When Karl, a dying, twenty-one year old Nazi soldier, begs Jewish prisoner Simon Weisenthal for forgiveness, Wiesenthal responds with silence. Unsure of the his neither refusal nor acceptance to grant the soldier his forgiveness, Wiesenthal asks the reader what they would do. In Book Two of The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness, fifty-three responses from varying ethnicities, experiences, religions, and countries yielded their opinions on what Wiesenthal should or should not have done, analyzing if his silence was an acceptable. Author Jean Améry wrote a particularly persuasive argument. Améry’s argument was the most compelling because it subtracts religion from the equation of forgiveness and is able to secularly analyze
…show more content…
Améry clarifies that Karl took part in the extermination of Jews and well knew what he was doing. Later on in Book Two, essayist André Stein illustrates Karl’s conscience appropriately by saying, “Let’s remember that Karl at twenty-one was old enough to make informed choices. He could have drawn on the teachings of his faith and on the moral values of his family. Instead, he opted for endorsing a seductive myth that gave him powers nobody should have” (Stein 251-252). In saying this, Stein and Améry effectively highlight that Karl is accountable for his actions. By Karl asking for forgiveness, it is implied that Karl has come to realize this and is at conflict with his conscience, and therefore is asking for forgiveness in a theological context. The issue with this politically, is that Karl is not in a position where he can do anything to reverse or make up for his behavior, so beyond theological forgiveness, there is no political reason why Wiesenthal’s forgiveness is relevant. It is important to remember at this point that Améry is an atheist and does not insert a religious point of view into the weight of …show more content…
The first, by Sven Alkalaj, clearly states the lack of significance on forgiveness by suggesting, “... punishment of the guilty and some sort of measure of justice are absolutely necessary for forgiveness or reconciliation even to be considered” Alkalaj 104). Alkalaj makes clear his insertion that conviction of one’s wrong actions are more important than forgiveness for them, which is in agreement to Améry’s examination for the political aspect of forgiveness. In another essay by Smail Balić, the reader’s attention is also returned to Améry’s political analysis of forgiveness by stating: “In this situation, forgiveness would have been only personal on his behalf, thus ruling out the notion of general absolution anyway” (Balić 110). Balić further supports Améry’s notion that forgiveness only would have benefitted Karl theologically. Not only was Wiesenthal was unable to do because he was neither Karl’s direct victim nor a priest, but religion should not be a basis on which someone is or is not forgiven due to a wide range of religious beliefs. Both Alkalaj and Balić’s ideas support Améry’s rejection of forgiveness based on religious beliefs and view on its lack of
Améry clarifies that Karl took part in the extermination of Jews and well knew what he was doing. Later on in Book Two, essayist André Stein illustrates Karl’s conscience appropriately by saying, “Let’s remember that Karl at twenty-one was old enough to make informed choices. He could have drawn on the teachings of his faith and on the moral values of his family. Instead, he opted for endorsing a seductive myth that gave him powers nobody should have” (Stein 251-252). In saying this, Stein and Améry effectively highlight that Karl is accountable for his actions. By Karl asking for forgiveness, it is implied that Karl has come to realize this and is at conflict with his conscience, and therefore is asking for forgiveness in a theological context. The issue with this politically, is that Karl is not in a position where he can do anything to reverse or make up for his behavior, so beyond theological forgiveness, there is no political reason why Wiesenthal’s forgiveness is relevant. It is important to remember at this point that Améry is an atheist and does not insert a religious point of view into the weight of …show more content…
The first, by Sven Alkalaj, clearly states the lack of significance on forgiveness by suggesting, “... punishment of the guilty and some sort of measure of justice are absolutely necessary for forgiveness or reconciliation even to be considered” Alkalaj 104). Alkalaj makes clear his insertion that conviction of one’s wrong actions are more important than forgiveness for them, which is in agreement to Améry’s examination for the political aspect of forgiveness. In another essay by Smail Balić, the reader’s attention is also returned to Améry’s political analysis of forgiveness by stating: “In this situation, forgiveness would have been only personal on his behalf, thus ruling out the notion of general absolution anyway” (Balić 110). Balić further supports Améry’s notion that forgiveness only would have benefitted Karl theologically. Not only was Wiesenthal was unable to do because he was neither Karl’s direct victim nor a priest, but religion should not be a basis on which someone is or is not forgiven due to a wide range of religious beliefs. Both Alkalaj and Balić’s ideas support Améry’s rejection of forgiveness based on religious beliefs and view on its lack of