|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |