'Spirited Atheist' Susan Jacoby Slams 'Mindless' Jubilant Crowds Celebrating bin Laden Demise
Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak may have pulled her punches, calling Sunday night's spontaneous celebrations of bin Laden's demise "almost vulgar," but her colleague Susan Jacoby thoroughly trashed such displays as "mindless" in her "Spirited Atheist" column yesterday at the Post/Newsweek "On Faith" site:
It is just and necessary that this evil man was finally punished for the mass murders he engineered on September 11, 2001. But I am repelled by the scenes of mindless jubilation, from Times Square to the park in front of the White House, that erupted after President Obama delivered the news in a properly sober tone Sunday night.
Jacoby then turned her wrath on:
...the pundits who began blathering Monday morning about the renaissance of patriotism they discerned in the crowds of young people (mainly men) who materialized on the streets to chant “USA…USA,” on the mall to strip off their clothes in the reflecting pool, and near the bars around Times Square to lift a few cold ones after literally wrapping themselves in the flag.
The columnist particularly singled out former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan who:
...did everything but crow when she declared that the killing of Bin Laden sends a wonderful message to children because it demonstrates that “bad guys do get caught.” Mike Barnicle, another regular member of the commentariat at the table, saw the can-do spirit of America resurrected and predicted that regular guys looking for jobs would resume the search with more of a spring in their steps.
This is the sort of sentimental hogwash that has elevated unreason to a fundamental principle of American public life. “Bad guys do get caught.” One very bad guy was caught in this instance by years of intelligence work and by the Navy SEALs, the most elite military unit in the nation’s armed forces. That’s it. The episode says nothing about the general competence or achievements of Americans as a people or America as a nation.
Turning again to the "mindless" crowds, Jacoby scoffed that:
What we saw in the streets Sunday night and into the early hours of Monday morning was a demonstration of unearned joy. Far from home, a superbly trained military unit did what professional warriors do—took out an enemy of this country. Nothing less, nothing more. I was watching the New York Mets play the Philadelphis [sic] Phillies when the first rumors about Bin Laden’s death reached the stadium. You could see people getting the news from their cellphones and passing it to their neighbors, as the first chants of “USA” began in the crowd. This scene—people attending a sporting event while seeking additional diversion on their personal digital devices—is more than a metaphor for the way we conduct war now. It is the way we conduct war now.
If there is a moral here, it is emphatically not the childish mantra that “bad guys do get caught.” It is that unearned happiness is a fleeting, unreliable commodity that has nothing to do with reason, justice, or what it takes to build a decent society and a decent world.
# # #
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
poor suzy
Submitted by scarletandgold on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:09pm.
another potato heard from...
THINK PEOPLE, do we want to
Submitted by buddyc on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:17pm.
THINK PEOPLE, do we want to act like the people in Somalia or Palistine, celebrating the death of enemies. ARE WE NOT BETTER THAN THAT????? WE SHOULD BE!
I don't know anything about the "Spirited Atheist" but I have read articles today in the Guardian and Salon which say the same thing and they are RIGHT ON.
We demean ourselves by acting this way.
I agree, sort of, buddye.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:35pm.
After I get over an atheist tossing out words like "evil," "moral," and"principles," which for the life of me I can't understand from a person who doesn't believe in a higher being, I kind of agree with her premise.
One line summed up my feelings and apparently hers; "Far from home, a superbly trained military unit did what professional warriors do—took out an enemy of this country. Nothing less, nothing more."
She needs to look inside herself and try to understand how she can feel that way, but still consider man just another lucky critter that popped up on the planet and is just like all other life forms. If that's true, why are we the only one that kills for no reason but hate, and the only one that feels a sense of morality in our dealings with others, even the ones we kill?
Newsbubba
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:44pm.
Not everyone believes that an absolute (i.e. God given) moral code is necessary in order to define concepts like "evil" and certainly not ones like "principle".
Oddly enough, I just posted in the Off Topics Forum about Moral Relativism. If you would care to pursue this discussion there, I'd be more than happy to.
Thanks DM, but I'll pass.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:50pm.
That is a discussion that will wear my fingers out keying! Don't even want to begin.
God bless you.
Newsbubba
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:57pm.
That's cool.
Truth be told I was sort of using your comment to advertise my post a little :)
PC NeoCon BS
Submitted by JustAl on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:06pm.
The only thing that makes people "better" is being alive when our enemies are dead. The SOB's head should have been mounted on the topmast of the carrier and brought home to NYC harbor.
The moral high ground isn't worth a damn when your children and society lie buried in it. So you agree with the Guardian ans Salon? Enough said.
Grow up a little and realize that terror is the only way to stop terrorists.
Okay
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:32pm.
Do you want to tell me how to feel about 9/11?
There's a reality here. We're human. We have feelings. Different things effect us in different ways.
And when we're told how we SHOULD act and feel after reaching closure on an issue that has been important to every single AMERICAN for almost a decade, I say screw off.
Celebrate however you wish. If you don't want to celebrate, don't.
Just don't tell me how to feel about this.
Irishman~
Submitted by GG_NB on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 6:05pm.
I agree.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Agree as well,
Submitted by Mark81150 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:54pm.
Especially from the WaPo Religion column,.. they have the utter audacity to proclaim with moral certainty, not only don't celerbrate, but if you support a balanced budget,. you're going against God's will.. (last week),.. I have been a sometimes Christian my whole life, ending where I am now, finding my faith the strongest it's ever been.
To have someone whom I find repugnate for her pious sermonizing on what Americans should feel to be real Americans.. lecture us yet again on what is moral, can't even type what I think of her and her opinions here... without being vulgar.
Who made her America's Pope?
did I miss an election somewhere? The Nation pick her? Mother Jones? some moronic leftist rag?
what rock do they keep finding these columnists under?
I wonder what she feels about Colbert
Submitted by well99 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:35pm.
http://nation.foxnews.com/media/2011/05/03/colbert-caught-his-own-tortur...
It's also unsettling...
Submitted by pepperoniprince on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:35pm.
...that even just a few months ago, the h@ters of America- right here among us- seemed perfectly happy vilifying us as a nation of war mongers that spread imperialism all over the globe. Now they are jubilant at the death of their unseen enemy, and suddenly patriotic...is that right?
No, that's wrong
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:40pm.
We've always wanted bin Laden.
Well thank the SEALS, Irish.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:54pm.
They got his sorry ass for you.
I have
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:01pm.
Can I adopt a SEAL team like I can adopt a platoon? I'm in a giving back kind of mood.
Yes, in a way.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:08pm.
There are charitable funds set up for the benefit of the children of military personnel who are killed in the line of duty to do things like pay their way to college when the time comes if they are in need.
The one that I am most familiar with is the Marine Corps Foundation, but there are others.
Check them out on line and insure that it is a legitimate charity that actually gets most of the money to the kids. Then give all that you can. You will be saying thank you in a huge way.
If you're a drinking man (who am I kidding. You're Irish!) there is a great wine (it really is!) called Jar Head Red, Made by Marines, for Marines. It gives all of it's profits to the Foundation, so drink up!
Thank you
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:21pm.
I'm on the hunt. Thanks for the information. I noticed someone with a link in their signature recently but I can't remember who it was, so in the meantime I'll start searching.
I'm on the Jarhead Wines site - good prices, great cause, and even the option to send a bottle to a Marine.
Reaching for credit card...
Reaching for shovel...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:55pm.
.
What's your address?
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 6:24pm.
I'll send you a bottle. But you have to follow the rules.
Speaking of the Seals
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:33pm.
Anyone ever heard of Richard Marcinko, the original CO of Seal Team Six?
I read all of his books (at that time) about five years ago. Also Bubba, next time you get off The Rock, the Seal Museum is on up the coast a ways, where they did the training for the origianal "combat swimmers" for the WWII invasions of Normandy and in the Pacific as well. The history of the UDT's, pre-cursors of the SeALs, is pretty fascinating stuff.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Thanks Blonde!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 9:46pm.
I'll check that out.
They do a lot of underwater warfare training down here still. Most of the services send their special ops guys here for training. They do "interesting" things like parachute out at night and find their way to a target in the water with all those interesting fish to swim with. I don't know how the hell they do it. They are one brave bunch of people.
I've gotten to meet a few working out at the base gym. Really intense guys. I'm glad they're on our side.
I had read
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 1:51pm.
through Designation Gold as they came out, then I stopped following; guess I have some catchin' up to do. Marcinko's tales of "sneakin' and peekin'" are always enjoyable. Also an interesting window into the world of special warfare--it ain't pretty, but I thank God they're out there.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Hey Pepper.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:59pm.
Did you notice how you said, "the h@ters of America- right here among us" and Irishman said in his response, "We've always wanted bin Laden." WE?
Is old Irish admitting that he is a hater of America?
Good one, Chachi
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:02pm.
WE = Americans
Crap!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:15pm.
Thought I had you there, Mick!
I leave too many openings
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:24pm.
; )
no,. their patriotism.. such as it is
Submitted by Mark81150 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:26pm.
has always been situational. Subject to change and revision should an event come up they can exploit against the right, or brandish to lull middle America into thinking we really do have the same goals in mind..
The left could give a fig about fighting al-qaeda.. it's about fighting and purging the political right in America. They just bon't see evil outside America,, it's all inside.. check the comments on that shrews site..
"That said I agree with the silly pontifications by the punditry. Above all i am elated at the thought that this had happened on Obama's watch and how it must stick in the craw fo the bigoted racist Tea baggers and the GOP leadership. I rather enjoyed hearing and reading about these pond scum saying the words of praise for Obama. That is certainly priceless. It was a delight to see the pond scum, who cannot reconcile that an African American is the face of US, mouthing insincere praise. No I do not think these scum have changed their minds, they just could not afford to be uncharitable. They will start their putrid speech before it is Wednesday, I am sure of that.. But them stewing in their bile is again priceless. 5/2/2011 2:17:13 PM EDT"
Patriots see America's enemies and want them stopped.. progressives see the left's enemies,.. and want them dead purged gone.. The above "secular" is a full bloom idiot of the first degree. and no one there, not one, suggested her hatefilled rant was out of place at a blog about love and faith..
True patriots can be Americans first..
True progressive whackjobs always choose party first, above family, nation, God....they think it's patriotism, when it's just the same old time leftism that animated Stalin,,,,,,,, and every other tribal cheiftain they've had
I can't drive 55
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:35pm.
Funny how a large portion of those celebrating on the Mall in DC and in Times Square were young, Obama revelers. Most of the photos we've seen are of just that. Like this one, and this one. I wonder how she feels about people profiting on this? I find it interesting that the people she chose to specifically mention are "conservative" whilst the Obamabots seem to get pass.
By the way, all of these images are in a Daily Mail piece entitled "Obama took SIXTEEN HOURS to make up his mind about Bin Laden mission"
People are celebratng
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:39pm.
a USA win and this is one lib who can not stomach it. We are celebrating not the deaths of innocents like the world trade center victims. We are celebrating long delayed justice for a horrible crime against humanity.
hmm
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:44pm.
I don't know that people are celebrating this as a USA win. What is being celebrated is the death of the most notorious terrorist in US history by American troops. We are celebrating the fact that the murderer of thousands has finally been brought to justice.
Feel as you will about this, just don't judge the way others feel.
Actually, some are Ted
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:05pm.
Peter Beinart, for one. And some d-bag at DU.
Crap
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:12pm.
My optimism for humanity never ceases to disappoint me while simultaneously making me look like an a-hole.
The war is over? Right, and the drug war is over because the DEA raided a marijuana pharmacy yesterday.
Hmmmmmmmmm
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 4:51pm.
"It is that unearned happiness is a fleeting, unreliable commodity that has nothing to do with reason, justice, or what it takes to build a decent society and a decent world."
That's just what I thought when the Obama voters declared victory in Nov 2008.
Spirited Atheist?
Submitted by Phryj1 on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 5:29pm.
My atheist friends all seemed really happy we finally got Bin Laden. Spirited, you might even say.
Reason doesn't mean being a snobby, joyless Vulcan.
And enjoying the fact that a heaping helping of justice was served up to brutal mass-murderer is NOT unreasonable.
"Unearned happiness" is a completely nonsensical concept. Her 'reasoning' here is fatally flawed, because happiness isn't something you necessarily have to earn. You CAN be happy for other people's accomplishments, you SHOULD be happy for something our fighting men and women have achieved in our name, and happiness can come from completely unexpected events outside of our control. By her 'logic', we shouldn't be happy in any of these cases. Note, she mentions being at sporting event. Isn't the primary point of sports to enjoy watching your team win? So, if you are not allowed to be happy for someone else's accomplishments (i.e. your team winning), as she posits, why is she even there?
I think she should start calling herself the "Snooty Nihilist". There is a difference between reason and existentialist sophistry.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Just some perspective here
Submitted by ctophfranko on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 6:03pm.
People who are concerned about people celebrating Osama's death need to be reminded these were pretty much all college kids. They saw a reason to drink/yell on a Sunday night and took advantage of the opportunity. It was not some deep philosophical statement.
And many of those college
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 6:38pm.
And many of those college students may know or be close friends with people who are serving or have served in the U.S. military. And/or the children of servicemen.
I'm sure some just showed up for the party, but I don't doubt the legitimate enthusiasm of most there that bin Laden was dead at long last, that he didn't die a sick old man having evaded detection and capture by U.S. forces.
Ken
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 7:31pm.
What is this problem we're having? The biggest killer in American history is dead and we're arguing about how each other should feel about it? The college students may be just as honest with their enthusiasm as those at the Philly's game who burst into a USA chant upon hearing the news. We all grieved differently after 9/11, and while we can all agree it's a good thing bin Laden is gone, we will all celebrate in our own ways.
And someone will still say it's wrong.
Of course
Submitted by ctophfranko on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 10:51pm.
I'm not saying it wasn't a legitimate outpouring of genuine emotion, it's just not a reflection of some deeply ingrained issue about America being bloodthirsty or anything. It was just young exuberant kids who finally saw a cathartic point of victory in a complicated war that will not have a victory parade down Times Square with sailors kissing nurses. This was as close as we'll get to a U.S.S. Missouri Moment. Hopefully, we'll never be in a war that will require one of those. . .
Too Emotional?
Submitted by IrateNate on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 8:58pm.
I suppose she is right - the celebrations were uncalled for. Perhaps a tearful, somber vigil, similar to the display after nearly 3000 were murdered on 9/11, would be more to her liking.
Be sure to mention that you don't believe in Him on judgement day, Susan. Perhaps he'll let you off with a warning...
She left off a bit of what
Submitted by ant on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 2:20am.
She left off a bit of what has become the liberal 'mantra', "the bad guys always get caught.... but then we let them go back into society to victimize more innocent civilians." There, now it matches libtard sensitivities.
Value Judgement
Submitted by LaVallette on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:00am.
This article is just a set of value judgements. Now where would an atheist get the "transcendental principles" against which she is able to make this assessment. After all Atheist fundamentals can only allow for one method of explanation of individual human behaviour at a particular time; i.e. how a collection of interactive molecules at a specific time of their evolutionary development react chemically and physically to particular and measurable set of stimuli. Since therefore all human behaviour is so constrained by forces beyond the individual control there can be no good or evil, nor right or wrong behaviour and therefore there can be no capacity (or right ) to make a value judgment.
In contents of her very article are in contradiction to her purported Atheism.
LaVallette
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:12pm.
Being an atheist doesn't require you to be a materialist.
How do you figure?
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:33pm.
I don't know that "require" is the right word. Perhaps "conclude" would be a better fit. If an atheist doesn't believe in the spiritual world isn't it a valid conclusion then that the atheist would believe in matter?
The Irishman
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:58pm.
Being an atheist means holding to the belief that there is no God.
That's it.
Believing or not believing in non-material (or "spiritual" as you put it) entities is a separate issue.
There is nothing inconsistent in believing that the world is comprised of both material and non-material entities and asserting that God (who would fall into the latter category) doesn't exist - just as there is no inconsistency in asserting that unicorns (which would fall into the former category) don't exist.
By contrast, some folks - including some atheists - view consciousness as a fundamentally non-material entity.
So no - being an atheist doesn't entail not believing in the "spiritual world".
Respectfully
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 1:13pm.
I'm having a hard time making sense of your argument. Aside from apparent differences in the conception of atheism I would argue that the disbelief in deities leads to the acceptance of a material world.
That being said I know some "atheists" figure in religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism but that doesn't exactly reject the concept either.
The Irishman
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 1:53pm.
I guess I should clarify the term "atheist".
You can be an atheist with regard to anything - ghosts, aliens, gods, unicorns, etc... I think, however, most people who refer to themselves as atheists do so to express a rejection of the idea of God (or gods in general).
If you are an atheist with regard to all things non-material, then obviously you would be a materialist and, consequently, that would make you an atheist on the topic of God (assuming you view God as a non-material entity).
Think of it this way - the world is potentially made up of material and non-material things. You can reject (be an atheist) about any part of that. You can reject the existence of some material things and not others and you can reject the existence of some non-material things and not others.
Since God would be one entity among many potential ones within the non-material category, being an atheist with regard to God doesn't necessarily make you an atheist with regard to all non-material things.
Think of it in terms of a Venn diagram if that helps.
After a moment of thought
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 2:40pm.
And a well written response, you've got me on board. Interesting... I have more things to think about now. ; )
Atheist = Non belief in God.
Submitted by LaVallette on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 7:47am.
Atheism( from Greek "a theos" = without God" ) means non belief in God exclusively. There is no other meaning in any dictionary.
When you say "You can be an atheist with regard to anything - ghosts, aliens, gods, unicorns, etc.." you are abusing and torturing the word "atheist" . What you mean is simply "unbeliever in" or if you want to use a technical highfalutin term, the word "agnostic" as "defined by T.H. Huxley, the man who coined the term that means one should not profess to a belief in something that cannot be proven." But certainly not the word "Atheist".
Your semantic playing around with the word "atheist" in the way and the context you used it is meaningless. So back to the drawing boards.
LaVallette
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 12:17pm.
"There is no other meaning in any dictionary"
Really? What's this?
If you look at my last response to The Irishman, you will see that I acknowledge that most people use the term "agnostic" in the sense of definition 1 in the above link but that it can also reflect a lack of believe with regard to other topics, reflecting the meaning given by definition 2 in the above link.
So I'm neither "abusing and torturing the word" as you suggest nor am I playing semantics. In fact, my comments are exactly consistent with the definitions given in the above link.
Beyond that, the use of the term "agnostic" in contexts outside of theology is more than widespread in many areas of study. The fact that you seem to be unaware of that doesn't justify your suggestion that I'm being disingenuous in my description or use of the word.
But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that you are right and accept that "agnostic" means only a lack of belief in God and nothing more. Then I would say that actually supports my point. Since "agnostic" means lack of belief in God and nothing else, then it certainly doesn't mean a lack of belief in all non-material things - only God.
So again, agnosticism doesn't imply or require materialism.
Agnostic
Submitted by LaVallette on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 6:09am.
You did not use the word Agnostic i any of your previous post
"Agnostic" is NOT interchangeable with "Atheist". Indeed the inventor of the word agnostic, Huxley, specifically invented the word to establish a difference between the agnostic state of mind and an atheist one.
Atheist (without God) pertains to certainty that God does NOT exist. It has no other meaning.
Agnostic ( greek "a" without, plus "gnossos" knowledge ) without certain knowledge or proof, leaves open the possibility (not certainity )that at some stage the knowledge or proof may be discovered or come about. It may be applied to wide range of objects, ideas and concepts and NOT just to a deity.
Where there is certainty that an object (unicorn), idea (the moon is made of cheese), concepts (that a square can be a circle) then the use of the word Athiest in that context is totally absurd and your audience or readership would not understand what you mean. So one would be forced to set aside the incorrect use use of "atheist" and substitute the use of such descriptives as "absurdity", "does not exist", "logically impossible".
QED
LaVallette
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 1:01pm.
You are 100% correct. I somehow managed to confuse myself into thinking we were having a disagreement over the term "agnostic" rather than "atheist" and my last post obviously reflected that error. I wasn't intentionally trying to interchange the one for the other - in fact, I've posted a defense of agnosticism in the off topic forum section which I think demonstrates that I know the difference - I just flat out goofed.
I'll also concede that I was using the term "atheist" in a unconventional manner in my discussion with The Irishman.
To clarify my argument and to get past this issue of definitions, everywhere in my posts here you see me using the word "atheist" where I'm not specifically referring to a rejection of God, just substitute the phrase "non-believer".
Having said that, I think my argument still holds. Being an atheist specifically means not believing in God. It says nothing to one's belief or non-belief in other non-material entities as you initial post here suggests.
Do you agree with this last statement?