Not long ago I read of a man who was a Theosophist, as well as a South American dictator (note: Hitler was also a Theosophist, although theosophy has nothing to do with violence or hate - very much the reverse, in fact) who had a deserved reputation for killing anyone who got in his way. Commenting on this, he said, "It is much worse to kill an ant than a human. An ant is part of the hive and will never live again as an individual. A human is a soul and will live forever. In killing him, I am only temporarily changing his destiny." Needless to say (I hope), he did not change my opinion of him as a ruthless - and wrong - dictator.
I thought of this comment last night while reading Rosemary
Altea's The Pride of the Spirit (or so I translate it from the Spanish, El Orgullo del Espiritu). Altea is a spiritual healer and a medium - someone who talks to the dead through possession - who herself has a guiding spirit who she calls Gray Eagle, who was on earth an Apache wise man. In one of her final chapters, she asked Gray Eagle a variety of questions about the nature of the cosmos and morality, and summed up his view of the latter in one word - "tolerance." Immediately I recoiled, as this has become a catch-all word for the politically correct, but in truth she was sincere and overall non-cloying about it. Still... Admitting that this would be controversial and even repel some of her readers, she delved into some socially sensitive areas, including one of the thorniest - abortion. On this, she repeated the word "tolerance" along with what Gray Eagle said. For one, he told her to follow the laws of society, and if one found them unjust, to peacefully try to change them. And two: to understand that we do not know the ways of God. Sometimes, for instance, a soul only wants to experience the time in the womb and does not expect to be born. In any case, this soul will not be killed by abortion, but will live on in another way, forever. It is thus not for us to judge.
Altea quotes Jesus's famous line, "He who has not sinned throw the first stone," to buttress her argument, but still - as always with the word "tolerance" - this whole line of rationality is easily challenged. Without taking sides, but only sticking to logic, we might ask of abortion: yes, maybe the soul does want to die, but the child has no say with the abortion. The mother decides. What of tolerance then? Should not the mother tolerate the life of a child who is growing and clearly will continue to grow without interference? Is it for her to decide for the life of the soul?
This is why, In the abortion debate, the sticking point has always been, "when is a fetus a human being?," for the killing of another human being for no clear reason of self defense is indefensible to most senses of reality. But what, then, of tolerance? For, if we are tolerant, does that South American dictator have a good point? Even without regard to the existence of a soul, isn't it his destiny to conquer and kill? Who are WE to moralize about that, when we are clearly taking away this man's destiny by denying him the right to dominate.
We might instead say, "live and let live," and so challenge the dictator, but with abortion, we again have to ask the uncomfortable question of when a soul becomes a human being. Live and let live, after all,means exactly that. But in "Live and let live, " we also run up against objections to both libertarian philosophy and political correctness. With the former, what of the man who's industry pollutes a river for others? Thornier still, what if that man wants to "marry" several underage girls, who acquiesce due to their upbringing (as in several African tribes, or in the splinter Mormon groups)? Or what about the heroin dealer, whose young customers may not know the dangers, and whose older ones will become a burden to society? And with the latter, the politically correct, why are they so concerned with someone's desire to unfurl a Confederate flag? How can they demonize a race of people, most of whom have always minded their own business? And, going back a bit, how can they demonize people who sincerely believe that fetuses are humans, and so are fighting to save lives?
Rosemay Altea is, as said, sincere, and often questions her own sense of moral superiority. Still, she does not add to the long-held debate raised by Jesus twenty centuries ago: "He who is free of sin throw the first stone." It seems clear to me, in context, that Jesus was not being "tolerant" in our sense then, for he understood very clearly the difference between right and wrong - look at his scathing comments on the Pharisees. Rather, he was recognizing that all of us stray from the path - that in fact, the very nature of our concept of life is clouded by an imperfect vision that can be called "sin." Tolerance is then meant to NOT exclude others from the human race because of bad actions in the past, but to try to bring them into the fold as fellow souls. "Love" should prevail, not condemnation, but this in no way frees people from a certain right path. Exactly what that is was somewhat obscured by Jesus himself when he violated many of the old Jewish laws, but we know that it begins with love that is extended outward. That brings in the sinner from the cold, but still does not negate the sin. We might then understand the "law" to be: love God with all your heart, and love others as one loves oneself, as Jesus said. Altea would agree, I know, but does the aborting mother love her unborn child with all her heart? Does the dictator love his victims? Do the politically correct love the man with the Confederate Flag, and does that man love others as he waves it about?
Tolerance has its limits, set by love deepest from the heart. Otherwise, we might say that anything goes, and in the end, almost no one would be happy with that. FK
I thought of this comment last night while reading Rosemary
Altea's The Pride of the Spirit (or so I translate it from the Spanish, El Orgullo del Espiritu). Altea is a spiritual healer and a medium - someone who talks to the dead through possession - who herself has a guiding spirit who she calls Gray Eagle, who was on earth an Apache wise man. In one of her final chapters, she asked Gray Eagle a variety of questions about the nature of the cosmos and morality, and summed up his view of the latter in one word - "tolerance." Immediately I recoiled, as this has become a catch-all word for the politically correct, but in truth she was sincere and overall non-cloying about it. Still... Admitting that this would be controversial and even repel some of her readers, she delved into some socially sensitive areas, including one of the thorniest - abortion. On this, she repeated the word "tolerance" along with what Gray Eagle said. For one, he told her to follow the laws of society, and if one found them unjust, to peacefully try to change them. And two: to understand that we do not know the ways of God. Sometimes, for instance, a soul only wants to experience the time in the womb and does not expect to be born. In any case, this soul will not be killed by abortion, but will live on in another way, forever. It is thus not for us to judge.
Altea quotes Jesus's famous line, "He who has not sinned throw the first stone," to buttress her argument, but still - as always with the word "tolerance" - this whole line of rationality is easily challenged. Without taking sides, but only sticking to logic, we might ask of abortion: yes, maybe the soul does want to die, but the child has no say with the abortion. The mother decides. What of tolerance then? Should not the mother tolerate the life of a child who is growing and clearly will continue to grow without interference? Is it for her to decide for the life of the soul?
This is why, In the abortion debate, the sticking point has always been, "when is a fetus a human being?," for the killing of another human being for no clear reason of self defense is indefensible to most senses of reality. But what, then, of tolerance? For, if we are tolerant, does that South American dictator have a good point? Even without regard to the existence of a soul, isn't it his destiny to conquer and kill? Who are WE to moralize about that, when we are clearly taking away this man's destiny by denying him the right to dominate.
We might instead say, "live and let live," and so challenge the dictator, but with abortion, we again have to ask the uncomfortable question of when a soul becomes a human being. Live and let live, after all,means exactly that. But in "Live and let live, " we also run up against objections to both libertarian philosophy and political correctness. With the former, what of the man who's industry pollutes a river for others? Thornier still, what if that man wants to "marry" several underage girls, who acquiesce due to their upbringing (as in several African tribes, or in the splinter Mormon groups)? Or what about the heroin dealer, whose young customers may not know the dangers, and whose older ones will become a burden to society? And with the latter, the politically correct, why are they so concerned with someone's desire to unfurl a Confederate flag? How can they demonize a race of people, most of whom have always minded their own business? And, going back a bit, how can they demonize people who sincerely believe that fetuses are humans, and so are fighting to save lives?
Rosemay Altea is, as said, sincere, and often questions her own sense of moral superiority. Still, she does not add to the long-held debate raised by Jesus twenty centuries ago: "He who is free of sin throw the first stone." It seems clear to me, in context, that Jesus was not being "tolerant" in our sense then, for he understood very clearly the difference between right and wrong - look at his scathing comments on the Pharisees. Rather, he was recognizing that all of us stray from the path - that in fact, the very nature of our concept of life is clouded by an imperfect vision that can be called "sin." Tolerance is then meant to NOT exclude others from the human race because of bad actions in the past, but to try to bring them into the fold as fellow souls. "Love" should prevail, not condemnation, but this in no way frees people from a certain right path. Exactly what that is was somewhat obscured by Jesus himself when he violated many of the old Jewish laws, but we know that it begins with love that is extended outward. That brings in the sinner from the cold, but still does not negate the sin. We might then understand the "law" to be: love God with all your heart, and love others as one loves oneself, as Jesus said. Altea would agree, I know, but does the aborting mother love her unborn child with all her heart? Does the dictator love his victims? Do the politically correct love the man with the Confederate Flag, and does that man love others as he waves it about?
Tolerance has its limits, set by love deepest from the heart. Otherwise, we might say that anything goes, and in the end, almost no one would be happy with that. FK
RSS Feed