LOGIC
Last week I saw a video of a speech where an evangelist
claimed that we shouldn’t be concerned about the annihilation of children by
his god’s people since the murder of a child would immediately send that child
to paradise, preventing a life of toil and trouble. Joshua was really doing
the children of Jericho an act of graciousness by following his god’s orders when
he “… destroyed
with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle,
sheep and donkeys..” Although not evangelicals, the conquistadors received absolution
for bashing the heads of Indian babies against walls for it sent them
immediately into Heaven.
In another epoch, we read of the Iraq-Iran war during which Iranians
marched young children across mine fields to clear them after assuring their
parents an immediate entrance into paradise where virgins awaited their pleasure.
Oh, only for the boys.
What might we gain from this?
Perhaps it is that the concept of congruity in our thought
process has escaped too many people. That is why so many ultra-religious among
us vocally and actively support the candidacy of a man who has achieved
national prominence by gloating over a life marked by love of the seven deadly sins
and who campaigns in direct repudiation of the Sermon on the Mount. How is this
possible?
When I was young, they tried to keep us occupied on trips by
giving us what they called “connect the dots puzzles.” Completed successfully, isolated
lines produced a coherent picture of something recognizable.
I think it taught us, subconsciously, that the same might be
true of our thoughts. When connected carefully, an acceptable conclusion would
appear. It requires logic. What should concern us today is that a startling percentage
of American voters could not answer the following with confidence:
A equals B
B equals C
Does A equal C? Yes or no, and why?
No comments:
Post a Comment