Is there some space within which we can discuss ideas like evil without someone snorting, “bloody religion, they’re all paedophiles” or someone else saying “unbeliever, confess your sins and be redeemed” [though naturally I have a personal preference for the latter]?
Some people, when they saw evil, as in Eichmann, have noted the terrifying banality of this force. Preceding some evil act is almost always this indifference to the suffering of the victim and there are always victims, though it can’t always be readily seen.
For example, inducing young children into the cycle of sex and drugs at an early age – Cameron now wants schools to show them porn – fits every definition of evil that used to be about before they were abandoned.
Always it is sugar-coated, hidden behind a facade of dogooding – Cameron might think he is doing good or he might know exactly the evil he is introducing – has he ever thought children might just be left alone to grow up and their parents decide how and when?
In every impossible demand of tickbox employers, wanting PhDs to clean shops [greed], in every HR department and what they have perpetrated [greed, tickbox mindlessness], in the most innocuous seeming places, is this force. It is antithetical to reasonableness, sense of proportion, discretion – all good traits.
Pete McAdam has a simple post up and yet surprisingly effective – it’s the pic top left. There’s a line where a sense humour moves into other territory and it might not even be precisely the line in the pic. Who’s to say where that line is – it’s not unlike alcohol – wonderful elixir but then you look at alcoholics and it’s crossed a line at some point.
Personally, I think the line is when the person can’t discern between something simply funny and something more. And let’s turn it around and look at it from the point of view of evil itself – is it likely to be presented in a non-enticing way? Obviously not – it’s done in a light, frivolous way so that anyone who objects can be told, “Oh get a life, for crying out loud.” It always provides catchphrases for its perpetuation, it has put-downs for its detractors.
Thus, objecting to gay “marriage” is “homophobic”, being concerned about Muslim action is “racist”. People are exhorted to look down, with a mixture of disgust and anger, on people like us who bring these things up. The disgust and anger though should rightly be for those pushing these things – the Pushers and the Facilitators.
Facilitators – ordinarily good people who do or say nothing in this instance [see Burke].
WW2 – both fear and patriotism combined allowed those ordinary people to gas Jews. That and a deep hatred for them and where did that hatred come from? Back to the building analogy and the PTB picking away at the seams which they know are weak, which can fall apart instantly. Between men and women for example, two different species.
All this from a coffee mug? Isn’t there some saying about “from small acorns …” Everything starts somewhere.
Filed under: Religion & Philosophy