posted July 08, 2006 12:14 PM              

Jul. 8, 2006. 01:00 AM
PUNNADHAMMO BHIKKHU
OPINION

The teachings of the Buddha contain much practical wisdom. In one place he spoke about the guidelines for making a good decision; we ought to be clear that our choice is not guided by the unskilful qualities of greed, anger, delusion or fear.

This means that those who seek to sway public policy using these lower instincts are acting unethically.

We seem to be living through a period where the public discourse is dominated by fear. There was a time, not so long ago, when politicians and commentators would seek to move public opinion by a vision of a better, more just, future.

Now, they mostly seek to scare us with images of all the terrible things that could happen if we don't agree to surrender our civil liberties, or act aggressively enough in the international arena.

The surrender of liberty and privacy for security has always been a bad bargain; in the end we are left with neither.

Who would have imagined a few short years ago that the public in democratic countries would meekly accept detention without trial, surveillance without due process and even torture?

And yet so fearful have we become that there is scarcely a murmur.

The latest scare is the arrest of the alleged terrorist cell in Toronto.

We should be scrupulous to remember that it is, at this time, just that; alleged. Let us not forget that there have been several false alarms, so-called terror cells busted both here and in the United States which have proven in the end to be nothing of the sort.

There used to be a quaint principle that a person was innocent until proven guilty.

While nothing is proven as yet, and the sensible course would be to wait until it is, already there are calls to toughen various laws.

And then there is the international "war on terror" in which Canada participates with troops in Afghanistan.

We know that both the Harper and Bush governments would like to see Canada's role increased.

The Buddha also taught that the antidote to fear is compassion.

"Hatred is never overcome by hatred, hatred is overcome by love, this is a law eternal."

This may be seen as weakness by the proponents of a "tough" policy, at home and abroad.

But the opposite is true. Nothing takes more courage than remaining true to principles of compassion and shared humanity in times of violence and threats of violence.

Decisions made on the basis of fear are not only unskilful, but cowardly.

The fearful mind seeks a way out through violent destruction, which in the end does nothing but perpetuate a cycle of fear, violence and counter-violence.

We ought to begin breaking the cycle by considering carefully our actions in the wider world.

The American intervention in Iraq, whatever its intention, has manifestly not worked to secure freedom from fear and violence either in Iraq or the world at large.

Instead, that unhappy country has spiralled down into chaos and bloodshed. Perhaps worse, the war is dragging America itself into a moral abyss. Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Haditha — each new atrocity degrades the moral tone further.

Let this disastrously failed policy serve as a warning when we consider our role in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

In the long run, we would better secure ourselves and others freedom from fear by seeking ways to non-violently further social justice, mutual respect and a sense of shared humanity. There are no easy answers, or more accurately, the easy answers turn out to be no answers at all.

We should certainly be on our guard against being manipulated through fear.

posted July 08, 2006 12:37 PM              

This author isn't considering that terrorism, if left unchecked can potentially dominate the world.

I agree - public discource is dominated by fear. Fear of the backlash of challenging terrorism head on. Terrorists are just too scary. We shouldn't be p*ssing them off!

Nobody wants to see more low blows, such as 9/11, and the subway attack in London this time last year.

So, if we were to just try to understand why they are so angry and he11-bent on killing innocent people, maybe we could all make nice. Or, maybe we'll just end up being dearly sorry we let our guard down. And then who would be held accountable?

These sentiments are nice, but not realistic considering the mindset we're up against. How do you reason with irrational people?

posted July 08, 2006 12:50 PM              

It does not have to do with fear of backlash of challenging terrorism head on...in your mind with killing people.

The irony, is that there are more threats of terror in the future because of military presense in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So obviously terrorism cant be rid of "head on".

"if we were to just try to understand why they are so angry and he11-bent on killing innocent people, maybe we could all make nice"

Ok so what do you got on this? I bet you think they want to dominate and convert the world.

"Or, maybe we'll just end up being dearly sorry we let are guard down. And then who would be held accountable?"

Well...I think the hole's already been dug. Continuous violence is only inflamming the problem...what can be done to reduce it?
More violence and war?

posted July 08, 2006 01:05 PM              

Sure we know you want to weed out (by killing?) those who dont agree with your ideals. That is no reason to take their life away! And that is not the ideal of freedom.

Insurgents kill for the same reason the US military does...to protect and defend themselves and their interests!

posted July 08, 2006 01:16 PM              

Many dont trust them staying there, and yet wonder what would happen if they left...There's already a civil war. Could things get much worse? This is not going to end anywhere in the near future, regardless.

posted July 08, 2006 04:27 PM            

quote:

---

I bet you think they want to dominate and convert the world.

---

posted July 08, 2006 06:07 PM              

quote:

---

Sure we know you want to weed out (by killing?) those who dont agree with your ideals. That is no reason to take their life away!

---

Couldn't agree more!!!

I don't think it's necessary to point out who REALLY lives by the tenet "Kill everyone who doesn't believe what WE believe".

See, this point is what really offends me at gut level. It's the complete and utter lack of tolerance & vicious contempt for opposing belief systems that got us here in the first place. There is no room for that in this world.

No God, by whatever name, would advocate this. This is where humans fail fundamentally. Democratic society recognized this long ago. It's time for the rest of the world to catch up!

posted July 08, 2006 07:38 PM              

So I would say that, you betcha, the Islamic fundementalists make a damn good point. Unfortunately, they have nothing to offer but the opposite ugly extreme - souless, moral robots.

So what do you want? Nazi Germany or Orwell?

posted July 08, 2006 08:33 PM              

And for God sake, be good to yourself - because you're on your own.

I think souls are born into whichever type of environment best suits what they need. Not all souls will thrive in this kind of atmosphere. Some do need to be spoon-fed every believe, every appropriate behavior, every moral...

So, each type of environment is required here on earth, by whoever is there. Of course, accidents happen, by hastiness of the soul to be born - those souls will find a way out, and nestle into a world that suits their needs better. (if their governement lets them)

Live and let live.

posted July 08, 2006 09:05 PM              

You're born into whatever type of world you need. But, hastiness of the soul sometimes plunks a person in an incompatible environment.

posted July 08, 2006 09:12 PM              

But, this type of environment will correct itself, like a pendulum swings.

As for now, western society is too obsessed with female sexuality, and sexy female bodies. This is nice, don't get me wrong, but the obsession of it is to the detriment of those who don't meet the standards, (90% of the female population) and the discontent of those who love them. I mean, they want to love them, if only they met those standards ...But, they're looked down on for loving someone "lesser" than the media ideal.

But, the solution is not to drape fabric all over every female. And, btw, it's not the female's fault if some male cannot
control his urges toward her.

posted July 09, 2006 03:39 AM              

I dont think they're trying to dominate and convert the world. The US is more obvious about it. I think these fanatics want to stop the US from trying to change or manipulate anything in those countries...they just dont want the US involved in their business. Some fanatics will even go so far as kill other Muslims who work with or even take any help from the US.

Tink,
you know I do see alot of commonality between the ideals of America and Islam. And im sure many more Muslim countries would have been on your side today, if it weren't for the terrorists the CIA trained.

What are you saying about Enlightenment? And are you comparing America to the Greeks...Alexander the Great's empire collapsed after his death, didnt it?

What do I want Nazi Germany or Orwell?...I dont have to pick from those two, because the situation is different today. We're in the 21st century...you cant invade other countries and control, and "enlighten" them like you use to...technology, weaponary, the style and art of war has changed, and so has the map.

And yeah democracy is nice on paper, and dont forget, on the media...if it's not a "real" democracy, and it's all for show, the citizens of the country usually get their way at the end (id like to think...or at least for awhile, until some other looney bin tries to take over ship).

lioneye,

I dont know if you'll believe me, but there are actually many Muslim women in this world who chose to drape fabric over themselves...not as a sign of oppression,...but for various reasons...a sign of their beliefs, a sign of modesty, and even a sign of liberation, etc.

posted July 09, 2006 11:11 AM              

Alexander's empire was split up after his death between his leading generals, some of whom were more succesful then others. Ptolemy and his children did quite well for a few centuries in Egypt. Cleopatra was of the Ptolemaic dynasty. I wouldn't call it a failure. I'm not sure what you mean by bringing up Alexander though.

I don't imagine many would "want" Nazi Germany or an Orwellian state. But my reference wasn't literal. Just a descriptive way of pointing out two extremes and their equally evil ends.

The Americans are often accussed of Nazi-like practices. I think I understand the point, but it appears to me they are heading for something much more closely resembling Orwell's police state. Whereas, the Islamic fundementalists are clearly going for a Nazi mentality.

posted July 09, 2006 11:28 AM              

Well, on the one hand it shows discipline and fortitude. Something they tend to have and we tend to lack. And it shows the pretense anyway of morality. So what we have are men capable of praying 5 times a day, fasting for Ramadan, memorizing the Koran, etc. - all worthy and laudable goals - and yet also capable of beheading someone on camera without flinching, believing wholeheartedly that they are doing the right thing. That's what I mean by souless, moral robots.

And then we have your average westener who wouldn't dream of beheading someone, who quite rightly sees it as barbaric and uncivilised. But on the other hand, probably never prays, or prays occasionally when they "feel like it", if they ever do fast it's only to fit into that size 4 buried in the back of the closet, and couldn't quote a verse from the Bible, or any other Holy Book, if their little lives depended on it. In fact, most of us would rather watch TV than read any book - holy or not. Spiritual and mental laziness don't lead to enlightenment, you know? They lead to a case study in the decline and fall of Western Civilization.

So it looks to me like door #1 and door #2 both sort of suck.

posted July 09, 2006 10:05 PM              

Why are you comparing these guys to average westerners? what point are you trying to drive across?

How about comparing the taliban and al-qaeda to your government?

They were one...they were close allies before...the CIA actually indoctrinated these groups (which consisted even of thugs, and ex-prisoners from other countries) with the most radical version of Islam so they would fight jihad against the Russians. At that time our governments actually allowed these radical jihadists to come into our countries to recruit for the war in the mosques here!!

posted July 09, 2006 11:03 PM              

RAMBO IV....The Family Reunion.