Bonhoeffer has said the always been one of my heroes. We studied him in an adult Sunday school class in our Episcopal church. Our priest often utilized Bonhoeffer’s words in his sermons. Having watched a lot of movies, documentaries and television shows as well a significant reading the laissez faire attitudes about our autocratic president and the long term consequences of his policies is similar to and typical of the “you’re an extremist/socialist/worrier”. The let it alone attitude is in particular what raises Bonhoeffer’s fears. Thank you so much for this insightful piece.
Maybe when I'm retired and thoughtful I'll answer the question differently. But if I look at myself and ask, "Are we still of any use?" I think my answer is yes. I took care of my family, spent time with my daughter and son today, showed kindness to those I encounter, reflected on where I fell short. I didn't get as distracted by the media noise from living as I did yesterday.
I'm a bit put off by the false dichotomies this article references. Arresting students who disrespect a campus by destroying its grounds and using them for unintended purposes does not seem an overreach to me. I don't care how just your cause is, this concept of protest (Camping illegally, trashing property, disrupting academic activities so you can shout in people's faces) should insult any free-speech absolutist, or American citizen. I should know, I am both.
The irony of "I made a donation to the defense fund for Mahmoud Khalil. But the question came back at me, even before the last click. Did I wish to make the donation anonymous?", as some fear-mongering nazi prophesy. Remember the far more real days when the woke mob was 100% more likely to form up loyalty assessment boards and send you off to social exile (because they didn't have a gulag, thank God)? I do. By all means put your name down, nothing will come of it except for the drama in your mind.
John, I think the Bonhoeffer's "any use" phrase was clearly intended to refer to the political situation and I follow him in that use. It's not intended to devalue your other worthwhile activities, but it raises the question whether they will continue to provide safe refuge.
I did not suggest that anyone should be free from arrest for acts that you mention in your second paragraph, but I'll say that it should be the local police should making such arrests based upon complaints by the harmed parties -- as happened at Columbia last year (and in 1968, my heyday), not by the federal government as a means of shutting down dissent, much less as a means of displaying absolute arbitrary power over non-citizens. I will add that when an intense foreign conflict gets exported to a university campus, it's not going to be pretty. The balance of limit-setting and restraint needed at such times is hard to find. (But see my piece from last year on Columbia, https://wisdomofcrowds.live/p/the-suffering-behind-the-protests )
I could not agree more about the depredations of the "woke mob", but they are not the subject of this piece and don't seem parallel to my point in any way. You might not see exercise of the right to express political views as a dangerous activity, but it apparently was for Rumeysa Ozturk (who does not, so far as I know, have a defense fund site). I don't have any certain knowledge that Mahmoud Khalil is not associated with terrorists or did not commit some crime. I do believe that he has a right to due process, as your son and daughter do, and I am willing to defend that right. What struck me in doing so was the anonymity option and how it resonated in a new way. I will be all too happy if nothing comes of this concern beyond the drama in my mind, but I'm pretty sure this won't be the case for everyone who, these days, takes a stand.
I don't feel you're devaluing my worthwhile activities. I think you are overvaluing taking a stand over more essential activities. I was using my life as an example of a better way to prioritize what we pour our energy into.
I take your point on federal overreach, but I don't have much patience left for idealistic youth who tout the resistance of MLK jr, but would rather act like mobs when the going gets tough. Frankly I think civil rights was more palpable and essential a fight than picking sides in an unjust war an ocean away.
I concede on my last point I had a case of whataboutism come over me. But I'll press into comments made regularly on this podcast that (at least amongst citizens) dissent is much more notably tolerated by the right than the left. That was my point. The left inherently denies my right to disagree, while the right will engage with me and argue about it with quite a bit more respect.
John, I don't think your "better way" either excludes or contradicts being politically involved. Indeed, centered political involvement should flow from (and not crowd out) what you correctly identify as "essential activities". I am not a political junkie at all and my advice to the many people I encounter who are anxious from politics-overload is to drop the belief that there is any need for or benefit from being notified real-time about every Beltway twist and turn, much less for tracking or reacting to other addicts' hot takes. But even only knowing what I read in the papers (OK, I exaggerate a bit) I think we are in a situation that requires us to ask ourselves what we should (and can) do about it. As someone who kept asking himself that question, even when he had been completely marginalized, Bonhoeffer strikes me as relevant. Do I have any answers, beyond writing some checks and not clicking the "anonymous" box? No, I do not.
The Trump administration does have a gulag, though. It’s in El Salvador. The administration has already claimed in court that if they send someone there by mistake there is nothing they can do to get them back.
Non-citizens who cross American borders, whether legally or illegally, are clearly at risk if they take actions that criticise the Trump administration. Perhaps these powers will never be used against citizens. Even if you think so, I still think you’re wrong to compare “social exile” to government repression of speech, especially if you think the possibility of the former justifies ignoring the risks presented by the latter.
This does not make the Trump administration unique, and the citizen/non-citizen line has already been breached. The Obama administration drone-struck American citizens abroad without trial, and the Bush administration's excesses in this realm are famous and numerous.
The “War on Terror” had some serious abuses of the rule of law, it’s true. “They’re terrorists” was used as justification to hold people without trial or order them killed by drone strike. This was based on the fear that these were people who might kill large numbers of Americans. It was still wrong.
Within US borders, though, there were laws against suspected terrorists, and due process for those accused. That has changed. For non-citizens, the Trump administration is not respecting the rule of law that used to hold on American soil. This is a significant change, and the courts are already pushing back on it. We don’t yet know to what extent the Trump administration will comply with court orders on the subject. The Trump administration has also broadened the potential scope of these actions beyond the “War on Terror” and into a generalised war on a variety of kinds of immigrants.
Say “imprisoned for the rest of your life in horrible conditions” rather than deported. Even then, I can agree that death is worse, but will reiterate that it was one instance that did not seem to be escalating. I agree that it was wrong to order an American citizen killed but I nevertheless think that the current situation gives us far more cause for alarm.
"it's not real fascism bro, it's just gross violations of our constitutional rights!" Dude go lick some boots harder. You fascists apologists are so boring and weird.
Until recently I was unaware of Bonhoeffer, other than a passing mention in yet another dissection of the orgy of terror the Nazis constructed and inhabited.
Sacrifice in the face of evil, to bear witness by withstanding its punishments or by saying not why me but why not me and being murdered while others are being murdered is a complex sacrifice. But what if by surviving you can save some of the ones about to be the innocent, murdered ones? It’s quite a question.
I can see why you would ask this. So, some more of the story. Bonhoeffer wasn't killed simply for being an opponent of Nazism, though that might have happened had he continued to be an open opponent after his return. He was recruited by his brother-in-law, Hans von Dohnányi (son of the composer, father of the conductor) into a conspiracy centered in the German intelligence agency (its former head was executed on the same day as Bonhoeffer and von Dohnányi) to overthrow Hitler and seek a separate peace with the allies in advance of what the intelligence chief saw as Germany's inevitable defeat by Russia. The SS thought something was fishy and arrested many of these intelligence operatives in 1943. They only discovered a few weeks before the end of the war that this group was closely connected with the 1944 attempt to kill Hitler -- hence the last minute executions. How much Bonhoeffer knew or suspected about his future undercover activities when he wrote the letter I quoted to Reinhold Niebuhr is an open question. But I don't think he thought of his return as sacrificing himself, but as doing what he was called to do. Nonetheless, excellent question.
Thank you for taking the time to tell me more about him.
While I realize he’s seen through the prism of ‘holiness’ which we perhaps have different models for, I am truly persuaded that he was a both an ethical and a good soul.
Bonhoeffer has said the always been one of my heroes. We studied him in an adult Sunday school class in our Episcopal church. Our priest often utilized Bonhoeffer’s words in his sermons. Having watched a lot of movies, documentaries and television shows as well a significant reading the laissez faire attitudes about our autocratic president and the long term consequences of his policies is similar to and typical of the “you’re an extremist/socialist/worrier”. The let it alone attitude is in particular what raises Bonhoeffer’s fears. Thank you so much for this insightful piece.
Thanks for the comment, Valerie. Adult Sunday School was always the best!
Maybe when I'm retired and thoughtful I'll answer the question differently. But if I look at myself and ask, "Are we still of any use?" I think my answer is yes. I took care of my family, spent time with my daughter and son today, showed kindness to those I encounter, reflected on where I fell short. I didn't get as distracted by the media noise from living as I did yesterday.
I'm a bit put off by the false dichotomies this article references. Arresting students who disrespect a campus by destroying its grounds and using them for unintended purposes does not seem an overreach to me. I don't care how just your cause is, this concept of protest (Camping illegally, trashing property, disrupting academic activities so you can shout in people's faces) should insult any free-speech absolutist, or American citizen. I should know, I am both.
The irony of "I made a donation to the defense fund for Mahmoud Khalil. But the question came back at me, even before the last click. Did I wish to make the donation anonymous?", as some fear-mongering nazi prophesy. Remember the far more real days when the woke mob was 100% more likely to form up loyalty assessment boards and send you off to social exile (because they didn't have a gulag, thank God)? I do. By all means put your name down, nothing will come of it except for the drama in your mind.
John, I think the Bonhoeffer's "any use" phrase was clearly intended to refer to the political situation and I follow him in that use. It's not intended to devalue your other worthwhile activities, but it raises the question whether they will continue to provide safe refuge.
I did not suggest that anyone should be free from arrest for acts that you mention in your second paragraph, but I'll say that it should be the local police should making such arrests based upon complaints by the harmed parties -- as happened at Columbia last year (and in 1968, my heyday), not by the federal government as a means of shutting down dissent, much less as a means of displaying absolute arbitrary power over non-citizens. I will add that when an intense foreign conflict gets exported to a university campus, it's not going to be pretty. The balance of limit-setting and restraint needed at such times is hard to find. (But see my piece from last year on Columbia, https://wisdomofcrowds.live/p/the-suffering-behind-the-protests )
I could not agree more about the depredations of the "woke mob", but they are not the subject of this piece and don't seem parallel to my point in any way. You might not see exercise of the right to express political views as a dangerous activity, but it apparently was for Rumeysa Ozturk (who does not, so far as I know, have a defense fund site). I don't have any certain knowledge that Mahmoud Khalil is not associated with terrorists or did not commit some crime. I do believe that he has a right to due process, as your son and daughter do, and I am willing to defend that right. What struck me in doing so was the anonymity option and how it resonated in a new way. I will be all too happy if nothing comes of this concern beyond the drama in my mind, but I'm pretty sure this won't be the case for everyone who, these days, takes a stand.
Thank you for engaging with my thoughts!
I don't feel you're devaluing my worthwhile activities. I think you are overvaluing taking a stand over more essential activities. I was using my life as an example of a better way to prioritize what we pour our energy into.
I take your point on federal overreach, but I don't have much patience left for idealistic youth who tout the resistance of MLK jr, but would rather act like mobs when the going gets tough. Frankly I think civil rights was more palpable and essential a fight than picking sides in an unjust war an ocean away.
I concede on my last point I had a case of whataboutism come over me. But I'll press into comments made regularly on this podcast that (at least amongst citizens) dissent is much more notably tolerated by the right than the left. That was my point. The left inherently denies my right to disagree, while the right will engage with me and argue about it with quite a bit more respect.
John, I don't think your "better way" either excludes or contradicts being politically involved. Indeed, centered political involvement should flow from (and not crowd out) what you correctly identify as "essential activities". I am not a political junkie at all and my advice to the many people I encounter who are anxious from politics-overload is to drop the belief that there is any need for or benefit from being notified real-time about every Beltway twist and turn, much less for tracking or reacting to other addicts' hot takes. But even only knowing what I read in the papers (OK, I exaggerate a bit) I think we are in a situation that requires us to ask ourselves what we should (and can) do about it. As someone who kept asking himself that question, even when he had been completely marginalized, Bonhoeffer strikes me as relevant. Do I have any answers, beyond writing some checks and not clicking the "anonymous" box? No, I do not.
The Trump administration does have a gulag, though. It’s in El Salvador. The administration has already claimed in court that if they send someone there by mistake there is nothing they can do to get them back.
Non-citizens who cross American borders, whether legally or illegally, are clearly at risk if they take actions that criticise the Trump administration. Perhaps these powers will never be used against citizens. Even if you think so, I still think you’re wrong to compare “social exile” to government repression of speech, especially if you think the possibility of the former justifies ignoring the risks presented by the latter.
Just the point, Gemma. Thanks.
Classic America, we even offshore our detention centers. Point well taken Gemma.
This does not make the Trump administration unique, and the citizen/non-citizen line has already been breached. The Obama administration drone-struck American citizens abroad without trial, and the Bush administration's excesses in this realm are famous and numerous.
The “War on Terror” had some serious abuses of the rule of law, it’s true. “They’re terrorists” was used as justification to hold people without trial or order them killed by drone strike. This was based on the fear that these were people who might kill large numbers of Americans. It was still wrong.
Within US borders, though, there were laws against suspected terrorists, and due process for those accused. That has changed. For non-citizens, the Trump administration is not respecting the rule of law that used to hold on American soil. This is a significant change, and the courts are already pushing back on it. We don’t yet know to what extent the Trump administration will comply with court orders on the subject. The Trump administration has also broadened the potential scope of these actions beyond the “War on Terror” and into a generalised war on a variety of kinds of immigrants.
We don’t know how far this will go. The Trump administration moves fast. They’ve already discussed sending citizens to El Salvador, according to some reports: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/11/military-contractors-prison-plan-detained-immigrants-erik-prince-00287208.
In light of these aspects, I do not think it makes sense to claim that nothing much has changed from previous administrations.
I don't think you're fully appreciating the distinction between "deported" and "drone struck."
Say “imprisoned for the rest of your life in horrible conditions” rather than deported. Even then, I can agree that death is worse, but will reiterate that it was one instance that did not seem to be escalating. I agree that it was wrong to order an American citizen killed but I nevertheless think that the current situation gives us far more cause for alarm.
Trump may be good, may with the tariffs thing be disastrous. But I'm pretty sure the Nazi comparisons are over-wrought and just seem hysterical.
Thanks for the comment. I may do a collective response to comments and will speak to your point if I do.
"it's not real fascism bro, it's just gross violations of our constitutional rights!" Dude go lick some boots harder. You fascists apologists are so boring and weird.
This is correct ^
Until recently I was unaware of Bonhoeffer, other than a passing mention in yet another dissection of the orgy of terror the Nazis constructed and inhabited.
Sacrifice in the face of evil, to bear witness by withstanding its punishments or by saying not why me but why not me and being murdered while others are being murdered is a complex sacrifice. But what if by surviving you can save some of the ones about to be the innocent, murdered ones? It’s quite a question.
I can see why you would ask this. So, some more of the story. Bonhoeffer wasn't killed simply for being an opponent of Nazism, though that might have happened had he continued to be an open opponent after his return. He was recruited by his brother-in-law, Hans von Dohnányi (son of the composer, father of the conductor) into a conspiracy centered in the German intelligence agency (its former head was executed on the same day as Bonhoeffer and von Dohnányi) to overthrow Hitler and seek a separate peace with the allies in advance of what the intelligence chief saw as Germany's inevitable defeat by Russia. The SS thought something was fishy and arrested many of these intelligence operatives in 1943. They only discovered a few weeks before the end of the war that this group was closely connected with the 1944 attempt to kill Hitler -- hence the last minute executions. How much Bonhoeffer knew or suspected about his future undercover activities when he wrote the letter I quoted to Reinhold Niebuhr is an open question. But I don't think he thought of his return as sacrificing himself, but as doing what he was called to do. Nonetheless, excellent question.
Thank you for taking the time to tell me more about him.
While I realize he’s seen through the prism of ‘holiness’ which we perhaps have different models for, I am truly persuaded that he was a both an ethical and a good soul.