The 9/11 Conundrums: Being Right versus Being Happy

All of us are ultimately after happiness.  Some of us find it in the simple pleasures of life; some of us try to find it in things and people; and some of us never find it at all.  When we don’t, there is usually no one to blame but us, because like in most things, the answer is within.

Unfortunately, when it comes to religion, happiness is too often rigidly defined as only being available within the conscripts of the appropriate dogma.  This leads to trying to find happiness within self-righteousness, and that turns the quest into a lie.  My experience with self-righteousness is that it leads to the happiness of an addict, i.e., the quick fix, and never to anything substantial or lasting.  Which is why its practitioners must constantly be at the throats of the people around them.  They are constantly seeking the adrenalin rush, and they only way they can get it is to try to force their views on others.

That’s exactly what’s happening on a national scale as we watch two “holy men”, neither of whom are acting very loving, push their religious rights into everyone else’s face.  They both have a perfect right under the US Constitution from both freedom of religion and First Amendment right standpoints to do what they are doing, i.e., one building a mosque close to Ground Zero in New York where it flies in the face of the people still dealing with the loss of loved ones and defeats his message of “good will” and the other burning the Koran to “send a message” of intolerance and self-righteousness.  There is no difference in the actions of these two men; they are both choosing to be right rather than happy, and they are dragging a lot of people with them.

In reality, it’s hard to see the difference in these attitudes and those of religious terrorists except in scale.  All of them are convinced they are right and are willing to fight to preserve that self-righteousness. The terrorists may indeed be more honest in that you know they stand for violence; the others seems to be willing to be passive instigators in the vain hope that any harm they bring they can deny because of their lack of direct involvement.  Indeed, one aspect of this situation that is being ignored is that anyone who does act out of violence, even at someone else’s behest, is making a choice to do so and is totally responsible for it regardless of the motivation.  And, in doing so, they actually prove the allegations being thrown at them and their religion, in the long run doing the exact harm they are protesting.

The whole chain shows only one thing, i.e., that it is a lose-lose proposition for everyone involved.

The devil is as devil does.

Comments are closed.