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.

The Shame of Religion: An Open Letter to All Christian-Islamic-Jewish Religious Leaders

Most of the major conflicts in the world over the last 1500 years have either been a result of religious intolerance or were supported by religious authority.  This makes it the #1 cause or abetter of death and misery at the hands of man.  Religion has also been central to the neurotic suffering of man, his lack of true self-love.

Something just doesn’t seem right here.  I ask you, what should be the essential function of any religion?  In the words of the angels who announced the birth of Christ, “Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men.”  That about says it all. 

And indeed, the mystical traditions of all three Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - have an almost identical approach to their mission of leading man to be at peace with himself and his fellow man.  They all teach that the true nature of man is peace and goodness.  The religious establishments of the three religions, however, have pursued a different mission, with catastrophic (the word is not too strong) results for mankind. 

The common teaching of the mystical traditions is that the God-essence and thus peace is our true self, not our ego. They further teach, however, that our true nature is unknown to us; it has been concealed from us. And so it is for us to rediscover it, to uncover it, and allow it to embrace us and transform us.  (As an aside, this is also the teaching of Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as the classic secular Greek philosophies that speak to how we should live life.)

• Christian Gnosticism teaches that the human true self is a fragment of the divine essence, the “divine spark.”  But  we are “ignorant of our true origins and our essential nature” because forces cause us to remain attached to earthly things that keep us enslaved. It is this ignorance which brings about sin; man is not inherently sinful. Salvation from that ignorance is stimulated by the teachings of others, such as those of Christ, but man must ultimately find his own truth.
• According to Jewish Kabbalah, “every soul is pure in essence and the only salvation is to become enlightened (i.e. to remember the truth of who and what we really are). … Salvation is the process of clearing out whatever obstructs our manifestation of the concealed divine image. … Kabbalah leads to the conclusion that ultimately we must rely on ourselves - for we alone have the power to save ourselves.” It is to our heart we must look for guidance, not our ego-mind.
• Islamic Sufism is again about the journey of self-realization. Sufi means “unfoldment of the spirit towards its original condition.”  That original self is the Divine presence in man’s heart. Our heart is love, faith, trust, compassion, wisdom, and peace. Insecurity is a product of the mind. When one truly knows oneself, one knows God. “He has to find God within himself, but He can only be found in a heart that has been purified by the fire of love [of God].”

When you look at these teachings of the mystical traditions, it is clear that we are all children of the same God.  Regardless whether the messenger was Moses, Christ, or Muhammad, the message of the religion, the message of God, is the same.  The road to peace within man and to goodwill among men is for man to reconnect with the divine-essence he was born with and free himself from his ego-mind, from which flow the seven deadly sins and all strife. 

Indeed, the very word “religion” is ultimately derived from the latin, meaning “to reconnect.”  (Note: The more common derivation given is the latin, religio, but that word itself is a compound derived from the latin words meaning “to reconnect” or “to rebind.”) 

There is nothing in the mystical traditions that promotes one religion over another.  There is nothing in any that says it is the only way to salvation, to God.

The teaching of the religious establishments of the three faiths, however, has been very different.  Regarding relations among men, for most of their history each espoused that it was the only true way; that the others were false.  That the others were threats to the true religion.  For the powerful forces of Christianity and Islam, the others were to be dealt with as an enemy, at times ghettoized, at times killed in religious wars.  While today the more liberal branches of the three faiths certainly do not espouse such teachings, the more orthodox ones still view the others, and even the more liberal sects of their own religion, as being infidels or traitors.

How did this perversion of religious thought happen?  “Religion is usually started by pure, enlightened beings like Jesus whose aims are to help humanity understand higher spiritual truths and make the world a better place. Then sometime later the followers of those spiritual masters formalize, set forth, the teachings into a set of religious doctrine [the Bible, the Quran] and build institutions with seats of power to propagate the faith and control people.”  A change in mission.  

We know today without question that the writers of each of the holy books were not God or even the prophets.  Even when the words are presented as spoken by the prophet or God, we have no way of knowing what words the prophet actually spoke and what words are the words of the writers, devoted religious men but lesser beings with possibly their own take on the prophet’s words.  

As for the institutions, like many others, their survival (and so the faith’s) often overwhelmed the original purpose … here, the purpose of religion being to reconnect man with his divine essence and promote peace and goodwill among men … and so segregation, hatred, and prejudice were used to further the cause of the now one-true-faith. 

The results of these teachings were religious wars, starting with the Crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries and the Reformation Wars of the 16th and 17th centuries down to the Irish “troubles” and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Granted, most of these conflicts were to a large extent secular fights for power, but the line between religious and secular was often blurred (or nonexistent) and the religious establishments lent a very essential and ready hand to support the secular contests.  There was no religious voice saying, “This is wrong.  We are all children of the same God.  We should not be fighting each other.”

The same is true for wars that were not a result of religious intolerance.  All the major wars of the 20th century were such … WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnamese War.  Yet in each case, the religious establishments in the western countries mostly supported these secular wars of power.  It was only outliers such as Father Berrigan during the Vietnam War who protested.  It is the case, however, that much of the U.S. religious establishment did protest the Iraqi war.  Why the switch?  Probably because it was unavoidably clear to most people that the war in Iraq was not a “just” war.

As a result of these wars and conflicts, millions died fighting; civilian deaths were many times higher.  Add to that those who were seriously wounded physically as well as those wounded mentally and the number would be staggering.  

Then there are the human tragedies of genocide, slavery, and lynching, which are further examples of man’s inhumanity to man.  And here again, the religious establishments were either supportive or silent.  In one instance, the Spanish inquisition, the church was actually both instigator and implementer.  

And let us not forget colonialism and its devastating impact on native populations.  That form of oppression and religious/cultural intolerance was again supported by each country’s religious establishment.  The white man’s “burden” was very much the view of the religious establishments, as they saw their mission as spreading the faith by saving the heathens.

But the even greater tragedy, although more subtle and hidden, has been the impact of the religious establishments’ teaching on man’s relationship with himself and those around him.  Whether in the 16th century or in current times, the teaching of the religious establishment has not empowered man to live life well … which is to be at peace and happy.  

For those religions that preach the doctrine of original sin, what a terrible label to place on man that he is born a sinner.  The Catholic Church tries to have it both ways, saying that each man is born in the image of God, but his nature is inclined toward evil because of original sin; its practical emphasis, however, unfortunately is on man’s evil nature.  

Even those religious establishments that do not espouse the doctrine of original sin still do not teach that every man has the divine-essence inside him.  That the ego pulls him away from his true self causing him endless suffering.  And that man’s salvation lies in reconnecting with his true self and releasing all desires and emotions, which are a product of his ego-mind, and embracing all aspects of his being and experience.  They do not teach that the messages/urgings of our culture are the modern equivalent of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

What a different world it would be if religious establishments saw their mission first and foremost as enabling us to see the God-essence in ourselves and bringing about peace on earth and goodwill toward men.  Rather than preserving the institution and increasing its power through propagation of the faith and its hold on people.  To the extent that religious leaders are more servants of their establishment and our culture than of God, their spiritual bona fides must be questioned.

I pray that religious leaders of all faiths lay down their rhetorical arms, embrace each other as equally valid representatives of God, and embrace all people as not just children of God but as having the divine-essence in them.  I pray that all religious leaders return to the teaching of their mystical traditions and lead the way to saving mankind from himself.

Ever Wonder Why the World Is the Way It Is?

We live in a dysfunctional world.  Violence and conflict are all around us … within ourselves, within families, within societies, between nations.  How often do I hear people asking, “Why?”

The typical answer is some version of, “That’s just life,” or “It’s human nature.”  But that’s too easy and facile an answer.  The truth is more complicated and enlightening.  While it’s true that it is the way it is, it is not human nature; it’s human development.  That means it’s not inevitable; people can change.  We have a choice.

All religions depict life as a constant struggle between light and darkness.  In former times, that fight was often spoken of as being between God and the Devil. 

These days one hears little about the Devil for the same reason that most people don’t talk much about God.  The existence of these deities as external forces that control our lives, to whom we can on the one hand pray for deliverance or on the other bargain with for what we desire, just flies in the face of both our life experience and scientific knowledge.  Many have thus lost their belief in the God of our forefathers, if not declaring God dead.

But another concept of God is very much alive for those who walk the path of spirituality/mysticism … whether it’s Buddhism, Hinduism, Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, or Christian Gnosticism.  Their truth is that the Buddha/God essence is within each of us from the moment of our birth and remains there throughout our life.  

But that divine essence becomes hidden from us over the years, buried by successive layers of our ego-mind’s reaction to life’s experiences.  We become wounded by those experiences.  We become lost to our true selves.  And so we walk the path to reconnect, to rediscover our true selves.  Our salvation comes from within us, not from some outside force.  And so the eternal struggle is seen as being between our heart/soul and our ego-mind.

While we learn that the Buddha was tempted by Mara, the Buddhist equivalent of the Devil, I have never, I believe, heard the Devil mentioned when speaking of the challenge of healing ourselves, of ending our suffering. The reference is rather to freeing ourselves from the control of our ego-mind, it being the true source of our suffering, not the events we experience.  As the Buddha said, to free ourselves of the conceit “I am” is the ultimate freedom.

Recently, however, I felt the presence of the Devil.  I was having dinner with a friend who knows he has to limit his consumption of alcohol.  But he said he wanted a second glass of wine that night.  And that after dinner he wanted to go to some bars and have a beer like he does when he travels with other friends of his.  Knowing I would disapprove and say “no,” the expression on his face when he talked was a mocking one, sly.  I was aware of the strangeness of it at the moment, but I didn’t recognize it.  Only when I meditated the next morning, did I realize that I had been in the presence of the Devil.

I now understand that just as in some religions the Devil is thought to be a fallen angel,  in Buddhism, as well as the mystic traditions, the Devil can be equated with our ego-mind, which is our internal fallen angel/Buddha/God nature.  We have become so wounded repeatedly over the years that the ego-mind has no trust, no faith, and is consumed by fear; it has become cynical about the world around us.  It has overpowered our true self to “protect” us; we are in its control.  And so the Devil, our own Devil, is inside each of us; it is the nature of our ego-mind.

Ernestine, the Flip Wilson drag character, used to say, “The Devil made me do it!” In comic strips, a person was sometimes portrayed with an angel sitting on one shoulder whispering in his ear and the Devil sitting on the other doing the same, being confused by the competing advice; a graphic depiction of our internal Devil as well as our internal God-essence.   We have all experienced that.  So the concept is not foreign to our culture or experience.

I have written in previous posts how all the conflict and violence in the world, whether in the home, workplace, society or between nations is a result of the insecurity that man acquires from his life experiences.  (See my posts, “The Root of All Abuse and Violence - Insecurity” and “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War.”)  

That the ego-mind is not only filled with the fear, anxiety and self-centeredness (and often aggression) caused by insecurity but through continued wounding has acquired the lack of faith, trust, and cynicism of the Devil makes the dysfunction we observe all that more intractable.  And it explains the specter of evil that we see in all corners of the world.

This is why the world is the way it is.  It’s not because people are bad … there is no such thing as a bad person, just people who do bad things … or that humans are flawed.  It’s because our life experience has made us insecure and our ego-minds have reacted in a way which makes us a threat to our own well-being and the well-being of those around us.  The greater our insecurity, the more of a threat we become.  At some point we become the Devil incarnate.

If one wants to save the world from itself, this insight offers a possible agent of change.  It may not only be very helpful in a practical way for those already struggling to free themselves from the control of their ego-mind, the control of their emotions and perceptions, it may encourage more people, both leaders and followers, to enter upon that path.

How?  We very much identify with our ego-mind.  Its feelings and perceptions are all we’ve known our entire life.  Even for those who walk the path of the spiritual/mystic traditions, while we come to learn that our feelings and perceptions are the cause of our suffering and are not a reflection of our true selves, the power of these feelings are often barely diminished because we find it hard to deeply disown them.  So powerful is the ego-mind.  

When push comes to shove, we always return to the perspective of our wounded self, our ego-mind.  We have not purged ourselves from its grip.  The roots in our self-perception go too deep.

Identifying the ego-mind with the Devil may be very helpful because that image does not conjure up “I.”  It conjures up instead trickery, deceit, doing something against one’s best interest, evil … which is in truth how the ego-mind operates and controls us.  

Most people, regardless their status in life, regardless their lack of spirituality, would not I believe want to self-identify with the Devil.  It thus may well open the door at least a crack to the light of their heart.  And encourage people to at least ponder walking the path in order to find the way to disown their ego-mind and say “no” to its guidance, thereby freeing themselves from its control and finding inner peace and happiness.

Each soul saved makes for a better world.  Religions have always taught that.  But now salvation rests with the individual, what he chooses to do with his life.  Whether he chooses light or darkness, peace or suffering, not with his belief in a God external to himself.  This spirituality is of the present moment.   Its reward is here and now in a life of peace and happiness, not a Heaven to be experienced after death.

The Middle East Conundrum - A Suggested Way Forward

The history of conflict between the Jewish people and the majority cultures in the Middle East is an old one going back to biblical times and reemerging with a vehemence in the 20th century.  To find a way out of the Middle East conundrum, one must first understand that history.  Please bear with me; it’s a bit complicated.

The Jewish people have perennially been looking for a place to call home, spiritually and physically.  For more than 1000 years, from biblical times through the early period of Roman rule, they found that home in what is present day Israel and the West Bank (Judea, Samaria, and Galilee).  They prospered but were not safe even there as they were conquered several times during that period, persecuted by the victors, and ultimately dispersed to all corners of Europe.  

During the long period of diaspora that followed, Jews remembered the days when they were a people in their own land and not subject to persecution.  The phrase, “Next year in Jerusalem,” was invoked not just as nostalgia but as a fervent hope that Judaism would once again have a spiritual center and physical home.

Fast forward to modern times.  Jews and Arabs have been in a constant struggle since the early 1900s over the establishment of a Jewish state in the historic Holy Land.  It’s important to note that this has not been a conflict of religion but a conflict over land.  

Prior to WWI, the Zionist movement within Judaism sought to make the dream of next year in Jerusalem a reality and encouraged Jews to immigrate to the area.  During WWI and after the fall of the Ottoman empire, both Arabs and Jews sought promises from the British, who came to have the mandate over the area, designated Palestine, to establish an independent state.  

Many Jews denigrated the Palestinian claim for a state in Palestine because they had never governed the area nor had they ever been a distinct people.  But remember that this was a time when a people’s right to self-determination, however vaguely defined, came into vogue as a basis for nation building.  Even though the Arabs living in what became known as Palestine had never before that creation identified themselves as Palestinians, or some other name distinct from their fellow Arabs, this was the land where they had lived for hundreds of years and they felt they should have the right of self-determination.

The Arabs and Palestinians, on the other hand, felt that the Jews were interlopers.  Regardless the situation in biblical times, they had not been present to any but a marginal extent for almost 2000 years.  Even at the end of WWI, after a period of immigration, there were only 60,000 Jews in Palestine or 8% of the population.  By the end of the mandate, though, further Jewish immigration had swelled that number to 570,000 or 32% of the population.

In 1947 the U.N. General Assembly voted to support partition of the Palestine Mandate into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the two in an economic union.  Israel was subsequently declared a state at the end of the British Mandate.  The Arab countries, who had not cooperated with the U.N. Commission that drew up the partition plan, chose not to accept the partition and instead invaded to try to gain all the territory for an Arab state.  Not only did they lose the 1948 war, but the Palestinians were left with much less land than they would have had under the U.N. partition plan.  After the war, the Palestinians again chose not to declare a state in the area under their control.  

The Palestinian leadership for decades were pawns in the hands of the powerful Arab countries of the area who had no desire for peace.  They wanted Israel wiped off the map.  Period.  The Palestinian leadership adopted the same attitude.  Whether or not they still do is a confusing puzzle.  In 1988, Yasser Arafat stated that the PLO accepted the existence of Israel; later moderate leaders have said the same.  But despite claiming that the Palestinian Charter had been amended to remove the clauses calling for the destruction of Israel, it has never been actually amended; they decided to amend it but never followed through.  So their position is at best murky.  Hamas, of course, still calls for the destruction of Israel.

For Israel’s part, it has always and understandably thought of itself as in a defensive position with enemies on all sides.  As a result, although Israel is a democracy with protected rights of religion, etc., and the Palestinians who chose to remain in Israel and become citizens have on the one hand full legal rights of citizenship, including voting for the Parliament, they have been treated as second-class citizens in many ways.  For example, there is widespread employment and other forms of official and unofficial discrimination, and a large disparity exists in state funding for Palestinian schools and towns compared to Jewish ones as well as other Jewish v Arab needs.  Israel thinks of itself as a Jewish state, not just a Jewish-majority state, and that not surprisingly creates problems. 

The wars, occupation, and intifadas that have followed were an almost inevitable outgrowth of this historically combative and distrustful relationship.

There has always been a peace movement in Israel, but most governments have acted more to strengthen Israel’s presence in the West Bank and thus make a Palestinian state on the ground impossible.  Even the much ballyhooed  peace plan presented by then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak during President Clinton’s Camp David peace initiative in 2000 was not a plan, objective observers felt, for a viable Palestinian state.  Nevertheless, it’s rejection by Arafat was the final straw for most Israelis and many Americans in the debate over whether the Palestinians really want peace.

On the other side, the almost 50-year occupation of the West Bank has with each passing decade deepened the hatred of Israel, especially since 2000 when West Bank Palestinians ceased being able to work in Israel as a result of the Second Intifada.  Thus you now have a whole generation of young men who have never interacted with Israelis other than the occupying military and Jewish settlers.  The problem is now not so much the enmity of the large Arab states, as it is the hatred of Israel by many Palestinian.  This shift can be seen in Hamas’ winning the ill-conceived election of 2006.

In the Bible, it speaks of Pharaoh’s heart having been hardened towards the Jewish people.  God sought to show his power and break Pharaoh’s will by sending the plagues.  And while that worked, Pharaoh quickly regained his senses and chased after the departing Jews only to be drowned in the Red Sea.

This story, regardless of the lack of historical or archeological documentation, has direct relevance to the current situation in the mideast.  Violence and fear do not soften hearts.  The hearts on both sides, which tended to distrust the other from the very start, have only been hardened over time as a result of the violence meant to break the other.  

In my opinion, if the peace process is to be truly revived and bear lasting fruit, a way must be found to soften the hearts of both sides.  Because of the history, this must be something much deeper than the “confidence building measures” that have been suggested in past negotiations.  As the saying goes, half measures will avail us nothing.

Because I feel it is impossible to imagine that an Israeli government, not just the current Netanyahu-led government but any future government, or the Palestinian leadership will have the mental and political flexibility and openness necessary for this process to move forward, I suggest that a working group be formed of citizen-representatives from both sides to work out a plan that would then be presented to the people as well as the then-existing governments.

“Who the hell do you think you are?” I can see readers thinking.  “This problem has been intractable even when very experienced and determined heads have put their minds to this.”  Ah, but the minds have almost always been government-connected political minds.  I honestly think that a major problem has been that people unconnected with government haven’t been asked to take the lead.  They are the ones who truly want peace.

It would be presumptuous for me to express my thoughts on what the major points of a peace plan might be, and so I will not, with one exception (see below).  However, because this problem has been so intractable and all efforts to date have failed, I am going to suggest something about the process, beyond the point I’ve already made, to help soften hearts.

1. Each side must acknowledge the role they’ve played in creating distrust over the years.  This must be more than a mouthing of words.  It must be a heartfelt mea culpa of the various ways in which each side contributed to the current state of affairs.  
2. A massive information and people-to-people campaign needs to be undertaken to reintroduce Palestinians and Israelis to each other as human beings after years of conflict. 

Finally, the one point I feel needs to be addressed here regarding a peace plan, because I have never heard it discussed when previous plans or outlines were presented, concerns the status of Palestinian-Israelis.   I have noted earlier in this piece that they are second-class citizens, suffering from widespread official and unofficial discrimination.  That must end.  They must be treated equally in all areas of public policy, including budgetary matters.  All official examples of discrimination against them must be removed.  And the government must undertake a major campaign to stamp out employment and other private discrimination against them.

That said, it takes two to tango.  If Palestinian-Israelis wish to remain in Israel and be citizens of that nation, then they need to pledge allegiance to the flag/state in exchange for finally being treated as full and equal citizens of Israel.

There is no question that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs will be exceedingly difficult to bring to a peaceful conclusion.  It will require the suspension of decades of distrust.  It will require the ability to not let the violent actions by those who would seek to destroy the peace process … and almost certainly there will be such actions by groups on both sides … to succeed.  It will require giving your former enemy the benefit of the doubt over and over again.

Most important of all perhaps, it will require reeducating both populations that Israelis and Palestinians are all human beings with basically the same desires and that all deserve freedom, respect, and equality.

Working Towards Equality, Freedom, and Dignity for All

In my post, “Creating a Safer World for Our Children,” 4/5/15, I noted that "it is conceivable that an organization of the major religions united to end the us v them mentality could be formed … an outgrowth, for example, of the Global Freedom Network … which would make a real difference." And so I sent the following open letter to the founding members of the Global Freedom Network, the signers of its Declaration to End Modern Slavery:

  Roman Catholic: His Holiness, Pope Francis

  Anglican:  Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby

  Hindu:  Her Holiness Mata Amritanandamayi

  Buddhist:  Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh

          The Most Ven. Datuk K. Sri Dhammaratana

  Jewish: Rabbi Dr. Abraham Skorka

      Chief Rabbi David Rosen

  Orthodox:  His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Martholomew

  Muslim:  Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb

         Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Basheer Hussain al Najafi

I applaud your recent declaration to end modern slavery by 2020 throughout the world and for all time.   While this is certainly an important undertaking, it unfortunately only scratches the surface of man’s inhumanity to man.  The world is rife with examples far more subtle than modern slavery that “fail to respect the fundamental conviction that all people are equal and have the same freedom and dignity.”

I am therefore writing you, and your co-signers, with a request that you all join together again and go further  … clearly stating to the world that the suffering that man has endured at the hands of his fellow man, whether in war, civil conflict, everyday life, or within the family must end because it too is caused by actions that fail to respect the equality of all, the right of all to live with freedom and dignity.  For the sake of the children of the world and future generations, this lack of respect for one another must end.  

We are all children of a single God.  Regardless what our religion (or non-religion), nationality, race, sex, ethnicity, or age, we are all one.  We may each have our own traditions, our own path to God or understanding the mysteries of the universe, but we are all nevertheless one.  We are all created by the same life force.  We are parents and children, but we are still one.  Whatever has come between us and drives us apart is learned and is not natural or according to God’s law.

While the suffering caused by war, civil conflict, and modern slavery is recognized by many as inhumanity, the suffering experienced by many within the family and as a part of everyday life is generally not considered inhumanity because it is not horrific.  Yet inhumanity it is … behavior that causes physical or mental harm or pain is cruel and thus by definition inhumane.

Within the family that should be a sanctuary of love and support, a refuge from the challenges faced in the world, it is instead far too common to find conflict, unkindness, disrespect, and cruelty between spouses, parents and children, and siblings.  How can children grow up to be whole, loving, secure people in such an environment?

Likewise the experience of discrimination and bias that many people face in everyday life is painful and cruel, the insidious remnant of age-old conflicts or animosities, including religious ones.  As with conflict within the family, these experiences often scar people psychologically for life.  And they rent the fabric of a nation and the family of man.

Any acts of inhumanity are not acceptable in a civilized society because people are thereby harmed.   

And so I ask that you join together again and vow to use your energies and your offices to teach the people of the world that we are indeed all one, and that every person should follow the maxim that is to be found in each of your religion’s heritage … to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Any action that fosters a perception of us v them must end.  Whether between members of a family, or groups, or nations, treating each other with respect and as equals is God’s way.

With sincere respect and humility,  I am,

Hanh Niêm, Ronald L. Hirsch

Enc:  “Creating a Safer World for Our Children”

http://preservingamericanvalues.blogspot.com/2015_04_01_archive.html

When Is War Really Necessary?

It may be, and probably is, futile to speak out against war, but futile or not, one must.  And the time to speak out against it is not when whether to go to war or not is the burning question of the day; by then it’s likely to be too late.  It is when things are developing around the world that could turn into a situation that raises the question, a constant threat, but which could be avoided if they were dealt with properly.

First, let us be clear what the impact of war is.  The immediate impact is the destruction of lives.  It destroys the lives of the young men and women who die or are severely injured, physically or mentally, in service of their country.  And it takes a heavy toll on the lives of their families.

             U.S. Deaths      U.S. Disabled

Iraq 17,847 407,911

Vietnam 58,169               75,000*

WWII    405,399 670,846*

* does not include mental disability

Lest this be read with a shrug, as people seem to accept this as a fact of life, I ask the reader to put yourself in the shoes of these young men and women, regardless of the particular war, and imagine being hit with shrapnel, a bullet, whatever.  Imagine the pain, imagine seeing and feeling your life force drain away; or imagine not dying but living forever with severe injury.  Is this something that a fellow human being can shrug off as being a necessary fact of life?  I hope not.

Many readers will likely respond, “That may all be true, but sometimes war is necessary and there’s no getting around that war involves the sacrifice of the lives of young men, and now women, to the country’s cause.” 

Let’s examine the statement that “sometimes war is necessary.”  In looking at recent history I would say that there are two types of wars … those that we do not want but are or appear to be inescapable and those that are wars of choice.  

Wars of choice are by definition not necessary and therefore don’t justify the sacrifice.  They should thus never be undertaken.

The Iraq war was an example of a war of choice.  The United States was not threatened by anything whatsoever that Saddam Hussein was doing.  Even if there had been WMDs, that would not have posed a direct threat to U.S. security.  No, given the lead actors involved, this was more likely a war over the control of oil resources.

Vietnam was also a war of choice.  There was no direct threat to our security.  Yes, I know that the domino theory said that if Vietnam goes Communist, all of SE Asia will become Communist.  But even given that, there still was no direct threat to our security.  Perhaps to some of our corporations’ lines of supply, but you do not send your young men off to die to protect that. The war in Afghanistan, as opposed to our early efforts to chase and destroy al Queda, is another example of a war of choice.

But there are instances where there appears to be little option other than war.  By the time of Pearl Harbor and our entrance into WWII, there was no other practical way to stop Hitler and Japan.  And here without question there was a direct threat to our security.  Plus, although this played no factor whatsoever in our entry into the war, there was a major humanitarian crisis … the planned extermination of the Jewish people of Europe.

This raises two issues.  The one is, could anything have been done to prevent Hitler from unleashing WWII.  Yes.  The world could have kept Hitler from rearming Germany.  Hitler accomplished this without borrowing funds from outside Germany, an amazing feat, but he did need raw materials from other countries.  If there had been a unified trade blockade of Germany, it would have had a serious impact.  Some symbolic military action would probably have also been necessary to show Hitler that his clearly expressed expansionist plans would not be allowed to proceed.  That probably would have prevented WWII.

But this option was not pursued.  As far as I know, it was not even seriously discussed.  The lesson:  one cannot avoid a clear aggressive danger; one must act to stop it before a major confrontation is required.

The other issue raised by the WWII example is whether one should go to war, and thus commit the lives of our young, over a grave humanitarian crisis such as genocide.  Here it is clearly not a matter of national security, at least not in the narrow sense.  But as a civilized country, I think we need to be committed, not to helping everyone who needs help, but to preventing an act of mass inhumanity such as genocide.  There may be no other humanitarian example that would justify war.

In this example as well, there were certainly options that could have been taken short of ultimately going to war.  The first would have been universal outrage at Hitler’s actions, including the removal of the 1936 Olympics from Germany or its boycott.  Why did these things not happen?  I must be blunt and state that at that time anti-semitism was rampant in the state departments and governments of all the leading countries of the world … certainly in Britain, France, and the United States.  

So objection to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews just wasn’t going to happen.  That fact also means that had it not been for Hitler’s threat to the Allies’ national security … had Hitler stopped at the borders of continental Europe … his plan to exterminate European Jewry would have succeeded.  

The rallying cry is, “Never again.”  But the histories of Rwanda and Bosnia show that when it comes to saving a people from ethnic cleansing (a euphemism if ever there was one) either no country will lift a finger or it will be done very belatedly.

Bottom line, Presidents should never undertake and Congress should never authorize a war of choice.  Period.  Countries that pose a potential direct threat to our security should be dealt with early in the process with the minimum, if any, force possible.  Never allow a situation to deteriorate to the point where the only viable option is war … meaning troops on the ground.  The same is true for emerging threats of genocide.  But if indeed war as a last resort is the only option, then the price must regrettably be paid.  I am anti-war, but am not a pacifist.