“Our hearts are heavy with sorrow and horror. The terrible anguish that for so long has gripped a large part of the world "beyond the borders" has finally found its way through that impregnable dike and spattered paradise with its blood. Will this make its inhabitants even more hardened towards the ill fate of the rest of the world, or will it soften their hearts to the realization that the world is inevitably one, and that what affects one affects all? Only time and the ripples on the pond can tell.”
Then this exchange took place with a family member:
> For our children this will be the first time they have actually
> experienced a world changing event that incites horror and
> disbelief, one that they can watch over and over on TV.
What about Taiwan, Rwanda, Croatia, Colombia, etc., etc., etc.? Does it have to happen within US borders to be "world-changing" and "incite horror and disbelief"? What is the real difference between us and them?
> Whether or not this will soften our hearts to the Palestinian cause or
> even the world situation as Peter suggests remains to be seen, but
> I certainly don't share his apparent optimism.
I believe that the measures that must be taken are not for the faint-hearted (as different from soft-hearted). They are extremely tough, not in a military sense, but in the sense of requiring of us a courageous self-questioning of time-honored assumptions and deeply-rooted paradigms (see below).
> Another, in full Muslim dress stated, "the United States is paying
> for Israeli bullets that have killed Palestinians." Soften our hearts, I
> don't think so.
During times of peace, it is easy to talk of the virtues of peace. When vengeance knocks at our doors, and then at our hearts, then the sincerity of that talk is tested, as is our maturity and readiness for peace as a people.
The following are in our minds and hearts at this crucial time:
"The American nation ... stands, indeed, from whichever angle one observes its immediate fortunes, in grave peril. The woes and tribulations which threaten it are partly avoidable, but mostly inevitable and God-sent, for by reason of them a government and people clinging tenaciously to the obsolescent doctrine of absolute sovereignty and upholding a political system, manifestly at variance with the needs of a world already contracted into a neighborhood and crying out for unity, will find itself purged of its anachronistic conceptions, and prepared to play a preponderating role ... in the hoisting of the standard of ... Peace, in the unification of mankind, and in the establishment of a world federal government on this planet.
"These same fiery tribulations will not only firmly weld the American nation to its sister nations in both hemispheres, but will through their cleansing effect, purge it thoroughly of the accumulated dross which ingrained racial prejudice, rampant materialism, widespread ungodliness and moral laxity have combined, in the course of successive generations, to produce, and which have prevented her thus far from assuming the role of world spiritual leadership ... which she is bound to fulfill through travail and sorrow." (July 28, 1954, Shoghi Effendi: Citadel of Faith, Pages: 126-127)
I am sorry if any of this upsets anyone, but I do not feel this is a time to be pussy-footing around the real issues that are at stake here.
To this a friend wrote: “So basically I'm hearing "your" views are better then ours (USA's). I understand your style is not to "pussy foot" around, but could you take off the cleats for awhile yet.”
I answered: I was pleased to see you actually speak up on an issue aired by the group, although your own opinion was lacking except that you did sound pretty upset. I hope you take this as it is meant: an attempt to sincerely though respectfully help you to question some basic assumptions, although you really did not give me a lot to go on.
> So basically I'm hearing "your" views are better then ours (USA's).
Do you always hear this kind of thing when anyone is courageous enough to stick his or her neck out and express an honest opinion, or am I privileged in this sense? Whether the former or the latter, maybe you should ask yourself why. To help you get started, there is a saying in Spanish, which goes something like, "Each sinner judges others in the light of his/her own sins".
Did I miss out on something? When did all the millions of US citizens come to a consensus on what their view was going to be? Actually, what I have been hearing through the US media are many different opinions, some of which I agree with and others not. Don't forget that the Internet, CNN and cable TV puts the US in a fishbowl for all the world to see.
Or do you think that "your" views somehow represent those of the USA, in which case you really need to do some intensive soul searching. Also, if this is the case, how could I think my views are better than yours, if you have not graced me with your opinion yet?
Contrary to your hearing, I am just exercising my constitutional right to have an opinion and express it in an honest but courteous way. In return, I have received two rather rude replies from loved ones who have not even granted me the basic courtesy of saying why they do not agree with me.
When you say "yours" and "ours", you seem to be implying that I am not also a part of the USA, as if I were not a US citizen entitled to adding my two cents' worth to the discussion like everyone else. I know that the fact I chose to make my life outside the States irks some Americans. They ask me "So what is wrong with the States?" as if my choice to dedicate my life to promoting the development of Ecuador were an act of treason. But if the US is really as sincere as Dorothy's article says about helping out the rest of the world, then why ostracize those who participate in that effort at the grass roots? Or should foreign aid only be understood as sending out money and/or bombs?
> I understand your style is not to "pussy foot" around,
> but could you take off the cleats for awhile yet.
I understand you are hurting, but believe it or not, I'm hurting too, not just as an American, but also as a world citizen. The entire world has been shocked and grieved by the attack. If you cannot accept that this could be out of a basic sense of human solidarity, then at least because the dead and injured were from virtually every country, race, class, and religion on the planet. Many Ecuadorian families are suffering the loss or injury of their loved ones in the attack.
As the saying goes, "Strike while the metal is hot." I believe there is no better time to explore an issue than when it is burning foremost on people's minds. And to judge from the numerous articles, editorials, letters, etc. that I have seen on it, I am not the only one who thinks that way.
Why is it that every time someone suggests that there is room for improvement in US foreign policy, it is taken as an anti-American attack? Do you really have to agree with everything the US does or says to be in favor of the country? Have I made the mistake of taking the platitudes of the "rule of democracy" and "freedom of speech" too seriously for my own good?
America's future spiritual leadership was foretold by 'Abdu'l-Baha, not because the US is in any way superior to the rest of the world, but because it is further down the vortices than the rest of the world, and so will be thrown out the bottom earlier. To deny that, and to pretend that what America needs is a pat on the back and a big smiling "You're doing great!" (the tonic in Hollywood), I believe to be a gross error. When are we going to wake up and smell the coffee? Where goes public opinion, supposedly goes the nation. Are we as Baha'is supposed to do everything possible to let the people go on sleeping the sleep of the 'innocent' (in the archaic sense of the term)?
After war was declared on the Taliban, I wrote: Last night, stripping away the masterful rhetoric and real toastmastership, the way I see it, Bush has officially inaugurated WW III (or IV if you count the "cold" war). You are either with us or against us, and if the latter then watch out, he said. This time the war is supposedly against 'terror', but unfortunately Bush and his advisors do not seem to see terrorism for what it really is: the tip of the iceberg; a sign or symptom of something much bigger, much deeper and much more complex -- something that will never be gotten rid of with bombs, but which could turn out to be a sleeping giant that those same bombs might awaken, and then may God help us all.
Note: The opinions and views expressed in this article are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any Bahá'í institution.
No comments:
Post a Comment