Saturday Haiku for Hiroshima Day

 finding peace at home
lies beyond our best efforts
at ending conflict

_____________________

Photo: Ruins of the Prefectural Industry Promotion Building and surroundings, Hiroshima, after the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Aug. 6, 1945. The building still stands, untouched, as the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. UN PHOTO/DB

-

Peace Advocate Colman McCarthy

Here is a fascinating segment from CBS Sunday Morning. A refreshing and remarkable example for those of us who hold to the ideal of peace and non-violence. 

Colman McCarthy is a true original: A golfer, former monk, Washington Post columnist, and now a teacher of peace, who has forged his own path spreading the philosophy of non-violence. Correspondent Mo Rocca sat down with McCarthy for an unforgettable conversation with an unforgettable man. 

 

 -

A Poem for Hiroshima Day

[A Re-post from 2010 on this Hiroshima Day]

The iconic Torii Gate of Itsukushima Shrine,
Hiroshima Prefecture

On the liturgical calendar, August 6 marks the Feast of the Transfiguration, celebrating the event witnessed by Peter, James and John of Jesus' transformation into a being of light. Since WWII, it has also been Hiroshima Day. It was the juxtaposition of these two commemorations on the same day that inspired the following poem.

Jerusalem and Hiroshima:

Legacies of Concentrated Effort

We are told to pray for the peace of Jerusalem,

But the peace of Jerusalem

I would wish upon no one.

Centuries of placing our noblest causes

and highest callings

In one geographical area

Has produced, not the heavenly city,

But rather a wasteland of unending struggle.

In Hiroshima, they do not just pray for peace.

They demand it.

It was there that our greatest minds with our human nature

Brought hell on earth in our fight for freedom.

Let us keep Jerusalem,

And let us embrace Hiroshima

To remind us not to try such things again.

                                                                                                          ~ CK

__________________________
Photos:

• Photo of Torii Gate by Alex Tora, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
• A view of the Western Wall in Jerusalem with the Dome of the Rock in the background

-

Enriched by Other Voices and Views

 “This imam and the nun work together for healing and reconciliation saying Muslims and Christian in Central African Republic never had a conflict. It is all about politics.”

My friend Don is a well-read academic who is constantly informing me of numerous volumes that he has read, especially in the fields of ethics and religion. He recently sent me a fascinating quote from a new book by Daniel Maguire*, Christianity without God:

"Chang Tsai (1020-1077), a major thinker in the Confucian tradition, produced what is seen as "a Confucian credo."  It begins by saying that the earth and universe are his father and mother:

Therefore that which fills the universe I regard as my body and that which directs the universe I consider as my nature.  All people are my brothers and sisters and all things are my companions.  Show deep love toward the orphaned and the weak ... and those who are tired, infirm, crippled, or sick; those who have no brothers or children, wives or husbands, all are my brothers who are in distress and have no one to turn to.

Francis of Assisi would embrace every word of that credo.  So, too, would Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hannah, and Jesus.  The moral vision contained therein should not fall victim to unnecessary and futile disputes over a deity's existence or nonexistence, its unicity or multiplicity.  When it comes to appreciating what we are and what we have in this privileged little corner of the universe, god-talk should not divide us.  What would be refreshing is a moratorium on god-talk so that together we could explore alternatives to earth's current social, political, economic, and ecological distress."                      
                                                                                              ~Daniel McGuire

I have yet to delve into Maguire’ book, but the quote from the Chang Tsai reminded me of the interesting dynamic in Chinese culture that I learned about when I lived in Hong Kong. There you have, at different times, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism coming into play, with one or the other more emphasized depending on the times and the situation. In our own culture, we also hark back to different influences at different times. For example, why are there so many towns in the U.S. settled by Scots-Irish and English immigrants who named their towns after cities in ancient Greece (Troy, Athens, Sparta, Argo, Corinth, Delphi, etc.)?

It also reminded me of how much my own philosophy has been enriched by giving myself permission to listen to wisdom from many different cultures. Some of that wisdom includes, just to name some of the more prominent in my pantheon of influence:

• Black Elk's vision of the world (Black Elk was of the Lakota Native American tribe)
• St. Francis of Assisi
• Krishna's concept of three ways of knowing God outlined in the Bagavad Gita
• Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and the parables of Jesus
• The Baptist concept of "soul competency"
• Writings from the Quakers
• Writings from the American Buddhist community
• Trappist monk, Thomas Merton 
• Reb Zalmon Schachter-Shalomi of the Hasidic community
• Rumi and Hafiz, poets of the Sufi Islamic tradition

I realize I am being a bit stream-of-consciousness, but I was reminded of all the happy influences around us. Perhaps some of these strands will be topics for future blog posts.

 ___________________

* Daniel C. Maguire is Professor of Ethics at Marquette University and the author or editor of many books, including (with Larry L. Rasmussen) Ethics for a Small Planet: New Horizons on Population, Consumption, and Ecology, also published by SUNY Press.

Photo: from The Parliament of the World’s Religions Facebook page: “This imam and the nun work together for healing and reconciliation saying Muslims and Christian in Central African Republic never had a conflict. It is all about politics.” See the full story at UNHCR TRACKS


-

The Peace of Jerusalem?

[The following is a repeat post that was first featured on August 6, 2010. With the current tragedies taking place in the Holy Land, the poem continues to be tragically current.]

On the liturgical calendar, August 6 marks the Feast of the Transfiguration, celebrating the event witnessed by Peter, James and John of Jesus' transformation into a being of light. Since WWII, it has also been Hiroshima Day. It was the juxtaposition of these two commemorations on the same day that inspired the following poem.

Jerusalem and Hiroshima:

Legacies of Concentrated Effort

We are told to pray for the peace of Jerusalem,

But the peace of Jerusalem

I would wish upon no one.

Centuries of placing our noblest causes

and highest callings

In one geographical area

Has produced, not the heavenly city,

But rather a wasteland of unending struggle.

In Hiroshima, they do not just pray for peace.

They demand it.

It was there that our greatest minds with our human nature

Brought hell on earth in our fight for freedom.

Let us keep Jerusalem,

And let us embrace Hiroshima

To remind us not to try such things again.

    ~ CK

__________________________
Photos:

• The A-bomb dome building in Hiroshima
• A view of the Western Wall in Jerusalem with the Dome of the Rock in the background

-

Let's Be Honest about War

"Guernica" by Pablo Picaso

     "Anyone who advocates for war should 

first take into account what war truly entails"

Amazingly, there are voices in the news media who are once again drumming up a case for U.S. military action in Iraq. Iraq should be “Exhibit A” in the case against war. Military invasion resulted in chaos, the loss of thousands of lives, and the destruction of social infrastructure. At a cost of over 2 trillion dollars and  4,800 American lives (plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths), the result is continued misery and increased instability in the Middle East. We as a country were drawn into military conflict on decisions based upon fear. The public was still fearful and uneasy following the 911 attack in 2001, and the politicians who authorized military involvement in Iraq were fearful that they would not get votes back home if they did not go along with the drums of war being sounded by the chief executive. Today, with Iraq once again in turmoil, some are suggesting the need for more military action. Before entering into a new war, we need to be completely honest about all of the details. 

First, we should be clear about why Iraq and the Middle East are “vital to U.S. interests.” It is not a desire to “spread democracy,” it was never about “weapons of mass destruction,” and it is not even about the security of Israel. The reason we have a vital interest in the region is oil, which even President George W. Bush admitted we have an addiction to. Back in 1973 our country experienced an oil crisis. Some astute leaders said that it was time to invest in alternative energy sources. If we had launched such a national effort then, we would not be nearly so concerned about the Middle East region now. There would be little question that they should just work out their differences among themselves – without U.S. interference. There were, in fact, many who questioned invasion of Iraq at the outset, saying back in 2003 that there should be no blood for oil. Almost half the country, in fact, were opposed to entering into war.

Second, and most important, we must be honest about the nature of war. We have a long history of glorifying war and making it seem noble and honorable on national holidays. We look to World War II as the grand example of a justified war. Even with that war to end an evil regime, few people then or now could grasp the true horror that is unleashed in wartime.

Perhaps the two arguments most often heard to justify military action are national security and the just war theory. These arguments overlap, as one could claim both arguments in a situation of national defense. In reading modern justifications for armed conflict, I notice that not many people are referring to the just war theory, but for some it is important to use that concept to measure the need for military action. My own view is that war is never a moral choice and that we must find other means for settling our differences. Too often, the just war theory is simply one more attempt to justify war. If one is to make the argument for war, however, it is crucial to acknowledge the full reality of the nature of war.

Realities of War

On the occasion of the 50^th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, Paul Fussell wrote a piece for The Atlantic Monthly titled, “The Real War.” In that article, Fussell made the case that most Americans have no notion of the true horrors of war. When we were engaged in WWII, reporters had an unwritten understanding that the true nature of war would not be stated for the sake of keeping people back home optimistic as well as for the purpose of not jeopardizing the war effort. Such a widespread lack of understanding about what front line troops were facing, Fussell points out, led to immense cynicism on the part of American military personnel reflected verbally in such acronyms as SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR.

No one wrote about conditions on the front line where soldiers had no latrines, lived in filth, saw the internal organs of their buddies scattered about, and faced the growing knowledge that they would likely not make it out alive. Fussell quotes General Eisenhower who wrote a rare explicit passage on the carnage of war in Crusade in Europe, describing the battlefield at the Falaise Pocket: "It was literally possible to walk for hundreds of yards at a time, stepping on nothing but dead and decaying flesh." Fussell goes on to tell of why the public was so unaware of the realities or WWII:

How is it that these data are commonplaces only to the small number who had some direct experience of them? One reason is the normal human talent for looking on the bright side, for not receiving information likely to cause distress or to occasion a major overhaul of normal ethical, political, or psychological assumptions. But the more important reason is that the news correspondents, radio broadcasters, and film people who perceived these horrors kept quiet about them on behalf of the war effort, and so the large wartime audience never knew these things. As John Steinbeck finally confessed in 1958, "We were all part of the War Effort. We went along with it, and not only that, we abetted it. . . . I don't mean that the correspondents were liars. . . . It is in the things not mentioned that the untruth lies." By not mentioning a lot of things, a correspondent could give the audience at home the impression that there were no cowards in the service, no thieves or rapists or looters, no cruel or stupid commanders. It is true, Steinbeck was aware, that most military operations are examples of "disorganized insanity," but the morale of the home front could not be jeopardized by an eyewitness's saying so. And even if a correspondent wanted to deliver the noisome truth, patriotism would join censorship in stopping his mouth. As Steinbeck noted in Once There Was a War, "The foolish reporter who broke the rules would not be printed at home and in addition would be put out of the theater by the command.”

Anyone who advocates for war should first take into account what war truly entails. “The Real War,” by Paul Fussell is one excellent source, describing conventional war in stark and unromantic terms (that article can be found here). Those religious leaders and politicians who support national military action must make themselves aware of the “disorganized insanity” of battle. They must acknowledge the practices of rape, mayhem, bodily dismemberment, civilian death, and community destruction that are unleashed in wartime. We as a people must acknowledge that many soldiers we send into battle will return badly damaged in body and spirit. They will never overcome the personal horror they witnessed, to which we are blithely oblivious. We as a nation must realize the immense destruction that we leave in our wake when we choose war, as evidenced most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a result of more than a decade at war in the Middle East, we have brought debt to ourselves as well as our children and grandchildren. We have also brought about the destruction of infrastructure and the impossibility of a normal life to hundreds of thousands of people. We have made new enemies and bought at least another generation of ill will. We have forgotten about being a country that welcomes “the tired, the poor and the weary” and have focused on being an empire protecting energy sources. The democracy we pretend to be trying to export is becoming less and less recognizable here at home. In short, our military actions in recent years have brought horror to people abroad and a poverty of national purpose at home. These are only a few reasons why continued military action would be ill advised. The public has little appetite for more war, and if we truly saw the realities of war, most of us would be absolutely repulsed by the notion.

“A Defeat for Humanity”

I cannot get out of my mind the dissonant voices that were heard at the outset of the Iraq War, which was dubbed, “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Pope John Paul II urged restraint from the U.S. stating that war in Iraq would be a defeat for humanity. To me, that was a true prophetic voice from the community of faith, yet there were others from that same community of faith that were easily justifying military action. One example came from George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the official biographer of Pope John Paul II. Weigel wrote editorials stating why war in Iraq was justified. I know that Weigel is an intelligent man and a faithful Catholic, yet on the matter of war, he seemed to bend intellectual theory like a contortionist to make Operation Iraqi Freedom comply with the just war theory. On the one hand, his words sounded clean, antiseptic, intellectual and distant when he argued for military action. On the other hand, I wonder if George Weigel, like many others at the time, was speaking as an American living in fear rather than looking to the standards set by a community of faith. Or perhaps he just put the ideals of empire ahead of the ideals of faith.

The scandal at Abu Ghraib demonstrated how quickly military action can degenerate into unspeakable acts of inhumanity. Any time we advocate for military action, we must be willing to face the harsh realities, the inhumanity, and even the evil that is unleashed in wartime. Perhaps the difference between Pope John Paul II and George Weigel is that the Pope lived through the horrors of war in Poland while in Weigel's case the concept of war is discussed from the halls of academia, far removed from the realities of war. That is the problem that most of us Americans face when war is discussed – we are far removed from the bombing, maiming, and desolation of war.

When Pope John Paul II warned against war in Iraq, he was speaking from a long standing view toward peace. In his message at the celebration of the World Day of Peace in January of 2000, he stated:

The twentieth century bequeaths to us above all else a warning: wars are often the cause of further wars because they fuel deep hatreds, create situations of injustice and trample upon people's dignity and rights. Wars generally do not resolve the problems for which they are fought and therefore, in addition to causing horrendous damage, they prove ultimately futile. War is a defeat for humanity. Only in peace and through peace can respect for human dignity and its inalienable rights be guaranteed.

My hope is that we may come to realize that peace is gained through peace and that war will always be a defeat for humanity.

-

Make Commerce, Not War

That clown car carrying the Republican presidential candidates is down one more since the Iowa Caucus ended with Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul essentially sharing the top 75% of the votes.  Hearing the brief clips from the candidates' stump speeches, I found myself agreeing with Ron Paul in terms of foreign policy more than any of the others.  It is his anti-war stance that I like. He sees the whole of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as unnecessary. I agree. I was opposed to those war endeavors from the beginning. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, seems to think that the President of the United States should be Emperor of the World and bomb whoever wants to get in the way of us and our “freedom.”

Ron Paul would prefer business ties over war mongering. My anti-war stance comes from a different philosophical base, being more in line with the Quakers' historical stand against war.  Paul’s libertarian view does not make adequate provision for the preservation of human rights, in my opinion, but at the same time, not-war is always better than war. As Benjamin Franklin said, “There was never a good war or a bad peace.” So I’ll take not-war any day, however you can get there.

War takes its toll on society. We have been engaged in full-scale armed conflict for over ten years now.  We have tried to shield ourselves from its effects by relying upon our lean volunteer professional armed forces and not forcing the public to make any visible sacrifice or life-style change. Instead, we have let a new “fighting class” bear the brunt. This fighting class includes many from lower socio-economic levels whose best opportunity is to join the military. It is those men and women and their families who know the pressures of war after numerous re-deployments, deaths and permanent injuries both mental and physical. Our congressmen and senators and the public, by and large, have avoided the obvious scars of war, shifting them to the shadows of our paid warrior class.

But the truth is, we all bear the ill effects of war, whether it is obvious or not. We have already been too long in a war that has cost more than we can pay in material and monetary means and has done nothing to lessen the threat of terrorism.  It is time to turn down the war machine.  If we can’t “make love, not war,” as some said back in the 1960s, we can at least start to spend our time, money and efforts on projects at home: rebuilding roads, bridges, schools, and parks; paying attention to our children; working to increase the common good.  It is time to find a common purpose other than war. My hope is that the time of tearing down will come to an end and the time of building up will come to ascendency. 




*

Why Do Men Fight?

“I’ve seen some bad fights break out during weather like this”

                                          ~ Louisiana farmer, circa 1976

I don’t mean to be gender exclusive on this one, but it’s just that I’m a guy thinking again today about why guys behave the way they do. It all started with a little rain. I had the day off and a couple of outdoor projects planned for the day. A thunder storm put those projects on hold and I sat on the front porch watching the rain come down.

While sitting there watching the rain, I remembered a brief conversation I had with a farmer one summer when I was working in Louisiana. There had been over a week of steady rains. “I’ve seen some bad fights break out during weather like this,” he said. “Farmers ain’t got nothin’ to do. One time they was some guys in a card game in the back of Jake’s General Store – weather just like we’re havin’ now – and two fellas got into an argument over who made the best combine. Before you know’d it they was beatin' each other up. Folks just get frustrated when there’s nothin’ to do. It don’t make no sense.”

I can understand the frustration. Even though a farmer wants rain, when it goes too long, they can’t be out doing what needs to be done in the field. Then there is the danger of loss of crops with ground that is too wet. People become acutely aware that things happen that are beyond their control. Add to that the fact that they probably won’t be getting much of a pay check for the week if they are hired hands. That can lead to highly irritable people. Many who are in such situations will find healthier ways to let off steam, but there are others who will simply give in to aggressive impulses.

Most people I know today are not farmers, but most still find themselves in situations that are beyond their control, especially in today’s economy. We hear about fights and scuffles almost every day. Fans get into fights at sporting events, violence occurs in housing projects. When I think about this impulse to fight, I also am distressed over my own country’s seemingly constant war activity.

After Viet Nam, I thought that we would see less military action, but that has not been the case.  I was opposed to the first Gulf War, and have been opposed to our subsequent military actions. After 9/11, we were shocked and didn’t really know what to do. We did have guns and tanks, so we responded by going to war. Except you need another country to go to when you wage war, and terrorism is not a country. Iraq was a country, and they were in that general vicinity (and they had oil reserves to boot), so off we went.

I was encouraged that many protested that action, crowds marched in the streets chanting “No blood for oil!” The Quakers had a campaign called “War is not the answer,” and I saw many of those signs in people’s yards. In spite of those voices, we as a nation went to war yet again. That was ten year ago. We are still fighting.

I am sure that two guys fighting in a back room in Louisiana over who makes the best combine resulted in some collateral damage, perhaps some clean up and repair expense, but when a nation goes to war, the collateral damage is exponential. Why are we so willing to spend billions of dollars we don’t have on war when we are so unwilling to spare any tax money on schools, healthcare, and infrastructure here at home?  

There is no simple solution, or else we would have found it by now. Nevertheless, I think that if we can give people meaningful work to do (rather than leaving them idle with no prospects) that will lead to a decrease in violence. If we as a country can imagine a national ideal other than fear of the enemy, perhaps we can curb the military action.

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, “There was never a good war or a bad peace.” Destructive fighting on a personal level or on a national level is not in anyone’s best interest. Maybe we should all just stop and ask ourselves why we are fighting. Backing away to allow some perspective, we just might say, along with that farmer I met down in Louisiana, “It don’t make no sense.”

 *  *  *  *

You may be interested in checing out the Friends Committee on National Legislation at http://fcnl.org and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2212023534&v=info

Speaking Honestly, Living Honestly

Last weekend I viewed the documentary In God’s Name with a discussion group of about 25 people. The film features interviews with 12 religious leaders who discuss the teachings of their respective faiths. With the terrorist actions of 9/11 as a backdrop, the documentary examines several major world religions and the harsh fact that wars, atrocities, and other terrible things have been committed in the name of religion throughout the years. We heard the Dalai Lama, the archbishop of Canterbury, Pope Benedict XVI, two Muslim imams, a Russian Orthodox priest, a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Hindu, a Sikh, and a Shinto leader. They all spoke of how their religions teach love, acceptance, forgiveness, peace and unity. All declared that there was no place in religion for killing, violence, and abuse of our fellow human beings. The National Geographic documentary by French filmmakers Jules and Gedeon Naudet is very well done and offers a respectful sensitive portrayal of the major religions.

It is a beautiful and informative documentary, but it leaves one wondering why so many people practice their religion and at the same time commit acts of terrible violence and injustice.

My friend Malcolm stated during our discussion that a breakthrough for him came with the understanding of the concept of cognitive dissonance. He said that although we imagine that thinking precedes our actions, in actuality our behavior comes first, then we rationalize that behavior. The way Malcolm explained it, Cognitive Dissonance Theory proposes that a person experiences internal discomfort and stress when attitudes and behavior contradict. To resolve that dissonance, one must either change one’s thinking or one’s behavior. My friend tells me that research indicates that people are much more likely to change their thinking than their actions.

As we continued our discussion, I realized that with a healthy religion there is a kind of cyclical effect in which our faith and values inform us of ethical standards which often call for a change on our part. I know that I consider myself to be guided by religious faith and ethical standards, but there are those days when I am greatly disappointed in my behavior (usually after my wife points it out to me). If my faith is important – and I believe it is – then I must make adjustments to realign my actions.

Another friend, Barry, stated that he thinks religion offers the best vehicle for guiding our thinking and improving our actions. My church has something called the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) to assist the individual in making those realignments. For any of us, religious or not, if we are to maintain any human relationships at all, there will be occasions when we must make amends, ask forgiveness, and seek restitution. We will also find ourselves having to grant forgiveness and offer restitution.

It seems that all of us are agreed that the Golden Rule should be the standard for all our interactions. But living out the Golden Rule in everyday life – there’s the rub. Just because we fail at it one day, doesn’t mean we have to fail the next day.



***