Wanted: New Leadership, New Vision, New Courage

Posted on February 20, 2006 by Nancy Pace

I believe that our future safety and political freedoms will largely depend upon Americans recognizing, hopefully sooner rather than later, that our traditional approaches to national defense usually don't work very well. They alone cannot keep us safe from terrorism or global thermonuclear war. Furthermore, I am convinced that adversarial strategies may actually provoke attacks on our country and our planet. Sadly, the actual effect of pursuing these aggressive counter-terrorism strategies is to increase the likelihood that our worst nightmares will become realities.

The next big terrorist attack on the United States will determine the direction of our political future. As 9/11 demonstrated, Americans will support leaders who offer them reassuring security plans without demanding to know if they really are effective, reliable, cost-effective, or violate our democratic traditions.

To my mind, rubber-stamping endless homeland defense expenditures primarily insures only an illusion of security, since our “homeland” is very difficult to defend from all possible attacks. Likewise, sending our young adults off to fight un-winnable pre-emptive wars is morally unconscionable and fiscally reckless. Creating unwieldy spy bureaucracies oftentimes undermines the very freedoms such actions are meant to save. Focusing media attention on the weaknesses of our perceived enemies, and rattling our sabers self-righteously in their direction, only heightens dangerous tensions. None of these strategies will keep us safe in the long run, and none can truly solve the problems of the 21st century.

What we need to acknowledge is that there is no sure-fire way to provide safety for any single nation, or group of nations, no way to guarantee peace for only U.S. citizens and their allies. There are no constructive pathways to safety if protection is withheld from some–or any–group or nation on this unpredictable globe.

So what's the answer? Only a universally inclusive path of international cooperation and non-violence can offer any long-term safety to one and all. Before the next terrorist attack, we must embrace the ancient wisdom inherent in all religions–that violence engenders only more violence, that war creates new problems without solving old ones, and that hatred begets more hate.

People everywhere want to live their lives in liberty, and to pursue their individual and collective dreams uninterrupted by violence. The only path to the very peace we all want is a path we must all walk together; the path to peace is the path of peace. There is no way to peace; peace is the way. If we want peace and safety, we must teach it, live it, and offer it to all, just as if we lived in a world where everyone is thought of as “next-door-neighbors.”

The night before his death, Martin Luther King Jr., said, “The choice is no longer between violence and non-violence. It's non-violence–or nonexistence.” The world can learn peaceful ways without facing the devastation of terrorist attacks or nuclear annihilation. We can open our minds and hearts now to the practical promise of non-violence, before greater tragedies befall our world. Non-violence has come of age; it is an idea whose time has finally come.

Which path to safety will we choose during our next elections? Will we choose a police state or a peace state? Will we choose a violent, power-based path, or the path of non-violence–Jesus' path, Gandhi's path, Martin Luther King Jr.'s path–the gentle path of all those around the world who are now peacefully resisting tyrants? Either way we will be vulnerable, and will suffer some injustice; however, we need never add to the sum of injustice.

In the past, we elected many representatives based on the old politics of fear and aggression. During our next election, we hopefully can turn away from demagogues who pander to our worst fears, turning instead to leaders who show us peaceful pathways to greater global safety.

Nothing matters more than that our new leaders embrace the universal, timeless, and essential spiritual values of faith, hope, and love….

Here are a few practical suggestions for applying the principles of non-violence in our response to terrorism. We can build new peace initiatives within our Defense Department. We can develop a volunteer force of unarmed citizens to monitor violent conflicts at home and abroad. We can establish a U.S. Peace Academy, equivalent in honor, distinction, and service to our proud military academies. We can found a cabinet-level Department of Peace, to influence policy, conflict resolution, and decision-making at the highest international levels, as well as in our home towns. We can apply cutting-edge peace research to the transformation of our combative diplomatic, justice, welfare, and education systems.

Why do these things? Because I believe that:

Only faithful leaders trust in God's redemptive love for every one of earth's children, and in international dialogue and peaceful cooperative efforts, disavowing the politics of exclusion, polarization, and dehumanization;

Only hopeful leaders join with like-minded light-bearers of other nations, stand with them, work with them, and lift all nations and peoples up, leaving no one behind, and;

Only loving leaders forgive, and let go of the past–and past blame–accepting, supporting, and respecting human life everywhere, instead.

Please send your comments to epharmon@adelphia.net

(Two) Scenes We'd Like To See

Posted on February 2, 2006 by Nancy Pace

(Two) Scenes We'd Like To See….

Both George Bush and Osama Bin Laden are vilified in various cultures as inhuman heartless killers, while other cultures hero-worship them as charismatic and patriotic leaders whose just causes “force” them to manfully take up arms—whether by terrorism or military force—to achieve their political aims.

Popular media in all nations dehumanize public enemies, and often turn around and just as thoroughly and miraculously restore them to dignity and respectability during political détentes. I recall my astonishment, moral conflict, and deep embarrassment, when the evil Russians I’d been so carefully taught to indignantly and self-righteously hate and fear, magically became our homeboys overnight. The same thing happened, of course, with the “Krauts” and the “Japs,” who, just as we were assured by our government after a terrible war, turned out to be, really, just like us. I’d like to think the same thing will happen, sooner rather than later, between Islam and the West.

I wish these two particular men (Bush and Bin Laden) could learn to resolve their differences without violence. They remind me of unsocialized playground children, throwing sand in each others’ faces, playing with their war toys, acting like swaggering thugs and cowards in turn, always foolish and hurtful to all around them. I wish they <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml” />would grow up and solve their problems like civilized adults.

So many innocents have endured so much tragic death and destruction, on both sides, for so many years. For what…?!

Of course, both men have legitimate grievances which want airing and remedying…but nobody ever listens to anyone. Probably both sides were too proud or stupid or politically corrupt to listen before, and now everyone’s too mad to even think about the needs and sorrows of the other side. As the Buddha has said, “Hatred never ends through hatred. Hatred ends only through love.”

I do think President Bush is a patriot who means well. I also think he’s misled, misinformed, and dishonest with the American public. I think Bin Laden is also probably well-intentioned, although equally tragically violently-disposed. Both are a little crazy or they wouldn’t be acting like that.

Bin Laden repeatedly and clearly has stated his political aims at every opportunity–he wants the empire-inclined U.S. out of Islam, not to return until invited, and then, only as well-behaved, courteous guests. Bin Laden certainly achieved an impressive political bang from his small PR buck (a handful of airborne terrorists, compared with our $500 billion spent in military retaliation) considering that his goal was to force the U.S. public to become informed about and reconsider its Middle East policies. But neither “price” begins to describe the total costs to both sides. There has to be a better way to resolve conflict….

I’m not exactly sure what President Bush has accomplished, his recent clumsy conversion to nation-building notwithstanding. Indeed he loves democracy and freedom, but he struggles with complexity (please read my other blogs on this and other related subjects at www.epharmony.com ….) Both men should have tried to understand one another’s culture before they started knocking heads and throwing weight around. For the future, we need to legislate some mechanisms that insure that seasoned statesmen and other experts inform and influence the foreign policy decisions of presidents and other popular politicians.

Can you imagine what all that wasted money might have bought, on both sides, if it had instead been earmarked for cherished goals dear to the hearts of citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan and the United States?

I hate politics.

Historians get to write the history books, so tend to salute bloody victors as heroes, while labeling bloody losers “crazed maniacs.” But shouldn’t we all be past all of that now? For goodness sake, it’s the 21^st century and we should all know better by now. There are so much better ways to achieve political goals and solve differences than through violence. It’s time to put away childish things.

Mad Magazine's section called “Scenes We’d Like To See” inspired the frame of this satire. Although it is unlikely that these two particular men will overcome their personal and political differences and lead their followers to peace, it would sure be nice if they did. Someday, somebody will, you know. The only question is, how long will it take? And how many more ruined lives will it cost, on both sides, before that day comes?

Somehow we must get testosterone out of politics.

Only peaceful dialogue and patient listening can bring East and West together in mutual understanding, appreciation, and support.

Kipling’s “The Ballad of East and West” was a childhood favorite of mine. I first envisioned a satirical retelling of this poem set in the wild mountains bordering Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India, substituting Bush for the Colonel’s son and Bin Laden for Kamal, the Border Thief, letting these two silly, self-important, reckless, macho guys go at it, chasing each other “up and over the tongue of Jagai as blown dustdevils go…” until Bush’s horse falls “at a watercourse, in a woful heap fell he, and (Bin Laden) has turned the red mare back and pulled the rider free.”

He has knocked the pistol out of his hand–small room was there to strive

“‘Twas only be favor of mine,” quoth he, “ye rode so long alive:

There was not a rock for twenty mile, there was not a clump of tree

But covered a man of my own men, with his rifle cocked on his knee….”

(But… no. I’ll let you read the original yourself, reprinted below.)

I decided, instead, to play with the idea of these two men generously agreeing to a campout retreat at Bush’s beloved ranch. One can always dream. I’ve always been deeply moved by the final courage evidenced by the Colonel’s son and Kamal, the Border Thief, in pledging to respect one another’s strengths and common humanity.

I didn’t mean to pick on the New York Times or AlJazeera, both wonderful, principled newspapers; their names were just convenient symbols for media-in-general, and I apologize if this satire unintentionally insulted them.

I also abused the current popularity of Brokeback Mountain to make my political points. However, while I’m sure that a week of roughing it alone/together in the mountains would create dialogue, understanding, and maybe even camaraderie between these two men, I’m confident that they’re both firmly and happily set, by now, in their hetero ways. Although, to be sure, nothing surprises me anymore. Maybe someday we really will see these two happily mountain biking together in Afghanistan. As I said, nothing ever surprises me anymore.

You may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one….

Only deeply spiritual leadership can unify the planet’s five polarized cultures—Africans, South Americans, China, the Muslim world, and the West. Only idealistic leadership can inspire each of these cultures to achieve its own unique ideals, hopes, and dreams, while respecting and supporting the quality of human life everywhere. Only non-violent leadership can address the century’s most urgent problems—the ravages of disease, injustice, hopelessness, greed, hunger, environmental degradation, natural disasters, ignorance, addiction, prejudice, nuclear proliferation, crime, poverty, war, terrorism, and yes, violence, itself.

Reprinted below, as I promised, is the lovely original Rudyard Kipling adventure ballad….

The Ballad of East and West

By Rudyard Kipling

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face,

tho' they come from the ends of the earth!

Kamal is out with twenty men to raise the Border-side,

And he has lifted the Colonel's mare that is the Colonel's pride:

He has lifted her out of the stable-door between the dawn and the day,

And turned the calkins upon her feet, and ridden her far away.

Then up and spoke the Colonel's son that led a troop of the Guides:

“Is there never a man of all my men can say where Kamal hides?”

Then up and spoke Mahommed Khan, the son of the Ressaldar:

“If ye know the track of the morning-mist, ye know where his pickets are.

At dusk he harries the Abazai—at dawn he is into Bonair,

But he must go by Fort Bukloh to his own place to fare,

So if ye gallop to Fort Bukloh as fast as a bird can fly,

By the favour of God ye may cut him off ere he win to the Tongue of Jagai.

But if he be past the Tongue of Jagai, right swiftly turn ye then,

For the length and the breadth of that grisly plain is sown with Kamal's men.

There is rock to the left, and rock to the right, and low lean thorn between,

And ye may hear a breech-bolt snick where never a man is seen.”

The Colonel's son has taken a horse, and a raw rough dun was he,

With the mouth of a bell and the heart of Hell

and the head of the gallows-tree.

The Colonel's son to the Fort has won, they bid him stay to eat—

Who rides at the tail of a Border thief, he sits not long at his meat.

He 's up and away from Fort Bukloh as fast as he can fly,

Till he was aware of his father's mare in the gut of the Tongue of Jagai,

Till he was aware of his father's mare with Kamal upon her back,

And when he could spy the white of her eye, he made the pistol crack.

He has fired once, he has fired twice, but the whistling ball went wide.

“Ye shoot like a soldier,” Kamal said. “Show now if ye can ride.”

It 's up and over the Tongue of Jagai, as blown dustdevils go,

The dun he fled like a stag of ten, but the mare like a barren doe.

The dun he leaned against the bit and slugged his head above,

But the red mare played with the snaffle-bars, as a maiden plays with a glove.

There was rock to the left and rock to the right, and low lean thorn between,

And thrice he heard a breech-bolt snick tho' never a man was seen.

They have ridden the low moon out of the sky, their hoofs drum up the dawn,

The dun he went like a wounded bull, but the mare like a new-roused fawn.

The dun he fell at a water-course—in a woful heap fell he,

And Kamal has turned the red mare back, and pulled the rider free.

He has knocked the pistol out of his hand—small room was there to strive,

“'Twas only by favour of mine,” quoth he, “ye rode so long alive:

There was not a rock for twenty mile, there was not a clump of tree,

But covered a man of my own men with his rifle cocked on his knee.

If I had raised my bridle-hand, as I have held it low,

The little jackals that flee so fast were feasting all in a row:

If I had bowed my head on my breast, as I have held it high,

The kite that whistles above us now were gorged till she could not fly.”

Lightly answered the Colonel's son: “Do good to bird and beast,

But count who come for the broken meats before thou makest a feast.

If there should follow a thousand swords to carry my bones away,

Belike the price of a jackal's meal were more than a thief could pay.

They will feed their horse on the standing crop,

their men on the garnered grain,

The thatch of the byres will serve their fires when all the cattle are slain.

But if thou thinkest the price be fair,—thy brethren wait to sup,

The hound is kin to the jackal-spawn,—howl, dog, and call them up!

And if thou thinkest the price be high, in steer and gear and stack,

Give me my father's mare again, and I 'll fight my own way back!”

Kamal has gripped him by the hand and set him upon his feet.

“No talk shall be of dogs,” said he, “when wolf and gray wolf meet.

May I eat dirt if thou hast hurt of me in deed or breath;

What dam of lances brought thee forth to jest at the dawn with Death?”

Lightly answered the Colonel's son: “I hold by the blood of my clan:

Take up the mare for my father's gift—by God, she has carried a man!”

The red mare ran to the Colonel's son, and nuzzled against his breast;

“We be two strong men,” said Kamal then, “but she loveth the younger best.

So she shall go with a lifter's dower, my turquoise-studded rein,

My broidered saddle and saddle-cloth, and silver stirrups twain.”

The Colonel's son a pistol drew and held it muzzle-end,

“Ye have taken the one from a foe,” said he;

“will ye take the mate from a friend?”

“A gift for a gift,” said Kamal straight; “a limb for the risk of a limb.

Thy father has sent his son to me, I 'll send my son to him!”

With that he whistled his only son, that dropped from a mountain-crest—

He trod the ling like a buck in spring, and he looked like a lance in rest.

“Now here is thy master,” Kamal said, “who leads a troop of the Guides,

And thou must ride at his left side as shield on shoulder rides.

Till Death or I cut loose the tie, at camp and board and bed,

Thy life is his—thy fate it is to guard him with thy head.

So, thou must eat the White Queen's meat, and all her foes are thine,

And thou must harry thy father's hold for the peace of the Border-line,

And thou must make a trooper tough and hack thy way to power—

Belike they will raise thee to Ressaldar when I am hanged in Peshawur.”

They have looked each other between the eyes, and there they found no fault,

They have taken the Oath of the Brother-in-Blood on leavened bread and salt:

They have taken the Oath of the Brother-in-Blood on fire and fresh-cut sod,

On the hilt and the haft of the Khyber knife, and the Wondrous Names of God.

The Colonel's son he rides the mare and Kamal's boy the dun,

And two have come back to Fort Bukloh where there went forth but one.

And when they drew to the Quarter-Guard, full twenty swords flew clear—

There was not a man but carried his feud with the blood of the mountaineer.

“Ha' done! ha' done!” said the Colonel's son.

“Put up the steel at your sides!

Last night ye had struck at a Border thief—

to-night 'tis a man of the Guides!”

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face,

tho' they come from the ends of the earth!

Please send comments to epharmon@adelphia.net

Peacemakers Who (Really) Keep the Peace

Posted on January 31, 2006 by Nancy Pace

Dictionaries offer two definitions of “peacemaker”: someone who settles disputes and problems by negotiating and mediating, and a second kind of “Peacemaker”—a Colt single-action revolver popular during the late nineteenth century.

American voters keep bringin’ on the gunslinging version of peacemaker—belligerent, reactionary leaders who turn taxpayers’ pockets inside-out to fund their immense arsenals, endless wars, unwieldy spy bureaucracies, and sprawling armed forces, who make no one’s day–and untold enemies–with their cocky boy-cowboy approaches to diplomacy.

I want new leadership that will keep the peace, not disturb it.

Only visionary leaders can provide the understanding, acceptance, and appreciation necessary to unify the planet’s polarized cultures—Africans, South Americans, China, the Muslim world, and the West. Only idealistic leadership can inspire each of these cultures to achieve its own unique ideals, hopes, and dreams, while respecting and supporting the quality of human life everywhere. Only non-violent leadership can address the century’s most urgent problems—the ravages of disease, injustice, hopelessness, greed, hunger, environmental degradation, natural disasters, ignorance, addiction, prejudice, imprisonment, nuclear proliferation, crime, poverty, conflict, corruption, migration, war, terrorism, and violence.

Albert Einstein said, “”You can't solve a problem with the same mind-set that got you into the problem in the first place.” Yet we keep trying to address 21st century problems with the same kind of 19th century peacekeeping that got us into trouble in the first place.

When our founders wrote the Constitution, they charged future leaders with serious peacemaking roles. And just exactly what does it mean to us, today, to “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, establish justice, and insure domestic tranquility?”

American peacekeeping today is all about invading and conquering distant lands unlucky enough to have rich resources and strategic value; imposing international political and economic conditions advantageous to Americans; treating idealistic global cooperatives, movements, and legal bodies as convenient extensions of American hegemony; promoting justice primarily for white, wealthy, incorporated, and preferably male Americans; and insisting on America’s right to do whatever we want, to whomever, whenever, wherever.

We don’t need any more moral bankrobbers who stare down imagined enemies at the point of a gun. We need spiritual political leadership in the mould of Gandhi, Mandela, and King, peacemakers with faith in the power of love, and the moral courage necessary to bring the world together, who will establish a cabinet-level Department of Peace, work to keep our nation in harmony with all God’s children in every nation, and help secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves, our posterity, and all mankind.

Yippee-ki-yay, brother.

Please send your comments to epharmon@adelphia.net

How We Can Help Each Other Let Go of Guilt, Anger, and Attack

Posted on January 24, 2006 by Nancy Pace

I used to think of anger as something “caused” by someone or something outside of me—most often, another person’s bad behavior. I experienced anger as an uncontrollable emotion that just sort of washed over me unexpectedly (anger as a tsunami wave, destroying everything in its path….)

I was sure my anger and retaliatory attacks were completely rational and justified. Always, someone had earned my outrage by doing something that hurt me, whether consciously or cluelessly. And not only did my tormenter deserve to be jumped for his egregious error, but I also was sure that his abuse would escalate if I didn’t instantly and harshly avenge the injustice.

Now I see anger as deriving mostly from my own useless guilt feelings, since anger comes up for me mostly when someone or something touches a subject I already feel at least a little guilty about.

If I start to feel angry now, I can almost always put my finger on something I’m feeling guilty about; it’s always a deeply repressed guilt so heavy that I’m almost desperate to push it off onto someone else, to release my feelings of panic over my weakness. My consequent flashes of anger result from wanting to push my guilt off onto someone else, to somehow lighten my load.

But guilt isn’t a hot potato that can be passed on to someone else. It’s not a balloon about to burst, not a burning coal, not boiling water about to blow under pressure. All attempts to pass guilt off through angry attacks just increase the guilt, usually in both parties. These metaphors only serve to reveal how urgently we all want to find some way to release our loads of guilt, and why we so quickly turn to anger and attack.

Pop religion and pop psychology sometimes hint that harboring guilt feelings is useful, that somehow, holding on to guilt will makes people strive to be better. On the contrary, I’ve finally realized that guilt and anger—yours, mine, and everyone else’s—are always crazy, insane, mad, deranged, completely useless, and completely harmful. They never accomplish anything positive, ever. Guilt feelings only hold us back, paralyze us, depress us, and urge us to angrily attack others, and thus keep us from moving forward and doing our best, while anger always just makes everyone feel guiltier and angrier.

I used to believe that “repenting” for my mistakes at some painful length–suffering a long term of anguish and guilt after I “sinned” (or made mistakes, or failed to live up to my ideals or standards)—was the only way I would ever improve. If I didn’t feel guilty most of the time, I supposed I would somehow run amok, maybe burn down the world, become a serial killer or something (and I wasn’t even raised Catholic!)

When we’re willing to forgive ourselves and let our guilt feelings go without at first groveling and spiraling down into the unavoidable black depths of guilt's self-hatred, when we can accept the support and forgiveness of our loved ones without first guiltily and angrily pushing them away, kicking our pets, and feeling like scum, then we can begin to make progress toward a new life.

But we’re afraid to let go of our heavy loads of self-aggravated guilt. We’re afraid that without the benefit of abject guilt to torture and spur us on, we’ll never get anything right, never fix any bad situations. We’ll be leftk, finally, with nothing but the same tedious, incremental, arduous, step-by-step process of self-improvement that everyone else has to master—a terrifying prospect for those of us whose lives feel chaotic, yet who really want to be different, and who aren’t very good yet at changing our own behavior.

I thought that piling guilt on myself was sufficient evidence that I wanted to change, that I really really really was trying, especially as I kept failing to improve. At least, I thought, my guilt made it absolutely clear to God and everyone, and to myself, that at least I meant to do better. The more abject my guilt, and the deeper my depression, surely, the better the person I would become. Why else would anyone choose to keep on suffering like that?

But it doesn’t matter what you want. It only matters what you take action about.

I don’t know why I kept believing this myth so long, when it never once worked for me. The only times in my life I’ve ever gotten back on track were the times I managed to let go of my guilt feelings—usually with another person's help, or God's, reminding me that I was still lovable.

This first giant step, away from the blackness and self-condemnation of feeling guilty about the past, can make all the difference in success at making changes in life, and certainly in ending a frustrating cycle of anger and attack and depression. I finally had to learn to let my whole past go. And, consider: after all, it was gone.

Our path to a better life begins with letting go of our guilt feelings, and it doesn’t matter how this happens. We may find a way to let go of our own guilt, or perhaps someone will remind us of our value as a person, or perhaps our higher power will help to release us.

The great teacher Jesus’ primary message was about letting go of guilt. Over and over he explained that we are not the guilty, miserable sinners we’ve been taught to see ourselves as, but rather, forgiven not-guilty creatures, now and for always. Jesus’ peaceful message was that, at least on earth, we were merely human, and humans make mistakes; so we should let go of our burdens of guilt, lighten up, know that we are forever and always forgiven, and then go forth and lead good, happy lives.

However it is that we manage to let go of our guilt, this release always feels wonderful, light, free, and very powerful. Only letting go of guilt feelings can give us the motivation, the lift, the transformation, and the necessary energy to move forward to achieve our goals.

Too often, though, instead of letting go of our guilt, instead of forgiving ourselves and affirming our own worth and lovability, we sidestep into angrily pushing away our guilt feelings, unloading big chunks of that guilt by angrily attacking others. Then, unfortunately, we're not only stuck back with our original guilt, but we feel the additional guilt about our angry attack, as well.

This cycle of guilt, anger, and attack is always completely pointless, because nothing and no one is ever helped by our guilt or anger or attack. Have you ever noticed that when you attack someone, they don’t like it? Have you ever noticed that dumping anger and guilt on someone else isn’t considered the best human relations trick out there?

Whenever you blame anyone for anything, whenever you attempt to shift your unwanted guilt feelings onto another, they’ll usually start feeling uncomfortable and guilty themselves, and of course then they’ll want to shift that guilt right back onto you. It’s called the blame game, and it accomplishes nothing, and always makes situations worse. Who cares who's to blame? Isn't it more important for us all just to get back on track?

Guilt can never motivate anyone, no matter how hard we kick ourselves. Letting go of guilt, on the other hand, can lighten up our load miraculously, freeing us to move forward again, motivated and eager to improve.

If we let go of our guilt, will we keep on making mistakes? Of course. Forever. And continuously. People can always think up new mistakes, because we’re human, and mistakes are what humans do. But through our efforts, we can also learn to make fewer mistakes, can keep on forgiving ourselves, can keep on learning and enjoying life.

The only way we can ever improve in any area of life is to chip away at carefully selected behaviors, goals, and problems. No one wakes up one day with their bad habits transformed. Even when our sins are washed clean in the blood of the lamb, as many Christians believe, even when we’ve managed to let go of our load of guilt, even when we feel whole and new and free, even then the path to human improvement is long and tedious and step-by-step. However, without guilt and anger weighing us down and making us miserable, we at least have the confidence in our own worth necessary to meet old and new challenges.

So when is anger justified?

Never.

Anger always only makes things worse, never better.

Another reason anger is never justified is that everyone else is just as fallible and as human as we are, and therefore just as prone to make mistakes. The only difference between ourselves and other people is that our own particular sets of mistakes are different from theirs. But all of us still make a lot of mistakes.

Sure, it’s so hard to accept the stupid mistakes other people make—things you and I would never do. Other people’s mistakes seem so deliberate, so unbelievably cruel and obtuse. But consider that people all tend to be blind to their own particular weirdly original sets of shortcomings and confusions. Really, we’re all in the same leaky little boat. All human beings struggle continually for betterment, doing our best and yet failing miserably, over and over again. Everyone is the same as you. No one is an exception. Everyone makes mistakes.

And when they do, what they need most from you is exactly what you need most from them–a little patience, a little understanding, a little help, a little forgiveness, a little love and consideration and kindness to help them over the tough spots in life, to where they can start chipping away at their goals again…. And there are a lot of tough spots in life!

The mistakes of others are those very choices and actions which seemed, at other moments, like the very best ideas they could come up with their little pea-brains. It’s tragic to realize this, isn’t it? That some people can be so confused, so unenlightened, so sad and clueless as to make such dumb decisions? Just as sad, in fact, as we are ourselves, sometimes, when we make grievous mistakes that we later regret.

So give all of God’s fallible children (and yourself, too) a break whenever we need it the most, because we all need love, especially when we’re at our weakest and stupidest and saddest points.

Sometimes we’ll be out innocently gamboling about on a sunny day and wham! someone will angrily attempt to offload their guilt onto us with a seemingly senseless, vicious attack.

We can always choose to push our guilt right back at them, by angrily attacking them in return. But this strategy won’t work, except to make us both angrier.

Besides, what people really want, what they need most whenever they’re feeling guilty, when they’re attacking us—is help. Just a little helping hand from us, just because they, like us, get so sick and tired of feeling low, of feeling awful about themselves, so weary of carrying around all that guilt. They’re only hoping, deep in their unconscious, that they’ll get a little relief if only they dump all their guilt and anger on us. But what they really need and want most, even though they may not be aware of it, is for someone else to help them by reminding them that they’re still lovable.

An angry attack should signal to each of us that here is someone who desperately wants, deep down, to let go of his guilt and feel good about himself again. We can choose to help all angry and attacking sufferers release their guilt by reminding them, with our love, acceptance, and understanding, that they’re not alone in their struggle with the pain of being human. We can remind them with our kindness that everyone messes up, it's a disgustingly human trait, and that, regardless of this fact, that they are still so very lovable, valuable, and worthwhile. They need to know that, just as we need reminding of that, too.

It’s true that an angry attack is a rather peculiar way to ask for help, especially from the point of view of the one who’s being attacked, and especially when the attacker catches us in our most vulnerable places where we already feel most tender and guilty. Angry attacks always hit those places right on the money.

It helps a lot to remember that no one really wants to attack us. It's not about that. Just like us, at times when they feel most down and guilty, and are trying to pull themselves back up any way they can, they may crack, and try to shove off their heavy weights of guilt onto a handy innocent bystander at a difficult or weak moment.

When someone angrily attacks us, we don't need to pick up the guilt they’re trying to foist on us. Guilt isn’t something real that can be passed back and forth, anyway. Instead, we can help them let go of the guilt and anger they’re trying to push onto us. In doing so, we’ll enjoy experiencing the nice return miracle of receiving, for ourselves, freedom from guilt and anger; because when we forgive others for their mistakes, we’ll remember that we too, are forgiven, forgivable, lovable. And our lives will start to get a lot more peaceful.

We are what we are, we aree what God made us to be, what he meant us to be—which is, mistake-prone, fallible human beings, not little godlings. None of us is omniscient or omnipotent. Evidently, we were never meant to be. We’re just pitiable, glorious, amazing, feeble, growing, learning earthy creatures doing our lower-than-the-angels sporadic best to get some things right. And no human being ever gets anything right, not perfectly, not once-and-for-all, and certainly not for long.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t well worth our while to keep on chipping away at things, and to enjoy our life while we do. Because when we keep working and trying, we’ll stay out of trouble a little more often, we’ll learn a bit more here and there, come closer to the people we love, and gradually become the people we want to become.

God expects us and everyone else to screw up. He made us mistake-prone, not in order to torment us, but perhaps because he loves diversity (consider the snowflakes! and the beetles! Think how long and predictable eternity would be without the wide range of human choices….) Part of being unique is having our own particular sets of human weaknesses. Maybe God would be eternally bored with any other kind of creation…? Whatever the case, he made us as we are…fallible and mistake-prone.

What we need most from other people is help in letting our mistakes go. And we need to treat others with the same kindness we hope to receive from them, because we all need to be accepted just exactly as we are, so that we’ll be able to forgive ourselves and others, let all guilt and anger and attack go, and keep on getting better.

It’s sad, but the last thing any of us wants, is to be equal to the rest of God’s children—that is, just as stupid and fallible as everyone else. Surely not, we hope. Yuck. Surely we’re not like all the dreck, the hoi polloi, the huddled masses, those unenlightened, classless, hurtful, sinful, oblivious scum? Surely mortality is some sort of competition, which–well, look at us, hopefully we’re winning! Surely the deep black sins of others are far more grievous and dangerous and harmful than our tiny gray ones? Surely others deserve self-righteous wrath, while our little mistakes are only tiny oversights? Surely “they” have reason to feel guilty, while we don’t, not really….

I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work this way. We can’t see our own particular sets of mistakes as the only ones which aren’t important, as superficial, understandable, tiny momentary lapses based on misunderstandings and difficult, unusual circumstances, while everyone else’s mistakes are cold-hearted, obtuse, oblivious, calculated, deliberate, oft-repeated, defiant, shameful, and unforgivable mortal sins.

It’s only when we can forgive everyone's mistakes, all of them, (in biblical terms, only when we can “bear all things, believe all things, hope all things, endure all things”) that we will be able to see clearly to forgive ourselves, to release ourselves from guilt and anger. We’re all human, and all our results will always be inadequate, insufficient, and disappointing. We all blow it, big time and small, over and over again. So when we can find it in our hearts to forgive all of humanity, to go easy on everyone, we’ll find we've finally let ourselves off the hook, too.

If we attempt to maintain our delusions about ourselves, that we’re different than others, and that our mistakes are unimportant, while others’ mistakes deserve immediate and harsh, angry attention, we’ll eventually crash hard. Because when we harbor the delusion that we’re better than others, we eventually swing to the polar opposite direction, and start believing that really, truly, we’re worse than everyone else. That's a hard, dark place to spend time in.

Neither delusion works. The only thing that works is humble acceptance that we’re all human, we’re all a mess, just like everyone else—if not exactly the same kind of mess as everyone else, rather, we're our own special kind of mess, one finely honed and refined, a unique, particular mess of our own creative making, quite different from everyone else’s mess. But still, a mess.

The most exhausting activity in the world is carrying around the pain and torment of constant judgment about guilt, both ours and others'. Loving and learning—what humans do best, and what we’re here for—is so much more peaceful a process when we can let all the negatives and guilt about the past—ours and others—go, and instead focus on and experience the joys and. yes, sorrows, of the present moment, free of guilt, anger, and attack.

Learning to change the present moment from a sad one to a wide-open one by letting our past guilt go and seeing only present good in any person or situation, is how we can create, for ourselves and others, a new, different, peaceful past, present, and future.

God, by definition, is infinitely good. Whatever plan he has for all his children (and there are many theories) must involve loving them all equally. Somehow, on whatever eternal scale, and by whatever process, all of his children will have ample opportunity to learn whatever we need to know to return to him.

It cannot matter to God that his children are presently at different points on the path to human improvement. Our current comparative levels of status and achievement couldn’t be less relevant, ultimately. If God believes each of us is deserving of his acceptance, love, and forgiveness, who are we to judge ourselves differently? We all need help from other people, and from God. Someday all of us will find our way back to our Source. Until then, our best opportunities for forgiveness and release from guilt lie in helping one another by looking for, and reflecting back, only the good, and not the guilt, in each of us.

I know that nearly everyone has a more difficult life than I do, and many are daily cruelly challenged by guilt, anger, and attack . Still, I hope these insights will offer someone somewhere greater peace in her daily life, relationships, and in solving day-to-day problems.

Anger, attack, and other forms of judgment, resistance, and non-acceptance are completely useless emotions, whose basic foundation is needless guilt. They never improve any situation, and are always harmful. They hurt and kill many people every day, and their spread throughout the world has the power to destroy human life on this planet. I pray that we all work together to help each other let go of all guilt, anger, and attack, in all its forms, both personal and global.

Please write your comments to epharmon@adelphia.net.

Left, Right, Left, Right…Wrong?

Posted on January 18, 2006 by Nancy Pace

I received a letter from a reader of the conservative political persuasion who has kindly and thoughtfully taken the time to outline our political differences. In hopes of continuing our dialogue, I herein reprint his letter, followed by my response.

To E. P. Harmon:

I am amazed at your naiveté and willingness to lay down your arms in face of certain death.

You misinterpret religion in saying it does not advocate defending oneself against one’s enemies. I can’t quote scripture but it seems to me that there was a lot of smiting with swords and ass jaws when it was all said and done. Remember the bit where one guy lays his sword down to get a drink of water and gets whacked? Good lesson.

Based on your logic, if I broke into your house and started raping you, your husband’s proper reaction would be to sit on the couch and pray that I go away. I don’t think he would do that.

We are presently engaged in World War IV—WWIII being the Cold War, which we won, by the way, when Reagan called the communists’ bluff and built up our arsenal, and they couldn’t match the pot.

Whether you want to recognize it or not, we have a world-wide entrenched enemy who wants to turn the entire world back to the 8^th century. They are using some 20^th century tools to do it and I can appreciate the irony of that. Instead of embracing the freedom that you espouse, they would be happy to have every country on earth have women clad in burkas, not attend school, and be told when and whom to marry.

I think that if we tried to engage them in the 60’s hippie love-fest you seem so eager to try, they would exploit that weakness and set off the very bomb you are afraid of.

Despite your misgivings, security agencies are busy dismantling terrorist groups inside the U.S. every day.

In my opinion, Iraq and the entire world are in better places today with Saddam behind bars and on trial by his countrymen, than they were previously. There are no more rape rooms, no torture chambers, no knocks on the door in the middle of the night. The country is bouncing down the bumpy road to democracy. They have achieved within a year something that took our founding fathers sixteen years to accomplish—a constitution. Their country is not going to look like America, nor do we wish it to; it will be what they want, and what their citizens, for the first time in fifty years, actually get to vote on. Last time I looked, Saddam got 100% of the vote; now a popular candidate gets maybe 40%. That is progress. For the first time ever in that country, women voted. The U.S. armed forces, whom you despise, have restored power, brought power where none existed, brought water, hospitals, rebuilt schools. Their citizens are joining their army and police forces in droves to protect their fellow citizens, even knowing they may get blown up by some thug with a bomb while they’re standing in line at a recruiting station.

There are now newspapers that print what they want with no fear of reprisal, not just papers run by the state. The most popular things to own are a cell phone, a PC, a satellite TV dish, and a car, all of which were illegal before.

Too bad we can’t get North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam on the same footing as the Iraqis.

The world is safer. It’s kind of scary knowing we are in a shooting war, but we have their attention focused, and whenever they stick up their heads we take them off. We are dismantling their networks and making life more difficult. The jihadists are having trouble recruiting people. The Iraqis certainly aren’t. Why should they, with all the improvements in their lives? Why should they want to go back to the 8^th century? The terrorists are coming in from outside countries—Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., but not Iraq. If we were so bad for them, wouldn’t they be getting more Iraqis?

I didn’t see this in your articles, but I do have to admit I got a laugh out of the poor schmuck peace activists who got kidnapped by the terrorists. Talk about a group of people that can’t get no respect–it’s gotta be them. The first group goes to Iraq before the war, says we’re here to protest, gets told, “OK, that’s great, form a circle around the Ministry of Defense Building, we think that it might get bombed.” Then the war is over, we are in the square helping the Iraqis pull down Saddam’s statue, when some of the recently freed locals see some of the protesters coming out to chant at us, and tell us to go home, and the locals want to go kill them. Now our guys are having to protect them from the people that Saddam wanted to keep enslaved. Then to top it all off, they get captured by terrorists whom they wanted to support all along. You just have to wonder what was going through their heads. I wonder if it was, “Hey, Ahmed, I love you, I want your side to win, you’ve got the wrong guys.” LOL.

Seems to me you also have some issues to resolve with your father. You might want to seek some professional help. If I read that, and you were my kid, I’d be writing you out of the will. You equate people in the U.S. Armed Forces with your basic terrorist? Maybe your Dad didn’t take you to the base often enough, or teach you the code of the armed forces, or let you read the UCMJ or something. You apparently believe Kerry’s lies (which he has since denied, once he got caught) that there was widespread baby killing going on in Vietnam, or that all soldiers are like the losers in Abu Graib. You think someone who regrets the taking of innocent civilian lives, and who can get punished if he does, is morally equivalent to someone who straps on a bomb wrapped in nails and steps onto a school bus full of children. You simply amaze me.

But isn’t it nice, to be able to post this blog in a wonderful country like America, where you don’t have to walk two steps behind your husband wrapped head to toe and be kept illiterate, where if your blog were discovered you would be whisked off to the rape room where you would be gang-banged in front of your husband and children?

Your basic premise, that all we have to do is be nice enough and kind enough and that the rest of the world will turn away from evil simply because we wish it so is not real.

Sleep tight. Your American soldiers are protecting you, whether you want them to, whether you appreciate it, or understand it, or not.

From E. P. Harmon:

A lot of left/right political disagreements arise because people come to trust very different sources of information; the basic “facts” and assumptions we each accept as “true” are often quite different ones. Yet we all have to trust someone, sometime, and no one can arrive at a belief system entirely from firsthand experience. For instance, probably neither of us has ever been to Iraq; yet even people who have visited there, or who have lived there, or even grew up there, don’t agree about what’s going on there. It’s always hard to know whom to believe.

We can choose to listen to and trust generalists and popular authorities—public school texts, teachers, ministers, politicians, talk-show hosts…or we may choose to read and listen to experienced specialists with sterling credentials in various fields of expertise. But regardless of whom we read and hear and consider, all authorities are biased, because they, too, have arrived at their conclusions secondhand, and using incomplete information. No one ever knows everything.

Yet you and I and everyone else must nevertheless struggle to make a living, understand life, contribute, care for ourselves and our loved ones, and perhaps, realize some of our dreams—and most of the steps we take along the way are difficult ones—from childhood until the day we die. I think we would both agree that we live in a world full of people who are often angry, confused, and dangerous, and that to be human is often to be mistaken and harmful.

In the midst of all this struggle, pain, and confusion, we have to make a myriad of moment-to-moment decisions on every conceivable thing. With each decision, we can take only one of two courses of action, neither of which guarantees good results, safety, or prosperity, neither of which feels like an obvious best choice, neither of which is completely defensible, and both of which are risky, confusing, frightening, and difficult.

One course of action is to focus on our fears about the evil that mankind is capable of. This fear-based course of action can seem like common sense if we feel individually and collectively under constant attack from those who would hurt or compete with us. This course urges us to prepare to defend ourselves, to act aggressively, and to return fear with more fear, on both a personal and global scale.

A second course of action focuses on the good people are capable of, believing that love, in all its forms (respect, gentleness, openness, kindness, listening, patience, forbearance, acceptance, tolerance, forgiveness, cooperativeness, agreeableness, and so on) is stronger than fear in all its forms (hate, anger, violence, envy, suspicion, jealousy, greed, etc.), and also works better to improve human lives and relationships in the long run, whether personal or global.

A fear-based life assumes that, aside from minor human similarities, few people are really very much like you; most are less trustworthy, less virtuous, and less reliable, and most are more dangerous—so it makes sense to hold people at arms’ length, to hurt them before they hurt you, and to hurt them back, even more, when you are hurt.

A love-based life assumes that, despite superficial differences, most people are very much like you in most ways, having the same human sets of fears and needs and goals and loves and failings as you do—so it makes sense to offer compassion, respect, and forgiveness to all, including yourself (i.e., treat others as you would want to be treated—the “golden rule.”)

Both courses of action rely upon having in mind a particular attitude—“where you come from” mentally—rather than any differences in “what’s really out there.” Both courses of action are difficult paths to travel, confusing, and tenuous. Both require courage to live faithfully. Neither offers any guarantee of safety.

A life based on self-protection can offer comforting feelings of power, control, and safety—at times. But since most people like to be trusted, loved, and forgiven for their many mistakes, a defensive/aggressive attitude can become an increasingly lonely option, as relationships become more complicated and difficult to control, micromanage, or resolve—both personally and globally.

A life based on open giving also has many drawbacks and disappointments. No one likes getting kicked in the teeth, suffering injustice, or being walked on. A life based in love can be very frustrating, since love is an ideal impossible for humans to live up to—and no one ever gets it right. At most, you can chip away at such goals, and hope to keep on improving. Even then, since everyone is human and fallible, others will still hurt us and let us down, and we’ll still do the same to others. On the whole, though, people who care and trust and forgive draw other like-minded people to them, so lives based in love often move toward greater sharing, acceptance, support, and peace—both personally and globally.

Both general courses of action are logically indefensible. Laying down one’s defenses and allowing oneself to be vulnerable and open seems like asking for nothing but trouble—both personal and global. And just as surely, schoolyard bullies and warmongers seem to be asking for trouble, since they frighten and alienate others and accumulate dangerous, angry enemies, both personal and global.

Is either of these approaches right, and the other one wrong? Who can say? Everyone gets to choose the approach they think will work best for them.

In response to some specific comments in your letter: No, I don’t hate military forces, either ours or “theirs.” I believe that most soldiers everywhere, on all sides, are trying their best to live good lives and live up to their ideals. I have lived around soldiers all my life, and am drawn to their courage, idealism, and selflessness. It is true that I don’t distinguish between the actions of soldiers who drop expensive high-tech explosives on civilian populations, and the actions of suicide bombers who strap themselves with cheap nail-bombs and climb on school buses; both choose to further their political goals by indiscriminate, deliberate acts of violence that result, as you say, in dead babies, which I can’t agree with, no matter what the cause; there has to be a better way to achieve one’s political ends. Yet both sides believe their cause is just, and both are willing to sacrifice their lives, and others’, for their ideals and beliefs.

I am profoundly impressed by the vision and courage of the many senior officers currently in our Department of Defense, not to mention the line officers and foot soldiers, who are exploring and suggesting peaceful, effective, and far less costly alternative approaches to defending our country that don’t involve militancy and war, demonstrating the admirable and thoughtful tradition of leadership and high ideals historically associated with our military.

I’m not a pacifist, although I suspect I might be safer and happier if I were, just as the noncombatant Quaker farmers who welcomed all weary soldiers from both sides were safer during the Civil War. If someone were climbing in my window, though, I would defend myself and my family, although research tells us that reacting fearfully and aggressively (especially using weapons) during such situations usually produces worse results all around.

I don’t believe God co-authored any religious documents (including the Bible and the Koran), although we can all receive his inspiration if we ask for it,. I do, however, think that most collections of ancient religious writings (like the Bible and the Koran) offer a lot of wisdom, along with some clunkers; fortunately, God gave us brains so we could thoughtfully tell which passages are which. Anyone can find a rationale for anything if they look hard enough in religious texts, including both violent and non-violent action.

I’m wary of all explanations of what went on in the past—what we call “history”—because history is always written by the victors. The truth is, no one can ever know for sure the whole story about any event in the past, just as we can’t even be sure we have the whole story today when reading the newspaper—which is the first, and always controversial, rough draft of history. There are, for instance, a variety of versions of why the Cold War ended. I always like to ask myself, when reading someone’s theory: “Who is benefiting from people believing this particular version?” And although I approach all history cautiously, I was a college history major, and love reading history.

I don’t think either you or I are naïve about the depths of ignorance, depravity, despair, and cruelty to which people everywhere can fall. I do think it’s naïve, however, to imagine that one’s own familiar, particular culture has a lock on moral superiority. Every culture has much of value to learn from every other, so it’s naive to think that “we” (“our” culture, religion, nation, race, ethnicity, gender, kind, etc.) is “right,” “superior,” and “good,” while other, unfamiliar ones are “wrong,” “inferior,” and “bad.” We should be very suspicious of all the frightening things we hear about foreign nations, religions, and cultures, because well-paid demagogues whose last interest is truth create huge profits for those who pay them well to drum up fear. If America had as many crazed, bloodthirsty enemies as some demagogues now claim, all the kings horses and men couldn’t have prevented whole U.S. cities from being blown away long ago, our civic water supplies and food supplies being poisoned, and so on. It’s just too easy to wreak civic havoc cheaply and anonymously.

I also think it’s naïve to assume that our own local or national politicians are generally any more trustworthy than are politicians anywhere, or smarter, or any less greedy, or any less megalomaniacal. That’s why our framers built checks and balances into our constitution, and why we should strive to maintain them.

I also think it’s naïve to think that a non-violent democracy can arise courtesy of a violent foreign occupation, or that torture and rape are not natural outcomes of, and necessary to the maintenance of any violently-achieved power structure, or that freedom of the press is not repressed by unchecked power, or that the ranks of armies are not filled with desperate people willing to accept jobs and money from any well-heeled power.

It’s naïve to think that any war, ever, is initiated for unselfish, pure motives. It’s naïve to think that gentle, cooperative people living quietly in the lands of their ancestors are the bad guys, while the good guys are the armies from afar blowing everything up. It’s naïve to assume that partisan politicians are ever fully in control of any situation, or have much of a clue about taking care of people, or about international relations, or about running wars. It’s naïve to think that more killing ever results in less killing, and that hatred and violence don’t create more hatred and violence. It’s naïve to think that any nation with a growing number of enemies will be safe during the 21^st century.

It’s naïve to think that the most-endangered and most-threatened nation in the world today, the one most urgently in need of taking pre-emptive military action to protect itself, is also the single, most-feared hegemonic empire best-armed with far more nuclear and conventional and high-tech weapons and money and soldiers and political and economic power than any other alliance of nations in the history of the world, the one nation with established military bases all over the world, the one nation currently waging wars in countries with prized economic resources, while ignoring (or supporting) dictatorships and tyrannies elsewhere.

It’s naïve to assume that any bureaucracy allowed to hide its activities behind a cloak of “national defense” is telling the truth about its results. It’s naïve to think that a small minority of citizens who perceive they have an interest in voting every four years for one of two unappealing candidates from two smarmy and very similar political parties running big-money campaigns in elections replete with fraud, have achieved much more than a degree of democracy. To be sure, I count my blessings and strive to strengthen the many great things this nation has achieved, because many countries are far less democratic. On the other hand, there are many far more democratic countries (including some without constitutions, by the way) from whom we could learn a lot.

On the subject of Islam: No one likes change, and Islamic migration has frightened those in the West who know only enough about Muslims to be terrified of what TV, radio, and pulpit demagogues tell them. Yet the highest and best practitioners of all major religions, including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, are people anyone would respect, for their caring, their responsible lives, and for their great wisdom—if only we had the opportunity to know and understand them. On the other hand, there are practitioners in every religion, including Christians, Muslims, and Jews, who are ignorant, terrified, angry people who would bomb whole countries, who hate whole civilizations, races, and even genders, because they fear them too much to make an effort to understand them.

The West has much to learn from Islamic culture, as Islam has much to learn from us. Furthermore, both cultures are often wrong, mistaken, and cruel—in different ways. All cultures, ours included, grow accustomed and blind to their own particular sets of shortcomings. For instance, most Muslims are simply aghast that our culture allows so many young girls to grow up alienated from their families, schools, and churches, to become diseased, pregnant, promiscuous, alcoholic, addicted to drugs, divorced, abandoned, prostitutes, single mothers, etc. Just as we, in the West, are dismayed when we hear that Muslims cover their women and keep them hidden and schooled at home. The only thing we can know for sure, though, about what we hear, is that nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and to be wary of well-rewarded demagogues and their sponsors, who have a lot to gain financially from terrifying people with horrifying visions of the inhumanity and stupidity of our imagined enemy-of-the-day. The only road away from fear is understanding, which only comes with willingness to actively learn more about what it is we fear.

Non-violent activism, a form of love, is the most powerful force in the world, far more powerful than armies and weapons and bombs. Gandhi’s non-violent protests brought down the most powerful empire in the world in India, and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s non-violent power brought civil rights to blacks in the American South. Both of these were long-standing, hard, hard problems, resolved, not by cowards and flakes, or by violence, but by courageous people of faith, who believed in the power of love, and who offered the tough, powerful solution of non-violent political activism.

The night before he died, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The choice is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It’s nonviolence—or nonexistence.” The Dalai Lama has declared the 21^st century, “the century of dialogue.” We can all learn more when we exchange views, listen to one another, ask questions, and keep an open mind.

Please send your comments to epharmon@adelphia.net

If You Love the Little Children of the World

Posted on January 13, 2006 by Nancy Pace

Sing this song to the tune of “Jesus Loves the Little Children…” (or the Civil War song, “Tramp, Tramp, Tramp, the Boys Are Marching,” which is the same tune.)

We’re so sick of all the fighting

Sick of wars around the world

Red and yellow black and white

Stop the fighting, it’s not right