When our thoughts accuse us

By Donald H.  Harrison

SAN DIEGO – There was a thought-provoking moment during a staged reading Wednesday night of Janet Tiger’s one-act play “Caregivers Anonymous” at Ohr Shalom Synagogue.

A newcomer ridden with guilt shame facedly admitted to a group of fellow caregivers that the thought had crossed her mind that her troubles would be over if she killed her husband, who had been a paraplegic since coming back the second time from Afghanistan. Having had such a terrible thought, she considered herself a sinner, surely deserving of an eternity in Hell.

Immediately the moderator of the group asked for a show of hands.  How many people here have thought of killing the person they are taking care of?

All the hands in the group were raised.

Another show of hands: how many of you have actually killed the person you are caring for?

No hands went up.

The point was that what we may think, especially when we are under unremitting stress, and what we actually do are entirely different matters.  Judaism teaches that what we think, or even what we believe, are not the measures by which we will be judged.  Instead how we conduct our lives will determine our ultimate fates.

In this Internet age, the difference between word and deed requires special scrutiny.  Whenever I scan Facebook, I can see how politically polarized our country has become.  Those for President Trump, and those against, often express themselves in angry words. The same is true for lovers and haters of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the media.

The question with which societies must wrestle is whether Facebook posts—or those on Twitter, Instagram, or any other social media outlet –are simply thoughts, or whether by being written down and shared, those posts have become actions.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg reportedly is hiring people to read FB postings and to scrub those that advocate terrorism, or other anti-social acts.  With organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda using social media to recruit potential killers, one can understand and sympathize with Zuckerberg’s caution.

But what will become the dividing line between necessary censorship and over-reaching censorship?

Suppose for example, someone in a burst of anger were to write that we ought to “get rid” of so-and-so, the politician.

There are many different ways to “get rid of” a politician.  One can elect his or her opponent for the next term of office.  One might bring impeachment charges against him or her.  Or, in the worst possible scenario, one might resort to violence.  If you were the FB censor, how would you interpret the words “get rid of”? And how do you imagine that government censors – were some to be appointed – would interpret their mandate?  Would they consider “get rid of” a case of incitement to violence, or would they consider these words to be just someone sharing a private thought, simply to blow off steam?  In other words, are FB posts simply shared thoughts, or are they actions?

My advice to people who post comments on social media is to never do so while angry.  If someone in politics has really upset you – be it Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi or any of the people around them — don’t post your thoughts while you are still steaming.  Wait until you have cooled down and then write your opinion calmly, thinking of the impact your words may have on others.

Remember the lady in “Caregivers Anonymous” who momentarily expressed a wish to kill her husband, and then was consumed by self-loathing.

*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World.  He may be contacted via donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com