You know, this comes up frequently.

I have had to think about the CIA more than I would like to admit. There are some wounds in my life related to the evil of perceived unaccountability - and the perceived unaccountability was my own.

When it comes to someone being harmed by a government institution that has the same problem, especially when it has done much to consciously avoid accountability, the result is only worse for those who have chosen to participate. I no longer worry about what is not known. I worry only about what will, and it most certainly will, become known.

And we are at our best when there is mutually painful self-reflection on the roles we as individuals and collectives play in bringing one another to harm. When we would prefer to bring one another to safety, we are delivered the means to do so, Inshallah. God willing.

Am I too stupid to understand this, or does it make no sense?

People sometimes do bad things, and aren’t held accountable.

Sometimes, these unaccountable things are secret. Some secrets will remain secrets. The secretes that will become public knowledge are my worrisome.

It’s common to do bad things and be unaccountable for them — from your own actions or the actions you take on behalf of the group. Society is best when people think about how their worst actions effect other people. If we all try to help each other, surely we can find a way.

This is my dummy translation, and it doesn’t hold a flame to the remorse, regret, and hope of the original.

> Society is best when people think about how their worst actions effect other people.

In our day to day lives, I use this as a basic character test of both individuals and societies. People fail this inductive-thinking test - "If everyone did what I am about to do, would I like to live in the society that would result?" - all the time. Signs of failure range from lack of civic sense (litter, rash driving etc) all the way to climate change and social collapse.

> "If everyone did what I am about to do, would I like to live in the society that would result?"

I think about it differently. I look at things and think "is this system set up so that it is easier to do the right thing than the wrong thing?" I think it is easy to look at problems and point out individual "moral failings" as the cause, but data doesn't really support that in the big picture in most cases. There is a reason you don’t see trash on the ground at Disneyland. They put trash cans everywhere because they want it to be easier to throw your garbage away than litter. Driving safety has improved due to system changes, not individual actions. Regulations on safety devices, enforcement of road laws, research into road/signal/signage design to promote safety and discourage poor driving, etc. Climate change is far and away an industrial problem where producing greenhouse gases are almost a complete externality for corporations. It isn’t people taking long showers or using straws, it is corporate byproducts that they have no incentive to reduce because they have no profit motivation because those things do not cost them anything.

If everyone went into software engineering, we would all starve to death. There are very few things that society could survive “everyone” doing - a diversity and balance of complementary behaviors are important.

Sure, but there are plenty that apply. Driving sensibly, not littering and behaving properly in a queue are such basic examples that going as far as "everyone becoming a software engineer" seems a little disingenuous.

It makes more sense as a rule applied to moral judgements c.f. Immanuel Kant's Universalisability.

Or as the bible so aptly put it:

> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

We technically do not evaluate anything of this nature, without acknowledging that there are greater forces which evaluate evaluators.

Without that belief, what we get instead, is vigilantism (either within the institution, or outside of it.) Preferable to that, is well-accountable and ethically mutual reflection which brings out the best, and roots out the worst in the participants. That is never impossible, as long as we presume accountability beyond immediate verifiability. As Christ said: "for there is nothing hidden which will not be brought to light."

In horror tales of every institution (or individual) is the requirement to self-assess and demand better for oneself. If the CIA has entirely slipped its moorings, it is subject to the countervailing forces which would enlighten its enemies to its demise.

What is more hopeful, is that only various activities have gone rogue. Regardless, only God knows entirely the state of affairs. God does respond. So with love, and a whole lot of grace, we'll see a brighter future for everyone involved.

Not to be too controversial, but that last part only works if you believe there is a god or some sort of cosmic justice. Those of us who don't would like to explore alternative solutions...

Are you aware of any movements that aim at solving the problem you are referring to?

I am not a chapter and verse person, and almost my entire understanding of the Bible comes through my own remembrances, all paraphrasing now, of what I learned when I was younger.

I often wonder if there's a great many people out there like myself. Seems like there is?

Sure - there are lots of folks aiming at a more authentic reading. In general, the older a church, the more it aims at a reading that avoids the modern atomizing impulse. The Catholic and Orthodox churches do some good work on that score, as do Anglican and Lutheran theologians.

I upvoted one of your earlier comments because it was a thought provoking and interesting criticism that I didn't know about and will keep in mind. So thanks for that!

Even though there are Lutheran and Anglican theologians that aims at what you call authentic reading, I would be surprised if that has a real impact of the members of these churches, and for me that is really were the focus should be.

According to: https://anglicancompass.com/scripturelessons/ "Anglicans read four passages of Scripture during Sunday worship. Out loud.

So do some other traditions, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutherans and others."

I would be surprised if the next week's passages would follow this week's passages, so I assume that this "ritual" will atomize the Scriptures either if they are divided into verses/chapters or not. (There are of course a lot of other parts of the life in these churches as well; but the Sunday service is still an important part).

I am used to a progression in Scripture readings, where each Book is read chronologically (with input from other Scriptures that does not follow chronologically as well), but that has little to do with if the Book is divided into verses/chapters or not. So for me personally, I doubt the atomizing of the Scriptures has a great impact.

I'm glad you found it thought provoking. The liturgical churches tend to follow a lectionary, which, as you say, excerpts from the scriptures. The RCL has some passages that I think are cut poorly, but generally keeps the unit of thought at the level of the particular story or argument.

I would like to reply positively to what it is you are insisting that chapter and verse does to the Holy Scriptures. Your reply is beautiful and it is helping me reflect on how I will be presenting information in a forthcoming book on ancient biblical history.

To the defense of the creator(s) of this web application, I feel that the chapter and verse divisions have been in existence, and problematic, for a very long time.

For certain reference work this is a wonderful tool.

I am very thankful to hear you have had a good experience with your Section 8 tenants.

As a HUD-VASH veteran recipient in Los Angeles, I have hoped to discover that there are reasons to expand programs for more low-income people in the United States. I am EXTREMELY fortunate as a veteran to receive housing assistance. Thanks for making it possible for people in need to have a safe and affordable option! Blessings!