BS: A Recipe for Peace

Subject: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 11:11 PM

The following interesting point of view was sent o me by a friend. I offer it for whatever value you may find in it -- personally I am inlcined to agree with many of the points in it, but YMMV:

Is There A Recipe For Peace?

Peace seems to be the goal we are all seeking in this life. Or so we say.
We will carry signs, spout religious principles, criticize our leaders, or other leaders and many will die when necessary to have it. Why then is it not here?

The reason, I believe, is that we are unwilling to realize that "peace" is not something we have, but rather someone we "are". It is not simply the absence of war. It is much more than that.

Peace cannot exist in the current climate that is in the world today because peace must include the following ingredients:
Courage
Freedom from oppression
Basic human rights for all
Understanding
Tolerance
Willingness
Spirit of cooperation
Agreement
Balance
Open-mindedness
Forgiveness

Peace cannot co-exist with the following ingredients:
Absolute Dictators
Religious self-righteousness (religious or otherwise)
Fear
Judgement
Jealousy
Hatred
Greed

If Hitler had won the war there would be a relative "peace" in the world. I am sure his intention was some form of "peace". No one would be left alive to oppose his government, after his so-called "purification" or "cleansing of the infidels", so the survivors would all agree. There would be relative equality among the people, somewhere at the poverty level and lots of goodies for Hitler and his little group of loyal followers. Those of us who believe in true, lasting peace, freedom and justice would be among the "infidels" so we would not be around. The remaining "loyalists" would be staring at his picture on every street corner and shudder in fear.

As long as there are those in the world who exhibit the behaviors of the "dictator", as in pictures of themselves posted everywhere, absolute rule, annihilation of any opposition and a different set of rules for "his people", there can be no peace. As long as religions believe and teach they are "right" and all others are "wrong", "evil" or for some reason cannot be "saved", there will be no peace. As long as I am jealous of what another nation or individual has achieved through hard work and effort, there can be no peace. When I hate anyone because of his or her differences, color, religion, or otherwise, there can be no peace. When I want what you have without any regard for you, or your needs, because I am greedy, there can be no peace.

When self-serving political "leaders" will block humanitarian aid to their people so that the leader can prosper, there can be no peace. Or when these same political leaders don't allow basic human rights to their citizens, there can be no peace.

When religious leaders will not allow their "flock" to even think about, or question their own religion, or other religious and spiritual paths, there can be no peace. There would be only one religion. All others would be outlawed, and live in fear, so no conflict would exist. Of course the prevailing "God" would be always on "our" side because we all would believe exactly the same thing. No questions ever. Ah yes, peace at last! I say no, when one religion rules through fear or government edict, there can be no peace.

So here comes the part none us want to hear. To have real "peace" it takes COURAGE. The courage to stand for what is "right", even if it means conflict, whether it be a political debate or in some cases a war. As to what is "right" refer to the ingredient list. We cannot have peace as long as others in the world live under absolute rule. To say this is their "choice" is not correct, even from a so-called spiritual standpoint. Peace without its close partner, "freedom" is impossible. How can you be at peace and live in servitude? How can you be at peace when others live in servitude? When societies exist where women are still considered second class citizens and cannot even vote or assume any type of leadership roles, there can be no peace. Or where people of differing races, religions or political views, wind up in prison and certainly cannot hold a political office, simply because of their beliefs.

The willingness for peace has to be equal on all sides, regardless of political views, religious views or personal opinions. Every party would have to be willing to give understanding, tolerance and a spirit of cooperation to the other. All governments would have to recognize and allow basic human rights to all, not just the ruling classes. All governments would have to recognize and encourage input from their citizens. All religions would have to allow for open mindedness about other beliefs and encourage people to think about those beliefs, rather than condemn them. In other words, non-tolerance cannot be tolerated! Anarchy won't work because no one will be there to enforce the rules. Cooperation on all the ingredients for peace would have to be agreed upon unilaterally and a non-partisan group would have to run the show, so to speak. All must have representation to achieve a balance.

Even many so-called pacifists are not willing to be non-judgmental about their own governments or other views of the world situation. They chalk everything up to "our government and the media is lying to us." Rather than see that what our leaders are telling us is at least part of the facts involved. It's as though they think the government has nothing better to do with their time then stir up wars and provide false information. Yet when the Twin Towers fell, many said "Why didn't the government protect us from this tragedy?" If the U.S. had gone in and bombed the Taliban before 9/11 we would have been considered barbarians. If we now wait for the terrorists to act before anyone can take action we would be guilty of "not protecting our people".

Which side of the fence are you on? Who will you appease? Unfortunately the lines "are" drawn, like it or not. The grounds for war are alive in each of us everyday. Sometimes the so-called "peaceful solution" does not work when there is no common ground or willingness on all sides to find that solution. When the bully kicks sand in your face, the peaceful solution is not to back away or run because he will follow you everywhere after that, and you will have no peace. Telling him you love him won't work either. The only way out is to fight back. Then you can have peace later as opposed to no peace ever.

The road to peace is there, but how many are really willing to travel that road. How many politicians will be willing to open their minds and hearts? How many religious leaders are open to listening to other thoughts on the subject? How many "pacifists" are willing to face the reality of their demands, and what they will have to give to get there? How many of those who are non-committal or simply do not care, are willing to start caring? How many of us are willing to give all, as our soldiers have done, for decades, to give theirs lives, to have peace?

These questions are for each of us to answer. The real question is "Who are you in this situation?" The answer will tell you who you truly are!

Respectfully:

Michael Gregory

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 12:33 AM

I'm afraid that the last five things on your list of "peace cannot co-exist with the following ingredients" are inevitable parts of human life.

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: Beccy
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 12:59 PM

Interesting...

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 02:25 PM

Not only do I agree with the thrust of this, there is some encouragement available about it-- Hardi has been preaching along these lines of late, and people have been extremely interested and responsive.

A discussion going on at our house nowadays, in the little bits and pieces of time a busy Lent allows in a pastor's hime, have been about the appalling lack of ability among most folk to carry on a moral discussion. We can argue, advocate, rant, and express ourselves... but we seldom have enough internal tranquility to discuss, listen, and understand; the basic tools with which to conduct a moral discussion are lacking. We have little left in that situation but our own opinions, hastily taken and aggressively promoted.

We lead a weekly class now that teaches these tools-- how to think and discuss theologically, how to wonder about things together with no agreement necessary. Opinions often intrude but we keep an eye out for these blocks in continued exploration, with good effect.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: NicoleC
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 02:49 PM

I certainly agree with the basic premise, but I disagree with one crucial point.

People who hate and separate cannot stop themselves from doing so, although they may shift around the targets of their hate. Religious fanatics, bigots and dictators succeed because they successfully play on our human tendency to define the world in two groups: US and THEM. THEY are to blame for war/hate/violence/dissatisfaction/etc., WE are perfect and the only civilized ones. Life would be perfect if THEY believed in the same God/acted the same way/shared our cultural values/had the same skin color as WE.

Bin Laden tells his followers people who live in the West are infidels, so hate them. GWB tries to drum up support for his war by saying Iraqis are "barbarians." You are either with US or against US (one of THEM.) Idealogy aside, they both use the same tactic, and succeed by creating divisions.

If Hitler had won and managed to remove all Jews, Catholics, people of mixed ethinicity and other targets of his ire, once they had been removed, there would be a new target as "THEM" on whom Germany's problems could be blamed.

We could all be clones who looked, acted, and believed the same way, and there would still be those who would find a new division to engender hate based on some perceived difference.

Any recipe for peace must require diminishing our leftover primitive survival mechanism to separate into groups. When we no longer fall for this trap en masse, so-called "leaders" who seek advancement through hate will fail in their quest.

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: mg
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 03:01 PM

I have never heard Bush refer to Iraqis as barbarians. Has he really and truly said this? Referring to the people in general, not Saddam and his henchmen. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: NicoleC
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 03:08 PM

Yes, Mary, I heard him say it the other day. Actually, I believe the exact phrase was, "They are barbaric, savage people." Only the moron knows exactly who he was refering to; he didn't bother to name any names or be specific. And even if he did -- who is he to judge? Why the use of such negative words, if not to attempt to stir up hate?

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 03:13 PM

Well, there's no justifying such a broad generalization; but it is certainly true that some horrifically barbaric and savage things have been done under the auspices of the Ba'athists.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: NicoleC
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:12 PM

Yes. And some horrifically barbaric and savage things have happened in the US. Shall we start dropping bombs on major US cities to rectify it? Does violence *ever* beget anything but more violence?

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:39 PM

I dunno the answer to that, Nicole. If the lizard brain is a given in the human condition, as it appears, and it emerges in full flaming brute force when called upon by threat, fear, guilt, near-miss challenges to survival, pain and other low-grade-stimuli, then it seems clear that at some level the maintenance of force in human affairs is going to be a constant until we learn to defuse that sucker with harmonic sound vibes. Now there's a weapon of mass distraction for ya!! Flood the battlefield with the sonic precursors of truth and beauty and they'll just lie down and smile. Sonic soma -- the path to benevolence for all humanity! Some day, maybe. I don't think I'd vote for it though.

There are other ways to administer control other than violence, of course, and of those the best is obviously free consent and persuasion through dialogue. When that fails, though, you are still faced with the problem of having to do what you can, no?

I think it could be argued that the force we exercised against the Luftwaffe and the troops of the Third Reich actually did a lot to improve things in Europe over the long term. Extreme measures, yes; but order -- of a sort -- was restored.

Demonizing groups and categories is a tad insane, usually; it requires the intentional suspension of discrimination. It is typically the resort of those who feel threatened, not by immediate facts but by the long-past traumas that the present reminds them of. There have been numerous instances of Iraqi soldiers showing up to surrender and having civilized friendly dialogues with individual US soldiers -- but that sort of thing occurs only between individuals. IMHO there is no remedy in the world against sweeping deminization that can hold a candle to simple person-to-person communication.

These are just reflections; I don't have the answer.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 04:54 PM

Amos- I agree with you regarding the use of force against the Third Reich, but that's usiing force to counter force. I can't think of any situations where the introduction of violence is beneficial.

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: NicoleC
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 08:38 PM

I don't know either, Amos. I'm not a pacifist; I have to qualms with self-defense. While violent retribution solves little in the long run, I also don't think "turn the other cheek" is a particularly good political philosophy unless coupled with positive action elsewhere. Someone has to take the first step in a blood feud, or it never ends as long as their are survivors.

Germany got their butt kicked by force in WWI, and it bred a climate ripe for Hitler. Force was an appropriate reaction to out a stop to Hitler's actions -- but did the military defeat of Germany bring about the relatively peaceful and polite country Germany is today? Or did the positive reinforcement and active peacemaking of the Marshall Plan end the violence?

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 08:11 AM

Well, I certainly agree with WYSIWYG that their is a certain amount of work that is needed to discuss moral issues without the cemented on stone rhetoric.

But I also remember an old joke from my social worker days;

How many social workers does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: One, but the bulb wants to be chanhged,

Now I'm sure that folks from both sides of the divide think that this is about the "other" side and I am sure their is some truth in that belief.

But from "my side" it looks like the "other side" appears to have the *power* here and power currupts. Where is the incentives for those who do control the policies to reach out to those who don't and are protesting the brutal use power?

Many of those on our side have tried to bridge the divide only to be rebuffed by those who are calling the shots or support those who are calling the shots.

But we'll keep a candle lit in the window just the same.

Peace is a two way street......

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 08:41 AM

To me, the opening treatise to this thread reads like a coded rationale for unlimited naked aggression.

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 03:49 PM

Carol:

Well, it is a bit ambiguous, but I think the point of it is not in favor of naked aggression, but in favor of peace that also stands up in favor of principles. I grant you that is a slippery slope indeed -- but it is more slippery to pursue peace without any principles, apparently.    I guess, as Kim reminded us elsewhere, that each person chooses his battlles.

A

Subject: RE: BS: A Recipe for Peace
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Apr 03 - 04:20 PM

I guess so, Amos. I think it really all boils down to whose ox is being gored. I think I know what Michael Gregory's worldview is, but I could be wrong, so I'll just keep my suppositions to myself.