England was less bad than Nazi Germany which murdered millions of innocent Jews. But, we must keep in mind that there are only a few good people in the world. And, C. S. Lewis said: ‘The majority of British people are not Christians.’
(I have always sided with no murder of any man; everything should be decided by a court of law.)
People should not commit murder. Isn’t that obvious? What about when a State murders and INNOCENT man for the greater good? The State comprises of millions of people.
That only means that the State is bad. The State does not work on the principles of morality; it is better to think of it as a machine.
Israel was given the rule: ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ It is helpful to think that Israel was only a small state, which was given the truth about morality. The fact that Israel was small resonates with the fact that there are only a few good people in the world.
So, murder of an innocent man by the State is wrong, even though the State comprises of millions of people. (Think about the ethics of Navalny poisoning, which caused a lot of uproar in the International community. I don’t know the details of the matter; however, the very fact that the matter, true or feigned, caused a lot of uproar shows that the ethics still hold.)
So, murder of even a single man by the State is bad.
We Christians only ask those who know that they are sinners to repent. As long as you don’t know that you are a sinner; we cannot ask you to repent. (How can one ask a good man to repent?)
The Navy Seals of religion, the Pharisees, those who could have been thought to be the only ones who could uphold the law (if not them, who else?), turned out to be the worst sinners. Who could accuse a Pharisee of ever doing something wrong?
Now, are you sure you are healthy? The Pharisees killed Jesus Christ!
There are so many healthy people in India, enjoying life and running the marathon. How I wish they would stop for a second and drink a glass of cold water! It may be a very hard thing to do; the system has made it extremely hard for us, but if you stop, you’ll begin to see how thirsty you really are.
Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man. It is not a man-made religion. When you stop the pursuit of your own right and wrong; when you start to notice that you are not healthy and when you stop prescribing your own thought-out medicine to yourself, then we can begin talking about Jesus. Nothing can be done before that! (As long as you don’t reach the point of either-Jesus-or-nothing sort of desperation, we can’t begin before that.) It’s not our religion versus their religion: it’s man searching for God versus God searching for man. It is just like the old times. The prostitutes and tax collectors were too tired of religion, it was Jesus-or-nothing for them. (Who among them would have questioned the authority and veracity of Jesus Christ? They were too conscious of their sins. They were the sheep of whom Jesus said that they won’t listen to thieves and robbers. Jesus said, my sheep recognise and listen to my voice, and follow me. You don’t choose Jesus, He chooses you.) Those who listened to religion went for a self-prescribed medicine and those who were sick and desperate went to Jesus.
Wisdom is knowing that you are a sinner!
Revision notes for CCEA GCSE Religious Studies – the teaching of Jesus
So, wisdom lies in: 1. Knowing that you are a sinner. & 2. Trying to not make moral mistakes.
Some people prefer to talk about moral “ideals” rather than moral rules and about moral “idealism” rather than moral obedience. Now it is, of course, quite true that moral perfection is an “ideal” in the sense that we cannot achieve it. In that sense every kind of perfection is, for us humans, an ideal; we cannot succeed in being perfect car drivers or perfect tennis players or in drawing perfectly straight lines. But there is another sense in which it is very misleading to call moral perfection an ideal. When a man says that a certain woman, or house, or ship, or garden is “his ideal” he does not mean (unless he is rather a fool) that everyone else ought to have the same ideal. In such matters we are entitled to have different tastes and, therefore, different ideals. But it is dangerous to describe a man who tries very hard to keep the moral law as a “man of high ideals,” because this might lead you to think that moral perfection was a private taste of his own and that the rest of us were not called on to share it. This would be a disastrous mistake. Perfect behaviour may be as unattainable as perfect gear-changing when we drive; but it is a necessary ideal prescribed for all men by the very nature of the human machine just as perfect gear-changing is an ideal prescribed for all drivers by the very nature of cars. And it would be even more dangerous to think of oneself as a person “of high ideals” because one is trying to tell no lies at all (instead of only a few lies) or never to commit adultery (instead of committing it only seldom) or not to be a bully (instead of being only a moderate bully). It might lead you to become a prig and to think you were rather a special person who deserved to be congratulated on his “idealism.” In reality you might just as well expect to be congratulated because, whenever you do a sum, you try to get it quite right. To be sure, perfect arithmetic is “an ideal”; you will certainly make some mistakes in some calculations. But there is nothing very fine about trying to be quite accurate at each step in each sum. It would be idiotic not to try; for every mistake is going to cause you trouble later on. In the same way every moral failure is going to cause trouble, probably to others and certainly to yourself. By talking about rules and obedience instead of “ideals” and “idealism” we help to remind ourselves of these facts.
Free will doesn’t depend on external conditions; because it is free. If it really depended on external conditions; it won’t be free will at all.
So, as being good is a matter of free will, it doesn’t depend on external conditions like place of birth, race or gender.
Therefore, we can only have easier for a person to make mistakes and tougher for the person to make mistakes.
For example, if all women are bad, you can’t blame them being bad for an external condition like the men being rich or even, them being women. They may sin because of external conditions, but they aren’t bad because of external conditions.
The respect that people have for women in India is staggering at times.
The investigations were concluded. And the whole of India was waiting for the magical appearance of evidence against her being a perfectly demonic oppressor/murderer rather than a deeply flawed human being, deserving of a chance to correct herself. But to the collectively held breaths of all the people, came a short breath of a piece of truth: She did not murder him.
But rest assured, they’ll always be looking for evidence just to find one point to blame her for. One addition to an imaginary chargesheet full of venomous crimes that they dream of doing, but only add against her account, so as to hide their own hypocrisy. SSR was as much a hero, as RC was the villain; because, well, only a man can be good. A woman can’t be good because she is a slut. She sleeps with people. And that’s bad because, you know, men don’t sleep with people. Men don’t go to trips to Thailand for a lap dance. You can’t see the woman and man as both being two different people with different challenges and trying to make sense of life.
The way Mr. Goswami said: “I am the son of an Army man.” deeply worried me. Do people in the army also objectify women like he did on this occasion?
Mr. Goswami was horribly wrong to press the matters so strongly. But, he is after all, a wholly populist voice. And, I fear the populist voice is very prone to errors of judgement and misdirection.
I am not going to support him a bit more if he toes the line beyond my patience. If, for example, he starts saying all Muslims are bad, a wholly communal remark; well then, thank you very much. I’m done here. Vive la BBC.
“And if enemies came against the land (for enemies will arise) and there was war, would you be the first in the charge and the last in the retreat?”- Aslan from The Magician’s Nephew by C. S. Lewis.
Perhaps that may be one of the only cases that separate a good land from a bad one. If a king is close to the commoners, and not too high and mighty to be the first one to fight, and not too high and mighty to take only the same space as the commoners do; then that speaks volumes about the goodness of a land.