Freedom of Speech, Religion and Responsibility

First of all it must be completely understood that anyone can do whatever they want. The argument is whether a person should do what whatever they want. For example, people have the ability to say or act upon the most hateful ideology. People also have the ability to act on the most loving ideology. Within those dichotomies is the reality of thought, which everyone must control and will experience. The difficulty is managing thoughts before a person moves into actions. In essence this is a psychological warfare playground. In the realm of psychology, thoughts are first played upon in order to bring a person into a state of mind or belief. From that state of mind, a person has the capacity to act. No law or decree can stop an individual from acting however they choose to act once that person has decided to act. Again, we must fully understand that only the individual controls themselves. Each of us has the capacity to act in the most peaceful or the most hateful manner. That is the reality. Each of us must decide how we are going to act. At this moment I can write or draw whatever I choose to. This is the crux of the issue with freedom of speech and religion – self-control and responsibility. Outside of self-control we must interact with society. As we interact with others, each of us is responsible for peace in society. The decision to spread peace is our responsibility. Society is made of other people who have their own guidelines for what is allowable. To ensure there are general understandings of social conduct we look to leaders who inform us of acceptable actions. This is how we have built cultures, religions, and other organizations of social structure. From these organizations we must understand how government, religious and citizen leadership relations are very much needed for a positively peaceful society. In simplicity there are the Ten Commandments. One of these ten is the rule that we shall not kill. Now apparently the Jewish faith, Christian faith and the Islamic faith all follow the Ten Commandments. So how is it acceptable to incite death because someone draws a picture of God? That question has been answered by some who have deemed it acceptable to kill someone for drawing a picture of God. As we delve into freedoms, there are constraints on what a person thinks. These constraints come from moralistic ideologies which are played out in the many cultures and religions around the world. As we move through social issues, each of us must understand that each of us has to make their own decisions. However, each of us has to contend with what consequences are acceptable. Also we must understand the relations between what we think, what we say and what we do. The culmination of those three realities defines who you are. If you draw a picture of god, you are an artist to some and a blasphemer others. If you kill a person for drawing a picture of god, you are a killer. If you are killed for drawing a picture of god, you are a martyr, a victim, an artist, and a blasphemer. These are some of the freedoms of choice people have made. Choice is personal yet we must take others into consideration. That is our responsibility.

Tactics of war, the need for change

Going on its fourth year of violence, the war in Syria has made some big steps in regional and global chaos. At the outset of this war almost every world leader sided with the rebel faction. This support even called for the overthrow of the leadership of Syria. Today we have a clear understanding that the rebels are now known as the Islamic State – (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or Islamic State in Levant). The difference of these names is easiest to understand by seeing the ISIS as an internal focus and ISIL as the global focus. To make things even confusing the phrase Islamic State terrorists has even been used. Either way, the world is dealing with a group of misguided and lost souls who are hell bent on violence. If such people really were devout followers of their religion, killing anyone would be seen as killing yourself. However, killing is what is being done. Thus far the leadership of the world has failed completely in handling this war. Those that sought regime change are now proven to be wrong and have wasted both time and resources in such a pursuit. Here we are today with an even greater mess to deal with. In order to end this war there will have to be large numbers of boots on the ground. Old school tactics of building front lines have to be employed. The American tactic of forward operating bases, has failed miserably in two if not three or four wars and needs to be abandoned in face of such failure. The tactic that must be employed is the exact same tactic of the Islamic State. This tactic is to move in and stay, never leave, remain in force, patrol and police every step you take from one end of the country to the other until there is no more need. This tactic is without a timeline, has unknown cost and will consume untold resources and people. However it is a tactic that has and will work, unlike the tactics of Afghanistan and Iraq. In short the tactic is like a pebble hitting the water. From this top down tactic there needs to be and equal effort of bottom up peacebuilding. The grass roots peacebuilding is easier to accomplish with establishing frontline tactics. With such grass roots efforts the reliance on religion is going to be very much needed. Never mind the nuances of religion, the focus must be on the basics of peace which each religion is rooted upon. In fact religion can even be left out of the conversation and the word peace put its place because peace is all that the leaders of each religion asked for. Twist the words of such religion all you want yet Islam follows the same God as the Jewish and Christian religions. With that it is hard to see how the Commandment of Thou shall not kill is over ruled. Both Moses and Jesus bowed to the will of the law to the point where they accepted punishment and death before they would use violence. Even though religion is a major theme in the Syrian war, reality proves that it is the furthest reason or cause. The only reason for this war is rooted in the seven deadly sins. Furthermore, each religion tells us that the best way to fight evil is to ignore it, tell it to go away. Engaging with evil only brings more. Unfortunately most of us do not have the same level of trust and faith as Moses and Jesus.

Partisan politics needs more peace

Partisan politics has positive and negative impacts. For those that are deeply engaged in politics, they have a wide understanding that they are acting in a manner which will have a positive impact. For example the people that are leading Boko Haram, Taliban, Islamic State groups and the many organized crime groups around the world, they believe that they are balancing out the power of good and evil. Taking two other examples are the actions of Russia in regards to Ukraine and the Republic of the United States with Iraq. In each case the bottom line reason has been to ultimately achieve peace and stability in those regions as well as in the home countries and the world. Not everyone is in agreement that peace and stability is the ultimate goal. Power and control has often been cited as the main goal in objection to peace and stability. The debate is widely written, talked about and violently being fought over. People are being killed in order to make their voice heard as they debate this topic. In the most simplistic manner, the moment you decide to take up the physical fight to the point of killing another person, you have given up on peace and stability. Such actions are about power and control not peace and stability. Sadly, the person that does take such actions will still believe they are doing what is best for peace and stability. We have known for thousands of years that an eye for an eye justice is destructive policy. Such policy is built upon revenge, hatred and misguided equality punishment ideology. In all seriousness, to change this ideology which has brought us unrest in Ukraine, war in Syria and destruction of Iraq, leaders must be willing to peacefully stand up to those who speak and act violently. Yes this will put such a person in harms way with a great possibility of being killed themselves. If such a reality scares you then you know you are not the person to lead a peaceful and stable society. Nelson Mandela had to go to prison to realize that point. The founder of Christianity lived this exact point to his death. Such courage is rare. Often courage is emulated/exalted with acts of violence in hopes to obtain peace and stability - there is no greater act of hypocrisy. For each of us we need to denounce those that continue to believe in such hypocrisy. Any leader that tells you violence and killing are acceptable is unfit to lead. Peaceful partisanship is the partisan politics version which is in dire need of support. Leaders that are entrenched in fear and believe peace/stability is found through violence have enough support.

Transitions of war and peace

Efforts to organize society takes a great deal of energy. Formulating a transition to a new government has an added challenge since the idea of government dawned on our existence. Such challenges and efforts have been in great demand lately as we seek to understand the many stresses of the world. At some point between the late 1980’s and the early 1990’s the world went blind to a great many things. I think everyone crumbled upon the possibility of peace. There was so much hope and of course that meant a new world, an unknown world. Instead of pressing on into that new realm of reality, everyone fell back to what they knew. Wars sprang up across the globe and many economic schemes were founded during these times. However the reality of peace is still there and for some the need to find new answers has produced answers. Peace encompasses our total selves and everything outside of the self. As we seek personal peace we often seek social peace and order. Socially, in short we seek the perfect form of governance. In reality everyone is their own person and has the capacity do what ever they feel the desire to do. With that, there is the spectrum of attitudes and actions we see daily being waged by ourselves and others. No matter what larger social umbrella you may adhere to, these personal attitudes and actions are based upon your own individual governance desires. Every system of religion or politics has individuals who are peaceful icons as well as the icons of evil. No matter what laws exist, each of us acts according to their very own personal set of laws. What happens in a situation where laws come in conflict? At such a point a new understanding should be formulated for that very situation. In some circumstances an example of failed understanding is war, in other situations there is a stalemate. During these times of conflict a transition is being made. In a peaceful environment discussions are held to reach common ground, common understanding, common path to reach a common goal. With the absent of efforts to find commonalities conflicts become entrenched, worsen and each side bolsters their appetite for revenge. When such situations occur peace is rarely understood as possible. In reality peace is always possible, if the courage is there to allow it. For entire societies that experience conflict there is a deeper need for strong leaders to embrace peace. Such leadership has not been there for many in the Middle East. Due to this lack of leadership the entire world is now a battle ground. The world is facing a number of groups seeking change and the method to cause change is violence. Even though there is a global battle, the battle is very much person to person. Each of us must work to find peace within and with each other. This is the only way to end the global violence because for those that act violently, they can only act out against the people they live with each day. This is the transition each of us has to decide upon. Each of us wants peace now we have a great deal of work to obtain peace.

Everyone needs a voice

Rebuilding society is always a mash up of ideology. In essence this mash up is why wars are fought and why violent conflicts rage on for centuries. There is no way of getting around the heated discussions of social order and governance. However the main piece of such arguments are always seeking what is best for all. Within that understanding there is a number of phrases which have come to be in recent years. These phrases are negotiated governance, hybrid governance and other longer terms such as governance of relatively self-governing networks. Each of these phrases talks about how societies can manage through the difficult issues while keeping general peace. Every society endures this balance act. Some fall apart into war more often than others. As we study the methods of governance there is a reality which is becoming quite clear. This reality is that the system of governance is rarely the main source of social destruction. The main source of destruction rests with the people who operate the systems. For example it is often stated that the best leader/form of government is a benevolent dictator. When a society comes to a point when war and violence ends and the process to the formation of government begins, there is always an unease as to how the government is to be set up. This is the continuation of the mash up of ideology and the unending discussion of how governance will work. We can play with the style of governance all we want but if the same people are put in place, expect the same results. With that, it is not the system that needs to change, it is the ideology and therefore the people who are operating the system that needs to be changed. Also we must understand that no government can operate without the agreement of society. Even though that is true, the leaders must work to keep people engaged, informed and understand a desire to have each one non-violently engaged in the political process. Each person needs to have a voice and as the structures of governance are built that voice will erode. How to lessen that erosion is imperative for each person to feel they matter. In most cases of post conflict peacebuilding the voice of the individual is of great importance. The first hurdle is to come up with an agreeable ratio for representation. The lower that ratio is the greater the involvement an individual has because they feel they matter. Any method which increases the ratio has a long term impact of lower civic engagement. To have a low representation ratio does make the job of those in government more challenging. However the impact for society to have as low a ratio as possible will be a more engaged society. In practice we find that over time those who represent the people will seek to increase the ratio. The reasons are based upon a more efficient government. The reality is that efficiency is no substitute for the person who will lose their voice. As each step is made to increasing the ratio, that individual who lost their voice will see society one step closer to a dictatorship. Why has the increased ratio taken place, because those who are chosen to do the job can no longer handle the tasks they must perform. This is when efficiency is used to streamline the decision making process (dictatorship philosophy). The entire society must lose their voice because a small group can not handle their job. This situation is exactly what transpired in Libya, Iraq and Syria in recent years. With the evolution of peace, all of these situations must be understood. As prosperity sets in many people will forget the need to have a deeply rooted governance system which is engaging to each individual, in a peaceful manner. Such a job is not easy as each person will have their own thoughts yet to take that persons voice away is an even greater harm. Thus the need to change the people not the systems of governance.

Bowing to our Fears

With each international summit there is always the question of where are we going? Each leader will give a prepared speech which is summed up in one word – PEACE. The complexity begins in that not everyone agrees on how to get there or if it is even possible. Many times the argument falls apart with answers being too simple or too complex. In reality simplicity is needed in order to get through the complexity. There are a great many options for us to understand as we seek to obtain peace. For example we have the recent crisis with ebola, Syria still has the world’s attention as does, Iraq, Ukraine and the entanglement of global spying scandals. The most deplorable acts we engage in is the trafficking of ourselves – human trafficking, slavery, prostitution of both mind and body. Most of these elements have taken place due to fear with the exception of illness and even that has been questioned to some point. There is very little we can do to prevent every outbreak of illness. What we can control is the fear element. Fear begins with the decision to not trust others. To a certain extent we must be understanding of insane actions. These actions are also unpredictable, hence the term insanity. So here we are with the understanding that a sane person is not to be feared. This should be true since a sane person, in theory listens, understands and has a balanced mind toward peace. However in reality many actions taken by world leaders do not hold up to a peaceful reasonable line of thought. This is when fear takes hold, distrust sets in and we have spies, wars, scandals and corruption. Being peaceful is not easy yet it is what is needed in the face of fear. I guess this attitude delves into the realm of a person spirituality as well. What does it take for a person to be peaceful? To live without fear of the those who seek to traffick, enslave, harm and corrupt takes great courage. This is where the inner peace of each person and spirituality mix. We must carry a spirit of peace and let us not get tangled into fear based religion. Spirituality is not a complete match to religion. Spirituality is what a person has as a core rationale of why they act the way the do. To have a spirit of peace is what a sane person would rely upon in times of fear. This is what the world is in deep need of. The courage to understand, reason and love the differences of each other without the threat of harm. The constant mix of religion, politics, patriotism and other forms of spirit have rooted themselves in fear. This fear brings harm to those who object to our reasoning. This fear base eroded the reality of peace we should have across the world. The elements of fear have been used to bolster our spirit in patriotism, religion and politics. Take away these boisterous mouths that spew fear and what are we left with? The answer currently is only a guess as we have not tried such a method yet on a global scale. All we have are the individuals who have obtained such a state. At times we have even killed those people out of fear. We are trying to reach a peaceful state yet we keep bowing to our fears.

Islamic State fighters, war and the individual

Living in the region where Islamic State fighters has been fighting is a terrifying reality. Sadly that region is expanding and once again we are dealing with acts of terror across the world. The world is dealing with a group of people that are acting in complete contradiction to the values of their own religion. Each member makes the choice to kill others for the end purpose of peace. How do we deal with this situation? The history is well documented. We know the direct link of today with the crusades a thousand years ago. More recently we know the links between the Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Palestine, Israel, Iran, and the illegal invasion of Iraq 2003. The history is there to see and with each step we have responded with bullets, violence and death. Within the Middle East the options are very limited due to the violence/war. In this case a military option with soldiers on the ground is what must take place. Peace has been lost and hatred has already won. There is no winner in the Middle East anymore. We have all lost because violence is too wide spread in peoples minds. Moving away from the epicenter of the ISIS combat zone, the tactics involve more conversations than bullets. At the base root, a persons joins such a gang as Islamic State because they are frustrated with the current situation. That person needs to gain control, needs to gather some support, needs to give their voice to change and that need has come in the form of violence. At this point a person may be too far along the decision of being a violent person to. However the need to talk is more important than ever. The singular item we are dealing with is hatred. A person is taught to hate another. Teaching is done through discussions and reinforced with actions. Teaching peace is similar and teaching peace or hatred is the front lines of this war. Are you teaching peace or hatred? A peaceful teacher understands that discussion is constantly needed, never ending. A peaceful person never needs to be feared. If the tactics the individual engages in has an ideology of bringing fear, that is rooted in a violent ideology which leads to war. Are your actions that which bring fear to another? The person that acts with fear is a person that is already defeated within their own mind. That mindset can not be fought with bullets. A discussion with that person is the only way to bring peace back to that person. Using violence only reinforces the mindset of fear. That reinforcement brings escalation of violence, more need for fear and a larger group of people to fight the fearful situation manifested within the mind. Peaceful society begins within the mind of each of us. We must bring peace to the mind first and lead peacefully within our circle. No one should fear your actions because a peaceful person is open to finding agreeable solutions, understandings and a path forward. Violence has only one solution which ends with everyone dead.