Of course, some of what the article says sounds a lot like what I have been saying about various topics, so I suppose it's playing to my prejudices, but I still think it's worth the read.

Example:

quote:

---

...Two sides are struggling with each other. On the one side are those who oppress so as to exploit while on the other are those who wish to be free and independent, who wish to have a high standard of living and satisfying lives.

---

The above is true of any group. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, communists, anarchists, Catholics, Buddists, Christians, Fundamentalists (of all sorts), atheists, deists -- all are comprised of two groups:

1. Those who seek to alter the way things are to their own advantage at someone else's expense (The Crusades were a result of this attitude, for example);

2. Those who seek to improve the lot of all, even at their own expense.

Although I gave the Crusades as an example of the results of type 1, above, they also included people from group 2, who, out of ignorance, believed that their actions would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The larger part of the blame resides with those who try to convince you that evil is good, so you will ally with them, however, the fact that your intentions are good does not absolve you from the responsibility of examining the cause you support.

The link: One Law for All: Freedom Now, Freedom for Ever (by Manfred Davidmann).

Even though the article is written from a rabinnical standpoint, there are some good secular lessons to be learned. Among these are:

• The possibility that an authoritative figure expressed a certain view does not necessarily make it correct.

  Every idea must be judged on it's own merits, and not accepted solely because someone told you it is true.

• Even when someone tells you something you know is incorrect, this does not mean that everything he says is ioncorrect, to be ignored out of hand.

I posted this link here because I am certain that some may find cause to object strenuously for one reason or other. Read and comment. It's a long article, about 40 pages or so when printed out, so I don't expect many comments immediately.

--Baloo

------------------
"Politicians and diapers should be changed regularly, for the same reason."
--(Unknown)
Come Hither and Yawn...

P.S.: It's a very, very long article, and may not be something you feel like wading through. I'm still reading it myself, so don't feel obligated to wade through it unless you feel up to the task.

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited January 17, 2000).]
 

------------------
I am not responsible for the stupidity of other people.

 

For now, however, I will add that while you should not thereafter ignore someone who tells you something that you know is wrong, you should, (indeed, it is a moral imperative,) condider everything they have said and say after as potentially fallible, and not agree outright, but discover and decide for yourself.

Frinstance, many years ago my father reported to me that astronomers had discovered the solar syatem's tenth planet, that he had heard about this on TV. He even went into some detail. I made the mistake of believing him, and told the same to all of my companions at summer camp.

Needless to say, he had misheard a report about the mathematically guessed existence of a planet around Barnard's Star (which has yet to be observed for certain, even in these days of planet-hunters).

So I take anything he claims to have heard on TV or the radio with a grain of salt, now, because I now know he doesn't always get it right.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson