Contempt between groups and religions
Any group - even one that has a huge similarity to the other group - can hate
the other group.
Liberal groups and conservative ones are remarkable in how they both paint each
other as evil embodied. Liberals are never as liberal as they say. Each side
fears the other being right about anything.
Contempt for a group is a skill learned from being able to see a person as
vile. Then it expands to the group the person represents and the group that you
link with the person.
Contempt thrives on seeing the violent and cruel group/person as pure evil or
embodying it. It says they have no reason for doing what they do but just
malice. This allows one to see the hurt party as a victim totally and simply.
And anybody who says different will be condemned as an assistant for total evil
or sympathetic. If one person sees the other as just bad there will be no middle
ground and there will only be fear and conflict. When a group or country is seen
as pure evil war will surely follow. Seeing evil that way gets very ingrained so
there will be little hope of real peace. Many feel that hurting others just for
the sake of it rarely happens. If that is so, then evil is useless or
near-useless as a concept. It’s an excuse for judging and fear-mongering. Greed
does not help explain much about war and violence either for war entails such
massive loss on every level. The religious concepts of evil/sin and supernatural
protection of your group by God have to be behind violence and cruelty even if
that is not explicit.
M Scott Peck found that even thinking about evil triggers and feeds the
corruption within you. The experience of evil doing or having it done to you
forces you to hate and corrupts you thus to experience evil is to make it part
of you.
Probably evil stirs up an attraction in you, or you have evil seeds in you that
seeing it awakens. Evil tries to look good so it appeals to your good side not
just the bad.
This idea of evil inherently making the victim bad is inconsistent with love the
sinner and hate the sin and rouses suspicion about the victims of sinners.
Religious experience of God is refuted by experience of evil. How? The
experience claims that God really overcomes evil. If he does not or cannot that
won’t stop you feeling he is weakening it in you which is exactly what evil or
your bad side would want you to think! Is that what you only want God for? So
that you can imagine you are growing at the expense of evil?
This leads to malice in spite of itself! Good plots are set up to pave the way
to Hell with good intentions. So there is no way to be definite that something
really bad has happened in spite of something good.
If God and evil or if good and evil are two sides of one coin then that coin is
you. You want others to do the suffering not you.
It seems to us that groups can be selfish or unselfish as groups. These are
the concepts of collective selfishness and collective unselfishness. A member of
a selfish group will hurt other groups and other people in defence of his or her
own group. The trouble is that the member of the unselfish group will be
dangerous as well. Terrorists sacrifice themselves selflessly for their religion
and group. Groups may look like something somebody just becomes part of. But
there has to be a selection process even if it is not obvious. Group selection
has to happen or there is no group at all. The group will be to blame for what
it accepts and lets in. For example, an Islamist group or sect will be
tarred by the actions of its handful of terrorists even if it disowns them.
And it will be thought, "It has to disown them to survive so what do you
expect?"
One reason we hurt our enemies and the enemy may be a group is to help them see
what evil is and how horrible it is and put them off it. It can be an attempt at
educating rather than at being malicious. The non-judgemental will have to
defend the vengeful by suggesting that their game is to teach the enemy a
lesson. Nobody really wants to do that for it means protecting the malicious and
refusing to admit that people can want to hurt each other and use revenge as an
excuse.
Anger involves the feeling that you need to right the wrong. Contempt which is more rife does not which explains its runaway toxic popularity. It is about feeling you are morally better than somebody else without taking action to show it. Contempt is about sharing itself around which leads to terrible damage. By being such ill-willed hypocrites we live out our hypocrisy and hypocrisy feeds on itself and gets nastier and stronger. And hypocrites always form a group that holds other hypocrites in contempt.
The brain seems to be programmed to protect you by wanting revenge on those
who do harm and wanting gratitude/rewards given to those who are good. This is
all about helping society be co-operative. If the brain is like that then
religion is only fooling itself by talking about forgiveness and non-violence
etc. It adds to the problem by not admitting that tit for tat is natural. It
adds to the problem by advocating rewards and forgiveness and not admitting that
this cannot be done without legitimising revenge and hate. To preach one side of
the coin is to implicitly preach the other. The two go together. And trying to
frustrate the bad side only forces things in society to get worse. Frustration
of what is natural has dire consequences.
Human nature is not made to love everybody and meaningfully proclaim the whole
world population its family. Our limit for connecting to others and making a
kind of loose group is about a hundred to a hundred and fifty people. Our brains
are not big enough to do it any differently.
Human nature’s dark side will out. Thus it will seek an occult or supernatural or religious way to hurt if it is totally inoffensive and helpful in society. One way it will serve the dark side is by feeling good or indifferent about doing nothing for people in need. Another way is by asking for others to be hurt by God or doing spells to hurt them. This may be direct or indirect. Indirect is looking for something from God knowing that it is taking it from somebody else too. Also, asking for a bike when babies are dying is a form of that. Asking for Sue to recover from cancer as if nobody else mattered but her is just an indirect black magic spell: may somebody else die instead of Sue. Religions of prayer have a dark side.
The answer to dealing with toxic groups or groups that may go that way is to
work for diversity and dialogue.
Diversity has two basic forms. One is demographic. The other is moral.
Demographic recognises groups such as race, age etc and also the subgroups. If
you promote demographic diversity you will work to make groups feel included and
equally cared about. You will bring the groups together.
Moral diversity is about how each person and each group will have differences on
what is or is not morally tolerable, acceptable and praiseworthy. The end result
will be arguments and suspicion and division. Morality is more ingrained than
mere preference. To hold that gays should stay in private for it is a sin or so
you suppose is a moral matter. Just to want gays to stay in private for you
don't like them is a preference matter. Preferences fit tolerance but morality
is based on x not tolerating non-x. That is where the difficulty arises.
It is important to know what we are talking about when we define morality for
getting it wrong has people battling over unnecessarily divergent and wrong
principles. Secularism is more unifying than religion so it can help.