition seem not just wrong but sacrilegious or against the natural order.

7. When guilt overpowers us, and our soul must deny what our eyes see:

Dehumanization as a Moral Release: "Dehumanization/Othering" is the crucial step that allows for violence without guilt. By stripping the targeted group of their humanity, they are no longer seen as individuals deserving of empathy or moral consideration. They become an abstract threat to be eliminated.

8. When the desire to 'fit in' overpowers our conscience:

The Illusion of Moral Absoluteness: Declaring the ideology as absolute truth ("Moral Absolutism") silences dissent and reinforces the righteousness of the cause. Any opposition is framed as inherently evil, further justifying harsh measures.

9. When we ourselves step beyond observer to participant:

The Banality of "Justified Harm": Finally, the "Justified Harm" occurs when individuals, convinced of the moral imperative and the dehumanized status of the "Other," participate in or condone violence and exclusion without a sense of personal wrongdoing. They see themselves as acting in accordance with a higher purpose.

Heavy thoughts on this beautiful Spring morning. I hope everyone out there is coping, just like I am.