I'm not a believer in "black & white" but yin/yang has a lot of validity.
The Bible says to cast your bread upon the waters & it will return multiplied; the problem I've seen is the Christians assume they are somehow "right" and that only the "good" they do will be returned ... they fail to realize that the message is that "bad" will also return multipled. Wiccans believe in The Threefold Law -- whatever you do, it will be returned to you three times over; they recognize that both 'good' and 'bad' are included in that formula. You're not likely to see Wiccans standing in front of a congregation preaching hatred, and you won't find them knocking on your door with a fistful of pamphlets and the "only true answer" ... that could be because "All roads lead to the center." Mohammed is rumored to have found something he wanted to be involved in, and failed to meet the relatively simple requirements for its acquisition ... due to impatience. So he took what he wanted to use, borrowing from what existed, and wrote a religion which suited his personal desires. I cannot swear to the truth of that any more than I could swear to the truth of Jesse Ben Joseph [aka Jesus of Nazarus] being crucified. What I do know, and can swear to, is that certain attitudes and actions help a society to survive as a healthy and growing entity, and that other attitudes and actions can lead to the total destruction of that society -- and sometimes everything that society touches. Thus there is certainly "right" and certainly "wrong" ... and morality cannot be legislated, nor is it "popular opinion" which determins morality. Remember that most of the people in Germany during the reign of Hitler were not Nazis, yet popular opinion remained "as long as it's them and not me, I'm OK with it." I would consider that amoral at best and immoral with no excuse at worst. Even for those who are amoral, who have no sense of intrinsic "right" or "wrong" must have had something else which allowed them to survive. If it was "the bottom line" then look at the costs -- in money and feelings about self & others -- of any war. When the war is declared to be "right," even though the enemy is only perceived to be a danger rather than proven to be so, the definition of "right" and the potential guilt of those who allow it to happen (those who create it are entirely different creatures) is a heavy cost to bear. If it's money & right vs. wrong, where is the right of killing innocent civilians trapped in a society they must support or die opposing? Where is the right of spending billions of dollars to destroy when we still have thousands of innocent children on our streets, homeless and hungry? Where is the right in supporting a nation we've destroyed, if the destruction could have been avoided in the first place? Would you truly rather be a pensioner for the rest of your life, if all it meant was you lost an eye, or wear burn scars, or have a broken back? I'd rather be strong & healthy enough to live off the land, to have the opportunity and physical ability to be personally responsible for my survival. How is a country any different from an individual when it comes to that choice?? My plea to everyone, particularly those in positions of power, is a simple one: Carry your faith with you, but leave your religion at home! l.d. -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
