Ends and Means
The story of Baruch Goldstein is one that for me helps me to define ends and means. Goldstein was a deranged lunatic who believed that by murdering Muslims at prayer he could further the aims of Zionism. While his means were despicable in and of themselves, the fact that many extreme Jewish settlers have memorialized him shows that they are sympathetic both with his means and the end he embodied (Chapter 5, n.d.): total domination of the West Bank and the total annihilation of the Palestinian people. The reason I think if Goldstein when I think of ends and means is that he represents in the most literal way exactly how ends and means go together. They must align: the ends must be in alignment with the means and vice versa. From a Christian point of view, the end is union with God and the means are supplied by the Church—the Church’s teaching, the sacraments, the discipline and so on. One is taught that one should know, love and serve God in order to be happy with Him in the next life. The ends are in alignment with the means.
Goldstein represents the ends and means too—just of the opposite end of the spectrum. Did Goldstein believe he was knowing and loving god in his despicable act of murder? I doubt it—but he probably did think in his own deluded way that he was advancing the aims of Zionism. Goldstein was a loud outspoken Zionist who wanted the Palestinians off the land. He decided to take matters into his own hands and remove them one by one by force. He chose to be a show of force, the image of force. He wanted them gone and he achieved that end through violence. He was the perfect representation of ends and means being in alignment. If only Christians could show such perfect alignment!
I myself struggle to have such alignment. I know what the end is I desire, but I struggle to make the means align with the end. If I wish to be in union with God in the next life, I sincerely have to use the means that are available...
If I do not achieve my end because I failed to know, love and serve God in this world, failed to keep the Commandments, then it will show that my means never aligned with my end—and if they never do, then the ends and means have no meaning.
My own personal thinking and definition of this term did not change much from the reading—except that the story of Goldstein helped me to put it into greater perspective. That story helped me to see that just because one’s ends and means are in alignment does not mean it is good. For it all to be good, the ends have to be good.
Othering
Again, I think of Goldstein when I think of othering, as he perfectly represents othering as well. Othering is the process of marginalizing others who are not of the same in-group as you: you push them into a separate camp and degrade them in the process. Othering is used to dominate over others. It is non-inclusive. It is exclusive. It says that some may not be part of my group and my group has the right to speak poorly of others because they are not one with us.
Othering is essentially anti-Christian in my opinion. Christ did not engage in othering. Christ was the symbol and personification of inclusion. He ate and talked with and healed sinners while the Pharisees rebuked Him for doing so, for being inclusive. The Pharisees were like ancient Goldsteins, always looking at how they were better than the others, better than the Samaritans—and Christ was not having it. He objected to their othering by telling stories and parables like “The Good Samaritan.” The Pharisees were not friends with the Samaritans and the idea that there could be a “good” Samaritan would have been outrageous to them. Christ tossed their othering back in their faces and showed that they themselves were not special because they were not of God—they did not have…
