Good and Evil

Most organizations of significant size usually specify many policies and controls which prohibit certain behaviors and encourage others in the members of that organization. Churches do similarly, sometimes invoking "doctrine". Though, instead of simply saying that this or that thing is allowed or not allowed, they frequently employ a much more powerful tool: labeling the various activities or behaviors as "good" or "evil." By adding this extra layer of judgment, of divine approbation or censure, I think that churches obtain several important benefits:

1. Guilt from sin and fear for eternal salvation become potent motivators for guiding or controlling behaviors.
2. The "good" and "evil" labels can be applied to whatever things are needed without regard to truth, reason, or fairness.
3. It gives defenders license to use any means at all to defend the "good" and attack the "evil" without regard to truth, reason, or fairness (and frequently despite those things).

In saying this, I think I have become what I decried for much of my life: a relativist. For the first several decades of my life, I was a staunch and loud believer in Absolute Truth. If you were a Mormon (and a republican, of course), you were right and good. If you were not a Mormon, you were wrong. If you were a democrat, you were wrong and evil. Mormon Democrats: inexplicably misguided. Now when I type that, I can't decide whether to blush, laugh, or just be glad that my mind opened up one day and let in a little daylight. Probably all three.

Edward Gibbon, he of "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" renown, famously wrote:

The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.

This about sums up my thoughts on the misuse of Good and Evil.