Benediction for 3/05/11

From an article on NCR by Fr. John Dear, SJ...

I can imagine Jesus lamenting today:

America, America, you who bomb children, execute people, and prepare nuclear warfare, how many times I yearned to gather your children together…but you were unwilling. If this day you only knew the things that make for peace!

The value of a soldier's sacrifice

Image via Wikipedia

Two years ago I asked: "If the US were to announce start the long process of withdrawing troops from Iraq today, what would that mean for those who have already died over the last four years during the war with and occupation of that country?" Since that time George W. Bush has left office and Barack Obama has become the new Commander-in-Chief.

While Mr. Obama has taken steps leading to the beginning of the drawback of US troops in Iraq, he has decided to send many more additional troops to Afghanistan to fight against the renewed and growing Taliban forces which have been gaining strength since the US switches its military focus from Afghanistan to Iraq.

I also noted a popular sentiment about the value of a soldier's sacrifice:

It is interesting to me that one point of agreement among some of the most vocal supporters of continuing the occupation and the most vocal supporters of ending the occupation is the notion that unless the cause is just and the mission is complete, there is no value to the sacrifice made by our soldiers. In fact, last night on Alan Colmes Show (radio) one caller began screaming and had to be cut off for obscene language because he claimed that if we leave Iraq before victory is achieved the thousands of US servicemen and women who have already perished in the conflict will have laid down their lives in vain.

What if there is no way to make significant and lasting improvements to the political situation, violence, and socio-economic stability in Iraq through a continued major US military presence? What if America and its allies have done what they can, and continued military investment in Iraq at this point in history is going to produce rapidly diminishing returns? For the sake of argument, what does that mean for those soldiers who have already died carrying out this foreign policy? For those who continue to die?

To which I offered and repeat this answer...

The value of an American soldier's sacrifice is not in the outcome of the battle in which he or she died, nor in the outcome of the campaign in which the battle was fought, the conflict in which the campaign was executed, or the correctness of the foreign policy which precipitated the campaign. A US soldier has devoted his or her life to defending the principles embodied in the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the Congress and Commander-in-Chief to make sure that such sacrifice is appropriate. There is a difference between saying that a soldier died needlessly and that a soldier dies for nothing. Many people believe that the members of our nation's armed services are dying needlessly, but no one should believe these deaths are pointless.

Let us remember that not just this Fourth of July weekend but every day until the last of our soldiers are out of active war zones and US military occupations are ended.

Picnics for peace and other idiotic pacifist ideas

In the documentary film 10 Questions for the Dalai Lama, His Holiness suggests that one way we might see more peace in troubled areas such as Jerusalem is to have more gatherings like picnics and festivals. No doubt this strikes many people as foolish. After all, it is a religiously political struggle? (Or is a politically religious struggle?) Inequity and injustice require some kind of top down solution, right? Economic, military, etc. You've got to have high level meetings, and political road maps, and a week at Camp David between the leaders of the parties in conflict, right? Having people meet and greet is just idiotic. Isn't it? Do we really buy all of the teachings of such renowned spiritual leaders?

But let us ask ourselves why the Clinton initiative failed to bring a peace settlement in Israel. There is no single reason, but a huge one includes speculation that Yasser Arafat knew his people wouldn't accept the terms he was negotiating, and his counterpart, Ehud Barak, claimed he couldn't offer any more concessions. Both leaders realized they couldn't get any closer without alienating key segments of their populations, particularly powerful political supporters. This kind of impasse is rooted in the attitudes of certain groups of Palestinians and Israelis toward each other and fed by past and present conflict. These attitudes, which perpetuate and support the political and economic structures producing inequality and conflict, include distrust, fear, and hatred.

Daryl Davis and the Klan

Now let's turn to another historic example of distrust, fear, and hatred - the Ku Klux Klan and African-Americans. You may not be familiar with Daryl Davis. I first heard about him when his story was included in the film Understanding Race (part of the Films for the Humanities series). I later learned that he had published a book about his experiences going to Klan meeting called Klan-destine Relationships. None of this may strike you as peculiar until you hear the subtitle of the book: A Black Man's Odyssey in the Ku Klux Klan. His story is also told in a brief article that appeared in the Washington Post.

In brief, Davis met people who were in the Klan and was eventually invited to a Klan meeting. He was curious and friendly and non-judgmental, and became a familiar face at Klan events. In fact, an Imperial Wizard made Davis the godfather of his child. But what is really interesting is that his presence has been a catalyst which has led many members, including that Imperial Wizard, to quit the Klan. Some have even given Davis their robes, which he keeps in his closet. Imagine that - self-identified white supremacists quitting the Klan not because Davis laid on a guilt trip, not because he debated them into submission, but because of his persistent friendly presence.

The mechanics of changing perspective

One theory of how we form expectations about the world is that we organize our experiences into meaningful clusters we then name. This is called a schema. When we select a schema or a composite of schemas to be the standard for evaluating similar schemas. This standard is called a prototype. Similar schemas orbit loosely around the prototype, creating a category with fuzzy boundaries. For example, if we use our experiences to form a schema of holiday, we might include "having family over" and "preparing a large meal". When we experience a holiday without a big meal, we might remark that is just didn't seem like a holiday, because we were using that schema as a prototype to evaluate new experiences.

We can also use the example of the category automobile, in which we use our experiences with cars to form the basis of a schema which is then promoted to the prototype of the automobile category. Hence we may call a truck or jeep a "car", even though there are differences between trucks, jeeps, and cars. Trucks and jeeps are orbiting the idea of car-ness, which may include elements like "large rubber tires", "carries multiple passengers", "runs on an engine", "has pedals and a steering wheel".

This theory can help make sense of the relationship between Daryl Davis, the Klan, and the members who quit. I am not suggesting this theory must be true in every case, but a theory isn't much good if it has no explanatory power, so we can at least see if it produces a workable explanation. People in the Klan tend to have a particular kind of schema they use as the prototype for black people, which we might expect to be very negative. They had a new experience - a black man who wasn't angry or judgmental towards them and who seemed like a really friendly and sincere guy. This didn't match the expectations of the prototype of a black man. In some cases, the continued exposure formed that basis of a new schema of black people that either challenged or replaced the previous prototype (which in this case would correlate to the term stereotype). This sparked a re-evaluation of membership in an organization premised on a particular view of minorities.

This can be condensed into "they changed their minds when they actually got to know a black man", but the process involved - how and why they were prejudiced and the components of changing one's mind - are important. If Davis had been angry or judgmental, this might have reinforced a schema which includes an image of black people as angry and judgmental towards whites. It also highlights how important external influences can be in shaping our attitudes about anything and everything we encounter in our lives.

The relevance to conflict prevention and resolution

Turning back to the Dalai Lama and Jerusalem, I don't presume the Dalai Lama made his suggestion based on the mechanics of a theory from the social and behavioral sciences of the West. Instead, his Buddhist training and the wisdom of a lifetime of exposure to conflict and prejudice showed him the basic pattern, however we might wish to frame it. It would be unfair to say that he thinks that a few picnics will end all of the violence, but I do think he is pointing towards generating shared positive experiences between opposing or distrustful groups in order to offer a basis for new and more positive appreciation of each other. With such a grassroots change in attitude, the existing political and economic structures generating inequality and conflict between the sides would lose much of their support. If enough of the people want peace, they will have it.

People don't live in the abstract - in the "national" or the "global" scene. They live in the every day of their individual lives. Whether attempted solutions to the largest problems in society will either succeed or fail turns on what individuals experience and do in the everyday.

The less taste we shall have for destruction

Quotes to consider on the anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq...

To be alive in this beautiful, self-organizing universe -- to participate in the dance of life with senses to perceive it, lungs that breathe it, organs that draw nourishment from it -- is a wonder beyond words.

-Joanna Macy

The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we shall have for destruction.

-Rachel Carson

If Jesus is the reason for the season, what does our attitude toward and during the season say about our perspective on Jesus?

The first of today's selections, Jackson Browne's "Rebel Jesus", comes "borrowed" from the Progressive Islam blog. Hey, if someone else has a great insight, why not share it? (as long as you pass along the credit too...)



All the streets are filled with laughter and light
And the music of the season
And the merchants windows are all bright
With the faces of the children
And the families hurrying to their homes
As the sky darkens and freezes
They’ll be gathering around the hearths and tales
Giving thanks for all God’s graces
And the birth of the rebel Jesus

Well they call him by the prince of peace
And they call him by the savior
And they pray to him upon the seas
And in every bold endeavor
As they fill his churches with their pride and gold
And their faith in him increases
But they’ve turned the nature that I worshiped in
From a temple to a robbers den
In the words of the rebel Jesus

We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when Christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why they are poor
They get the same as the rebel Jesus

But please forgive me if I seem
To take the tone of judgment
For I’ve no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure
And I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel Jesus.

I chose second selection, "Happy Christmas (War is Over)" by John Lennon, because I think is a good follow-up:



So this is Christmas
And what have you done
Another year over
A new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear ones
The old and the young

A merry merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear

And so happy Christmas (War is Over...)
For weak and for strong (...if you want it)
The rich and the poor ones (War is Over...)
The road is so long (...now)
And so happy Christmas (War is Over...)
For black and for white (...if you want it)
For yellow and red ones (War is Over...)
Let's stop all the fights (...now)

A merry merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear

And so this is Christmas (War is over...)
And what have we done (...if you want it)
Another year over (War is Over...)
And a new one just begun (...now)
And so happy Christmas (War is Over...)
We hope you have fun (...if you want it)
The near and the dear ones (War is Over...)
The old and the young (...now)

A merry merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
War is over, if you want it
War is over now

Happy Christmas!

The point is not to try to put a guilt trip on anyone. Many people don't need help with that anyway. The holidays can generate a lot of tension and distress. People may feel that they have let down their friends, or relatives, or ideals, that they haven't done enough for their community, their religion, or themselves. Or they may feel others have let them down. They may feel disconnected, insufficient, or be in some other form of spiritual [=nature of the interconnectedness of life]crisis. One may wonder, "What can I offer?" or "What can I do?"

That question is the reason for the third and final selection, "Little Drummer Boy" written and composed by Katherine K. Davis, Henry Onorati and Harry Simeone. This is as close to the version I used to listen to as a child as I was able to find online...



Come they told me, pa rum pum pum pum
A new born King to see, pa rum pum pum pum
Our finest gifts we bring, pa rum pum pum pum
To lay before the King, pa rum pum pum pum,
rum pum pum pum, rum pum pum pum,

So to honor Him, pa rum pum pum pum,
When we come.

Little Baby, pa rum pum pum pum
I am a poor boy too, pa rum pum pum pum
I have no gift to bring, pa rum pum pum pum
That's fit to give the King, pa rum pum pum pum,
rum pum pum pum, rum pum pum pum,

Shall I play for you, pa rum pum pum pum,
On my drum?

Mary nodded, pa rum pum pum pum
The ox and lamb kept time, pa rum pum pum pum
I played my drum for Him, pa rum pum pum pum
I played my best for Him, pa rum pum pum pum,
rum pum pum pum, rum pum pum pum,

Then He smiled at me, pa rum pum pum pum
Me and my drum.

Merry Christmas.

Not taking sides: embracing the oppressor and the oppressed (how to address to President Bush on Iraq)

As a follow-up to the topic of fighting the good fight, which is about having an "us" (the good guys, the righteous) versus "them" (the bad guys, the unrighteous) mentality and whether spiritual people of conscience who accept some form of interdependence should take sides, I re-post this letter from Thich Nhat Hanh (text follows)to provide a more specific example for reflection and discussion...

Honorable George W. BushThe White House
Washington DC, USA


Plum Village
Le Pey 24240
Thenac, France


Dear Mr President


Last night, I saw my brother (who died two weeks ago in the USA) coming back to me in a dream. He was with all his children. He told me, "Let's go home together." After a millisecond of hesitation, I told him joyfully, "Ok, let's go."


Waking up from that dream at 5 am this morning, I thought of the situation in the Middle East; and for the first time, I was able to cry. I cried for a long time, and I felt much better after about one hour. Then I went to the kitchen and made some tea. While making tea, I realized that what my brother had said is true: our home is large enough for all of us. Let us go home as brothers and sisters.


Mr. President, I think that if you could allow yourself to cry like I did this morning, you will also feel much better. It is our brothers that we kill over there. They are our brothers, God tells us so, and we also know it. They may not see us as brothers because of their anger, their misunderstanding, and their discrimination. But with some awakening, we can see things in a different way, and this will allow us to respond differently to the situation. I trust God in you; I trust Buddha nature in you.


Thank you for reading.


In gratitude and with brotherhood,
Thich Nhat Hanh
Plum Village

In my last post, I ended by asking: "What is our compassionately informed response to those who we thing are harming the planet and causing immense suffering because of their greed, anger and fear? A compassionate response does not have to imply a whimper - compassion requires a great deal of strength - but deep down do we believe that such an approach will be seen as weak or be ignored by the powerful? And isn't it so much easier to empathize with the downtrodden? Is it a choice between the preferred and the practical, between idealism and realism? Or do we really believe (in) and practice what we preach?"

That post was very general and allows for many permutations of this theme, and it has received replies (feel free to click over and add yours). Here, however, we have a specific example of someone, Thich Nhat Hanh, who did just what I was mentioning. He chose to see Bush as his brother and to appeal to his humanity and his divine/Buddha nature rather than simply mocking him or using angry accusations listing his personal failures and their consequences. So what do we make of this and similar letters, speeches, and other forms of communication? It is certainly something that we can appreciate coming from Thay as he is a world renowned peace activist and Buddhist teacher, but do we really believe that letter, assuming it was received and read, made a difference? And is effectiveness the primary yardstick in cases like this? Do we read things like this and "forgive" Thich Naht Hanh for his simplicity and directness (but also see it as a little naive) because of his status and image? Or is he on the right track, and if so, in what way should we follow his example?

In particular for those who are opposed to the occupation of Iraq and those who capitalized on it politically or financially...

Can you see yourself writing a letter like that to George W. Bush? To Dick Cheney? To the David Lesar, President and CEO of Halliburton? To Erik Prince, founder and owner of Blackwater Worldwide? For the Pro-Iraq war visitors, same question but fill in the names with Nancy Pelosi, or Hillary Clinton, etc.

Or to be really blunt - does such wording make the author sound like a spacey, out-of-touch, overly naive optimist who needs a reality check and to get involved in really making a difference rather than expressing futile sentimentality? Again, I know many or probably most of you might not think that about Thich Nhat Hahn, or if the letter had come from the Dalai Lama, but what if had come from a New Age guru running a crystal therapy center? Or from a Wiccan college freshman taking a course on globalization? Or from your own desk (assuming you are not a New Age guru running a crystal therapy center or a Wiccan college freshman taking a course on globalization)? That is, if you respect Thay's letter and approach, is it because you respect him or because you respect his letter and approach?

Fighting the good fight

If you are fighting the "good" fight, what is your opponent doing? Why is that at some sporting events both teams pray for God to "...grant them the victory", and what about the unspoken half of that prayer which is then implied ("God grant the other guys a defeat")? Taking that line of thought from sports to warfare, I (re-)call attention to an animation produced and published earlier this year of a short piece by Mark Twain called "The War Prayer". For those who cannot or choose not to view the video, the text is reproduced and the unspoken half of "Grant us the victory [in battle]" is highlighted in red. If we embrace all-encompassing compassion and recognize our fundamental interdependence, whether as Buddhist, Christians, Humanists, or by any other name or tradition, when if ever is it appropriate to take sides in a conflict?

I have sports teams I root for, which one could claim is taking sides. I will vote for specific candidates in upcoming elections, which one could also claim is taking sides. To say we cannot or should not ever have any preferences for anything would sound extreme. But do I wish the other team or other candidates harm? Do I feel free to mock or ridicule them? Will the results of the game or the election evoke from me distraction, unkindness, or violence? If I become fixated on one "side" winning, this could be so. But then what was the point of the activity or of being involved with it? Is sports really about entertainment, fitness, and good conduct or is it about having the best score or best record and rubbing other people's faces in it? Is politics about good government for all and supporting the parties and candidates that you feel will be most willing and able to achieve this end, or is it about fear, anger, and wanting the power to impose our will on others so we can feel safe and righteous/prosperous?

There are other angles to sports and politics to be sure, but the examples provided highlight the distinction between seeing all of the participants in such activities as having value and only seeing those who are on "our side" as worthy of our concern and support. In a sense, we are talking about what Christians refer to as the distinction of "Love the sinner, hate the sin." We can appreciate members of an opposing team or party as human beings deserving of our compassion even if we find what they stand for or how they try to achieve those goals to be deluded, damaging, or despicable. This lesson of early to middle childhood, symbolized by the seemingly ubiquitous sportsmanship line-up where two teams file past each other swatting hands and grunting "good game", suggests that you can support a process or activity (such as a game or an election) as being worthwhile despite the outcome as opposed to seeing such activities as valuable only in as much as it produces the outcome we prefer. It also reminds us to see "the other side" as individuals just as we are. And most importantly, at least in my estimation, it reaffirms a fundamental respect for those individuals.

Then we grow up and we are confronted with more extreme and more complex cases. In United States, suggestions of stolen elections and resulting damage to our freedoms, the environment our socio-economic mobility, and to our military and international reputation are pitted against claims of naively supporting legislation and actions favorable to terrorists, attempting to destroy a Christian heritage, and impose what are labeled as unfair restrictions on businesses. Foreign and economic policy are intertwined in an attempt to bolster leverage against other nations even when these policies encourage poverty, poor health, and war and lead to supporting governments based on convenience for corporate interests and fear of economic or nuclear reprisal. All the while issues such as the occupation of Tibet, the crackdowns in Burma, the horrors in the Sudan, as well as thousands of other lesser known sporadic as well as ongoing human rights violations continue.

It is appealing to suggest that the powerful are afflicting the powerless, who are also typically voiceless as well. Speaking up for the oppressed and speaking out against the political and corporate entities and systems involved in generating or perpetuating such oppression seems like a logical course of action for those who wish to make a difference and who are concerned about the proliferation of suffering that goes with such oppression. It is all too easy, to name one example, to see Dick Cheney, Haliburton, and the Republican Party collectively as "the Enemy". One could make a similar adversary out of Nancy Pelosi, the "anti-Christian/anti-American crowd" (the gay community, the secular community, entitled poor minorities/illegal aliens, etc), and the Democractic Party. For many of us the difference is that one of these characterization is correct and the other is not. Should Buddhists "pick a side" here? Should we take up the "good fight"?

In an article entitled "The New Holy War" published in Tikkun magazine, Professor David R. Loy reaffirms the challenge of non-discriminating compassion:

Compassion for those who are suffering is not quite the same as the pursuit of social justice, which takes up the cause of the oppressed against the oppressor...

...a Buddhist perspective does not necessarily imply that we should respond to oppressor and oppressed in the same way. It means that we do not identify with one while rejecting the other. Like it or not, we are nondual with both.

Are we presenting the case for our political choices and support as support for all people or only those with whom we agree? What is our compassionately informed response to those who we thing are harming the planet and causing immense suffering because of their greed, anger and fear? A compassionate response does not have to imply a whimper - compassion requires a great deal of strength - but deep down do we believe that such an approach will be seen as weak or be ignored by the powerful? And isn't it so much easier to empathize with the downtrodden? Is it a choice between the preferred and the practical, between idealism and realism? Or do we really believe (in) and practice what we preach?

edited to add:

This topic has been pretty popular lately, appearing in an article in Tricycle called "Above the Fray" (which was mentioned and discussed at WoodMoor Village) as well as in "Take This President...Somebody, Please!" by Paul Lewis and a reply to Lewis in Tikkun magazine.

Considering how to leave Iraq is your responsibilty too

If you are an American citizen of voting age, that is.

In the current issue of Mother Jones magazine the point is made that whether or not you were for the war from the beginning, or whether you changed your mind after the invasion, or whether you are still for it but realize that the U.S. can't (or shouldn't) sustain the occupation, the debate is still rooted in 2003. Most of the focus in public still an argument whether we should have gone, whose fault it is that things have gone a particular way, etc. To put it more bluntly:

For those of us who argued against invading, it is tempting to simply demand an end to "Bush's War" and wash our hands of it. But as General Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. forces in the Middle East, told us, "Your conscience is not clean just because you're a peace demonstrator." In other words, just because you weren't in favor of going in doesn't mean you're not responsible for what happens when we pull out...

There are no good options in Iraq, but the options narrow to the horrific the longer our leaders dawdle. Bush seems content—whether out of delusional optimism or cynical "strategery"—to run out the clock and stick the next administration with this mess; only 5 percent of Americans expect him to do otherwise. And the Democrats are playing the other side of the same game—content to let the GOP go down with its man.

So what is to be done?

To help focus the readers' collective attention, and as a means or surveying various anti-war groups with regard to this issue, Mother Jones came up with six questions for Americans who oppose the current occupation in Iraq to consider:

Q: After American troops withdraw, will the violence in Iraq escalate?

Q: Should the peace movement offer a contingency plan for peacekeeping?

Q: Under what conditions would you redeploy American troops to Iraq?

Q: What will prevent Iraq's civil war from flaring into genocidal violence?

Q: What will make the world stop genocide in Iraq when it didn't in Rwanda or Darfur?

Q: Is there any contradiction between supporting U.S. military intervention to stop the Rwandan genocide and opposing U.S. military intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing in Iraq?

These questions are not intended to persuade people to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, but to get people focused on the realities of withdrawing the troops. After all, if there is any way to lessen the suffering of the Iraqi people as we disengage militarily, do not the people who have been arguing about the damage and pain we have been inflicting on that populace have an obligation to fight just as passionately for the most humane process possible?

I find it interesting that in glancing at responses people have already given to this article, there is a common attitude in which "fault" and "responsibility" are seen as strictly synonymous. In my humble opinion they are not and I will explain why I do not believe they are and what relevance this belief has on how I see the agenda anti-war movement. Fault is the attribution of a particular form of responsibility, generally the point at which a pivotal failure or mistake can be identified which led to a particular undesirable outcome. Another way to think of it is "causal responsibility". A particular action or inaction directly contributed to a specific outcome, so we say the person or persons who carried out the action (including acts of omission) are at fault, and therefore in the causal sense they are considered to be responsible for what happened.

But there is more than just directly causal forms of responsibility. Hence in some cases when someone fails to meet an obligation, they may still be considered "responsible" for the failure even if the reason they failed cannot be attributed to a foreseeable and hence preventable set of circumstances leading to the failure. That is, you can be responsible for certain outcomes regardless of personal fault. This is particularly true when you are a part of a larger group. You may have opposed the decision of the group as a whole, but as a member of that group, you share at least some responsibility for its actions.

That is why voting and other forms of civic participation are so crucial, as we all bear some responsibility for what our leaders do in our names. And it is also why to use that tired old excuse "I didn't vote for the person" fails to miss the point. We are not a collection of individual autonomous polities interacting on the world stage, we are members of a particular society in a specific nation and as much as we may not always like to recognize it, we support and receive benefit from our connection as a nation and as a nation we exert influence on global policy regarding trade, the environment, war, etc, even when that influence is at odds with our personal beliefs and our work with charitable groups and NGOs.

So, then, rather absolving ourselves by saying it is "Bush's occupation", or the "neocons' occupation", or that because they didn't vote to cut off funding it is also now the "Congressional Demoracts' occupation", it is important we never forget that as Americans, even including Americans who have fought tooth and nail to oppose the invasion from the start, it still is and will continue to be "our occupation" too. It is eating though the mental and physical health and the lives of our service people, our taxes, our reputation in the world and on and on (and that's without reflecting on what is doing to the Iraqis).

Therefore I thank all of those who have, are, and will spend time considering how to end our occupation and how to do so in a way that gives the greatest odds for the best scenario for our military and for the people of Iraq, especially those who are taking action on these issues. Lest anyone think that I am writing this in a smug fashion, or that I have a better understanding of the situation, or that I have "done" more than you, please know that this is not the case. I am posing here an issue that I found compelling because I felt you might as well. To those who would ask me, "So what have you done about these issues?", I simply say, "Not enough."

The War Prayer by Mark Twain

Continuing a general theme this week inspired by the Memorial Day holiday, allow me to present another prayer for peace. This one comes in the form of a short story written by Samuel Clemens in 1904 and published after his death. It has been rediscovered of late, and over the memorial day weekend an animated version was released (just over 14 minutes running time in two parts).

Here is the original text version...

It was a time of great exulting and excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and sputtering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest depths of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast doubt upon its righteousness straight way got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came – next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams – visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! – then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation:

"God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!"

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory – An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside – which the startled minister did – and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

"I come from the Throne – bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import – that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of – except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two – one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this – keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer – the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it – that part which the pastor – and also you in your hearts – fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory – must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them – in spirit – we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."

[After a pause.]

"Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits."

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

For what do American soldiers die?

If the US were to announce start the long process of withdrawing troops from Iraq today, what would that mean for those who have already died over the last four years during the war with and occupation of that country?

It is interesting to me that one point of agreement among some of the most vocal supporters of continuing the occupation and the most vocal supporters of ending the occupation is the notion that unless the cause is just and the mission is complete, there is no value to the sacrifice made by our soldiers. In fact, last night on Alan Colmes Show (radio) one caller began screaming and had to be cut off for obscene language because he claimed that if we leave Iraq before victory is achieved the thousands of US servicemen and women who have already perished in the conflict will have laid down their lives in vain.

One could ask whether victory in the war hasn't already been achieved - and if so what exactly is the mission objective for the ongoing occupation? That objective, which has always been vague and elusive, is varied and changes often. The US has verified there are no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's government has been toppled and replaced by a democratically elected government, and Saddam himself has been caught and executed. On the other hand our presence and continued occupation has destabilized the country of Iraq, given fodder for the rhetoric and claims of radical groups like Al Qaeda that the West is engaged in a modern day Crusade (thereby improving their recruiting efforts), and increased the influence and leverage of Iran in the region. What benefit outweighs the cost in human life, both Coalition and Iraqi, of continuing the occupation?

The vacuous slogan "We gotta fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here", aside from being nonsensical, is also atrocious, because even if you think that the people fighting us are all terrorists and that terrorists can only focus on one front at a time, it suggest we should use our military as live targets - as human shields. And if one doesn't truly believe that all those fighting us in Iraq are terrorists, or if one really doesn't believe that terrorists can only focus on one front at a time, then what is really being shielded by refusing to seriously weigh the cost of the conflict versus a clearly defined objective are the political fortunes of those who advocated and continued to support the war and occupation, to keep from having to admit an error, to regret their choices.

What if there is no way to make significant and lasting improvements to the political situation, violence, and socio-economic stability in Iraq through a continued major US military presence? What if America and its allies have done what they can, and continued military investment in Iraq at this point in history is going to produce rapidly diminishing returns? For the sake of argument, what does that mean for those soldiers who have already died carrying out this foreign policy? For those who continue to die?

The value of an American soldier's sacrifice is not in the outcome of the battle in which he or she died, nor in the outcome of the campaign in which the battle was fought, the conflict in which the campaign was executed, or the correctness of the foreign policy which precipitated the campaign. A US soldier has devoted his or her life to defending the principles embodied in the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the Congress and Commander-in-Chief to make sure that such sacrifice is appropriate. There is a difference between saying that a soldier died needlessly and that a soldier dies for nothing. Many people believe that the members of our nation's armed services are dying needlessly, but no one should believe these deaths are pointless.

From the Save Darfur Coalition

An issue that transcends partisan politics in the US...

Murder. Rape. Starvation. Displacement. These are everyday occurrences in Darfur where already 400,000 men, women, and children have been killed and over 2.5 million people have been forced from their homes.

A UN peacekeeping force remains the only hope to bring peace to the region.

But the peacekeeping force - already authorized by the UN Security Council - might never make it to Darfur if the Sudanese government doesn't agree to let it in. That's why it's so important that our world leaders ramp up the pressure and demand that the peacekeepers are admitted.

Click here to send a message to President Bush and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Remind them that the international community is watching, and that we refuse to let the atrocities in Darfur continue.

Join us in demanding that President Bush and Secretary-General Annan:

• Push for immediate deployment of the already authorized UN peacekeeping force.
• Strengthen the understaffed African Union force already in Darfur until the UN force is deployed.
• Negotiate a fair and lasting Peace Agreement.
• Increase humanitarian aid and ensure access for its delivery.

Never before has the U.N. authorized a peacekeeping force that wasn't eventually deployed. Click here to tell our leaders not to let Darfur become the exception.

Saving Darfur may not be easy, but how will history judge us if we do not?

Thank you for reading this and increasing awareness of this issue. Thanks again for those who decide to act.

Thich Nhat Hanh's letter to President Bush

Published at The Buddhist Channel as being an authentic letter from Thich Nhat Hanh (I personally have no way of verifying this, but anyway)...

Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington DC, USA

Plum Village
Le Pey 24240
Thenac, France

Dear Mr President

Last night, I saw my brother (who died two weeks ago in the USA) coming back to me in a dream. He was with all his children. He told me, "Let's go home together." After a millisecond of hesitation, I told him joyfully, "Ok, let's go."

Waking up from that dream at 5 am this morning, I thought of the situation in the Middle East; and for the first time, I was able to cry. I cried for a long time, and I felt much better after about one hour. Then I went to the kitchen and made some tea. While making tea, I realized that what my brother had said is true: our home is large enough for all of us. Let us go home as brothers and sisters.

Mr. President, I think that if you could allow yourself to cry like I did this morning, you will also feel much better. It is our brothers that we kill over there. They are our brothers, God tells us so, and we also know it. They may not see us as brothers because of their anger, their misunderstanding, and their discrimination. But with some awakening, we can see things in a different way, and this will allow us to respond differently to the situation. I trust God in you; I trust Buddha nature in you.

Thank you for reading.

In gratitude and with brotherhood,
Thich Nhat Hanh
Plum Village

source

So... whatchya think? About the message? About the way it is presented?

Splinters and beam II

The race is not always to the swift, but to those who keep running.
--Anonymous

At this point in the history of the world, the mainstream Western news is concerned with claims by Syria that it has pulled all of its troops out of Lebanon, the aftermath of a deadly train accident in Japan, and insurgent attacks continue in Iraq against the new Iraqi government and the occupying (U.S.-)Coalition forces.

It is afer sunset and overcast with ocassional light rain at my current location at the current time. The radio next to me is set to an AM talk station. What is going on around you as you read this?

I have been told that my political leanings are somewhat centrist in some areas and somewhat to the left of center in other areas. I was once asked if I could or would then critique "my" side of the political fence. Although I consider "my side" to be the side of compassion, not a political affiliation, here in brief are some things that occurred to me with regard such questions. It's a nice follow-up to questions about bias in religious vs non-religious views. I suppose I am going looking for the beam in the "Liberal" 's eye.

One failing that has emerged in the application of liberal ideas in the United States can be highlighted by the ruckus over political correctness. The basic nature of the failing is the shift in some circles from the rightness of the intention and application of certain policies to idolatry of the objects affected by those policies. This comes in part from simply being told "This is right, this is wrong" without a strong effort to explain why this should be so. In other words, it was wrong to call a person a bad driver just because the person was woman. In the more extreme and absurd circles it has shifted to: it is wrong to call a woman a bad driver. Now, whether or not you subscribe to the policy of "If you can't say anything nice about someone don't say anything at all", the simple fact is that women, like men, can be bad drivers. It is one thing to presume a woman will be a bad driver (and after all prejudice literally means pre-judgement) as many sexists once did, but simply pointing out that a particular woman is a bad driver is not sexist.

Obviously this example is a more benign one (and conservatively-oriented people are prone to the same error), but we can easily substitute in more charged examples involving race, religion, and economic status. Whether one's views are considered liberal or conservative or anything else, it is imperative that the question "Why?" should remain in the general consciousness. This is not to say that the majority of liberals have fallen into a lapse of actively contemplating the meaning behind their views, but it is a dangerous trend which has been captured in the media spotlight whenever controversial court cases or legislation comes to the fore. When confronted with the question of expressing religion, for example, there is an unfortunately loud minority in the liberal camp which takes the anti-religious stance. A good example of this is the question of religion in public schools. Schools are not allowed to promote religion, which includes requiring school prayer. This is intended to protect our younger citizen's freedom of religious expression (i.e. to behave in way consistent with what they believe or do not believe). Yet some think this separation of church and state means that students should not be allowed to wear religious symbols or carry religious texts to school. But by trying to restrict such behavior they are hampering the very freedom of religious expression that the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendemnt was created to protect.

The alternative to combating these minor tendencies within the liberal community and the unfair image they project is to allow extreme partisans on the conservative end of the political spectrum to exaggerate them and paint all progressives as anti-freedom control freaks who want to force all citizens into compliance with a set of rigid rules which suppress individual liberty. By focusing on how progressive principles can work to make things better for all citizens, not just those who hold certain beliefs or occupy certain stations in society, one can keep the intention and proper application of those principles in the forefront and dispel harmful and misleading stereotypes which can prevent fruitful public dialogue.

Finally, it should never be forgotten that "liberal" is a descriptive label, not an identity. "Liberalism" or "Progessivism" are not the names of goals end and of themselves but merely convenient umbrella terms for a common set of values. The agenda of people who consider themselves progressive should be to make the world a better place, alleviate suffering, and promote prosperity and equality for all, as opposed to the more politically-defined objectives such as "defeating conservatives".

What problems can you see in your region of the political spectrum?

It's received but is it wisdom?

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.
--Marcel Proust

I just popped by some English-language websites for news channels. The information which people in the Western news outlets seem to be concerned with on this particular day in history includes preparations to pick a new Pope, Chinese anti-Japanese protests and counter Japanese protests, oil prices and the price of gasoline are continuing to rise in the US, and the US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said that if the United Nations does not reform it will die. Some news about talks for disarmament in war-torn places like the (nation of) Ivory Coast and Ecuador's president declares a state of emergency due to growing political unrest. The criminal trial of pop-star Michael Jackson also continues to be featured prominently.

As I am writing I have the window open on a sunny afternoon and some birds in a nearby branch are singing. One of my dog ocassionally barks in the backyard. What is going on right now where you are? I just put away some laundry. Filled the dishwasher. Picked up some trash from last night's dinner that the dogs tried to steal from the garbage can. Other necessary, regular housekeeping chores. What have you been doing with your time today?

So that's the here and now of what will, by the time you read this, be there and when. On to the topic at hand:

I was able to attend a departmental lecture by a distinguished scholar in my specialty yesterday and her ideas were very provocative. Without going into unnecessary detail for a non-technical summation, she was pointing out that a popular idea about how certain animals would have made a cross-ocean migration simply didn't fit with what we know about the prevailing winds, ocean currents, and other information relevant to modelling this popular explanation. And yet this model has become deeply entrenched as "the" best answer for explaining the geographic distribution of this particular group of animals, in no small part because of the historic stature of the paleontologist who suggested the model decades ago. It has been repeated so many times it has practically gone from "one possible model" to "fact".

I find this happens somewhat regularly in my field of study. The identification of species, generating theories of related among taxa, proposing models of biological change and development--while many general ideas and specific-cases are based on well-documented and consistent observations and experiments, here too people often seem to be in a rush to make a definitive conclusion, to find "the answer". The provisional status of knowledge in science requires more than lip service to be effective.

Of course, this process of going from "one possible model" to "fact" based on little or nothing more than the familiarity and longevity of an idea is not limited to academia. How many things do we all take for granted every day? What new ideas and new experience have you exposed yourself to lately?