The symposium
 

Jean Amery:

Jean Amery brought up an interesting view on forgiveness. She said that there are two aspects on forgiving and not forgiving: psychologically and politically. I agree with her that the circumstance where a person is in can affect their decision in forgiving or not. Maybe he would have forgiven the dying man, if the dying man for example had pleading and imploring eyes instead of a rasping voice and folded hands. People do tend to forgive more easily when something touches them emotionally. Secondly I also agree that on political terms, Wiesenthal had every right not to forgive this Nazi officer, because he took part in the extermination and knew very well what he was doing. Like many others have said in their postings, I agree with Jean that he might he be a devil, but perhaps a poor devil. It doesn’t matter if Wiesenthal would or wouldn’t have forgiven the Nazi officer, he decided to not forgive him and that’s his decision.

Smail Balic:

I agree with Smail that you tend to feel compassion for every sufferer. However you cannot understand a person who has suffered so much unless you experienced it yourself. So it is easy to say, I would have forgiven him, however you didn’t experience the same suffering and injustice as the victim, in this case as Wiesenthal. I also agree with Smail that the SS man did show a sign of hope and a signal of a new democratic beginning for Germany. And the SS man did show remorse for his crimes, so there is hope that he would be “a changed man”. So in a way a sign of affection from Wiesenthal would have been good, because now the SS man felt sorry for what he did and wanted to become a better man. Again I agree with Smail that: “Of course every person is responsible for his or her actions, and no one is able to absolve the guilt that one person bears toward others.” Like most people that do something unacceptable, they get punished for it. So maybe the SS man should in a way be punished for what he did to the Jews. Overall I agree with Smail that in a way, forgiving the SS man because he is willing to change would have maybe been nice however he also had to be confronted with what he did and accept his punishment.

Symposium
 

Dalai Lama
Even though this was one of the shortest opinions, it really matched my own opinion about the subject manner. His quote " one should forgive, but not forget". is probably one of the best quotes said towards the subject. I have read about 6 of the opinions and none of them were so authentic and straight headed. I very liked this answer. He understood how Simon fetl, since he was in exile because of chinese occupation.

Albert Speer
His thoughts were understandable and person actually could feel sorry for him. His answer was clear and respectful towards the Jews and Simon

Novella responses
 

The Dalai Lama

I must say that I agree with what The Dalai Lama has said. You must forgive and them move on but not forget what has happened so that is can be prevented. When you forgive someone that means that you accept what they have done. When he compares it to China and Tibet, and how they have forgiven the people for what they had done. When the Chinese prisoner comes to him and says that the only thing he feared was "losing his compassion for the Chinese" I would be very astonished. But this shows that anyone can forgive anyone for what they have done.

Desmond Tutu

I use Desmond Tutu as my second reading as I thought let me see what some one from my country thinks of what he should have done. Desmond Tutu has been a very big figure in South Africa and he has forgiven the people for what has happened during apartheid. He says that some people will just not forgive like the police officers that killed the man but others like Nelson Mandela are ready to forgive. As he quotes the Jewish rabbi "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." the soldiers were brainwashed and so they did not know what they did. At the end of is written he says "Without forgiveness, there is no future." I agree as then no one will be able to move on with there lives. Just like South Africa, if we did not forgive each other we would not be a country that is doing so well and has a bright future.

Comments on the Symposium
 

The Dalai Lama - Spiritual leader of Buddhists

I agree with the Dalai Lama's response to the Sunflower. "I believe one should forgive the person or persons who have committed atrocities against oneself and mankind. But this does not necessarily mean one should forget about the atrocities committed." I believe it is important to forgive, because if you store the anger inside you, it is very likely it will turn into hate. But to forgive, doesn’t mean to forget. To forget isn’t always the right decision, because it might mean that the same mistakes could possibly be made again in the future.
I believe this is an excellent quote because it describes Wiesenthal's situation very well because I think that Wiesenthal should have forgiven Karl, not in a way as in its ok you killed all these innocent Jews, but more to let Karl get it off his chest and die in peace. Even though Wiesenthal might have forgiven Karl, he will never forget what happened to him and to his people. And even if the whole world forgave Germany for the Holocaust it definitely doesn’t mean everyone should forget it…history repeats itself, so we should all learn from our mistakes, and try our very best not to repeat them.


Albert Speer - A high-ranking Nazi

While reading Speer's comments, I was surprisingly touched by the things that he said. He has taken full responsibility for the crimes he committed and he still hasn’t forgiven himself for them, even after twenty years of imprisonment. The moral guilt that stayed with him, was effecting the rest of his life. Therefore, he is surprised by the way Wiesenthal acts towards Karl. Speer says that Wiesenthal has made dealing with the guilt easier; “Every human being has his burden to bear. No one can remove it for another, but for me, ever since that day, it has become much lighter." Wiesenthal has showed Speer that every man makes mistakes, he helped him through a very difficult dilemma that had been haunting him for over 20 years; "It is God's grace that has touched me through you."


- Nathalie

Dennis Prager:

I thought Dennis Prager’s response was very interesting, as he relates Wiesenthal’s decision to the difference between Judaism and Christianity. In his response, Prager talks about how Christians respond different to forgiveness than Jews. The Jewish view of forgiveness is that a person who hurts another person must ask forgiveness from his victim and that only the victim can forgive him. Therefore, murder is unforgivable. Conversely, Christians can forgive murder.
Prager tested this thesis in real life, when a woman jogger was raped and beaten by a gang of young men. After their arrest, a cardinal who visited them told them: “God loves you.” In his show, Prager asked Catholic clergymen and rabbis, their view on this event. All the Catholic clergymen, agreed with the cardinal, whereas all the rabbis, were disgusted by these men, and would have never told these men that God loved them. I thought this was very interesting, as I never knew that Christianity and Judaism have different views on forgiveness. Further, it also helps explain Wiesenthal’s decision, for not forgiving the dying nazi soldier.

Primo Levi

I enjoyed reading Levi’s response, as he questions what the Nazi soldier had done, if he wouldn’t have been dying. Levi writes that “if it had not been for his fear of impending death, he would have behaved quite otherwise: he would have not repented until much later, with the downfall of Germany or perhaps never.” I agree; not many Nazis that were put on trial after the war, felt remorse for their deeds. Many were still proud of what they had done. Therefore, the Nazi soldier would perhaps have never asked for any forgiveness, if he had not been dying.

Levi also says that in a case like this, there is no yes or no; there always remains something to be said for either side. This is true: there are good arguments for forgiving the Nazi soldier, and there are good arguments for not forgiving him. Yet, I still agree with Wisenthal's decision; I would have not forgiven the Nazi soldier.

Alan L. Berger
I kind of agree what Alan’s opinion of “the Sun Flower”. He says “I may forgive one who has sinned against me. I may not forgive one who has taken the life of another.” But from the sentence, it seems that he will only forgive someone sinned against him. It makes me feel that he will not forgive a man who harmed the others. Since Alan had been a teacher who specifically taught “the Sun Flower”, so he might know the story better than the others and have deeper feeling of it. Form his words “Lets us assume for a moment that Karl either was not wounded or did not die. Would he then have had pangs of conscience?” Karl was asking for forgiveness only to ease himself. However, form the book it seems that he had the pangs of conscience the night he murdered the Jews.


Mary Gordon
I agree what Mary’s to whom the forgiveness should give of the Dilemma. “He is asking for private forgiveness, not for the person he has harmed, but in the name of others.” Form Mary’s words it is true that Karl is asking for forgiveness for himself, not for the whole Nazi party. Since he is deeply suffered form the experience of murdering Jews, he should be forgiven someway. I do not agree with Mary’s point, which she thinks Karl should not ask forgiveness from Wiesenthal. “The Nazi officer is wrong to ask Wiesenthal for forgiveness…” and she stated two reasons, one is he is wrong to ask one man to forgive him as a public, and another is that he should not be forgiven privately since his crime had been public. I do not agree, because Karl is asking Wiesenthal to forgive his guilt but not asking Wiesenthal to forgive all the Nazi’s guilt. Another reason I do not totally agree is because he can be forgiven personally, even though his crimes were public. He could be forgiven privately by the ones who want to forgive him but not as a symbol figure.

SIDNEY SHACHNOW

He is a survivor of the Holocaust. After he escaped the concentration camp, he spent most of his life in the military. I think his response is interesting because he would understand Simon’s perspective as a survivor and Karl’s feeling from his experience in the military. From his experience in Vietnam War, he explains how military training takes away soldiers’ antipathy to kill others. He says “Had there been someone to talk to and ask forgiveness of I might well have done it” like Karl did. Also, he says “those individuals who were directly and personally involved in these atrocities deserve no mercy.” He says this because he feels he, himself, does not deserve mercy. He states what Wiesenthal did was the right thing. One of his reasons is Karl “stepped over the boundary where forgiveness is possible.” I think Shachnow’s response is extremely influenced by his experience in Vietnam. It seems he sees himself through Karl.

JEAN AMERY
Amery thinks that the issue of forgiving and not-forgiving is psychological and political aspects. She suggests that one’s decision depends on the situation and the emotion. If Simon had been in contact with a SS man who had treated Simon with a little bit of Kindness might cause Simon to forgive Karl. This was interesting point to read. I agree with Amery’s statement that says “your SS man was a devil, perhaps a poor devil.” Karl is guilty since he committed the crimes of murdering the Jews, but he suffers with it.

Albert Speer

I think that Albert Speer’s response is very touching and I also think that it makes a lot of sense that he feels guilty for what he has done. I think that confessing all his crimes at the Nuremburg trials made him much more human than many people thought he was. The fact that he was one of the top Nazi leader’s and that thousands of people suffered from his hand will always haunt him. However, getting punished for a crime kind of makes one feel that one has paid for what one has done. That won’t bring back those who were killed, but it shows his apathy for his past. This he reminds of by saying “Beyond that remains the moral involvement”. He says that although he has confessed and he has punished, he still feels guilty and he will always continue to feel guilty. It makes sense that one can not simply forget something like that, but it voices Albert’s opinion on what he has done. That is what I think makes this book a great experience, not only were victims interviewed, but also perpetrators. Expressing his opinion made it probably easier for Albert Speer to feel better about his past to some little extend.

The Dalai Lama

“I believe that one should forgive the person or persons who have committed atrocities against oneself and mankind. But this does not necessarily mean one should forget about the atrocities committed. In fact, one should be aware and remember these experiences so that efforts can be made to check the reoccurrence of such atrocities in the future.” This makes a lot of sense and I totally agree with this concept. However, I don’t think it is that easy. Yes, one can forgive, but it will take a long time to actually do it and mean it. and yes, people should remember such atrocities, but isn’t it more that people tend to forget horrible happenings like that? Isn’t that mankind? This is what makes mankind unique. Forgetting about a horrible event and letting it reoccur. That is why I think that this forgiving and forgetting cannot be answered as easy as the Dalai Lama I trying to make it look like.

Desmond Tutu

"Without forgiveness, there is no future."
Desmond Tutu uses his own experiences from apartheid to reach his conclusion, which is forgiveness. He would grant Karl forgiveness if it were his choice to do so. The way Desmond Tutu guides us through his thinking process, by taking us back to apartheid and Nelson Mandela, lets us really see how hard it can be to forgive, but how easy some people make it seem. He gives us the example of how Mandela invites the man who jailed him to his inauguration, out of magnanimity. I think that is an incredible gesture that I would never be able to make, because I just don't have it in me. Forgiveness is extremely difficult, but Tutu talks about how it is neccessary. Contrasting his reason for forgiving Karl with others, like Dith Pran, I see there is a major difference. He talks about how forgiveness is important in order for us to go on, while Dith Pran argues that we cannot blame the average soldier who was involved. I agree with both of them. Without forgiveness our society cannot function, as everyone would have a grudge against one another. A grudge builds a wall, a wall that isolates and if everyone has a wall, we would have a society resembling an anarchy. The first step to avoiding that is forgiving, and that's where we should all begin. I would have forgiven Karl too, but only on my behalf.


Dith Pran

"We need to learn to separate the true culprits from the pawns, the evil masterminds from the brainwashed."
There is not a statement that I could agree with more in this response. Dith Pran reminds us not to blame the people who have been sucked into doing something, as opposed to those who mastermind the operation. I agree with him, as I don't think the average soldier should be blamed for an entire traumatizing period, such as the Holocaust. Pran says that he would forgive Karl, the Nazi soldier, if he were in the position to do so, as Karl did not come up with the Holocaust and was merely brainwashed and trained to kill. I can identify with Pran, and even though I do not think that a soldier deserves blame, I would still feel a great deal of resentment and contempt. But that resentment does not influence forgiveness, because forgiveness is based on understanding not contempt. Pran talks about how he understands the motives of the soldiers in the Khmer Rouge, and that is why he is able to forgive them. If you cannot understand where someone is coming from, then there is no way you can forgive them for anything horrible that they have done. Wiesenthal should have been able to understand Karl, and forgive him from his own heart instead of just leaving him hanging, while on his deathbed.

Henry Cargas,

I agree with what Cargas has to say. Towards the end of his comments he speaks of forgiveness and he says that to forgive is not something that can just be given away, or something that you can depend on others for. Forgiveness is something that needs to be earned and in Karl’s case he did not earn forgiveness. He asked to be forgiven on his deathbed, which is (as Cargas says) “too easy” because he hasn’t done anything to earn forgiveness. He knew he was approaching death and he wanted to die without all that he had done hanging over him. But to be forgiven is not as easy as that. You need to deal with what you did and openly admit it. Karl told one Jew in private, instead of a million in public. I agree with what Sean wrote, that no individual has the right to forgive someone for crimes that they committed on others. Cargas ended his response by saying, “for me Karl dies unforgiven. God have mercy on my soul” and being Catholic that is against one of the main things that Priests preach. Being Catholic myself, and although I have been taught many times to forgive others when they ask forgiveness, in this case Karl has committed the “unforgivable sin” and I cannot forgive Karl for what he did.

Mary Gordon

I agree with what Gordon has to say because I think it was entirely unfair for Karl to ask one man to forgive him in the name of all the Jews he killed. She says “he is asking for private forgiveness, not from the person he has harmed, but in the name of others.” The people Karl should have been calling on for forgiveness should have been those that he had personally hurt. This was, of course, impossible because Karl didn’t know everyone he had hurt. But he shouldn’t have asked one man to represent the countless, and then forgive him. Forgiveness is a big thing to ask for.
Gordon goes on to question what “the nazi officer” (she never calls Karl by his name, does she think him so inhuman that he doesn’t deserve a name?) wished to gain from being forgiven. Karl probably wanted to get the weight of guilt off of his chest before he died, so he could die in peace of mind. To hear one man say “I forgive you” would have given Karl the reassurance that he wouldn’t go straight to hell. Karl believed that those three words were the magic ones that could erase sins. But for Simon to grant forgiveness to Karl would be an insult to those who had been murdered by him. As Gordon says, “no one can grant forgiveness as a private person in the name of another, for that would be theft of the wounded persons right to forgive or not to forgive”. How would those thousands victimized by Karl feel if they found out that one man, unharmed by Karl, had forgiven him? If I were one of them, I would be furious.

Harry Wu – Imprisoned by the Chinese Government for 19 years for not supporting the government
I was intrigued by Harry Wu’s experience and wanted to know how he felt on the subject on forgiveness under a varied circumstance. He said “like Mr. Wiesenthal, I would not have forgiven the Nazi soldier on his deathbed, but I would have been able to say to him: “I understand why you were a part of a horrible and vicious society. You are responsible for your own actions but everyone else in this society shares that same responsibility with you.”” I, in all my ignorance, think I would feel the same way. I would understand that Karl was part of “a horrible and vicious society” and that he did what he had to do. However, he was nonetheless responsible for his actions, just as the rest of society was with him. He committed atrocities and by merely confessing them to Wiesenthal on his deathbed and asking forgiveness does not alleviate him of his guilt, regardless of how Wiesenthal may have responded.

Jean Améry – Holocaust survivor
I chose to read Améry’s response because I was curious to hear the opinion of another Holocaust survivor. To my surprise, he was much more yielding than I presumed. He said that, from a psychological point of view, whether Wiesenthal forgave or not doesn’t really matter. This is because so many factors could have altered his standpoint. The example that Améry supplied was if he had just experience kindness from another SS officer recently (which he said was not uncommon.) This would have softened Wiesenthal’s disposition, making him more inclined to forgive. I disagree with this statement. Personally, I would not be more sympathetic to a man, who had taken part in the murder of a hall full of Jews, just because someone who carries a similar title to him had shown some act of kindness. That makes no sense. The two men have nothing to do with the other except for the fact that they wear the same uniform. I also found his opinion of the political aspect of the situation somewhat extreme. He said that he refuses “any reconciliation with the criminals.” I agree with Andrew here. Andrew said, “I do believe that to refuse to ever forgive means that such a thing as the Holocaust could happen due to that lingering hate. Justice should be done, but in time we must forgive.” I don’t believe in the old saying “forgive and forget” however because that would only make us prone to making the same mistakes again. While we must remember what happened to avoid its reoccurrence, we must still forgive people in due time (and with justice served) in order to live peacefully.

Smail Balic

Balic sais that he would not be able to forgive. He says that it is hard for people to give their oppinion about forgiveness, unless they have the expirience. I agree with him, I also think that it is easy for people to say that Wiesenthal should have forgiven the dying officer, but many can probably not imagie in what situation Wiesenthal had been, what he survived and his posibble anger toward the people that put him through this. I believe that it is up to the individual to decide forthemselves, and I dont believe that there is a right or wrong about forgiveness, but I do believe that anything can be forgiven, even murder.

Albert Speer

Albert Speer is an interesting character in many ways. He had been Hitlers personal arcitect and also a close friend of Hitlers. I am amazed that Speer had taken responsibility to the crimes he did. I think that the normal human response would be to deny one owns guilt, to push away the responsibility. If Speer would have refused his own guilt, I think that his reaction to Wiesenthal action would have been diffrent. I am very impressed by Albert Speers opinion.

Commentary on the Commentary of the Sunflower
 

Robert McAfee Brown (121) - Professor Emeritus of Theology and Ethics at the Pacific School of Religion

I agree with Rober McAfee Brown on several point, but the main one being, that I "would have urged the young man to address his plea directly to God, and throw himself on the possibility of Divine Mercy, something I am not permitted to adjudicate one way or the other (123)." In my first posting, I have discussed the role of an individual and how one can forgive another for the crimes committed against a now-perished community. Since there are none that can forgive the SS officer now (they are all dead), his only other hope is God Himself and the Divine Mercy. I agree with another point - the fact that Simon Wiesenthal was not "permitted" to give forgiveness. This, I think is true. The SS officer was asking Simon Wiesenthal to judge him as an individual, but was looking for Wiesenthal to be the representative of a community. Simon Wiesenthal saw the situation through a lens that showed him the exact opposite. Wiesenthal was looking at this Nazi officer as one in a community. What right had Wiesenthal to forgive this man? Also, Brown states that what answers "there are will finally come not from our minds, but from the precincts of our hearts (124)." This I agree with as well. Forgiveness is not a matter of thought or intellect, but one of emotion and compassion. The Australian government has officialy (publicly) apologized to the Aborigines because of the government's attempt at a genocide through 'breeding the race out.' To my knowledge, it is the only government that has done that. A Catholic priest always forgives a person after a confession. These are not acts of thought and reason, but of compassion. Finally, I agree with Brown, that there is need for more compassion and kindness to create a better world and to "never forget (121)."

Primo Levi (191) - A writer who was deported to Auschwitz in 1944 and won almost every literary award in Italy

I like what Primo Levi wrote and I fully agree with a few of his points. I agree with Primo Levi that "when an act of violence or an offense has been committed it is forever irreparable (191)," for the damage has been done and even forgiveness cannot mend the wounds that have been inflicted upon a group, a community, or a nation. This is where Levi's other points comes in: "What would this pardon have meant for the dying man and for you (192)?" This is a question I asked myself. If Simon Wiesenthal did forgive the man...'So what?' Yes, the man may have died in peace, but what would it mean for Simon Wiesenthal? He has nothing to gain from it. And Primo Levi also writes that "for you [Wiesenthal], it woul dhave been meaningless: certainly it would not have menat"you are guilty of no crime," nor "you committed a crime against your will or without knowing what you were doing. On your part it would have been an empty formula and consequently a lie (192)." I fully agree with Primo Levi on all of these points, for the pardon would not truly have meant anything for Wiesenthal.

The Dalai Lama

I like The Dalai Lama's response because of a few reasons. First, the side that he takes is, I think, truley based his religious belief. By that I mean that he based his response from the view of a monk and not many would agree with him. He responded very peacefully. The example that he gives where he relates the Tibetan situation to the book is well related to the topic. He said that even though the Chinese forced the Dalai Lama to move out of China, he still does not have anything against them and that is the same position that he would take if he were faced with the same situation as Simon Wiesenthal. Also, what I found interesting was the story of his friend. The Chinese prison system, from what I've heard, read, and seen, seems to me to be one of the toughest and most dangerous in the world. His friend served 18 years in the prison and when the Dalai Lama asked him what he found to be the biggest threat. The monk responded that it was "loosing compassion for the Chinese". I think that is extraordinary beacuse if I were put under such horrible conditions, I would probably loose my compassion immediatley. But he most likely kept it the whole way, that is what allowed him to remain calm and not have any feelings of hatred towards the Chinese. Its quite remarkable.

Albert Speer

Albert Speer had one of the more interesting responses in the epilogues. He was a hight ranking Nazi and one of the planners for the Thrid Reich. I think the way he started his response was very interesting because he says that he can never forgive himself even though he served time in prison and he payed his debt to the law. Speer also seemed to be moved by the book. I think that in his response he really related with the dying SS man from Wiesenthals story. Speer was very thankful and appreciated Wiesenthals understanding of him and the whole situation. He seems to admire Wiesenthal for being able to talk to somone like him with such "warm eyes". I really like what he said because Speer appreciated what he had read in the book and said the the book helped him connect with god and him him ease the burden of carrying the horrible truth with which he has to live for the rest of his lfie. I think it really takes a man to come out and say what he said.

Mary Gordon
I agree with mary's points, she says that it is unfair for karl to ask for forgivness from simon alone, because simon is only one jew. It was right that simon never said anything when karl was dying because simon doesnt have the right at all to say weather he should be forgiven or not. Also another good reason which Mary gave was that even if karl was in the position to say something for the community, it is more likley that the right decision maker for something like this is a preist or some one to do with the church.

Herbert Markuse
Martin to me seems to be like an intelegent person. He says that what Simon did was probably the right thing because it isn't right for the SS man to do killing for pleasure or for his own happyness, and then at the last moment, when he wants to die with a relieved heart, asks for forgivness. Also Herbert thinks that it is unfair in the first place when anyone asks a victim for forgivness.

>sVB<

PRIMO LEVI

"When an act of violence or an offence has been commited it is forever irreperable." Primo Levi says that if an act of violence is commited, the public will cry out for a sanction. I agree with this part of the quote, that the public will cry out a sanction. Generally when a crime is commited people will cry out for a sanction, which I think is normal, but when he says that it is unrreperable, I dissagree. An act of violence is , off course never to be forgotten, in order to prevent a future act of this kind of agression from happening, but I think that people will be forgivven as time goes by, several generations after. For example the children of leaders of the Holocaust should not feel guilty for their parent's actions, they should be aware but not guilty. However I agree with Primo Levi when he says that he did the right thing by not forgiving the dying SS man. Primo Levi says that he was not even mentaly allowed to forgive this SS man in the name of all the other Jews. This I think is true, that he should not be allowed to forgive him in the name of the dead. It should from his victims that he should ask forgiveness, unfortunatly these victims can no longer forgive him... he is doomed to die with a guilty concience. I think that if he was not about to die, I dought that he would be askeing forgiveness in the first place. When Primo Levi says that it is a purification which would have freed his religious conscience, all too tardily aroused from the terror of eternal punishment, I agree with this statement. It would be easy for the SS man to be purified and forgiven just before his death without him meriting it, without showing any sign of honesty, maybe he is not even sincere about his feelings. However he could really be sorry for his actions after having time to realise the horror of his crime, then should he be forgiven, would it be enought to be forgiven? I think that it was to late and too easy for him to ask forgiveness.
However when Primo Levi says that he (Simon Wiesenthal) would of felt guilty after having pardonned the man, I think that it is wrong. He says that his forgiveness would be a lie. This is wrong unless he does it only by pity. If he really wanted to forgive this man, he would not feel guilty of his actions. However I don't think that he did want to forgive the SS man and felt that it would not be right for him to forgive this man in the name of the dead, which is right.

THE DALAI LAMA

" I believe one should forgive the person or persons who have commited atrocities against oneself and mankind. But this does not necessarily mean one should forget about the atrocities commited." This holds much truth, that the atrocities should never be forgotten to prevent others in the future of the same kind but people should, for me, be forgiven over a long period of time, after having much time to think about the atrocities they have done and for them to "suffer" thinking about them for a time, as a proof that they really regret what they have done. In the case of the dying man, he did not deserve to be forgiven since he made no proof of his regret... since it could be very easy to say : "I'm dying forgive me" and die happy even if during their whole life they showed no regret of their actions until close to death, threatened by an unhappy death. The Dalai Lama made a reference to atacks of his country by the Chinese. He says that it would just be easier to condemn the Chinese for their brutality and crimes, but he says that it is not the Buddhist way. I think that it is just another way of thinking which is also very interesting and which might prevent agressivity from the Tibetans and more violence than there already is, but is it very just? To not say anything or take any actions against the Chinese, to not have anger against them because it is not their way of thinking? I think that this does not help since the agressor can just continue what they were doing without receving any sanctions from the Tibetans. His story is extradonary, that a man coming back from the Chinese prison was expecially worried about losing its "sympathy" for the Chinese. It is extradonary that he would be worried about getting mad against the Chinese instead of actually worying about his own life. Not wanting to get mad against your agressor is a totally different way of thinking, it can be right in some cases and not be in others, therefor I can not really say if I agree with the Dalai Lama.

DESMOND TUTU

I enjoyed reading Desmond Tutu's response to The Sunflower. In his response he says that he was overwhelmed by the depth of the evil that has taken place. I agree with this because I too was overwhelmed. He refers to Nelson Mandela, who was in prison for 27 years, he should be overwhelmed with revenge because of what he suffered, but he is not. He became South Africa's first democratically elected president. In my first posting I said that I would not forget Karl, and I stay with that decision. But I was touched by what Desmond Tutu said "Without forgiveness there is no future" I also agree with this. To forgive and forget, is very important to move on in life. How else will we continue our lives if we cannot forgive and forget? But to such an extent as the Holocaust, I would not be able to forgive and forget.

THE DALAI LAMA

I really liked what the Dalai Lama says, he says that one should definatly forgive a person, even if they have commited such atrocities to mankind. But he also says that one should never forget about the acts commited. He says that people should remember these incidents, so that we have knowledge for the future. I agree with this, there is no life without forgiveness but often, we shouldnt forget. Even if we try the knowledge is still at the back of our heads, it is always there. The Dalai Lama says that becoming angry and labeling enemies is not the Buddhist way. Buddhist culture is compassionate, and nonviolent. The Dalai Lama's response is religious, and it is also very peaceful, and thats what I like about it.

Symposium
 

Dalai Lama response

I agree with him when he said one should forgive persons atrocities but not necessarily forget. If one do not forgive each other then the world will not move on. That is true but it depends on the situation, for example in Wiesenthals one I would not forgive the Nazi soldier just like Wiesenthal did. I think the Nazi soldier should pay for his sins and if you would just forgive him he might think that it is ok and do it over and over again without being punished. I like the fact how he relates the situation to what is happening with the Chinese government’s stand with Tibetans and that if they do not forgive each other and not move on. Also as Dalai Lama says one should forgive and not forgive. I agree with the second part because one might forgive but it will just stay in your mind forever and one will never be able to forget about it.


Albert Speer

I think his response was very interesting, it is obvious that he went through simmilar event and knows how it feels like. He was the top Nazi soldier and killed thousand people. I think it is very interesting how he says that he can never forgive himself even though he paid for his sins in prison. I think Speer can relate to the dying Nazi soldier in Wiesenthals story the most because he seems to have the same feelings. He regreted his actions, which is quiet understandable and wants to be forgiven just like Wiesenthal wanted. Also I was very touched by the way he realizes that what he did cannot be brought back and the people that he killed will stay dead. It seemed like he really means it and that his conscience is not clean and that he cannot forget about what he did and regrets it.