... / evil author /...: The Garden of Good and Evil

[Steve]

---  "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> ...
> 
> Mike wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34295>:
> 
> << anybody that makes the argument that JKR is evil, I'm going
> to dismiss as giving themselves too much credit in the ability
> to read minds. >>

> Catlady:
> 
> Well, look, I surely don't think she's evil, but suppose 
> someone said that her writing deliberately spreads the 
> message that people should use their own judgment about what
> is good and what is evil instead of just believing whatever
> an authority tells them about what is good and what is evil,
> and deliberately spreads the message that people should do 
> what they believe is good and avoid doing what they believe 
> is evil, even if that means disobeying an authority, and that
> is an evil message, and therefore she is evil for spreading 
> an evil message. 
> 
> ....

bboyminn:

Wow, this is one of those extremely rare occasions when I
have to thoroughly disagree with the great Catlady.

I think you are wholly mistaken in this assertion of 'evil'.
First of all the correct subject should not be good vs
evil, it should be legal vs illegal. Laws are, or at least
can be corrupt, governments can be corrupt, political 
and social leaders can be corrupt, motives can be corrupt.
It is the duty, and in the USA the right, of every citizen to
oppose that corruption.

In that sense, to challenge authority is to recognize evil
and challenge it. But, you need some fundamental measure
by which authority can be challenged. In the USA, 
politically, that standard is the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. Whenever government acts in a way that violate
or corrupts those founding principles, the citizens have
the right of subversion and armed revolution, but only to
restore the Constitution and preserve the Bill of Rights. 

Those acts are not evil, they are the safeguards built
into our government. To put it simply, unchallenged 
authority is tyranny. Only when authority CAN BE challenged
do we have a hope of liberty. 

Further, and this has been discussed before, taking a stand
of higher moral ground overrides law and politics. Again,
for most Americans, religion is the foundation of moral
guidance. If the government tells you to do something that
you know is morally wrong, even if it isn't illegal, you
have a moral obligation to challenge that request. 

But, if you are anything other than Catholic, you have
an obligation, right, and duty to also challenge religious
authority. That is not evil, that is the path to salvation.
Religious bureaucracy can become just as corrupt as 
political, social, and business bureaucracy, and when that 
happens, the only available recourse for correcting that 
corruption it for citizens to firmly challenge that authority.

Challenging authority is not evil; it is a right and a
moral duty. At least it is in any free society.

Perhaps, I misunderstood what you were saying, because
what I heard you say goes against all moral imperatives
that I understand.

Sorry, usually, you are right on the money in your comments.

Steve/bboyminn