Questions on Evil and Equality
Question from Reader: “Are you teaching some New Age principle of tolerance where people who do evil just think they are decent guys so we shouldn’t “call a spade a spade” even when we see it?”
JJ: To call the thousands of points of one’s character as all evil is not calling a spade a spade, but is a mistake. Even Hitler did some good things. He started the Autobahn, the Volkswagen, got manufacturing going again, etc. No matter how bad the guy is it is always more accurate and productive to specifically point out what it is that is evil.
After all, what is evil, but a mistake, and we all make mistakes, but none of us are always mistaken, neither are all of us always correct.
I have never taught that we should tolerate or embrace mistakes. You cannot find any example of this in my millions of words posted.
Reader: Previously you have taught: “Good is that which takes us forward on the path of Spiritual evolution toward greater freedom, livingness, intelligence, light and love. Evil is that which takes us back into the past to lesser freedom, lesser livingness, lesser intelligence, light and love.”
I agree with the above principle. If we identify a person as being evil we are in fact identifying their principle direction. We are saying that they want to go back to a “past of lesser freedom.”
JJ: I think we agree on this but you are seeing disagreement. I would have no problem in identifying a person as pulling us more in an evil direction than a good one, but even so, no one is 100% evil in his thoughts or actions. Even a dark brother will generally treat his dogs and kids well and want to get the trains to run on time.
Reader: So, if Hitler just popped up in reincarnation and you recognized him, and recognized he hadn’t changed much from his previous life, and if he was looking to succeed again in seizing power, you wouldn’t label his as evil, because you don’t like people labeling you as evil?
JJ: No. I wouldn’t label him as evil but would look at his words and works and fight against the error in them. Just calling him evil would communicate little light to anyone and make the accuser look like Jimmy Sawggart.
It is more effective to pinpoint where the error (evil) is and attack that.
Reader: “What if Winston Churchill had been afraid to label Hitler as a madman early on?”
JJ: Churchill pointed out where Hitler was in error and how he was dangerous. That is just what I would have done in that situation.
How did Churchill fight the mistaken person? First he attacked his regressive philosophy. Then when appropriate he used physical force.
I do not see any disagreement if we define our terms properly. If one concentrates on semantics then one can argue all day long when there is no disagreement.
As far as calling people evil, consider three people who fought evil and created positive change:
[1] George Washington: I do not believe he ever called King George evil but the British did condemn him and his band of rebels as such.
[2] Abraham Lincoln: Many, not only in the South, but the North called him evil but I do not recall him ever singling out any individual as evil. He never called Jefferson Davis evil though he did think he was in error.
[3] Ronald Reagan: Even though he thought Jimmy Carter screwed up the economy, Reagan never called him evil or any negative names. He acted according to the principles I teach and explained the error and worked to rectify it.
On the other hand, many called Reagan evil. Here is just one quote from a comment made:
“Reagan was a cold-blooded murderer, a union busting parasite, con artist, and a good liar. I’ll shed no tear for the death of a tyrant. Nor will I stand by idly while the truth is sacrificed in a frenzied worship of a demagogue. Reagan was evil personified; he can rot in hell.”
It is interesting that those who use the strongest words of pure condemnation are usually in the greatest of error.
I think we both agree on the following.
We both believe in identifying evil in the world, bringing it to the light of day and fighting against it in every possible effective way.
The problem as I see it is that too many just point fingers at each other calling each other names associated with evil instead of identifying the problem and peacefully discussing it.
The reader then pointed out that he embraced many of the ideas of Ayn Rand even though she was an Atheist. He particularly liked her book on the history of capitalism
I had the impression while reading this book that her soul let her drift toward atheism so her mind would not be influenced by illusion from religion. This allowed her to develop a rational philosophy without interference.
I suspect that in her next life she will consciously sense the soul and the value of group work without losing her value of individual effort and freedom.
Another reader expressed concern that I was advocating communism because of some of my comments on equality. I responded as follows:
No one is talking about establishing communism or doing away with the free market. You need to read my treatise on the Molecular Business to understand where I am coming from.
Look at the air that we all breath. We all desperately need it, but because there is an abundance of it there is complete freedom to gather all of it we want. There is also equal opportunity to breath it. We can all breath in all they need.
Even so, this will eventually happen with the things we consume. Technology and ingenuity will eventually provide us all we need so we will have all we want in consumables just as we now have all the air we need. Eventually this will eliminate the need for money itself.
As long as good prevails no freedom or freedom to market will be taken away, but an abundance will totally change our attitude in the way we look at wealth and making an effort to acquire it.
In the future society of abundance there will be no money and people will be motivated to work at a labor they love. Undesirable work like garbage collecting will be completely automated.
In the interim we will have something like the Molecular Business where most within a single company will receive the same wage. Those who work extra hours can received extra cash or stock. Those in management can also receive extra stock.
The government is not involved in anything I have advanced. To be a successful Molecular Business would require around 50 or more employees. Some businesses could do it with less but a 50 or more is desirable.
If a person has a small business he may or may not succeed. In the coming era of abundance, he would have no worries in experimenting with a business or enterprise because his basic needs will be covered.
In the future state of abundance, society will not require anyone to get a job unless we happen to be living in a dictatorship. In a free society people will get a job because they want a job and its benefits, not because of what the government tells them.
In a Molecular Business people apply for a job just like any other business. All employees receive an equal wage for hours worked. If that wage is too low, he will not even apply. If a person does not work he does not get paid.
Different Molecular Businesses and different countries will pay different wages for some time to come.
The trend toward equality will embrace the world. The two brotherhoods have their ideas about achieving it. The Dark Brothers want to do it by force and the Brotherhood of Light by free will.
“I have enough money to last me the rest of my life, unless I buy something.” — Jackie Mason
Feb 26, 2009
To search the website, containing millions of words, replace the word “search” with the word or phrase you want to find and place the entire line in the Google search box.
“Search” site:freeread.com
Access other articles associated with ACIM HERE
Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE
Join A Course in Miracles Discussion Group on X (Twitter) HERE
Check out JJ’s books on Amazon HERE