Usurping morality and peace

“I invite even nonbelievers to desire peace. Let us all unite, either with prayer or with desire, but everyone, for peace.” 

This is part of the Christmas message by Pope Francis today. A fine message, excepting the use of the conjunction `even.' What does "even nonbelievers" mean? Let's analyze it. First, "nonbelievers" refers to those who do not believe in god (or gods). As usual, a religious person sets apart those who "believe" and those who "do not believe". As *if* the verb "to believe" were a virtue and as if the world population can be split into those who believe and those who do not. Believers, even those who believe in mutually contradictory things, are put together into one category, and nonbelievers into another. Second, the word "even" points out to the fact that concept "peace" (and morality--but not mentioned here) has been usurped by the set of believers. Implicit in this message is the assumption that believers desire peach but nonbelievers may not. This is a total absurdity. Desiring peace or being moral has absolutely nothing to do with a religion or with believing in Ahura Mazda or Krishna.

Although the Pope's message is nice, it is rather trivial. Of course, we should desire peace. There are many reasons for striving for peace, but neither religion nor belief is any. Yes, some people may fool themselves by thinking that if they pray then there will be peace in Syria, but this is a delusion.

So, Pope Francis, please think about the rationality of your message. It makes no sense without the ad hoc assumption that the concepts of morality and peach are owned by the ad hoc set of believers. I know it's not your fault and that all your predecessors made this assumption, but the fact that lots of people make such mistakes does not make your statement rational.

Bertrand Russell's message to future generations

— What would you think it’s worth telling future generations about the life you’ve lived and the lessons you’ve learned from it?

“I should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral. The intellectual thing I should want to say is this: When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts. That is the intellectual thing that I should wish to say.

The moral thing I should wish to say… I should say love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more closely and closely interconnected we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way and if we are to live together and not die together we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.”

Bertrand Russell, 1959

The moral man will roll up his sleeves and use force

This recent New Yorker article on the Penn State pedophile Jerry Sandusky came to my attention through a nadder:

The key point is that someone who really wants to rape children will spend a LOT of energy in building up a charismatic persona of the helpful member of the community. An interesting (and useful) read that should dispel the trenchcoat-wearing loner with no social skills as the archetype child sex predator.

It reminded me of two things, first the classic verse from Chapter 38 of the Te:

The kind person acts from the heart,
and accomplishes a multitude of things.
The righteous person acts out of pity,
yet leaves many things undone.
The moral person will act out of duty,
and when no one will respond
will roll up his sleeves and use force.

Secondly, the issue of pedagogical education.

There is much in common between a pedophile, dressed as a charismatic person, a helpful member of the community,  a likeable individual, like Sandusky, and one who claims to be so caring about education that he or she devotes his or her career on the subject, going around teaching others how to educate pupils and students, offering pedagogical approaches, while always maintaining his or her love for education.

What is the common point between the two types is the fact that none of them care at all about what they preach. On the contrary, they try to build an impeccable facade in order to do exactly the opposite. This has always been so obvious to me that I thought it was obvious to others as well. Wrong. I keep meeting people around me who claim that because this or that person is a moral individual, beyond any suspicion for dubious acts, then this is a proof that he or she is actually what he or she appears to be. I also keep speaking to people who are convinced that because that individual is a master in pedagogy, then, certainly, all he or she cares about is the improvement of education.

Lao Tzu warned us a few thousand years ago. Beware of those who have the need to tell everyone that they act out of morality and build a picture about themselves which is impossible to destroy even when dubious things start happening.

Sandusky has always been beyond any suspicion. Playing the role of a lovable goofball, he was never ever going to be suspected for molesting children. Much in the same way, the pedagogical educator who spends 200% of their time in preaching and teaching and applying pedagogical concepts is never going to be suspected for someone who does not give a shit about education. Both Sandusky and the pedagogical educator devote years in building indestructible fortresses.

Our way of seeing things should change: beware of those who preach, look behind the surface, and, more importantly, always question anything that is being offered to you as perfection. Is this so hard? I never thought it could be. And yet, in societies where freedom of thought is not something that individuals practice ("sapere aude" is not obvious) there will always be Sanduskys and other crooks.