For the sake of this example let's assume that reincarnation is valid.

In such an instance all these "inexplicable" or "unjustified" bad things may find their origins in past actions. What might happen to an Uday were he to be reappear again? Cause and effect would indicate that he might very well be an abused child, perhaps be despised by women - or he might even be born a woman and receive violent abuse by men such as he was! Such would be the natural continuity and feedback from these past actions - or the sine wave following its natural course from one cycle to the next. The wave always seeks balance and any one or a combination of these type of future scenarios might provide it.

You've not only assumed reincarnation is real (valid?), and anthropomorphized physics, you've also assumed the universe functions naturally in accordance with modern Western morality. None of these assumptions have any basis in science.

While no one wants to look as a child in anything other that an innocent blank sheet - there's a good chance that assuming a child is a blank sheet is very naive. Look at the prodigy child who composes music, speaks several languages and achieves all this without any difficulty whatsoever? A gift of some god? A freakish rarity created by overactive neurons? Somehow I think we can see that not only are children not blank sheets - but that there are as vast levels of varying development in newborns and infants as there are in adults! Everyone has usually known a child that was the opposite of the angel-faced child but seemed to relish in tormenting others and seemed possessed from the earliest ages. No children are not born equal. While they should be equally protected under law and share the same rights - no two people or children are ever equal. Equality is a false concept - a convenient illusion in a universe where no two things are ever equal, even grains of sand or atoms.

If you have two crisp ten-dollar bills in your wallet, do they have equal buying power or does one have more?

Therefore if reincarnation is valid, we have our most likely reason for many of the inexplicable events and misfortunes which seem undeserved.

"Seem undeserved?" People actually deserve the inexplicable calamities that befall them because of sins committed in previousl lives? You think that's more probably than random bad luck manifested by an uncaring universe? When a tidal wave or volcano wipes out
thousands, you believe they all had it coming because the universe keeps score and they were all in arrears?

Are you familiar with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation?" Even if reincarnation was real and Mother Theresa returned as the Pope, it wouldn't necessarily mean her good deeds in her former life had any effect on her subsequent lives. She could just as easily come back as the next Ed Gein or Jack the Ripper.

Because when you truly understand the comprehensive balancing nature of the universe (all energy always seeks balance) . . .

Couldja cite a credible scientific source that agrees with you on the "comprehensive balancing nature of the universe?" How about a credible scientific source that says "all energy always seeks balance?" Is there "good energy" and "evil energy?" (You don't make sacrifices to Ra, the Sun God, do you?)

Many religions would say that the child struck by lightning was subject to "God's will" and leave it at that. I say there is no such thing and that that event had to have a cause. We may not know what it is - but it is probably there nevertheless. And I think that it was more significant a reason than just the physical phenomenon of lightning and random "chance" that determined the event.

By context, I assume you mean moral cause. As I said, there's no scientific basis for believing so-called "acts of God" (acts of nature) have any moral causation, no matter what you and Pat Robertson think.

Because when you truly understand the comprehensive balancing nature of the universe (all energy always seeks balance) one realizes that no one ever can get away with anything bad, that ecstatic joy will be accompanied by bitter sorrow, that life comes with death. Suddenly each human, even a Uday or Hitler becomes worthy of our understanding. We can't hate them. Hate is imbalanced. When we understand the psychosis of a Hitler and how it came to be, event by event, thought by thought, not only do we know more of the forces that mold such a personality - but we realize he will receive feedback for every death, every action, all the fear and suffering. And because we are human we have compassion for all who suffer - even those who demonstrate great evil. We don't like to see pain and suffering.

If predestination exists, why was the Holocaust Hitler's fault? Without free will, there are no choices. Without choices, no morality. As for receiving feedback, maybe being Hitler was his reward for having suffered as Pope in his previous life.

Nothing in the universe is unfair. Nothing. It may seem horribly unfair, but all things are cause and effect.

In other words, you believe in Karma.

You asked me how I measure evil. I do not apply a personal moral code to good and evil. To me ALL things are evil AND good. I can apply a relative framework to any particular event and say that Hitler is horribly evil when compared to an average individual, but in a world where everyone was like Saddam, Stalin or Lenin - his evil would not stand out especially - in fact his thinking and actions would be about par for the course. It is not that hard to imagine someone even more evil for whom each and every action and thought was done solely with intent to hurt others and destroy that which surrounds them. Such a person would probably not be compatible with this world, but in some other world perhaps, Hitler and the others could be born there and appear as if they were the kind and benevolent ones!

If you believe good and evil are relative, what makes you think the natural universe gives a damn or is set-up to administer justice?

Bush is a man. He will have both good and evil attributes. I see no evidence he desires war, seeks to loot Iraq's oil or set up internment camps for disloyal citizens. I see a father who because of his own choices as a young man is now already receiving feedback from his daughters providing him a valuable perspective he completely lacked.

How do you define "good?"

The bottom line is all things are relative and yet for us they are relative to our own position and understanding. Some see Bush as evil and can't see the equal amount of good. Others see only good and can't see any evil. The more developed one becomes - the more one sees this balance in all the people around us. One no longer lives to condemn or adulate - instead one focuses on one's own personal development.

I'm not aware of anyone who lives to condemn or adulate. Isn't this simply more of your "the people who criticize Bush are mentally unbalanced" schtick?