Listening to Rumi

 

“Whoever Brought Me Here,” by Rumi, is a poem I first heard 26 years ago and one that continues to resonate. I keep returning to it to remind myself of the deep mystery and wonder of being human in the world.  Coleman Barks read his translation of Rumi’s poem at the Dodge Poetry Festival in 1995. Bill Moyers was there to film it for PBS and that is how I first came to hear the words of a 13th-century Sufi mystic.

Poetry and Me

My love for poetry began early. I wrote my first poem in the second grade and as I grew older, the reading of poetry and the writing of poetry became increasingly important. In college, I majored in English primarily because of my love for language and literature. As I tested my vocation in life, I trained for a few careers, trying my hand at teaching, ministry, and social services before entering the medical field as a registered nurse. Throughout my searches and career changes poetry kept me grounded. My writing of poetry came to serve as a kind of spiritual journal. The loves and losses, the darkened days and the times of hope all took poetic form. I could later look back at what I had written to remember where I had been.

Pulling Me In

It must have been my interest in poetry and spirituality that pulled me into Coleman Barks’ reading of Rumi. His rich, resonant southern voice conveyed an oceanic sense of wonder as he read. In the poem, Rumi asks deep questions about life and about his own existence. Where did he come from? What should he be doing? He says he has no idea, yet in that uncertainty, he can say, My soul is from elsewhere, I am sure of that. Who has not felt that way? Perhaps not everyone is bold enough to say it, so Rumi says it for us. Life is such a remarkable thing – our humanity so amazing and precious – we cannot help telling ourselves stories of wonder to explain our origins and our destiny.

As Rumi ponders his life, he compares himself to a bird from another country trapped in an aviary dreaming of the day when he can fly home. So many of us find ourselves thinking there must be some higher calling even though we are stuck here in this workstation, this gray cubicle, this factory line. Surely my life was meant for more than this workaday drudgery. Rumi dares us to imagine that somehow we will find a way to live in life’s grandeur.

Living with the Questions

This short poem asks immense questions about the essence of our nature, questions in which the poet hints that the divine is perhaps knit within his own being, yet he realizes he is far from knowing. If I could taste one sip of an answer, I could break out of this prison for drunks. He declares that when he finds himself back where he came from, he will be awake and sober.

I treasure this poem because Rumi finds transcendence within the limitations of his surroundings. He encourages me with his capacity to trust the mystery of life. He reminds me that I had nothing to do with my arrival in this world, and I can rest in the hope that the outcome will be buoyed by the same creative beginnings. Rumi demonstrates how we can live with the questions, tap into the wonder, and trust the mystery.

I didn't come here of my own accord, and I can't leave that way.

Whoever brought me here, will have to take me home.

* Note: tomorrow I will post a video of Coleman Barks reading this poem by Rumi. To read "Whoever Brought Me Here." follow this link. For a brief article on Rumi, go here.

-

Coleman Barks interview with Bill Moyers

I had a truncated version of this interview in my previous post. On YouTube, we find an extended version of  Bill Moyers' interview with Coleman Barks in the PBS series, The Language of Life. He talks about Rumi, mysticism, poetry, and those oceanic experiences of life and poetry. I have posted it in four parts below.

Part 1  

 

 Part 2

  

Part 3 

    

Part 4

    

 

-

Love’s Confusing Joy: Coleman Barks on Poet Jelaluddin Rumi

I first heard of Coleman Barks in 1995 while watching Bil Moyers' poetry series, The Language of Life on PBS (filmed on location at the fifth biennial Geraldine R. Dodge Poetry Festival in Waterloo, New Jersey).

Here is an excerpt featuring Moyers' interview with Coleman Barks as he discusses the Persian poet Jelaluddin Rumi. For me, this was the most captivating moment of the series.*

 

* My next post has an extended version of this interview found on YouTube.

-

Poets in Performance | BillMoyers.com

You may have heard that April is National Poetry Month. Bill Moyers is another one who has be an enthusiastic promoter of the art poetry. How well I remember being enthralled by his interviews with poets and then hearing them read their works in the PBS documentary, "The Language of Life," and later "Fooling with Words." These programs both took place at the Geraldine R. Dodge Poetry Festival. I was so very appreciative of Moyers bringing these events to the living rooms of America by way of the broadcast media. Moyers has also hosted numerous poets on his television broadcasts. Bill Moyers website, Moyers & Company, has posted "Poets in Performance" which features a wonderful array of poets from past programs reading their works. 

I highly recommend going to his site to hear these works : Poets in Performance | BillMoyers.com



-

Poets in Performance with Bill Moyers

Celebrating National Poetry Month

Here is another one from Bill Moyers & Company:

"What if some of the greatest poets in America came together to read their works, and you were the only person in the audience? It might be something like this, and a great way to celebrate Poetry Month."

Over the years, Bill Moyers has welcomed some of America’s best poets to share their works and inspiration. Many of those writers have performed at the Geraldine R. Dodge Poetry Festival, which Bill and his colleagues covered for television specials including Fooling with Words (1999), The Language of Life (1995) and Sounds of Poetry(1999). Below, enjoy a showcase of such poetry from past productions and very recently from Moyers & Company, performed by the poets who dreamed them up, or by other artists who, like Bill, simply adore poetry.

Go here to see an astounding line up of poets with Bill Moyers.

A Young Poet from The Bronx (from Bill Moyers)

Once again I want to highlight poetry on my blog during the month of April. Here is a piece from Bill Moyers' program Moyers & Company that speaks to the benefit of practicing poetry right where you live. -CK

April is National Poetry Month. As a young Latina poet growing up in the Bronx, Haydil Henriquez was inspired by poets like Nikki Giovanni, Audre Lorde, Willie Perdomo and Martín Espada. In this video portrait, Henriquez talks about how poetry has shaped her life and she reads from her poem, "Bronx."

A Young Poet from The Bronx | BillMoyers.com

On the Waging of War

Predator drone (U.S. Air Force photo)

I have a problem with drone warfare.  Recently Bill Moyers gave an editorial comment (“When We Kill without Caring”) on Moyers & Company speaking out against the use of drones. The issue sparked a conversation among some of my colleagues and me about the whole question of drone warfare. Some were in favor of using drones. They saw it as more efficient war technology which was better than sending our sons and daughters into battle with troops on the ground. Some saw it as no different from the use of bombers in warfare, except there was no danger of the pilot losing his life.  There was some attraction to the clean, efficient use of technology in prosecuting a war at a distance so that our own troops did not come into harm’s way. 

I, on the other hand have a problem with all of the above. My issue with drone warfare is a matter of asking the ethical question. Just because a “new technology” is in place, does not mean that every use of that technology is ethical, however clean and efficient that technology may appear to be. It is up to those within society who see these ethical issues to raise them rather than to acquiesce just because science and technology have made something “better” (ever read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World?).

 

The issue is not just technology. The issue is the expanded use of drones to the point that there is the dangerous precedent that would lead to no temporal or geographic limits to warfare. I have a big problem with using drones to fire upon suspects in a region where we have not even declared war, and in which innocent civilians are killed, while the operator of said drone sits in a comfortable air-conditioned office somewhere. Furthermore, it is questionable how effective military force is against terrorism. Some of us hold to the ethic of “swords into plowshares” rather than militaristic solutions to every conceivable fear. We can easily get used to technology, but this is a matter of ethics. Science and technology must always be subject to ethics. As long as there is human activity, it is appropriate to raise ethical questions.

In the matter of war, my position is that war is never an ethical choice. It is easy to forgo serious examination of any specific war by saying, “We had no other choice.”  

Modern Warfare and Increasing Brutality

Throughout the modern era,  war has become more scientifically advanced and I would argue, more immoral. During World War II, both Germany and the United States upped the ante of formalized declared war by taking the fighting beyond the battlefield and into the civilian population. Germany did it in London with the aerial bombing of the city, including residential and business areas. The United States did the same thing with the flattening of the city of Dresden in aerial attacks. This was an immoral extension of war because it brought the horror of battle to private citizens.  The U.S. did the ultimate upping of the ante by dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It can be argued, and has, that these strategies were necessary, but the immorality of war cannot be so easily be dismissed. 

Today, the use of drones in warfare brings a new layer to the questions about conduct in war. The argument that using a drone in Pakistan is a better option than sending our own sons and daughters into the conflict is inadequate. We are not just talking about our sons and daughters. There are other sons and daughters (as well as wives and husbands) on the receiving end of those drone attacks.

Since the Enlightenment Period, and especially during the 20^th century, we have had this notion that humans are becoming more civilized and enlightened, yet this has coincided with ever increasing use of death-making technology and human torture.  The sad truth is that long as we humans continue to justify war, and think it is better for them to die than us, we won’t make it to any sort of “enlightenment.”

A Foundational Stand against War

We all know the saying of Jesus, “You have heard it said, and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you love your enemies and bless them that curse you.” As a rabbi, Jesus could have said, “You have heard it said, and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and that is a nobler way because you really shouldn’t go overboard in exacting revenge.” He would have been in line with the extent of the enlightenment of his day, and he would have been justified in saying that according to rabbinical teaching. But, of course, Jesus didn’t say that. He chose to offer another way.

The stand I take in opposing war (and refusing to say it is okay if necessary and if we use highly technical and sophisticated gadgets) is not because I want to sit in the Oval Office and make crucial decisions. It is because that in spite of the atrocities we continue to inflict upon one another, there must continue to be a voice that gives witness to a better way. The Quakers have bravely stood by such a witness. In the past, I have been part of peace & justice groups within mainline churches that offered such a witness.  

Whose Sons and Daughters Do We Send to Fight?

And back to the notion of “sending our sons and daughters to war,” that is another part of our country’s problem. We no longer send “our sons and daughters.” There is no longer any draft and no required national service.  We have a “volunteer” professional army that we send instead.  In other words, we harvest recruits – many of whom are from the lower socioeconomic strata of society – with promises of seeing the world and personal development. These are the young people whom society has offered no better option. They are the ones we send off to fight for freedom, when it is not even freedom that is in danger – it is the coffers of our oil barons and multinational conglomerates that are threatened. We just tell our young people who are pumped with patriotism and testosterone that they are fighting for freedom when they are actually fodder for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. If all our sons and daughters, including those of the politicians, were part of a national service, maybe we wouldn’t be so quick to go to war. Maybe then we would actually sit down and weigh the ethics of wartime situations.  

We sit in ease discussing this, but there are shattered lives all around us coming back from our current wars. They will never be alright, and to me, that is simply not okay. Recently I was talking to a patient at the hospital where I work as a nurse. We ask every patient upon admission if they have had suicidal thoughts in the last two weeks. The man looked at me with exasperation and said, “What do you think? I’m a Viet Nam vet! You just ask any vet, they’ll tell you – of course I have those thoughts, but no, I am not going to act on them.” 

What is the Alternative?

Having lived through the protests over the Viet Nam War, I have often been nonplussed by our country’s acceptance of war over the past twenty years. I think that acceptance has been based upon three things:  fear, an unwillingness to entertain a change in our affluent lifestyles, and the lack of a draft.  War does not demand much from most people in our society these days. As a result, we seem to be at a loss for visualizing other approaches to outside threats such as terrorism.

In the case of drone warfare, doing nothing is a better alternative. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are reducing the threat of terrorism by drone warfare. So we may kill someone who was on somebody's terrorist list. We also kill other local people. We fan the flames that lead to more terrorist activity. Taking ourselves out of that situation would do more to cool the cause of terrorism. The strength of Empire only furthers the terrorists cause.  Furthermore, the use of drones makes killing easier and in the short run less painful for us - therefore in increases the likelihood of our starting the next war. 

Iraq War Vets protesting the war in 2007
(photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

In the case of Iraq, that was wrongheaded from the start. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism on our shores, neither was there an Al Qaeda connection.  But there was oil. And the only fight we knew how to wage was with military action – except you can't fight terrorist with a conventional army. But you can fight a country with a conventional army. Thus the case was made for fighting in Iraq. It had a ruthless ruler, it had Muslims whom we had demonized, and it had oil. We couldn't resist the temptation. We were mad and we had to break something if we couldn't find the terrorists. Our engagement there cost billions of dollars, untold loss of life, and furthered the cause of the terrorists. 

In the case of Afghanistan, we've been there too long already. We punched Al-Qaeda, we made our point.  We do ourselves a greater favor if we leave and stop breaking things.

Most important, I repeat: drones make killing easier and increase the likelihood that we will use war rather than diplomacy in the future. If we have any faith in the potential of humanity, there comes a point where we must say, enough. Those who oppose war seldom win the argument, but they leave a record that it is possible to call upon the better angels of our nature. That is where I prefer to stake my claim. 

We have Sat too Long in Comfort – and Fear

As long as we sit in comfort and support technological gadgets of war and continue to parrot the notions of “terrorism in Islamabad” that have been fed to us by the warmongers to stoke our fears, there will never be any other way except the path of war that we have chosen for too long.  That is why I will continue to say, as did Bill Moyers, it is not acceptable for our country to “kill without caring.” Collateral damage in the form of women, children and civilians in Pakistan in order to “keep terrorism at bay” is no more acceptable than seeing my own neighbor’s bodies littering the street.  (And furthermore, drone attacks will not keep terrorism at bay.)

These are some of the reasons I do not support drone warfare as it is being practiced by our country. Others may disagree if they are coming from a different point of view or a different value system, but these are some of the reasons why I take the stand I take.

                                                                                                                ~ Charles Kinnaird

*   *   *  

Related Posts:

• Why Do Men Fight?
• The Atrocities of War
• Charlie Madison’s War
• Memorial Day Thoughts
• Make Commerce, not War
• When Freedom Becomes another Word for Empire

*

The State of our Union – a Mixed Bag of Hope

A Brief Look at President Barack Obama's Second Inaugural Address and the State of the Union Speech

Capitol Hill  (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Within the span of a few weeks I have twice heard what I consider to be inspiring words from President Barack Obama. I hope that anyone who feels differently about the president’s remarks will bear with me for this short space, because I am not entirely on board as far as political enthusiasm goes yet there are some reasons for me to have hope.

When poet Robert Frost visited Washington D.C. late in his life, he was making some comments at a public gathering. He said that some people wondered what his political affiliation was. He told the group that he had never stated it publicly, “but if you read what I write, you’ll know that I’m a Democrat.” After a brief pause, he added, “But I haven’t been happy since 1896!”  In my case,  I have never joined a political party, but readers of this blog will know where my sympathies usually lie.

I will never forget that night watching the Democratic convention in the summer of 2004 when an unknown Barack Obama delivered the key note address.  He declared that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too: We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.”

As he continued with his speech I said to my wife, “this guy could one day be our president!” I did not imagine that that day would come as soon as it did. Fast forward a bit and you see the harsh realities of governing in a land that is polarized by ideologies and political gamesmanship.  Even Obama’s greatest achievement in passing healthcare legislation was, in my opinion, not nearly what could or should have happened. But then, there is the reality of governing and moving things forward when there is intractable opposition.

The Second Inaugural Address

Now as we stand at the beginning of a second presidential term, I continue to have some hope, but I also have some reservations. We’ll do the hope part first: The president’s second inaugural address was one that was full of light and hope. Here are some statements that stood out for me:

“This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America's possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it - so long as we seize it together.”

“For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”

“We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.”

The State of the Union Address

Inaugural addresses are supposed to be a unifying vision statement of where we would like to be as a nation. The state of the union address which has become an annual affair in modern times is not without ceremonial value, but it is also part of the president’s constitutional duty to report to the congress as to the state of the union. It tends to be more of a platform to outline the political policies that the president would like to see enacted.

The president’s state of the union address last Tuesday was, once again, an inspirational speech that gave me cause for hope. I liked, for example, the president’s statement that we should decide to finally listen to what science is telling us about climate change, and that if congress did not act for the good of the environment, then he would take presidential action. [Side bar statement: I am old enough to remember watching with great concern as a sixth-grader the news reports about trees dying in the hills of Los Angeles due to smog, and Lake Erie periodically catching on fire due to the amount of pollution in its waters. I witnessed the country respond to those crises by enacting legislation to curb the pollution of our air and water until we saw trees thriving again in California and the waters of Lake Erie running clear again. I wonder why we cannot respond today with that same kind of national purpose to do what is needed for the environment.]

For me, the most moving moment was when the President began to talk about the victims of gun violence who deserved a vote. People were standing and applauding, and he continued to speak above the applause with a litany of individuals who deserved a vote on reducing gun violence in our country.  There was also the call to improve our voting system so that no one’s voice is suppressed by having to wait long hours just to cast a vote. These are both significant ideals because it is the vote, not the gun that will make us safe.

The president also talked about getting our troops out of Afghanistan, and I am always glad to hear about the de-escalation of war. As he talked about our national defense in light of terrorism, however, I detected what could end up being the president’s most dangerous policy, and even a continuing blight upon his presidency:

Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. Different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged – from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations. Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security, and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali. And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.

As we do, we must enlist our values in the fight. That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts. I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word that we’re doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.

The president did not use the term “drone warfare” but he talked about “a range of capabilities” to “take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat.”  He also alluded to the questionable legality of the use of drones by promising to keep congress informed because “I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word that we’re doing things the right way.”

Predator Drone (U.S. Air Force photo)

If the question had not been raised about the country’s use of drones in the Middle East, the president may not have even addressed counterterrorism operations. It is unfortunate that as a nation, we still do not understand that it is the footprint of our empire that breeds terrorism. Our invasion of Iraq only furthered the cause of al Queda, and our dropping of bombs on civilians as we try to ferret out the terrorists only fans the flames of the terrorists. Bill Moyers recently delivered an excellent two-minute commentary, “When We Kill without Caring,” in which he posed the question, regarding drone warfare, “Does it give rise to second thoughts by those judges who prematurely handed our president the Nobel Prize for Peace? Better they had kept in on the shelf in hopeful waiting, untarnished.”

It may be that any man, no matter what his ideals are, becomes imprisoned by the imperial machine when he becomes president of the United States (we’ve yet to see how a woman would respond). One wonders, for example, how Lyndon Johnson would have fared without Viet Nam. He was the president who had the vision to implement Headstart, Medicare and Medicaid. He was the one with the courage to make civil rights legislation happen (at the expense of losing the South to the Republican Party) because it was the right thing to do. But when it came to war, he could not see beyond an empire’s myopic need to fight.  It just may be that our current president will have to succumb to the will of the war machine, even if the war ends up looking remote and clinical in the form of an unmanned remote control aircraft.

My Own Bias (In the Interest of Full Disclosure)

I should state my own bias that shapes my views on what is best for our country. First of all, in matters of war and national defense, I side with our Quaker friends who have steadfastly resisted violence and continue to declare that war is not the answer. In our modern world, diplomacy and engagement are better tools than armies and guns when it comes to stability. The world is now too small, the weapons too big, and the stakes too high for us to continue to rely upon warfare as a means of international negotiation. Someone needs to hold us to a higher ethic than mere  nationalistic hegemony, and the Quakers along with others are doing just that.

In matters of a healthy society, I am for the common good and I take my cue from the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in  Matthew 25 as to how we treat “the least of these.” For me, that parable of Jesus is not just a “final exam” to illustrate who gets into the Kingdom of Heaven. In fact, I do not consider it to be a story about heaven.  I see it as a guide to what constitutes a just and compassionate society that works for the good of all. The parable does not speak of individuals gathered before the Son of God on Judgment Day. The way Jesus frames it, he speaks of “all the nations gathered,” with each nation being judged on the basis of how its marginalized and weakest citizens are treated.  Thus, the test of a just nation and a compassionate society is based upon how the sick, the weak, the needy, the hungry, and those in prison are treated. This is where Catholic social teaching hits the mark, particularly in matters of social and economic justice. In the U.S., we have a good record in some respects of improvements that benefit the common good and which provide a safety net for the down-and-out. In other respects we have a long way to go before we can be called a just society.

On measure, I have hope on this day as we move ahead. On the other hand, I realize that we are still a polarized country, the process of governing is still cumbersome, and any progress will probably come in fits and starts. Nevertheless, we have a chance to make some real progress but we will not get there unless we all get there.

*