Dear Friends,
It seems to me that when society has different standards for different people it sets up a negative feedback loop that makes people less virtuous… In every way.
The people held to the lowest standard of personal conduct become more and more corrupt to the limit that society will tolerate. Even exceeding it when they can. Those that are held to the highest standard of personal conduct will resent the unequal treatment. That resentment puts a huge tension on society. When the tension, (from all sources), exceeds societal cohesion, the fabric of society rends. This manifests itself in many undesirable ways… Not the least of which spill’s blood and topple’s governments.
This is one of the most important points the International Capitalist Party makes. That there must be one standard that all people are held to. This religious conflict that some people seem to want is a perfect example of this law of politics in action.
Many people are condemning the Pastor in Florida that was threatening to burn Korans. They went on and on how despicable a thing it is to do… And it is. I wonder, however, what they are actually saying…
I assume that they are saying that the means that the Pastor is using is despicable because the means will offend a group of people. Holding that group to be human beings, and bestowing the right not to be offended, makes a means that offends them, despicable. In this case the means is burning Korans the point being in the mind of the Pastor and manifested with the speech at the time.
I don’t think the point they are making is that it is wrong to make a point or that all means of doing so are bad. That would be saying that all debate is off limits and is despicable. To say such a thing is tantamount to despotism. Once the voice of the people has been silenced there will be no end to the mischief of unrestrained government.
Perhaps their point is, that desecrating a religious symbol is what is bad. No matter if it is to make a point.
However, I don’t remember the same people taking the same position when the Andres Serrano‘s exhibit was funded with US taxpayer dollars. The exhibit included depictions of a crucifix immersed in human urine. Another example of desecrating a religious symbol. This was extremely offensive to all Christians. Yet the same people (in the USA) that revile the Pastor for the means he threatened to use, (but didn’t), took exactly the opposite stance during the Andres Serrano’s debates. This makes one wonder, again, what they are really saying.
Because it suggests that the problem they have is not the means of making a point but the group that will be offended by that means. If that is the case they are holding different people to different standards… Multiple standards of personal conduct. With all the negative externalities that comes with it.
But in the Arab world I have a hard time believing that members of Islam would have changed their stance an iota. I am sure that most would take the same stand. That the means are offensive no matter the group offended. They would have stood with Christians against the offensive Andres Serrano’s exhibit as Christians should stand with Moslems against burning Korans.
Making a point with discourse, rhetoric and logic is much more difficult than ginning up hatred with offensive actions. There is no reason for anyone to create friction where there should be none. To do so shows that person has an agenda that is in contravention to the interests of Humanity. That is not self interest or being rational in any way. It is stupid shortsightedness. Because the only possible outcome from such actions are bad.
Would those same people who condemn the Koran burnings still condemn it if it was in the name of art… And happily force Moslems to pay for it?
Why?
