Invisible boundaries

A gunman shoots 32 people at a university, and has now been identified as a South Korean who was a resident alien, and studied English there. In that order, of course, with not a mention as to what his name was. In a world of man-made boundaries, it's but natural to explicitly state- you are from that circle, and that will be the only identity that you will be known by. Nationality is every person's original sin. Which nation doesn't matter, there's always someone who'll hate you for it. Religion comes next, only because of some flexibility in which religion and the option of the lack of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the killer is to be pitied. I'm just commenting on a passing thought sparked off by his identification. Unfortunately, you can't opt out of nationality. But in the competition of the ill will created, religion takes the cake. The sole cause of caste, the crusades, the Riddah wars, the holocaust- the list goes on. Perhaps 'cause' is too biased a word. Property may have been the cause, but it wasn't the justification. If indeed, God (or whatever spiritual goal it is that prompts these notions) requires all people to follow the true religion (being every religion in existance in the minds of its followers) he would have known better than to send so many spiritual leaders, or agree to killing off people in his name. Old argument, still worth the mentioning. What makes anyone's religion better than anyone else's if you use it for the same purpose anyway? To give you a false notion of superiority knowing that there are others with the same misconception and to justify every act that causes harm to another in some way. Yes, humans do have a fetish for power... something to make one feel good in one's own little world- that the 'I' is of some consequence.

What is your nationality anyway? Why is your country so important when it is but a piece of the earth marked out for no concievable reason besides wanting to be 'better-off' than someone else? The productivity of the land in question may actually make you better off in terms of health, etc, but why do you want to exclude others from it on various justifications? To keep yourself better off and to keep your progeny better off. In other words, to survive as comfortably as possible. I'm quite convinced humans did evolve (I'll also give credit to genetic engineering theories like those of Erich von Daniken and others) from animals, as you see, we retain territorial instincts and it's still the survival of the fittest amongst us. Only we live in our own notions of what qualities are possessed by the fittest. Most religions seem to think it necessary to state that man is different from the other animals that inhabit the planet with us. Of course we are different. Can you see animals inventing new reasons to justify a survival instinct? They mark out territories too, but do you see them differentiating between two of the same species from different territories? Yes, maybe if one of them was stronger than the subject, and we don't see religious wars there. Atleast we haven't discovered any such religious affiliations other than food, shelter and mates, all matters of survival. Not masked in spiritual gain or the attainment of a better afterlife. Yes, humans are different, but not, as many religions of the man made world put it- better.

Until my next!