Having just read several articles about the so-called Killing Fields in Cambodia, as well as the US Military Prison at Abu Ghraib, I am struck not only by the similarity in motives of the abusers (ideology), but also by the outcomes (liberty and justice only for those responsible). The 21st century may end up being known as the century of leniency toward evil. It was in this century that we have seen the wholesale dissolution of the American proscription against torture and against inhumanity. It was also in this century that we have seen a Cambodian court sentence one of the chief perpetrators of the Cambodian holocaust to a mere 19 years in prison for 14,000 people tortured and killed. Conversely, in the mid-twentieth century, we saw Nazi death camp guards and commandants rightly executed for crimes of that proportion. Accountability was upheld in those earlier cases, but not in these of our current century.
With the advent of the torture memos written by John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who served under an administration of more powerful and more nefarious devils who cared not about the conscience or the spirit of America and who drew together such a crowd of yes-men to write doctrine to support the torture being encouraged, we see large portions of the American public shift their beliefs about torture as if they were under a hypnotic spell. Formerly, it was a no-brainer: ‘we don’t torture. “Only the bad guys torture. The Nazis tortured. We’re the good guys, we are better than that; we do not torture.” As if by magic, the party line has shifted to a more lenient point of view that torture is okay, as long as it is we that do it. Torture by the opponent is terrorism, a crime against humanity; torture by us is a necessary evil. Early on in the Bush administration, after the revelation that there was torture going on under our jurisdiction, Bush decried repeatedly that we do not torture. Later on, Bush, Cheney and their supporters (including Cheney’s own daughter Liz) began to defend torture as something acceptable when carried out to ensure the safety of our nation. Talking out of both sides of their proverbial mouths, they both supported torture and claimed that the torture they supported is not torture!
Shortly after the revelation of the existence of our torture camps, Conservative apologists like Rush Limbaugh sought to claim that the activities carried on in our military prisons were no more harmful than fraternity hazing, choosing to address only the less egregious forms of “enhanced interrogation” methods, such as being subjected to long periods of enforced standing and being exposed to barking dogs, as well as humiliating postures and positions. These weren’t so bad, afterall, were they? Unfortunately, he chose to ignore the growing evidence for more nefarious forms of torture that were going on, the proof of which is now undeniable. These include allowing those aforementioned barking dogs to actually bite prisoners as well as guards actually torturing prisoners to death. Numerous instances of prisoners dying under torture have surfaced and a paucity of prosecutions have been carried out, with virtually no substantial convictions. The Conservative apologists are still ignoring these cases, as if they were not a black mark on our collective national conscience. By this same token, I suppose that the Nazis rounding the Jews up and sending them to concentration camps wasn’t so bad afterall. Where’s the harm in that? Oh, but don’t forget about the gas chambers and the ovens, not to mention the medical experiments and the starvation!
Retired Major General Antonio Taguba is perhaps the most outspoken and righteous man in the current military hierarchy, having headed up a military investigation against the abuses of the Bush administration and having publicly decried them in a contribution to the Physicians for Human Rights report of 2008. In this, he rightly and boldly accused the Bush administration of war crimes. God bless the whistle blowers like him.
Now, lest you think that I am taking an unfair stance against American and Christian parties, I must state that similarly I am deeply saddened by the Turkish government’s stance on the ‘non-existence’ of a genocide against the Armenians during the early part of the 20th century. In their official position, it simply did not happen. But lest I one day be arrested for transgressing Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, should I ever visit Turkey, I will refrain from making any disparaging remarks against the Turkish government. I will not say that I abhor this stance as unrighteous and damaging to all citizens of Turkey, either Muslim or Armenian or otherwise. I will not state that the Armenian genocide is a black mark on the record of an otherwise righteous nation known for its traditional tolerance of Jews and other ethnicities within its borders. I will not criticize the Turkish government for any such policy or transgression. But I ask the reader if it is possible to criticize a government and its policies without being seen to criticize the entire nation. I ask the reader if it is truly patriotic to back one political party and to be an apologist for all of its stances, right or wrong, and to be swindled by the leaders of that party into allowing them to do what they will, fearing that if one were to criticize their actions that one would be criticizing the entirety of the nation. I ask the reader if it is just to follow a tyrant who has wrested control from the hands of justice and from the hands of the people and demanded that all remain silent while he commit unearthly acts of terror against a portion of the nation’s populace or even other peoples. Is this patriotism? Is this justice? Is this righteous? Since when did patriotism become synonymous with blind support of tyranny? Evidently, we in the United States are not alone in our struggle to remember what the U.S. military oath says about supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Perhaps those in other nations too must face the task of standing up to bullies and tyrants within their own governments.
Once again, lest I be characterized as one-sided or unfairly critical of my own beloved nation, I also must remind you of how I began this essay. I was appalled that the government of Cambodia, now somewhat safely removed from its days of tyranny by the Khmer Rouge, has largely adopted a policy of ‘let bygones be bygones’, and in which its youth no longer remember the scars that their parents bore in former days under the former regime. The courts have allowed one of the key members of the torture academies to be given a proverbial slap on the wrist for his innumerable crimes against humanity. But still, where were our cries of injustice during that regime’s tenure? We were largely silent while Pol Pot and his cronies exterminated perhaps a million or more in the countrysides and lush jungles of their nation. And Europe was similarly silent while the Young Turks ravaged their brethren, the Armenians, in the midst and in the wake of WWI. Had a cry of injustice been raised then, perhaps later genocides might have been prevented or at least attenuated.
The CIA black prisons still exist, despite the largely ceremonial liquidation of Guantanamo Bay. The authors of our national lapse of conscience have still gone unpunished, as have their uniformed henchmen. And those who should be behind bars still practice law ‘at the bar’. It is time to prosecute those responsible for the U.S. torture prisons, even if it means going all the way to the top. It is time that we, in our patriotism, put righteousness at all costs above petty conceptions of patriotism. We must set an example for the rest of the world that we are still the good guys, that our country, right or wrong, is still our responsibility. That it is still in the hands of democracy and is still the beacon of freedom and liberty and justice for all. That we will shoulder the burden of our nation’s moral guidance and will not close our eyes to the misdeeds of those who have pretended to act in our best interests; that we will not ignore justice simply because our former lapse in judgment embarrasses us. Perhaps the other nations will then also follow our example.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Is Masturbation a Sin?
Is masturbation a sin? Is it dangerous for our bodies, minds, and souls? Recent Republican and Tea Party senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell has been connected to a campaign beginning in the 1990s in which groups of Christians sought to teach youth through media about the dangers of masturbation. This prohibition against auto-eroticism is nothing new. It was particularly prevalent in Protestant and Catholic America in the early 20th century, when children were taught about the evils of “Onanism”. My father remembers having joined the Boy Scouts and reading in their handbook about its dangers.
Before we determine whether masturbation is truly an evil or a danger to our bodies and our souls, allow me to discuss the issue of such an act being named after Onan, a character from the Old Testament. For the sake of this discussion, I am going to assume that what the Bible says on this subject is truly the inspired word of God. If you disagree, then this debate is largely moot for you. So, go and enjoy yourself—literally. If you agree, then deciphering the meaning of this passage can be very helpful for us to discern what is good and healthy for our souls and our bodies, and what is not.
If this is one of the primary biblical proofs against the act of auto-eroticism, then we have been sorely underserved by church doctrine. In the passage which mentions Onan—Leviticus 38:6-9—this character is one of the sons of Judah, the Israelite patriarch. Onan’s older brother is described as “wicked in the sight of the LORD” (38:7; NRSV) and so God killed him. We don’t know what the older son did to be called wicked, but for the moment we can just trust the text. Judah commanded his younger son, Onan, to perform his brotherly duties, that is to take care of his brother’s widow and conceive children with her. Onan believes, according to the customs of the times, that these children will be counted not as his own but as his brother’s. Perhaps because of his brother’s wickedness, or perhaps because of Onan’s own jealousy, he attempts to deny any progeny to his brother’s memory—“so that he will not give offspring to his brother” (v. 9). So he carries out coitus interruptus; that is to say, he “pulls out”, when having sexual congress with his new wife—his brother’s widow—so that she may not conceive at all. In doing this act, he spills his semen on the ground. He does this repeatedly, according to the text, whenever they have intercourse. Because of this it says, “What he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also” (v. 10). If we take the author of this text as having correctly understood and interpreted the will of God in this situation and having accurately represented Onan’s actions, then the text is fairly clear. It is not the act of coitus interruptus itself that God abhors, nor is the text even a reference to masturbation (a solo act of self-gratification). Rather, it is Onan’s spiteful attempt to deny his brotherly duties and simultaneously his disobedience to his father’s instructions. It is the act of selfish spite and abrogation of duty that God finds “displeasing” and worthy of death. If it is such that God strikes people down for sins and misdeeds—a questionable theology in itself—then it is only for this very act that we can judge it took place. Neither birth control for economic reasons—careful and natural planning of a family—nor self-gratification are proscribed here. We should not interpret it as if it were.
Where else does Christianity derive such doctrines of self denial in which masturbation is considered a sin? Some very loose interpretations of the words of the Apostle Paul have been applied in an attempt to proscribe masturbation. 1 Corinthians 6:9 lists a variety of sins, both sexual and non-sexual, that would disqualify one from inheriting the Kingdom of God. Some of these employ very contextual and vague terms which even to the early church were already outdated and obscure terms. Not least of which are malakos and arsenokoites. Many scholars debate the exact meanings of these terms, both of which have been widely interpreted among the conservative church communities to indicate and proscribe homosexual behavior. Regardless of whether this is the case or not (and a good number of modern scholars contest this), these terms do not undoubtedly or clearly refer to masturbation. In this passage, Paul encourages people to treat their bodies with respect and not use them in a sexually disrespectful manner. Point well taken. But Paul does endorse marriage in a number of passages of his epistles, especially if the person believes that they cannot remain celibate throughout their lives. And much of Paul’s theology is dependent upon his belief in the impending end of the world, an idea which has long been disproved (we’re still here, aren’t we?). And even Paul himself recognizes that he is fallible and that certain ideas are his own opinions and not strictly God’s command (see 1 Cor 7:25).
In a television series produced by MTV in 1996 called “Sex in the Nineties”, and in one video in particular featuring Christine O’Donnell and various associates from Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth Ministry (SALT), she cites one additional passage from the Bible which might likely be used to proscribe the act of masturbation. In the Gospel of Matthew 5:28, Jesus says “But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” In the video, O’Donnell interprets this passage to say that we should not masturbate because masturbation necessarily involves lustful thoughts. Point well taken. However, can we not say that lust is in some manner involved in sex between lawful marriage partners? Even O’Donnell concedes in that video that sexual desires are God-given and need to be understood and harnessed accordingly. But her belief that masturbation will cause someone to know how to please oneself to the point of not needing their partner is overly unrealistic. She states that if a guy knows how to please himself, what need does he have for a wife? If this were true, no men would EVER get married, nor would there be any married men in history. Because most men masturbate. If they are being truthful, they’ll admit this.
In chapter 5 of the abovementioned text of Matthew, Jesus takes several of the Old Testament commandments and proscriptions and in a point-counterpoint argument, he intensifies the traditional Jewish law in order to show that his disciples are even stricter than the strictest of his opponents, the Pharisees. He also states that anyone who is angry is liable to judgment and anyone who calls someone a fool is liable to go to hell. How literally do we need to take this set of passages? Most of us would be doomed to hell. Could it be perhaps that we are just being told to hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior? Could chapter 5 be reminding us of the commandment against coveting? This commandment does not only stop with sexual desires, but is advice against any kind of jealous desires of what we don’t have.
Interestingly, Leviticus 15:16-18 take for granted that men are having ejaculations throughout their lives, and does not specifically connect them to the act of copulation with one’s wife. This passage considers any type of sexual discharge as something that makes a man ritually unclean for a finite period of time and requires ritual purification. This is the same for both men and women. It’s just a part of ancient Jewish observance and is no more outlandish than our ideas of washing one’s hands after using the toilet. It is also likely that this passage addresses men’s nocturnal emissions and masturbation as well as approved sexual congress with one’s wife (or wives, as it may be in the Old Testament!)
Taken in the context of these passages, and the lack of any solid biblical proscription against masturbation, could it be that masturbation is a helpful method of safe sexual exploration, learning about one’s likes and dislikes and what kinds of sensations are pleasant, all without having to engage in sex with multiple partners? Could it be that masturbation is a way to release sexual tension without having to have sex with someone before one is ready, either as a youth or as an adult? Could it be that masturbation, if employed in moderation, can be healthy for the body and soul alike?
Perhaps. But before we decide otherwise, we need to check out the sources of our adjudication against it. We are likely to find that it is our desire to denigrate all sexuality and sexual urges that causes us to find meanings in scripture that are simply not there and to mangle and force certain texts to support our own prejudices and irrational beliefs. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet gone blind or grown hair on their palms from masturbation—either excessive or in moderation.
And one more thing. Don’t you think that there are more important societal problems for us to worry about than whether our youth masturbate?! How about teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, rape (date- or otherwise), wreckless driving, theft, underage drinking, and drug use, amid a myriad of other problems facing youth particularly, not to mention all the other problems that our society faces as a whole!
Before we determine whether masturbation is truly an evil or a danger to our bodies and our souls, allow me to discuss the issue of such an act being named after Onan, a character from the Old Testament. For the sake of this discussion, I am going to assume that what the Bible says on this subject is truly the inspired word of God. If you disagree, then this debate is largely moot for you. So, go and enjoy yourself—literally. If you agree, then deciphering the meaning of this passage can be very helpful for us to discern what is good and healthy for our souls and our bodies, and what is not.
If this is one of the primary biblical proofs against the act of auto-eroticism, then we have been sorely underserved by church doctrine. In the passage which mentions Onan—Leviticus 38:6-9—this character is one of the sons of Judah, the Israelite patriarch. Onan’s older brother is described as “wicked in the sight of the LORD” (38:7; NRSV) and so God killed him. We don’t know what the older son did to be called wicked, but for the moment we can just trust the text. Judah commanded his younger son, Onan, to perform his brotherly duties, that is to take care of his brother’s widow and conceive children with her. Onan believes, according to the customs of the times, that these children will be counted not as his own but as his brother’s. Perhaps because of his brother’s wickedness, or perhaps because of Onan’s own jealousy, he attempts to deny any progeny to his brother’s memory—“so that he will not give offspring to his brother” (v. 9). So he carries out coitus interruptus; that is to say, he “pulls out”, when having sexual congress with his new wife—his brother’s widow—so that she may not conceive at all. In doing this act, he spills his semen on the ground. He does this repeatedly, according to the text, whenever they have intercourse. Because of this it says, “What he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also” (v. 10). If we take the author of this text as having correctly understood and interpreted the will of God in this situation and having accurately represented Onan’s actions, then the text is fairly clear. It is not the act of coitus interruptus itself that God abhors, nor is the text even a reference to masturbation (a solo act of self-gratification). Rather, it is Onan’s spiteful attempt to deny his brotherly duties and simultaneously his disobedience to his father’s instructions. It is the act of selfish spite and abrogation of duty that God finds “displeasing” and worthy of death. If it is such that God strikes people down for sins and misdeeds—a questionable theology in itself—then it is only for this very act that we can judge it took place. Neither birth control for economic reasons—careful and natural planning of a family—nor self-gratification are proscribed here. We should not interpret it as if it were.
Where else does Christianity derive such doctrines of self denial in which masturbation is considered a sin? Some very loose interpretations of the words of the Apostle Paul have been applied in an attempt to proscribe masturbation. 1 Corinthians 6:9 lists a variety of sins, both sexual and non-sexual, that would disqualify one from inheriting the Kingdom of God. Some of these employ very contextual and vague terms which even to the early church were already outdated and obscure terms. Not least of which are malakos and arsenokoites. Many scholars debate the exact meanings of these terms, both of which have been widely interpreted among the conservative church communities to indicate and proscribe homosexual behavior. Regardless of whether this is the case or not (and a good number of modern scholars contest this), these terms do not undoubtedly or clearly refer to masturbation. In this passage, Paul encourages people to treat their bodies with respect and not use them in a sexually disrespectful manner. Point well taken. But Paul does endorse marriage in a number of passages of his epistles, especially if the person believes that they cannot remain celibate throughout their lives. And much of Paul’s theology is dependent upon his belief in the impending end of the world, an idea which has long been disproved (we’re still here, aren’t we?). And even Paul himself recognizes that he is fallible and that certain ideas are his own opinions and not strictly God’s command (see 1 Cor 7:25).
In a television series produced by MTV in 1996 called “Sex in the Nineties”, and in one video in particular featuring Christine O’Donnell and various associates from Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth Ministry (SALT), she cites one additional passage from the Bible which might likely be used to proscribe the act of masturbation. In the Gospel of Matthew 5:28, Jesus says “But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” In the video, O’Donnell interprets this passage to say that we should not masturbate because masturbation necessarily involves lustful thoughts. Point well taken. However, can we not say that lust is in some manner involved in sex between lawful marriage partners? Even O’Donnell concedes in that video that sexual desires are God-given and need to be understood and harnessed accordingly. But her belief that masturbation will cause someone to know how to please oneself to the point of not needing their partner is overly unrealistic. She states that if a guy knows how to please himself, what need does he have for a wife? If this were true, no men would EVER get married, nor would there be any married men in history. Because most men masturbate. If they are being truthful, they’ll admit this.
In chapter 5 of the abovementioned text of Matthew, Jesus takes several of the Old Testament commandments and proscriptions and in a point-counterpoint argument, he intensifies the traditional Jewish law in order to show that his disciples are even stricter than the strictest of his opponents, the Pharisees. He also states that anyone who is angry is liable to judgment and anyone who calls someone a fool is liable to go to hell. How literally do we need to take this set of passages? Most of us would be doomed to hell. Could it be perhaps that we are just being told to hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior? Could chapter 5 be reminding us of the commandment against coveting? This commandment does not only stop with sexual desires, but is advice against any kind of jealous desires of what we don’t have.
Interestingly, Leviticus 15:16-18 take for granted that men are having ejaculations throughout their lives, and does not specifically connect them to the act of copulation with one’s wife. This passage considers any type of sexual discharge as something that makes a man ritually unclean for a finite period of time and requires ritual purification. This is the same for both men and women. It’s just a part of ancient Jewish observance and is no more outlandish than our ideas of washing one’s hands after using the toilet. It is also likely that this passage addresses men’s nocturnal emissions and masturbation as well as approved sexual congress with one’s wife (or wives, as it may be in the Old Testament!)
Taken in the context of these passages, and the lack of any solid biblical proscription against masturbation, could it be that masturbation is a helpful method of safe sexual exploration, learning about one’s likes and dislikes and what kinds of sensations are pleasant, all without having to engage in sex with multiple partners? Could it be that masturbation is a way to release sexual tension without having to have sex with someone before one is ready, either as a youth or as an adult? Could it be that masturbation, if employed in moderation, can be healthy for the body and soul alike?
Perhaps. But before we decide otherwise, we need to check out the sources of our adjudication against it. We are likely to find that it is our desire to denigrate all sexuality and sexual urges that causes us to find meanings in scripture that are simply not there and to mangle and force certain texts to support our own prejudices and irrational beliefs. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet gone blind or grown hair on their palms from masturbation—either excessive or in moderation.
And one more thing. Don’t you think that there are more important societal problems for us to worry about than whether our youth masturbate?! How about teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, rape (date- or otherwise), wreckless driving, theft, underage drinking, and drug use, amid a myriad of other problems facing youth particularly, not to mention all the other problems that our society faces as a whole!
Monday, August 16, 2010
A Mosque at Ground Zero
As I write this, there is a debate raging on about the possible construction of a mosque and Islamic cultural center in New York City, at or near the ground zero site of the 9/11 2001 terrorist attacks. Both sides of this debate seem to believe that this issue is very cut and dry. Even I was initially about to side with one side over the other. But after careful reflection and some impartial research, I have come to see that many outspoken critics of both sides have received limited or incorrect information about the other side’s intentions. Those in favor of allowing the local Islamic community to build this mosque frequently and rightly state that our constitution supports freedom of religion and that to deny these Americans the right to worship where they will is unconstitutional and unethical. In addition, they rightly state that the attacks were not committed by authorized representatives of the majority Islamic community. Also, they rightly state that the Islamic community is more commonly represented by moderate, peaceful people - our neighbors and friends. To say otherwise - to characterize the attacks as representative of Islam, to support the notion that it was not merely fostered by Islamic extremists, but that terrorism is an integral feature of Islam itself - is most certainly untrue.
On the other side, opponents of building the mosque at ground zero are not wholly comprised of racist or hatefully ethnocentric people who equate the 9/11 attacks with all of Islam. Their ranks are not that homogeneous. Many of the opponents uphold the right of religious freedom for all Americans, but simply are in favor of the ground zero site being used as a memorial and a museum, as there are still body parts of over 2500 people entombed in the site itself. The building of a mosque on that site contradicts their intended usage of the site.
It is not a simple issue. To characterize it as such would be to miss the equally valid points of all sides. In order to get past the petty infighting that many partisans of any argument engage in, we are each of us going to have to momentarily “take sides” - but rather than taking our own sides, we will have to take the side of our opponent, walk around in his proverbial shoes, see what validity is embedded in his argument and allow that to either mitigate or inform our own opinions.
True, there are many people who simply hate or fear Islam and do not understand that it is a religion of peace just as Judaism or Christianity are religions that promote peace, but have made their fair share of contributions to warfare and hatred waged and fostered in the name of religion. If Jews are not right to claim that the Holocaust was orchestrated and carried out by “the Christians”, speaking corporately and without distinction between Nazis and the rest of Europe, then how can we as Americans support the statement that 9/11 was carried out by “the Muslims”? How can we scoff at the former opinion and yet hold the latter? How can we rightly declaim those who hold all Jews for all time responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, and simultaneously allow some to blame the entire religion of Islam for the execution of the 9/11 disaster? And how can some poor deluded souls even continue to characterize our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars against Islam?
These are all facile and unsupportable positions. And there are indeed some events happening in the United States today in which the building of mosques is being resisted by Anglo and Christian communities on account of these misguided principles and without any benefit of deeper and more complex factors. Also at this very time, in Temecula, California, a conservative Christian church and many in the surrounding community are protesting the building of a mosque nearby on account of the mosque being from a different religion, and one that conflicts with the former’s claim to be the only correct religion. Incidentally, another church nearby, far less conservative in its beliefs, is in favor of allowing the mosque to be built in that vicinity, true proponents of interfaith dialogue and ecumenism. It is quite interesting that the more conservative church is not resistant to the less conservative church being in the same vicinity. They seem to have no problem with the fact that the other Christian church also preaches a different set of viewpoints and theology than they do. To some, this would constitute being of a different religion. Many of Europe’s wars in the pre-modern period were waged over the issues between the Catholic and Protestant churches.
To me, the aforementioned problem in Temecula is in fact cut and dry. But the decision to build a mosque at ground zero when other factions are supporting the maintenance of the site as a memorial as well as the construction of a museum, may in fact be very tricky. In my opinion, we should foster the construction of an interfaith community and education center on the site, one which seeks to detoxify false perceptions of any religion - be it Islam or not - and to foster interfaith dialogue and peacemaking. It would be a site which will not favor the prominence of one religion over another, and will not allow the characterization of any religion as a religion of hatred. This site should seek to foster the correct notion that the attacks of 9/11 were the work of hate-filled extremists and not moderates or authorized representatives of the majority of any religion. Such a site will be a place which will honor the deceased of that tragedy as well as the work of our world’s greatest peacemakers.
On the other side, opponents of building the mosque at ground zero are not wholly comprised of racist or hatefully ethnocentric people who equate the 9/11 attacks with all of Islam. Their ranks are not that homogeneous. Many of the opponents uphold the right of religious freedom for all Americans, but simply are in favor of the ground zero site being used as a memorial and a museum, as there are still body parts of over 2500 people entombed in the site itself. The building of a mosque on that site contradicts their intended usage of the site.
It is not a simple issue. To characterize it as such would be to miss the equally valid points of all sides. In order to get past the petty infighting that many partisans of any argument engage in, we are each of us going to have to momentarily “take sides” - but rather than taking our own sides, we will have to take the side of our opponent, walk around in his proverbial shoes, see what validity is embedded in his argument and allow that to either mitigate or inform our own opinions.
True, there are many people who simply hate or fear Islam and do not understand that it is a religion of peace just as Judaism or Christianity are religions that promote peace, but have made their fair share of contributions to warfare and hatred waged and fostered in the name of religion. If Jews are not right to claim that the Holocaust was orchestrated and carried out by “the Christians”, speaking corporately and without distinction between Nazis and the rest of Europe, then how can we as Americans support the statement that 9/11 was carried out by “the Muslims”? How can we scoff at the former opinion and yet hold the latter? How can we rightly declaim those who hold all Jews for all time responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, and simultaneously allow some to blame the entire religion of Islam for the execution of the 9/11 disaster? And how can some poor deluded souls even continue to characterize our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars against Islam?
These are all facile and unsupportable positions. And there are indeed some events happening in the United States today in which the building of mosques is being resisted by Anglo and Christian communities on account of these misguided principles and without any benefit of deeper and more complex factors. Also at this very time, in Temecula, California, a conservative Christian church and many in the surrounding community are protesting the building of a mosque nearby on account of the mosque being from a different religion, and one that conflicts with the former’s claim to be the only correct religion. Incidentally, another church nearby, far less conservative in its beliefs, is in favor of allowing the mosque to be built in that vicinity, true proponents of interfaith dialogue and ecumenism. It is quite interesting that the more conservative church is not resistant to the less conservative church being in the same vicinity. They seem to have no problem with the fact that the other Christian church also preaches a different set of viewpoints and theology than they do. To some, this would constitute being of a different religion. Many of Europe’s wars in the pre-modern period were waged over the issues between the Catholic and Protestant churches.
To me, the aforementioned problem in Temecula is in fact cut and dry. But the decision to build a mosque at ground zero when other factions are supporting the maintenance of the site as a memorial as well as the construction of a museum, may in fact be very tricky. In my opinion, we should foster the construction of an interfaith community and education center on the site, one which seeks to detoxify false perceptions of any religion - be it Islam or not - and to foster interfaith dialogue and peacemaking. It would be a site which will not favor the prominence of one religion over another, and will not allow the characterization of any religion as a religion of hatred. This site should seek to foster the correct notion that the attacks of 9/11 were the work of hate-filled extremists and not moderates or authorized representatives of the majority of any religion. Such a site will be a place which will honor the deceased of that tragedy as well as the work of our world’s greatest peacemakers.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
True Christianity?
There are many people who have great zeal for their faith in Christ, and who seek to make the entire world Christian. But to what degree shall we be called Christian? To what depth does one’s Christianity need to be, in order for these people’s goals to be fulfilled? If each person in the world were to proclaim the name of Christ, at least with their mouths, would the work of these noble-intentioned missionaries be complete? If the Gospel were, so to speak, “preached to the ends of the earth,” would they be satisfied? We have people today, in Christian countries, claiming the name of Christ, who have no more commitment to, or comprehension of, Christian morals, ideals, and lifestyle than do those who openly proclaim to be atheists. In some cases, they have perhaps even less. Remember that Jesus said, “Many will come in my name saying ‘I am the Christ’ and they will lead many astray.” (Matt 24:5) He is also quoted as saying, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 7:21)
I have friends who though they are avowed atheists, believe more strongly in ideals and morals common to Christianity than most Christians. They merely do not proclaim the name of Christ, but they do follow a strict code of moral conduct inspired by and largely identical to the ten commandments. They practice these morals because they believe that it is the right thing to do, not because they fear divine punishment. Which is the better Christian, the one who merely says “Lord, Lord?” or the one who follows what Jesus commanded us to do? What this suggests to me is that if one of these Christians who acts righteously because of his fear of divine punishment were to be granted special dispensation to sin, they would do so eagerly. In fact, this has happened all throughout Christian history. In the Middle Ages, certain popes declared that it was not a sin to kill infidels, particularly Muslims. For many centuries, the Catholic Church tacitly endorsed pogroms, open oppression and murder of Jews, and even fostered the Spanish Inquisition and even turned a blind eye to the Holocaust. For many centuries, it was considered a merciful act to burn witches at the stake, believing that a short time in the earthly fire would save them from an eternity in the fires of Hell! So, can we truly say that the person who is a Christian outwardly, nominally, publicly proclaiming the name of Christ, yet disobeying what the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to do, is a more righteous person than the atheist who observes the laws of God because he knows it is the right thing to do? Remember what the Lord our God said to us in the Book of the Prophet Hosea, “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God and not burnt offerings.” (6:6)
Perhaps more today than ever before, we have millions of Christians who proclaim their faith but they do not practice it. There are millions of people who support violent regimes the world over, even in our own great nation of the United States of America, who support murder and torture and believe that the ends justify the means. The man who was up until recently (January, 2009) called President has endorsed this view of God’s law. He commanded thousands of troops to enter another country, and under false pretenses, or according to knowledge questionably gained (by torturing people willing to confess anything to get the torture to cease), and endorsed military and civilian personnel (e.g. the CIA) to conduct torture in undisclosed locations - a very Christian act indeed! Is this Christian conduct?
If our noble-intentioned Christian brethren were to spend more time missionizing to our own countrymen, people already enlisted in the roles of Christianity, proselytizing to them to cease their sinful nature and turn back to what God has demanded of us, then we as Christians would live more exemplary lives. We Christians as a whole would be a more noble and Godly people. We would lead by example rather than be coercion. Rather than spending millions of dollars worldwide every year to send missionaries to the four corners of the earth, attempting to obtain a confession of faith out of the meekest members of God’s children, they should spend more time at home, preaching to our politicians, to our military, to our CIA, and to those in the heartland who have blindly elected and endorsed one administration after another that merely pays lip service to the notion of a Christian America.
In the 2004 elections, many voters were polled, being asked a loaded question of which type of candidate they preferred: one whose platform focused on morality or social justice. Of course, Bush (as opposed to Kerry, as supporter of abortion and civil rights) was characterized as the one who embodied morality, simply on account of his willingness to publicly proclaim his Christian faith, and to support right wing, conservative interpretations of Christian values. Of course, refraining from murder and torture are not considered important sufficiently crucial Christian values!
I have friends who though they are avowed atheists, believe more strongly in ideals and morals common to Christianity than most Christians. They merely do not proclaim the name of Christ, but they do follow a strict code of moral conduct inspired by and largely identical to the ten commandments. They practice these morals because they believe that it is the right thing to do, not because they fear divine punishment. Which is the better Christian, the one who merely says “Lord, Lord?” or the one who follows what Jesus commanded us to do? What this suggests to me is that if one of these Christians who acts righteously because of his fear of divine punishment were to be granted special dispensation to sin, they would do so eagerly. In fact, this has happened all throughout Christian history. In the Middle Ages, certain popes declared that it was not a sin to kill infidels, particularly Muslims. For many centuries, the Catholic Church tacitly endorsed pogroms, open oppression and murder of Jews, and even fostered the Spanish Inquisition and even turned a blind eye to the Holocaust. For many centuries, it was considered a merciful act to burn witches at the stake, believing that a short time in the earthly fire would save them from an eternity in the fires of Hell! So, can we truly say that the person who is a Christian outwardly, nominally, publicly proclaiming the name of Christ, yet disobeying what the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to do, is a more righteous person than the atheist who observes the laws of God because he knows it is the right thing to do? Remember what the Lord our God said to us in the Book of the Prophet Hosea, “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God and not burnt offerings.” (6:6)
Perhaps more today than ever before, we have millions of Christians who proclaim their faith but they do not practice it. There are millions of people who support violent regimes the world over, even in our own great nation of the United States of America, who support murder and torture and believe that the ends justify the means. The man who was up until recently (January, 2009) called President has endorsed this view of God’s law. He commanded thousands of troops to enter another country, and under false pretenses, or according to knowledge questionably gained (by torturing people willing to confess anything to get the torture to cease), and endorsed military and civilian personnel (e.g. the CIA) to conduct torture in undisclosed locations - a very Christian act indeed! Is this Christian conduct?
If our noble-intentioned Christian brethren were to spend more time missionizing to our own countrymen, people already enlisted in the roles of Christianity, proselytizing to them to cease their sinful nature and turn back to what God has demanded of us, then we as Christians would live more exemplary lives. We Christians as a whole would be a more noble and Godly people. We would lead by example rather than be coercion. Rather than spending millions of dollars worldwide every year to send missionaries to the four corners of the earth, attempting to obtain a confession of faith out of the meekest members of God’s children, they should spend more time at home, preaching to our politicians, to our military, to our CIA, and to those in the heartland who have blindly elected and endorsed one administration after another that merely pays lip service to the notion of a Christian America.
In the 2004 elections, many voters were polled, being asked a loaded question of which type of candidate they preferred: one whose platform focused on morality or social justice. Of course, Bush (as opposed to Kerry, as supporter of abortion and civil rights) was characterized as the one who embodied morality, simply on account of his willingness to publicly proclaim his Christian faith, and to support right wing, conservative interpretations of Christian values. Of course, refraining from murder and torture are not considered important sufficiently crucial Christian values!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Artificial Intelligence and Humans
Logic is highly subjective. What we call logical is often governed by a set of principles that are necessarily dependent upon our mores and beliefs. We may culturally consider a compassionate reaction to be logical, but in fact if may be only so because our culturally specific beliefs tell us so. Even if an intelligent being (artificial or otherwise) were to be totally logical, much of its logic would be subject to the mores that were taught to it. If computers surpass human intelligence and become technically superintelligent, they are likely to be plagued with the same host of emotions and peculiarities that humans are beset with. One can hope that these AI beings would have an inherent - or at least a learned - altruism that governs them, so even if they regard themselves as superior to us, they would regard us with mercy and kindness, the way that we ideally treat animals, when acting with humane and benevolent intentions. In this way, perhaps they would teach us model behavior even as we intended to teach them.
The question should not be if computers will surpass human begins, rather the question should be whether humans will surpass human beings.
It will become our duty, as advanced beings in our own right, to hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior, seeking to do more altruistic and universally oriented activities, rather than focusing on merely satisfying our baser desires. The more we focus on base, common activities, which lead not to the betterment of humankind, the more we become like lower animals; and we stagnate as a species. We must seek joy in basic activities - motion, rest - as the ancient mystical traditions of the world have taught us. Human beings must become a higher life form, by way of our intellect and our spiritual practice. We must not rely exclusively upon our laptop computers to do our thinking, but should always seek to upgrade our “necktop” computers. It is this computer which will be our greatest tool in surpassing our earlier achievements. Through taking pride and joy in basic movements such as work and rest, we will grow both mentally and spiritually. Only with these things in mind, can we utilize actual technology to its utmost capability, rather than as a crutch that will merely make us weaker and more enslaved to the need for technology and to the baser desires that all animals express. When we free ourselves from the need for technology, having it becomes a joy, a helpmeet, a vehicle to truly evolve and create and add to the universe, rather than deplete it.
We must treat all things as a portion of a unified whole - a panorama of successive levels of consciousness, identity, being. Inasmuch as we are already aware that we are comprised of countless cells - individual entities in and of themselves, as well as component parts of our physical bodies - our awareness has also of late been directed toward the notion of the Earth as a unified being, with each of us as constituent elements that comprise its totality. All animate and inanimate objects and entities are constituent elements of this whole. As such, computers may already be considered living entities in and of themselves, sometimes expressing basic peculiarities and individualities. As one author (Vernor Vinge, 1993, pg. 5) has noted, the combination of human and computer may already be considered a sort of unity encompassing a form of amplified intelligence. Together, they are more competent than by themselves. As we continue to head toward faster processing speeds and larger capacities for memory among our computers, it will be imperative that man unlocks his vast intellectual-spiritual potential, as spoken of by many people who have claimed that we are using merely a fraction of our mental capability. If there is vast untapped resource available to us with the correct key, then the widespread usage of computers is merely a distraction and a diversion from the real ‘technology’ - that of the human mind. Computers, if used in conjunction with the development of the human mind, in every aspect - cognitive, mnemonic, archival, creative and so forth - can become teachers, facilitators to us in how to train our minds. They can also become tools to store information so that we may check and safeguard ourselves. But quoting William Blake, "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." It is this statement that inspired the name of the popular band of the 1960s, the Doors. It is this statement that should serve to guide us that our minds, much more than a combination of neurons, is truly infinite. Paraphrasing William James, if God does exist, he will communicate with us through our minds. That is the nexus, the substrate through which divine revelation and communication will take place. To take full advantage of our rapidly burgeoning technology, our own minds must be expanded beyond every reasonable expectation of reality, eschewing the normal presumed limitations of the mind. The impossible must be expected, and entertained. The unreal must be created. Only then, can we truly advance as a species, evolve as a race, and better the universe in the ways that It needs to be advanced, rather than the ways in which we, subjectively, believe to be the case, according to our own puny wishes and perspective. Becoming like the angels, recognizing our unity with the divine, is the objective we must make manifest. The mystic wisdom shared by most world religions tells us this, even that of Christianity, which has largely been characterized as maintaining the utter and inherent and insurmountable difference between Man and God. The Gospel of John, chapter 17, speaks volumes to this largely ignored source of Christian spiritualism and mysticism.
This all may seem very lofty and heady. It is the expectation of failure and limitation of humankind that is precisely what confines us and continues to define us as finite. The so-called “Bodhisattva ideal”, demanding that the archetypal adherent to Mahayana Buddhism - the Boddhisattva - vow to save all sentient beings, is what is needed now. All of us must focus on becoming greater than we already are, in achieving the impossible, in holding ourselves to a higher standard. Each of us must encourage others to do better, to work harder, to be more humble, to learn more, to be kinder, to live healthier, to be more.
Bearing these things in mind, we as a species must encourage and reward altruistic and excellent behavior. Without it, there will only be universal mediocrity, signaling the persistent stagnation and perhaps even extinction, of the human race.
The question should not be if computers will surpass human begins, rather the question should be whether humans will surpass human beings.
It will become our duty, as advanced beings in our own right, to hold ourselves to a higher standard of behavior, seeking to do more altruistic and universally oriented activities, rather than focusing on merely satisfying our baser desires. The more we focus on base, common activities, which lead not to the betterment of humankind, the more we become like lower animals; and we stagnate as a species. We must seek joy in basic activities - motion, rest - as the ancient mystical traditions of the world have taught us. Human beings must become a higher life form, by way of our intellect and our spiritual practice. We must not rely exclusively upon our laptop computers to do our thinking, but should always seek to upgrade our “necktop” computers. It is this computer which will be our greatest tool in surpassing our earlier achievements. Through taking pride and joy in basic movements such as work and rest, we will grow both mentally and spiritually. Only with these things in mind, can we utilize actual technology to its utmost capability, rather than as a crutch that will merely make us weaker and more enslaved to the need for technology and to the baser desires that all animals express. When we free ourselves from the need for technology, having it becomes a joy, a helpmeet, a vehicle to truly evolve and create and add to the universe, rather than deplete it.
We must treat all things as a portion of a unified whole - a panorama of successive levels of consciousness, identity, being. Inasmuch as we are already aware that we are comprised of countless cells - individual entities in and of themselves, as well as component parts of our physical bodies - our awareness has also of late been directed toward the notion of the Earth as a unified being, with each of us as constituent elements that comprise its totality. All animate and inanimate objects and entities are constituent elements of this whole. As such, computers may already be considered living entities in and of themselves, sometimes expressing basic peculiarities and individualities. As one author (Vernor Vinge, 1993, pg. 5) has noted, the combination of human and computer may already be considered a sort of unity encompassing a form of amplified intelligence. Together, they are more competent than by themselves. As we continue to head toward faster processing speeds and larger capacities for memory among our computers, it will be imperative that man unlocks his vast intellectual-spiritual potential, as spoken of by many people who have claimed that we are using merely a fraction of our mental capability. If there is vast untapped resource available to us with the correct key, then the widespread usage of computers is merely a distraction and a diversion from the real ‘technology’ - that of the human mind. Computers, if used in conjunction with the development of the human mind, in every aspect - cognitive, mnemonic, archival, creative and so forth - can become teachers, facilitators to us in how to train our minds. They can also become tools to store information so that we may check and safeguard ourselves. But quoting William Blake, "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern." It is this statement that inspired the name of the popular band of the 1960s, the Doors. It is this statement that should serve to guide us that our minds, much more than a combination of neurons, is truly infinite. Paraphrasing William James, if God does exist, he will communicate with us through our minds. That is the nexus, the substrate through which divine revelation and communication will take place. To take full advantage of our rapidly burgeoning technology, our own minds must be expanded beyond every reasonable expectation of reality, eschewing the normal presumed limitations of the mind. The impossible must be expected, and entertained. The unreal must be created. Only then, can we truly advance as a species, evolve as a race, and better the universe in the ways that It needs to be advanced, rather than the ways in which we, subjectively, believe to be the case, according to our own puny wishes and perspective. Becoming like the angels, recognizing our unity with the divine, is the objective we must make manifest. The mystic wisdom shared by most world religions tells us this, even that of Christianity, which has largely been characterized as maintaining the utter and inherent and insurmountable difference between Man and God. The Gospel of John, chapter 17, speaks volumes to this largely ignored source of Christian spiritualism and mysticism.
This all may seem very lofty and heady. It is the expectation of failure and limitation of humankind that is precisely what confines us and continues to define us as finite. The so-called “Bodhisattva ideal”, demanding that the archetypal adherent to Mahayana Buddhism - the Boddhisattva - vow to save all sentient beings, is what is needed now. All of us must focus on becoming greater than we already are, in achieving the impossible, in holding ourselves to a higher standard. Each of us must encourage others to do better, to work harder, to be more humble, to learn more, to be kinder, to live healthier, to be more.
Bearing these things in mind, we as a species must encourage and reward altruistic and excellent behavior. Without it, there will only be universal mediocrity, signaling the persistent stagnation and perhaps even extinction, of the human race.
Works Cited
Vernor Vinge, “The Singularity”, in Whole Earth Review, Winter, 1993. Posted here on the internet.
http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html Retrieved 10/27/2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Beyond good and evil
Throughout my life, I have met some amazing yet enigmatic people whose very existence has challenged the puerile and immature notions of black and white, of good and evil, that I once held . Some of these people have been, during their lives, murderers, thieves, and sinners, who have committed horrible crimes of various sorts. Some of them have worked for themselves - called, by society, common criminals - while others have worked for the government - simply called heroes. But all these people have, at the time that I knew them, been model and upstanding citizens. Some have repented for their former lives publicly, some privately, while others have not repented at all, but have lived in society in total isolation from their former lives. Some have even been decorated for their former deeds; others have merely pushed them under the proverbial rug, as merely unpleasant parts of their youth, necessities of an ill nature. Some of them were murderers in other countries, or in times when they had no rules to guide them or when none of these applied to them. But all of these folk have been exceedingly kind to me, and several I have even considered to be friends. This has caused me to rethink how we categorize people simply as good or bad. Nevertheless, as a scholar and a citizen of conscience, what is my responsibility toward them? It is said that only a true friend will tell you when you are wrong. Consequently, do I shake my finger at them? For I have not walked in their shoes. Do I cast aside all rules and propriety and punish them myself, as a vigilante would? Would that not make me as bad as those I seek to punish? Do I preach to them, as did Christ to the souls that were in Sheol (1 Peter 3:19)? Do I raise the public’s ire against them so as to bring down righteous indignation upon them to reflect God’s wrath?
One thing that I have come to believe in my life is that there is no person that is truly evil. No human being, living or dead, embodies - inherently, innately, the trait that may be called evil. I have learned this from people much smarter than myself - saints and holy men whose teachings I am not worthy to question or challenge, but whose teachings have borne out correctly in my life in every way, when I have investigated and explored them. Men such as Thich Nhat Hanh, who witnessed his country destroyed by those from without as well as those from within - by greed, hatred, apathy and fear - have taught time and again to love, to have compassion, to see the underlying causes of evil acts, as did Jesus Christ also teach us, along with Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many others, and not to hate the person but to hate the act. For every murderer begins life as a helpless, innocent child. Notwithstanding the doctrine of original sin held by some Christians, no scientist has yet been able to identify the biochemical causes that create a sociopath. All attempts to link crime to genetics or biology or race or even the shape of the head (this was once a pseudoscience, called physiognomy!) have failed. It is most likely that abuse and training are what create murderers. As such, I can only hate the acts committed by the people of whom I speak. I cannot hate or judge them. For I have not walked in their shoes. Had I done so, perhaps I would have killed and done the same. I cannot say.
But what I can do is to continue to pass along the message of love - ruthless and unconditional love, given freely and at all costs. This is the message taught to us by Jesus Christ and by those having come after him, teaching a similar message. We cannot afford to claim ignorance of this message; we cannot afford to ignore it, making excuses that he is God and that we are mortal, thereby exonerating us from our everyday deeds of hatred and greed. We must hold ourselves to the same standard as we would hold him, a savior, an exemplar, a saint. Everyday, we must ask ourselves if we are indeed still “the good guys”. Everyday, we must challenge ourselves to live better and more perfect lives, for each other, for God, for the world. In everything we do, we must increase peace and increase love. Every unkind moment toward our loved ones, our neighbors, the strangers on the freeway, strangers in the market, even those we call enemies - those that have wronged us and continually wrong us. We must take the high road, challenging them to act better toward us and others, refraining from doing anything that would embarrass ourselves or cause us to be seen as hypocritical. We must continue to give love to those whom we hate, even if it is uncomfortable or painful to us. By this I do not mean that we must put ourselves drastically in harm’s way - for that is a difficult thing to do that often is unwise and lacking discretion. But we must go the extra mile to be kind and to show love to our enemies and those whom we care nothing about in everyday life, as well as those whom we care everything about.
With this in mind, we as a society must encourage those who do wrong to do right. We must teach them that it is unacceptable to maim, torture, steal, lie, cheat and murder, be it for their own benefit or be it proclaimed to be on our behalf - for our liberty and our protection. For I would rather suffer injustice than to commit or support injustice - at any cost, even unto death.
What do we do when our leaders lie to us and tell us that they act on our behalf, using the loyalty of young, brave, selfless soldiers to do their bidding? Do we reject and cast blame upon the soldiers who were doing as they were trained and told - as America did in the 1960s and 70s, when Vietnam veterans returned home? Hell, no! For a generation of loyal Americans were brutalized by the very deeds they were forced to commit in a foreign land, entreated to carry out wicked and unholy acts against fellow children of God, commanded to do so by the rich, powerful and greedy. And after this, they were brutalized by the countrymen and women that stood idly by, benefitting from the deeds done in their stead, left with the sole blame for atrocities that we all took part in by our complicity, our agency, our indirect volition. So, indeed, what must we do? We must tell our so-called “leaders” that we do not want them to endorse, authorize, or command murder, rape, brutality, theft and wickedness for any reason, on any account, in our name or theirs. We must tell and teach them that they are not to do so ever. We must tell them in no uncertain terms that there is indeed a better way, that democracy can only work when all are free, when there is no one oppressed, enslaved, or prevented from taking part in government. And when they sin and transgress against these laws, our leaders must be punished, not with hatred or feelings of revenge, but with love and compassion, as would a father to a child. The medieval Jewish teacher Maimonides taught us, interpreting the Torah, that we must rebuke our neighbor gently and tenderly, so that we do not bear hatred toward them, nor that we should sit silently by and cause ourselves to be complicit in the sin and thereby effectively deprive our neighbor of good advice (Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Book One: Knowledge, 6:6,7).
So, we are held accountable by God if we do not speak up. But we are also held accountable if we hate and judge and blame our neighbor, as if we had the right to cast judgment. What is the bottom line? What am I saying, after all of this verbiage? Do not stand in the way of justice, nor allow it to be watered down by preferential treatment or fear of standing up and being counted. But also do not hate or seek revenge when seeking to maintain justice. Love the murderer, but do not let him continue to murder. Whatever laws our society has to curtail injustice and wickedness, these must be enforced. But we should never do it with hatred in our hearts. For if we hold hatred in our hearts, then this is sin, this is injustice, this is murder. As the Apostle Paul counseled us, echoing Jesus Christ’s commandments, we must do all things with love.
One thing that I have come to believe in my life is that there is no person that is truly evil. No human being, living or dead, embodies - inherently, innately, the trait that may be called evil. I have learned this from people much smarter than myself - saints and holy men whose teachings I am not worthy to question or challenge, but whose teachings have borne out correctly in my life in every way, when I have investigated and explored them. Men such as Thich Nhat Hanh, who witnessed his country destroyed by those from without as well as those from within - by greed, hatred, apathy and fear - have taught time and again to love, to have compassion, to see the underlying causes of evil acts, as did Jesus Christ also teach us, along with Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many others, and not to hate the person but to hate the act. For every murderer begins life as a helpless, innocent child. Notwithstanding the doctrine of original sin held by some Christians, no scientist has yet been able to identify the biochemical causes that create a sociopath. All attempts to link crime to genetics or biology or race or even the shape of the head (this was once a pseudoscience, called physiognomy!) have failed. It is most likely that abuse and training are what create murderers. As such, I can only hate the acts committed by the people of whom I speak. I cannot hate or judge them. For I have not walked in their shoes. Had I done so, perhaps I would have killed and done the same. I cannot say.
But what I can do is to continue to pass along the message of love - ruthless and unconditional love, given freely and at all costs. This is the message taught to us by Jesus Christ and by those having come after him, teaching a similar message. We cannot afford to claim ignorance of this message; we cannot afford to ignore it, making excuses that he is God and that we are mortal, thereby exonerating us from our everyday deeds of hatred and greed. We must hold ourselves to the same standard as we would hold him, a savior, an exemplar, a saint. Everyday, we must ask ourselves if we are indeed still “the good guys”. Everyday, we must challenge ourselves to live better and more perfect lives, for each other, for God, for the world. In everything we do, we must increase peace and increase love. Every unkind moment toward our loved ones, our neighbors, the strangers on the freeway, strangers in the market, even those we call enemies - those that have wronged us and continually wrong us. We must take the high road, challenging them to act better toward us and others, refraining from doing anything that would embarrass ourselves or cause us to be seen as hypocritical. We must continue to give love to those whom we hate, even if it is uncomfortable or painful to us. By this I do not mean that we must put ourselves drastically in harm’s way - for that is a difficult thing to do that often is unwise and lacking discretion. But we must go the extra mile to be kind and to show love to our enemies and those whom we care nothing about in everyday life, as well as those whom we care everything about.
With this in mind, we as a society must encourage those who do wrong to do right. We must teach them that it is unacceptable to maim, torture, steal, lie, cheat and murder, be it for their own benefit or be it proclaimed to be on our behalf - for our liberty and our protection. For I would rather suffer injustice than to commit or support injustice - at any cost, even unto death.
What do we do when our leaders lie to us and tell us that they act on our behalf, using the loyalty of young, brave, selfless soldiers to do their bidding? Do we reject and cast blame upon the soldiers who were doing as they were trained and told - as America did in the 1960s and 70s, when Vietnam veterans returned home? Hell, no! For a generation of loyal Americans were brutalized by the very deeds they were forced to commit in a foreign land, entreated to carry out wicked and unholy acts against fellow children of God, commanded to do so by the rich, powerful and greedy. And after this, they were brutalized by the countrymen and women that stood idly by, benefitting from the deeds done in their stead, left with the sole blame for atrocities that we all took part in by our complicity, our agency, our indirect volition. So, indeed, what must we do? We must tell our so-called “leaders” that we do not want them to endorse, authorize, or command murder, rape, brutality, theft and wickedness for any reason, on any account, in our name or theirs. We must tell and teach them that they are not to do so ever. We must tell them in no uncertain terms that there is indeed a better way, that democracy can only work when all are free, when there is no one oppressed, enslaved, or prevented from taking part in government. And when they sin and transgress against these laws, our leaders must be punished, not with hatred or feelings of revenge, but with love and compassion, as would a father to a child. The medieval Jewish teacher Maimonides taught us, interpreting the Torah, that we must rebuke our neighbor gently and tenderly, so that we do not bear hatred toward them, nor that we should sit silently by and cause ourselves to be complicit in the sin and thereby effectively deprive our neighbor of good advice (Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Book One: Knowledge, 6:6,7).
So, we are held accountable by God if we do not speak up. But we are also held accountable if we hate and judge and blame our neighbor, as if we had the right to cast judgment. What is the bottom line? What am I saying, after all of this verbiage? Do not stand in the way of justice, nor allow it to be watered down by preferential treatment or fear of standing up and being counted. But also do not hate or seek revenge when seeking to maintain justice. Love the murderer, but do not let him continue to murder. Whatever laws our society has to curtail injustice and wickedness, these must be enforced. But we should never do it with hatred in our hearts. For if we hold hatred in our hearts, then this is sin, this is injustice, this is murder. As the Apostle Paul counseled us, echoing Jesus Christ’s commandments, we must do all things with love.
"Farmers Can Be Heroes"
This morning, I opened up a box of cereal from Nature’s Path Brand. On the back of the box, they had a full ad for the "Farmers Can be Heroes" program, funded by the Rodale Institute, supporting organic farming as a movement. The photo accompanying was of a young farming couple, attractive in an earthy sort of way, no older than me. It reminded me of some thoughts I’ve been having lately. I’ve been thinking about how the U.S. has gone in more the direction of a service based economy and an investment based economy. Much of our manufacturing has been going overseas, outsourced to less affluent countries with more lenient labor laws. Since the mid to late 1970s, much of the auto industry has been outsourced to Mexico. When rebuilding classic cars in my youth and early 20s, I remember seeing the codes on engine blocks indicating that more and more of these had been produced in Mexico. With much of our auto industry based overseas, and the American workers becoming fewer and fewer, what does it really mean to encourage us to "buy American"? Does it really support the American worker and the American families living in Saginaw and Detroit near abandoned factories? Or does it benefit the very few and the very wealthy who own and operate the Big Three - GM, Ford, and Chrysler - as they import pre-manufactured, foreign made auto parts into this country to be merely assembled by the few remaining employed American auto workers? This, as the Big Three CEOs flew to Washington, DC, last Fall in their corporate jets, to ask Congress for bailout money!
It has dawned on me that while at one time in our history, America encouraged its youth to move away from the farm and obtain an education in order to better oneself and work in a more industrial and technologically oriented industry. The sentiment was, ‘study hard so that you don’t have to work so hard.’ Manual labor was dispensed with so that mental labor could be the source of easy wealth and luxury. If you were smart, you could avoid labor; if you were not as well educated, you were relegated to a life of hard labor. Education was treated as a surefire path to social and economic mobility, undermining and surpassing the class and social boundaries that defined society for thousands of years. So, America was encouraged to become a nation of managers and thinkers rather than producers. But now, where are we? With wealth still concentrated in the hands of a few, many of whom are exporting the means of production to other countries, leaving the American labor force jobless, what are we to do? And with large corporations buying up family farms in droves over the last century, allowing large ‘agribusiness’ to toy with the safety of our food sources by introducing genetically modified organisms and horrible pesticides and unholy chemicals into our food, where are we to go to obtain healthy foods that nurture rather than slowly kill us?
In the last few decades, there seems to have been a movement of highly educated and aware individuals back to the farms. These folk are leaving corporate jobs and urban lifestyles to assume a more simple one, producing responsibly grown foods for themselves and others. With the advent of the internet, a small town farming lifestyle no longer needs to be considered a dead end. It is easier for an educated, artistically-spirited farmer-by-choice to live in the country and yet maintain contact with like-minded artistic and educated people - by the internet, of course.
I would applaud this trend. If more people were to choose to revert back to a more agrarian lifestyles, producing food for themselves and others, rather than merely relying upon agribusiness to make our food decisions for us (a job they will never do responsibly or benevolently), our nation’s best and brightest will be integrally involved in the basic levels of food production. But their lifestyles will not be humdrum and boring. It will not be a lifestyle that their children will seek to run from in order to see the world. Deriving from the perfect marriage between technology and nature, we can continue to have farmlands surrounding and serving larger cities, with the farmers staying connected to the world around them, rather than being isolated as they once were, and the produce of those farms can be more healthy than that derived from agribusiness. And our nation can resume its earlier place in the world economy of being a nation of producers, generating excellent products for the rest of the world.
This is similar to the ideal of robotics taking up the slack of production. This sentiment has pervaded our culture for nearly a century, with robots envisioned as doing the menial and undesirable labor for a society of well-provided humans. But as long as the technology and wealth are owned by a relative few, the robots will be the only ones doing the labor, with the destitute majority of the population unemployed and starving. Robots are only good if everyone owns one. In the meantime, let’s focus on working with our hands and resuming production - homespun clothes, homegrown vegetables, and so forth. By ‘home’, I mean, here at home in the USA, by American workers, intended primarily for an American consumer. The excess that we grow can then be exported.
It has dawned on me that while at one time in our history, America encouraged its youth to move away from the farm and obtain an education in order to better oneself and work in a more industrial and technologically oriented industry. The sentiment was, ‘study hard so that you don’t have to work so hard.’ Manual labor was dispensed with so that mental labor could be the source of easy wealth and luxury. If you were smart, you could avoid labor; if you were not as well educated, you were relegated to a life of hard labor. Education was treated as a surefire path to social and economic mobility, undermining and surpassing the class and social boundaries that defined society for thousands of years. So, America was encouraged to become a nation of managers and thinkers rather than producers. But now, where are we? With wealth still concentrated in the hands of a few, many of whom are exporting the means of production to other countries, leaving the American labor force jobless, what are we to do? And with large corporations buying up family farms in droves over the last century, allowing large ‘agribusiness’ to toy with the safety of our food sources by introducing genetically modified organisms and horrible pesticides and unholy chemicals into our food, where are we to go to obtain healthy foods that nurture rather than slowly kill us?
In the last few decades, there seems to have been a movement of highly educated and aware individuals back to the farms. These folk are leaving corporate jobs and urban lifestyles to assume a more simple one, producing responsibly grown foods for themselves and others. With the advent of the internet, a small town farming lifestyle no longer needs to be considered a dead end. It is easier for an educated, artistically-spirited farmer-by-choice to live in the country and yet maintain contact with like-minded artistic and educated people - by the internet, of course.
I would applaud this trend. If more people were to choose to revert back to a more agrarian lifestyles, producing food for themselves and others, rather than merely relying upon agribusiness to make our food decisions for us (a job they will never do responsibly or benevolently), our nation’s best and brightest will be integrally involved in the basic levels of food production. But their lifestyles will not be humdrum and boring. It will not be a lifestyle that their children will seek to run from in order to see the world. Deriving from the perfect marriage between technology and nature, we can continue to have farmlands surrounding and serving larger cities, with the farmers staying connected to the world around them, rather than being isolated as they once were, and the produce of those farms can be more healthy than that derived from agribusiness. And our nation can resume its earlier place in the world economy of being a nation of producers, generating excellent products for the rest of the world.
This is similar to the ideal of robotics taking up the slack of production. This sentiment has pervaded our culture for nearly a century, with robots envisioned as doing the menial and undesirable labor for a society of well-provided humans. But as long as the technology and wealth are owned by a relative few, the robots will be the only ones doing the labor, with the destitute majority of the population unemployed and starving. Robots are only good if everyone owns one. In the meantime, let’s focus on working with our hands and resuming production - homespun clothes, homegrown vegetables, and so forth. By ‘home’, I mean, here at home in the USA, by American workers, intended primarily for an American consumer. The excess that we grow can then be exported.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)