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

The One-Sidedness of American Individualism

From the very beginning, the celebration of the individual has been at our core.  The Declaration of Independence declares that each of us is equal to the other and each has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The Bill of Rights ensures against unwarranted government action against the interests of the individual.

Our growth as a frontier country depended heavily on the fortitude of individuals.  These were the heroes of America’s expansion to all corners of the country.

In today’s age, we see the sanctity of individualism in fights about property rights, about whether the government can tell property owners what they can or can’t do with their property.  We see it in the statements of gun rights advocates.  We see it in the emergence of the ego-centric “Me” generation during the Reagan years that has cared little for what happens to its fellow Americans, let alone its fellow man.

But this is just an expression of one aspect of individualism … that the protection of individual rights ensures the freedom and independence of us all.  (As an aside, that those rights are not absolute is discussed in a previous post, “The Common Good Always Trumps Individual Rights,” that dealt with the problem of what to do when one person’s individual rights threaten those of another or the common good.)  The other equally important aspect of individualism is that individual thought is vital to the health and vitality of our democracy and our society.

Whatever may have been the case at our country’s founding and during its first century, our modern culture has developed in a way which finds individual thought antagonistic, not vital, to our future.  The disapproving phrase, “boat-rocker,” comes to mind.  Our capitalist system has fostered and depends on a culture of conformity.  What little individual action or thinking that exists concerning the problems of our culture, and some is excellent, has been a voice in the wilderness, drowned out by the mass media and the power of the corporate interests that control our society.

Some may argue that our political system is an example of individual thought.  I would argue that although we certainly have disagreement within the system, and certainly the Republican and Democratic parties’ current perspective on what’s in the best interest of the country differs wildly, we still have precious little individual thought.  What we see instead is conformity to two opposing perspectives, with little individual thought about either or a third way.  The online petitions from Credo and change.org and other organizations, while helpful, are like mosquitoes to the prevailing system;  they do not attempt to address the underlying societal problem or suggest a different political structure.

Others may argue that in industry, at least the dot.com world, individual thought is highly prized.  But this is individual thought in the search for material fortune and individual thought in the furtherance of our dependance and conformity to modern technology.  There has been little, although certainly some very good, individual thought about where all this technology is leading us.  Almost no thought exists on how to stop this degeneration of human life and interaction.

Thomas Jefferson famously stated that there needs to be a revolution periodically to maintain the health of a democracy.  Given the control of our culture and society by a relatively small number of people and corporations and the subservience of virtually all Americans to that culture’s way of life, where will a nonviolent revolution of ideas have a chance to take root and grow?

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.

What Ails Us

The other night, I attended a wonderful chamber music concert at the Curtis Institute in Philadelphia.  On the program were various pieces stretching from Haydn to Webern, so from roughly 1780 - 1905, and one contemporary piece from 2014.  Listening to those pieces in juxtaposition revealed what ails the contemporary world.

The purpose of art, whether visual or musical, was for centuries (I can’t speak to early eras) about uplifting the spirit, about bringing beauty into the world.  The object was not to deny or cover up the suffering and nastiness in the world that was self-evident to all, but to show that even in the worst of situations, beauty could be found and the spirit uplifted.  Listening to classical music and viewing “classical” art remains a very deep spiritual experience.

That began to change with WWI.  In the face of such devastating inhumanity, art felt that it had to be more reflective of the angst in the world … and the Modernist movement was born.  In the beginning, some reflected this angst while still creating profoundly beautiful and spiritual works … the music of Alban Berg (“Wozzeck” and “Lulu”) for example.  Others like the artists George Grosz and Otto Dix had no use for such niceties.

But as modernism continued to develop, art more and more reflected the increasing cynicism of modern culture.  “Surrealists and Expressionists devised wobbly, chopped-up perspectives and nightmarish visions of fractured human bodies and splintered societies slouching toward moral chaos.”  Beauty was absent.  All was discord and violence.  The idiom became the message.

And so, for example, the piece “Parallels,” while being composed to commemorate the artist who advised the assemblage of art which became the Barnes Foundation … a collection of inexhaustible beauty and complexity … was nevertheless all about the contemporary idiom.  While it was powerful and intellectually stimulating, it was not a work of beauty that moved the spirit.

This is certainly not true for all contemporary artists.  There are still composers (like Philip Glass and John Adams) and painters (I’m not as familiar with names in this area, the deceased George Brown of the Chicago school comes to mind) who are held in high esteem while creating works of contemporary individuality and profound beauty.  But the trend, pardon my using that overused word, is in the opposite direction.

Cultural organizations, both art museums and orchestras/operas/ballet, are almost falling over themselves trying to attract a younger audience.  Certainly if one goes to classical music events, the audience is mostly older with some music students mixed in.  

But try though they may, their efforts are doomed because the art represented by museums and classical music organizations does not speak to young people.  Not because it is out of date and not relevant; beauty is always relevant even if the context is out of date.  But because they have no faith, no belief in something larger than themselves.  They are not spiritual.  They are cynical about the world and the concept of beauty is antithetical to their experience.  Especially in the current technology-obsessed age, the only things valued are what reflect the now or point to the technological future.

This is a sad state of affairs.   The United Negro College Fund’s motto is, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”  I would paraphrase that and say that the human spirit is a terrible thing to waste.

But what we need is not a religious revival; or at least not a country full of born again people who nevertheless chase the almighty dollar and have contempt for those who dare not share their perspective.

What we need is a spiritual revival, in the sense of feeling that there is something larger than ourselves (meaning our ego) to have faith in, whether it’s faith in God, in a Higher Power, or in your true Buddha nature.  And believing that our only purpose in life is to offer others joy … to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  To turn our will and our life over to the care of our Higher Power, thus returning home, and be at peace, accepting that things are the way they are at this moment because it’s just the way it is, be grateful and compassionate, and find happiness in each moment.  Then we will once again be open to the beauty that exists everywhere, in every moment.

Aging - A Buddhist's Take on the Stages of Life

Because in our culture we tend to identify ourselves very closely with our bodies, the life cycle of man is usually portrayed visually in its physical manifestation. While this baby to invalid cycle certainly describes the passage of time for man’s body, it is not descriptive of the growth or deterioration of man’s spirit or wisdom over time.

Most cultures, through the ages up to the present day, have thought of the baby at the beginning of the cycle as a virtual blank slate, who knows nothing and who learns as he or she grows.  One exception is the Christian concept of Original Sin, a burden we are told we are born with and which can only be escaped through salvation.

As man grows older he was considered, until modern times, to gain in wisdom from his length of experience and his distance from the passions of youth, unless or until the point that senility struck.  Wisdom being defined as the knowledge of what is true and right, knowledge of how the world works, and the ability to make wise judgments.  As a result, in most societies, it was the elders who were held in the highest esteem.

In contemporary times, however, wisdom is generally not valued or sought after in most cultures  …   certainly not in the West and increasingly not in the East.  The sole remnant is in scholarly circles and to a certain extent, perhaps, in religious orders.  Rather it is simply knowledge that is valued, and knowledge is increasing equated with technological skill, with the ability to be technologically innovative being the highest valued skill of all.  

As a result, not just the old, but increasingly the middle-aged  … who were once thought to be at their prime professionally … are felt to be irrelevant to most everything.  Their way of thinking, of viewing the world, is outdated. One clear exception to this is the financial industry, where the only criterion of value is the ability to make money; it doesn’t matter how old you are.  In politics, it’s hard to say what is valued, other than the ability to get elected.  But no one, old or otherwise, is esteemed because of his or her wisdom.  

The Buddhist perspective on the trajectory of man’s life is quite different, starting with birth.  The Buddha taught that we are all born essentially perfect with the true Buddha nature inside us.  Zen Master Bankei (1622-1693) took this one step further and taught that we are all born with the unborn Buddha mind within us and so are born enlightened.

Thus, as a newborn, we are like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.   We have not yet tasted of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and thus have no knowledge of right and wrong, like and dislike, fear and insecurity.  We are one with our unborn Buddha mind.  Everything just is.  (Note: the Tree of Knowledge is not a metaphor for knowledge in the sense of scholarly learning; it is knowledge in the sense of  judgment of oneself and the world around one.  Thus Adam and Eve had no shame in their nakedness in the Garden of Eden, but afterwards wore a metaphorical fig leaf.)

What happens after we are born is that we do indeed learn.  We taste, one could say are force-fed, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and as a result most of us are thrust out of the Garden of Eden into a life of suffering … of insecurity, fear, doubt, anxiety, anger, greed, lust, negativity, pride (yes, one can be very insecure and very prideful at the same time) … for the rest of our lives.  One may gain much factual knowledge and skill so that one is valued and rewarded financially, but as the years pass most people deteriorate spiritually, becoming ever more trapped by their feelings of insecurity and its destructive consequences, ever more distanced from the purity they were born with.

But the true Buddha nature is always alive within each person.  And so, if he becomes aware of the true nature of his suffering (in short, that it’s not a function of what is, but how one perceives it), if he stops walking through life asleep, he has a choice to return home to his unborn Buddha mind, which I must note is quite different from being saved or being born again, although the latter sounds similar.  

Let me explain.  When you return home to your unborn Buddha mind, you are at peace, judge neither yourself nor anyone else, and have the compassion born of loving kindness towards all.  When people are born again in the Evangelical movement, their faith may be reborn and they may have a “personal” relationship with Christ, but they unfortunately do not become Christ-like, they do not return to the unborn Christ within them.  Instead they become full of judgment towards others and self-righteous.

But I digress.  So, whether as a teenager, an adult, or a senior citizen, if we are lucky enough to experience something that wakes us up (and this something is often a tragedy or something “bad”), we have the opportunity to walk the path of the Buddha and become free of the feelings and perceptions that have made us suffer all our lives.  We relearn that our purpose in life is being compassionate and offering joy to all others (and thus to ourselves), not making as much money and acquiring as much as possible.  Thus, although the body may deteriorate as we age, the spirit may blossom and we may achieve what Buddhists refer to as “perfected wisdom.”

Which brings me to the issue of aging … valuing the elderly and death.  In our society we typically warehouse the elderly, whether well-off or poor.  If you’re well-off, you will have more comfort, but basically you will still be separated from your loved ones and, as you become more infirm, increasingly isolated from the rest of society, from that which gives life its context and meaning. 

It didn’t use to be this way.  In an earlier day, when family values and options were very different, the elderly were cared for by their families in their homes.  It was often difficult and burdensome, but the elderly were given love (I know it wasn’t always this ideal), and at least were surrounded by family rather than segregated into the unfamiliarity of an independent living apartment or a nursing home.

At the same time as we have made the process of aging more isolating, modern medicine combined with religious mores have resulted in more people aging and suffering in a way oddly appropriate in this age in which technology is worshipped.  Many elderly people are kept alive now who in earlier days would have died.  We typically see this as something wonderful.  And often it is.  But is it wonderful for the person if their quality of life is gone, as it is for so many?

There are several aspects of Buddhism which are relevant to how we treat the elderly and death.  The first is that all people are valued, all are respected.  Whether wise or not, at peace or troubled, old or young, a doer of hurtful things or good things … a Buddhist has compassion flowing from loving kindness for all, knowing that everyone suffers and that we all are they way we are because that’s how we’ve been programmed by our life experiences.  Free will is not a Buddhist concept.

Without question, the elderly are to be especially respected and treated with compassion because many are wise and all have weathered so much of life.  Yet I think it can be safely said that our current way of “dealing” with the elderly is neither respectful nor compassionate.  It is mostly convenient … for us.  And so this must change.  

I don’t know what the practical answer is to the way the elderly are segregated in our society and end their lives … which can take many years … in surroundings where the norm is boredom and loneliness.  But society must start talking about this problem and find a way to return human quality to the last years of life.  The elderly deserve to be treated with respect and offered joy.

Second, in Buddhism, death is seen as a natural part of life.  There is nothing to be scared of.  And so instead of running from death, Buddhists live life prepared that death may come at any moment.  They live, or try to live, in what Christians would call a state of grace … to be at peace, free of psychological suffering, offering others joy, and finding happiness in each moment.  

Most people unfortunately do not end their lives in this state, despite a last minute visit from a priest, minister, rabbi, or imam.  Such ministry may bring some comfort perhaps, but not peace.  Hospice programs work more toward that end.  Again, I don’t know what the answer is, but we should do whatever we can so that all people who are dying, whether young or old, are helped to find that state of peace before death.  

This also impacts the question of whether people have a right to die, or to death with dignity.  When your mind and/or body fails you in a major way and you are suffering, society should give you an option to end your life, peacefully, legally, rather than making you suffer even more.  

That’s all the Death with Dignity or Right to Die movement is asking for.  Actually, they’re asking for something far more limited, just in cases of a diagnosed terminal illness … i.e. the person is going to die soon anyway, so why not let them end their suffering.  

But the medical profession’s fear of being sued and the religious establishment’s argument that since God gave life, only God can take it away have come together to create a huge hurdle to enacting such legislation, abetted by a fear of death that most people have.  Interesting how the religious will support human intervention to extend life, when if it were up to God and the natural process the person would die, but won’t allow human intervention to end life even when that is what a person clearly desires.  So much for leaving things in the hands of God.

Bottom line, we are talking about human beings here.  All people have the right to be treated with respect.  And if a person decides, while he or she is of sound mind, that when a defined irreversible (not necessarily terminal) physical or mental state is reached that he or she wants to be aided by a physician to die in peace with dignity, then that person’s will should be respected and the law should allow for such physician-assisted death.

So much suffering is inflicted upon mankind in the name of society’s values and customs.  At least at the end of one’s life, one should have the option to be free of suffering and to die in peace, free of fear, free of anger, free of pain.

Creating a Safer World for Our Children

There are many who think that the way to create a safer world for our children is to make sure that we have the strongest military force in the world, a strong police presence in our cities, and the right to carry a weapon in any setting.  In short, to make sure that we have the power to protect ourselves, whether offensively or defensively.

This point of view accepts as immutable fact that we live in a dangerous world.  There is nothing that can be done about it.  It is human nature. 

I would argue, however, that a world of danger is not an immutable fact; it is not an inherent aspect of human nature.  There is instead a different reason why the world is and has been filled with danger.  The sane way forward is not to arm ourselves to the teeth but to ask why there is so much danger lurking out there and what each of us as individuals, groups, and nations can do to make this truly a safer world for our children.

Man’s “inhumanity to man,” whether as physical violence or other forms of cruelty, is without question rife in our world at every level of human interaction … not just between nations or opposing groups, but within the family and in the workplace.  

Terrorist beheadings are a current example of what usually comes to mind when people think of man’s inhumanity.  The holocaust, Rwanda, various acts during wartime, slavery, and lynching are examples from the past often cited.  

But “inhumanity” goes beyond such horrific acts.  Actually more harmful, because more prevalent, are the insidious low level inhumanities that occur on a daily basis in every human setting.  

Lest the reader think I’m overstating the problem, note that inhumanity is generally defined as cruelty towards another.  And cruelty in turn is defined as: “behavior that causes physical or mental harm, pain, or suffering.”  Even an unkind remark can be cruel, regardless whether the intention was to inflict pain, although typically that is the case despite protests to the contrary.

Some may condone the idea of a just war between nations and the ensuing cruelties that inevitably result, but cruelty between members of a family, between individuals, or between members of different groups within a civilized nation should not be acceptable.  Why?  Besides the fact that it’s inhumane, such cruelty creates a world full of people with damaged psyches and, with regards to groups, also shreds the fabric of society.  This is unhealthy both for the society and the individual.

Why is cruelty so pervasive?  In two earlier posts, “The Root of All Abuse and Violence - Insecurity,”  and “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War,” I posited that the source of inhumanity lay with the insecurity that virtually all people suffer from, not as a fact of human nature but as a result of learned experience.  Working in concert with this insecurity is the perspective we are taught from an early age that the world is made up of us and them.  Whether the “us” is family, nationality, race, or whatever, we all are taught that this is a basic fact of life (see my post, “The Destructive Impact of Our Us v Them Perspective.”).

Clearly, there is ample evidence on the ground for people to develop an us v them perspective.  And there is ample reason to be insecure.  Indeed, these are both self-perpetuating states.  But if we continue to live according to these perspectives, we are condemned to living in a world of constant conflict and psychological suffering.

But how to stop this when almost everyone in the world is in the grip of these negative forces?  With regard to insecurity, in my book, Raising a Happy Child, I discuss how to stop the vicious cycle of insecure parents raising insecure children, who go on to become insecure parents …  It has to start in the home.  If parents are made aware of the issues and how these forces negatively impact both themselves and their children, I believe that many will choose to adopt the lessons set forth in the book in order to provide themselves and their children a better, happier life.

The same is true regarding the ubiquitous nature of the us v them perspective.  It is learned, just as insecurity is learned.  As the Rodgers and Hammerstein song from South Pacific goes, “You’ve got to be taught, before it’s too late, before you are six or seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate, you’ve got to be carefully taught.”

It is up to us to stop teaching our children to view the world in this way.  In Raising a Happy Child, I posited that parents needed to step outside their insecure selves so that they could provide their children with the nurturing they needed in order to grow up feeling secure, regardless what they experienced in the larger world.  In the same way, parents need to step outside their own us v them perspective so that they can provide their children with a healthier perspective.

Because the us v them perspective has been fostered by virtually all authority forces in society, including and even especially the force of most organized religions, changing this paradigm of human behavior will be perhaps even more of a challenge than raising happy, secure children.  But we must try.  

And don’t say, “I’ll do it if they do it first.”  Because then we are doomed.  Each of you as parents and leaders must do what is right, regardless.  You must have the courage to take the first step.  It will bring you, your children, and your country no harm if you move forward, with eyes wide open.

Luckily, there is a different perspective at hand that would bring about a very different outcome from the conflict that we experience as endemic … that we are all one.  This is not some religious pablum or new age recreational-drug-induced nonsense.   This perspective is based on hard scientific fact.  Yes, it happens to be a major tenet of Buddhism, but I would note that Buddhist thought also foresaw the principles of quantum physics.

Let us begin with humans.  The most widely accepted theory of human evolution is that we all have a common ancestor in a single human in Africa roughly 60,000 - 200,000 years ago.  About 50,000 years ago, man began his migration out of Africa to the various parts of the planet, either replacing or interbreeding with other related species.  And the reset, as they say, is history.

We are thus in fact all one.   We may look different, speak different languages, have different customs, but we are all one in that we all descended from a common ancestor.

Another way of seeing the inherent oneness of us all is the immigration experience.  Not just individuals but waves of people from different cultures and races have moved to a new place, such as the United States.  Their children typically grow up to speak the language of their new home and adopt the culture of their new home.  They still look “different,” but are Americanized and become part of the fabric of our nation.  

If people were inherently different, this would not be possible.  If sometimes they don’t follow this pattern, it’s not because they are incapable of assimilating, it’s because they choose not to; they don’t want to become one. 

A famous quote from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice also makes the point of our oneness, “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”  In all respects we are all one.

“Ah, but this is all irrelevant,” the reader may say.  “If someone is seeking to kill me or steal my possessions, it makes no difference if that person and I are biologically one.”   

True.  But the point is that if both you and that person were taught early on that you were both one and that there was nothing to fear from the other, and you treated each other with respect as equals, this person would most likely not be trying to kill you or steal your possessions.  We must start somewhere to change the historical dynamic.

Let me give a practical example, close to home, of the damage caused by the prevalent us v them perspective and the potential impact if we were taught that we are all one.  150 years after the Civil War, we are still a country deeply divided by race.  Despite all the laws on the books that guarantee equality, and despite the enormous progress made by many African-Americans especially over the last 50 years, there can be no question that we still live in a very unequal and divided society.  Whether one looks at education, housing, jobs, or income, the average black American is far below the average white American.  As a result, our country as a whole has suffered in many ways.

Why has this status continued?  While some responsibility must be taken by black Americans themselves, the overpowering factor is that white America does not view black Americans as one with them.  They may be American citizens, they may fight our wars, they may go to school with us, but they are felt to be different; they are not one with us; they are not equal.  And so the inhumanity of the treatment of black Americans at the hands of white America … collectively … continues.  

If, however, white and black Americans were taught that we are all one, backed up by real changes on the ground … and this is not accomplished simply by integration … this inequality would end within a generation.   Black Americans would then indeed have equal opportunity in education, housing, and  jobs and income equality would improve because both institutional and individual discrimination would end.

In looking at history and current events, as well as our personal experience, one sees that whenever a people/nation, a group, a person, or a member of a family feels that they are not shown respect or treated as an equal, they will in whatever manner they can usually rise up against those who they feel are treating them in this manner.  

Whether looking at the troubles in the Mideast, or the plethora of ethnic, racial, and sectarian conflicts around the world, both past and present, while they are typically viewed as being power struggles … which in one sense they obviously are … they are really about one side, or both, feeling that they have not been treated with respect or as equals.  Those are the real issues; if they had been treated with respect and as equals, there would be no power issues.  Power issues arise from inequality, whether on the part of the victim or those who seek to maintain the status quo.  

When one thinks of the conflict so often found within families, whether between spouses, between parents and children, or between siblings, the feeling of not being treated with respect or as an equal is again the core grievance.  One may talk about sibling rivalry or adolescent rebellion or whatever, but it all comes down to this rather straight-forward analysis.

So we have ample proof of what happens when we do not follow the lesson that we are all one, and instead see the world as us v them.  The benefits I claim for the opposite approach are I must admit only conjectural as the world has not seen a “we are all one” philosophy in place at any time.  But I have no doubt.  

But even if one agrees with my position, one cannot ignore the question of how one gets from where we are to where we want to be.  I noted above that the change needs to start in the home and spread outwards.  I don’t think such change could come top down from the political establishment because any political leader advocating such a policy now would never get elected, or if in office would find himself suddenly without support; the powers that be would be too threatened.  However, 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.

Such a change, except within the intimate setting of the family, would involve a transition period that would undoubtedly be tricky and full of obstacles, but if the intention was clear and honest and there was open communication, the world could be a very different place within a generation or less.  A reader might ask, “Doesn’t the failure of the United Nations prove that this type of approach doesn’t work?”  I would respond that the UN has failed, other than getting nations to talk, precisely because its creation did not challenge the underlying assumption of us v them.  There is almost nothing “united” about the United Nations. 

But Planet Earth is not solely the province of man.  Whether one believes in God or the natural force of evolution, Earth is home to a host of animals, plants, and inanimate objects to which the concept that we are all one also applies.  As does the importance of adopting that perspective regarding them in order to create a safer world for our children, for how we treat these other participants of the earth’s ecosystem has profound implications for the future.

Animals are sentient beings, just as man is.  Indeed, it is accepted scientific fact that humans evolved from the animal world, specifically apes.  Animals may not have the brain capacity of man, but they have the same senses as man has.  One could indeed apply the passage quoted above from Shakespeare to animals.  

But what has man done?  Man considers animals as lesser beings, put there by God for humans to eat, and so millions of animals are killed, and not just killed but severely abused in the raising process, to satisfy man’s desires.  Further untold numbers of animals are abused in ways that have nothing to do with the food chain.

"But how," the reader may well ask, "does this make the world less safe for our children?"  The most immediate and practical answer is that the raising of millions upon millions of animals for slaughter requires the diversion of huge amounts of vegetable nutrients to this process.  Since raising animals is a very inefficient use of these nutrients … the amount consumed v the amount produced … the world would have a greater food supply if all vegetable nutrients were available to man.  

As the earth’s population increases, this becomes an ever more pressing issue.  And ending this practice would not harm man in any way as studies show consistently that vegetarians are healthier than meat eaters.

As for plants, they may not be sentient beings, but they are highly-evolved living organisms.  In fact, they are in many ways more highly evolved than man.  Through the process of photosynthesis, they take the elements of sunlight and water and create the nutrients that man and animals need to survive.  And plants are at one with humans because we are all formed from the same basic atomic/molecular structure of matter.

“Are you going to argue now that inanimate objects … rocks, water, oil, air … are also one with man?” a reader may skeptically ask.  That answer is of course, yes.  Again, they are composed of the same basic atomic/molecular structure as man and are part of the evolutionary process that ultimately produced man.  The molecule, composed of atoms, is the common building block from which every thing on this Earth is composed.

As with animals, man has treated plants and inanimate objects as being put there by God for man’s use and benefit.  That is in part true, as everything has an important role to play in the ecosystem.  But how to make such use is the question.  While native cultures, such as Native Americans, killed animals and ate meat, they had a very different relationship to animals, plants, and inanimate objects than modern man.  To them, all were part of a spiritual world and that brought an attitude of respect towards all parts of the eco-system.  Things were used only as needed; nothing was abused.

The results of man’s abuse of the natural world, both plant and mineral, are becoming more abundantly clear with each passing decade.  We have polluted the very source of life … the air and water … and have put in motion a change in the atmosphere which is bringing about a change in climate that has the potential to devastate our way of life and the safe future of our children.

If there is a God, this would certainly be a time for him or her to make itself known to mankind in an unmistakable way and to warn us with all of its power that we must change our ways or be doomed.  Short of that, it depends on us mere mortals to right the wrongs of our abuse of each other and everything else on this Earth and start living by the maxim that we are all one.  We owe it to our children.

The Common Good Always Trumps Individual Rights

The current crop of Republicans, a radical, rabidly conservative group, take as their jumping off point a very unnuanced view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  To them, rights, if not specifically qualified in those documents, are absolute.  So whether it’s the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration, or whether it’s the right of free speech or the right to bear arms in the Constitution, no limitation on those rights is warranted (unless of course it limits the rights of opponents and so suits their purposes.)

And one must say, the words certainly sound absolute.  But let us consider their context.  First, the Declaration of Independence - the mother, if you will, of all our founding documents.  What does the Declaration say about rights?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The context of this recitation of rights is that all men are created equal and that all have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, unless you believe that the Founding Fathers meant to set up a state of anarchy … with everyone exercising their liberty, doing whatever they wanted, without restraint … one can’t believe that they meant that no bounds could be placed on the exercise of these rights.  

Why?  Because when you have a community of people it is inevitable that at some point the free exercise of one person’s liberty and pursuit of happiness bumps up against another’s … either harming another or impinging that person’s exercise of his liberty.  Since the Declaration states that all men are created equal and all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the system can only work if one says that each person has this liberty so long as it does not harm others or impinge on the rights of others.

This last proposition is in fact the basis for all government laws and regulation of any type.  Whether it’s criminal laws, traffic laws. zoning ordinances, building codes, the Clean Air Act, banking regulations, etc. … all of these derive their legal basis from the basic proposition that neither an individual nor a corporation can act as it will, if such action harms another or the public welfare.

Then there are the sacrosanct rights enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.  But even the most jealously protected right of them all … the right of free speech … is not absolute.   Not only can one not yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but the laws of libel and slander prohibit both written and spoken words that are defamatory, malicious, and false.  There are false advertising laws, which prevent corporations from misleading the public.  The list goes on and on.

As for the right to bear arms, even assuming for the moment that the Constitution indeed grants that right to an individual (until recently the courts had not so held), it would be ludicrous to argue that the government can place no limitations on a right which has not just the potential, but as we see almost daily causes others grievous injury and death. Yet to the NRA and its supporters, and the majority in Congress which is either beholden to the NRA or scared of its power, virtually any regulation whatsoever, no matter how reasonable and called for, is anathema.

As recently as a generation ago, conservative Republicans understood that while they had their ideologically preferred way of addressing issues, they shared common ground for the most part with Democrats in understanding what the great public issues were.  They understood that we lived in a country where citizens had both rights and responsibilities. Where we all played our part, each according to his abilities, in supporting the government in its role of securing the rights of all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As it says again in the Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”

That is the purpose of government.  The mantra started by Ronald Reagan and taken up by the Tea Party Republicans that, “government is not the solution; government is the problem,” is at odds with not just our founding documents but our history.  

Indeed, it is at odds with the history of the Republican Party.  It was often Republicans that pushed for government action.  Whether it was the Republican President Lincoln pushing to end slavery or the Republican President Theodore Roosevelt breaking up the huge trusts of the day, such as Standard Oil, Republicans have a long and proud history of arguing for government action to protect those less powerful., to insure that all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When it comes to the rights we have, no one should shrink from vigorously protecting his or her own rights.  However, everyone must understand that with the exercise of rights comes a responsibility not to harm others or impinge on the exercise of their rights. When it does so, then the common good demands that such exercise of an individual right be regulated so as not to harm others.  The common good always trumps the exercise of an individual right.*

*A note of clarification.  In light of recent events around the world, and the comments of several readers, I need to clarify that if the exercise of one's right, such as free speech, offends another or the majority, those others are not harmed nor are their rights in any way impinged.  And so there is no justification for restraint in that situation.  When I speak of the common good, something far more concrete is meant ... like breathing clean air, drinking clean water, not having to fear violence, not being cheated.