Ladies and Gentlemen: Your attention please!
I've thought long and hard about how to address this "note" that I am sending into circulation with such high hopes. I've decided that I'm not going to over formalize and I'll just tell you like it is... in somewhat brief terms.
I'm looking for money, or money making ideas that I have the time or recources to actualize. The INCREDIBLY worthy reason is as follows:
I am currently pursuing a General Studies major. In case you are unfamiliar with the major's requirements, I will briefly explain. In addition to some core major requirements, each major is allowed to choose three areas of emphasis. The first requires 18 credit hours of upper level courses, the second requires 15, and the last, 12. I want to have a career that allows me to move between writing freelance fiction and writing from a journalistic standpoint. I want my work to inform people, in a relatable way, about issues that concern me, including diversity in religion and tolerance of culture and race. My primary area of emphasis is Creative Writing and Journalism. This is followed by Religious Studies and Anthropology.
I recently (only yesterday) finished a paper for my GENS 2000 class outlining my I chose these areas of interest. Creative Writing was to be able to captivate an audience in my style and write effectively. The other two were to build the ground work for beginning a life long search of information on both religion and culture. (What a statement! What is culture without the existence of these many religions?... but they are very different it just amazes me how they interweave.) I wrote that I felt the majority of my knowledge in my secondary fields would come from field work and immersing myself in the culture and experiencing it firsthand.
Well, my "Religious Violence and Nonviolence" is going on a trip for 5 weeks in the summer to Japan with the Religous and Philosophical Studies department. There is room for 15 students to go along because the teachers feel that it is imperative that we live in homes with Japanese families rather than in dorms with more of our own, and only 15 families have signed up. Two classes will be offered on the trip Japanese language (1, 2 ,or 3) and Japanese Religous Ideology! Need I say more, no. However, I can't help myself! In this class we would spend the majority (at least 70%) of the time in field study, out of the classroom. Traveling to visit monks and to Hiroshima discussing Violence in religion and terrorism as its lovechild with textual literalism (among other things). We will delve into Shinto, Buddhism, and Taoism as primary religions... how wonderful!
When I told my mom about this she was thrilled! All universities have programs like this but how often are they so perfectly suited to you that it would be a sin not to try going?! She told me that I should raise what money I could and we would have to get a loan for the rest. I am going to post this on my blog as well... I'll offer any service at all that I can... I write, paint, sing, make jewelry... and I can learn to do anything else. You can even pledge to pay me one dime for every mile I walk around campus. I'll buy a pedometer. I'm really looking forward to this trip... PLEASE help me out! I'll blog everyday that I'm there, it WILL NOT fail to be interesting, I can promise that!
I've have had an argument going on in the back of my head while writing about whether or not to inculde the total goal amount and I decided it shouldn't matter. If it does matter to you, email me... I'm happy to share. I will keep you posted on the %age of the goal that I've accumulated!
I love you all!
Mary
maryconklin.blogspot.com
mfosheec@hotmail.com
678-877-5143
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Religious Violence and Non Violence
The following is a paper I am turning in today in my religion class. I feel pretty strongly about many of the issues and therefore (acedemically speaking) probably strayed a bit from the syllabus but always came back. The paper is a little longer than he asked for (8 double spaced pages) but I hope anyone who choses to read it will find it interesting. It deals mostly with my opinion and I reference the class texts (which are novels, not traditional texts) but I kept the blog in mind when writing the paper and made all references to the text perfectly comprehensible by readers unfamiliar with the material. PLEASE find the time to read this and feel free to question, praise, or argue! (I love questions the best... I am a child of Socrates himself ;) ) Even you christians please give me a fair chance! I do not attack God (I believe in Him too!) I do not attack religion- I only give my view of why and how religion has become corrupt in come cases (i.e. Ku Klux Klan) and how the problems may be solved, etc. Innocent until proven guilty... do read... I want people to argue or point things out so that I will learn and have a broadened view!
Mary Conklin
Religion 3210
Dr. M Stoltzfus
10/8/08
Primarily I believe that religion itself is the cause of most religiously based violence. There is a definite difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality describes the relationship one possesses with their God and how that relationship affects their day to day lives and their interactions with others. Religion is an organization separating spiritual people into sects by how their God is characterized and how they believe He (or She) should be worshiped and paid homage to. The separation of these people is what creates animosity. If it weren't for darkness, light would have no name. All things would not exist without their opposite. If people were allowed to believe what they chose and divisions were not organized then perhaps everyone could just accept that everyone has their own interpretation of spirituality and we could embrace this common identity.
Also, religious persons often use their religious texts to justify terrorist like attacks. Often scriptures are taken too literally or out of context. In the case of the Bible specifically many people choose to follow it to the letter, forgetting that the word of God as presented in the scripture is written by mortal man in the years during and surrounding Christ's life. This was quite some time ago and the will of God for his people surely has changed in these hundreds (even thousands) of years. I do not claim to have all the answers, and when it comes to religion no one can. Therefore, I do not know how to propose a solution to this problem. Perhaps better education on the sacred texts to its followers is in order. Unfortunately, anyone can decide that they are qualified to teach the text and they, themselves may have a corrupted view.
The idea of elitism and the words “God is on our side!” play a considerable role in justification of war. Because of research in the past I do not believe that Hitler began his anti-semetic rampage due to religious beliefs. It was an economical and racial discrepancy that fueled his anger. However, when forces entered Germany to fight against the Nazi party suddenly God was taking sides. No one can claim God, He will take the side of the man who does His will. It is being very egocentric to believe that you undeniably have God's approval. To assume God's stance with any amount of scriptural evidence is vain and wrong.
Lastly, I want to address those religions, or rather sub-sections of religions, which promote or demand conversion of individuals not sharing their beliefs. In my first example of how religion can be used to cause violence in people I mentioned that without compartmentalizing people into religious “clubs” we could enjoy a commonness and unity. Even if it were possible to all enjoy our beliefs and the fellowship the organized Church, Mosque, Synagogue, etc. provided us with this new idea would tear it apart. At its core the conversion promotes a theme of intolerance. It says that “another religion or set of ideas is below our own and we owe it to God to make these people change, it is His will!” Everyone believes that their ideals are right, but no religious person can claim that they are sure. Religion prides itself on faith. One is expected to believe in their God, etc. without concrete evidence. Faith may even be described as the opposite of skepticism or doubt. One's faith makes an idea true for that individual but not for all people. Converting people revisits my previous argument of elitism. Anyone who believes that their faith is above that of another’s causes argument which leads to violence.
Kimball writes “It is somewhat trite, but nevertheless sadly true, to say that more wars have been waged, more people killed, and these days more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history." Personally, I believe this statement is true, but not whole heartedly. One particular argument raised on www.hds.harvard.edu is that Kimball never gives his reading audience any examples of these times when wars have been waged “in the name of religion.” They argue that perhaps Kimball has an opposing view of what religion might be defined as. I feel that religion does possess a strong definition. A set of beliefs setting a moral code for a group of people while giving reason to the universe may be a weak definition but I feel that it embodies what religion is. On this website the writers argue that until more modern times, religion and politics were fused. If this is the case, then how could a country, for instance, go to war for political reasons without making religion a part of its causes? My argument is this, since religion did govern many different bodies of people in the past, the people choosing to go to war were taking their religious beliefs into account in their decision. They must have if the church and state were bound. The major world religions all promote nonviolence. Of course, even this can be argued. However, in the case of September 11th, an admittedly modern example, the war started as a political struggle to keep our nation safe from terrorist attacks. Over the seven years since the attack many Americans have switched from fighting the “terrorists” to fighting the “Muslims”. Though America is the melting pot of many races and creeds virtually all of the religions represented in America support a nonviolent approach. The Bible even states plainly that “Thou shalt not kill.” Those that desert their beliefs in support of the war and still claim that we are doing God's work in Iraq are bringing religion into the war and are also misrepresenting their religion. Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate for the 2008 election says the following on a www.youtube.com video: “Our national leaders are sending [our troops] out on a task that is from God.” This proves that even political wars can be strewn into religiously backed violence and warfare.
An example provided in the writing of Juergensmeyer is less certain. He references the political elections between Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. According to Juergensmeyer Peres held a 20 percent lead in the polls until a sequence of suicide attacks on Jerusalem buses. Following these events Netanyahu took an edge in the race and claimed that he owed his victory to the Hamas terrorists who instigated the attacks. Upon investigation by both reporters and the author himself, it was discovered that the terrorists didn't care about the Israeli government's affairs and that “Maybe God wanted it.” It is fair to argue here that the attacks may not have been politically based but the Hamas that were interviewed were also very vague in their justifications, either political or religious, for their acts. Perhaps they are not fully disclosing their motives.
Juergensmeyer provides another interesting argument in his text. “The Gita gave several reasons why killing in warfare is permissible, among them the argument that the soul can never really be killed: 'he who slays, slays not; he who is slain is not slain.'” In the Gita this phrase is referring to the death of a soul. In other words, the soul will live on forever. This explains the second half of the quote. The second half is more difficult to understand. My interpretation is this; if someone “slain” can never be killed then how can anyone be called a killer? No one ever dies there the mortal act of killing means nothing to the soul. The body is simply a vessel. Unfortunately, I have to admit that I get a mixed reaction from this analyzation. I can understand the justification some Hindus may have for killing. They feel that by the words in the Gita only the body is dying, but the soul lives on. To me the act still counts as an act of violence as they are taking the earthly life from another and therefore deciding that person's earthly fate without the influence of the divine. Juergensmeyer comments again on Hindu tradition, “Another reason [that killing in warfare is permissible] is based on dharma (moral obligation): the duties of a member of the ksatriya (warrior) caste by definition involve killing, so violence is justified in the very maintenance of social order.” In response to this comment I take the side of famous nonviolent warriors such as Gandhi. Just as in Christianity, perhaps the ksatriya caste was meant to fight the battle of moral justice and evil. Perhaps the battle fought in the Gita is symbolizing a greater good to be fought in the heart and mind of good Hindus.
To conclude the previous three paragraphs I would like to say that I cannot come to a general decision on the case studies made by Kimball and Juergensmeyer. I do not believe that it is ever fair to make a generalization especially in topics as sensitive as religion. Each case must be studied and analyzed on its own. Every person living on earth has a different set of personal ethics, morals, and motives. Terrorists may commit these acts for a number of reasons while the rest of the world looks on twisting the events to fit their own prophesy for the world. I do believe that, a majority of the time, tension begins politically and is almost always strewn into a theological debate. Of course, there is always an exception to the rule.
Despite the previous small attack on religious violence, I do believe that religion can be, and is, used for good. I believe that religion has provided us with the moral codes and ethical standards by which we all live. All people who are considered good, sound individuals follow most of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule along with many of the commandments appear in the majority of world religions in their own way. These “laws” have become so engrained in society that they are considered common decency and I truly believe that religion can claim responsibility for this. However, I feel that it would be remiss not to mention that I used the terms “Golden Rule” and “Ten Commandments” only because Christianity is so widely recognized in America. All major world religions gave to the code of ethics by which we all live. None is superior in any way to another. In a perfect world all world religions would revisit their individual doctrine and recognize the original ideas set forth in the text. Most people would find that to kill is severely against their religion and that if they were to be loyal followers, they would cease to inflict harm on their fellow man. However, the world is not perfect and I feel that violence can only be stopped by educating people slowly. Showing people the importance of avoiding adopting an elitist attitude and following the laws set forth by their God would be a positive start. Teaching people to understand the symbolism in religious text is important as well, because those who take religious texts literally can gravely misinterpret God's word and may go against His will.
I was convinced by Kurlansky's argument that nonviolence is more effective from a political and religious standpoint than violence. Of his twenty-five lessons, nine struck me as very true and incredibly defensible. This is not to say that the others proved untrue in my mind. Of these nine I will discuss five that I feel are most significant.
First, I will discuss the very first lesson. It states that “there is no provocative word for nonviolence.” Kurlansky discusses the fact that no language possesses a word for nonviolence. He makes an example of Sanskrit in which hisma translates to harm. To not do harm translates to ahisma. Why is it that violence is so important a concept that it deserves many words in our language to be dedicated to it: ferocity, brutality, and war. This says nothing about the act of nonviolence itself, this will be addressed next.
“People who go to war start to resemble their enemy.” This is the eighth lesson of Kurlansky's. Though I have used the example of the war in Iraq before in this paper, I can't help but to mention it again. It is a flawless representation of this lesson! After September 11th American's were shocked by the loss of so many of our civilians. America heroically went to war against terrorism, or so it would seem. We now see that instead of fighting terrorism we are attempting to control the people of Iraq and are occasionally causing the deaths of Iraqi civilians. World War II is another example beginning with the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. America took up arms against their enemy and ended up bombing Japanese land and killing over 700,000 civilians.
My third example comes from Kurlansky's 12th lesson. It states, “The state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot conceive of power without force.” I disagree with this statement. I feel that power isn't the goal of force. Force is required by government due to their fear of imminent threat. Force is used purely as a defense mechanism.
The last two lessons I'd like to address relate to one another. The first is number 21 reading, “Once you start the business of killing, you just get 'deeper and deeper,' without limits.” This statement seems undeniably true. When presented with power it is human instinct to relish in it. This can cause people to lose sight of their original goal and ride their influence too far. A wonderful example of this argument appears in Hitler's actions during World War II. He continued adding races and creeds to his list of the damned. Until his power overwhelmed him and led to the overwhelming anxiety over Germany's decline in power that led to his suicide. According to the 24th lesson, “The miracle is that despite all of society's promotion of warfare, most soldiers find warfare to be a wrenching departure from their own moral values.” This lesson also pulls my mind to the Nazis. We have learned that many Nazi soldiers felt that they had to separate their professional lives as soldiers from their personal, religious lives. They knew morally that their actions were wrong, but they felt that their duty as soldiers was equally important. While I do not agree with that method of thinking, it is reminiscent of the discussion of the Gita earlier. Many Hindus would argue that killing was part of their caste duty as soldiers despite the hints of nonviolence in their scriptures. It would be fair to say that most of the Nazi soldiers professed Christianity as their religion. I say most to leave room for the exception to the rule. If they were indeed Christian then killing was against their moral code.
The struggle between earthly duty and religious responsibility has been a long and trying one. Decisions about how to attack the dilemma should be addressed by the individual facing it. No one should try to make a decision affecting every part of another person's life whether it is a moral vs. duty struggle or which religion they should practice. Only education on all religion will allow Earth's people to make informed decisions to better their lives.
Mary Conklin
Religion 3210
Dr. M Stoltzfus
10/8/08
Primarily I believe that religion itself is the cause of most religiously based violence. There is a definite difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality describes the relationship one possesses with their God and how that relationship affects their day to day lives and their interactions with others. Religion is an organization separating spiritual people into sects by how their God is characterized and how they believe He (or She) should be worshiped and paid homage to. The separation of these people is what creates animosity. If it weren't for darkness, light would have no name. All things would not exist without their opposite. If people were allowed to believe what they chose and divisions were not organized then perhaps everyone could just accept that everyone has their own interpretation of spirituality and we could embrace this common identity.
Also, religious persons often use their religious texts to justify terrorist like attacks. Often scriptures are taken too literally or out of context. In the case of the Bible specifically many people choose to follow it to the letter, forgetting that the word of God as presented in the scripture is written by mortal man in the years during and surrounding Christ's life. This was quite some time ago and the will of God for his people surely has changed in these hundreds (even thousands) of years. I do not claim to have all the answers, and when it comes to religion no one can. Therefore, I do not know how to propose a solution to this problem. Perhaps better education on the sacred texts to its followers is in order. Unfortunately, anyone can decide that they are qualified to teach the text and they, themselves may have a corrupted view.
The idea of elitism and the words “God is on our side!” play a considerable role in justification of war. Because of research in the past I do not believe that Hitler began his anti-semetic rampage due to religious beliefs. It was an economical and racial discrepancy that fueled his anger. However, when forces entered Germany to fight against the Nazi party suddenly God was taking sides. No one can claim God, He will take the side of the man who does His will. It is being very egocentric to believe that you undeniably have God's approval. To assume God's stance with any amount of scriptural evidence is vain and wrong.
Lastly, I want to address those religions, or rather sub-sections of religions, which promote or demand conversion of individuals not sharing their beliefs. In my first example of how religion can be used to cause violence in people I mentioned that without compartmentalizing people into religious “clubs” we could enjoy a commonness and unity. Even if it were possible to all enjoy our beliefs and the fellowship the organized Church, Mosque, Synagogue, etc. provided us with this new idea would tear it apart. At its core the conversion promotes a theme of intolerance. It says that “another religion or set of ideas is below our own and we owe it to God to make these people change, it is His will!” Everyone believes that their ideals are right, but no religious person can claim that they are sure. Religion prides itself on faith. One is expected to believe in their God, etc. without concrete evidence. Faith may even be described as the opposite of skepticism or doubt. One's faith makes an idea true for that individual but not for all people. Converting people revisits my previous argument of elitism. Anyone who believes that their faith is above that of another’s causes argument which leads to violence.
Kimball writes “It is somewhat trite, but nevertheless sadly true, to say that more wars have been waged, more people killed, and these days more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history." Personally, I believe this statement is true, but not whole heartedly. One particular argument raised on www.hds.harvard.edu is that Kimball never gives his reading audience any examples of these times when wars have been waged “in the name of religion.” They argue that perhaps Kimball has an opposing view of what religion might be defined as. I feel that religion does possess a strong definition. A set of beliefs setting a moral code for a group of people while giving reason to the universe may be a weak definition but I feel that it embodies what religion is. On this website the writers argue that until more modern times, religion and politics were fused. If this is the case, then how could a country, for instance, go to war for political reasons without making religion a part of its causes? My argument is this, since religion did govern many different bodies of people in the past, the people choosing to go to war were taking their religious beliefs into account in their decision. They must have if the church and state were bound. The major world religions all promote nonviolence. Of course, even this can be argued. However, in the case of September 11th, an admittedly modern example, the war started as a political struggle to keep our nation safe from terrorist attacks. Over the seven years since the attack many Americans have switched from fighting the “terrorists” to fighting the “Muslims”. Though America is the melting pot of many races and creeds virtually all of the religions represented in America support a nonviolent approach. The Bible even states plainly that “Thou shalt not kill.” Those that desert their beliefs in support of the war and still claim that we are doing God's work in Iraq are bringing religion into the war and are also misrepresenting their religion. Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate for the 2008 election says the following on a www.youtube.com video: “Our national leaders are sending [our troops] out on a task that is from God.” This proves that even political wars can be strewn into religiously backed violence and warfare.
An example provided in the writing of Juergensmeyer is less certain. He references the political elections between Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. According to Juergensmeyer Peres held a 20 percent lead in the polls until a sequence of suicide attacks on Jerusalem buses. Following these events Netanyahu took an edge in the race and claimed that he owed his victory to the Hamas terrorists who instigated the attacks. Upon investigation by both reporters and the author himself, it was discovered that the terrorists didn't care about the Israeli government's affairs and that “Maybe God wanted it.” It is fair to argue here that the attacks may not have been politically based but the Hamas that were interviewed were also very vague in their justifications, either political or religious, for their acts. Perhaps they are not fully disclosing their motives.
Juergensmeyer provides another interesting argument in his text. “The Gita gave several reasons why killing in warfare is permissible, among them the argument that the soul can never really be killed: 'he who slays, slays not; he who is slain is not slain.'” In the Gita this phrase is referring to the death of a soul. In other words, the soul will live on forever. This explains the second half of the quote. The second half is more difficult to understand. My interpretation is this; if someone “slain” can never be killed then how can anyone be called a killer? No one ever dies there the mortal act of killing means nothing to the soul. The body is simply a vessel. Unfortunately, I have to admit that I get a mixed reaction from this analyzation. I can understand the justification some Hindus may have for killing. They feel that by the words in the Gita only the body is dying, but the soul lives on. To me the act still counts as an act of violence as they are taking the earthly life from another and therefore deciding that person's earthly fate without the influence of the divine. Juergensmeyer comments again on Hindu tradition, “Another reason [that killing in warfare is permissible] is based on dharma (moral obligation): the duties of a member of the ksatriya (warrior) caste by definition involve killing, so violence is justified in the very maintenance of social order.” In response to this comment I take the side of famous nonviolent warriors such as Gandhi. Just as in Christianity, perhaps the ksatriya caste was meant to fight the battle of moral justice and evil. Perhaps the battle fought in the Gita is symbolizing a greater good to be fought in the heart and mind of good Hindus.
To conclude the previous three paragraphs I would like to say that I cannot come to a general decision on the case studies made by Kimball and Juergensmeyer. I do not believe that it is ever fair to make a generalization especially in topics as sensitive as religion. Each case must be studied and analyzed on its own. Every person living on earth has a different set of personal ethics, morals, and motives. Terrorists may commit these acts for a number of reasons while the rest of the world looks on twisting the events to fit their own prophesy for the world. I do believe that, a majority of the time, tension begins politically and is almost always strewn into a theological debate. Of course, there is always an exception to the rule.
Despite the previous small attack on religious violence, I do believe that religion can be, and is, used for good. I believe that religion has provided us with the moral codes and ethical standards by which we all live. All people who are considered good, sound individuals follow most of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule along with many of the commandments appear in the majority of world religions in their own way. These “laws” have become so engrained in society that they are considered common decency and I truly believe that religion can claim responsibility for this. However, I feel that it would be remiss not to mention that I used the terms “Golden Rule” and “Ten Commandments” only because Christianity is so widely recognized in America. All major world religions gave to the code of ethics by which we all live. None is superior in any way to another. In a perfect world all world religions would revisit their individual doctrine and recognize the original ideas set forth in the text. Most people would find that to kill is severely against their religion and that if they were to be loyal followers, they would cease to inflict harm on their fellow man. However, the world is not perfect and I feel that violence can only be stopped by educating people slowly. Showing people the importance of avoiding adopting an elitist attitude and following the laws set forth by their God would be a positive start. Teaching people to understand the symbolism in religious text is important as well, because those who take religious texts literally can gravely misinterpret God's word and may go against His will.
I was convinced by Kurlansky's argument that nonviolence is more effective from a political and religious standpoint than violence. Of his twenty-five lessons, nine struck me as very true and incredibly defensible. This is not to say that the others proved untrue in my mind. Of these nine I will discuss five that I feel are most significant.
First, I will discuss the very first lesson. It states that “there is no provocative word for nonviolence.” Kurlansky discusses the fact that no language possesses a word for nonviolence. He makes an example of Sanskrit in which hisma translates to harm. To not do harm translates to ahisma. Why is it that violence is so important a concept that it deserves many words in our language to be dedicated to it: ferocity, brutality, and war. This says nothing about the act of nonviolence itself, this will be addressed next.
“People who go to war start to resemble their enemy.” This is the eighth lesson of Kurlansky's. Though I have used the example of the war in Iraq before in this paper, I can't help but to mention it again. It is a flawless representation of this lesson! After September 11th American's were shocked by the loss of so many of our civilians. America heroically went to war against terrorism, or so it would seem. We now see that instead of fighting terrorism we are attempting to control the people of Iraq and are occasionally causing the deaths of Iraqi civilians. World War II is another example beginning with the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. America took up arms against their enemy and ended up bombing Japanese land and killing over 700,000 civilians.
My third example comes from Kurlansky's 12th lesson. It states, “The state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot conceive of power without force.” I disagree with this statement. I feel that power isn't the goal of force. Force is required by government due to their fear of imminent threat. Force is used purely as a defense mechanism.
The last two lessons I'd like to address relate to one another. The first is number 21 reading, “Once you start the business of killing, you just get 'deeper and deeper,' without limits.” This statement seems undeniably true. When presented with power it is human instinct to relish in it. This can cause people to lose sight of their original goal and ride their influence too far. A wonderful example of this argument appears in Hitler's actions during World War II. He continued adding races and creeds to his list of the damned. Until his power overwhelmed him and led to the overwhelming anxiety over Germany's decline in power that led to his suicide. According to the 24th lesson, “The miracle is that despite all of society's promotion of warfare, most soldiers find warfare to be a wrenching departure from their own moral values.” This lesson also pulls my mind to the Nazis. We have learned that many Nazi soldiers felt that they had to separate their professional lives as soldiers from their personal, religious lives. They knew morally that their actions were wrong, but they felt that their duty as soldiers was equally important. While I do not agree with that method of thinking, it is reminiscent of the discussion of the Gita earlier. Many Hindus would argue that killing was part of their caste duty as soldiers despite the hints of nonviolence in their scriptures. It would be fair to say that most of the Nazi soldiers professed Christianity as their religion. I say most to leave room for the exception to the rule. If they were indeed Christian then killing was against their moral code.
The struggle between earthly duty and religious responsibility has been a long and trying one. Decisions about how to attack the dilemma should be addressed by the individual facing it. No one should try to make a decision affecting every part of another person's life whether it is a moral vs. duty struggle or which religion they should practice. Only education on all religion will allow Earth's people to make informed decisions to better their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
