On Aug 12, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Ritu wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
It's a fundamental trait of a developed and whole personality.
Again, I agree. But how many people with developed and whole
personalities do you come across? Most are empathic when their friends
and family are concerned. Few bother to extend the courtesy to those
they consider 'Others'.
In the very fine history of John Winthrop entitled "The Puritan
Dilemma," Edmund Morgan writes about characteristics that, in the
individual, appear as selfishness, but when expressed by an entire
nation, are called patriotism.
By the way, "The Puritan Dilemma" is exactly the kind of book that
I (and many others) would have positively HATED if it was assigned
in an American History class or some such, but fascinates me today,
as I see what early American Christian fundamentalism looked like.
Frankly, self-responsible atheists have much more motivation not to
fuck
up, and to do their best to make amends in the *here and now* when
they
do fuck up, than many religious people do.
'Self-responsible' is the key here. Self-responsible believers also
seem
to feel the same way.
Perhaps (serious) atheists are more aware of the risks of making asses
of themselves because they know that they are in the minority and
already
looked upon as possibly dangerous. With their rejection of God already
counting as strikes against them, they know they'd better keep their eye
on the ball. Christians, being a traditional majority in this country,
don't feel that responsibility as acutely, and so take Christianity down
with themselves.
If a person's sense of human ethics and decency is so askew that the
only thing keeping him under control is terror of retribution, then
that
person is a weakling, emotionally and psychologically crippled, and
certainly should not be permitted to have influence on the lives of
others, much as we wouldn't allow a person with an IQ of 50 to run a
nuclear reactor (though being president is fine).
That is all well and good, but saying that doesn't stop manipulative,
murderous jerks from talking such people into going on a killing
rampages. And if religion is the language these people understand than
I'd rather stop them using that language than tell them that they are
weak and emotional cripples for acting that way.
This is good self-advice: It doesn't pay to hurl insults at people,
particularly the kind that impugn their basic make-up. I had a boss who
thought it was a Real Good Management Technique[tm] to tell me that he
found me immature. It didn't go so well from there. If he really
believed that I was immature, he might have expected an immature
reaction to his telling me so. Sometimes, we just have to use our
perceptions of others' intellectual, emotional or moral weakness to help
us interact with them, rather than to inform them of our perceptions.
To do the former seems wise, sensible, charitable. To do the latter
seems harsh, cavalier, critical.
You don't have to have a religious focus to have faith in *something*,
even if it's in an innate decency in people, any more than you need to
have faith to be virulently and hatefully religious.
No, but it seems to help -- some people's take on religion is that it
entitles them to judge others. It seems to me that this reflects ill on
their interpretation and use of religion, not on religion itself.
Dave
Religion Doesn't Kill People, People Do Maru :-)
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
