EricPH wrote: ↑May 7th, 2022, 7:49 pm
Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 6th, 2022, 5:36 pm
George W and the Republican hawks at the time would disagree. No doubt they would have all manner of rationalisations to explain why what they did was in keeping with Christianity. In today's "post-shame" world, the justifications don't even need to make sense, only to be delivered with gusto.
I think it is almost impossible for any president to follow Christian principles. We think of Jesus as God, yet he humbled himself by washing his disciples feet. He said you call me Lord and master, and rightly so, I am. But he became like a servant to his disciples as an example.
Although Mahatma Gandhi was not a Christian, I believe his leadership was more Christian than other Christian leaders. He believed in non violent protest, living modestly and fasting. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison, he had every right to be angry. When he was made president he had the power to seek retribution. He gave up that right to struggle for a greater good. Together with Archbishop Desmond Tu Tu who chaired the Truth and reconciliation committee to help people come to terms with all the injustice that had happened.
These are Christian principles that I recognise, but they seem to get overlooked. When George Bush goes against the Christian principles of love and pray for your enemies, we blame Christianity.
Fair points. Alas, if we are aligned with any institution, then we wear some of the blame for its excesses and hubris, right or wrong.
Your situation is akin to lefties who are blamed for ridiculously picky political correctness. Some people are just left wing because they think societies are more cohesive when they are less inequitable and that unthinking destruction of natural environments bring serious costs to future generations. Those beliefs not automatically confer a need for every movie to contain at least one token black, one token Asian and at least skinny girl capable to kicking men twice her size across a room with ease. However, that's how it's presented.
The key, I think, is to not join any institution or group. This is not easy, because institutions being many advantages - social, networking, support when times are hard, even financial benefits. I personally think that organisations destroy their original basis to serve themselves in an expanded game of survival of the fittest. One might start up a tech company with an advanced search engine, with the motto, "Don't be evil" (the implication being that other organisations are dodgy). Slowly the original aim disappears from view, swamped by shareholder interests and practical concerns.
However, I suspect that corporations will play a huge role in post-human evolution. It probably wouldn't be the first time that ostensible evil ended up being for the greater good. What is "good" or "evil" depends on the time scale one uses.
