We have a wonderful panel for you tonight and as Anna already mentioned we will Start by listening to mama Lambert Who is herself a survivor of the genocide in Rwanda that took place? 21 years ago And she will give the introduction herself. I will not do that, but I think it is Good to mention to this audience that she actually wrote a book about her life story And that book is entitled for those who do not believe in miracles and It was published by Wolf legal publishers and the publishers also here with us and she got some help with the Writing of the book and also the translation from Hans Decker who is sitting in front Welcome also to you and Brigitte Maras who did the translation from French to Dutch So welcome also to you and there are no copies yet of the book tonight But there will be very soon available through Wolf legal publishers Now next to mama Lambert you will see Mr. Herbert who is here tonight to translate the first part of the evening because what we have done we will start the evening by listening to mama Lambert's Story on the justice processes and her experiences there and that will be translated by mr. Herbert Now after the break we will talk about forgiveness and we will talk about mama Lambert's own experiences with her Forgiveness process and that part she will do in English But for this part before the break there will be translation Now we also have two excellent speakers from academia who are sitting now in front of me But later will be joining us in the panel Welcome to you as well. Dr. Real Vermeunt who is a Professor in Leiden University, and he is a social psychologist who is an expert on justice related topics. I Can give you a whole CV, which I will not do and we also discussed that but for his outstanding academic work has received a lifetime achievement award and One of his famous books is entitled the good the bad and the just how modern man shape the world Later you will hear all about his views on justice and forgiveness Can you please stand up a little bit so that the audience can already see you? Okay, and then we have another foreign guest from Scotland Dr. Alan Moore just back from maybe stand up as well He just came back actually from Rwanda where he followed or participated in one of the study tours that also our university Organizes each year now Alan is a lecturer in criminal justice and criminology. So we have a social psychologist and a Criminologist and he works at the School of Media Culture and Society at the University of West Scotland West of Scotland, I should say he has many areas in which he is an expert. I will also not list that entire All these areas, but it's amongst others victimology criminal justice human rights and public international law So also for you a very warm welcome Let's start the program now. We will first listen for Some 25 minutes to Mama Lambert's story. So I give the floor to you She's happy to be here and she's happy for your presence here today as we remember In the spirit of forgiveness and justice We are glad that the Netherlands has been our sole companion in this journey of remembrance and forgiveness Because through Netherlands, we've been able to realize most of our dreams and achievements As they told you I'm called Mama Rambelle, but that's that's not my original name Mama Rambelle is a name of the of the history of the genocide history My my birth name is Beata Beata in translation it's The blessed one Indeed I was blessed. I had a family. I had children. I had a husband. I had loving I had I had loving parents. I had a job. I was blessed But the 1994 genocide against the tootsie came and wiped all that away I'll be quick my father was Hucked to death in three pieces and thrown and the pieces are thrown in the river called Nyabarongo My mother Was thrown live in that in that river called Nyabarongo But like enough she didn't she wasn't taken out by the river but when she By God's will she she managed to Survive when she returned home. They killed her through in a ditch of 15 meters Oh Her husband was taken on the 11th of April and till today they've failed to reveal where they Where they dumped his body She had eight children of whom five were killed and now she she survived with three Of the five she managed to to bury properly bury them after after the one who killed them revealed where he had dumped their bodies So they are buried She buried them I won't I won't I won't I won't I won't I won't I won't I won't I won't I won't I won't I Seblings all all perished she's the only one surviving in our family All her property houses she had four houses the all destroyed the hainy adding to eaten, and her being blessed, now came a curse. My surviving was because of God's will. I saw death in front of me, but by God's will I survived. And from the point of my survival, I feel death, I mean she felt death was better than surviving or better than living. By the time of the genocide, she was, she had a young daughter called Rambe. A young boy called Lambert, and they spent three months running through the bushes, through the heavy rain, running, running, till the genocide was stopped.  Beata should reply, I'm not Beata, that period is past. Because she had no feeling of Beata with nothing. Beata had something, now it's Beata with nothing. Stop calling me Beata. And one of the people she managed to survive with insisted to name her at least Mamma Lambert, instead of being nameless. She accepted being called Mamma Lambert because looking at her situation with a baby boy, she had carried all those three months through the rain, through the heavy power, she accepted to be called Mamma Lambert. She couldn't sleep. All the way she was going, she would meet, she would come across people who were looking for her to kill her and Rambe. She couldn't sleep as for the whole night, she would always keep on recalling and calling her husband, all her five children were killed, just calling them psychological torture.   In 1959, when she was seven years old, a similar situation happened after the death of the king. A certain party called Parimehutu came to power, they killed, they destroyed, they rooted, but there was no justice. At the time, in 1959, those who killed were rewarded with heavy posts in the government given high jobs just because of the killing. And because of the random nature, we tend to forgive. So when it happened, they said, okay, it has happened, what has happened has happened, let's unite and be together, they live together. However, in 1973, the same happened and there was no justice. The essence of justice is to prevent one that wants to do wrong and to prevent one that wants to do wrong. The essence of justice is to prevent one who wants to do wrong and is to prevent one who wants to do wrong. If you don't do justice, the criminal or the culprit feels like it's his right to do wrong all the time. And that's how we felt because it was like a normal business and we felt that the Hutu where it was the right to kill the Tutsi and nothing was to be done. And for them to get the energy that they used in the genocide was because they had this feeling that whenever you do wrong there's no justice, there's nobody going to punish you. So it was like a normal routine, just killing, killing normal routine.  But in 1959 and 1963 they couldn't, I mean they were not killing women and children but in 1994 things turned around, they started killing children and women. So the point of bisecting a pregnant woman to see the snake as they used to term the Tutsi, to see the snake, just bisecting her and killing the baby and the mother. For those of you who get a chance to visit Randa you will see that at a certain point young children or babies, those who are just being cut out of their mother's stomachs were being killed just because they were Tutsi. So justice is there to put people in the proper order. And justice is there for the weak. Justice is there for the poor for the weak. Justice is there to put things in the proper channel in the proper way. Justice unites. Because of justice it prevents the one who is going to do a crime. But in a situation where there is no justice people are in competition, criminals or culprits are in competition to do wrong, to do crime. Because there is no justice it encouraged the genociders to get into the act of killing massively. In 1994, massive children, men, women, the old, all engaged into the acts of killing, to the acts of genocide leading to the hardships in providing justice. And the advantage of justice is that it brings back the memories, it brings back the culprit in proper line of thinking and provides him the opportunity to ask for forgiveness. And because of justice the criminal or the culprit feels shame and guilt of the crimes he did. That's why our government, the Rwandan government, for us so that wrong shouldn't be rewarded with wrong, but rather established the gacha-cha courts where people were brought together to confess their crimes and seek forgiveness. At the exact spot where the killings took place, that's where the courts were conducted and that's where everything was conducted. And the cases would be decided from the very spot that you the culprit, you the survivor, your family members and the community are sitting and all judge you, the culprit according to what you did. I thank very much, she calls her hero, Anne Marie, who managed to escort her all the way through the gacha-cha courts, because Mama Rambe was scared of meeting the perpetrators who killed her family, but Anne Marie escorted her through all the way in the gacha-cha courts. It's hard for her to express her feelings at that point where she stood face to face with the killers of her whole family while the killer's family is standing there.   It was a heavy exam to face. But because of gacha-cha, we managed to identify two categories of killers. Those who confess their crimes and seek for forgiveness, despite the fact that they are few. And those who still deny that there was no genocide. And what hurts is seeing somebody denying that genocide didn't happen, yet you exactly know.  Instead of denying genocide, one tarnishes the genocide image by saying that I just cut him on the neck and I didn't kill him. I stabbed him, I didn't kill him. Or I killed him because he was actually, he intended to die. Something that actually frustrates you.  And he stops there, so that's what's hurting them more.  And it will be doomed forever. Today we have a voice because our government has helped, has managed to give us justice. We've managed to bury our beloved ones in proper places. Please, please, please always seek justice. We thank you very much for your kind attention because when you listen to our speeches and our testimonies, we feel touched and blessed. Thank you. Before we go to the discussion, we thought it to be a very good idea to also have a lighting of the candle ceremony as it is called, because this is also the period, the official period of commemoration in Rwanda. So I will speak out some of the official words and then I will ask Mama Lambert and our ambassador and Anna to light the candle. So we will now take some time to commemorate the innocent lives lost. We remember the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their lives 20 years ago in Rwanda. In particular, we would like to pay tribute here to the family members of Mama Lambert, her husband, Placide Rutjahana, her children, joyeuse Claudette, Germain, Rutajicire and Olivier, her parents, Eligé and Marie, her sisters and brothers and their families, her grandmother, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins and friends, that these crimes may never be committed again, anywhere in the world. We pray for Mama Lambert and others like her who have shown great commitment, strength and inspiration for many genocide survivors who did no longer feel like living. May she continue to find this strength. We are now going to listen to one song related to the genocide in Rwanda against the Tutsi. And the song in Kini Rwanda is about bringing comfort to others and it's called Humura. I would like to invite the two of you now to come to the stage. We've been just listening to Mama Lambert talking about how she actually views justice and how it unites, how it can put people back in the right order as you mentioned it. I would like to hear first from our social psychologist. What is your reaction to her view on her very personal story on justice? Yeah, it is, of course, difficult to listen to those very, very, very sad stories about the atrocities that were committed in Rwanda 21 years ago. But Mama Lambert, in her way of thinking, still has a recognition of what justice is. One of her sentences was justice is to put the people in the proper way, in the proper place. The yellow one is justice is for the weak, for the poor. Justice unites. These are different ways of looking at justice. And the first one, putting people in the proper place, is something that reminds me or connects me with the way I see justice in the work I did in the last 25 years. Justice, for me, is in fact that this is a feeling, first of all, it's a feeling that there is a balance between what you keep for yourself and give to others. There must be some balance that may be equally that you give something to yourself or keep for yourself a gift to others. There must be a balance between it. If you kill other people, it's totally unjust. It's an atrocious thing. You don't do that. But this idea of giving to self and giving to other, that can be done in economic terms, that can be money or that can be goods. But also respect. You give respect to yourself versus you give respect to the other. And there must be a balance between it.  If you give too much respect to the other, you are a doormat. So there must be a balance between those two. But also in terms of love or affection, there must be a balance between what you give to yourself and what you give to others. And also care. Giving care must be a balance between what you give to yourself or keep to yourself and give to others. The whole discussion now in the Netherlands about care, et cetera, et cetera, is something that has to do with the vision of what time and care you give to other people. Can I ask you a little bit further about how you, from your own research, link this to this balance in the justice process? Does that mean that from the results in your research that actually the restorative justice approach might be more appropriate to get that balance? Or would that be too much of an overstatement? No, the ideal is to get that balance. And in most cases, it's equality. You give so much to yourself as you give to the other, or give to the other, or give to yourself. But in modern society, we don't do that. We have not the idea that, for instance, a person with higher education will certainly earn more than a person with lower education. But we all accept it. And we even say, yes, that's fair. That's just, why is that? Because we have reasons. Reasons that education is so important that it may be, that it can be rewarded more than no or lesser education. That's what we, all of us, agreed upon. And that becomes another way of thinking of justice. Equality becomes equality by, let's say, evaluating education more than, for instance, working hard or working in bad circumstances. That's the idea. So we, as a society, we deviate every time from equality. And is that something you also see within the criminal justice system? Or, and then I'll go to our next speaker. In the criminal justice system, we see exactly the same. Someone who has done a big crime is punished more than someone who has committed a lesser crime. We don't say it's a crime. You have done something wrong. So we punish you equally. No, we say, there's more. You get more. I wonder what the criminologist thinks about that, because that's quite a statement maybe. If you, well, also based on your experience being in Rwanda, but also in the domestic sphere in your own country, how do you, what is your idea of justice? When do you find this proper balance? When does it indeed unite as Mama Lambert has expressed? I honestly find it very difficult to have an overarching definition of what you call justice when it comes to criminal justice. Before I went to Rwanda, the literature review that I produced was based on trying to define justice. And it's so hard. For anyone that studied justice, criminal justice, any sort of justice, social justice, it's such a difficult concept to define. Justice can be very, very different from one person to another, depending on the types of crimes that have been committed against them, depending on the length of victimization, depending on even things like the age or gender of the victim or the perpetrator. And as a result, what somebody wants out of justice can really be different. So, you know, you have restorative justice we've talked about. You've got distributive justice. You've got retributive justice. You've got punitive justice, all different types of justice. And, you know, from my perspective, looking at what victims want, it's very difficult to find a clear dialogue. There are some clear threads that do come out. So, when I read the accounts of a number of survivors from Rwanda, for example, you had some survivors that said, for example, you know, if you live by the spear, you die by the spear.  It should be an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But then, there are other accounts of survivors who say, you know, killing somebody isn't justice because that doesn't bring back your own relatives. It doesn't heal the wounds that you have. And likewise, imprisoning somebody, unless you're talking about life meaning life, eventually they come out of prison. But if they still harbour those ideologies. Now, when it comes to Rwanda, that's obviously a genocide ideology. But when it comes to any sort of crime, somebody could have some sort of view and if that's not changed, then justice hasn't been served. And if you take now your experience from Rwanda, where you've been listening to people who were participating in the gacha cha and who have been part of the officials, can you say something about your own estimation or evaluation of that process? Would that be a fair balance that was trying to be met there, if even you can answer that question? Well, it's a different system, the gacha cha system, as anyone knows about it will tell you, of course. Unlike jury systems, for example, in Europe, where the majority of the time, those that are judging somebody on their crimes have no awareness of this individual. In fact, often it's a crime to even discuss those crimes in the public prior to going into the courtroom. You're told to judge somebody based purely on the facts that are presented to that courtroom at that time. Now, the gacha cha system, of course, is based in the notion that it is those from the community that know the people, that know whether it's the perpetrators, the survivors, then judging that individual, as Mama Lambert said, in the very spots that these crimes took place. So there's a very, very personal link there. Now, from a justice perspective, of course, the difficulty is trying to minimize bias in that location, in that environment. Trying to say that somebody's personal feelings won't come into the situation. It's very, very difficult to stop that happening. But what do you mean, as in jeopardizing maybe rights for the defendant, or as in the bias? Where do you see the bias coming in within the gacha cha procedure? Well, theoretically both. But at the same time, I had this discussion with a number of people that were on the study trip. We had the discussion about what system would be perfect. Now, the problem is, you can conceptually create a perfect justice system, but in reality that might not work. Now, for example, you talk about the genocide in Rwanda. At the end of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, there were, I think, around about 250 people from the legal profession, from the judiciary still alive, of which approximately 200 were living in diaspora. So they had been displaced to other countries, to Tanzania, to Burundi, to the Congo, etc. And there were less than 50 members of the judiciary left in the country to actually deal with the aftermath. Now, when you're talking about the number of regions, the number of areas to be covered, the question has to be, well, using a conventional justice system, an existing justice system, how do you then deal with the workload you have to deal with? And the answer is very simple. You can't. It's impossible. So what Rwanda had to do was design a system that was the best justice system they could under the circumstances that would be effective, that absolutely would not be foolproof. But then the international community often seems to criticize the system based on some of these bias. Without thinking about the reality, well, the reality is, if you weren't with a conventional justice system, you know, experts say it would have taken anywhere between 15 and 130 years to try all of the suspects. Now, obviously, that's an impossibility. So some people would never see justice. You know, survivors, victims, families, et cetera, would never see justice being done. And likewise, the perpetrators wouldn't come to justice. Was it because we've had these discussions many times, and often what you see is that western scholars criticize systems, in this case, in Rwanda, without any knowledge of the country, without ever having been there, and measuring it against, for instance, human rights instruments. And my final question to you is, was it important for you to go to Rwanda to come to this understanding, or was that for you something also before this visit that you had as an overarching idea of how you should deal with these complexities and then find an effective or efficient justice system? So did you need the Rwanda visit to come to this view? Yes. The short answer is yes. I would say that it's very important to go. I think that obviously you can learn a lot from literature, especially in the modern age, where it's, you know, information is relatively easy to get hold of. But the danger of that, of course, is that any quality control effectively on literature is also very difficult. So assessing, you know, seeing the wood for the trees and seeing, you know, amongst all of the different stories, narratives, what is the true one, it's very difficult to do from reading alone. And I think even as I'm sharing with anyone that has been to the country will verify, it's very difficult to really understand the nature of the problem and the scale of the problem until you've actually visited some of these locations and you see the scale of the issues that resulted from the genocide. And, you know, the result of course is that a huge number of victims have been created and a huge demand for justice as a result. It's a call for everyone working in this area, in the audience, to make sure you go to the area where you're writing or researching or studying on. Is there someone in the audience that would like to pose a very urgent question? We have some time, not too much. We have two students with microphones. Anyone that would like to raise a question, now is your chance. So my question would be, is it possible? And if in what way can we unify these different understandings and ideas of justice in order to obtain the highest extent justice for people who suffer? I will pose this question to Dr. Vermeunt, okay? Or you'll pose it, but I will give it to you. Yeah, it's always the question researchers are looking for, that is to try to find a general rule of what is just or unjust, and we can't find it. Because, first of all, it's different between different cultures, what is just or unjust. Secondly, society changes what was just 50 years ago, might be unjust 20 years ago and even now. For instance, let's say of the bankers, that's unjust what they did by providing themselves with a lot of money at the cost of all of us. That's unjust, maybe that it was over 10 years that we think completely different, that we find it normal that those people get so much money. In the second place, football players, they earn so much money, there's no one who's saying that's unjust. So it depends on the situation, on the culture, and on the time we live in. So a general rule of what is just is not, it is not a Kantian idea of that, happily not. We ourselves would define what is just or unjust. That's important. Yeah, maybe it was good to add that from many victimological studies we also know that victims are not a homogeneous group with all the same needs. So that's also the difficulty that a justice system faces in order to be able to meet those needs, which are not the same. When I talk about justice, I feel like I'm excited to talk about it because you know that you get something from justice. But also we know that justice is a wall that prevents wrongdoers from putting into practice their wrongdoings.  But forgiving implies that a wrong did indeed happen. The wrong did of someone who did some wrongdoing against you. But before forgiving of course you go through a process. You ask yourself many questions like should I forgive but what would that imply? Will I get my husband, my family, my children back? Sometimes you are very insecure at the beginning. And can you imagine forgiving but the person you forgive, basically you even forgive refuses to give forgiveness. Let me rephrase. Can you imagine asking for forgiveness but then the person to whom you ask for forgiveness refuses to give forgiveness? So it's a very difficult test to forgive. You don't learn, nobody teaches you to forgive. Forgiving is a process. It's taking a step after another in order to move from the wrong which did happen towards some brighter future. At a given time I thought I don't really want to hear someone asking me for forgiveness. I don't want to be there in that sport. We went through a process and that was the background to that. In 1959 crimes were committed. We forgave and after we lived together as if nothing happened, some even intermarried. We went to churches together. We had baptisms as if nothing happened. We thought that was over but in 1963 the same happened. The same guys who were involved in crimes in 1959 did precisely the same again. In 1973 I was 20 years old. In 1973 I was 20 years old. In 1973 I was 20 years old. In 1973 I was 20 years old. In 1973 as I said there was a group of people who run after me saying that they were going to rape me. I saw them, I knew them. I was served by a very little short man so being brave is not nothing to do with hate. He was a very little man who ended up shielding me in 1973 and me and my sisters and relatives. He had a spare basically where he made them run away but again after that we forgave. Of course those relatives who were shielded with me in 1973 were killed during the genocide in 1994. Our father told us that the hotels will exterminize us. We will punish the criminals. We thought that had not happened because we had the United Nations, the people who did it ask for forgiveness. The current president promised not to condemn the killings because of, like his predecessor. So we felt somehow we assured that that would not happen because of all of that. We forgive. But the prediction of my father turned out to be pretty much true because in 94, indeed, they pretty much were close to exterminating people. But the reason why it was easy for them to kill was also that because we were somehow dehumanized in the process of killing us. They stripped us of our clothes. We had to go naked, young people together with husbands and young children or grandparents. And in that process, then, those who killed us felt like we were fair again. And when our father saw that he said, as you see this, for sure in the end, we will end up being exterminated. That was the reason he said that. But in that process, during all of those years, you need to understand what forgiving meant. For example, people were refused to study because of the ethnic policies that were in place. And forgiving basically meant that you are prevented from having that opportunity and had to find some other ways of surviving because you didn't get education. But still, you managed to forgive that person and live with him, doing probably jobs which are under your potential. But if then that person was to ask you for forgiveness, you would say, what did I do to you in order to do all of that to me? So what happened in my case was that, well, I was, as I said, in a situation where I didn't want to hear anyone asking me for forgiveness. I was not in that state of mind. But in 1998, that came in the form of a piece of paper. So one of the people who was involved in the killing of my children wrote a letter describing what he did, how they were killed, what weapons were used, who was part of the attacks which killed my children. And he described to us. And I can't describe to her in which state I was when I read that letter. Probably through the description, you see what she did of the piece of paper when she read it. Basically, think of the person who killed all of your elder children.  Those who survived were the younger ones. So think of that person who did that. All what I did was I felt like I took the paper and almost shredded it. I even felt vengeful at that time because it's the mother of the suspect, basically of the person conferencing who brought the letter. So the mother of Manasseh. So I felt like maybe the best solution would be probably to kill him as well. Then, at least, I will get my vengeance. I felt like they had lost their humanness. And in that sense, probably then, it was a good thing maybe to get rid of the person because they were no longer humans. But at the same time, my consciousness taught me otherwise. I felt like then I was about to tie my hands into blood. On one hand, of course, I felt like I remembered all of my relatives, children, and parents who I did. And I felt like there were persons as well, just like him. So maybe if you do that, it's the right thing to do. But at the same time, I felt like it wasn't. So I needed and prayed.    So he must go to heaven in order to kill that person. suddenly opened the book, the Bible, on the very first page I opened. There was a passage about the killing of Abel by Cain. How do they say Cain? I have no clue how they pronounce it in English. Cain.  He will be a cursed person. That's the passage suddenly that I opened. I said I even felt revolted somehow and felt like probably I should set the Bible aside. I will read about it later on, but I need first of all to do this. But I took it again and opened again. Because my feeling was that we had forgiven enough as it says and I felt like that shouldn't be the case now. I will read about it later on. In Bipo Samoia, in Matthew, it's written that someone asked Jesus about how many times one should forgive and it's written that should forgive 70 times 70 times 70 times 70 times 70 times 7 70 times 7 By the way, I'm not here preaching you to be to be a believer that as I am but I'm just telling you what happened in my case. So I ended up counting all of those years from 59, from 63, from 73 again, and I felt like in fact, I would end up forgiving for the fifth time. That was one side. But then also one of the reasons why I ended up forgiving.  In all my life since surviving, I felt like I lived with the killers. I lived in fact with Manasseh the entire life. Remember Manasseh is the killer. When I was at my table, my dining table, Manasseh was there because then I felt how I was lonely without my family. When I went to the market or anywhere on the road, any person I saw, somehow I saw in the image of that person, I saw Manasseh.  Even in praying in the church, I asked God whether He would be able to forgive Manasseh. All of me was in fact, Manasseh was all over the place. And the climax was that in 2000, he wrote a second letter which led to me forgiving him. And once I forgave him, I felt at peace in my heart. And once I forgave him, that's when I started really feeling that I should start leaving that stage of my life behind. That's when I started actually thinking on how to plan my life ahead and how to make my children who survived live. Forgiving doesn't cost much. You are not bought into forgiving. In fact, forgiving is ensuring that your thoughts and feelings are not controlled by the wrong door. Forgiving is in fact a way of crossing the boundary of anger and bad feelings and beef and ideas about doing a wrong yourself.  But the best way to heal is not to run after the bee which did bite you, but rather to remove the sting that was left in your body. Forgiving also is all about you removing all of the bad feelings, all of the anger that you have that was left in you and learn how to move forward. I used to run after Manasseh having my mind populated by Manasseh, but once I did for all the mother of Manasseh for that matter, but once I forgave, I started moving away from that and I took steps towards a better, brighter life. There are of course different pillars of forgiveness that one goes through, including also having some kind of counseling in the process. I work for Solace Ministries, which is a counseling organization as well, which does counseling as well as an organization. And before it even tells you something about forgiveness, first of all, it tries to console you in your sorrow. And it does advocacy also in seeking justice. We talked about justice earlier. And of course it does also help in socioeconomic empowerment of survivors. Once people have been of course consoled in their sorrow, there are also involvement of other partners, like in this country particularly we have, for example, a very good partnership of Mokome's organization, which operates here, of course, you have seen Anne-Marie de Brouwer's and many others who are here. It does help then in the socioeconomic sphere in helping people who are in that process of moving forward to make steps towards a brighter future. I think we are getting signs from Rian. What Mokome's and similar organization, what they do basically also is somehow to provide alternative families to those who have been consoled, who are in the process of moving forward. Even being here is having a family in a sense because then people really move forward because they have other support structures around them. And thanks to Mokome's that you tend to have quite a lot of people who make those steps. Forgiving means that basically you don't seek vengeance but instead it leads towards some kind of reconciliation path. Forgiving also implies that the person who did the wrong somehow is brought to think further and probably become a person again. We visited some of those who committed the crime in jails together with some of the persons who are present here today. Persons, for example, who have received forgiveness seem to be a little bit or to act or react differently from those who didn't because once they see you they no longer run away but instead they look pretty much at peace. But also think of the fact that they also end up being remorseful in the sense because just thinking about this picture, if I took this picture and showed it to you, I think it's not just a picture of the person who committed the crime, it's a picture of the person who committed the crime. Basically he will get the idea that he will understand that I'm no longer alone, I have a different family now, even a bigger family. Even this also would make me forgive, in a sense. In a sense, of course he did not achieve what the goal was, which was to exterminate us and for that also the fact that I survived means also that I should forgive in order to move forward and have a bright future including for both of us and the wider society. Forgiving is absolutely necessary in order for a country again to get alive. It also revives life in your own being. Thank you so much Mama Lambert for your very impressive and inspiring story and we learn a lot from your story, not only how difficult it is to follow a process of forgiveness but also how rewarding it can be. In the discussion that we will have now we want to focus in particular on the role of religion, in your case Christianity, in that process. So I will ask first our experts and maybe come back to you in a minute. Now I need this one. So according to your expert opinion, what role does religion play both in individual processes of forgiveness but also collective? As Mama Lambert mentions, it's also important for society at large. So both individual and collective, can you enlighten us? Yeah, first I would like to say that Madame Lambert has said a lot of white things about forgiveness. First of all, the definition of forgiveness is that there is a pro-social action reaction in fact on an injustice. On something that is done to you, the harm you have done. It's a pro-social. It means that you first of all has in mind the harmony between you and the wrongdoer. That's not easy in fact because then you have to, that's what Madame Lambert has said. In the first place, she had feelings of revenge and that's a normal reaction. A normal reaction to how I'm doing is retaliation. You fight back. But then later on, there is a, let us say, that you reduce, that you inhibit those feelings of revenge. That means that you have control over your feelings that initiate that revenge. And that is very important in all research that has been done on the basis of forgiveness. Executive control, control over your impulses is essential for forgiveness. And that's what we heard from Madame Lambert, that not in the beginning maybe, because that's it. Okay, that's a very important thing. I can tell more about it, but how is religion now involved in all those things? We in our Western individualistic society, the definition of what we think is just, our fair is derived from the Protestant ethic. The idea that if you do good, you will get back good. If you do wrong, you will get back wrong. The Catholic thing, the Catholic thoughts are less prominent on this. That means that for a Protestant, forgiveness is possible only if there is something, that the person, the offender, gives something back. Forgiving only for the forgiving is not a Protestant, comes not forth from the Protestant ethic, from the Protestant religion, far less than from the Catholic religion. That means that forgiveness is only effective in this view if the perpetrator makes amends, makes excuses, gives satisfaction to the victim. In the Catholic religion, that tendency is far less. It's not nothing, but it is less than in the Protestant ethic. Does your research also show that people who are able to forgive also are able, or will find justice sooner? Is there a relation between how you sense justice if you are more forgiving or have been able to forgive? No, you can forgive, but once again, if the other person does not respond, then forgiveness is less likely. That means that there is a balance between what you give and what the other gives to you. That must be something that is equal. On a societal level, because now you are referring more to the individual level as well, what is the potential or the consequence for society if forgiveness is not part of a reconciliation process or rebuilding society? An interesting example about this is how a community can proceed if wrongdoing is punished or is in another way reconciled. In the 1870s, in the United States, the Seahawks Indians, a band of it, there was a chief, and the chief was Spotted Tail. Spotted Tail took the wife of a disabled member of the clan and took her as a second wife. Crow Dog was against it, and he was presenting the disabled husband to get something done with Spotted Tail. Accidentally, they met each other on the street, and Crow Dog killed Spotted Tail. The thing was that this was an Indian conflict, so the jurisdiction of the United States was not applicable in this case. So the Indians settled this on their own way, and that is, there came a peacemakers, and the peacemakers punished, or what you call it, Spotted Dog, he had to give $600 to the husband, plus eight horses, plus a blanket, and that was it. And in this way, the harmony in the group in the clan was restored. If, in this case, the United States was punishing juridically in a penal court, this band, the whole community would collapse. So this is a way that the community, with reconciliation, with, let's say, forgiveness, keeps the harmony in the group. The first question that I also posed to your colleague, can you answer that as well, the role of religion, both individual and collective? Yes, both. In particular, obviously, my main interest, he was talking about the perspectives of the victims, so I have looked in depth at the issues of unity and reconciliation, of course, unity and reconciliation being huge parts of the strategy of Rwanda to overcome the issues stemming from the genocide 21 years ago. And I've got just three very short quotes, which will all tell you probably a very similar story here when it comes to the notion of forgiveness to begin with, and I will move on to religion, but talk about forgiveness first of all. So these are quotes from some of the survivors. The first one here from a survivor, Pierre Gawubi, there's no way unity and reconciliation will come out of politics. So the first question then, if not out of politics, where can unity and reconciliation come from? The second one, which I've got here somewhere. Final page. And this is quite important because we talked earlier on briefly about the fact that not all victims, for example, have the same notion of justice. But very importantly, the same person goes through various transformations, of course. And not even necessarily in a linear form, people can have different perceptions of justice depending on the environment they're in at any given time. So one of the survivors here said, you know, I feel that unity and reconciliation are things we ought to achieve, but sometimes I feel like forgiving and sometimes not. Now that's the same person saying that sometimes they feel like forgiving and sometimes they don't. So you've got these issues of, you know, and a thread runs through a number of survivor stories in terms of not believing, believing rather in unity and reconciliation, but not believing it's something that can be achieved if it's something that's told to an individual that unity and reconciliation forgiveness have to be something that comes from the heart, that the individual genuinely believes they want to forgive. Now with that being said, then, if it doesn't come from the state, where does it come from? And one of the people that we talked to in Rwanda was Bishop John Rukihana, who is the chairman of the Faith and Reconciliation Commission in Rwanda. And he said something which, actually more than one person I've heard say, but he said something very, very meaningful. He said that, you know, these effects that are left on survivors, they're not scars. You know, quite often you have people being battle scarred and scars. He said they're not scars, the problem is they're still wounds and wounds need to be healed. So the question is, how do you heal those wounds?  That person is still a young adult. You can't tell somebody who has lost their mother, who has lost their father, who might have lost their brothers, sisters, that they must forgive. Now that's not to say they can't forgive in the future, but they've got to go through some sort of transformation on the way to get there. And does the research that you have done also indicate that if a person is able to forgive, that it will diminish feelings of revenge or anger or all these feelings that keep you maybe in your victimhood? Is that something that you can... Yes, because well, the underlying issue here is that when it comes to religion, or really any faith to be honest, the whole notion of religion, whether it's Christianity, whether it's Islam, whether it's Judaism, whatever the religion is, the whole notion is that it's a transformation that you can see beyond where you are now to some sort of betterment, whether it's in your lived future, whether it's in any afterlife that any religion perceives. And the only way that you can achieve that is through constant betterment, bettering yourself as an individual. And notions of forgiveness are strong in all religions. Now, depending on whether an individual will be able to heal themselves, will quite often depend on the strength of that faith that they have in that religion. But the stronger the faith in the religion, the more likelihood is that the forgiveness will be genuine. But for you, if a person is not religious and what makes a person able to forgive or not, leaving aside the religious part, what is it in your own characteristics or in your own network that will enable you to be forgiving? As a social psychologist, you've done lots of research there. The forgiveness is higher when the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator is valued by the victim. Then forgiveness is far higher than when the victim does not that value the relationship. Secondly, as I explained earlier, is that you have to inhibit your impulses. If you are able to do that, only then you can forgive. Otherwise, revenge, retaliation comes up. Third, it's accountability. If you think that the other is less accountable for the atrocities, then you're more inclined to forgive than you think that the other person does it really purposefully, etc. These are the three important things that people use, no, not people use, but when forgiveness is more likely than in other situations. Let's say in that sense, it's not so much religion in this research, but religion might come in to change this intricate relationship between forgiveness and the other factors. May I ask you, Mama Lambert, you mentioned that there should be something in it for both parties, and it should be sincere. How did you determine when you first encountered the perpetrators of the killings of your loved ones, that you could be able to start this forgiving process? As I said, first, forgiveness has at first a benefit for the person who is a victim, but it's not so much for the person who is a victim, it's not so much for the person who is a victim, it's not so much for the person who is a victim. Forgiveness has at first a benefit for the person who was wronged, like in my case, when I forgive, I was at peace. So I had somehow a peace of mind once I forgave. So from this side of looking at it, is that the idea that by forgiving, I'm no longer basically haunted by that person, so he no longer preoccupies all of my mind. I'm sorry, I asked for the other side then of the equation, and she says that what shows that somehow it was sincere, in fact it was sincere was that, it was spontaneous in showing where the bodies were buried, and he denounced other people she wasn't aware of who participated in the killings, and that gave indication that the other side was somehow sincere. Thank you. Yeah, there are some important things. First of all, in the literature and the research we did on forgiveness, it was never mentioned, we did not investigate the fact that forgiveness might mean that you are not haunted by the perpetrator. We did not. That's a new element in our thought. Maybe it's something to do further. In the second place, you are at peace at heart if you forgive. That's fine. But in our research, we showed that if the perpetrator does not make amends, does not make excuses, does not do any sort of handwriting, hand giving to the victim, forgiven has negative effects for the victim because it lowers self-respect, because the offender does not react. On the other hand, it gives negative effects for the offender because because he does not react, he thinks what he is doing is fine, no problem. He goes on. So there must be, well, forgiveness be effective and for the victim as well of the offender, must make a move. Final word for you before I close this part of the session. Yeah. I think one of the areas that maybe has been touched on, but not so much specifically, is that in some cases some victims will be happy with not necessarily forgiving those perpetrators for whatever crime. In some cases, it simply is a recognition that the crime actually happened, the recognition they were actually a victim at all. And in some cases, that is enough for the victim, just that recognition of what happened. And again, it's one of the things that you see through a number of areas of victimology and victimization, but in particular in Rwanda, that often the whole notion of things like, for example, genocide in Ireland, the idea that somebody was not a victim actually quite often hurts just as much as a secondary form of victimization than whatever act actually took place in the first place. And sometimes to actually gain that peace and sometimes justice can simply be that recognition that somebody truly was an innocent victim and that somebody indeed was in fact a perpetrator. We could still also have very interesting discussions but I see you're sitting there still about the role of the international community. As you asked, they were not there in the period to enter genocide, later on this same international community set up the Rwanda Tribunal. So how does that do people indeed see that in Rwanda as a legitimate reaction to provide justice? But that unfortunately will take us another hour, so I will have to leave that discussion which I think is very interesting to the drinks later on. Is that okay for you as well? And you will be the expert to discuss that with you because I want to close this part of the session and I want to give Mama Lambert the final minute to give a take-home message as we call it before we go to the really final part of the evening. Mama Lambert, if you want you can already sit there. It's a lot of dominance. Yeah. The first thing I would probably tell you would be that I see a lot of young people here probably it would be a good thing probably to take care of your lives in fighting wrongs, especially atrocious wrongs like a genocide. A genocide is a very horrible thing as you probably may know and probably those older people here can teach younger ones or vice versa how to fight that. The last time I was here we had a commemoration in a synagogue here in Tilburg. Someone in the audience asked why do you always keep repeating never again and never again but it happens again. What do you mean by that? Does it mean anything at all? But in order to translate that in reality it's me, it's you who should ensure that actually it means something. The other thing I would say would be that I believe that justice is a pillar of lasting peace. But also justice is a pillar of self empowerment or empowerment generally speaking, call it empowerment or development. A country without justice is probably a dead country or a moribund country. The third thing I would say would be that there is a difference between forgiving and forgetting. Forgiving is not forgetting. So to me forgiving is basically getting rid of all of those negative feelings, ideas and thoughts that you get by being hunted always by the wrong doer. So for me that is forgiving, not forgetting. Thank you very much.


I take the ticker of the symbol, I put a dollar sign, you know, that's the indication for Fintuit, financial Twitter, and it'll pop up everything. You sort it by the latest. And that's how you find news and callous and reasons why it's moving. But be very careful because some of these guys are lying as the reason why all that stuff, guys. I've been using this for a long time and that's one of our secret weapons. Twitter can be used as a powerful research tool. But you have to think that is this a real research paper or is it some guy trying to pump and dump?


Hello and welcome to the craft box. My name is Brent. I'm joined with Finn and today Road to 100 episode 18. I think or 19. 19. I think it is actually 19 I am level 19 So this episode we're going to do the last dungeon of this area Then we go no of this area Area Yes Okay, you're not even going to read even with balance. I would not stand a chance at my age just as I expected This place is heavily guarded Mander's tour while crocotep relaxes in his chamber. Okay. Um, I need health firstly Okay, anyway, so yeah, we're gonna do this. This is the last dungeon for the area of Crocotopia, it's the longest dungeon.  Oh, so he's either a little 95 class Yeah, that's new Bay. Oh, they left She's got Um Anyway, so this is the last dungeon for this area slightly longer than the last one But we'll speed most of this up because it's quite boring Just seeing us battle after battle after battle after battle Her eye your magic eye Magic eye.  So yeah, we will speed this up probably like the last one I've probably would have done that Um So, yeah Then next episode will go into the last year of Crocotopia, which we take one maybe two episodes to complete And then we're done with Crocotopia Yeah Yeah, yeah, she crew Critical like double good Why is she not getting any shadow clips like come on and bring out the big casso lover Then I could like leave the 30 minutes and come back and it'll still be going Long the spell in the game It's hate. It gets all the hate.  Do you not healing? Be careful Do you not like healing? Peek heal. Peek heal.  I don't even have to do anything. This is amazing run Getting 3x page time amazing talk to shayla the waz And it looks like all my screen on the head of everybody else You've done well young wizard the lever should work now Open the door and I'll meet you up ahead at the lake No Ah But someone did that already don't get fooled Yeah You can put me in a sec if you want to If you want to yeah We talked to shellet wise yeah I did this solo. Yeah, it was pretty fun. Yeah, excellent. You've made it Free shackled slaves Shackled slaves. They're the slaves.  I told you to stay there just play and come back I can probably do this myself We've done it Now if we do not save the manders we are no better than that tuts But I see no harm in hurrying Defeat overseer panee way and return to me at once. I think it needs storm I'm not I can't remember what it is. I think it's either storm or fire. I know it's not ice I think it's storm The door is frozen shut by magic. Perhaps the braziers hold the secret to opening it No, not on the storyline. They might be like future Like that would be cool You can I can teach you you may also be because you're not using the right lowers That may not be level one They might be able to and they could also be not in the school that you thought they were Like there's a lot to fishing that is quite technical really technical Are you like flayed you fail to see just how outmatched you are wizard Hello You fail to see just how outmatched you are wizard. Yes, get through the roof. Come on Look at this Oh, hello there No, but this is like four things Like imagine four minions. Yeah, I live without Snake tree Tree Yay last boss here for this dungeon Don't provoke me wizard. I was just the don't provoke me wizard I was just thinking about letting you live in my service, of course. Don't provoke me wizard I don't want to give you folks in my service, of course We've got another half hour. I'd assume He's Cthulhu Rowing Finn Finn, he's Cthulhu Rowing Well, he's about to do it next hurry up Hurry up. He's about to do it. Oh, he's done it Are you sure? Like that half spawning animation just takes a moment Don't just start it really There's a good suggestion that what you what they should do is they should have it attacked everybody first and then kill the one person once No, it's gonna attack you You have found a golden scarlet. It's not a scarlet because it's a part of a sword film. We've already had to find scanners Yay, talk to Shalik the wise in the entrance. I believe there's a way out over here, isn't there? Shalik the wise Talk You have fought bravely It sickens me to know one of the orders members gave the krakonamakanta queen krakopatra Even though it is never easy to defeat one of our own It was the right thing to do. I fear more troubles await us young wizard Krakopatra wields the krakonamakon and krakotep spoke of a new army The order has much to discuss. We may not have always acted with wisdom in the past But you've set us on the right path at last Come join us in the balance go and we get a new spell fun Yes Everybody everybody gets a new spell I get Hicks, I believe I think you get like You get um left blade No, you don't No, you don't You don't have left blade No, you don't you don't have left blade. I know that for sure Al has read Young wizard You have my eternal gratitude I heard what you did in that krakos finks. I feel we are no longer strangers, but comrades in our Shalik general kaba kai amate and I all wish to honor you Please take this golden scarab as a symbol of your entry into the order of the fain Okay, anyway, we will continue to fight the tats you will need to investigate krakopatra's lair The tomb of storms. Thank you for watching. We'll see you next time Goodbye


So the last few weeks, both Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic in a series of interviews have kind of had digs at each other in different ways. Nadal coming out saying that he's not so frustrated that he doesn't have the grand slam record that maybe Djokovic would be if he didn't have the record. Djokovic has responded again with a little bit of a subtle jab after winning in Paris. Just what Nole had to say over in Paris after winning a record seventh Paris Masters, I'm going for every possible record as many as I can break. I've never had a problem saying that and that's why people don't like me. I didn't pretend like some people to say that it's not my goal and then behave differently. I always try to be consistent with what I believe in. There is Djokovic saying that hey, he wants all the records he can get and he's not too far away from some of the best records and the biggest records. We've seen in tennis, of course, he's got the grand slam record, which is something that even before he got the record was talking about for so long. Of course, Federer had it for a long time and then Nadal had it for a couple of years. And then Djokovic has just taken that over in the last 12 months. Of course, there's the most titles of all time, you know, he's number three in the ranking for that. He's behind Federer and Jimmy Connors who has 109 to 110 would get the record. He's already got the weeks in number one, of course, trying to get to 400, which he'll do if he wins one match at the every finals. But interesting that he, you know, again, is he's listening to what Nadal's saying. You know, they're not talking directly. They're talking indirectly through media through quotes. Maybe they're getting misquoted for some reason. I don't know, but the media seem to be getting onto this. What do you guys think? What do you guys think about this? Do you think there's anything to it? Do you think Nadal and Djokovic do have some sort of a beef going on? Do you think they're just getting misinterpreted? Or do you think everything's just sort of, I don't know, maybe blown out of proportion? It does seem like he did listen to what Rafa said and maybe did take it a little personal. And of course, breaking all the records. I mean, why shouldn't he? He's almost going to get there. And I mean, he's already the greatest of all time, but why not add some record records while you're at it? Let me know in the comments below. Do you think Nadal is going to respond to this or do you think this is where it ends?


Break this power. Come on, pray, stretch your hands forward and pray. Hands lifted now, the cross. Holy Spirit, we invite you now. Move across this room and manifest your power. Shake us to our core. Now flow across this room. Touching each one and transforming every heart we pray. I thank you, Father, for the power that is now present here. We lift our hands and we glory to the Lamb. Just say, glory to the Lamb. This is Sister Desiree. Three weeks ago she had major surgery on her stomach and she's been living with three bulging discs in excruciating pain. She says pain level of seven and when you prayed for back, immediately the power God ran through. So tell them how long was that? I can feel the presence of the Holy Spirit here. Can you sense Him here? I feel that too. It's like electricity. It is present to you. We give Jesus a hand of praise for what He's doing. Jesus, we give you glory. Lord, we thank you. Just stop for a moment and say, Lord, we thank you for healing power. Thank you for what you're doing. Jesus' name. What happened here? Brother Diga, this is Socorro. And she said when I put my hand on her, the power of God ran through her. And what was wrong?  Years, yes. I walked in here. I'll tell you this right now. I can sense Jesus standing here with me. Do you feel that? What does it feel like? It's a new cardigan now. Look at the power of God. Only Jesus can work such a perfect miracle in a body He formed. So Lord, we thank you and we pray it be done in Jesus' name. And the church said, can we just stop a moment and give the Lord a hand of praise? Just a moment. Sandy. She's had arthritis in her left knee for two years. Arthritis in her left knee for two years. And what was the pain level like for you? The whole service. Pain is gone. And what happened during the worship to you? I feel the presence of the Holy Ghost here. And did you feel something touch your knee? Or did it just all over your body? Yes, all over. What did that feel like? Some people say heat. Some people say electricity. I have electricity. Your minister? A thousand and a thousand. Lord, give her a greater anointing even forward from this day in Jesus' name. You're the one who gives the anointing, Lord. And we pray, Father, that as you've touched her in her knee and this arthritis has been healed, I thank you, Father, for the healing power of God flowing through her that her receive according to her faith in Jesus' name, in Jesus' name. What happened? I saw you looking amazed there. We have Joe here. She's from Michigan. Michigan. I remember Michigan. Yes. Pain in her. Pain in her body. Where was the pain?  She says right back in here. Lumps. Are the lumps still there? Okay, so you can still put the lumps right now? Show me the lumps. In the name of Jesus. Whoa. These lumps to go. In the name. Church praying in the Holy Spirit here. That to the people. Pain was, you said, from the neck all the way down. Well, Lord, take away the Restless Lake Syndrome in the name of Jesus. In the name of Jesus. This is Sister Rosa. When you curse cancer, she felt the presence of God come on her. She felt overwhelmed with the spirit of joy. She was diagnosed in December, but she said the joy is with her. Jesus' name. Break this power of cancer. Come on, pray. Stretch your hands forward and pray. It's that cancer. Did you see the power of the Holy Spirit go through her? Come on, take your authority over this. Stretch your hands forward. Say we rebuke it in Jesus' name.


Alright, good Thursday morning everyone. We are following today's market action with Jim Kramer on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Alright Jim, a big report today, Amazon could be testing a delivery service like FedEx. Let's make this clarification. This is not a reason to sell either FedEx or UPS. This is about trying to do a little more third party. You know when you order something from Amazon, it's not directly from Amazon from third party. They want to try to do more of that, but they don't want to go into the delivery business. Either way, Expo Logistics is another company you should throw in the mix for last mile. And I really feel that those who are selling FedEx do not understand the relationship. So please, this is a call. You can take some action on it, but don't go crazy. The declines in UPS, FedEx, I mean- I like FedEx more. You like FedEx more. Yeah. And you also say today is a day to watch FANG, which of course says you're acronym. Because what I don't like is stocks that just levitate. You know, you have Facebook in the news that's negative about Washington. I'm not that worried about that. Amazon, I mean, what's in the news, okay? Maybe they do this third party delivery on Netflix. Once again, people say the international is going higher, Alphabet has some sort of voice activated thing where it's not really competitive against Amazon and doing some chrome. I want stocks to go up on numbers, not on emotion. I don't want hope to be the driver and I don't want analysts throwing in the towel to be the driver. But that's really what's behind a lot of the rally. Well, yeah. I wanted to ask you about some of those new Google products. I know you're rocking your HP laptop. What did you think of the Pixelbook?  No? I like my old one better. You've waited so long for it. Well, this thing still has this thing pops up on the left side called Contura and it's horrible and I can't seem to get rid of it. I don't want it popping up and it's really bad and I'm going to have to talk to HP. I got to get it off. I don't know how to get rid of it. Well, staying with tech, Microsoft was upgraded by Canada. Okay. Now, this is again what I'm talking about. I kept waiting for the market to go down, which would then allow Microsoft to go down so they could slap a buy on it, but the market didn't go down. So they just threw in the towel and said, you got to buy it. And there was nothing new in it. All right, Jim, you had an incredible interview with Bill Ackman last night. He raising the issue of- No, very cerebral. And basically what he just said is, look, it's massively underperformed what it can do. He's actually dealing within the confines of, say, a Paychex versus Automatic Data. I've always thought that Automatic Data should have owned what Workday does and what ServiceDow does, two of my favorite companies. But they're not cloud-based enough, so they can't. So it's kind of like Automatic Data is to these companies as Oracle is to these companies. It's just they could have owned these businesses. But Bill correctly points out that the revenue per employee is not that great. He correctly points out that the company is a little bit bloated. He did say that when they're up against Paychex, they lose that. I can't confirm, because I had Marty Musey on the other day, the CEO, and he did not say that, but these are kind of a benign duopoly, frankly. You know, look, I've been raised as the point, you give him a board seat. Let him in. He can help. And Jim, you talk about Workday through the lens of innovation in your real money column, sort of the winners and losers under the umbrella of innovation. Well, I mean, what's happened is, is that, you know, you get into the brilliant disruption that Inger Nui talked about and they need to be able to support smaller brands and larger brands, something that Proctor needs to do much more of. Then you have Clorox that really is supporting smaller brands and making them into larger brands. Look at Pertz B's perfect example. And then you have Automatic Data, which didn't innovate beyond its core business. And I think it was because of its complacent. And on a blend, they own that business. And, you know, a lot of it was the float. When interest rates go up, Automatic Data will do better. But that's kind of a, you know, they've rested on their laurels. I think that's true. And there's no reason why they couldn't have owned what Workday does and couldn't have owned what ServiceNow does. But it wasn't in their DNA. All right. Shifting gears, Jim. What did you make of Constellation Brands' results? It's just pure blowout. I mean, Constellation Brands is responsible for all the growth in the beer category. They're responsible for most of the growth in the wine category. They're responsible for a lot of the growth in tequila category. They didn't even talk about that. There's so much that's going right. And they talked about how high west and what a success that is. This is, again, an example of a company that has taken smaller brands and blown them out.  Those are, we only have two taps. That's all you need. And then Pacifico. Pacifico was kind of a junk brand. And once again, they brought it to the United States. And I say junk brand, meaning that when you go to actual Mexico like we do, that's the least expensive beer. And we can charge a premium price. The premiumization of certain spirits is the way of Rob Sands. He's brilliant. And he's going to be on May of Money. I can't wait to talk to him. It's just pure joy to have him on the show. All right. We'll look forward to that interview tonight at 6 p.m. Thank you. Thank you. Jim, you also talked about cell gene and biogen on CNBC. This is one of those upgrade, you know, look, a guy sits out the whole cell gene rally from the mid-teens to 145. And he sits it out. He's got us a hole. So when he gets to 145, he takes his cell, he says it's overstretched. And we worried about the Revlimid patent protection beginning in 2020, but then says he's early. I just found it was useless. And the upgrade of biogen, again, useless. I mean, it's just kind of a shuffling because the market took up cell gene and there was nothing he could do. He didn't have a bio on it. It would have been great if he had gone from buy to hold. But he sat out the rally and he's kind of like throwing in the reverse tail throw versus Merrill Lynch going from a cell to a buy on Sherwin Williams, a cell and then to a buy. Did you miss it that bad? But yes, a lot of people are caving. They're caving to the market and that I don't like. Caving to the market indicates you are not in shape. But these stocks go down. Could hurt the market. Jim, finally, we are following an important jobs report on Friday. What are you expecting? I mean, the jobs force can be totally convoluted by Florida and Texas. The Labor Department is a very poor record of being able to tabulate correctly. So I don't see anything that is, I mean, look, we need a strong enough number to justify a December rate hike, which is going to keep the banks going. And let's just go over the banks for a second. JP Morgan is going to give you some really good growth. Bank of America has the largest deposit base. So if they get a Fed rate hike, it could move things. Wells Fargo has lost its premium multiple because of the bogus cross sell, so that can still move up. P&C got downgraded today. Why? Stretch valuation call. Again, I don't like that kind of stretch valuation.  That's not anything worth noting. We like key. Key is historically going down on this stuff. But remember, key's in a growth area in growth mode because they bought First Niagara and they're continuing to integrate it into their operation. Beth Mooney's done a great job. So that's my feeling on the banks. I want you to watch health care. Why health care? Because we're seeing a slow move up in the lilies, which is an action alert name in Abbott Labs. And of course, the biotechs is not a slow move up. It's a big move up, which is why I thought the Selgene downgrade really wasn't worth a lot. Let's watch Costco. Costco's coming in hot into its quarter. It's done that twice. And then what happens is then the analysts jump on it and say, you haven't seen Amazon come in yet. And the stock goes down. So be careful, Costco. That has been the pattern. Now can it break the pattern? Of course, it didn't break the pattern, but Costco's had reported great numbers and it has going up before. Let's watch the pattern, see if it reports great numbers and it finally goes higher. All right, we'll watch FANG, Banks and Health Care today. Excellent, thank you. Jim Cramer, thank you so much as always for more information on the stocks Jim mentioned. Please head to thestreet.com.


Sexual assault is a cancer that has infiltrated the ranks of our Navy. Throughout the month of April, commands around the world are conducting training designed to help combat this problem. A small group of volunteer sailors from Fleet Activities to Coastgate, Japan have created a unique and attention-grabbing approach to teach sailors about sexual assault, how to report incidents, and the consequences of those who commit such heinous acts. The screenplay is really kind of an extension of the SAPRA training, something to get the audience either interacted with or they can ask questions, see scenarios for themselves. Maybe if they've recognized something that is in the play in real life, they might have more information or feel more confident that they're safe. The event helps spread the message of this year's Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.  For more information on SAPRA and how to do your part, visit the SAPRA website.


Well, this is the Edibaptist Perspectives. Steve Russell and myself, Kyle Thoughts, who were here at Faith Boaters Educational Programs. And today we're going to talk for just a little while about Erasmus. And I remember when I was a student of yours, just the mixed character of Erasmus and kind of enjoying who he was as a scholar, but at the same time, recognizing he's hard to pin down as a person. Let's just back up a little bit. Some of the significance of Erasmus, in some ways it's hard to overstate how significant Erasmus is during the time of the Reformation. People say things about Erasmus, like Erasmus, he laid the egg that Luther hatched. What do people mean when they say things like that? Well, Erasmus is key to the Reformation and that's one of the things that means that without Erasmus would Luther have done what he did. Now, why is he so important? He was a great scholar, renaissance scholar. Most renaissance scholars, at least in the South, were interested in the old ancient Greek and Latin writings and often pagans. He, on the other hand, was interested in the foundational records of the church. In fact, the renaissance was about ad fontes, going back to the sources. So the Southern renaissance people would go back to the sources of philosophy and things like that. He, on the other hand, was interested in the sources of Christianity. And so he looked to the church fathers, but first of all, he looked to the New Testament. And he got together all the manuscripts he could of the Greek New Testament. And he is the one who first published the Greek New Testament with a Latin translation so that someone who didn't know Greek could teach himself Greek because almost everybody, or at least the educated people knew Latin. So he did a critical text of the Greek New Testament. He did a Latin translation of it and he did a paraphrase of Matthew and the Book of Acts. So he gave the tools to the people like Luther and like the Anabaptists who were going to actually proceed with the Reformation. So he laid the egg, Luther hatched it, and then look what comes out of it, Anabaptists and other things, you know. Yeah, okay. So especially that he's critically engaging. In the New Testament, he's going back to some of the fathers. What about some of the other stuff he wrote? I mean, you're giving a pretty pristine picture of Rasmus. Are you thinking about, well, he saw that Christianity was in trouble and that it needed to change. So he wrote, for instance, in praise of folly to try to get people to recognize that the church as it was was at least corrupted and needed some kind of change. So he was actually in favor of change. So that would be one thing that he wrote and it poked at Christian leaders that weren't used to being poked at. And I think you might be thinking about Julius. Julius exclusus. Yes, Julius exclusus. Well, anyway, Rasmus made fun of his contemporary pope, Julius II, who was, as some people have said, he spent more time on a war horse in armor than he did at the altar. Well, he was a pope. He was supposed to be at the altar, but he also worked to consolidate politically and militarily the papal states, the states in central Italy that the popes ruled. And that seems to have been his key thrust. And before the cameras started rolling, I was telling you how he conquered the city of Bologna, which was outside of the papal states. And he had a statue of, a bronze statue of himself made and set up in the plaza there. And when he died, the people of Bologna revolted and they melted down the statue and they recast it as a cannon, just in case the next pope had similar designs on Bologna as Julius had had. There's one more interesting story. I think this is in praise of Folly, but I might be wrong on that. But this is while Julius was still alive. He wrote that Julius died and he comes up to the gates of heaven on a war horse with a lance and his armor on. And he's tapping on the gate, one gate of heaven, demanding entrance. And Peter looks down from the top and he says, who are you? And he says, I'm Pope Julius II, can't you see?  Now keep in mind, this is medieval Europe. They look to the pope as the leader of Christianity. And so this was a pretty stinging thing to say.  Well, that was Erasmus's point. This man has gone far and Christianity in general in Europe had gone far away from where it should be. And he wanted it to go back, to be followers of, he made a big deal about being followers of Christ. So he's providing resources for, especially some folks like Luther, he's providing resources for the Reformation to happen. He's offering some criticism here too, offering a little week, he's jabbing it right in sometimes. Oh, by the way, he did that anonymously. Julius was still alive. I see. Yeah, very true. But he did remain a Roman Catholic. Yes, he did. Okay, so why did he remain in the Roman Catholic Church when so many reformers and the Anabaptists were pushed out or left? Well, I'll tell you why. And later on you're gonna ask me, I think probably about why he was important for us as Anabaptists, right? Yeah, okay. So at this point, I'll just say, he didn't leave because he was platonic. His way of thinking was platonic. And all of us have, whether we realize it or not, a philosophical way of thinking. And Platonism says that the real is in the mind of God and what we see here on the earth are somewhat faulty replicas of whatever's in God's mind. And so he felt that the New Testament told us what's in God's mind. This is the way the church ought to function. It will never get there. Okay, he's platonic, it will never get there. But he did want to see the church move in the right direction. So he is trying to stimulate movement in the right direction, but he never leaves because, well, all of the reformers would have agreed with him and the Catholics, in fact, that splitting is wrong. That splitting the church is wrong. So he felt that the reformers were doing that and so he wasn't willing to do that. But he usually lived in a reformed city. So he's showing that he doesn't like where the Catholics are. He died before the Catholics started to reform themselves. So he didn't like where they were, but he didn't like the fact that the Protestants had split the church and also with us, he thought we were trying to make what can't come real, real. We were, anyway, so I'll wait till you ask about that, but that was what, so he despised us. You are going, you are doing something that's impossible. You're trying to do something that's impossible, although they were following what he said. This is what makes him such an interesting character, isn't it? It's very complicated. So in one sense, he's very open to criticize the Roman Catholic Church. He's providing resources to the reformers, but he's not totally casting his lot with them. And you're saying that's because of his Platonism, but also because of his commitment not to be a schismatic, not to split the church. Both of those things were very important to him. And I just have to comment there, I think, this does place him on a real tug of war. And you see some of the reformers, numerous of them, kind of appealing to Erasmus as he's one of us, or he's one of us, and Erasmus himself is really not very enchanted with a lot of what's going on anywhere, is he? Both sides were trying to pull him, at least initially, their way. And yeah, he resisted that. And finally, this is really important. A lot of us don't realize that he wrote a book, The Freedom of the Will. He was hearing the Protestant saying something that he didn't like. And he wrote a book, Freedom of the Will, and what he said was, yes, we're fallen, yes, we need grace, but we're not so fallen that we can't respond with the grace God gives us to the gospel message. This is called Synergism, that God works with us, that we aren't so corrupted that we can't hear the gospel, or at least we can hear the gospel with grace that comes with the hearing of the gospel. And we can either say yes or no, a real yes or no for me. All of the Protestants said, they were monergists. They said that we are so corrupt that we can't respond. And only, so only when God has chosen specific people and given them grace, will they respond and they can't reject the grace? They have to respond. So for the Protestants, it was all of God. They felt the Catholics had made it too much of the human part too big. The interesting thing is the, so first Erasmus wrote, the Freedom of the Will, and Luther wrote back the bondage of the will and he says, thank you, thank you, thank you Erasmus. You have hit the nail on the head. This is the difference between those who don't leave the Catholic church and those who do. Okay. That we believe we can't respond to God positively. He is the one who does everything. Now the funny thing is the Anabaptists were with Erasmus on this one. And so they were also synergistic. That means they're sort of in the same boat in this area as the Catholics. And they said, when you hear the gospel, you can respond. Now they weren't saying you didn't need God's grace, but you can respond. You can either say a yes, a real yes, or a real no. And so that was one way that he was very definitely not Protestant. He felt that God works with humans, wooing them to himself, but letting them make that decision, giving them all the grace they need, doing everything in Jesus that was necessary, but you in the end make your decision. And Luther and Zwingli and Calvin disagreed with that. Okay. Let's keep going with this. Maybe you could just notice for us some points of connection here of Erasmus with say the Anabaptists, that's what we're talking about. You can talk a little bit about his views of violence or some other ways that he agreed with the Anabaptists that kind of set him apart from other reformers. Where were their points of connection, maybe points of departure? Well, one of the things that fascinates me about Erasmus is that I think he is our, I'll say Conrad Grebel is our father and I think he's our grandfather. So I think we were hearing from him what the scriptures say, we're not his followers, but he was saying, he criticized as you suggested the Christians of his day for fighting each other. And so he was definitely a pacifist. I don't think he would have said it's wrong to resist the Turks when they attack. The Ottoman Turks who were- Right at the gate. Yeah, they were right at the gates of Vienna. He would have, I think he would have still believed in the just war theory, but he really meant the just war theory, which means you don't fight other Christians. And you don't start a war. It's got to be defensive. I think he would have been in that place, but clearly critical of Julius II and other European Christians for their willingness to fight. So that was big for him and he pointed it back to the scriptures. He was pointing them to the scriptures. I mentioned earlier that he paraphrased Matthew and Acts and he seems to have done it very purposefully to make very clear. They're now reading the original and he wants to make clear to them, this really is different than what you've been hearing preached for a thousand years. And so he does a paraphrase. And the focus was that at the end of Matthew, Jesus said, go out into the whole world and preach the gospel and baptize when people turn to Christ and then teach all things. And then he did Acts to show how the church did this. And it's so clear. He doesn't say, I believe only in adult baptism, but his paraphrase is so clear that he was actually, I don't think he was condemned by the University of Paris, but they said, you are at the very least, I don't remember that they condemned him, but at the very least they said, you are on the verge of heresy by what you're saying here. You're essentially questioning infant baptism, which he was. And so the, and I want to say this, all of the reformers were reading his New Testament Greek, the Latin translation, if they needed it, and the paraphrase. So they were quite aware of what he was saying and they were quite aware he's saying, we need to change a lot. And including, perhaps, how we do, how we bring people into the church. He also, just one more thing before I go any further with that, one more thing that he questioned, he said, I really think if you read the scriptures, that it points to a memorial as the communion service, being a memorial, but he says, but the church has uniformly said that we somehow receive Christ there, so I can't, so I don't want to argue with that. This shows both his kind of foot in both camps, but at least he's expressed this. This is where the Anabaptists more or less go. So there are so many things where they either went in the direction he was pointing, but he was pointing that way because of the scriptures, or they went further. So it's not that they were his followers, but they benefited from his production of the New Testament with all these helps. And then they also read, all of them read to some degree, or at least the more educated ones, some of the church fathers that he also published. So they saw in the New Testament and in his paraphrase, they saw clear objections to where the church was, and then they saw that too in what the church fathers wrote. He was the stimulus, I would say, that led people like Luther and Zwingli and Calvin to leave, but all of them mentioned, all of them mentioned this thing about infant baptism, and they're all afraid to do it because for over, for about 1,200 years, church and state have been together, and if you now give people the option of being in the church or not, letting them decide as their adults, what's that gonna do to the union of the church and state? They would've dissolved that. They were terrified of that, and the Anabaptist said, no, we think he's hit the nail on the head, and we're gonna go ahead. It wasn't, their argument wasn't, he hit the nail on the head, but he provided the resources and they went with the direction he pointed. That's why I'm fascinated with him. He, well, he is a complex character, like you say, and so he's kind of got one foot in both sides, but he also is the one who gave the Anabaptist what they needed to say, yes, we're gonna do this, and he savagely scolded them because he felt they were doing something that was impossible. Which is my next question. I mean, there's four areas that the issue of baptism, like fatal baptism or adult baptism is, there's synergism where he's just, unlike the reformers, he's saying, you know, I don't really see some kind of antinomy here between human and divine will. Yeah. You're gonna have to put that up if you want it to be there, because he's not seeing it. There's communion, there's non-violence. What does he have to say to the Anabaptist? And maybe this is his Platonism comes in again. That is it. He felt that, well, they were worse, probably, than the reformers because- The Anabaptists were worse. Yes, the Anabaptists were worse than the reformers, because the reformers tended to keep the state church structure, the connection between state and church. And so there's not as much fragmentation, but these people, there was no, they did really have a connection among themselves, but it wasn't obvious. And I think they look like they were, and some of them did go different directions, but it looked like they're just leaving behind a community, they're leaving behind, they really are shattering the church and the union throughout all of Europe. You know, in Europe, you could have gone to church in Southern Spain, all the way up into Finland, and it would have all been the same. It would have all been in Latin, it would have been the same kind of service. There was a unity there that he didn't want to see shattered and these people were shattering that. And more than the reformers. So I think he disliked them much more intensely than the reformers. So he recognizes the ideal that he sees in the New Testament and the early church, and yet in his mind that the unity of the church is something that's more sacred value than that ideal. And that ideal might be in the mind of God, right? But actually pursue it and fragment the church. That's really problematic. I see, okay. Okay, well let's fast forward a little bit further here. We've been in the Reformation with Erasmus. Now there's been 30 years of bloodletting in post-Reformation Europe, or kind of as a coming after that. There's the disintegration of any alliance between church and state. We keep on spooling forward. We're now in our times and Erasmus is here with us. What do you think he would have to say to the Christians in our times? Well, that's really a hard question. If he just would be plopped down here and didn't have much time to think and experience this world. Let's at least give him a little bit of time to get current. Okay, well I think he would have been horrified if he had had the time. Because we live in a world which is, everybody's at everybody's else's throat, at least in our country, anyway. But yeah, let's give him some time. I think he would have said, okay, this is where we're at. It's like the early days of the church. So I think he would have felt that what the Anabaptists were doing might now work. I think he would have. That's a suspicion, I could be wrong. But well, one thing though that I do think that he would have liked to see is a little bit more respect on our part of the whole long tradition of the church for its 2,000 years. And I'm with him on that, if that's what he thinks. Maybe I'm imposing my thoughts on him. But I do think that if we have a lack, it's not recognizing that the history of the church from Constantine till the Reformation is part of us too. It shaped us. And I think we should recognize that. And it actually has some good things for us. I think he would have, he was so concerned with the historical aspect of the church, I think he would have been concerned about that. But I also think he would say, all right, give it a try. Cause we're in, you had mentioned one time in one of our talks that the situation of the church now in a relatively hostile environment is a lot like it was in the early days of the church. Right, yeah. And I think he would see that. Yeah. So it'd be in some ways, it kind of be grudging, but you might be a little bit more supportive of say forms of community that look more like Anabaptism. That's what you're saying. That's what I think. But you'd also have some criticisms. He would. Of course. This is Erasmus. Yeah. And I think he would see us as maybe pushing holiness too much. Okay. There's that Platonism again. Yeah. Anything else you want to say about Erasmus? Well, I really do think that he was powerful in shaping us. And I think, I say that just to say that this the years between Constantine and the Reformation are times that we should not ignore. We should recognize they are times that helped to shape the Anabaptist and they continue to shape us. And looking at one man like this, Erasmus, who did not become a Protestant and didn't become an Anabaptist. And yet, greatly shape both. I think it should help us realize we need to try to understand history, understand people where they were, and see how that can help us understand our own roots and understand where we are today. So I find him really valuable that way. And I, this is a big thing for me is that we own all 2,000 years of church history, recognizing the good and the bad. And also in our own, our own shorter history, I've already had some Anabaptists say, oh, the Munsterites weren't really Anabaptist. Well, I think that is doing a disservice to yourself. Own your history. And that was part of it. Let's learn from that. Let's make some big mistakes. Let's not do the same thing. Let's wake up. And part of what they did was they got involved politically and a lot of us are being tempted politically in the sense of they got involved in, they actually established an Anabaptist state church. Munster, you're saying? Yes, Munster did. So let's learn from that. And some of our own people today, I think are feeling that temptation to get involved in government, which is not the place to put your energy. Well, thank you for the introduction here to this character of Erasmus. And also I think for the reminder about the value of exploring the place that he had in his times, but it also gives us something that's stabilizing and it helps us to orient into the times which are distinctly ours too. Thanks for that. You're welcome.