On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:39:47 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sometimes it's not a question of supporting (directly or indirectly)
>> the bad part, but supporting the good part.
> 
> See, I don't think that is at all relevant. 

I could see why you think that, but I disagree.  Even bad people can do 
good things, and given a choice between supporting a program that feeds 
starving people that is sponsored by someone who is bad and having those 
people starve to death, I'd rather they got fed.  But before supporting a 
program run by "the bad guys", I'd first look for alternatives that 
didn't have that baggage.

> Heck, we had 8 years of a total fracking loon running things, and no one
> in Reagan's time would have imagined that electing one overly religious
> person "might" a few decades later lead to an even more religious one,
> who was a total fracking moron. People with "good works" in their mind
> often fail to see clearly what the worst case could be, for indirectly
> supporting the bad parts too.

The alternative to having another GW Bush, though, is to not have free 
elections.  There's always a worst case, even when the guy you want gets 
into office.

> And.. When you get those that "only" see as far as their own "personal"
> connection to god, afterlife, and salvation... What are those people
> looking at, making the world "really" better? 

Depends on their interpretation of their beliefs.  I can see that some 
would make the world better, because they would approach it from the 
standpoint of "war and death is a last resort, first strike is not an 
option" and try to persuade people that ideas like freedom are a good 
thing.  There are those who believe in God, the afterlife, and salvation 
who also believe that in order to enter "the Kingdom of Heaven" that they 
have to do good works and try to make the world a better place for all.

What I find often times is that people who believe that tend to not be a 
member of an organized religion, but they are religious.  I've got 
friends in the Portland area who consider themselves to be deeply 
religious people and who consider themselves to be Christian.  They 
couldn't tell me the last time they went to church, but they could tell 
me about the people whom they helped teach farming skills to and helped 
to build homes for in El Salvador - something they do a few months out of 
every few years.

They're undecided about God creating the Earth - they don't see it as an 
important part of their faith.  Maybe he did, maybe he didn't - it's not 
the sort of thing they give a lot of thought to because their mission is 
to help people by going and doing.

> Or, how many only do what
> they "think" is in their means, helping the few they can, and let
> everything else to run its course? Too many for my tastes. And, that
> isn't even when the belief in "religion's" influence on the world isn't
> so deeply buried in the culture, like it is in many black communities,
> that its virtually impossible to even "claim" that a church could be
> doing harm.

See above.  I should mention that not only can they not remember the last 
time they went to church, but like me, they have a strong distrust of 
organized religion.  I think maybe we need to make a demarcation here 
between organized religion and personal religion, because the two are 
very different.

Jim

Post a reply to this message