How Faith in Consumerism/Technology Replaced Faith in God

A friend of mine said once that whenever anyone walked through the doors of our Buddhist temple, it was because they were suffering and they were seeking a path to end their suffering.  That is probably a statement that can be made of all religions.  

In the past, when true faith in God was high, most people looked to religion to ease their insecurity and if not end their suffering, at least give them faith that there was some larger reason for their suffering.  Belief in God trumped everything else. “The Lord works in mysterious ways”; if we mere mortals can’t understand why, it’s not in our place to ask.  Even when people were in dire circumstances or tragedy struck, their faith in God was not questioned, indeed could not be questioned because to question it would have left them bereft of spiritual support, alone and unprotected; instead their faith provided them with comfort.

Enter the modern age of capitalism and consumerism.  Just as Darwin’s theory of evolution was taking root in the public mind, creating fissures in the bedrock of faith in the Bible and in God (the Scopes Monkey trial was in 1925), and the scope of the terrors of WWI raised questions anew about God’s mysterious way, there rose in our midst a new preacher, the ad agencies who promised happiness and security through the acquisition of goods and wealth.  Shaken in their beliefs, people were open to a new way to end their suffering, a new faith, and thus were an easy target for the siren call of consumerism.

And so for most of the 20th century, although surveys in the U.S. consistently reported that the vast majority of people stated they believed in God, religious service attendance declined as did membership.  People were giving lip-service to a belief in God, most likely as a result of peer pressure, the desire to belong to the group.  Their actions spoke otherwise.

But although the masses bought in to consumerism and its promise of happiness, people found themselves still feeling insecure and alone.  Small wonder!  And so during the last decade or so, the siren call of the new technology and social media found an avid audience.  If you observe people on the street, in restaurants, in any public setting, it would appear that most people have been fully taken in by the illusion of connectedness, of multitudes of friends, that the new technology provides.  Their faith in this illusion is so strong because it seems directly to answer their deepest longing.  Indeed the only word to describe their constant attachment to their electronics is “addiction.”   How sad.

At about the same time, though, a slight change in this shift of allegiance away from God could be observed.  Some people, mainly among the young, were feeling the effects of having no spiritual support.  They had grown up in an era in which they were not exposed to true faith.  So, unlike their parents, their faith wasn’t shaken, it never existed; there was just emptiness.  While they didn’t reject consumerism and technology, they were looking for something deeper to end their suffering and insecurity.

On the Protestant stage, numerous mega-churches … orthodox in the sense of preaching the inviolability of the Bible as the word of God … began preaching that God wants you to be rich.  That together with their emotional enticements … being born again and having a “personal relationship with Christ” … and “relevant” formatting resulted in soaring membership and attendance.  An odd marriage of convenience.

On the Jewish front, there has also been a large increase in the Orthodox community, both the more liberal Modern Orthodox and the ultra-Orthodox.  Without, however, the accommodation to modern culture seen in the Protestant mega-churches. 

But these changes in the Protestant and Jewish communities are small blips in the overall decline in religiosity as measured by attendance and membership.  The false idols of Consumerism/Technology still hold the greatest sway in our modern culture.  And so the vast majority of people, bereft of any sense of their spirituality, are left feeling alone and insecure behind a facade of connectedness at the same time as their ability to find some security through consuming, illusory though it may be, is impacted by falling real wages.

One can only hope that another false idol doesn’t appear on the scene to lead a weakened people astray and that instead a true source of spirituality, accessible to modern man, makes its presence felt and awakens people to their true self … to the God, Buddha, Higher Power, or whatever one calls it within them. 

Raising a Secure and Happy Child

I have written in previous posts (1/7/13 & 1/10/13) how all abuse and violence stems from man’s insecurity, and further that it is the cause of all social conflict and war.  Insecurity is destructive.  I have also written a book, Raising a Happy Child, that posits that this insecurity is not inherent in man’s nature but learned.  And that the cycle of insecure parents raising insecure children who become insecure parents who raise … can be broken if parents become aware of this issue and take the steps I suggest in the book.

One of the things I discuss in the book is the critical nature of meeting a baby’s needs to be nurtured in first few months.  I cite as a problem the common feeling that it’s ok or even good to let a baby cry.  One doesn’t want to spoil a child, etc.  

As I note in the book, on the contrary this is harmful to the child because it creates feelings of insecurity.  A baby doesn’t cry for no reason.  It is seeking nurturing.  Birth is a very traumatic event for a baby, to leave the warmth and security of the womb for the harsh reality of the world, where very shortly after birth he is typically removed from his mother and put in a basinet.   That can only be scary.

While meditating recently, I thought of the example of how an animal mother cares for her young after birth.  For an animal mother, there is no purpose in life other than nurturing her young and seeing that they are safe until they are weened or its equivalent.  Except if the mother has to hunt for food, the young are always in close contact and within site of the mother.  And during the periods when they are alone, the litter has each other’s company for warmth and security.

How different that is from the contemporary human experience, at least in developed countries.  While a typical mother certainly cares deeply for her baby, often the baby’s needs are somewhat in conflict with the mother’s needs, interest, and convenience.  And so the baby’s needs often just aren’t met.  As a result, the baby experiences insecurity, which makes it cry all the more.

Now I do not mean to imply that the baby is neglected.  It is a rare mother who neglects her child, in the legal sense of the word, even in today’s culture.  However, the typical baby just does not get the frequent or almost constant nurturing it needs and wants. The advent of body slings has certainly improved the physical contact between mother and child, but that doesn’t meet all the baby’s needs.

But you can’t really blame mothers.  They are not taught what a baby needs.  Instead, they are taught, for example, that it’s good to let a baby cry.  Their own experience, the example of peers, the books they read … none of these begin to explain the amount of nurturing a baby needs in order to not start life feeling insecure, which creates a growing element for later learned insecurities.

What we need is to recognize that there is a conflict between the desires of modern man, our way of life, and the needs of babies.  Even before a couple decides to have a baby, they need to be made aware of what the baby’s needs will be and the “sacrifices” they will need to make for the sake of the baby’s well-being.   If they then decide to have a baby, there is at least a better chance that the baby will grow up secure and happy.

But because we are human beings and not animals, because we have a brain that can either be channeled to neurosis or to peace and happiness, more is required of a parent than early child nurturing.  That “more” does not depend on how much money the parents make.  Whether affluent or poor, whether living in a gated community or in an urban ghetto, whether a child grows up happy and secure depends in large part to how the child is equipped by his upbringing to handle the challenges that life will throw his way.

What does that mean?  It means raising a child to have a sense of security … not material security but spiritual security, faith that regardless what life throws his way all will be well because he will always go deep within himself and be at peace and find happiness in the moment … and self-love … not in the modern sense of “I’m wonderful” but in the spiritual sense of  “I’m a good person.”  

If a child is not raised in this manner, then attaining success and possessions as defined by his peer group will not make him happy because below the facade of happiness will always be a deep-seated insecurity.  But if a child does possess spiritual security and self-love, then regardless what life throws his way, even if he does not achieve success in the eyes of his peers or even lives in poverty, he will still be secure and happy because he will know who he is and will not be dependent on the approval of others.

It’s No Sin to Be Rich, BUT …

In recent years, observers in the United States have noted that the rich feel that they have no obligation for anyone else’s welfare.  In third world countries such as Angola (I just saw a shocking documentary about Angola, but the same could be said of many 3rd world countries, especially in Africa), the disregard of the rich for the poor is even more shocking because the divide is so clear and the poverty so visible and horrendous.

There is nothing wrong … morally, spiritually, ethically … with being rich.  Of course, there may be such problems with how one became rich, but that’s another matter and not the subject of this post.  This is about the moral, ethical, spiritual and civic obligations that come with being rich.

First, though, I need to define what I mean by “being rich.”  Rich is certainly a relative term.  By rich I don’t just mean fabulously wealthy … e.g. people who buy $50 million condos for their first or second residence.  (Incredibly there appears to be no shortage of such people in the global economy.)   

Webster’s defines “rich” as “having abundant possessions and especially material wealth.”  “Abundance” is in turn defined as “an ample quantity” or “a relative degree of plentifulness” or “extreme plentifulness.”

In the United States and other developed countries the dividing line between rich and not rich is a much finer line than the line between rich and poor in third world countries.  When President Obama was talking about tax rates at one point, he defined rich as anyone earning over $250,000 a year.  I would not be quite so conservative.  In 2010, the top 1% made $380,000 or more.  That clearly indicates a relative degree of plentifulness.  The top .09%, or 267,000 people, had an adjusted gross income of $1 million or more; extreme plentifulness.

For the purposes of this discussion, getting more exact than that isn’t necessary; you get the drift.  The point is that if one is rich in any country, one has a moral, ethical, spiritual, and civic obligation as a citizen of that country to help the government provide the poor, those less fortunate, with the basic needs of life … food, shelter, subsistence, and health care.  I should be clear … everyone has a duty to participate and help according to their means.  That’s what taxes are all about.  But the rich, because their wealth is abundant, should pay more, and the very wealthy should pay even more.

Why?  First, let’s dispose of one canard.  No one chooses to be poor.  It is not their fault.  It’s not because they’re lazy, as Republicans are fond of saying of late.  Yes, it is true that many do rise out of poverty, but not just through their sheer determination.  Whether a Rick Perry or a Clarence Thomas or a less extravagant example, they made it out because of the often happenstance assistance and guidance of people and often government programs, like affirmative action.  In third world countries, the intervening factor is often nepotism.  One should always remember the saying, “There but for good fortune go I.”

In most cases, someone is poor because of the way our society and economy are structured.  Whether someone is born into poverty and receives the poor education that the poor receive, live in a nightmarish environment, and have been told by society that they are worthless and bums.  Whether someone formerly middle class becomes poor because medical expenses force them into bankruptcy or the loss of a job makes them homeless almost from one day to the next.  Whether try though they may, over and over and over again, they can find no work.  These are all examples of how societal and economic structural issues cause and prolong poverty.

In none of these cases can the poor be blamed for their situation.  It is instead society that has failed them.  No child should be denied a good education.   No one should be denied safe and decent housing.  No one should be denied adequate food to keep them from being hungry.  No one who desires to work should be unemployed.  No one should be branded by society as worthless.  No one should be without a safety net when the circumstances of life turn against them through a major illness or the loss of a job.

If this is the result of a capitalist economy, then capitalism cannot be the sole economic force in a civilized society.  In such a society, there needs to be an adjunct social economy to provide for those that the capitalist economy would throw on the trash heap.  Even if we ever reach the point where there is true equal opportunity for all, some safety net would still be required for the elderly, the infirm, the intellectually-challenged, and those who face a catastrophe in their lives.

Which brings me to the other part of the response to the question, “Why?” … the moral, ethical, spiritual, and civil obligation.  Let me first speak to the civil obligation.

In the United States … and I will only speak to that as my knowledge is limited to the U.S. … this obligation is founded in our historical development.  In my book, We Still Hold These Truths, I devoted a chapter to the evolution of a social contract in the United States.  Let me quote from those pages:

“As the nature of the body politic and its political views changed during the course of the nineteenth century, there was a shift from the philosophy that each man was his own master and whether he succeeded or failed in the new egalitarian society it was to his credit or fault. The new philosophy instead recognized that many individuals were impacted by society-driven factors over which they had no control and which had a

significantly negative effect on their ability to make the most of their lives.

Especially after 1890, the reform movement gained strength, fueled by the extremes of poverty and wealth found in the country, as well as the general population’s dislike of

what it saw as the absolute power of big business, corruption scandals in government, and the violent suppression of strikes. The result over the next few decades was an American social contract with increasing emphasis on a balance of rights and individual obligations, and the role of government in leveling the playing field, with each person contributing to the government’s support according to his ability.”

Clearly, this was thought to be a civic obligation.  That’s a major reason why in this country virtually everyone pays their taxes.  Yes, they take advantage of every loophole that the law provides, but they do pay their taxes.  

But the idea of taxes being spent to help the less fortunate has grown out of favor among a large segment of the American populace, at the same time as the shift in political power has reversed itself and returned to the powerful, to the large corporations.  Social security is still supported because that is felt to be earned, but other programs … whether food stamps or health care or almost every program that supports the poor … are regularly attacked by the new Right.  Part of this new attitude is simple greed; the other part is the popularized myth that the poor are poor because it’s their own fault and thus are not deserving of government support.

The development of this civic obligation, while it was as noted above partly the result of a shift in political power during the 19th century, was based largely on moral, ethical, and spiritual teachings that go back to ancient times.  Every religion, every spiritual belief system, regardless of the cultural context and time has at its core a teaching of humanity, of concern for your fellow man.  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and helping others through charity and other ways are universal teachings.

Why is this so?  It’s a combination of the spiritual and the practical.  As I’ve written before in these pages, we are all one, we are all children of the same God or the same life force.  What divides us is man made, not nature.  And so we should treat our fellow man with humanity and compassion.  Not just for the benefit of others, but for ourselves, as in the teaching, “Give and you shall receive [spiritually].”  

The practical is that every society, from the smallest primitive to the largest industrial is dependent on people working together, each in their role, to make the society function smoothly.  And so community leaders and belief systems have always fostered a sense of community, that we were all in this together, that when one had the good fortune to have more he gave much away to those who had less, understanding that “there but for good fortune go I.”  

Even after the advent of the industrial revolution and capitalism, people understood that the poor were not just deserving of being cared for and helped, but needed to be for the good of all.  And so most developed countries, including the U.S., embraced some degree of socialism to counter the loss of community brought about by the move into cities, fragmentation, and capitalism.

The current state of affairs, where the rich care only for themselves and no one cares what happens to the poor, is a recipe for cultural disaster and collapse.  Just viewed coldly from an economic standpoint, the reason why our economy has been pretty stagnant is that the broad mass of people, as opposed to the rich or well-off, don’t have the ability to purchase like they used to, and so the engine of our consumer economy has partially dried up.  

Over time, if this continues we will get weaker and weaker economically.  And as inequality grows, the nation will become morally and spiritually weaker as well.  All of this is on top of the degradation of our environment, of the eco-system that is our life support, which degradation is related to this issue of responsibility and yet separate.  I certainly have no ability to predict the future, but I’m glad that I won’t be alive 50 years from now.

I have written over and over on these pages that the current state of affairs, in almost all particulars, cannot continue without disaster for our children and future generations.  What it will take to wake us up, I don’t know.  Whether we have the capacity to change our perspective and habits, to in many ways go back to the future, I don’t know.  But these are issues that need to be discussed in all parts of the body politic … in schools, churches, and government.

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

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.