tecnh
RIGHT
& WRONG I
Do
the words “right” and “wrong”
convey to man any true standard
of justice?
Are
not those words arbitrary, and do they not convey to the world the
idea that man is to take some person's opinions in regard to the
meaning?
The
words were never intended to apply to the leaders of any party or
sect. It must be admitted that they are right, and what they say of right and wrong
does not apply to them, but to the masses.
Now, let us
see if it is not so.... Take the
Bible as a
test. We are told that this book defines the words
“right” and
“wrong.” Now, the Bible does not define anything,
but certain men
set themselves up as the standard of right and wrong
to
judge others - but they do not come within that
sphere.
In political
parties each party leader explains
what is right and what is wrong
for the masses to
believe.
So
with the medical faculty. The leaders are never
reckoned into
the progression - only the masses. Now, the idea is so absurd,
although the masses do not know why it is so; it
causes
controversy, and up spring parties, and every party or sect has its
leaders, and every leader has less right and wrong for
his
followers!
This
false way of reasoning can never cure the
evil. Enlighten the masses, and let them see that the answers to right
and
wrong are not to apply to the leaders - but to themselves.
Then they will see that one man has no more right to set up a
standard of “right” and compel others to bow down
to it, than
another man has to set up a standard for him.
Now, I set up
no standard. Neither will I bow
to any
person's standard of “right,” for the man that made
the word made
it to judge others, and not to be applied to himself.
Here is where
I stand.... All men will admit
that
animals protect themselves by their strength, or with some weapons
that are given them, and they use it, and are all selfish. Now, man
at first came very near the character of the animal, and he has got a
great deal of the animal about him at this day.
Ask a
man if he believes slavery is right, and
he will
say, “Yes,” and another will say,
“No.” Now, I will suppose
that both are honest and both appeal to the Bible. Now, I say one is
just as right as the other, according to the definition of the words right
and wrong. Now, is there some way to get rid
of
the evil that separates them? For if you can make them both agree as
touching one point, the thing is settled.
So
let the word right go, and ask them
if they
would be willing to submit to the slaves to rule them,
if they
should get the power. Let them put it to their own selves,
and if they say they would, then they are honest -
(but not
intelligent.) For every person knows that whoever is not willing to
do another as he would be done by, is not honest. Now, if to be
honest is right and dishonest is wrong,
then reason
out what is honest and what is right.
Now,
every man has his own identity which God
gave him,
and to enslave him because you have the power is
doing what
you would find fault with, if applied to you.
But
if man is enslaved for the good of the
community,
i.e. to protect the masses, as you would chain a wild beast - that
would be honest and good. But to admit that you are not afraid of
them, and then enslave them for your own good, is
not honest,
and is bad.
So to
enslave man's opinion in regard to creeds
(or
diseases) is as bad as approving slavery.
teloV