Help or hinder: fundamental choice.

[Smithsonian]

Helping or hindering: every decision boils down to these.

Of course, these verbs imply some object. They likewise imply a value structure with which to decide between the two.

There’s also a question of efficiency involved.

Seeing as how this is in the religion’s section, I’m sure you're suspiciously reading this wondering at what point I’ll start trying to bullshit you with some form of twisted propaganda… Worry not, I won’t let you down. I will however heighten the suspense with a bit of background.

As I’ve stated elsewhere, I’ve spent the last 3 months of my life living across the lake from a catholic sanctuary. This has allowed be to study more closely this religious group. As I haven’t had the opportunity to conduct a similar experience with other faiths, this will apply to the Roman Catholic Church.

[PROPAGANDA]
From what I can tell, the church says we should help (love) one another. And as St-John notes: “let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”
This love should extend to the outcast as noted by Christ with the tale of the good samaritain.
This help should not be given only from the superfluous, but from the necessary as well (the piece about giving your tunic to who asks for your coat). [/PROPAGANDA]

I find that this acknowledges my moral standards and meets them. That doesn’t make me catholic, but I’ll respect people who live up to that regardless of why they actually do.

As for those who claim to be catholic but fail to prove it “by actions and in truth” I can’t blame it on their faith. I could blame it on their priests and on themselves but not on their creed. That would be analogous to demanding the abrogation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or any national constitution on the grounds that it’s not delivering.

We all know we have the right to a social and international order that permits the full realisation of its content (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). I hope everyone realizes that said declaration is a binding agreement between all signatory nations and that it also binds its institutions and citizens. What have you done today to further this?

They’re there to prod us along.

From what I’ve heard of protestants, the fact that they don’t have a supreme authority dictating them the “truth” makes it unlikely that they’d all be held to live up to such binding obligations. However, if any of them meet my standards, I’ll gladly work with them as well. That pretty much goes for followers of any creed, religious or otherwise.

 

[Cris]

Were you going to ask a question?

 

[Prince_James]

Smithsonian:

"We all know we have the right to a social and international order that permits the full realisation of its content (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). I hope everyone realizes that said declaration is a binding agreement between all signatory nations and that it also binds its institutions and citizens. What have you done today to further this?"

The United Nations is neither a government, nor does its findings hold any sway on any government but by said government's personal agreement to follow it. Similarly, without a monopoly, or at least a great deal of, force, the UN is incapable of governing whatsoever, as it lacks the ability to deal with anything that goes against it in and of itself. It is often asked what is the UN without the United States? And the answer is quite simply: Nothing.

The United States, Russia, China, in that order, are the greatest powers in this world in the present day. They are the only ones who could impose upon the world - and even then, with much trouble - a "universal declaration of human lives". They are also all legitimate, established governments, not a pseudo-parliament made of appointed ambassadors with no power whatsoever to even have their leaders accord with what they say, least of all disallow a powerful country to do what it pleases.

Also, the UN, nor any other government-like or government entity, can give us rights. We either have them or we do not. A government can only choose to accept our rights or to not accept them.