November 13, 2012

  • The Veiled Crusade: Political Zealot

    I know a bit about politics. A touch here of international issues. I am no expert and no expert would want my opinion, I think, or, frankly, I hope not. I know the little that I do because, mostly, of my Tibetan background. It has, in some way, forced me to become aware of UN doings, precedence in international policy, and, frankly, has given me a great appreciation for Ireland (who was one of the only folks to back the Rights of Tibet at the outset of the invasion...they know what it feels like). My Tibetan background also has given me an insight into the mixing of religious and secular motives in governing. It might be shocking to hear, or maybe not so if you know the Tibetan experiment, that I do not think, inherently, that they cannot mix or even be driven by an obvious religious thrust. We often make that mistake that things, conceptual things, are either good or bad. I am not saying that policies cannot be good or bad (genocide being one that I think is easily marked as bad) but too often we couch the argument in this light when it is not the case. I would even venture to say that the vast majority of our issues and policies are neither good nor bad but just 'are'. (As a side note it would behoove us to use the language of effective and not effective in order to right our inherently fallible processes-with this mind set we would have less of an attachment to our ideas and be able to see them as they are "good efforts that didn't work". In my work I try to get our program on the same philosophical foundation, belief structure, and then give leeway/support for qualified/creative folks to apply this philosophy in the arena we have chosen. Thus the issue is no longer whether it is right or wrong but if it works or doesn't. If we are always right (philosophically aligned) then we can be Right but it still does not work. This, I have found is more effective in getting to the most effective.) When we have taken this idea of 'right' and 'wrong' in the arena of policy too far we have a fundamentalist position in an arena that cannot be processed that way. If we put this process in, let us say, a democracy we have a very dangerous ground. We have a 'majority' sort of governance (so they say) with some checks and balances (quickly being eroded by the executive branches incursions) that then sees the opposition as antipodal entities that are inherently wrong and not philosophical brethren that just happen to be conceptually wrong. When we see our opposition to our conceptual ideas we have a problem. For then we must be inherently oppositional to the 'enemy'. They become the enemy in the sense that wars have been fought, that genocides have been enacted, etc. When this arises in a democracy then the very root of that democracy is threatened because of the very nature of democracy. Democracy is a plurality. Our democracy, supposedly, has a philosophical root in the constitution which had its roots in many areas but most notably in the Enlightenment era thought most especially, or to me anyways, in the Natural Philosophy/Laws of inherent 'Rights'. This was to be the basis of the democracy, the inherent nature of Beings, then the construction of the systems above this foundation were to be argued, debated, but without doubt that these arguments were done by 'like' beings. When we thrust the idea of inherent difference of this sort of Right and Wrong we attack this foundation and basis and therefore seek the obvious conclusion to such a philosophy-war. What happens when this philosophy of war moves into our pantheons of power? 

    David Petraeus is in the news now and I think that the attention that many of us are giving it is too small. This man is one of the most powerful in the world and that he cheated on his wife is not the issue. Not specifically. Or, at least, not in this entry. What the issue is, to me, is the danger of having a man that adheres to this philosophy of war and is in such a prominent position. This position makes it easier to not only propagate a particular ideal of war but to winnow out, in his case, those that do not adhere to it thus making the 'sell' a smaller issue when one is always preaching to the choir. 

     "Under the rubric of free speech and the twisted idea of separation of church and state," reads a promotion for a book called Under Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel, by Air Force Lieutenant Colonel William McCoy, "there has evolved more and more an anti-Christian bias in this country." In Under Orders, McCoy seeks to counter that alleged bias by making the case for the necessity of religion - preferably Christian - for a properly functioning military unit. Lack of belief or the wrong beliefs, he writes, will "bring havoc to what needs cohesion and team confidence." 

    McCoy's manifesto comes with an impressive endorsement: "_Under Orders _should be in every rucksack for those moments when Soldiers need spiritual energy," reads a blurb from General David Petraeus, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq until last September, after which he moved to the top spot at U.S. Central Command, in which position he now runs U.S. operations from Egypt to Pakistan. When the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) demanded an investigation of Petraeus's endorsement - an apparent violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not to mention the Bill of Rights - Petraeus claimed that his recommendation was supposed to be private, a communication from one Christian officer to another.

    Mr. Petraeus is of the ilk of the Ted Haggard's who either by the power of the political position or their proximity to that position (Ted Haggard according to an article Inside Americas Most Powerful Megachurch had, at the time, President George W. Bush's personal phone number on his quick dial) are able to influence very powerful machinations. That they believe that there is an 'anti christian' bias in the country, to their eyes, is true. In fact, if we looked at it from their perspective it isn't not true. The fundamentalist Christian/Religious view is a dying breed among the nation, at least among the populace. The largest growing sector of a quasi-religious demographic is 'spiritual but not religious' or even, if we are to include those who do not identify in any religious/spiritual practice, the '-Non's' as they are sometimes called, is growing massively as well. What happens then when, at least a large majority, if not a majority of those in power do not have this ideal. That they, in fact, have a bunker mentality that identifies their philosophical rooted brethren as only those that believe inherently in a particular religion/interpretation of that religion (I am not sure how they view Catholics for example) as those that can be 'right' and those others are 'enemies'-and if these Men and Women are those in power, or at least in very powerful positions within the overall power, then are those that are in philosophical opposition to them not enemies of the State? What happens when the people of the State they are purportedly to uphold are in a majority opposed to their inherent beliefs?

    This is what truly frightens me of our trajectory of our nation. That those in power are no longer in 'touch' with those who are to be the breeding ground for that power (the whole 'of the people' bit). I do not mean this, here, as a political, conceptual way, but in a rooted philosophical way. That our 'touch' is no longer even possible if we are to view it as a methodology to influence policy via our Will. For, we will be seen as the inherently enemy. This enemy can only be engaged by war. If those that are in power are of this group then they have access to assets of war that we cannot even fathom. This is another reason I fear our insistence on such military might, that such arsenals are not benign in their stockpiling. An absent gun has only the imagination to play out in, a present gun only has a Will to keep it from being reality in which it plays out. If the Will sees enemies, the gun must come out to play. That Ted Haggart and Mr. Petraeus have fallen is not an indication of their political weakness, in fact, if you heard the language coming from some sectors it is, to them, an indication that the 'enemy' is against them. That the enemy is laying in wait to jump out at them and bring them down. The witches and homosexuals (Mr. Haggart has said this...poor man), the unwashed masses of intellectual elites (I was called an elite while I took pay cuts and couldn't afford to keep the heat on in my apartment) are arming themselves to destroy the 'real' Americans. What I see as their weakness is something that is inherent in the human psyche, that which we do not acknowledge as our humanity we cannot control. Our sexuality and our sexual urges are not banished because we believe that we are Buddhist or Christian and they do not immediately fall within some set bounds because we adhere to such faiths. If the Dalai Lama has said that, as a younger man, his vows of celibacy were hard to contain then I think that it is safe to say that even the most religious (and most effective religious) of people are subject to these pressures. And, when we do try to use such an arrogant methodologies (curing homosexuality) the subsequent arising of this sexuality is usually in a deleterious manner; cheating on our wives, our vows to God and everyone, etc. I do believe that we can guide these natural desires and that because they are natural, unlike many, does not also make them right or wrong. To be celibate is not wrong, to adhere to one sexual partner is not either, but I do not think that a biologist would say either is natural-the energy that our beings crave must be served and acknowledge. With such acknowledgment we can find a way to guide our desires.  This is also true with our desires for a particular manifestation of our desires in a political manner. We naturally want our own interpretation to be the way that it is but, we should, know that the Truth is beyond the conceptual and therefore our conceptual is an interpretation and not The Truth. With this understanding we can then guide our desires to have it 'our' way and integrate it with the plurality of those with the same philosophical roots (Natural, Inalienable rights, for example). Then our ideas can be infused, in the best sense, with the ardor of other thought, or, also in the best, we can have many check points on dangerous ideas, we can correct ourselves, so to day. Once we become a non-plural thought nation we lose our ability to correct, there is no firewall to the dangers of incorrect thought, in the least, or Inquisition like errors in the worst (thought that one side has the Truth and therefore is mandated to either destroy the other side or to torture it into believing the correct version). 

    We are approaching this point of conflagration, I think. That the groups I am speaking of are being 'pushed' as they see it, into a corner of either going into the sweet 'goodnight' or to rage, rage against the dying of the light. From the language, the posturing, the writing I have heard from this group-not just politically powerful people but those of the populace that identify as a dying breed-fundamental religious, predominately white, predominately from a unicultural view of 'correct'-I hear the drums of war being beat. I hope I am wrong. I hope the red I see over the hills is only the light of enlightened thought, that, at the very least, they can see that death, destruction, hate, can only breed that, again, again, and again. That when we partake of such an evil elixir we have already sown our own destruction. I hope this but I don't believe it. 

     

    Be well

    G