Moral Rejctionism

It’s supposed to be the war in Iraq that has been at the root cause of the latest round of Islamic fundamentalism. We’re told it is American foreign policy that has been the growing medium for Al Qaeda and we are told that Israel is the cause of the failures of Arab Muslim societies and cultures. We are actually going through the charade of a debate on whether or not we should take on the mad mullahs of the Iranian regime, as they develop a nuclear program. We sidestep the issue out of fear of an undesirable Islamic response.

The incongruity is spectacular. If Saddam Hussein had an nuclear program identical to that of Iran, the entire Iraq war debate would be moot. Nevertheless, here we are, pretending to go through a ‘debate’ of sorts, over how to handle the Iran situation- as if an Iran with an unfettered nuclear program is a realistic option. Does anyone really believe that a nuclear armed Iran would shut down production of nuclear materials and give up WMD’s, even if Israel were obliterated? Does anyone believe that a regime that amputates limbs, stones women to death and executes children, will ever find itself in accordance with the literati in the salons in Paris or on English polo fields?

The Danish cartoon incident caused greater outrage on the Muslim ’street’ than did the invasion of Iraq. Those cartoons (distasteful as they were) proved one truth now beyond argument- that for many Muslim clerics and ‘leaders,’ Islam has now dispensed with debate and discussion in favor of violence as an immediate response. Violence is now an act of first resort.’ In carefully crafted manipulation and deceit, a 21^st century ‘iron curtain,’ with all the darkness that implies, is descending upon the Muslim world.

The vast majority of Muslims are not that much different than anyone else. They work, want the best for their families and would be more than happy to just blend in and participate in our society. Just as clearly, those who speak loudest for Islam and in the name of Islam, are violent. They are the face of Islam today. It is also true those voices are not challenged by individuals. It is also true that most, if not all Muslim mosques and organizations have been co opted by radicals or those who passively support a more radical agenda.

Like most Germans in prewar Germany, most Muslims aren’t looking for a confrontation or violence. Like the Germans in the prewar period, many have succumbed to the barrage of racial propaganda and hatred, but for the most part, they aren’t ready for outright violence, absurd ‘Muslim street’ outrage.

None of that matters of course, because those who spoke for Germany were not peaceful and no amount of appeasement would change that. Notwithstanding Hitler’s pronouncements of, ‘All we want is this or that, and no more,’ the wiser amongst the Europeans knew differently. It was only the dreamers and fools that were surprised by the evil that was to come. We wrote in Speaking In Tongues And Other Political Realities, that

An enemy is someone with whom we, as individuals and as a community, have fundamental differences. An enemy has values and beliefs, that are very different than out own. An enemy wants to deprive us of our beliefs and values, because that enemy finds our beliefs repulsive or threatening to their own. Enemies will fight to the death, should they choose to engage us or we choose to engage them.

There are people who believe that enemies are opponents- that is, they can reasoned with and rationalized with and common ground can be had. Believing that an enemy can be an opponent is what led much of Europe to appease Hitler, in the beginning. Herr Hitler, it was believed, was after all a European. Surely he could be reasoned with. Surely he would respond to the rational idea that war was catastrophic.

There is one reality that must be dealt with. In dealing with the Islamists, we are not dealing with opponents- they do not share our values and morality. For an Islamist, violence and the threat of violence, plays a leading role in reacting to a provocation and in attempting to extract a desired response. The mere threat of violence unleashed, it is understood, is a blatant attempt to cow civilized society into submission. It worked for Genghis Khan and it is working for the Islamists. One only has to look at the violent responses to the publication of cartoons, to understand the implications.

In western culture and civilization, violence is the option of last resort. The United Nations was predicated on that premise (contrast that with the Arab League’s Khartoum Declaration, announced that only violence was to be used in dealing with Israel. No negotiation, no recognition and secure borders. To this day, Arab violence is the Sword of Damocles hanging over the Jewish state. That hatred is taught in schools and preached from the pulpit). In the Arab and Islamic world, hate, rejectionism and violence are part of every school curriculum.

Iraq was invaded because Saddam ignored international law for over a decade. He invaded two neighboring countries and butchered well over a million people (the final number has yet to be tallied). Had western sensibilities and repulsion to violence not been so great, it is safe to say that many of those million plus victims of Saddam would be alive today. The same applied to Darfur. If westerners were of one voice and  really believed that the lives of the Rwandans and Darfurese were more important than ‘diplomacy,’ many of the two million butchered in Sudanese and the million plus Rwandans slaughtered, would be alive today. It is clear that for many, who is doing the slaughtering often determines involvement of indifference. For the darlings of the left, there are no crimes against humanity. Ever.

Dr Sanity, in “Perfect” Totalitarianism, Imperfect Freedom And Biological Fantasies:

 …biological fantasies of the leftist utopians; and the delusional fantasies of communists and socialists and all their 21st century heirs, have lead to incalculable levels of human suffering all over the world, as the proponents of these theories have tried to force humans to evolve into some sort of “ideal” state. All such systems have failed the real-world tests in the last century; and all current versions of these ideologies will also eventually fail and fade away. To the extent that they attempt to incorporate some aspects of “human nature” into their failing system, they may last a bit longer as they slowly chip away at the human spirit and work to extinguish it; but it is actually much more likely that human nature will transform the perverse ideology than that the reverse will happen.

What we see in the Middle East today is the re-assertion of human nature after years of being crushed under the oppression of yet another social system that has attempted to rebuild humans along the lines of a religious “ideal”, spiked with totalitarian fantasizing. For all the opposition to giving democracy and freedom a chance in Iraq in Afghanistan, the seeds have been planted and there is little doubt that those seeds will grow as healthy human nature reasserts itself after decades of oppression.

Ask yourself how many deaths will it take before despots like Kim Jung Il with his theory of pine needle tea will be wholly and unequivocally discredited in the minds of those pathetic socialist teachers/oppressors at Hilltop Children’s Center in Seattle? Oh, they would be so shocked!shocked! at the idea that their little exercise in “social justice” lays the moral foundation for a social system quite indistinguishable from Kim’s paradise, where all structures belong to everyone and no one; where the individual means nothing and his desires and needs are subservient to the state; and where nothing is special and everything is “standard” (except of course for Dear Leader who looms rather large).

How much human misery and oppressive injustice will it take before the social engineers of today’s neo-fascist left abandon their attempts to force human beings to adapt to their fantasies? When will their “moral awakening” occur?…

“Utopias cannot be created without imposing tyranny.

More often than not, who is doing the slaughtering determines involvement or indifference. 

Muslims have every right to be offended at cartoons they find repulsive and outrageous. Nevertheless, they do not have the right to claim violence as a legitimate response to that offense. They claim to stand for higher ideals, even as Islamic newspapers and media portray other faith in the most obscene and obnoxious ways.

Today, when Christians or Jews respond to provocations with violence, we all understand that to be an aberration. When we see radical Muslims reacting violently in the streets, we see that as expected behavior.

When Hamas refuses to renounce violence toward Israelis or racist and bigoted ideologies directed at Jews and Christians, we aren’t surprised. When we hear that Islamic ‘leaders’ threaten cartoonists or writers they don’t like with beheading, no one is really surprised. The fatwas calling for the death of those cartoonists Muslims found offensive, were threats we took seriously, as well we should. Call for violence are acted upon. The Japanese translator of Salman Rushdie’s book was murdered.

In the Judeo-Christian ethic, violence is tolerated (and even mandated) for self defense only. That’s it. There is no other reason to kill or threaten another human being.

If violence were an acceptable response to blasphemy or religious insults, the US would have bombed the anti religious Soviet Union to smithereens. If violence were an acceptable response to blasphemy or religious insults, bigotry and hatred, then Israel would have been well within her rights to blow the Arab world into oblivion.

That in turn highlights another reason why present day Iran, under the tyranny of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s heirs, must be precluded from developing and having nuclear weapons. As long as violence and the threat of violence remains an acceptable part of Islamic expression, that cannot be allowed to happen.

To be clear- violence is not a part of the average Muslim believer’s experience. The reality is that the religion has morphed into something very dangerous- and another reality is that the vast majority of believers have remained silent, and that silence is the true desecration of Islam- not the publication of a few cartoons or opinions that are not shared.

When the Israelis build a fence to protect themselves from suicide bombers and those who choose to celebrate such events, it can be referred to as an ‘Apartheid’ barrier, because it is a barrier built to keep the institutionalized hate and violence that define apartheid, out of their society.

Like the Israelis, all of western culture rejects the apartheid of radical Islamists that calls for death, destruction and hate. Israeli and western rejectionism  is a reaction to events foisted upon them. It has never been about a particular ideology, bigotry or hate.

Radical Islam, left unchallenged, is the perfect petri dish from which a plague no less dangerous than the Black Death or smallpox will emerge. The world is a living organism, and at some point, when under attack, organisms fight back.

Unimpeded violence will never be assimilated into the organism that is human society and culture of today. That kind of society died out a long time ago and will not return. Humankind has come to far to accept barbaric and Neanderthal, jungle like behavior as part of our reality. Progress, not regress, is the yardstick. Societies, cultures and religions are judged on what they build and create, not by what they destroy.

Rejectionism is an ethical response, when what is rejected is antithetical to the morality and values that celebrate and ensures the dignity of freedom democratic expression for all.

Influence, Knowledge And Truth

 

Imagine you were put in a position to exert permanent influence on mankind. What your message be?What does ‘influence’ really mean, anyway? Is ‘influence’ determined by the quality of content, or is ‘influence’ measured by how many people hear and absorb the message?

Do ideas become great only after they are accepted by masses of people?

Sometimes, masses of people are what it takes to make a difference. Other times, only a handful of decent people can make a difference.

The Biblical tale of Abraham his negotiations with God to save Sodom and Gomorrah is instructive. God agrees to save the cities from destruction if only 10 good men are found.

Of course, real influence isn’t determined by the numbers. Real influence is determined by the quality of the message.

There is no shortage in history of examples of deliberate attempts to impose influence and ideas. Those examples include Nazi, socialist, communist and even radical Islamic ideologies. In the end however, great and influential ideas, like great and influential art, survive the test of time. Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind remain great cinematic art- Terms of Endearment and The Sting, Academy award winners each, will not fare as well.

An influential message may take years, even centuries, to realize full potential. Real influence endures. Shallow influence is fleeting. Religions endure because the messages and lessons they endorse are meaningful and are meant to uplift spirits. Religions that demean and marginalize people or are predicated on hate, in the end, prove to be hollow and repressive..

In fact, the most influence any individual can have is the influence he or she exerts on him or herself. Will we challenge ourselves to reach our potential or, will we submit to our baser selves? We all ask ourselves the same question: Do we matter? Do we really matter? We noted, In A World Without You In It, that

On the face of it, we are part of a dispensable and disposable world. Whole populations are killed and are seemingly forgotten. As events around us fly by at the speed of light, there is no real sense that our lives- or anyone else’s for that matter, are of significant or meaningful merit in the great scheme of things.

In fact, we suffer a kind of debilitating malaise- “Nothing I do or say really matters.” There is the belief that whether or not we contribute anything to the the world and those around us, the world would be no different. It is the ‘my vote doesn’t really count’ school of thought. No matter our efforts, nothing will ever really change.

If you truly believe that your efforts and contributions are meaningless, can you really know and have passion? What can you truly look forward to, what will truly excite you? To what can you truly be committed? Will you ever know that ‘fire in the belly’?

In fact, we each have the capacity to influence mankind, with our actions, dreams and beliefs. How we behave, the goals we set for ourselves and the nature of our beliefs is ours alone. We are each uniquely qualified to make a difference.

There are those who will argue that they are ‘wounded’ or carry ‘too much baggage.’ They ‘depersonalize’ their own value or worth. Those individuals question their own worth and indispensability- and then demand attention and sympathy. “Value me because I am worthless,” is their plea (They do not see the incongruity of their own self perceptions).

The best therapists reinforce the inherent value of their patients- because it is from within that inherent value that the therapists patients find the strength to overcome the obstacles that weigh them down and preclude them from achieving the greatness- big or small- that they are capable.

Influence is not determined by sheer strength or by Darwinian survival skills. Influence is determined by how well we realize what our capabilities and capacities are- and how best to reach those capacities. Recognizing and understanding those capacities is the most personal and intimate expression of self knowledge.

Mass communications, mass production, mass depersonalization and the massive amounts of statistics threaten to become the source of our identities and worth. We are increasingly defined, measured and valued by our banks accounts, credit card limits, looks, clothes, homes, and the like, threaten to turn us into commodities rather than individuals, our worth determined by our association with certain agendas. Clarence Thomas isn’t a story of success- depersonalized, he has become an ‘Uncle Tom’ or a ‘House Nigger.’ Condi Rice is referred to in even more vile terms. That’s what happens when people become commodities- no more than statistical and demographic ‘blips.’

Is it any wonder then, that people feel insignificant? Here’s something to ponder. Can people, ‘commoditized,’ experience real love? Can parents really parent if their own sense of worth is defined by a cold and impersonal materialism? Will relationships become no more than expressions of selfishness? These are real possibilities. Both Dr Sanity (here) and Shrinkwrapped (here) have written extensively on ever growing narcissism and the effects that narcissism has on our culture, society and families.

What can be extrapolated from their discussions is clear. The tsunami of narcissism is an almost reflexive expression of a clear dysfunction. When ‘You don’t matter; your feelings don’t matter; your function and purpose here is to serve my needs,‘ are considered a form of healthy and acceptable ‘expression,’ is it really a surprise that deep and real interpersonal relationships and happiness, elude so many?

In a world where technology and deliberate depersonalization threatens to tame us, instead of the other way around, the need to recognize our own capacity and potential for good is more important than ever. We must recognize, reflect and react to the deliberate attempt to dehumanize and belittle our significance- the three ‘R’s’ of our own redemption.

There are those people who believe that that influence is brought about by creation- that is, to have enduring influence comes about as the result of creating a physical manifestation or expression of their ideas or beliefs, be that in art or politics are any other field of endeavor.

These people wrongly believe that to create is to have influence, whereas in reality, it is influence that creates.

Making an object or having an idea that is separate and distinct from myself, separates me from that object or idea. I am not a part of that object. If on the other hand, by way of ideas and insight, I influence the world around me, then I have truly created something meaningful.

For example, if you influence your child in way that results in that child growing up to be a productive, decent and caring citizen, you have wielded real influence. In A Tale Of Two Peoples, we noted Nobel Prize winner Robert Aumann cried as recalled his wife who had passed away from cancer, seven years earlier, in his award acceptance speech:

“….You Scientists can write endless article, but most of them will be forgotten over the years. I influence the education of my children, and I too will be forgotten in another 150 years- but my influence will exist and dozens and hundreds of children will walk around who were influenced by me.” This is actually what we scientists want- to influence and change. The prize for me is not the main issue. Of course I am not sorry to win, it represents the fact that I have reached a certain point, but the prize is not the point…

Objects and ideas only assume real value when their qualities exert a positive influence. Food is important because food is life sustaining and thus allows us to exert positive and productive influences. Ideas and education assume real value when their qualities exert a positive influence and we use those ideas and education to empower ourselves and others. Books assume real value when their qualities exert the kind of influence that makes us think. Just because the Bible and pornography are both printed and bound, does not make them equal in value, any more than achieving nationhood status makes the Israelis and Palestinians equal in status. Assuming the garb or uniform does not bestow equality.

There is big difference between truth and knowledge, and that difference also measures what it means to have influence and our search for meaning.

Seeking knowledge is a human endeavor and as such, is both never ending and limited at the same time. Seeking truth is very different- we can find truth and be satisfied and sated, even if we do not completely understand or comprehend that truth. We can work to increase our understanding of truth, but the essential truth never changes.

Our search for meaning and truth cannot be found through our quest for knowledge.

Salvation is not achieved through the search for knowledge. Salvation and meaning come about as the result of the search for truth. It is in the search for truth that truth is found.

The distinctions between truth and knowledge has become blurred because we have blurred the line between ‘identity’ and ‘idea.’ We have come to believe (mistakenly) that ideas are in perfect union with reality. “I have an idea or belief and therefore, you must agree and afford that idea or belief respect and credibility, no matter how irrelevant, offensive, silly, etc., it may be.”

 

The search for knowledge without the search for truth is a pathology, an intellectual obsession. It is a fixation on the exterior of things that precludes real intimacy. Anyone can learn the mechanics of anything, without getting close. The mind consumes rather than luxuriates. The mind devours, rather than contemplates. The mind inhales, rather than loves.

The accumulation of knowledge becomes a mechanical process of method, protocol and system. The search for truth is has always been defined as dialogue, contact, acceptance a and communion.

In the the search for truth, rational thinking and questioning are forms of redemptive knowledge. The difference is that in the search for truth, rational thinking and questioning become a foundation stone of positive influence. The search for truth acknowledges our humility and not our hubris.

While not everyone believes in God, much can be learned for the search for truth in the way some seek faith:

In our humanness, we are clothed with finite attire- we cannot divine the mind of God. When we demand absolutely certain truth, we are attempting to play God. We may believe that there are absolute truths, but in fact, we are bound by our understanding at the moment. Scientific truths alter as our understanding alters.

If we presume we can understand the ‘absolute truth’ about God, we are destined to fail in our desire to know God and to accept God as God. The ‘absolute truth’ about God changes as we come to understand ourselves, our world and even others.

That ‘absolute truth’ can never be corralled or understood because only God is ‘absolute.’ As humans, we are the opposite of absolute. We can be ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ we can be ‘more’ or ‘less.’ For us to exist as God’s creations, we must know joy and we must know suffering. We need to succeed and we also need to fail. We are meant to be less than perfect, because it is through our imperfections that we find ourselves and our potential.

God treasures our spiritual achievements. He treasures our failures along the way even more, because in facing and overcoming our failures, we have shown that we are indeed worthy of the humanity He bestowed upon us. We are not meant to become perfect in our struggle and search for meaning and faith- we are meant to overcome the limitations, imperfections and obstacles along the way.

Relating to God is about relating to that most human side of ourselves.