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'.
:D
I don't meet many, but I don't associate at all with those lacking some
basic characteristics of insight.
But that's not what it means, demonstrably. See, this "god's
judgment"
thing has a back door. Many people who claim to "love" and/or
"fear" a
god don't seem to live by it, because they've got that "repentance"
escape route. They can be perfect bastards, and often are, and feel
they're going to be OK because they can confess or fall back on some
atonement myth.
While that hold true for Christianity, it doesn't hold true for
Hinduism. Nor for Jains, Sikhs, Bahais, Parsis or Buddhists. Dunno what
the stand of Judaism or Islam is on the issue.
It's true for all Abrahamic religions, actually. Buddhism is a special
case. Not sure how things work for Aryan religions, but if they teach a
doctrine of sin they probably have a doctrine of compensation for that
sin. (Or the analogues, anyway.)
I'm very dubious of the value of religion overall, and I'm certainly
not inclined to agree that I'd rather have someone believe
than not in
order to keep that person in line.
While I'd agree from a personal point of view [and indeed I tend to
avoid associating with people who need to be reminded of religious
strictures to see that hurting someone else is bad], I definitely do
not
agree from the administrative/political point of view. I'll gladly
spout
as many religious strictures as needed if that would save someone from
being hurt or killed.
That's fine until someone else takes over the pulpit and begins saying
that the religion *also* allows for Certain Types to be marginalized,
dehumanized … and eventually, of course, killed.
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.
No, but then, I wasn't trying to suggest it did.
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.
Think of it as a slap in the face to wake someone up who's been
unconscious for a while.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
