Ramblings

I'm grasping at a thought and can't quite reach it. It has to do with the righteous, being abused by the wicked, with the righteous being taken and ruled and used because they won't seize power. And it seems like the wicked always win, because they use the methods that the righteous won't, and if the righteous did use them, they would not be righteous. This thought has to do with not being able to fix everything, with letting go. It has to do with hubris and fatal flaws, with the fact that no one person can fix everything. It has to do with how the righteous can win through the right methods eventually, even though the fight seems lost. I can't remember where I read this, but it was in a book. The hopelessness of being unable to act because to act would be to become one of them, to be wicked. Because sometimes bad things happen and evil wins. But let it be known that they have only won the battle and not the war! This is why democracy is so important, why tyranny CANNOT stand, because in a tyranny, evil will win. Evil will triumph and there will be no resistance. There will only be pain. But with a democracy, righteousness has a chance. They can win, and lead. Tyranny is the bane of righteousness, and a tyrant who thinks he is good is full of hubris, of pride, of conceit. No one man can fix everything. Only all the good working together can do it. Only a whole body of good men can begin to make a difference. I think it is significant here that America's founding was done by a group of men. It took more than one man to free a nation from tyranny, though it took one man to enslave it. It may only take one to enslave, to wound, to stagnate, to subvert, to pressure until all hope is lost, to convince that he, and only he, is right. That he, and only he, can see and fix all the problems of the world, when there is NOTHING further from the truth. We all see the problems, but we handle them differently. No solution can truly be ideal for everyone, but through cooperation, a compromise that works for the majority can be reached. Working together is the only way to maintain both security and freedom under law.

I do believe that the main point of this thought I'm trying to reach is that the end does not matter as much as the means used to get there. The end DOES NOT justify the means. No matter what good may be done, no matter the banner that they fly, a tyrant is a tyrant and must go. A tyrant's methods and cruelty cannot justify whatever good they might do. Last night, I was working on a paper for my American Heritage class about the rule of law. I was writing about ISIS and how they have violated the rule of law- how they are essentially a tyranny. I also came across something interesting, which was that ISIS has done some good for the people that they have conquered. They have established a firm state, and abide by their own laws even. they do some good for the citizens. But who among the people of the world wishes to keep ISIS in place? Who would have them stay to reign? None! Because they have violated the rights of the people, they have taken their freedom away, and no good can outweigh that. The end in no way justifies the means. The righteous and those who wish for a good world cannot use the methods of tyranny, for then they become exactly like those that they are resisting. We are what we do, and a tyrant is a tyrant, no matter his intentions. We are defined through our actions, and so if we are to be one of the righteous, we must act as one of them. We must make different choices than the wicked. That is why the righteous do not operate under the same methods as the wicked. That is why the righteous do not seize power, why they choose democracy, because they are righteous. Their choices define them.

There's a quote about a good man going to war...let me look it up

“Demons run when a good man goes to war
Night will fall and drown the sun
When a good man goes to war

Friendship dies and true love lies
Night will fall and the dark will rise
When a good man goes to war

Demons run, but count the cost
The battle's won, but the child is lost”

― Steven Moffat

Turns out it's from Doctor Who. I do think that might be where part of this thought came from, but not all of it. The point is that when a good man goes to war, they can win, but they may lose more than they gain. "The child is lost." There are times when good men must go to war, I know, when tyranny becomes so utterly unbearable that the good men cannot wait any longer and must rise up. Yet, mark the difference in what comes after! Good men, righteous men, will strive for freedom for all mankind. They will create democracy- look at America! look at the Book of Mormon! Example after example where the righteous establish democracy. And yet, when the wicked fight, it is for power. It is for their own gain and refuses to acknowledge others at all. They establish tyranny, with themselves at the head, that they might have what they desire at the expense of others. That, I think, is the most profound difference. You see, in each case, each person has a chance to get what they want. But the means are different. A good man may wish to fix the world, to have power, but he will not take away anyone else's voice to do it. He will offer them a choice. A wicked man gives no ground. A righteous man creates a framework where all can find happiness, and gain their desires. A wicked man will gain his desires at the expense of others. It is true that both will go after what they want. Both can be self-interested. But the difference is in the means, in the methods they use. Good men step lightly on the earth, but they are happier than all the wicked ever were.

The righteous refuse to take away the freedom of others to gain their own desires. The righteous will establish freedom for all.

The wicked will stomp all over the rights of their fellow men to get what they want. The wicked will take away others' freedom if it means getting their way.

The righteous see the value in others' opinions, and can see that other people can be right. Other people can help. The righteous work together to find a common solution. This is democracy.

The wicked sees only their way, sees that only they are right. They will not accept aid or listen. They work alone, believing that only they can fix what is wrong with the broken world. This is tyranny.

Now, this wicked isn't the word used in the traditional sense. In the ramblings of my mind, it was just used as the word that best fit. Really, wicked is the end result of this thought pattern. We are human- we can choose who to be. And whichever pattern we choose, whichever actions we take, they will define us in the last day, in judgment. Until that day, we can still change.

You know, I never realized how strong my own opinions were on this topic until I began to write it out. Turns out, this is one of my core philosophies: That we are defined by what we do, and that the end does not justify the means. That democracy is the best way, the only way that allows the good to have a chance.