NEW HUMANIST SOCIETY

The cartoon uproar is a rare example of an issue that has two clearly defined sides, both of which are 100 percent defensible, and for whichthere is very little or no middle ground on which to basereconciliation or peace talks. These are the kinds of issues that mustbecome explosive and violent, drenched in not only real blood, butalso the figurative cultural blood of misunderstanding. Once suchblack/white issues explode, they become the stuff from which wars arefought because the only solution, really, is to kill everybody on theother side.One can look down from an ivory tower and understand both sides, butthe occupant of the tower will be hard put to offer ways for the twosides to extend the a long, long olive branch.

And then along comes Pres. Bush with the official U.S. statement,weakly attempting to bridge the Manichean divide by finding agreementwith both sides, and in doing so, takes neither side, confirming hisown deep scorn for free speech and at the same time exposing his deepfear of the other side's fundamentalism.

In hindsight, one could see the divisions coming and widening with theparallel rise of religious fundamentalism and secular liberalism.

In the midst of the entire furor is Pope Benedict's first encyclicalon the nature of God's love, which went a bit unnoticed, in myopinion. "In a world where the name of God is sometimes associatedwith vengeance or even a duty of hatred, this message is both timelyand significant," he says. "For this reason I wish in my firstencyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us, and whichwe in turn must share with others."

The Christian church has volumes of experience and oceans of spilledblood over just the issues that the Danish and other newspapers andoutraged Muslims are experiencing right now, as if it would be thefirst time, yes, deja vu all over again. The Roman Empire prideditself on it religious pluralism and welcomed Christianity as anotherspiritual option, but not as a source of "truth." Determining truthwas the bailiwick of philosophy. Christianity would have none of it;i.e., an equal place among the many in the pantheon of religionsadding to the technicolor of the Empire's many cultures wasunthinkable because Chrisitianity proclaimed itself as the only way totruth. All religions by definition claim absolute truth, and in doingso, create many, many enemies of absolute truth to be eliminated, sonothing has changed through the millenia but the name of the religion.Back to the pope, this Benedict, seemingly understanding--whyshouldn't he?--this inevitable outcome of intolerance, gives us anencyclical that God is love, and that love and truth are inseparable.

This way of looking at God understandably does not play well in Europethese days because Europe over the last decades has become so secular.I can't vouch for this, but there is a hypothesis/theory amongEuropean philosophers these days that classical European civilizationis being threatened by the directly-proportional weakening of itsChristian/Jewish roots out of which that civilization blossomed andflourished. If this is so, then those countries with newspapers andwestern societies now standing on the pedestal of free speech byprinting and re-printing the cartoons depicting the undepictable areactually not standing on the pedestal of free speech at all; rather,they are simply clueless about religion—the result of which willproduce, perhaps, the great Manichean divide of our new century.

Although the drama unfolding at the top levels of US politics is fascinating, it is a familiar second-term debacle. The prolonged and meaningless war in Iraq, directly or indirectly connected with the Scooter Libby case, is of more concern to me. And the displays of militant religious fundamentalism in Iran are more alarming to me. No WMD were found in Iraq; but, under the current circumstances, does anyone really need to look for WMD in Iran?

The question is what to do about Iran. In 1984, in Yoga Tattva Part 2, I wrote as follows:

Violence only begets violence. In every violent action is the germ of a violent reaction. It may be possible to make some superficial changes to society with the help of brute force. It may be possible to maintain oneself in political power for some time with the help of brute force. But when brute force is used for such purposes, there will inevitably be a violent reaction that, very likely, will eliminate any progressive changes that were brought about if there was no corresponding expansion in the psychic sphere. A current and obvious example that comes to mind is Iran. Whatever progressive changes the former Shah of Iran had achieved through physical force (whether monetary or military) were swept away overnight by the so-called Iranian revolution. This was simply because the mentality of the people had not changed despite a variety of mundane reforms. Actually, there has been no real revolution in Iran yet. All of thechanges at the top levels of society made little change in the physical life and virtually no change in the mental life of the common Iranian people.

I believe that the challenge remains the same - to change the mentality of the Iranian people. For that matter, the challenge is also to change the mentality of the American people and, indeed, of all people. Instead of waging a war on terror, why not wage a war on dogma?

In the wake of a massive earthquake that has taken the lives of more than 20,000 people and left many more than that injured and displaced, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf is pleading with other governments for help. Somehow, the amount of help offered until now seems to be just a token. I cannot shake the feeling that the U.S., which probably did not need outside assistance, received more offers of help - and relatively more substantial help - than Pakistan has been getting despite a far greater need. And, meanwhile, the victims suffer. Meanwhile, people die who could have lived.

Not just for the sake of world peace but also for coordinating global assistance in major disaster relief operations, a world government is the only solution. We need a social order that gives equal existential value to all human beings (and, ultimately, to all beings).

Each and every living being of this universe has two types of value: utility value and existential value. Sometimes, we might be unable to recognize the existential value of a creature, either individually or collectively. Sometimes a creature, individually or collectively, might not have existential value in the eyes of human beings. But there is always some existential value from a cosmic perspective. And every creature has existential value to its own self. In the same way as human beings value their own lives, other creatures also value their own lives. It is on this firm foundation that the Principle of Social Equality shines brightly as the perennial inspiration for social justice.

Sadly, in this capitalist and materialist world, existential value has taken a back seat to utility value. And that is why when disaster struck in New Orleans, even the richest country of the world was unprepared to act promptly to save lives. Instead, the Federal Government of the U.S. and the major relief agencies in the U.S. were blinded by the false god of "sustainable development", a demon spawn of utility value. Yes, surely it is good when money invested continues to yield positive output many years later. But the preservation of life takes precedence over such type of commercial thinking.

The U.S. Government sent troops to Iraq - to save the world from Saddam's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. And when that brief war of occupation was over and rioting broke out, the U.S. army quickly deployed to protect the oil installations. People were dying. An ancient cultural heritage was being despoiled. But the utility value of oil took precedence over the existential value of the Iraqi citizens and Iraqi society. With Hurricane Katrina, we saw yet another evidence of this warped American amorality. Without the incentive of an economic or political gain - or the fear of an economic or political loss - human life, what to speak of animal and plant life, was of no interest to those in power and those with the clear duty to render aid.

It is a delicate question. Surely every humanitarian person wants to see the standard of living in Africa improved. Surely every humanitarian person wants to see the abject poverty in Africa eliminated. No one should ever die of starvation.

But why assume that any significant progress will be made just by sending money to Africa - channeling money through corrupt government officials who view political office as a family business? Today, no matter how much money is poured into Africa, the standard of living of the common people will not improve. Yes, when a natural disaster occurs, monetary donations can facilitate some short-term relief work. But in terms of long-term development, not much is likely to be achieved from mere monetary donations under the current conditions. The common people will not see any significant return on such type of investment.

What Africa badly needs is not handouts but good leadership and a progressive socioeconomic system. This is not something that the wealthy nations of the world can dole out. It has to come from within each African nation.

So what can the more developed nations do to help Africa? We have all heard the saying by Lao Tzu: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." But the problem today is that none of the developed nations are in a position to teach Africa what Africa needs to know. The leadership in the developed nations is not particularly exemplary, and the socioeconomic system in the developed nations is not at all progressive. So if the developed nations of the world - or the people in the developed nations of the world - really want to help Africa, then the greatest thing that they can do is to get their own countries in order before telling Africa what to do or how to do it.

It was a dangerous Supreme Court decision... and one that passed by the narrowest majority. As CNN reports it: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development.

This is a decision that opens the door for immense corruption. Who really stands to gain here? Will entire communities benefit from granting so much power to the local government? Or will only the wealthy and influential developers be the big winners? The answer is obvious.

On principle, individual interest must never be allowed to stand in the way of collective interest. So, on the surface, the argument that one private developer should be allowed to force the destruction of the homes and businesses of many is entirely untenable. But to give it an appearance of benevolence, it was argued that the local government knows what is best for the community and that tax revenue, job creation, and additional commerce would outweigh the interests of the small home or business owners who are being displaced (with compensation).

The truth is, however, that the compensation is rarely enough. If it were enough, then those small home and business owners would probably have sold their property to the developer. The truth is that many lives will be ruined so that one rich person can get richer. The truth is that local government is often no more likely to represent the interests of the community than national government. The truth is that in a capitalist economic structure, a democratic government is largely a front for wealthy businessmen.

Yesterday, Michael Jackson was acquitted on all ten charges. Today, I saw on Larry King Live a discussion of whether or not Michael Jackson would start performing again. I found it unfortunate that Larry did not even contemplate the more important question of whether Michael Jackson should be allowed to perform again.
__________________________________________________________________
The nature of art is such that in order to develop it subtle intellect and appreciation as well as deep sensitivity is required. Thus, during that time that artists do not devote to their artistic efforts, they often feel compelled to express their subtle intellect, appreciation and deep sensitivity in a demeaning way. Due to this psychological tendency, we generally find that artists whose singing, dancing, acting or other artistic achievements earn the unstinting praise of hundreds of spectators express their subtle artistic power in quite opposite ways in private life through the pursuit of material gratification. Thus we hear obscene language from devotional singers and observe a strong worldly attachment in detached spiritual aspirants. Those who are fanatically sanctimonious in their youth become immoral lechers in middle age. Actors are no exception.

The only way to save oneself from this kind of psychological degradation is to keep one’s mind constantly engaged in the thought of the Great and to always look upon the world with sweet, benevolent sentiments. Artists and actors must never forget this even for a moment because they have a great responsibility to society and an immeasurable influence over it. Unlike in the past, people today do not want to establish separate theatrical societies for artists because of immoral conduct. Actors are now a part of society and this will continue. This is necessary in the greater interest of society.

Although actors are not fully accepted in Indian society today, in practice they are becoming or are in the process of becoming fully accepted. So under these circumstances strict vigilance should be kept over the purity of their individual conduct. They should not become the cause of a disease which invades the whole social body like a cancer. If actors and actresses fail to acquire a basic level of personal purity or are reluctant to acquire it, it will be the duty of society and the state to compel them to lead good lives by creating circumstantial pressure. No matter how talented they may be, immoral actors and actresses will have to be deprived of their right to exhibit their artistic talents, and sent to reform schools.

Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar
Various Occupations
Human Society Part 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~