The message this morning was an emphasis on self-reflection, which was "well taken" and the pastor had some good observations about what the world would say to the Church. But, the whole idea of the message was a stumbling block to me. Why?
The message was taken from Jonah. The pastor spoke to the Church, as if the Church was Jonah. Jonah was the "prophet of God" who was running from what "God had called him to do". In the process of running away from God, Jonah causes difficulties to others, due to God's anger shown in a storm, which is capsizing the ship.
Though our minds look for causes, Biblical imagery makes for a pre-sceintific view of reality. When the storm came, it was caused by the "supernatural God" due to "sin". The unbelieving sailors were seeking an answer to their "weather problem" and calling out to "their gods". Jonah is disobeying "God's will" by not sharing "the Gospel". Some believers still believe that there is a direct correlation of cause and effect to "God". This is a primitive understanding of the weather, and an 'intervening God". And understanding "Jonah's predicament" as a direct "message from God" is a little presumptuous, to say the least.
The pastor's point in the sermon was "well taken", though, as he suggested that believers have as much to learn from the "unconverted" as the converted think they have to offer the "unconverted". But, the pastor was still suggesting that there is something "more" to Christianity, than humanism, or humanity. The difference is "holiness", which is a perfection in/of love.
I wonder how this pastor sees this perfection coming about? "Love" is a personal word, and is not a value or does not function in the political realm. The real world functions on "power", and the pastor suggested that those that serve "God" should do so at "great sacrifice". A "God" that demands human sacrifice isn't becoming to me. Such a "God" is a primitive view of "political power". This seems oddly "out of place", when one talks of 'love". He mentioned John Wesley's attempt to convert the 'noble Savages" (the Indians) and his experience at Aldersgate. He suggested that there was some "preparatory work" that had to be done in Wesley's heart before Wesley would be open to an experience such as Aldersgate. The preparation required for Wesley was "failure" in his missionary attempt to convert the Indians.
I find that "perfection" itself is wrongly focused, for whenever one finds themselves "perfected", then is there no more need to grow or become? This is a dangerous idea and belief because it compels those that believe this way to "perform", rather than "be", besides the ideas behind supernaturalism and an intervening "God'.
But, those that believe that they are "called" to a "Divine Destiny" are also a danger, because these believe that what they have to accomplish is mandated by "God Almighty" and it is THEIR responsibility and duty to follow through!!! This belief can damage the peace of the nation, as these will be passionate, and convicted about their "mission". Such zeal was never in our Founder's intent or persona!!! The Founders were level headed and rational.
The bottom line for me, is that people are people. All of us seek significance and value. Some of us find it in religion, and when we do, our identity is caught up in such beliefs. Others find their significance or value within our family or our jobs. Humans are seeking meaning. And "life" in a free society should allow everyone to find meaning however they want to. This is the value of Liberty. And such liberty will bring the nation "happiness" and peace, because we all are agreeing that we might differ in how we answer those questions about meaning and purpose!!!Otherwise, we will find ourselves warring against ourselves and destroying the very thing that allows us the liberty to pursue our own meaning!!!
Showing posts with label peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peace. Show all posts
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
American Values In a Global Climate
Plato said that one had to be dead if there was no more war. I agree, as men are always going to be self-interested, whether they recognize it or not. Even one's ideas about "God" are "self interested" claims, because this is how we define ourselves. People all define themselves by the groups that hold to their values, some knowing that this is a chosen value, while others less so.
Tonight, we watched "Black Hawk Down". Our military went into Somalia and fought against horrendous odds bravely and many were lost. One comment I will never forget was made by one of the Somalian warriors to a prisoner. He told the prisoner that irregardless of America's desire to promote democracy through gunfire, as a means to negotiation; Somalians believe that gunfire IS negotiation. Victory is only declared when their side has won against those that desire to change their culture. That was a sobering comment and made me wonder why we attempt to change these types of cultures.
The young men who represented our military were holding to their ideals of life and liberty and willing to fight to see that all people live free. This is the American ideal and they were defending not just their country's values, but protected each of their "buddies". They would not leave anyone behind, as they believed in the value of each indiviudal life! Their courage was amazing.
One wonders why we were in Somalia in the first place. Why were our men used in an environment that didn't seem to matter? Power does not seem to understand or value the costs to those that it holds under its command. It is an unusual person that understands and values the "little man" enough to not take lightly sending our men into harm's way. Our military are committed to serve any command, so it is imperative that our men in uniform be valued as to their life. They are fighting for our liberty.
When humanitarian aid is confiscated, why do Americans think that it is obligatory to follow up? Are we loyal to U.N. demands, and not our own Sovereignty? Or does American have some vested interest that the common American is unaware of?
The movie portrayed that hunger creates hostilities between rivalling groups. So, is preventing hunger a means to create peace? Then, what about the dictators or the corruption in society that makes it impossible to claim "the humane"? These cultures are not prone to change, unless they are killed or their power is taken from them.
The honor code of Westpoint claims that fighting for the "right" is not tolerating those that are corrupt or are corrupting influences in a society! One "hero" at the end said that he was asked whether he sought to be a hero and he said that one doesn't seek to be a hero, that becoming a hero happens. Becoming a hero is the result of duty! It is doing one's job in the military.
Tonight, we watched "Black Hawk Down". Our military went into Somalia and fought against horrendous odds bravely and many were lost. One comment I will never forget was made by one of the Somalian warriors to a prisoner. He told the prisoner that irregardless of America's desire to promote democracy through gunfire, as a means to negotiation; Somalians believe that gunfire IS negotiation. Victory is only declared when their side has won against those that desire to change their culture. That was a sobering comment and made me wonder why we attempt to change these types of cultures.
The young men who represented our military were holding to their ideals of life and liberty and willing to fight to see that all people live free. This is the American ideal and they were defending not just their country's values, but protected each of their "buddies". They would not leave anyone behind, as they believed in the value of each indiviudal life! Their courage was amazing.
One wonders why we were in Somalia in the first place. Why were our men used in an environment that didn't seem to matter? Power does not seem to understand or value the costs to those that it holds under its command. It is an unusual person that understands and values the "little man" enough to not take lightly sending our men into harm's way. Our military are committed to serve any command, so it is imperative that our men in uniform be valued as to their life. They are fighting for our liberty.
When humanitarian aid is confiscated, why do Americans think that it is obligatory to follow up? Are we loyal to U.N. demands, and not our own Sovereignty? Or does American have some vested interest that the common American is unaware of?
The movie portrayed that hunger creates hostilities between rivalling groups. So, is preventing hunger a means to create peace? Then, what about the dictators or the corruption in society that makes it impossible to claim "the humane"? These cultures are not prone to change, unless they are killed or their power is taken from them.
The honor code of Westpoint claims that fighting for the "right" is not tolerating those that are corrupt or are corrupting influences in a society! One "hero" at the end said that he was asked whether he sought to be a hero and he said that one doesn't seek to be a hero, that becoming a hero happens. Becoming a hero is the result of duty! It is doing one's job in the military.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Cicero's Quotes and War
Cicero
Everyone has the obligation to ponder well his own specific traits of character. He must also regulate them adequately and not wonder whether someone else's traits might suit him better. The more definitely his own a man's character is, the better it fits him.
Laws are silent in times of war.
Let your desires be ruled by reason.
The revolution in Egypt is disturbing to many, because such "mob" behavior disturbs peace and assures that "costs far outweigh" initial benefit. One must be sure that the costs will bring benefit to a society, before one considers such hard decisions.
One thing for sure, Cicero believed that one should be discrete in going to war. War should be evaluated based on one's enemies, and whether they are merciful, or barbarian. I think his wisdom still holds sway over our military and its educational institutions. War is never the response of a civilized society, it is a last resort to protect the interests of its citizens, and it interests.
Everyone has the obligation to ponder well his own specific traits of character. He must also regulate them adequately and not wonder whether someone else's traits might suit him better. The more definitely his own a man's character is, the better it fits him.
Laws are silent in times of war.
Let your desires be ruled by reason.
The revolution in Egypt is disturbing to many, because such "mob" behavior disturbs peace and assures that "costs far outweigh" initial benefit. One must be sure that the costs will bring benefit to a society, before one considers such hard decisions.
One thing for sure, Cicero believed that one should be discrete in going to war. War should be evaluated based on one's enemies, and whether they are merciful, or barbarian. I think his wisdom still holds sway over our military and its educational institutions. War is never the response of a civilized society, it is a last resort to protect the interests of its citizens, and it interests.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Prejuidice, Law and Group Behavior
I just heard news that Scotland Yard investigated a group for "prejuidice".. A "humanist" group called Muslims, "Homophobic", and they got charged with being "Islamaphobic". What is Scotland Yard going to do with the "Homophobics"?
All groups have identifiers and must be prejuidiced if these identifiers hold any value whatsoever. Groups define themselves on some basis. This is to be accepted and understood. It is only when we "idealize" group behavior and expect that diverse groups can co-exist apart from any prejuidice, disagreement, or sometimes, even violence. It is too simplistic to think that groups that hold to their values, and understadings of themselves as important, will not be resistant to change. Change would dissolve the importance of the group itself.
My belief, is that co-existance in peace is an ideal, but is not a pragmatic solution to the world's problems. The world is just too complex and there are just too many differences.
All groups have identifiers and must be prejuidiced if these identifiers hold any value whatsoever. Groups define themselves on some basis. This is to be accepted and understood. It is only when we "idealize" group behavior and expect that diverse groups can co-exist apart from any prejuidice, disagreement, or sometimes, even violence. It is too simplistic to think that groups that hold to their values, and understadings of themselves as important, will not be resistant to change. Change would dissolve the importance of the group itself.
My belief, is that co-existance in peace is an ideal, but is not a pragmatic solution to the world's problems. The world is just too complex and there are just too many differences.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Peace and Its Process
During this Christmas season, a lot of songs are sung about "peace on earth" and "goodwill to men". These are nice images that don't parallel to the real world of politics. Peace is not experienced in many parts of the world. And the clashes are over ideology, power, material gain, and sometimes even one's very identity.
People who try to work for peace find it difficult, gruelling and sometimes, unrewarding, unlike the "merry Christmas songs" that promise romanticized fantasies.
People that have their feet grounded and understand that politics is dirty business will also understand that the lesson to be learned is sometimes to move on. One cannot force "peace", as co-ercion is an oximoronic term to peace. Sometimes, America has been accused of working in this way by miltary force. But, how else are we to "make peace" when otherwise, there will be bloodshed?
Nuclear weapons are supposed to be limited by treaties, but we also know that treaties are only as good as the people who "shake on it". The leaders of each country must be people that will uphold their agreements, and protect the treaties boundaries. Oftentimes, treaties are breached for one reason or another. And many times it is the differences in our value systems.
Humans have various needs, individually, and corporately. And it becomes a complex endeavor, indeed, to try to understand how to unravel the strings, so people will live in/with understanding. I do not have hope that there will ever be a day where peace will rule the earth, alto this is what we sing about at Christmastime.
People who try to work for peace find it difficult, gruelling and sometimes, unrewarding, unlike the "merry Christmas songs" that promise romanticized fantasies.
People that have their feet grounded and understand that politics is dirty business will also understand that the lesson to be learned is sometimes to move on. One cannot force "peace", as co-ercion is an oximoronic term to peace. Sometimes, America has been accused of working in this way by miltary force. But, how else are we to "make peace" when otherwise, there will be bloodshed?
Nuclear weapons are supposed to be limited by treaties, but we also know that treaties are only as good as the people who "shake on it". The leaders of each country must be people that will uphold their agreements, and protect the treaties boundaries. Oftentimes, treaties are breached for one reason or another. And many times it is the differences in our value systems.
Humans have various needs, individually, and corporately. And it becomes a complex endeavor, indeed, to try to understand how to unravel the strings, so people will live in/with understanding. I do not have hope that there will ever be a day where peace will rule the earth, alto this is what we sing about at Christmastime.
Monday, December 13, 2010
What Is the Use of "Christian"?
To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.
Charles de Montesquieu
This is the "means for Christian religion", as far as Montesquieu is concerned. The Christian religion upholds Jesus of Nazereth as a "moral example" and his was an example of compasssion for those that didn't "fit". America is great because it is a land of opportunity where all men have inalienable rights to pursue their goals.
Montesquieu was not a "Christian", but was a political philosopher that had a great impact on America's Founding.
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."
~John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.
Christian education should not be about Scripture as an inerrant, infallible "Word of God", but as a philosophy of human nature. The law is the equalizer among men, as the law protects human nature from itself. Human nature is prone to err, as it is limited in scope, self-interested, and opinionated by one's "culture". Scientists understand "human nature" as "survival of the fittest".
Virtue is a defense for civility. Without virtue, civilization would be lost on war, revenge, and spitefulness. Self interest is not bad, it just is. This is why we need to acknowledge and identify what our self interest is about and negotiate our differences. This is where social contract can protect peace and uphold justice.
Without an understanding of human nature, which scientists still are investigating, the world cannot live in peace.
Charles de Montesquieu
This is the "means for Christian religion", as far as Montesquieu is concerned. The Christian religion upholds Jesus of Nazereth as a "moral example" and his was an example of compasssion for those that didn't "fit". America is great because it is a land of opportunity where all men have inalienable rights to pursue their goals.
Montesquieu was not a "Christian", but was a political philosopher that had a great impact on America's Founding.
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."
~John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.
Christian education should not be about Scripture as an inerrant, infallible "Word of God", but as a philosophy of human nature. The law is the equalizer among men, as the law protects human nature from itself. Human nature is prone to err, as it is limited in scope, self-interested, and opinionated by one's "culture". Scientists understand "human nature" as "survival of the fittest".
Virtue is a defense for civility. Without virtue, civilization would be lost on war, revenge, and spitefulness. Self interest is not bad, it just is. This is why we need to acknowledge and identify what our self interest is about and negotiate our differences. This is where social contract can protect peace and uphold justice.
Without an understanding of human nature, which scientists still are investigating, the world cannot live in peace.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
On Forgiveness....
Today in my e-mail, I noticed on a Science and Religion newmail that research had been done on forgiveness. It talked about how there was a decision making process to forgive before one could experience the emotional feeling and health benefits. It also covered various ways forgiveness is manifested toward self, other and God. (Apologies to the one who did the research, but it seems like a overly simplistic view on forgiveness, although I understand that the newsmail could not ever cover all of the information that the researcher uncovered or evaluated. I am only responding to what was stated.)
Forgiveness cannot be demanded by another, (this was affirmed in this newsmail ), as forgiveness was an experience of offering, seeking and reconciling. Forgiveness is not something that is sought for any other reason than the relationship, otherwise, it is predatory. So, reconcilliation is not possible in all circumstances.
I have qualms about certain aspects of generalized suppositions about forgiveness and reconcilliation. Although I can forgive my rapist, I will not trust him and until he has spent time building that trust (that is, if he wants a relationship to me), then, I would be foolish to pursue any type of relationship. So, forgiveness does not mean reconcillation, or that the relationship will be restored. In fact, unhealthy relationships are numerous because of forgiveness being absolutized as the epitome of character, while dismissing the offenses of the predator. Forgiveness can only happen in these situations when the offended feels "safe".
Forgiveness can only be offered to those we trust, so the offender cannot manipulate or demand it from us. Why is this so? Forgiveness means that someone has been wronged and if the offender does not recognize his offence, then, he does not recognize the damage. The offender cannot seek forgiveness for something he has no recognition of. This is when it is necessary to work through the issues, but allow the other "to be". Do not try to have a relationship with such persons, as it is an excercise in futility. Some people will not have the capacity to understand how you understood or took their offending behavior. And others don't care, because they don't value the relationship to you. Move on. Do not think that it is you fault. Many predators love to manipulate their prey into responding out of guilt.
I believe that the Christian community, as a whole, has an unhealthy view of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that there is no consequence in or to the relationship. I believe that relationship is only granted to those who value the person enough to want to make amends. But, the people involved must determine how that will be worked out. Sometimes outsiders mean well, but can exasperate the problem and make one or ther other feel defensive and unsafe. This will never breed an environment of acceptance.
If the relationship has gotten to the 'point of no return", then there are legal ways to rectify the injustice. Divorce is always an option for the victims of damage and devastation. There is no need to put youself or you children or others you love into harm's way.
Today's world is filled with the need for countries and people to be "reconcilled". This term rolls off the tongue of evangelicals without understanding the full implication or impact of what they are saying. The greviances are deep and historical. There is no simple solution in asking for forgiveness, turning the other cheek or making a decision to rectify the situation. Both or all parties involved have to be reconcilled. And in the world of politics there are many duplicities, and inconsistancies to count, much less to rectify. Forgiveness must be a personal term, while reconcilliation is an "ideal" and imaginary one.
Peace is an "ideal" that will never come as long as "God" is useful to justify actions that disadvantage, dominate, and demean another, while seeking promotion for oneself. And I really wonder, since all of us are so short-sighted and limited in our understanding if peace is even a value that can be held realistically in this world.
Forgiveness cannot be demanded by another, (this was affirmed in this newsmail ), as forgiveness was an experience of offering, seeking and reconciling. Forgiveness is not something that is sought for any other reason than the relationship, otherwise, it is predatory. So, reconcilliation is not possible in all circumstances.
I have qualms about certain aspects of generalized suppositions about forgiveness and reconcilliation. Although I can forgive my rapist, I will not trust him and until he has spent time building that trust (that is, if he wants a relationship to me), then, I would be foolish to pursue any type of relationship. So, forgiveness does not mean reconcillation, or that the relationship will be restored. In fact, unhealthy relationships are numerous because of forgiveness being absolutized as the epitome of character, while dismissing the offenses of the predator. Forgiveness can only happen in these situations when the offended feels "safe".
Forgiveness can only be offered to those we trust, so the offender cannot manipulate or demand it from us. Why is this so? Forgiveness means that someone has been wronged and if the offender does not recognize his offence, then, he does not recognize the damage. The offender cannot seek forgiveness for something he has no recognition of. This is when it is necessary to work through the issues, but allow the other "to be". Do not try to have a relationship with such persons, as it is an excercise in futility. Some people will not have the capacity to understand how you understood or took their offending behavior. And others don't care, because they don't value the relationship to you. Move on. Do not think that it is you fault. Many predators love to manipulate their prey into responding out of guilt.
I believe that the Christian community, as a whole, has an unhealthy view of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that there is no consequence in or to the relationship. I believe that relationship is only granted to those who value the person enough to want to make amends. But, the people involved must determine how that will be worked out. Sometimes outsiders mean well, but can exasperate the problem and make one or ther other feel defensive and unsafe. This will never breed an environment of acceptance.
If the relationship has gotten to the 'point of no return", then there are legal ways to rectify the injustice. Divorce is always an option for the victims of damage and devastation. There is no need to put youself or you children or others you love into harm's way.
Today's world is filled with the need for countries and people to be "reconcilled". This term rolls off the tongue of evangelicals without understanding the full implication or impact of what they are saying. The greviances are deep and historical. There is no simple solution in asking for forgiveness, turning the other cheek or making a decision to rectify the situation. Both or all parties involved have to be reconcilled. And in the world of politics there are many duplicities, and inconsistancies to count, much less to rectify. Forgiveness must be a personal term, while reconcilliation is an "ideal" and imaginary one.
Peace is an "ideal" that will never come as long as "God" is useful to justify actions that disadvantage, dominate, and demean another, while seeking promotion for oneself. And I really wonder, since all of us are so short-sighted and limited in our understanding if peace is even a value that can be held realistically in this world.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Wrong Side of Multiculturalism
Today, emphasis is put upon multiculturalism in the name and for the sake of tolerance. Tolerance is a value in Western society as it civilizes what otherwise, would cause conflict. I am in totol agreement with this "ideal", but the reality is, that many do not adhere to plurality. Plurality takes humility of mind and heart and exlusivist religious claims do not allow such tolerance.
Fort Hood's "battleground" was to be a place of safety where "liberty and justice rules" and "peace reigns", because of our liberal democracy. It is to our detriment that we "tiptoe around" the issue of radical faith claims.
It seems obvious that the man that killed these soldiers in cold blood was doing so for religious reasons. Yes, there were political differences, but the differences were basically underwritten by this man's religious convictions. This view is not open to pluralistic views or values, because it views any "other" as "infidel". How can we tolerate such thinking and being in our society? or at least in our military?
When men/women pledge their allegience to the cause of our nation, they give up the right to digress from serving what leaders deem necessary for our nation's interests. Those that think that there is a higher or more primal loyalty do not need to be pledging their allegience.
Those that think that societies can live without police officiers are living in an a disconnect from reality or are in mental institutions. Crime happens and people get hurt, should we look the other way? Should we tolerate such things, or worse, should we dissolve the "force" of the police officier because we think the police officier is the "problem"? Of course not!
Our military do similar things in the larger context of "world affairs". Whenever nations rise up against another, should we looke the other way? Should we dissolve the military of any "force" because they are the problem? Or should we evaluate our values and determine whether this is a cause that justifies our nation's interest and the interest of a "free world"?
The world does not change in this regard. We will always have need for law to bring order and the police and military are the enforcers of what is "right" in the "free world" under law.
Fort Hood's "battleground" was to be a place of safety where "liberty and justice rules" and "peace reigns", because of our liberal democracy. It is to our detriment that we "tiptoe around" the issue of radical faith claims.
It seems obvious that the man that killed these soldiers in cold blood was doing so for religious reasons. Yes, there were political differences, but the differences were basically underwritten by this man's religious convictions. This view is not open to pluralistic views or values, because it views any "other" as "infidel". How can we tolerate such thinking and being in our society? or at least in our military?
When men/women pledge their allegience to the cause of our nation, they give up the right to digress from serving what leaders deem necessary for our nation's interests. Those that think that there is a higher or more primal loyalty do not need to be pledging their allegience.
Those that think that societies can live without police officiers are living in an a disconnect from reality or are in mental institutions. Crime happens and people get hurt, should we look the other way? Should we tolerate such things, or worse, should we dissolve the "force" of the police officier because we think the police officier is the "problem"? Of course not!
Our military do similar things in the larger context of "world affairs". Whenever nations rise up against another, should we looke the other way? Should we dissolve the military of any "force" because they are the problem? Or should we evaluate our values and determine whether this is a cause that justifies our nation's interest and the interest of a "free world"?
The world does not change in this regard. We will always have need for law to bring order and the police and military are the enforcers of what is "right" in the "free world" under law.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Political Problems Will Always Exist
The news headlines for a few weeks have featured Iran's elections and peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
Elections are a "right"in free societies. But, human rights are ignored in regimes that do not want or allow individual freedom of choice. There is a belief in Iran that the elections were rigged. Certain "kidnappings" have occurred to the ones supporting the opposition party, even though the law supports the right to voice difference. Rigged elections do not allow the "voice" to the individual or certain groups that differ in political agenda. This is not an unusual occurance, as power is hard to over-ride in these regimes, as there are no "checks and balances" as in our government.
I have become concerned recently at the large number of powerful posistions that this adminstration has "appointed" without accountability to the electorate. Is this a step to undermine our Constitutional government, as a representative republic?
This morning it was reported that Israel has offended the Palestianians with certain absolute non-negotiables, such as Israel's right to the land granted to them as a state and the right to Jerusalem. It seems that the Palestianians are forced to maintain a tribal identity, as they do not have a nation state that identifies their legitimacy. Personal identity is associated with one's nation, as well as familial culture.
I do not know the answer to this one, as there are conflicting stories about who has the right to Jerusalem and why and where boundaries should be established in maintaining borders between the two peoples. Without a country and home, the Palestianians do not have a "voice". But, terrorism and violence is not the answer or solution to resolve these tensions.
It seems that the persecuted "need" resolution of their denied identity by restitution of those who have limited their identity. This action affirms their "right to life and liberty" and their pursuit of happiness. Many countries granted that right to the Jews in granting them a nation and granting them a right to their own land. How are we to negotiate between two persecuted parties, who continue to persecute the "other"?
Rational choice has been useful in bringing about peace in many instances to conflicting countries, but generations of conflict over interests do nothing to make the way clear for "hearing" the other and compromising or negotiating. Emotions have become attached to certain "bulwarks" of conflict that make these stumbling blocks hard, if not impossible, to overcome.
The real world does not act based on compassion, goodness, and understanding, but on interests. Interests are not "right or wrong", just different. Justice is bringing about a equal hearing and coming to terms with the ultimate issue concerning conflict. Therefore, it behooves all of us to be aware of what our interests are and base our negotiation on what we are willing and unwilling to compromise.
Elections are a "right"in free societies. But, human rights are ignored in regimes that do not want or allow individual freedom of choice. There is a belief in Iran that the elections were rigged. Certain "kidnappings" have occurred to the ones supporting the opposition party, even though the law supports the right to voice difference. Rigged elections do not allow the "voice" to the individual or certain groups that differ in political agenda. This is not an unusual occurance, as power is hard to over-ride in these regimes, as there are no "checks and balances" as in our government.
I have become concerned recently at the large number of powerful posistions that this adminstration has "appointed" without accountability to the electorate. Is this a step to undermine our Constitutional government, as a representative republic?
This morning it was reported that Israel has offended the Palestianians with certain absolute non-negotiables, such as Israel's right to the land granted to them as a state and the right to Jerusalem. It seems that the Palestianians are forced to maintain a tribal identity, as they do not have a nation state that identifies their legitimacy. Personal identity is associated with one's nation, as well as familial culture.
I do not know the answer to this one, as there are conflicting stories about who has the right to Jerusalem and why and where boundaries should be established in maintaining borders between the two peoples. Without a country and home, the Palestianians do not have a "voice". But, terrorism and violence is not the answer or solution to resolve these tensions.
It seems that the persecuted "need" resolution of their denied identity by restitution of those who have limited their identity. This action affirms their "right to life and liberty" and their pursuit of happiness. Many countries granted that right to the Jews in granting them a nation and granting them a right to their own land. How are we to negotiate between two persecuted parties, who continue to persecute the "other"?
Rational choice has been useful in bringing about peace in many instances to conflicting countries, but generations of conflict over interests do nothing to make the way clear for "hearing" the other and compromising or negotiating. Emotions have become attached to certain "bulwarks" of conflict that make these stumbling blocks hard, if not impossible, to overcome.
The real world does not act based on compassion, goodness, and understanding, but on interests. Interests are not "right or wrong", just different. Justice is bringing about a equal hearing and coming to terms with the ultimate issue concerning conflict. Therefore, it behooves all of us to be aware of what our interests are and base our negotiation on what we are willing and unwilling to compromise.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Peace in the Middle East
Peace cannot happen when domination happens if we believe in equality under law. Laws are made and defined by human beings. And humans should make laws that are just in representing everyone's interest fairly.
I am glad that there is discussion about the "feelings" of the situation, as it has recently been understood that humans reason more on the emotional spectrum than on an objective. It is again what is the meaning and value given to a certain issue? And that becomes hard to negotiate when the issues have different meanings and values...
Will peace come? We have hoped and we are waiting and watching.
I am glad that there is discussion about the "feelings" of the situation, as it has recently been understood that humans reason more on the emotional spectrum than on an objective. It is again what is the meaning and value given to a certain issue? And that becomes hard to negotiate when the issues have different meanings and values...
Will peace come? We have hoped and we are waiting and watching.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Is Peace Possible?
My husband presented his experinece at the State Department this afternoon at one of the local "civic" clubs. He said it went well....
When I asked him if there were any questions, he mentioned one that started me thinking...
The question was; Do you think we should engage the moderate Muslims in hopes of "peace". My husband said that 90% of the Muslims are Sunnis....whereas the moderates are part of the 10%...that means that the majority 12 million are radical types... this is an enemy to freedom. Their "worldview" is an absolute one with no consideration of moderation in rationale, and is not confined to one country, it would be hard to modify.....it is an ideological battle, that must be fought on many fronts..political, spiritual, moral....that unfortunately, does not make for "peace"in the present.....
Moderation is the language of the ancients of virtue. It is also part of the Buddhist tradition. But, moderation is not in the vocabulary of radicals of any tradition. And radicals are against peace...and at any cost....
When I asked him if there were any questions, he mentioned one that started me thinking...
The question was; Do you think we should engage the moderate Muslims in hopes of "peace". My husband said that 90% of the Muslims are Sunnis....whereas the moderates are part of the 10%...that means that the majority 12 million are radical types... this is an enemy to freedom. Their "worldview" is an absolute one with no consideration of moderation in rationale, and is not confined to one country, it would be hard to modify.....it is an ideological battle, that must be fought on many fronts..political, spiritual, moral....that unfortunately, does not make for "peace"in the present.....
Moderation is the language of the ancients of virtue. It is also part of the Buddhist tradition. But, moderation is not in the vocabulary of radicals of any tradition. And radicals are against peace...and at any cost....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
