As is true for most of we humans, it is not unusual for me to be say something critical about the decision of the President of the United States, one of the cabinet members, a Senator or Representative, the leader of another country, the action of the military of this or another county, representatives of radical groups who initiate violent behavior or who react to the behavior of others in a violent manner.
Just this morning I was shaking my head as I read the newspaper accounts of the beginning of the trial of a young man in Colorado who set off a bomb in a movie theater complex some years ago, of more bombings in Iraq, of more killing in Yemen, of riots in Baltimore, of the investigations of the actions of some police persons who are accused of using “unnecessary force”.
When I am sitting in my comfortable home or having coffee with a friend it is very easy for me to express self-righteous criticism of a person(s) who thinks that violence is an appropriate response to violence or the threat of violence. It is easy for me to posit the opinion that so and so is really dumb for not understanding that reacting with violence has never worked long term for an individual or a nation.
Sometimes I am reading about or thinking about domestic violence which, as reported, is frequently a male being violent towards a woman although I have often known of cases of the violence being initiated by a female against a male or another female or initiated by a male against another male.
It is easy to assume or come to the conclusion that it is as natural for the human being to respond to a threat or perceived threat as it is for many other animals. If we are a student of the behavior of a variety of animals we well aware that we humans are not the only ones to react to violence or initiate violence to protect one’s territory, family, or community. We humans probably have the distinction of being the only ones who argue over a belief system. It is difficult to imagine a lion, a wolf or some other animals arguing about what God or the Gods expect of them or what the God(s) will reward them for. I can imagine aa lion fighting to protect its food source, but it is difficult for me to imagine a lion in lion speak claiming that God(s) are demanding that they kill the rabbit because the rabbit has been sexually promiscuous or because the squirrel look shared a meal with a chipmunk. One gets the idea.
One wonders what would happen if we quit positing a concept of God(s) whom is concerned about what is “natural” or “unnatural”. It seems to that that we humans from the beginning of recorded history have been thinking of new ways to behave or interact with the world and each other. Whether we use the discovery of how to make a fire, create houses which can be cooled or heated, medicines which change the “natural” progression of an illness, a prosthesis which allow Boston Marathon runner who lost his or her legs to again run on two legs we humans have been destroying the “natural” order for a very long time with very positive results. On the other hand, we could easily confuse “natural order” with “balance”. It certainly is true that there are many examples, which show how we humans have failed to fully explore how changing one thing affects the overall balance of nature. If, for example, we introduce certain foods to systems, which are not used to those foods or not designed for those foods, there are going to be negative results because we have failed to take into account how a human organism would react to that substance. An analogy might be what happens if I put diesel fuel into my current car. I know that my car will not be happy. I also know that I can have changes made to my car so that it will run on diesel fuel and thus maintain a “natural” balance for that car.
Let us then suppose for the sake of this discussion that we can agree to not use the concept of “natural” or “unnatural” to justify our behavior. Let us also agree that we are going to quit tying to think for God(s) or use the “teachings” of others about what God(s) wants or do not want as a basis for our thoughts or behavior. What are we left with? We are left with the ideas of those who have proposed that we creatively find ways to share the resources of the world, create more resources by changing how we grow crops, reduce the number of new births and, perhaps most importantly, find new ways of affirming the worth of each of us. If I do not have to worry about earning the favor of God(s) or whether I am to have a seat in “heaven”, then perhaps I can begin to entertain the possibility that all of us have worth; that all of us deserve to be treated with love and respect.
You might then say, “
That would be all fine as long as we got everyone to agree to those two conditions, but that is not going to happen. What good wills it does if a few of us are the only ones to adopt these conditions? Let me tell you No good at all. Others will continue to mistreat, torture or kill me in the name of God, Allah, Elohim, Buddha or in the name any of the other 111 names for God I found listed. “ Yes, that is true, I might respond. On the other hand what if, for today, I decide to treat those which whom I have direct or indirect contact with dignity and respect? What if I refuse to attest that my way is better or right? What if I see my brother who might happen to be a minister of a very conservative church or the leader of the local mosque or an atheist or a person who is advocating the use of violence to respond to the terrible situations around the world as just another human being who is no better or worse than I; who just wants to be treated with dignity and respects? What if I focus on having empathy for the leader of a country, including the President of the United States? Truth be told I have no idea of how I might act if I was placed for even on day in that position. What if I focus on loving that person who violently disagrees with me?
What if I decide to focus on noticing my self righteous, often arrogant, perceived “need” to prove my way of thinking is the right way, the best way or the only way? It does not matter if that is how the other person is thinking or behaving. What if I can even entertain the idea of seeing myself in the other person and having true compassion for that person? That would requiring me taking the leap of trusting that I am worthwhile without have to be brilliant, right, more moral, or the only one with a direct line to the deity of my choice?
In essence what I am proposing is that I focus on what I can control and ignore what I cannot control. What I can control is to practice showing up with love, accepting that I do not have “the” answers and not accepting the invitation to engage in debate about whose God is right or whose deity is right.
If I do that I will be standing in the shoes of Richard Wright’s, Rosa Parks, Father Gregory Boyle, Bigger Thomas, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Pope Francis and other courageous people.
RSS Feed