Article
In many respects religion has been reduced
to a formula: do good to others. The assumption is that ‘doing good’ will help
you after death, as if you accumulate points which in the afterlife act as some
kind of currency which you use to buy your way into paradise. I've pointed out
many times that ‘doing good’ is often based on a self-centred desire to feel good
or to satisfy a craving, in the same way as people satisfy their hunger or sex
drive.
It’s certainly true that in the next world you are assessed on your performance
in this life, but it is you who does the assessing. Many people are cut off from
their conscience and I've discussed before (‘Feeling Emotion’) about people who
are cut off from their emotions. It is this aspect of your being that assesses
you after death. You can’t run away from this – there is no pretence, excuses
or lies. You are shown, pr rather re-live, incidents from your life and asked
about them. If you make excuses you are simply shown them again. And again. Until
the reality hits home.
Doing good doesn't help. There's an old saying that says that the road to hell
is paved with good intentions and when the intentions of those who ‘do good’ is
not selfless, they can do immeasurable damage. People rarely think deeply about
issues, they usually form an opinion by comparing the issue with their own preconceptions.
Sometimes people will even fight for issues that they have no real understanding
of. Before the last Iraq war a group of people went to Iraq to act as human shields.
The idea was for them to be placed near hospitals and other vulnerable places
as they thought that the West would not dare to bomb places where they could kill
their own citizens. What they found was that the Iraqi authorities placed them
in locations of military importance. They also found that they were used as propaganda
by the government. Many returned, disillusioned and no longer naive.
Many people who ‘do good’ act with similar naiveté. In some countries children are taken away from their parents if their parents hit them. The idea of hitting children offends some people so they have deemed that children are better of with foster parents or in care than with parents who hit them. The evidence is completely contrary to this. In fact it is often the case that children with parents who are violent and even the children of sexually abusive parents say in later life that would have been better off with their parents than in care. How much more is this the case when the parents punish their children with the best of intentions?
A Texas policeman once commented that just because we dislike something, or even
find it offensive, doesn't mean that it should be illegal. This is really the
essence of tolerance but it is often the case that those who shout the loudest
about tolerance and pre-judging are often the least tolerant and most judgmental.
