it should be the belief of anyone who calls themselves a religious person
That's a cop-out, in my opinion.
You seem to be a reasonable person, so I'll take the time to tell you why I have this opinion.
First, let's get our words straight. We are talking about religion, murder, and war.
dictionary.com OK with you?
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
-------------
su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.
------------
mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
--------------
war (wôr)
n.
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
-------------
We agree that for the sake of the argument, we can both call ourselves "religious persons". We don't need to argue any farther than that, I concede that point.
What you are missing is that there are some bad people on your planet. No matter how much you want to dodge it, it's true. There are. If we balance out their contributions to the cognizant life form on Earth and the scale is tipped far enough to the side of "needs to be stopped from continuing the Campaign of Death for the good of the rest of us", then the details can be argued about. How all the words are precisely defined gets into areas of politics, law, and justice. Perhaps we can use a working definition like committing some physical act that is destructive, and having the intention to commit the act. Some act that results in physical "misery" to use your word. We'll skip the "mental anguish" angle.
Now, if we can agree on that, then what's the other end, the "good side" of the cognizant life form? Well, once again we get into a long involved discussion. Let's just agree that good and bad exist in all people, but in various proportions.
Insane might be defined as a non-comprehension of what is actually going on. Bad guys are insane. They want to hurt other people without regard for "right" or "wrong". The result of their activity could be defined as "worse", just as the result of "good" activity could be defined as "better".
There are laws in the civilized world. That is a fact. Breaking those laws is considered a crime, and the person who breaks the laws is a criminal. Where you and I part ways is your idea that if it comes down to some bad guy trying to kill me, I should let him because if I kill him, I have committed a similar crime based on my definition of religion.
But no matter how you slice it, if we are talking about some spiritual essence or "supernatural" quality that transcends the functions of the physical body, then I can argue that if I kill a bad guy, things are better all around, not worse like you claim. Yes, if he kills me things are worse, yes if I kill him things are better. He's a criminal, by definition, so I can argue that by eliminating or restraining something bad, I am doing a good deed.
I'm not saying you have to agree with me. What I am saying is that you and I could argue from now until the end of time about "religion" and I guarantee that I can make a case for killing a bad guy before he has another chance to kill me.
If you can't see that there are real bad guys walking around; guys who don't care about your ideas of "right" and "just" - guys who will cut your throat in five seconds given the opportunity, just because you are not speaking the right words to them or wearing the correct clothing, that's fine. I can, and it fits right in with "right" and "just". These terrorists, and there are not very many of them, want to take entire civilized world back in time about 700 years and fight the war they lost over again and kill everyone on the other side, however they can. Our rule book (I say "our" meaning the civilized and good people on the planet) is, "These are the rules for living on the planet with the rest of us. Break the rules and you are a criminal and you will suffer the penalty. Follow the rules like everyone else and you'll be OK, eventually."
Their rule book is "No rules except our rules - we tell you what to do if we decide not to kill you."
Wake up - there are crazy guys killing thousands of men, women and children out there. Some fool you never met can't just walk out his door and kill his next door neighbor and not pay the price on my street. Maybe on yours, but not on mine. If I am perverted because I intend to kill them before they kill additional members of my family, then I humbly submit that you have failed to think this all out completely and copped out on your bogus definition of "murder". If there were no bad guys doing bad things to good people, then we would not be having this argument in the first place.
If the bad guy is restrained in some way so that he is no longer a threat to the rest of us, then I have no problem with going along with feeding him instead of ending his life on Earth. Otherwise, he's on notice that it's me or him, and I am now playing by his rules. If you think the planet is a burden, I understand. Don't call me perverted if I happen to not agree with you. |
