Man - Agent of Disharmony

The natural world, the product of the miracle that is the universe, is a model of harmony.   There is not one element of it that is not symbiotic with another.  Yes, there is violence in nature, both in the animal world and in other aspects of nature, but it is all part of the balance within the grand scheme. 

Enter man. In the beginning, man was in harmony with nature; he respected it, even if that respect was partially born of fear, not just wonder.  The elements were sacred and reverence of them was central to man's early religious beliefs.

At some point in man's evolution, however, he came to have the belief that he needn't fear nature because he could adapt and control the manner in which nature impacted him and his needs.  He no longer respected it, felt that it was the controlling force on Earth; man now felt he was the controlling  force.

This new belief is reflected in the Bible.  In Genesis 1:28. it says,  “And God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish in the sea, and over the foul in the air, and over every living thing that moveth on the earth.”  [emphasis added]

Later in Genesis, after having seen the wickedness of man and sending the flood to destroy all living beings save those in the ark, God repeats this message with an even stronger statement.  “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.”  Genesis 9:1-3

There in a nutshell is the spiritual basis for what has become man’s relationship with himself and the rest of planet Earth.  Man is the controlling force on Earth.  Everything else that God placed on Earth is there for man’s benefit and use.  End of story.

How convenient for man that God gave him such license.  Could the contemporary despoilers of the Earth come up with any more powerful and unquestionable language to spiritually legitimize their actions?

"But how can you say," the reader may ask, "that this language reflects man's changed relationship to nature?  The Bible is God's word."  Think about it.

If God created the world and all that is in it, would God have had such little regard for all the life and beauty that He created, for the miracle of life, that He would essentially say to man, "do with it what you will, subdue it, rule it?"  Especially having just had experience of what wickedness man is capable of.

I think not.  I would argue that if the Bible were indeed God’s word revealed to man, it would say something more like, “Be fruitful and multiply but always be mindful of your duty to your fellow man, your fellow creatures, and the bounty of the earth that I have created.  Every living thing must be honored and respected; no life shall be taken by you except when in need.  Use the bounty of the earth for your benefit but in so doing you must honor and respect it; any action by you should leave the earth whole and pure.”  (See my post, "The Bible - God's Word or Man's.")

Now that sounds like something God would say.  But the Bible doesn’t say that because it would be inconvenient for man.  It would not give him free reign over the creatures of the earth and its riches.

For the first millennia of man's developing civilization, man was still mostly in harmony with nature because he did not have the means to wreak havoc upon it.  The one exception was his ability to conquer other peoples and subject them to his will.  Whether it was the slave trade (which had been going on for millennia before the southern American colonies started importing slaves) or things such as the Spanish Inquisition of Jews, man gained power by subduing other men, not just subduing but torturing.

But with the Industrial Revolution, man 's capacity to destroy the harmony, the balance, of nature became manifest.  The age of major pollution of water bodies began and the tearing up of land for the exploration of the minerals that man needed for his industry was undertaken with abandon.  In so doing, man had absolutely no concern for the impact of his actions on nature.  He was given the right by the Bible,  and he took it.

During the course of the 20th century and continuing into the current one, man's destructive capacity has increased exponentially, whether the result of new inventions, new methods of exploitation such as in mining, or chemical products such as fertilizers. The magnitude has also been affected by the explosion of the population, because that has created a need for more and more industrial products; thus increasing industrial pollution and destructiveness.

As for the impact of man's wars, while war has always been destructive of harmony and the killer of men, the scope of war – they are now world wars – and technological advances, beginning with the machine gun and perhaps culminating in the atom bomb, have greatly increased war's destructive impact  It is now possible that man could destroy all life on earth by pushing a button in a moment of madness or panic.

But the disharmony that man has brought about goes beyond his impact on nature and the torture and death of his fellow man.  Perhaps even worse is the disharmony and suffering man has brought to his own immediate family.  (See my post, "Creating a Safer World for Our Children,.")

Man's mind has become a hotbed of neuroses, fear, and anxiety as his ego has reacted to his life experiences.  It has been a chain reaction that began in historical times but has increased dramatically with modern man's total lack of self-sufficiency.  It impacts almost everyone, every family, and spans generations, as each generation of insecure parents raises children who are insecure who become insecure adults who raise another generation of insecure persons.

And as I've written in the past, this insecurity is at the root of much if not most of the violence that is happening today, whether within the family, in the community, in the nation, or internationally.  See my posts, “The Root of All Abuse and Violence - Insecurity” and “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War.”  

Added to that is the violence and suffering caused by the presence of evil among us.  See my post, "Ending the World’s Dysfunction - Exorcising the Devil in Us."  The Devil has been called "the personification of evil."  And evil is defined as, “profound immorality or wickedness, morally reprehensible, cruelty, intentionally causing harm or suffering - a lack of humanity.”  

Look around you carefully and you will see that the existence of evil is everywhere..  People often think of evil only in terms of extreme examples. such as the holocaust.  But the dark force of evil is present in even “small” examples of inhumanity, such as often occurs within the family.

The insecurity and evil present in man close the circle of  disharmony that I have described.  It is at the center of it all – power, greed, cruelty, inhumanity.  Man has gone so far down this dark path that it is hard to imagine that anything, not even the second coming, would reverse the trend.  

I've written before that the time has unfortunately come  for another flood to wipe mankind from the face of the Earth.  The animal and plant world, as well as the physical forces of the universe, deserve to be free of the influence of man.  Earth deserves to be free of his influence.  Indeed, man himself deserves to be free of his influence.

That is unlikely to happen.  So all one can do is in one's own small way build a world around you that is filled with humanity – love, light, faith, trust. compassion, humility, gratefulness, joy, contentment, courage, and strength.

In the Supreme Court, Has It Become Politics Over Law?

In the recent Supreme Court hearing of arguments for and against Tump's claim of absolute immunity from prosecution ("4 Takeaways," April 25), three of the conservative judges - Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavenaugh - put forth questions/arguments which were almost ludicrous in their lack of relevance to the issue at hand.

These three conservative judges basically said that a president should not be subject to politically motivated prosecution by a vindictive successor.  We can all agree with that.  But this argument is not relevant to judging Trump's claim to immunity.  The fact that in rare instances a criminal statute could be misused is no reason not to provide for prosecution of the crime.

First, the question is whether a past-president should be immune from prosecution from potentially criminal acts committed while in office.  The further question is whether this should apply to both official and non-official acts, or just non-official acts.  

Prosecution for criminal action has various bars that must be met to justify prosecution.  Regardless how zealous the prosecutor or vindictive the successor, there has to be alleged criminal action.  This is not about challenging a president's motives for his official acts in office, regardless how criticized he or she may be.  Supporting particular legislation or arguing for a change in regulation, regardless of the motive, would not constitute criminal action under anyone's definition.

Which brings me to the second point.  All the conservative justices refused to look at the facts involved in this case.  Yet in judging whether a claim of immunity is appropriate, the facts of the case are extremely relevant.  You have first the theoretical question of absolute immunity, and once that is decided, whether the case before the court warrants such immunity. Trump is alleged to have defrauded the government by denying the results of the election – not by challenging them in court which is his right and which he did – but continuing to contest them after losing the court cases and further by attempting through various means to subvert the election and remain in the Presidency.

These facts are relevant because they show why the grant of immunity requested is not appropriate, why such matters must be subject to criminal prosecution.  They go to the heart of the strength and validity of our democracy.

The Palestinian/Israel Conflict - A Reality Check

I have for decades been critical of Israel's actions towards Palestinians, both as citizens of Israel and the Palestinian authority.  

The founders of Israel were so caught up in the millennia of persecution, mostly recently the Holocaust, that Jews had faced at the hands of other governments and religions that they understandably wanted to create a Jewish homeland – Jewish.  But seeking that homeland in a region where they had a minor contemporary presence, based instead upon the Bible, was bound to create problems.

Because they were Jews and because they were displacing Palestinians who had lived in the region for generations, they were faced with enemies all around them who wanted to obliterate Israel from the map.  And so they responded to defend themselves in the only way they could – militarily.

Through the decades since the founding of the state of Israel, this has been the dynamic in the region.  And the fear for their security led Israel to make at least one huge mistake – they treated the Palestinians who chose to remain in Israel and become Israeli citizens like second class citizens.  Palestinians were segregated in their own villages which did not receive the funding and attention that Jewish villages did.  Yes, Palestinians had rights and had access to education and medical services, but they were second class citizens in other ways.  And they were not part of the Israeli army because they weren't trusted.

There is no shortage of fingers to point in this conflict.  The Palestinian leadership, especially under Yasser Arafat and Hamas, have stoked the fires of hatred of Israelis which in turn validated fear within Israelis.  There is plenty of blame on all sides for the current state of affairs.

Which brings me to the current crisis.  Hamas committed a horrendous crime in their assault of Israelis on October 7.  This was not a military action, an action against the Israeli military.  The attack was clearly against defenseless people, especially women.  The crimes they committed could be compared with the crimes Russian troops committed against Germans when they occupied that country towards the end of WWII.  Except in the case of Hamas, the assault on unarmed people was the whole purpose of the action, not just an offshoot of an otherwise defensible military action.

So what was Israel expected to do in the aftermath of such an attack?  The only reasonable response is military and relentless.  

So far, I'm with Israel.  But because Netanyahu and his allies are who they are, they saw an opportunity to make war against the Palestinians in a way which they hadn't previously.  And so it has gone far beyond "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

Israel must stop and the region must return to what had passed as normalcy before the Hamas attack.

And what about all the protests, mainly by students, on behalf of the Palestinians?  Their self-righteousness is borne of ignorance.  They are totally one-sided in their thinking; they have no understanding of the history of the conflict;  nor do they seem to remember that this war started as a result of the Hamas action on October 7.  

Of course one should voice support for a cease-fire, an end to the war, but to denounce or demonize Israel as committing genocide is to fall into the trap set by Palestinian provocateurs and anti-semites, who do not come to this matter with "clean hands."

I have witnessed well-meaning liberal citizens marching down the street in small towns like Great Barrington, MA and Belfast, ME denouncing Israel.  They don't have a clue about  the conflict.  It is scary how people can be led to do things based on an "influencer" without any thought or research of their own, without any thought of the influencer's bias.

The reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that there is plenty of blame to go around, not just regarding the current conflict but the entire history since the founding of Israel.  No one can be self-righteous in this situation or conveniently point the finger of blame at the opponent/enemy.  

The time has come to return to the concept of the 2-state solution.  It will be much harder now than when it was first proposed because in the intervening years Israel has expanded its settlements in the West Bank making a reasonably functioning Palestinian state almost impossible to configure.  Thus, many settlements will have to be abandoned as part of the solution.

Many say that will be impossible; the settles will not move and it will cause a crisis in Israel.  But Ariel Sharon did it in Gaza, and a future Israeli government can do it in the West Bank.

Peace in the region depends on it.  There is no subjugating the wrath of an occupied and displaced people.