• What is the Meaning of War? January 29 - 12:30 am
• Should anyone have weapons of mass destruction? May 5 - 03:12 pm

MILITARY V/S SPIRITUAL SOLUTION

Peace will come ONLY when religious leaders of all denominations will seriously investigate their own faiths and rid themselves of the plague of religious fanaticism.

“One of the forms of prejudice which afflict the world of mankind is religious bigotry and fanaticism. When this hatred burns in human hearts, it becomes the cause of revolution, destruction, abasement of humankind and deprivation of the mercy of God.”
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 337-338)

Even in death, we live...

Behind every human face is a human soul that must
be protected at any cost, and loved.

Even in death, we live... even if killed.

-Ivan

SPIRITUAL SOLUTION TO TERRORISM


Of all the solutions that have been suggested in combating terrorism, the

solution that will be the most effective will be the SPIRITUAL SOLUTION.

That is to reduce and eliminate fanaticism in all of its forms.


Religious leaders of all denominations must SERIOUSLY confront this old

and persisting problem. No religion has a monopoly or is immune from

fanaticism. Baha’u’llah and Abdul’Baha have continuously warned us of its

danger. Failure to seriously tackle this problem will result in the

lesser peace, in which the damage will be so great that mankind will have

no choice but to live in a shaky world.


Here is what the Baha’i Faith has to say on this subject:


"One of the forms of prejudice which afflict the world of mankind is

religious bigotry and fanaticism. When this hatred burns in human hearts,

it becomes the cause of revolution, destruction, abasement of humankind

and deprivation of the mercy of God. For the holy Manifestations and

divine Founders of religion Themselves were completely unified in love

and agreement, whereas Their followers are characterized by bitter

antagonism and attitudes of hostility toward each other. God has desired

for mankind the effulgence of love, but through blindness and

misapprehension man has enveloped himself in veils of discord, strife and

hatred.

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 337-338)


...Baha'u'llah declared the necessity of peace among the nations and the

reality of reconciliation between the religions of the world. He

announced that the fundamental basis of all religion is one, that the

essence of religion is human fellowship and that the differences in

belief which exist are due to dogmatic interpretation and blind

imitations which are at variance with the foundations established by the

Prophets of God. He proclaimed that if the reality underlying religious

teaching be investigated all religions would be unified, and the purpose

of God, which is love and the blending of human hearts, would be

accomplished.

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 354)


YOU MUST BE FREE FROM PREJUDICE AND FANATICISM

(Religion must be a source of Unity among mankind and not the cause for

division, hatred, and wars.)


You must be free from prejudice and fanaticism, beholding no differences

between the races and religions. You must look to God, for He is the real

Shepherd, and all humanity are His sheep. He loves them and loves them

equally.

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 468-469)


Be kind to all people, love humanity, consider all mankind as your

relations and servants of the most high God. Strive day and night that

animosity and contention may pass away from the hearts of men, that all

religions shall become reconciled and the nations love each other so that

no racial, religious or political prejudice may remain and the world of

humanity behold God as the beginning and end of all existence. God has

created all, and all return to God. Therefore, love humanity with all

your heart and soul.

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 291)"

THE QUESTION IS: does the Qu'ran teach love and compassion between human beings as doing God's Will? If the Qu'ran is interpreted instead that human beings are to fight, to forcefully coerce each other, in the name of God, then is this not a paradox? Which is doing God's Will, where human beings interact with one another in agreement and compassion, or where they attack and coerce? Is killing God's Will? And if it is God's Will for us to live in peace through agreement, then how do we stop the coercions? That is the question.

We need to show love and more than ever. All
peoples of the Earth must

contribute to help the Afgani and other
impoverished on the planet. As long

as we have poverty and deprivation we will have
problems. This has gone on

way too long. Killing and bombs is a band aid
tactic. Don't expect

anything lasting to come of it. Our economic
situation is already perilous.

Worse things can develop. We need a united
attack and it should be

clandestine.

mark

Thank you "anonymous". You ask (10/8/01):

"Is killing God's Will?"

No. The killing and coercion of human beings is how to "kill" God's Will.

And thank you Mark!

Ivan

Agreement, good will, love between men brings God's Will into their midst.

Coercion, war, brutality between men blinds them to this.

Peace is God's Will.

PeaceSeeker Junior Member
posted 10-17-2001

DEAR FRIENDS, MUSLIM AND NON-MUSLIM, THESE ANIMALS TALIBANS AND OSAMA LADIN WHO CALL THEMSELVES MUSLIMS ARE INFACT DEVILS AGENTS. 550 + MUSLIMS ALSO DIED IN THE WTC... these animals are the worst of the worst humans let alone Muslims. Good muslims are there to fight against bad muslims as jihad starts from home. We will not allow these bigots and racists to destroy the name of Islam which gets its name from 'salam' meaning peace. Peace for humanity and peace for the world, peace for neighbours and peace amongst nations, and amnogst people everywhere. These devilas have tarmished the name of Islam, these people will never do anythhing positive for muslims but love to kill and prove they are warriors...A Fed-up Pakistani

http://cgi.afghan-web.com/~qazi/cgi-bin/forums2/Forum2/HTML/000268.html

AFGHANISTAN ONLINE: Islam (Religious Discussion)

REBUILD THE TEMPLE ON THE MOUNT -- FOR PEACE.

I believe that one way to insure future peace between the feuding three major world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as represented by the current conflicts in the Middle East, Israel and Palestine, as well as far off Afghanistan, is to rebuilt the temple site holy to all three religions. This would mean that the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem should be rebuilt by all three religions, their world wide flung representatives, financed equally, and shared equally in their physical presence. This site is obviously holy from its beginning, as said in Chronicles:

"When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple." (2 Chronicles 7:1)

Thus to honor the founders of the three religions, the land should remain the property of Israel, since Judaism was the first religion. However, there should be a 1000 year lease, so that negotiations between the three great religions will be forced to resume in the distant future, as the lease is approaching expiration. Let us hope that our future generations, our great great grandchildren, will pursue these negotiations with a greater peace and reason than had been exhibited by their ancient predecessors. This Temple, shared equally by all, open to people of all religions and seculars, should be dedicated to prayer for a perpetual world peace. This would be a great gift by Islam to all the world.

The question is, can the three great religions rebuild the Temple Mount without fighting? Can we find agreement? And can we make it beautiful?

To give, that is the most powerful expression of God's Will. To exchange may be secular, but to Give is Divine. The question is: Is this the time in the history of Islam to Give?

http://www.templemount.org/ (Temple Mount)

(As posted: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/forums.cgi?forum=18 )

TEMPLE MOUNT link: http://www.ldolphin.org/TMXNS.html

RE Continuing Sanctity of the Temple Mount

"...the Temple Mount has been the holiest place for the past 3,000 years, ever since King Solomon erected the First Temple on Mt. Moriah (II Chron. 3:1); and Mt. Moriah itself had been held sacred because of [an event that took place there some 1 ,000 years earlier], the binding of Isaac by Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, 'in the land of Moriah' (Gen. 22:2)...Thus primeval sanctity of the Temple Mount continues unabated to this day - even after the destruction of the First and Second Temples...and the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, which stands to this very day, is the holiest site in Jewish tradition.
"For adherents to the Muslim faith, the Temple Mount has been held sacred for the past 1,300 years - since the conquest of Jerusalem by the Muslims in 638 - and on it they erected the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The sanctity of the Mount, for Muslims, comes after the sanctity of Medina, which in turn comes after the. sanctity of Mecca.. The Christians, too, ascribe religious importance to the Temple Mount.

The law: Recognition of History, Mutual Respect

"Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel (adopted July 30, 1980) states:
'1. Undivided and united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
'2. Jerusalem is the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government and the Supreme Court.
'3. The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and from any other violation, as well as from anything that might hinder the freedom of access of the members of the various religions to the places sacred to them or that might give offense to their feelings toward these places.'

Conclusion

"The sanctity of the Temple Mount for the Jewish people, with all that this implies, is not open to discussion. Its sanctity is eternal and does not depend on the powers that be...The area of the Temple Mount is part of the territory of the State of Israel, and the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State apply to it. These include, among other things...the right of every person to freedom of worship, freedom of access to the Holy Places and protection against their desecration..."

Footnote

'Islam Does Not Prohibit Jewish Prayer'

"There is nothing in Islam or in the Koran that prohibits the prayer of Jews on the Temple Mount." This was stated, at a recent international conference in Jerusalem, by Prof. Abd el-Hadi Fallacci, the head of the Islamic Institute in Rome, as reported by Israel's daily Ha'aretz of July 18.

OFF WITH THE BURQUAS!

It seems that the United Front's Northern Alliance in taking Mazar-a-Sharif is one 'chalk up' for Freedom:

"But the Northern Alliance said it swept Taliban forces from all four northern provinces on Saturday, a day after taking the key city of Mazar-i-Sharif and its surrounding province, Balkh -- opening the route to Uzbekistan where U.S. forces are based.

''We have captured Samangan, Sara-i-Pol, Faryab and Jowzjan provinces,'' ethnic Uzbek warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum told Reuters by satellite telephone.

In Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghans queued at barber shops to shave their beards, the sound of music blared from shops and women flung away the head-to-toe burqa veils as the first city taken from the Taliban threw off their draconian rules, AIP said." --Reuters News.

One down for the Taliban and their draconian rule, and one up for Victory and Freedom! This is the first step...

...but freedom into what sort of system?

here (in the United States) people were freed from human slavery (though, grudgingly) only to become urbanized slaves: slaves to continuous narcotics marketers who in fact were those that hated the slaves and sought to continue their enslavement or see to their death/destruction.

now the women (men and children) could be set free of all the factions that abound in Afghanistan, but guess what--it's reported that there is a lot of oil that they are sitting on, and US vice president *Dick* Cheney has interest (maybe controlling) in a company that operates in the mid-east region.

i speak of the potential for "forced" industrialization in the region. once the "big bad americans" move into the culture, bad things start to happen; rape, prostitution, narcotic sales, you name it.

i'd hate to see the women trade their burqas for G-strings.

the people are already considered to be "poor" by world standards; now put them in a 'global economics' situation and you will see the ill effects of socio-economics.

the Taliban may be retarded, but i'm not really for any one governemt in particula

Metan,

RE "...but freedom into what sort of system?"

Let them decide, if they can! Here is an update:

"Northern Alliance Minister Asks For U.N. Teams In Kabul.

The foreign minister of the Afghan northern alliance said Tuesday that it had
invited the U.N. to send "teams" to Kabul to help build a post-Taliban
government.

"We have also invited the United Nations to send their teams in Kabul in
order to help us in the peace process," said the foreign minister, Abdullah,
who uses only one name.

"Northern Alliance Invites All Afghan Factions To Kabul For Talks.

The foreign minister of the Afghan northern alliance said Tuesday that it had
invited all the country's factions - except the Taliban - to come to newly
captured Kabul to negotiate a post-Taliban government.
The alliance has also asked the U.N. to send "teams" to the Afghan government to help the peace process, said the foreign minister, Abdullah, who goes by one name.
.....

"E.U. Says Its Ready To Help Build A New Afghanistan

The European Union said Tuesday it stands ready to help build a new
Afghanistan and reiterated its call for a broad-based, stable coalition to
succeed the Taliban government.
Hours after Northern alliance troops seized the Afghan capital of Kabul, a
statement by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, whose country currently holds the E.U. presidency, said the U.N. must play a "key role" in setting up
a new Afghan government."

(DOW JONES NEWS 11-13-01)

ME: "...but freedom into what sort of system?" (w/ re: to the "capture" of Afghan cities and presupposed--cuz that's what "americans" think the military is doing, necessarily. *who* knows, maybe they are being utilized (since the "Gulf War" for big oil companies and george bush & friends--liberation of the population. i'd be glad myself to be rid of some faction telling me i had to grow a beard, but, w/ the insight we in the "good 'ol USofA"--and other westernized nations--have, we can see that what awaits is potentially such a corruptive force of MASS MARKETING, and social decrepidness that it might night be any better for them if they succumb to it like those of us in the Good 'Ol USofA who have...

>>Ivan:::::::"Let them decide, if they can!"<<

--this is a nice thought, but (to me) it says that the liberating faction is somehow "opening up new worlds and social options" for these "once deprived" (vis-a-vis savage/primitive...non-modern at any rate) people who, by all media accounts, are already shaving their once mandated beards and shedding burqas (i'm trying to grow a nice thick beard myself, right now).

but the primary option now, given the position of rapid GLOBALIZATION efforts (conducted mostly on the part of the world 'controllers'), the only hope these "peasant farmers" have is to sell their wares/labor for below-market value and remain poor and un/under-appreciated (like people who grow food for the masses worldwide are) and controlled by...you guessed it, the same people who control the markets (entities like Archer-Daniels-Midland corp. who is as crooked as they come. their slogan/motto is/was "supermarket to the world"; they provide for the production of GM (genetically modified) foods and other such crud).

AW--liberation in this day-n-age generally means (since the 'world wars' began occuring) "get with the preassigned program [sovereign nation]"...so what happens most of the time? Phillipines..Jamaica..so many places to name in the modern age where self-determined peoples now find it hard to subsist because THEY PETTY ECONOMY (which i don't *believe* in money by the way) HAS BEEN BOOTSTRAPPED TO A GLOBALIZING ECONOMY; you don't have to be an econ-major to see that a small enough fish is going to become even smaller when the pond gets bigger and SHARKS are added (*laughing at my own witty analogy*--it's probably the best analogy i've EVER used).

all i'm saying is--just wait...and watch. i was just listening to the radio and the guy was interviewing somebody about the "future of the Afghani people" (it's funny how, now, people can't decide their own fate: they/we need an *AUTHORITY*--which is why i'm ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN--like the United Nations or whomever, to "guide" future decisions...it's all a farce, but, again, the people controlling the world are given free reign because, in my opinion, the average person just isn't looking at the issues at hand deeply enough and seems to be willing to take whatever is fed them just simply because THEY ARE SELFISH AND ONLY WANT WHAT THEY WANT. to wit--i see that people in the US don't give a rat's ass about ANYBODY worldwide BUT themselves; but this will change when...*smile*...but it might be too late, unless...

-anyway, the talk now is about how the country will be run. a little consideration has been given to the fact that there are many different peoples (cultures) w/in the border, so...i tend to think that a governing body that satisfies the world-controller's need will be "selected" (like the Shah of Iran in the early 80s by the US mil-govt complex, etc...).

i could be wrong, but given modern statistics on this sort of thing...

...but at least they're FREE now and a moment of freedom is as precious as anything that can be considered precious.

(honestly, i'd rather conduct "non-socialistic" discussions, but i try to keep in touch w/ my "human" side :)

WAR IS STUPID, but it can prove a point...that it is, indeed, STUPID (at least to one side of the combatants)

(and to address some previous comments of yours, Ivan A.)

-------------------------------------------------
Ivan::::::::"REBUILD THE TEMPLE ON THE MOUNT -- FOR PEACE.

"I believe that one way to insure future peace between the feuding three major world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as represented by the current conflicts in the Middle East, Israel and Palestine, as well as far off Afghanistan, is to rebuilt the temple site holy to all three religions. This would mean that the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem should be rebuilt by all three religions, their world wide flung representatives, financed equally, and shared equally in their physical presence. This site is obviously holy from its beginning, as said in Chronicles:

"When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple." (2 Chronicles 7:1)

Thus to honor the founders of the three religions, the land should remain the property of Israel, since Judaism was the first religion. However, there should be a 1000 year lease, so that negotiations between the three great religions will be forced to resume in the distant future, as the lease is approaching expiration. Let us hope that our future generations, our great great grandchildren, will pursue these negotiations with a greater peace and reason than had been exhibited by their ancient predecessors. This Temple, shared equally by all, open to people of all religions and seculars, should be dedicated to prayer for a perpetual world peace. This would be a great gift by Islam to all the world.

The question is, can the three great religions rebuild the Temple Mount without fighting? Can we find agreement? And can we make it beautiful?"
--------------------------------------------------

not that i'm one of those philosophers who likes to claim "Occam's Razor!" (in my view, some do this cuz they perceive their alleged arguments as being superior, so they want to "cut to the chase" and presume any contrary position inferior by means of this device), but--i think that the simplest thing would be for ALL SIDES (whoever they may be; all religious humans and beings?) TO JUST "BEAT SWORDS (of *unprovable* religious/dogmatic oppression upon the people at large) INTO PLOWSHARES (parts that help the "growth" and realization of [God] consciousness through continual working of the "ground of perceived reality").

we all would have to be willing to let go of our egos in order to just come together, for the absolute good of It all (as best we can understand what this "good" might be).

-------------------------------------------------
Ivan::::::"Even in death, we live...

Behind every human face is a human soul that must
be protected at any cost, and loved.

Even in death, we live... even if killed.
-----------------------------------------------

hmm..i was actually thinking about this position (of death and what "consciousness" *is*) on the way home--on the rain soaked streets of $eattle--and i was thinking that:

IF [God] is the sum (plus??) of ALL OF IT/US, THEN all conscious entities are not just "[God] absolute" (defining consciousness as all *points* of such "occurrence" and also the generalized "field" of consciousness as well--eg, i am conscious, in so far as i can tell, and there is a state of consciousness that is apparently realized by all conscious/conscientous beings/entities) but [God] Itself. (i do want to refine this a bit).

so if [God] can *only* be conscious (both absolutely (individualistically) and Absolutely (the mind numbing one))...then what is "death"?

is it 'loss of consciousness'? if it is, how can you prove death (absolutely)--by one person declaring that another person is deceased, given that NO PERSON--not that i know of--CAN ACTUALLY *KNOW* THAT A MIND/(BRAIN)FUNCTION HAS ENDED (given: the electromotive principle is incompletely defined)?

it would seem that the only person who could know of the death of said person is that very person who is supposed to have died. (i guess topics about this include "passing *threshholdds*", "self-identity" yada yada). if in fact you've died, you shoouldn't be able to say "hey, i'm dead" you should have no awareness.

(of course, some might be talking about death of the individual ego, in which case--does this truly die? i contend that it is possible that the human ego gets "swapped out"--reincarnated maybe?--and becomes no more in a way.

--and i don't know if the soul is *specifically* individualized; suppose we all "share" this presupposed soul, just that it 'translates' differently. of course, i'm always thinking in terms of "unity of Reality".

...and what about other beings (like the turkeys i just ate)--would/could they be "soul-filled"?

maybe this os another thread

Thought I would pass these thoughts on to you as someone did to me...


"MEET ME IN THE STAIRWELL "


You say you will never forget where you were when you heard the news on September 11, 2001. Neither will I.

I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room with a man who called his wife to say "Good-Bye." I held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the peace to say, "Honey, I am not going to make it, but it is OK...I am ready to go." I was with his wife when he called as she fed breakfast to their children. I held her up as she tried to understand his words and as she realized he wasn't coming home that night. I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a woman cried out to Me for help. "I have been knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!" I said. "Of course I will show you the way home - only believe in Me now." I was at the base of the building with the Priest ministering to the injured and devastated souls. I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He heard my voice and answered. I was on all four of those planes, in every seat, with every prayer. I was with the crew as they were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the believers there, comforting and assuring them that their faith has saved them. I was in Texas, Kansas, London. I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news. Did you sense Me? I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew every name though not all know Me. Some met Me for the first time on the 86th floor. Some sought Me with their last breath. Some couldn't hear Me calling to them through the smoke and flames; "Come to Me... this way... take my hand." Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me. But, I was there. I did not place you in the Tower that day. You may not know why but I do.However, if you were there in that explosive moment in time, would you have reached for Me? September 11, 2001 was not the end of the journey for you. But someday your journey will end. And I will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may be found. Then, at any moment, you know you are "ready to go." I will be in the stairwell of your final moments.

God

(author unknown)

ARE SUICIDE BOMBERS DRIVEN BY POVERTY?

Hi All,

I have difficulty justifying suicide bombers as being motivated by poverty. Poor people don't blow themselves up, whereas fanatics do. So the causes of fanaticism may have roots in deep disaffection, including poverty, but it takes a major jump to a desperate ideology to choose to kill others by blowing oneself up. I think the real root cause for such fanaticism is an intense dislike for the West, the liberal and secular values espoused by the cultures of the so called 'first world', as opposed to the regressive values of backward looking cultures more typical of the poorer cultures of the so called 'third world'. Seen this way, poverty is more the function of cultural and economic recidivism which is horrified by the progressive ideology of the more wealthy societies. From this fear spawns corruption, favoritism, rule by personality, demagoguery, arbitrary justice, theft, fanaticism, etc.; all of which are undermined by rule of law, democratic process, justice by fair trial, human rights, fair exchange, tolerance, and other pillars of what the democratic societies have achieved over the past centuries; thought far from perfect, achievements at least well meaning in intent. So this is a conflict of cultures, but why so desperate that one group is willing to kill itself?

Not all involved in his 'unholy' war are willing to blow themselves up. Why have Bin Laden and Omar not blown themselves up? I think in part it is because they perceive their martyrdom, should it come to that, would be most effective if done by the hand of the 'evil' West. So they would love to have the western US-UN led alliance do the dirty job, since this would play into their ideological ideal. Of course, if so, then it would behoove us to see Al-Qaida et al captured, or at least killed by their own, so that their 'martyrdom' becomes more diffused. So the 'blow yourself up' route is left mostly to their underlings, not to the top brass. This then leads one to think that suicide is demanded not so much by their ideology, as by their cynical leadership who try to cloak the desperation of their cause in religious fervor. Poverty? Only in spirit, since they do not seem to find the way to adjust to changes that are taking place elsewhere in the world.

Let us hope that more moderate voices of both Islam and the developing world will find expression in the future so that their poverty, both material and spiritual, can eventually become ameliorated, and thus they would have the freedom to join more progressive achievements, imperfect that they are, of the rest of the world.

All the best, Peace, Ivan

FADED GLORY of Islam/Is Bin Laden video real?

As much as they may deny the words (Bin Laden video), there is no doubt from the motions of bin Dyin' hands what he's talking about. The hand language exactly corresponds to the words - an the Arabic there is possible to hear fairly well. His gloating shows his perversion, and all that allah be praised madness is just that.

There has been a program on PBS TV called "Faith of Islam" about the long view of Muslim history and it is eye-opening. Soap and glasses comes from the Muslim world, not to mention the symbols I write with and mathematics which was highly developed especially in the architectural sciences.

M77/A salaam a laikem.

Yes, the glorious civilization of Islam also brought us 'barbarians' Greek philosophy and alcohol. Where did they go wrong? Such beautiful architecture, learning, hygiene, all seem to be lost in what we perceive as the Taliban's Afghanistan, Bin Laden's last stand. I think we are on the threshold of major world change, which if done right will bring the world of Islam into the progressive culture of the more free world with human rights, equality between the sexes, education, market based economy, and... Inshallah... Peace.

Ivan/Salaam

SECULAR VS. NON-SECULAR GOVERNMENT (in answer to what kind of government should be 'installed' in Afghanistan?)

Dear Anon-1 (and All),

"The most serious problem facing the world is the funding required to assist nations to become 'self-sufficient,' and if the so-called world leaders do not pony up the funding required, everyone is in one huge pissing contest. To support my position, it takes one URL - http://www.imf.org/external/country/ISR/ - to make the point made earlier about the canon of ideology speaking. Yes, the US is also guilty of not paying their fair share into the IMF, along with every other Western nation on planet earth. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that nobody is willing to give if it "reduces his/her equality" in a world filled with inequity."

You can bring a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink (though he might ••••!).

If we commit, unilaterally or mutually in consortium with other nations, to rebuild the ruins of Afghanistan, we have to consider how much capital we can expend, since the returns on this capital may not be realized for a very long time. Ditto for sub-Saharan Africa, or the Balkans, etc. Directly or indirectly we would be imposing our economic values, and social values, on any country into which we enter with capital aid. Would this be sufficient to make the people of the nation receiving aid reconsider their belief system to separate religion and state, or to embrace the democratic values of a more or less free society? One can hope that, like Japan or Germany or Italy after the War, they do. But we are dealing with a nation that has no history of economic success, unlike the already economically sophisticated nations conquered in WW II, though we are not 'conquering' here. So we may have to accept that offering aid to Afghanistan in whatever form is also at a great risk to us, since there may be no positive returns for us in the end. And if they are offended by our values and rebel against it, then there is no real benefit to them either, since social strife results. Will aid be a 'win-win' situation, or 'lose-lose' instead? Hard to tell, but in my opinion, we should try with low expectations, and hope for the best. Always glad to be pleasantly surprised.


Hi Kevin,

"While it would certainly help if the Western nations did much more to help eradicate poverty around the world, the practical question remains--do you think religiously-controlled governments of the type currently existing in Muslim countries (like the one we just eliminated in Afghanistan) are desirable? Or are they, precisely because their "principles" are supposed to have been divinely ordained and not the product of a consensus of the governed, undesirable? Not just from our own selfish point of view, but from the point of view of world peace or freedom from terrorist activity."

I suspect that non-secular governments driven by 'God's Will' are not desirable, since who can interpret such Will with any certainty, if at all?

I have friends who are Baha'i, a kind of modern day reformation of Islam started by their 'Messiah' Baha'u'llah in Iran, who are very progressive in their social-secular-religious thinking. In studying their many admirable and sensible precepts of: equality of the sexes, elimination of extreme poverty, compulsory education, independent investigation of truth, agreement between science and religion, etc.; they nevertheless have a non-secular ideology and are forced in the end to fall back upon their teaching's interpretations of God's Will as given by their founder. So they may have a world order centered around a democratic process and their Universal House of Justice, a kind of world supreme court, but not a secular order, one based upon the belief that Baha'u'llah is a 'manifestation' of God, and must be obeyed to the letter of his Law. In my view, the Law (as had been discussed under another post: "God' Will/ how do we know we do God's Will" in the Interdisciplinary Forum), in the end comes down to an interplay between 'agreement' and 'coercion', which is also how our secular legal system seems to work (if poorly). But that is a secular concept not contingent on whether or not one knows God's Will, and one that is judged not by holy scripture but by how things work for us in the world; where achieving Peace is a mark of success. If we agree, we have consensus, then society seems to work better; when we disagree and are driven into conflict, society seems to suffer. So whether we succeed or fail, it is not according to some divine plan because "it is written", but because this is what happens in real fact. This, even when undesirable in outcome, is the most desirable in fact because it is most real, something that measures the level of our human effort.

Therefore, I vote for a secular government, which tolerates religious beliefs but is not constrained by it, and one best able to deliver for us what is most real. And if we do it right, it also delivers what is most productive and economically successful. I think the people of the poorer countries, who labor under the 'antique' philosophy of doing God's Will in a non-secular society, might sit up and pay attention, and thus decide for themselves, by consensus hopefully, whether or not this can work for them, and give it a go. They may be pleasantly surprised.

All the best, Peace,
Ivan

KOESTENBAUM'S WEEKLY LEADERSHIP THOUGHT
 
Cooperation today must take a new turn. In the past, conflict among ideologies created wars; today, struggles are more likely to form along ethnic and religious lines. Therefore, it is a matter of the highest urgency to build cooperation on the common principles of humanity that bond us all. It is equally important to find ideas and feelings in the world religions that all human beings can share. We must discover those beliefs that connect us, emphasize them, teach them, and promulgate them, so that we can be more tolerant in areas where we disagree.

The greatest danger in this world is unthinking people -- people who feel passionately but do not think, people who have no education, people who have nothing to lose. Universally, lack of education is the result of poverty, just as poverty is the result of the absence of education. This loop, which turns into a downward spiral, must be reversed. A virtuous circle must be established to replace the nefarious results of the vicious circle that prevails today. This is the ultimate meaning of cooperation.

                                                  December 24, 2001
 
Copyright  © 2001, Peter Koestenbaum. All rights reserved. Protected intellectual property.
=======================================================
Log into PiB.Net's Leadership Zone [ http://www.pib.net/login.htm ] to read Peter Koestenbaum's Library, including "The Comprehensive Diamond," comprised of four articles:  "PiB, The Practitioner and The Diamond Model," "The Structure of the Leadership Mind," "The Diamond II," and "The Knowledge Manager."

VIRTUAL ENEMY

I'm on the march. Enemies are invisible, thus difficult to visualize.
Trying hard I see a figure in a dense fog. Because I have been told by
THEY, I know it is the enemy and I must hate it. It moves closer and the
grey mist begins to thin. I hide behind a barricade said to be safe, and
stare, blinking frequently to clear my vision. The figure reaches out a hand.
A hand that look much like my own. I'm not sure what to do.

I look to THEY headquarters, it is full of words flying left and right up
and down...no answers. I reach out, for the figure is beside me. As
our hands touch I realize the hand I clasp is warm and gentle. It must
be a friend. How can I be sure? I hold on, and we both sink to the
soft warm earth. The sun is shining again and we hold one another,
share our rations. We're tired. We have been afraid, and as friends do
we fall asleep in one another's arms.

When dawn lightens we both awake. My friend has a blank face. No
features; no colors. I know quickly that mine is the same. How easy it
would be to decide what this friend should look like. But who makes the
choice?

We part at peace. In a few moments I turn and the figure is once again
in the mist. It turns, looks back and quickly turns away. As do I.

Carol--
Ivan I wrote this in November, thinking about 9/11

CAN THE WORLD KNOW PEACE?

"In asking the question: "Can the world know peace?", one has to wonder whether the great progress achieved by human beings over the last millennia are enough..." -work in progress.

For FINAL CUT, please see below, June 1, 2002, where it has been reentered in its full reedited version.

Many thanks, Ivan

Use Words for Peace/letter to Jerusalem Post.

Here is something posted in the Israeli paper Jerusalem Post which may ring a bell. Or click on: http://www.jpost.com/Letters/26265.html to see "Use Words" for Peace.

Dear World,

It appears that you are hard to please. I understand that you are upset over us, here in Israel. Indeed, it appears that you are quite upset, even angry and outraged? Indeed, every few years you seem to become upset over us.
Today, it is the brutal repression of the Palestinians; yesterday, it was Lebanon; before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad and the Yom Kippur War campaign. It appears that Jews who triumph and who, therefore, live, upset you most extraordinarily. Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we, the Jewish people - upset you.

We upset a German people who elected a Hitler and we upset an Austrian people who cheered his entry into Vienna and we upset a whole slew of Slavic nations - Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians, Romanians.

And we go back a long, long way in the history of world upset. We upset the Cossacks of Chmielnicki who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648-49; we upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us.

We upset, for centuries, a Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through Inquisitions. And we upset the arch-enemy of the Church, Martin Luther, who, in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them, showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit.
It is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you - in a manner of speaking - and establish a Jewish State. The reasoning was that living in close contact with you, as resident-strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you, disturb you. What better notion, then, than to leave you and thus love you - and have you love us? And so we decided to come home - to the same homeland from which we were driven out 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that, apparently, we also upset.

Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please. Having left you and your Pogroms and Inquisitions and Crusades and Holocausts, having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state - we continue to upset you.
You are upset that we repress the poor Palestinians. You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The Arabs are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset.

Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel. In 1920, 1921 and 1929, there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish State to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered hundreds of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered one day in Hebron - in 1929.
Dear World, why did the Arabs - the Palestinians - massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab riots in 1936-39? Was it because of Arab upset over 1967? And when you, World, proposed a U.N. Partition Plan in 1947 that would have created a Palestinian State alongside a tiny Israel and the Arabs cried and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews - was that upset stomach caused by the aggression of 1967? And, by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of upset then?
The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who - when they had all the territories they now demand be given them for their state - attempted to drive the Jewish State into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of "idbah-al- yahud" - "Slaughter the Jews!" that we hear and see today, were seen and heard then. The same people, the same dream - destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today - but we should not "repress" them.

Dear World, you stood by the Holocaust and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea. And you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction. And since we know that the Arabs-Palestinians daily dream of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world, well - think of how many times in the past you bothered us. In any event, dear world, if you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less.

I got your E mail from Jpost .com just so you know how I got them.

To learn about Arab Muslim Nazis please visit
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/recruited.html

I:

I saved your essay for a thorough review. We need to try to achieve peace, but sometimes war is the only way to accomplish peace. This may sound like George Orwell, but it is true. When another person or culture does not share your values, does not even value their own lives let alone yours, you have a real problem. The answer is not easy and is not short term. As a minimum, we need to work to obtain general consensus on the need to respect each other's rights (not easy when your opponent has no idea what rights are). This requires adherence to facts and the use of reason, not emotion. You are making an effort and I applaud your effort. Keep trying.

Bill

Hi Ivan,
Can the world know peace? That's a good question? On graduation day
festivities, I really thought that it would be my generation that would
finally solve all the world's problems and achieve a world at peace with
itself. Yet thirty two years later and it still hasn't happened. What went
wrong? At my ripe old age of fifty, it appears to me that world peace is an
unattainable goal, but one that should nevertheless be pursued. I'd hate to
see the world slide back to the Dark Ages. My take on the world situation
is that it embodies numerous contradictions. For example, I have sent you
this email, however most of the planet's population have never seen, let
alone used, a telephone. Also, in spite of our country's War on Terrorism,
most citizens would say that the country is at peace. However, the country
still includes, the homeless, the hungry, racism, sweatshop working
conditions, and the uneducated. Why do these contradictions exist? It
would be reasonable to state that these contradictions are magnified on a
world level. What can be done to achieve a more level playing field between
the 'haves' and the 'have nots'? Society should continue trying to attain
what needs to be accomplished so that the world can approach peace. In
spite of everything, we should keep trying...

The Assisi Decalogue By David Waters

What if leaders of the world's major religions got together one day and denounced all religious violence? What if they unanimously agreed to make this plain, clear and bold statement to the world: “Violence and terrorism are opposed to all true religious spirit and we condemn all recourse to violence and war in the name of God or religion." It could change the world. It could save the planet. At the very least, it would be big news, wouldn't it? Apparently not. More than 200 leaders of the world's dozen major religions did get together Jan. 24 in Assisi, Italy. Maybe you missed the story about it the next day. Most newspapers didn't carry it. And it was hidden inside many of those that did. There was a lot of other news that day. The Enron hearings opened in Washington. John Walker Lind made his first court appearance. It's no wonder the largest meeting of world religious leaders in history couldn't even make the front page. Pope John Paul II and a number of cardinals were at the meeting. So was Bartholomew I, spiritual leader of all Orthodox Christians. So were a dozen Jewish rabbis, including some from Israel. So were 30 Muslim imams from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan. So were dozens of ministers representing Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Disciples of Christ, Mennonites, Quakers, Moravians, The Salvation Army and the World Council of Churches. So were dozens of monks, gurus and others representing Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Zoroastrians and native African religions. They ignored the personal and political risk of attending such a high-profile gathering. They convened and talked and prayed. They unanimously agreed to condemn "every recourse to violence and war in the name of God or religion." They also said, "No religious goal can possibly justify the use of violence by man against man." And that "Whoever uses religion to foment violence contradicts religion's deepest and truest inspiration." They called their statement the Assisi Decalogue for Peace. It consists of 10 mutual commitments to work for peace and justice in the world, including this one: "We commit ourselves to stand at the side of those who suffer poverty and abandonment, speaking out for those who have no voice, and to working effectively to change these situations." On March 4, the Pope sent a copy of the Decalogue to all of the world's heads of state. Maybe you missed the story. It didn't even make the newspapers the next day, hidden inside or not. There was a lot of other news that day. Seven American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. Israeli troops killed 17 people in the West Bank. Mike Tyson got a license to box. What if leaders of the world's major religions got together one and denounced all religious violence---and no one cared? (David Waters is a columnist who writes about religion for the Memphis, Tennessee Commercial Appeal and appears in syndication.) ###

Decalogue of Assisi for Peace:

1. We commit ourselves to proclaiming our firm conviction that violence and terrorism are incompatible with the authentic spirit of religion, and, as we condemn every recourse to violence and war in the name of God or of religion, we commit ourselves to doing everything possible to eliminate the root causes of terrorism.

2. We commit ourselves to educating people to mutual respect and esteem, in order to help bring about a peaceful and fraternal coexistence between people of different ethnic groups, cultures and religions.

3. We commit ourselves to fostering the culture of dialogue, so that there will be an increase of understanding and mutual trust between individuals and among peoples, for these are the premise of authentic peace.

4. We commit ourselves to defending the right of everyone to live a decent life in accordance with their own cultural identity, and to form freely a family of his own.

5. We commit ourselves to frank and patient dialogue, refusing to consider our differences as an insurmountable barrier, but recognizing instead that to encounter the diversity of others can become an opportunity for greater reciprocal understanding.

6. We commit ourselves to forgiving one another for past and present errors and prejudices, and to supporting one another in a common effort both to overcome selfishness and arrogance, hatred and violence, and to learn from the past that peace without justice is no true peace.

7. We commit ourselves to taking the side of the poor and the helpless, to speaking out for those who have no voice and to working effectively to change these situations, out of the conviction that no one can be happy alone.

8. We commit ourselves to taking up the cry of those who refuse to be resigned to violence and evil, and we are desire to make every effort possible to offer the men and women of our time real hope for justice and peace.

9. We commit ourselves to encouraging all efforts to promote friendship between peoples, for we are convinced that, in the absence of solidarity and understanding between peoples, technological progress exposes the world to a growing risk of destruction and death.

10. We commit ourselves to urging leaders of nations to make every effort to create and consolidate, on the national and international levels, a world of solidarity and peace based on justice.

See also:http://www.vatican.va/special/assisi_20020124_en.html


E.Carroll Straus, Esq.
Collaborative lawyer, Holistic Lawyer
CA Bar No. 110028

Ivan that was a lot of neat thoughts, but a few that can be challanged in a
friendly way. Northern Ireland do not hate the British. Southern Ireland is
majority Roman Catholic, Northarn Ireland are majority
protestant and enjoy the british welfare state. The catholics want to join the
south where they will then be a majority, they then can abuse the
protestants, and so it goes on.

Lets talk about Muhammad the founder of Islam whom you mention, you may not be
aware that he was born in 570 AD. So Allah is a modern invention. He did not
help Saddam Hussein in Kuaite, nor Bin Laden in Afchanistan.Allah may in due
course be revealed as the worlds greatest scam. The temple built by Solomon
the children of Israel 1500 years before Christ is a historical fact to be
seen on the ground.No debate as to who owns the land.

Lets talk about war. The war against Hitler was a just war, Hitler was
stopped but not before some 6,000,000 mostly Jews were slaughterd in the Holocaust.
Mussolini the Fasist not to be left out by Hitlers land grab wanted a piece of
action in North Africa slaughtered thousands of primitive Ethiopians with his
planes with bombs and machine guns.
We also know how the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour and raped the women in
Indonesia and eleswhere.They were stopped in Hiroshima.

This proves that dictators have no concience they allow no opposition parties,
and rule by the gun. Democracies have opposition parties to keep them
honest, bad men are unlikely to take control.

Israel a democracy is surounded by Dictatorships with no consience
the PLO is just one. Formed in 1964 as a terrorist organisation to drive the
Jews into the sea. The land problem did not come about till 1967. That proves
the evil intent of Arafat was and still is to drive the Jews out.

I am going to quit here, but I will tell you there is no easy solution to the
problem. The battle is not Jews against Arabs, but God and His chosen people
against Satan and his anti semitic hordes who he has programmed to complete
the work Hitler failed to complete in the holocaust. There can be no peace,
and the war aginst terrorism will never finish until the Messiah returns.
Check this out:

Zech. 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD,
which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth,
and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Zech. 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the
people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and
against Jerusalem.

Zech. 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all
people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all
the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Kind regards. Tom
http://www.inmyfathershand.com/

JERUSALEM

"Zech. 12:3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it."

In Roman times, Jerusalem was known as Aelea Capitolana, and the Romans thought it was a "burden" even then. Today, again at the crossroad of civilizations, where East meets West both physically and philosophically, it is a burdensome stone anew. In the final liberation from fear and evil of this "terra sancta" will be born a new age of peace and goodwill towards all human beings throughout the globe. Then, the people will no longer be gathered against Jerusalem, Aelea, but sing her praise instead.

I am hopeful and pray for peace.

"Alleluia!"

Or is it "Aelua!" praise to God?

CAN THE WORLD KNOW PEACE?

In asking the question: "Can the world know peace?", one has to wonder whether the great progress achieved by human beings over the last millennia are enough. Take the scientific revolution that launched unprecedented technological achievements, near universal literacy and communications worldwide, ease of travel, the internet, liberation of much of humanity from physical drudgery through machines and modern economic systems, and greater awareness of the value of human beings and all life, expressed in newly won rights of freedom and respect for human rights; both a humanity free of slavery, and an awareness of ecological and environmental interconnections, how we are all connected. One wonders if all these achievements would not have brought humanity to a higher level where the greatest nemesis of history, war, would also not finally be tamed? Yet, it has not. In fact, war has brought us to facing not only armies on the battlefield, and their awesome weapons of mass destruction, but also to facing ourselves as individual human beings who would attack one another as fanatic warriors. In effect, the question comes down to a much simpler form: "Can we be peace?"

This is not a religious question in the Buddhist tradition of "being peace", rather it is an inquiry into the nature of what is it that makes human beings violent with one another. In the millennia old aspirations of humankind, Peace had always been at the forefront of religious belief. God loves the peacemaker, so wrote the great Prophet Mohammed. Yet, the world of Islam today is in turmoil on several fronts, fighting against the predominantly Christianized West, against the Jews in Palestine, against atheistic Communist China, and against the pantheistic Hindus in India. But Islam is not alone, and there are other factions warring throughout the globe. So the quest for Peace, as allegedly mandated by God, has taken a rather odd turn towards more and more war. Is this not a phenomenal paradox? Especially as it applies to the three great religions which sprang from the seed of Abraham, it makes no sense to be fighting one another, unless there is a deeper root cause for this interreligious stress. Or is it perhaps interphilosophical stress instead?

When we admonish preschool children to not hit one another, because one child took a toy away from another, do we not say to them instead: "Use words"? However, what may go unnoticed is that in this preschool child conflict, the resolution is not germane to the warring parties, but results from the stepping in of a third party, the adult teacher. This is what religious teachings were supposed to achieve, to bring in a third party, in this case the oldest adult possible, God, which would then solve the problem. However, either because the teachings are muddled, or because God really has no direct interest in how we resolve our problems other than setting a stage for our resolution, then the conflict situation remains, and war is a fact of life for humanity. Where conflict seems to have abated, one hopes for now and in the future, is where there had been common interests presided by over a powerful third party who is able to arbitrate disagreement. For example, take the fifty states of the United States of America. It would seem unimaginable to us that New Jersey would go to war with New York, or Pennsylvania, or Montana, or even Rhode Island. Yet, this is not by accident, since New Jersey's interests are served by complying within a larger framework of economic, legal, and social common interests. Of course, the fifty states more or less speak the same language, have a currency in common, a constitutional representative form of government equal for all, and a third party in the form of a powerful Federal government. This is not to advocate a World Government, nor a world currency, nor a world language per se, but rather that a common interest for humanity to find cooperation rather than conflict is what would appear to be a philosophical goal for all parties involved. It is that common interest that I think can then be moderated by a third party authority figure which may offer some relief from the conflicts that had hitherto been our common cause. How can this be achieved?

Woodrow Wilson, upon announcing he was reluctantly entering America into Europe's World War, had said: "The right is more precious than peace." He was a peace maker, as evidenced by his introduction of the League of Nations, and it was one of his beliefs to avoid war at all cost. Yet, in the final test, he gave in. Why? Was it because the wrong being done was too great a burden to suffer in silence? Are the passions of war, so universal during times of conflict, merely that? That we cannot remain silent against what are clear and obvious wrongs, and must react passionately, even to kill other human beings? I think the answer is "yes", that there are times war is an inevitable result. And yet, if such passionate grievances had an outlet, brought before some tribunal of disinterested parties, perhaps formed not on a permanent basis but only for the purpose of the occasion at hand, then the resolution could take a form different from that of bloodshed. If not, then conflict always falls back upon the strength of the victor, which is not necessarily able to resolve the stress that caused the conflict in the first place. This is evidenced by latent feelings of revenge throughout the world, whether it is the North Ireland's IRA against the English, or the Chechnyans against the Russians, or black and white farmers in Zimbabwe, or Palestinian rock throwing civilians against armored vehicles of Israeli soldiers, or scantily clad tribesmen in Papua New Guinea; the conflicts are the same, and the result is use of force. It was conveniently believed in ancient times that God was on the side of the victor, but this is not true, for resentments continue to fester from generation to generation in a never ending string of wars. So instead, to achieve peace, the Papuan tribesmen turn to a third party, the local government official, who will administer some form of peace. But can this be done on a world scale?

If, for example, the white farmers of Zimbabwe had guaranteed some measure of egalitarianism to the impoverished landless Blacks, there might have been a different outcome than having their government side with the dispossessed. The economics surely favored the mechanized and better managed farming abilities of the Whites, but that was addressing only a part of the reality, one that ignored that they lived amidst impoverished Blacks. This is not to say that all wars are of an economic nature, for clearly we are facing today threats from misguided fanatic militants who for other than economic reasons would destroy our cherished way of life. I do not believe for an instant that this is shared by all in the Islamic world, and fear that the vast majority who are decent and peaceloving Muslims are being cowed into silence by the small minority who support extreme coercive actions. Yet, this is the reality, that the majority is overwhelmed by the arms and bomb wielding minority. It had happened before, as in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution, where only a very small percentage of the common people supported Communist ideals, and because of that small contingent's ability to force their will on the majority, Russia lived in the backwaters of modern times until the fall of Communism, still reverberating today. A similar threat faces the less developed countries of the world, where small minorities, either as oppressive government officials, or corrupt power seeking religious clerics, or extremist rebels, all have the power to force their will upon the larger majority of the population. This then further spills onto the world scene, where their coercive capabilities then go unchecked, as had been starkly demonstrated on September 11. So the ancient myth does not hold. God cannot be on the side of the victor if God is on the side of peace. The resolution of conflict must be solved another way.

Such a mechanism for peace in fact already exists, though in my opinion still largely ineffectual, in the form of the United Nations. Through a world body, if empowered by a world court, conflict resolution could take on a new dimension. As seen in the Gulf War, or Kosovo, or most recently in Afghanistan, there is precedence for a cooperation between world powers to resolve conflict. By bringing together credible force from supporting nations, which in each case here was ushered by the United States, force was applied in unison against transgressors. In the Baltics, it was in response to mass killings and gross violations of human rights; in Kuwait, it was the invasion of one nation against another; and in Afghanistan, it was in response to a small minority of religious fanatical extremists who had used the country as a base for terror, and who dominated the population at large by forcing them into a regressive way of life. This is not Pax Romana, nor Pax Americana, where an imperial power dictates to its subjects; rather, it was a concerted effort of the many against transgressors, led by a strong leader. But that leadership can change, and there is no reason to believe that it will always be America that will lead the challenge. It could also be China, or the European Union, or a consortium from South America. Common interests are as the term implies, common to all, and from all should come the impetus for stability and peace for its people. For example, a united Europe better serves the common interests of the people than a divided Europe. A united Africa would also better serve addressing the problems there, which are unique to that continent, than a warring Africa. The same for a united Asia. But why only specific geographic areas of the world? Why not a united Earth against transgression? This role could be filled by the United Nations, if it is in the will of world bodies to do so, with funding, and possibly with a rewriting of the United Nations Charter with a new constitution elevating that world body to a force for peace.

The natural place for this to begin is with the conflict in the Middle East. The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 left a gaping wound in the Arab world. This does not negate for the right of Israel to exist, rather that it had not been addressed properly, and hence led to festering an endless conflict, which is now taken up as a war banner by the extremists of the Arab and Muslim world. It is more than merely a war over territory, for it has manifest into a war of ideologies, and of religions. What makes this conflict particularly dangerous is the fact that alliances are forming on both sides of ideology between the mostly pro democratic West, and mostly pro Islam East, which is a conflict of passions which transcend reason and could lead into a new world war. Yet, it is a reality we of the West cannot afford to ignore. And if so, if this is more a philosophical conflict, then how do we "use words"? Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres had said recently both sides must abide by the Oslo Agreement of 1993 in working out their differences "by dialogue not by shooting." Who will be the strong leader who can enforce this point of view, as opposed to the use of arms? Would either side submit to its arbitration? Who can fill the void of arbiter and peacemaker?

Though it had been the domain through millennia to usher God's Kingdom of Peace on Earth, I do not think the answer necessarily lies in a religious solution. However, there could be formed a consortium composed of religious leaders, a religious world body formed in addition to the United Nations world body, to be consulted on how to bring peace. It may be prudent to mention that the Baha'i movement already has had some experience in bringing together diverse religious groups, as unity is one of their founding principles. Nor do I believe it can be solved technologically, such as giving each person a television or computer, though I do think this would help in removing ignorance, and thus leading to a greater understanding of one another. Nor do I think it is purely economical, since there will always be those who are better off than others. Rather, I would think it is a matter of allowing the expressions of the will of the people in free democratic elections to appoint representatives to a world body which can then preside over conflicts. Such a world body, either under the auspices of the United Nations, or through a consortium of nations, could then begin to form laws and legal precedents for how such conflicts could be resolved. It should be pointed out that from this world body could fall in danger our human rights, if these are not safeguarded a priori, so these would need to be protected first. Second, there would need to be addressed economic dysfunctions, such as official corruptions and theft, and unreasonable restrictions on the functions of human exchange in the marketplace. Third, there would need to be a statement of common interests, what it is that we as a world people desire to achieve. And lastly, it would need to be a body of elected representatives who occupy their positions for only limited periods of time. Though, I would also defer to the world's current religious leaders and offer to have representatives sent as a consultative body, like Thomas Jefferson, and the other founding fathers of the American experience, I would keep separate Church and State. This is how Peace can look from the top.

From below, from the perspective of the everyday human experience, it will be different. Every human being has certain basic needs which must be met. When we were still at the economic level of hunter gatherers, those needs were met by nature, which sometimes brutally failed. In more advanced societies, those needs are met by technological know-how and by market systems, which also at times fail dismally. But where we cannot control nature, nor the force of weather or economic change, we can better understand how markets affect our lives, and how we can better contribute to their functions. Each person who is able contributes to that system, same as each person who had contributed should be able to reap its benefits. To insure against the vagaries of economic uncertainty, there are ways to structure social benefits that will continue during times of stress, either administered privately or by governments. But the basic functions of life should be taken away from heavy handed officials who use it to empower themselves, and returned back to the people who had always known how to survive in changing times.

The most difficult to resolve will be people's minds. Peace cannot become Earth's reality while anyone believes that he or she is allowed to force their will upon another without agreement. This is a first principle, one which if ignored leads either to conflict or to submission and slavery. It is absurd for any person to believe that it is God's will to blow up innocent human beings so that God's Law will rule on Earth. This is extreme fanaticism, a perversion of reason, with no basis in reality, and which goes contrary to every cherished belief of humankind. If it is God's will to have Peace on Earth, then their action directly contradicts their belief, and is not only unreasonable and fanatical, but totally coercive. God loves the peacemaker, but the peacemaker may not use war to achieve this. So this methodology to peace is a philosophical difference of opinions, not a true belief. A true belief is embraced in peaceful resolution, not in death and destruction. The greatest work to be done is here, to educate that people have a mistaken philosophical belief based on coercion, of which they often are not aware, and which is totally false. However, this is beyond the world court consortium's ability to fix. Here, we have what is truly a philosophically monumental task, of changing the way of people's minds, which can change only through time with education, communications, and a clarity of what it is that we believe ourselves. I think this is the hardest work, to free people from oppressive ideas. A human mind is a beautiful thing which should not be wasted on truly oppressive and regressive ideas. We need to reach out and teach that peace is a common interest to all.

Can we "use words" to stop from killing each other? Can the world have peace? As I write this, there is rumor of war between India and Pakistan. Perhaps this will not happen, but in whose interest would it be to kill possibly millions of innocent human beings? If nuclear weapons are used, this surely will happen, which may further draw in China and Russia, then England and the US, and so on. Here is another recipe for a world war on what has become a rather small planet. Yet, I believe that peace can be achieved. First through the mediation of third parties, through the right teachings and thinking of human beings, but most importantly through the will of a people who want world peace. We as a world have to know that we can be peace.


Ivan D. Alexander

Ivan,

Since the first human being that used coercion in order to control another human being, there is but one response that has proven effective, and you know what that response is. A new world order is attempting to emerge, worldwide; however, that new world order is fraught with disorder among the peacekeepers. By peacekeepers, I mean, nations with adequate military strength to overcome, subdue, and conquer every resisting nation. The free world is faced with a dilemma, but the dilemma is not power or might, it is the lack of adequate planned available funding to alleviate the aggravated conditions of poverty that gives rise to despotic governments. If the US were to conquer Africa, the US does not have the funding required to build the infrastructure needed to support the peoples living on that continent at a workable pace to satisfy those conquered.

Since human beings began to record history, the above has been true, even to the extent a new world order is always attempting to establish. Why do such attempts fail? They fail because those of us that have are unwilling to share what we have with others. That is a basic premise that underlies every war ever fought. Within the next fifty years, you will see another world order try to establish, but it will fail also, unless two wise heads honor the truth – Strength is unity.

China has a population of 1,228,000,000
India has a population of 1,028,000,000

Combined population of all the Americas = 820,000,000, but the Americas control 45% of the world’s wealth!

It is not a matter of what will happen; it is a matter of when.

Claude

Dear Claude,

'Strength is unity," same as "poverty that gives
rise to despotic governments," as you say, is
indeed the reality our world is faced with today.
The question is: How do we bring about a Unity,
so that strength will manifest there? And how do
we end the vicious cycle of poverty and despotism,
or is it despotism leading to poverty? Human
exchange in the market place, or otherwise,
thrives best where we are free to pursue our own
happiness by agreement rather than coercion, and
yet coercion has been our lot all through time.
How do we reverse these? For that matter, are we
doomed to repeat the past, or can this change
occur, maybe even now?

I am sure this will require, as you say "thinking
outside our heads", and maybe more with our
hearts. The above paper is a final cut of what
has been
presented to the Examined Life On-line Journal, so
if nothing else, I hope it at least offers some
sense of direction.

Thanks, as always, Ivan

Ivan,

The process required to render world peace will not begin until those who have are willing to share with those who have not.

Are you willing to give of what you have, to someone you do not know, whereas the result is, you and them are totally equal in every respect comfort wise? That means, you would give exactly half of what you own and possess, to someone else in the world living in extreme poverty, who would in turn give you you one half of what they possess.

Think about it, and do go outside of your head!

Claude

Claude,

I think as human beings, we give either through gifts or through exchange by agreement. I would be glad to share, if it is my will to do so, same as I would be willing to exchange if we can find some agreement in how we do this. To do otherwise is to coerce, and that would not bring about peace. So to state flatly that all is needed is to give to the other is not necessarily a viable solution, for if the other squanders what was just received, his poverty continues, and now spreads further with your poverty added to it.

I once knew an old woman whose motto was: The best way to help the poor is to not be one of them.

Talk soon, Ivan

Ivan,

My point was – there are people who elect to live in poverty, when they do not have to live in poverty.

Your words: “for if the other squanders what was just received, his poverty continues, and now spreads further with your poverty added to it.”

Poverty is not equal, neither is wealth; therefore, how shall the two meet, and agree to equalize the status? They cannot, and will not, meet, and agree to equalize status for one reason, that reason is lack of trust. You voiced your mistrust openly when you wrote, “For if the other squanders what was just received.” That is the way of the world as we know it today, it is a world filled with people who do not trust their neighbors. Why do people not trust their neighbors? People do not trust neighbors because most of their neighbors are only concerned with their own personal well being. That is true for our nation, and true for the world.

Muslims do not trust Christians, Christians do not trust Hindus, Hindus do not trust Buddhists, and each religion espouses and practices prejudice. Greeks do not trust Italians, the French do not trust Brits, Germans do not trust Russians, Americans do not trust the Chinese, and each ethnic entity espouses and practices prejudice. This can continue in an unending chain of separatist factions, but you get the gist of what I am saying.

If the above is true, there is one simplistic answer – but everyone will reject it.

The answer is: Each democratic governed nation would be required to sign a treaty, and then pledge full financial and military support to enforce the treaty using every means available. All nations that resist adoption of said treaty would be subject to immediate invasion by superior military forces, whereas, the resisting government would be ousted, and a military tribunal installed to force Democratic Principle to be adopted and implemented.

How long would it take? I don’t know, but I am willing to find out, for if we do not, someone else will eventually become hungry enough to begin the war of all wars that renders earth useless. The free world is not free; the free world is trapped, trussed, and gagged by the despotic fools of the world who believe they are God and dictate accordingly. Could such a coalition be organized? Yes, and if it is not done soon, a place called earth will become a wasteland that cannot support life.

My fear is dirty nuclear devices. The US and Russia are the only nations with the knowledge required to use nuclear devices without destroying earth. The devices now held by India and Pakistan are extremely dirty devices. I just hope efforts to diffuse that potential disaster work.

Claude

Dear Claude,

With all due respect, your solution: "All nations that resist adoption of said treaty would be subject to immediate invasion by superior military forces.." is coercive to the max. It would undo all the hard work to date on trying to find "agreements", contracts on how human beings may interact with one another without having to resort to force. Forced conversion, done by any religion or belief system, even if secular, only leads to perpetual war. So I do not share in such a belief, and in fact would most likely be first in opposing it. The Communist tried it, through forced collectivism, and if failed miserably. I am quite certain the idea of imposing on all peoples, without the benefit of representation and open free dialogue, any ideology is doomed. In fact, this is exactly what we need to get away from, whether it be from mullahs, priest, government officials and bureaucrats, or even philosophers. Truly a dangerous road, which does not solve the problem, but makes it boil instead. Now with nuclear weapons, this is a 'boil' I do not want. There is a better way.

Keep thinking, all the best, Ivan

Ivan,

Do you understand the potential risk involved of non-intervention on a broad scale? We, the US and Allies were trapped once before, not by one, but two despotic governments. After those governments were soundly defeated, both become our Allies and remain as such more than fifty years later.

I, perhaps more than most people posting here understand the horrors of war better since I experienced war firsthand; and yes, I fully understand coercion. But, history proves that common sense and cool heads do not usually prevail.

If - India and Pakistan push buttons with nuclear results flying across both borders, the death toll in India alone could be more than 60,000,000 people in 20 minutes, with an estimated 90,000,000 additional deaths resulting from radiation poisoning in less than sixty days. Problem with that scenario is, that does not include potential death of any Pakistani people! That is the capability of Pakistan’s nuclear strike force. If that does happen, Israel will not survive for 24 hours, then what?

I am not a hawk, but I also realize doves are prey for owls, eagles, falcons, crows, and even snakes. A plan to establish peace cannot be built on but one option, necessarily every plan must have at least two differing modes of operation in order to be viable. Most people when offered the opportunity to participate in a plan mutually beneficial to all, will acknowledge such by accepting the plan, and then readily adopt it. The problem is, the major world powers have not – tried – to establish such a plan for world peace. If the plan is sound, and adequate funding is prioritized accordingly, there would not be more than twenty nations that would not readily sign on. I am sure you can name those twenty nations, for they are the source of 99% of the world problems today. The real problem is, those twenty nations only number 5% of the earth’s population! About the same number of people as now living in the United States.

Yes, I have researched the numbers on this one.

Claude

Hi Claude,

I hear you, and respect your opinion. But I do not see it as a solution, merely another element of the problem. I know doves are prey, same as aggressors are predators. But how do you break this vicious cycle? Interesting to come up with solutions (outside the head?), that break the cycle rather than perpetuate it. This is why I suggest Third Party intervention, endorsed by all the other non-involved nations, as a coalition for Peace. In some ways, not so different from yours, except focus is on cooperation rather than premptive force.

Take care, Ivan

Ivan,

Do you believe Iraq, Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, several of the Balkan nations, North Korea, and others would sign, or even listen without threat of force?

Claude

Claude,

Threat of force, or knowing that it stands ready to be used, is okay. There must be force, and the will to use it, to avert all agressions and coercions. However, there are ways to resolve conflict where force is not the first thing used, such as dialogue, common interest, reciprocal agreements, etc. In the Englishman's, Charles Doughty, "Arabia Deserta", which is a diary of his 19th century travels in the Arabian penninsula, he relates how the desert Arabs, when they met up with another group they did not recognize, would sit apart, on opposite sides of the camp fire, and not talk to each other. Only after they had a chance to study each other at length, maybe hours, then they would venture conversation. I bring this up because mistrust is how we operate upon first encounters. It is the same with the nations you mention above, all of which you feel have earned mistrust, that they should be shuned since they are not expected to sign a peace treaty without force. Perhaps you are right, but without attempt at dialogue first, before we use weapons, then agreement cannot be reached, at least not one satisfactory to all parties. The problem, as I see it, is that we mistrust them first, want to preemptively hit them, and then ask questions later. That is a reverse of bringing conflicting parties into agreement, though it might work in John Wayne movies.

Always negotiate from a position of strength when faced with a potential enemy, but do not make him into an enemy until dialogue, or diplomacy, has failed. Once agreement is deemed doomed, and the adversary can see no benefit to a common interest of peace, then... well... shoot when you see the whites of their eyes.

Talk later, Ivan

WE MUST SET A HIGHER STANDARD.

In the posts above, where we seek to find solution for the never ending cycles of mistrust and war, either from a spiritual or militarist perspective, I think it is imperative that the strongest nation of the world set a higher standard.

Warring on others without provocation is clearly an act of aggression, of coercion. But as the strongest nation, it would not serve the cause of peace to do this. We may expect this from weaker nations who hope to gain strength from conquest, but not from those who already have that strength. Therefore, it is imperative for the strongest nation to set an example to all the others, and show that coercion does not serve their purpose, but rather gain greater strength for all concerned through the cause of peace. This means that the strongest nation should be a champion of peace, both as mediator in world disputes as well as the leader who can point out how peace is a common goal beneficial to all. After all, in peace we can better unleash the creative capabilities of a people if they are not diverted into a state of war, both economically and culturally, since war is essentially a destructive force. There will be those nations, and their rulers, who do not believe in this, and who still think regressively, that coercion is a better state of affairs than finding solutions of agreement. But this is where the higher standard should be set first, for those rulers to understand that peace can serve a common goal better than war. Therefore, it is in the interest of those who had gained their great strength, both militarily and economically, to set the guidelines for how a greater peace will be beneficial to all, and bring all to agreement on this. It should be noted, however, that once an agreement is formed and endorsed, any who breaks it is then automatically the transgressor, and a coercion is the result. Once a coercion is established, then the other signatories to the agreement have a justification for the use of force against the transgressor. In today's world, that greatest nation is the United States of America. And if this is so, then it is for the Americans to set that higher standard of peace for the rest of the world. This greater peace is then in the common interest not only of themselves, but also as a general condition of greater prosperity and cultural growth for the rest of the planet.

In the spirit of strength, and peace,

Ivan


Ps: I gratefully invite comment on this 'higher standard' idea, especially as to how we can accomplish this.

Ivan,

I think the Americas in general have already set the standard. I realize in Central and South America there are problems that need to be resolved, but they are insignificant if compared to the Middle East.

You only need to look 228 miles offshore of the US to observe and learn the Power of one man can stymie human progress for fifty years. Speculation today is worthless if compared to the actuality of recorded history when it comes to the affairs of dictators setting as Power of Authority, even when they control small domains. Look at Iraq - today, is it possible to bring its dictator under the umbrella of civility – without using, coercion? How about Libya? Syria? North Korea? Even pacifist India refused to do, and sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, and India is a democratic state.

I agree, war is not the option of choice, but it must be an available choice; otherwise other choices to bring the world to peace are not viable.

Claude

FROM AOL NEWS:

The Way Forward in the Middle East
Commentary by Ariel Sharon for The New York Times

"Thirty-five years ago, on June 5, 1967, the start
of the Six Day War, Israel faced a threat to its
very existence as a coalition of Arab armies
massed their troops along the fragile armistice
lines that had separated Arab and Israeli forces
since 1949. Along the hills of the West Bank,
which had been occupied by the Jordanians, armored
and infantry units were deployed, ready to cut
Israel's narrow coastal plain, which was only
eight miles wide at Netanya. A third of the Iraqi
army was crossing Jordanian territory, ready to
join the coalition against Israel. The declared
goal of the attack was Israel's elimination.

Israel entered the West Bank only after its cities
and airports had come under heavy fire. Israeli
actions were legal — resulting from a clear-cut
war of self-defense. For that reason, the United
Nations Security Council determined in a historic
decision, Resolution 242, that Israel was entitled
to "secure and recognized boundaries" and was not
expected to withdraw from all the territories that
its forces had entered — and from which it was
attacked — in the Six Day War. In effect, the
resolution established that these were disputed
territories where Israel had legitimate rights to
defensible borders, besides the claims of the Arab
parties to the conflict.

Under Resolution 242, which became the cornerstone
of peacemaking, Israel withdrew from the Sinai
Peninsula in accordance with the 1979 peace treaty
with Egypt. It was under the principles of
Resolution 242 that Israel attended the 1991
Madrid peace conference where President George H.
W. Bush spoke about a "territorial compromise"
between the parties. And again in line with
Resolution 242, Israel, operating under the 1993
Oslo agreement, withdrew its military government
over the Palestinian population so that by 1999,
98 percent of the Palestinians in the West Bank
and Gaza were under Palestinian rule.

Nonetheless, the Palestinian leadership decided to
initiate the current war against Israel after the
failure of the Camp David summit in July 2000.
Rather than resolve Israeli-Palestinian
differences peacefully, it deliberately promoted a
wave of terrorist attacks against the people of
Israel. It failed to implement its written
obligations to dismantle international terrorist
groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Instead it
provided them with sanctuary in the area under its
jurisdiction. It also unleashed some of its most
loyal forces, like the Tanzim militia of the Fatah
movement and the presidential guard, Force 17,
against Israeli civilians. Finally, Yasir Arafat's
personal financial adviser, Fuad Shubaki, not only
paid for many of these attacks, but also organized
a consortium of Middle Eastern terrorism built on
the Palestinian Authority, Iraq and Iran.

Despite this situation, there is a way forward.
First, Israel must defeat terrorism; it cannot
negotiate under fire. Israel has made painful
concessions for peace before and will demonstrate
diplomatic flexibility to make peace again, but it
requires first and foremost a reliable partner for
peace. In 1977, when Egyptian President Anwar
el-Sadat came to Jerusalem, he told the people of
Israel, "No more wars." From that point onward,
the threat of violence was removed from the
Egyptian-Israeli relationship as both negotiated
their 1979 Treaty of Peace. King Hussein of Jordan
followed the same pattern in 1994. This elementary
commitment to permanently renouncing violence in
the resolution of political differences has
unfortunately not been kept by the present
Palestinian leadership.

Second, when Israel and the Palestinians
eventually re-engage in negotiations, diplomacy
must be based on realism. The race to a
permanent-status agreement at Camp David and in
talks at Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 failed
because the gaps between the parties were too
wide. The only serious option for a successful
negotiated settlement is one based on a long-term
interim agreement that sets aside for the future
issues that cannot be bridged at present.

In the nearly two years of the Palestinian
intifada, the people of Israel have seen Israel's
vulnerabilities exploited, its holy sites
desecrated and massive weaponry smuggled and used
against Israel's cities. For this reason, Israel
will not return to the vulnerable 1967 armistice
lines, redivide Jerusalem or concede its right to
defensible borders under Resolution 242. Movement
from a long-term interim agreement to a permanent
settlement can only be guided by changes in the
reality of Israeli-Palestinian relations on the
ground and not by a rigid timetable.

Finally, in order to reach a stable peace there
has to be regional scope to diplomacy. In the Six
Day War, Israel faced a coalition of Arab states.
It is logical that Israel cannot reach a permanent
peace with the Palestinians in isolation. Israel
needs peace with the entire Arab world. For this
reason, Israel has proposed a regional peace
conference of like-minded Middle Eastern states
that reject terrorism and seek to enhance regional
stability. The idea of the conference is based on
the principle that eradicating terrorism will set
the stage for peacemaking, and not the reverse.

A little over a decade ago, the American victory
in the Persian Gulf war established the necessary
conditions for convening the Madrid peace
conference. It was proved then that security is
the prerequisite of peace. Similarly, a victory in
the war on terrorism today will provide a new
diplomatic basis for a stable Middle East peace."

Ariel Sharon is the prime minister of Israel.
------------------------------------------------
Maybe they really can "Use Words"?

PEACE, an Interfaith discussion.



Dear Friends,



On June 11, we had a very interesting Informal Interfaith Meeting. We had

representatives from the Jewish, Moslem, Baha'i, Church of Jesus Christ

of Latter Days Saints, and the Church of religious Science.

The atmosphere was very friendly and everybody spoke with a complete

sense of ease.

I will like to share with you some of the notes taken during that

meeting.



Sincerely,

Isaac Cavaliero





Informal Interfaith Meeting Report 6/11/02

Highlights from Ivan Alexander presentation:

Peace and Politic

Hatred does not solve anything.

Encourage dialogues and exchange of ideas and thoughts.

Democracy is the agreement to agree on the results of an election.

Bring people together to reach an agreement without coercion, but through

reasoning, trust and understanding.

The great majority of people want peace.

War as a solution to solve problems is not a smart idea.

Five points on what it means to be human:

Tolerance or acceptance: The right to be wrong and to learn from one's

mistakes.

Freedom: Free to be different, the right to be who you are, as long as we

do not trespass on another.

Trust: Agreement between people from within and without coercion

Faith: Trusting in a Being greater than oneself. Rising above something

we have no control of. Faith is stronger than fear.

Love: Ultimate love. All creatures have a sense of consciousness. We as

human we are conscious of our consciousness.

Brain Storming session on how to achieve peace in our troubled world:

Provide worldwide curriculum for children on tolerance, acceptance and

the removal of religious, ethnic and racial prejudices.

Do not seek revenge. Hatred does not solve anything. Hatred and revenge

breed more hatred and revenge. You can win a person to see your point of

view only through love, trust and by accepting our differences.

Peace cannot come to this world unless there is peace among the

religions. Religion must be the source of unity among all of God’s

children. Religion must not be the cause of division, hatred and wars.

Appreciate and enjoy our cultural diversity.

Teaching of contempt and preaching hate will only bring calamity to our

world. Religious leaders must be counseled and urged not to preach hatred

or contempt of another group of people.

We must do our utmost to promote friendship between people of different

religious, ethnic and racial background. (how is this to be accomplished

will be a topic of one of our next meetings.)

For those who did not have the chance to attend our meeting, if you have

any more suggestions, please forward it to us.

In the enclosed attachment are words of wisdom of the various faith that

we read at the beginning of our meeting.

We will keep you informed about the location of our next meeting which

will take place on June 25th from 7 to 9 P.M. Please encourage members of

your church, synagogue or mosque to attend.

Sincerely,

Isaac Cavaliero
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I was graciously asked to speak to a small gathering of the Interfaith Council at the home of Isaac and Sheila, Huntington Beach, CA, for which I was honored, and we had a very good and productive discussion. It was mentioned by one attendant, Sandra, that Words have power. Well, I hope that our good thoughts and wishes for Peace, and the kind generosity of our hosts and guests, will have the power to see a more peaceful world. The idea that children should be the first to be educated in agreement skills, and peace, was Harold's idea, and we all heartily endorsed it.

God Bless, and Peace, Ivan

From http://www.debka.com

New Jihadist Army Forming in Balkans
From DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Intelligence Report
24 June:

"The next radical Islamic terror attack in America could well originate in a corner of the Balkans, where a new jihad force is taking shape quietly and unhindered. In its last issue, published on Friday, June 21, DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources reported that close to 20,000 fighters, battled-hardened veterans and eager young recruits, are already under arms, with more joining up all the time.

"Saudi, Iranian and Iraqi intelligence services and al Qaeda operations officers in Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Albania are tasked with recruitment, training and organization. The units are armed with modern weaponry, including missiles and artillery, while handpicked young Muslim recruits have been sent to sign up at private flying schools, especially in the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, as the nucleus of an air force."

Like fleas on a dog's back they will spread throughout Europe! What is your spiritual solutions?

Curious

Curious,

The answer to "What is your spiritual solutions?"

In a word? "Resist".

We must be conscious of when those who trespass against us, who act from a basis of fear and coercion rather than good faith and agreement. Those who persist on using terrorism must be viewed as unconscious human beings who are essentially criminally insane. So, like errant behavior of any kind, we need to resist them with force, if necessary, and with using truth to reveal where they are in error, or lying. If they persist in calling their cause God's will, and they coerce others, then this is their fundamental lie, which comes from superstition rather than faith. God's will is peace, not war.

Ivan

Dear friends,
Last night we had an exceptionally good Informal Interfaith dialogue at
Don and Janet Garrick's home. 12 people attended: 2 from the Moslem
religion, 1 from the Jewish religion, 1 from the Church of Religious
Science, 1 from the Church of Jesus Christ, 3 from the Baha'i Faith, 1
from the Hindu tradition,1 Catholic and 2 noncommitted persons who
strongly believe in God, but prefer to consider themselves as citizen of
the world.
Janet Garrick prepared for us some outstanding hors d'oeuvre, Sheila
Cavaliero made an opening prayer. Don Garrick played for us some
beautiful meditation music on the piano. After that we took turn and read
some very inspiring words of wisdom from Islam that were given to us by
Yusuf Gurtas, from the Islamic Tolerance Foundation of Huntington Beach.
This was followed by an open discussion/brainstorming session on "What
can be done to bring peace and harmony between the religions".
A summary of the notes taken during that brainstorming session can be
found at the bottom of this letter. You do not have to agree with
everything that was said during that brainstorming session. they are
presented to you for your information and for you to talk about them with
your friends.
Please try to attend our next meeting scheduled for Tuesday July 23rd at
our home from 7 to 9 pm.

Sincerely,
Isaac Cavaliero

Here is the compilation of the thoughts that were given during last
night's brainstorming session on: " What can be done to bring peace and
harmony between the religions" :
Have more Interfaith meetings. Compile a list of our differences and let
them be known. Spread and appreciate the words of wisdoms of all
religions.
Eliminate the ignorance we have of each other religions. Spread them
through the Internet.
Develop a web page on how to bring peace. Great amount of goodwill is
needed. Use reason to bring thoughts together. Concentrate on world
peace.
Problems between religions stem from ignorance. You learn religion from
other people. You learn spiritually from your own experience. Be exposed
to others religions, get out of your cocoon.
Learn tolerance. Search after the truth without prior prejudice.
Concentrate on the teachings that unite humanity.
No religion has a monopoly on God, truth, tolerance and humility. These
teaching could set the path for the unity of humanity.
The reason, we attend these interfaith meetings, is that we are lovers of
the truth.
Teach love and tolerance, we are all children of the same God.
Economics and power struggle distort the truth.
Use complete sincerity in the search for the truth.
Purity of motives is very important.
Renounce some of our beliefs that are the barriers to unity of mankind.
Enjoy and appreciate harmony in diversity.

CAN ISLAM FACE PROGRESS?

This is an article, the first of a series at BBC News, which addresses modernity in the world of Islam. But the question will be this: Is Islam, in its most conservative fundamental interpretation, contrary to modernity? And if so, was the height of its great intellectual achievements in the early centuries doomed from the start? This, regrettably, none can answer but the followers of Islam itself, for anyone else to attempt to do so would be blasphemy. How will future generations define human freedom? No, for the Muslim world to rise to its former glory, it must reexamine itself within in the cold light of intellectual sincerity, and by the integrity of its best minds. And this, alas, is never easy to do. God help them, and God Bless Islam.

Link to BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_2120000/2120735.stm

From the Interfaith Meeting of July 23, 2002, Huntington Beach, CA:

We were fortunate to have three guest speakers:
Shami T. who is a member of the United Nations Association gave us an explanation of article 2 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Thank you Shami.

Yusuf G. from the Islamic Tolerance Foundation gave us an explanation on part of "The Messenger's Last Sermon". This message was given by the Prophet Mohammed in the Uranah Valley of Mount Arafat in 632 AC. This message read as follows:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white man has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white except by piety and good action".
We were surprised to find out that the concept of "all men were created equal", was already being preached, almost 1370 years ago.
Thank you Yusuf for that valuable information.

After that, Charlie N., from Temple Beth David, gave us a detailed explanation on the "Walking Together Program". This program is designed for Jewish, Christian, and Moslem 4th to 6th grade children and their parents. This unique inter-generation program teaches religious diversity through innovative educational sessions.
Thank you Charlie.

----------------------------------------------------------
Please note this is only a partial list of the event (which I failed to attend), but I thought it important to share this item with the Forum. -- Ivan

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

From the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948-1998-- United Nations.


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

As presented to the Huntington Beach Interfaith Group.

RE "Modernizing Islam", By DANIEL PIPES
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1027506395782


Dear isaac, some of us know a gentler side to Islam, but unfortunately most people do not, so they know it as "evil". Indeed, Islam has to grow into some sort of reformation, if it is to grow with modern sentiments, especially against slavery. I remember boy slaves in India, at Agra, which is predominantly Muslim, and it was accepted by them as okay. When I gave a little "chai boy" a pen and notebook, the owner took it away from him. This little boy slept at the chai stand all night, and had no possessions of his own. It is not acceptable to us, and we think of it as child abuse, but there it is okay to do this. I did not judge it, though was sad to see it.

There is a nagging question in my mind, that if Islam was different from what has come down to us through the centuries, let's say more like Baha'i faith, would there be a more progressive version of Koranic teachings today? In other words, was Islam at its height 13 centuries ago, and gone into decline since? Back then, it was still close to its roots of other religious thinkers and scientific savants of the time, those left over from another era. Today, they are the product of their own interpretations that focussed more on the abusive, and less on the gentle. Why? Were those who were more peaceful drowned out by the violent? Maybe. Or perhaps it is endemic to their way of thinking that regresses humankind rather than progresses. Women are still kept as virtual household slaves, which I had seen in Sudan, though some women are luckier than others and have decent husbands. I think there is still much work to be done by the world of Islam to prove its worth in modern eyes. Tolerance is not yet their strong point, though it obviously is for some Muslims. But their sweet voices are drowned out by the noise of those who are not tolerant. An evolution has to come from within, for if it comes from outside, it will be rejected. In effect, Islam is of another era, and for it to join this era, it will need to change, from within.

Thanks for sharing that article, Ivan

Books by Daniel Pipes: http://www.danielpipes.org/books/books.shtml

ISLAM REFORMATION

Islam will reform from inside in three easy steps:

1/ Jihad will be for Peace.

2/ Equality of men and women.

3/ Tolerance of all people of the world.

In these three steps, the Beauty of Islam will catapult from 15th to 22nd century. First in Lebanon and Turkey, then Egypt and Palestine and Jordan, then Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Malaysia, and finally Indonesia, Syria, Iraq. Africa and Saudi Arabia will be last, with them Yemen, and very poor countries in Russia where progress is very slow. All will come to understand the Will of Allah is for the Peace maker, for God loves the peace maker. In a hundred years Islam will be a religion of love for all humanity, as meant to be kindness and gentleness for the love of God. This will be the great reformation of Islam.

*************************************************************
(editors's note:)

(We cannot but wonder why Iran is not mentioned by the author above. Was it to be first, or last, or not at all? As Iran being home to Zoroaster, and the Baha'i founders, could Iran remain outside reform with an interpretation of its own? We just wondered.) -- eds.

"PALESTINE DEMOCRATIC PARTY UNVEILS ITS VISION FOR A SECULAR STATE"

This is the headline in the 6 October 2002 edition of the Internet Jerusalem Post:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1033853393889

There is hope.

"The Holy Koran does not have any calls for terrorism. On the contrary, the Lord says, 'whoever slays a soul... it is as though he slew all men..'"
(Surah 5, verse 32)

True Muslims who love God love the Truth, and love all mankind. Not all who profess in Islam are truly children of God. We condemn those who use terror against civilians.

http://www.risu.org.ua/article.php?sid=529&1=en

BBC news: Israel's Culture of Reservists
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1796102.stm

It looks like even from the military there is an opposition coming out. This is very interesting. Maybe hope here is an option....

Maybe there is hope for 2003?

C