Even in the case where using dishonesty and hypocrisy as tools yields a
society in which dishonesty and hypocrisy have on balance decreased?
Sure, there's no guarantee that that would happen, but I don't think that
hyprocisy *necessarily* taints such an endeavor fatally. I certainly can
imagine some instances where it's OK to be hypocritical. Say, for example,
you're confronted by a militant follower of belief system X who points a
gun in your face and demands:
"Do you believe in X???"
If you say "yes" without believing, you're being hypocritical, but I don't
think many people would take you to task for it.
A less strained example is how parents treat their children. Presumably
parents don't believe the fairy tales, stories of Santa Claus etc. that
they tell their kids, but I think their hyprocisy (if that's what is), is
often justifiable. Fairy tales, for example, often teach valuable lessons
about the real world.
Perhaps it would be better if such lessons could be delivered without
hypocrisy, but I'm not sure that's always possible. And perhaps the same
is true of an agenda such as Virus's: if you want Virus to serve as a sort
of wake-up call, you have to deliver its message in a way that the sleepers
can understand. When they're sufficiently awake, *then* they may be ready
to confront and leave behind whatever hypocritical aspects the church has.
To sum up, though I value consistency highly, I don't think it's an end in
and of itself; sometimes inconsistency can be valuable, if its gains
outweigh its costs. I think there is such a thing as "benign hypocrisy".
Egad, I'm starting to sound like Richard!
------
Ken Kittlitz ken@kumo.com
http://www.lucifer.com/~ken
Kumo Software Corp. http://www.kumo.com