Another obvious parallel is that between the
designer and the Great Leader. History is littered with men (though
interestingly, not women) who believe or believed themselves to be living gods.
Their aim is to redesign the world, and they nurture their own image even to the
extent of erecting statues and inventing divine names for themselves. Other
humans are there only for their benefit.
Of course, not all leaders are of that ilk. Some may even start out with genuine
hopes and plans for the betterment of humankind. But in order to enter politics,
one must first have the desire to change the world, and secondly have the belief
that one can and should do so. These characteristics are already dangerous,
since the desire and the belief are no guarantee of intelligence or human
understanding. The arrogance of political, religious and philosophical fanatics
who claim to “know” the truth is a massive threat to the wellbeing of anyone who
comes under their influence.
So too is the blinkered vision of those who destroy the balance of nature for
the sake of short-term profit. Whether that balance is the product of natural
evolution or deliberate design is immaterial, since the result will be the same.
Those who lead the processes of destruction (and it is humans who take these
decisions, even if they hide themselves behind the façades of the corporations)
impose lines of thought that are based either on “knowing” or on deliberately
brushing aside those ideas that run counter to their “knowledge”.
It may be argued by those who are committed to a thought system that without
such commitment there can be no decisions and no actions. However, it is
precisely the lack of commitment that promotes open-mindedness and tolerance,
which have to be the hallmark of any fair and balanced society. Conflict arises
from commitment; it is only when we acknowledge the possibility that there are
at least two sides to an argument that co-existence becomes possible. Decisions
and actions will then be based on consideration for all points of view instead
of one, to the exclusion (and consequent resentment) of others. We are talking
here, though, of a very limited field of decision. The basic direction of all
religious and non-religious systems is the betterment of the human condition,
and an agnostic is just as capable as a Christian or an atheist when it comes to
determining the need for food, shelter, healthcare, etc. There will certainly be
differences, however, in the approach to education, and this is probably the one
political field in which dangerous seeds may be sown by committed teachers.
3859 Postings in 258 Threads, 36 registered users, 7 users online (0 registered, 7 guests)
RSS Feed