The Cherry Orchard

Now that we’ve determined that we can’t sit around and wait for politicians to find the path to peace, who are we going to entrust this important job to? I’ll be examining this question in the next few posts, and today I’d like to introduce another candidate: religious leaders from the major faiths of the world.

It’s truly sad how badly the current leaders of the world’s religions are faring as peacemakers. Their legacy is great. We don’t need to go as far back as Jesus of Nazareth, whose sharp words should be endlessly inspiring to people of any religion. Many great peacemakers of our recent past were religious figures: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa. The first two of these names are notable for their strict adherence to the doctrine of non-violence, and if anybody doubts the effectiveness of non-violence, they need only look at the success of the democratic, free, multi-cultural nation of India (which has weathered many crises but remains the brave nation Gandhi and his partners imagined into being) or the great progress made towards racial equality in America during the period when the innovative Martin Luther King was on television news every night. Here’s the surprising truth: non-violent protest works.

Unfortunately, no well-known religious leader of today compares to Mohatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King in either character or talent. I think I’ll refrain from naming names at this point (I’d rather buttress up my research before I start slinging any actual mud on this site, so please be patient and return soon). Today I’m just going to speak collectively about the whole set of Western religious leaders who are vocal about political issues today, including well-known representatives of various sects of Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Sunni Islam, Shiite Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Hasidic Judaism, Reform Judaism. Yesterday I gave the politicans of the world a D+ for positive action towards peace. The religious leaders of the world, hmmm, well … is there an F-?

They are a disappointing lot. The Dalai Lama of Tibet is one exception — he’s a wonderful speaker and a humble Buddhist — but as wars rage and rockets fly and bombs fall I sometimes wish the Dalai Lama would meditate less and talk more.

Some mention Pope John Paul II as a peacemaker, and he was certainly inspiring in many ways. But in 1994 the Catholic nation of Rwanda burst into a orchestrated and politically motivated genocide, and the Vatican failed to find any way to influence events in this churchgoing nation. A million Catholics were killed by their fellow Catholics over the course of one scary month, often with the complicity of priests who allowed church grounds to be turned into slaughterhouses.  (When I discussed this with a Catholic friend, he angrily asked what I expected the Pope to do: “Did you expect him to deploy the Vatican army to Rwanda?”  Funny line, but what I expected the Pope to do was exercise his leadership to improve the situation.  There is a direct line of communication and accountability from the Vatican to the parish priests, and I would have expected a remarkable effort to influence events, using the powerful weapons known as words.)

Other than the Dalai Lama, the field of religious leaders who work for peace is pretty empty. If I’m forgetting somebody, please do post a comment and let me know.

I plan to be observing the words of some of the world’s well-known religious figures more closely on this site in the future. Tomorrow I’ll continue this series with another party that might be considered a productive contributor towards the cause of world peace: the United Nations. (Now stop laughing. Yes, I’m going to talk about the United Nations as a positive force for peace.)

I respect people who are willing to change their opinions. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is a good example. He established himself as a famous young follower of Bertrand Russell with the hyperactively rational “Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus”. He then realized everything he’d argued was wrong, and argued that the entire foundation of logic and rationality lacked concrete meaning. Some contemporary academics favor the conclusions of the early Wittgenstein, some favor the later Wittgenstein, and there is nothing they all agree on. I think this is the sign of a great philosopher.

What is an opinion, and why do we cling so tightly to our own? I think it’s a sign of intellectual maturity to stand up in public and declare: “I said this, I thought some more about it, I listened to your responses, and I now realize I was wrong.” How rarely this happens! More often, a person who loses an argument will put his head down and duke it out forever, undeterred by logic or evidence.

I try to never do that, and I am determined to make it my method and my practice, as I operate this blog, to always admit my mistakes when I make them. I hope I don’t make too many. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to log where I stand on some of the topics we’ll be covering here, so that if any of my beliefs ever change I’ll be able to mark the occasion.

First, let me introduce myself. I’m a New York Jew (though my own religion skews to Buddhism), and I’m generally a liberal moderate, though I sometimes find myself on a conservative side in an argument. Of course, any Jew will choose political philosophies with a sense of irony, since we tend to get fucked over by extremists of any belief. This fact is extra ironic because Jews also tend to be the extremists of many beliefs, and if you think too much about this whole thing your head starts to spin. What conclusions can you draw about my political heritage when my ancestors include both Karl Marx and Henry Kissinger?

I don’t have a great deal of respect for the way the Jewish religion is currently practiced (nor the way the Christian or Muslim religions are currently practiced), but I do take a lot of pride in my ethnic background. I’m pretty sure the greatest Jew of all time was Jesus of Nazareth, and I’m also pretty sure that Bob Dylan and Groucho Marx are tied for close second.

Economically, I’m a middle class 2nd and 3rd generation American, and I work hard (as a website developer and writer) so I can support myself and my three kids and still have enough left over to take my girlfriend on a date. I’ve been broke and I’ve been (dot-com) wealthy. Now I’m still basically broke but I’ve learned how to cook my own meals.

Enough about me. Please meet my opinions. I’m going to list eight issues that will probably be discussed within this site in the future, and I’m going to try to keep this punchy and short:

1. The Arab-Israeli Conflict

In 2002 I created a fake organization called The Committee to Give Jerusalem to Tibet, and that pretty much sums up how I feel today. I want the fighting to stop, and I have no patience for the idea that compromise is impossible; it is possible because it must be possible. There is an incredible amount of propaganda, cheap mythology and dubious history on both sides of this debate, and I would like to improve the quality of the discussion and find the moral center that seems, at this moment, to be completely lost.

Okay, that was neither punchy nor short. I’ll try harder with the next few:

2. George W. Bush and the War in Iraq

Terrible. I hate the destruction this has caused, and I do not believe the victory over Saddam has made the world more stable or secure. In strategic terms, I really think George W. Bush proved himself to be a bad poker player, since only an amateur overplays a big hand. We fell into a classic trap. Osama bin Laden’s best month wasn’t September 2001 … it was March 2003. I do believe in international activism to overthrow dangerous or genocidal governments, but the case must be made in international debate and there must be a much greater consensus.

Even less short and punchy. Okay, I’m doing the next six in one sentence each.

3. Is the U.S.A. a positive or negative force in the world?

Spotty record, but I’d give us a B- overall, which is better than a C+.

4. Is religion a positive or negative force in the world?

Positive.

5. What can prosperous peoples do about famine, poverty and economic injustice around the world?

Most people I know would like to do more but don’t believe that anything they can do will make a difference.

6. Should the nations of the world intervene to prevent genocide in Africa and other similar atrocities?

Yes, and I believe the United Nations should and can play a much bigger role than it currently does.

7. Should the U.S.A. have stronger gun control laws?

I would look for a compromise solution here — I have spent enough time in “red states” to know that it’s a waste of time and effort to try to separate a stubborn homeowner in Indiana from his private stash of rifles and pistols, so gun-control advocates should relax the rhetoric, try to find an effective middle path and get some useful laws pushed through.

8. Should the U.S.A. Supreme Court outlaw abortion?

I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I believe it would be a humanitarian disaster to deny pregnant women the right to make choices about their own bodies — I believe a woman’s right to choose is the most basic right here.

That’s about it … please feel free to start telling me where you completely disagree.