God Bless Humanity

Today Gryphem presents a guest commentary from a little-known theologian of the 19th century, Theodore Parker, a Unitarian minister.

This is a daring statement by a minister who spoke the truth as he saw it, in spite of great opposition. His moral courage deserves your respect, and his words deserve your consideration.

Gryphem
- - - - - - - - - -

“If it were true that one human soul was immortal and yet was to be eternally damned, getting only more clotted with crime and deeper bit by agony as the ages went slowly by, then Immortality were a curse, not to that man only, but to all Mankind” for no amount of happiness, merited or underserved, could ever atone or make up for the horrid wrong done to that one miserable man.

"I say the thought of one such man would fill even Heaven with misery, and the best man of men would scorn the joys of everlasting bliss, would spurn all heaven and say, “Give me my brother’s place” for me there is no Heaven while he is there!

"Now it has been popularly taught that not one man alone but the vast majority of all Mankind are thus to be condemned; immortal, only to be everlastingly wretched. This is the popular doctrine now in this land. It has been taught in the Christian churches these sixteen centuries and more, taught in the name of Christ!

"Such an immortality would be a curse to man, to every man; as much so to the “saved” as to the “lost,” for who would willingly stay in Heaven, and on such terms? Surely not Jesus, He who wept with weeping men!"
- - - - - - - - - -

With thanks to http://livinghour.org/blog/progressive_christianity/justice-the-long-arc-of-the-moral-universe/

Values - Clarification and Advice

The two previous Gryphem posts have been about values, both public and private. If you have read those and taken time to think about your own values, you may have realized ways in which your personal morality differs from the morality of the society and culture around you. If you have, then this post is for you. Living in accordance with personal moral constructs that differ from the mainstream is not easy.

Part 1: Comments and Clarification

I want to prevent misunderstandings that might arise from a casual reading of these three posts. I want to be very clear about a few particular aspects of my own personal ethics, and about my intentions in writing about values.

• The fact that I honor the natural world does not mean that I am opposed to progress, if the progress is real and beneficial.
• The fact that I take exception with those who put profits over people does not mean that I am opposed to our free market economy. In fact, I believe that capitalism is a very effective and fair economic system... as long as human beings with a reasonable sense of community and moral responsibility remain in control of the processes and the corporations.
• I refer to Christian values because that is my belief system and my community. I recognize that persons of other faiths may also live in accordance with a set of values which are morally commendable and at odds with those of the general population.
• Although I do find and point out problems, I love and honor the United States and my fellow citizens. I am a proud and patriotic American.

• I believe most strongly in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I look to these founding documents for enlightenment and guidance. The Preamble to the US Constitution is particularly helpful in remembering why we exist and what our priorities should be.
• The fact that I contrast honesty with the persuasive power of lawyers does not mean that I do not respect and value lawyers and our system of justice. I am merely reaffirming the intent of the American people, expressed in the Preamble, to “establish justice,” and rejecting those who twist the system for personal gain.

• When I criticize partisanship, I am not criticizing our American system of government. I am criticizing those who miss the point of our Founders as expressed in the Preamble, when they proclaimed their intention to “form a more perfect Union,” and to “insure domestic tranquility.”
• When I criticize deficit spending, I am taking a stand against those who routinely violate the intention of the Founders, who proclaimed in the Preamble their intent to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Seems to me we too often seek those blessings for ourselves but don’t even consider our posterity. Good thing our forefathers weren’t so self-centered.
• When I criticize flaws or elements within our American society, no disrespect is intended. In fact, I stand in awe at the commitment of the United States to continual improvement and freedom for all.

My intent is to point out ways in which persons of good will, committed to morality, virtue, and honor in public life, can make our world better. We will only improve if we see where improvement is needed.

Part 2: Advice:  Be Prepared for Adversity

For you who are determined to live in accordance with your own high moral standards even though they might differ from those of the broader culture, I have one bit of advice. Be Prepared. When you challenge what other people think, what they assume, what they expect or desire, you will encounter more opposition than you imagine. This will be true even when the “challenge” you present is not confrontational. Simply holding yourself to a higher moral standard will be perceived by some as antagonistic, and sometimes will be met with defensiveness or even aggression.

• Be prepared for hostility from others who despise you because you present a threat to their profit motive.
• Be prepared for confrontation and demands that you justify your beliefs in terms of dollars and cents, or empirical data. Most people in the United States believe (wrongly) that giving an opinion or making an allegation in numerical form is proof of the validity of the assertion.
• Be prepared to deal with manipulative mathematics based on erroneous postulates or flawed assumptions. To those who believe “the numbers don’t lie,” nothing really matters except the bottom line. This can be true whether that bottom line is dollars or statistical percentages.
• Be prepared for impenetrable illogic. Many do not understand the concept of “reasoned opinion,” and will believe that any unproven allegation is of equal validity with any other – including those which are irrational and partisan.
• Be prepared for hostility from others who fear you because you present a threat to their hedonistic lifestyle.

• Be prepared to be marginalized by people who mistakenly believe that principles and values are dependent upon affirmation by the majority, or subject to election or negotiation.
• Be prepared for ridicule, particularly when you make your religious beliefs known. Jesus and his disciples were ridiculed, taunted, and marginalized, and it is likely that you will be, also. Even in this nation which defends freedom of religion, there will be many who will mock you, marginalize you, try to hurt you, try to provoke a reaction from you.
• Be prepared to be hated. Some people will hate you. They will not hate you because of anything you have done, but simply because they disagree with your religious beliefs or because they are filled with spite and hate everyone.
• Be prepared for blasphemy. Those who hate you because you are different will use every means at their disposal to hurt and silence you. That includes the vilest blasphemy. If you doubt this, it is easily demonstrable by doing an online search for images related to the phrase “Jesus Loves You.” I do not recommend you do this. Some of the results will cause you great angst. Those who hate and despise you and your beliefs are out there, and will lash out at you. You must be mentally and emotionally prepared for them.
• Be prepared for those who will consider your personal judgment to be flawed, insufficient, and inferior to their own for no other reason than that they wish it to be so.

I may have unduly emphasized negative expectations in this post.  If so, I have done so reluctantly.  I have no desire to scare good people into downplaying their values for fear of adversity or rejection. At the same time, I believe it is best to be prepared for whatever adversity may come.

I believe that the life illumined by values and commitment to greater things is infinitely more fulfilling than the life of convenience.  I hope these bits of writing help you stand stronger in a world that will challenge your values, principles, and heartfelt beliefs.

May your journey be made less difficult by knowing others have traveled this way before, and have survived the same perils you may face. Be prepared, stay strong, and be true to what you know is right.

Gryphem

“Grow the world you want to live in.”

My Own Values

Yesterday’s Gryphem post was all about values. Specifically, it discussed the fact that what we do, as a society or as an individual, reveals what we really value.

After writing about ‘big society’ and other people’s values, I began to think about my own values and beliefs. I have done this many times, but not often explicitly. I identified many of my own personal values, and compared them with values I observe in those around me. This is not a perfect or complete account of what I believe. It is a reasonable approximation of how my own values match up with the people and groups around me.

My personal values and those of my society and culture sometimes align, and sometimes do not. In no particular order, here are a few things I realized.
     • I value human rights. Some in my society value prosperity more.
     • I value honesty. More people in my society value persuasive skill in the twin forms of lawsuits and marketing, or the wishful thinking of political correctness.
     • I value security for my family. Thank goodness, most of my fellow-citizens share this value.
     • I value learning. Most in my culture value education, although they are often enamored with academic credentials more than with true learning.
     • I value science as a means to discover the wonders of our world, and as a means to make life better for people. Too many in my society consider science as a means to invent new and better means to generate profit.
     • I value peace and beauty and the natural world, the forests and the creatures. My society does preserve some wilderness, but also covets raw materials and the potential for building wealth.
     • I value human judgment and intuition and intangibles. My society values data, the appearance of objectivity, and quantifiable results.
     • I value work, see its inherent worth, and see as its objective the improvement of our world. Many in my society see the objective of work as the creation of profit or the accumulation of wealth.
     • I value thrift and economic responsibility. Most in my society, especially in government, would rather delay payment for debts we incur. I find obligating our children to pay for our immediate gratification to be morally reprehensible.
     • I value that which is real and authentic.  Imitations and fantasies may be amusing for a time, but reality provides the greatest beauty, meaning, and validity.  I believe that I came to this realization as a result of growing up between a major theme park and some awesome natural wonders.  The natural wonders were far superior.
     • I value cooperation. Too many people in my society prefer stark partisanship. A caustic, divisive public dialogue is neither inevitable nor morally upright. It is a preference enforced by those with the loudest bullhorns.
     • I hold as a goal the preservation and improvement of our world, natural and cultural. Many in my society consider that it is more important to improve their own personal situation than it is to pass to the next generation a better situation and an improved place to live.
     • I value my own ethnic and family history, and at the same time find joy in diversity. Too many do not understand that the natural result of honoring differences is greater respect for everyone, self included. Mutual respect is the root of sharing, cooperation, and an environment of peaceful interaction. There is no contradiction in respecting both myself and others.
     • I value faith, a real relationship with the Divine. I respect the right of others to believe or not believe in spiritual matters and a supreme being, but it is the center of my world-view and a source of meaning and motivation for my life.
     • I value our Judeo-Christian heritage and our honorable American traditions. Most of my society also values these, although a vocal minority tirelessly works to undermine our historic moral foundation.
     • I value that which is dependable, proven, and time-tested. Many in my society value more that which is new and thrilling, unproven but fashionable, lacking in merit but popular.
     • Most of all, I value the people I love. In this, I am joined by a mighty throng of humanity. Thank God!

Many people share these ideals I attempt to uphold. I hope you share at least a few of them.

The next post will be about obstacles that persons of moral commitment can expect to encounter in the big wide world.

Gryphem

What's Most Important to You?



Our Values are Revealed in the Jobs We Do

 The Values of Society

Being a part of a civilization means that we do not have to focus on life-or-death matters all the time, so we are free to devote our effort to other things that we value. The things which are valued will vary from one society and culture to the next. The amount of effort, time, and resources we as a society commit to one endeavor or another demonstrates what our society values.

The values of a society influence the number of people who enter a particular profession. For example, there are many accounting positions in our country because we as a nation and society value accounting. We are a materialistic society. As a group, we are obsessed with money. We want to know and be able to prove where our money comes from, and where it goes. So we have many accountants to tell us. Our shared materialism also means that we have many salespeople. Our economy is based on consumption, so we need salespeople to boost the demand for products, to increase consumption, to create wealth for the producers and sellers.

In our society, there are not so many jobs caring for the environment because we do not particularly value the land, plants, animals, or ecosystems - except as commodities from which we can create products for consumption and generate wealth. As a society, we would – and routinely do - sell the Earth for a profit. We value wealth.

No society absolutely has to have forests or foresters. No society absolutely has to have accountants. Neither environmental jobs nor accounting jobs are essential for survival. Neither forestry nor bookkeeping directly creates the necessities of life: food, clothing, or shelter.  Even so, society makes sure the jobs that have cultural value - whether economic value or aesthetic value - are filled.

Societies create incentives to ensure that their most valued social functions are not impaired by shortage of personnel. Societies provide the strongest incentives for individuals to take up the most valued professions. Most often, the incentives come in the form of wages. Compensation will vary based on a few variables:

     • Cultural value of the profession.  Entering a more valued profession that is more values by the society means higher compensation.

     • Expertise.  Professionals who are good at what they do generally receive higher compensation. In our culture, we assume that more education means more expertise.

     • Difficulty.  Societies provide financial incentive to motivate persons to take on jobs which might otherwise be unappealing. Jobs which are difficult will command higher compensation. Two related factors are the perception of how difficult the job is to accomplish and the perception of how inherently satisfying the job is to those who perform it. Jobs which are easy or pleasant provide benefits beyond mere wages, so wages will tend to be lower.

     • Inherent Satisfaction. Jobs which are pleasant provide benefits beyond mere wages, so wages will tend to be lower. 

     • Supply and Demand.  If the previous incentives do not work perfectly, the law of supply and demand will kick in to guarantee more incentive, thereby creating more professional expertise available to professions in great demand.

In a society dedicated to lofty ideals, being civilized might mean doing or creating that which is enlightening and ennobling. In a society which values wealth, comfort, and power, people will tend to pursue wealth, comfort, and power – not lofty ideals.

A civilization which values human life above all would be expected to have many doctors and few soldiers. A civilization which values nature world would be expected to have many ecologists, animal caretakers, gardeners, and park rangers – and fewer bulldozer and dynamite manufacturers.  Of course, within any society there will be an entire range of professions. Even a society which values human life above all will need a few soldiers – because other societies or renegade elements may be a threat, and the soldiers are necessary to protect human life.

The Values of an Individual

An acquaintance of mine has an excellent job. He does not find it fulfilling. The problem is that his values are not the same as those of the organization in which he works. The organization is a useful one, with a worthy mission and dedicated people staffing its corridors. It’s just that he knows that his effort is not being devoted to goals he values.  He is not accomplishing the things he’d hoped to accomplish in life. He is working in a job that is highly valued by society, but not so highly valued by himself.

He’s had fulfilling jobs in the past. Most of them paid less than the job he has now. At the same time, he notes that they produced more positive results for the world than his current job. He finds himself in a dilemma. Does he continue to fall in line with the values of the society, which is perfectly willing to compensate him well in his current position? Or does he affirm his own values and find a job that he will love, but which might not pay enough to maintain his lifestyle?

He is appreciative, in these difficult economic times, for having a job.  He realizes that his situation is not the employer’s problem, but his own.  He must nevertheless deal with contradictions between his values and those of the culture and society in which he works.

Are you applying the energy of your life to the things that matter most?  I'm not sure that I am.  Maybe we both should give this matter some serious thought...

I'll report back with some thoughts about my own values.  I hope you'll do the same.  Feel free to share your thoughts here on the Gryphem blog.

Gryphem

Why Are We Still Talking About Torture?

* This is an unusual Gryphem blog in the near absence of illustrations. The topic does not lend itself to graphic portrayal, and anything less would tend to trivialize what is written.
* Comments by Gryphem are in black. Quotations and attributions are in blue.
* Please read with a sense of urgency.
- - - - - - - - - -

Why are we still having a debate about whether the United States should use torture?

The practice of torture is in direct opposition to our American values and traditions. It is completely in conflict with the values of the Enlightenment, that brought Western Civilization out of the Middle Ages and inspired the rights we Americans enshrined in our Bill of Rights.

The use of torture is affirmation that might makes right - a philosophy which we opposed in both World Wars and our American Revolution. It is rooted in the belief that the ends justify the means, a philosophy that America opposed in our Civil War and the Cold War.

No one who affirms American values can logically defend the use of torture. Torture is in essence a form of individualized terrorism. The use of torture by people who claim to believe in human rights is hypocrisy at best, an ethical abomination at worst.

It would be simple to use moral precedent, religious principles, humanistic arguments, and pure reason to refute those who approve of the use torture as a tool of national defense. There are so many arguments that a comprehensive statement would take a book, not a blog. But this is not a comprehensive statement against those who would build their own security on the broken backs of others. It is an attempt at a concise statement against the use of torture.

The following quotations present the main points in a few words - some of our own words and some that we have often claimed to believe or respect. They make the case that torture is despotic, tyrannical, illegal, unAmerican, and demonstrably wrong.

For every quotation presented, it would be simple to come up with a hundred more to condemn the practice of torture. The purpose of this is simply to remind us all that we should be better than this.

Let’s start at the beginning, with the documents that defined the American nation, and move forward from that point.

U.S. Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5:
“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 8:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14:
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Contrary to the arrogant belief of many Americans, we are not the only ones who claim to believe in liberty and human dignity. In fact, since Americans began to use torture a few years ago not only is the United States not the world’s leading advocate for human rights, as we once were. Instead, the United States has become one of the few nations in the world that actively defends the use of the barbaric, dehumanizing practice of torture.

When did the tables get turned so dramatically, and how? And why is it that most Americans did not notice when we went from being the defender of human rights to one of the world’s worst violators? We have become, are becoming, the very thing we used to hate.

What does the rest of the world have to say about the use of torture?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations and ratified by the United States in 1948.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble:
"Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Geneva Covention Against Torture, Part 1, Article 1:
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession…”

Here is a brief aside concerning the specifics of our current situation. This is directed at Americans who defend the use of torture. The Geneva Conventions, quoted above, clearly define torture. The waterboarding at Guantanamo clearly falls within the international legal definition. Here are a few other gems from the Geneva Conventions.

Geneva Covention Against Torture, Article 1, Part 2:
“Each [nation] shall take effective… measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.”

Note that “any territory under its jurisdiction” includes overseas bases such as Guantanamo.

Geneva Covention Against Torture, Article 1, Part 2:
“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

That’s pretty clear.

Geneva Covention Against Torture, Article 1, Part 3:
"No [nation] shall… extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”

This confirms the blatant illegality of the practice of “rendition,” the removal of prisoners to other countries who do the dirty work for us.

Now back to the general conversation, beginning with affirmation of the universal application of principles of human rights by a revered American Judge and a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Learned Hand:
“Right knows no boundaries, and justice no frontiers; the brotherhood of man is not a domestic institution."

Justice Arthur Goldberg, “The Perilous State of Human Rights” (1984)
“A foreign policy that is morally right protects human rights everywhere. It is a policy that is righteous rather than opportunistic… that gives due respect to our own Constitution…”

It does not matter that the potential victims of our twisted policy of torture are not U.S. citizens. It does not matter that we do not like them. It does not matter that they hate us and all we stand for. The question is one of right and wrong, and also of our own moral character. Are we the kind of people who will intentionally inflict pain and suffering for personal gain?

Despite more than a century of honor and commitment to human rights – not as perfection realized but as an ideal to pursue - the United States has over the past decade utterly lost the moral high ground.

What happened to the American social consciousness that used to affirm the dignity and the inalienable rights of each individual? Where are the ‘abolitionists’ of torture? Where is the conscience of the American people?

Whatever the torturer’s rationale, by denying the humanity of his victim he erodes the sanctity of human life and becomes, himself, less human. Are we so Machievelian? So immoral? Do we value human life so little?

Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, as paraphrased by David Banach:
“In order to be free ourselves, we must desire the freedom of other people. To treat another person merely as an object for my use is to make an object of myself. To be free I must respect the freedom of others.”

Chief Seattle:
“Whatever we do to the web [of life], we do to ourselves. All things are bound together."

We need to ask ourselves…
What do we really value?
What kind of people are we?
What kind of nation and society condones torture?
Is that the kind of nation and society we really want to bequeath to our children?

A closing comment…

Judge Learned Hand:
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”

I wonder if we still hold liberty in our hearts. Are we still worthy of our American heritage of dignity, freedom, equality, and human rights? We will answer that question not only with words but by what we do, how we live, and whatever behavior we demand from our leaders.

Gryphem

Why Is There Suffering?

“Sometimes I would like to ask God why He allows poverty, suffering, and injustice when He could do something about it.”

“Well, why don’t you ask Him?”

“Because I’m afraid He would ask me the same question.”

Anonymous, as quoted by Richard Stearn, President of 'World Vision,' in his book, A Hole in the Gospel.

The temptation, upon reading this enlightening interchange, is to draw the wrong conclusion.  The temptation is to shrug cynically and conclude that indifference to suffering is a permanent and unavoidable part of human experience. It is not.

One who cares, who stays in tune with God, who puts faith in motion and works for the betterment of people in need, might not need to fear asking this question. Mother Theresa, Mohandas Gandhi, the Dalai Lama… I suspect they would not have feared the question.

Ironically, their experience working hand in hand with the divine and the suffering ones on a daily basis has usually meant that they had no need to ask. Their constant struggle to end poverty and injustice has been answer enough. They have focused on being the answer, rather than on highlighting the question.

Being the human manifestation of the God of grace and love is enough for now. When fully engaged in the work of God, the committed believer can focus on meeting present need. The involved lover of God and humanity will not often be inclined to accuse the one who gives life and the ability to do good. No, the caring person of faith will honor and respect both God and brothers and sisters, will thank God for blessings rather than blaming God for imperfections.

Not that there is anything innately wrong with questioning. With God, questioning is allowed, and sometimes leads to greater faith.  After the questions though, the believer who is fully engaged will have pressing responsibilities on which to focus as he or she works diligently with the Lord to make our world better, to make our world more just, more abundant, more joyful and more fulfilled for God's children, our brothers and sisters.

The success of love is in the loving –

it is not in the result of loving. 

Mother Teresa

The Professor and the Doughboys

A bit more than 20 years ago I was a student in a class on World War One at the University of Washington. The class was taught by a masterful instructor who presented us with equal parts knowledge and enthusiasm. At the end of the semester, the professor required all the students from the several sections of his classes on The Great War to convene for a “Great War” sing-along. Yes, the culmination of our history course was a participatory musical extravaganza.

Most of us weren’t really sure why we were going to Dr. Bridgman’s gathering, but we were happy to play along. It was different, intriguing, promised even the possibility of being fun. Besides, it would be good for our grade. And Dr. Bridgman was so enthusiastic we just couldn’t let him down. And frankly, we were curious. No other professor had ever asked us to SING to wrap up a History course.

The first thing that I noticed when I entered the auditorium that evening was that there were a lot more people in attendance than I expected. Not only were there more students than I cared to count – there were a significant number of other folks from the University and the community. We hadn’t realized that this was going to be such a big deal.

Dr. Bridgman arrived, enthusiastic as always, song sheets in hand. He handed them out randomly to students he passed by on his way to the front, sharing a greeting, laughing, gesticulating as he often did to convey his zeal. The piano began to play, and the singing began, softly at first but soon ebullient in response to the professor’s encouragement. Dr. Bridgman conducted vigorously as we worked our way through songs we had heard, but never really sung ourselves. “Over There.” “It’s a Long Way to Tipperary.” “Smile, Smile, Smile.” “Keep the Home Fires Burning.” The impact of that evening was so significant that the tunes and words come back to me easily, even 20 years later.

After we had been singing for a while, Dr. Bridgman motioned for silence and began the introduction of our guest of honor. The man on stage with the professor sported a full head of very white hair. He worked to rise from his chair and he walked with a cane, but his energy and excitement were obvious nonetheless. I am sorry to say that I cannot recall the name, but our speaker was a member of what was, even then, an increasingly rare group. He was an actual combat veteran of The Great War. Approximately 90 years old and happy that the young crowd before him still cared, he told us stories – stories that emphasized commitment and patriotism and a time and place worth remembering.

We all know that war is ugly, and World War I was uglier than most. Millions died in this war that, in retrospect, seems quite avoidable. But the soldiers who fought did so for noble reasons. They were good, courageous men who put everything on the line for their countries and their comrades in the greatest conflict the world had yet seen. It was tough for them. Obviously conditions on the front were abominable. As if the danger of being killed by the enemy wasn’t enough, there was the ever present threat of disease, the extreme discomfort of life in the trenches, and the constant worry about those left behind.

One of the things that helped these courageous defenders keep their spirits up was music. When they heard “Keep the Home Fires Burning,” they felt closer to their loved ones back home, and they remembered to stay positive and strong in spite of the apprehension and weariness they felt inside. When they sang “Over There,” they felt empowered and confident of their ultimate success.

Dr. Jon Bridgman, 2001

 When Dr. Bridgman had us sing along with the soldiers of World War I, he led us unsuspecting into the minds and emotions of the people – in the field and back at home - of three generations earlier. Having taught us the facts and the chronology of the war over the course of the college term, he put us in a position to experience, in a small way, the emotions that went along with the facts. Over the course of a semester, Dr. Bridgman gave us knowledge; in the sing along, he made it real by involving us personally.



Ensign Jon Bridgman, c.1952



Our guest was an invaluable part of the entire experience. He didn’t talk long, but he did speak to us. The precise words he said are less important than the fact that he was there, with us, and we with him, reliving the positive aspects of a difficult experience with him, participating from over seven decades later in the world-changing events in which he had played a part.

I will always remember with gratitude how Dr. Bridgman and our World War I veteran combined to literally expand our historic understanding, our human compassion, and our world view, all in one remarkable evening of song.

I hope that, as a history teacher myself a few years later, I was one tenth as inspirational as Dr. Jon Bridgman was.

Charles Choules, c.2010

I hope that as a U.S. military man, I was worthy of the heritage of the ‘doughboys’ of the Great War, including one whom I knew only for one evening, and another who survived more than a decade into the 21st century.

The passing of Charles Choules yesterday, last surviving combat veteran of World War I, marks the end of a chapter in the history of our world. The young English sailor who witnessed the surrender of the German fleet in 1918 became the last man on Earth of the 70 million who fought.  He represents a time, a place, and a courageous effort that are worthy of remembrance and honor. 



Charles Choules, c.1918

 
To the Great War veterans I have known, whether an elderly relative when I was too young to understand, or an older gentleman who came out at age 90 to sing with a bunch of youngsters, or the subject of a news story who represents the last of his time:
We Will Remember. Thank you.

Gryphem

- - - - - - - - - -

For more about Professor Jon Bridgman, from a former student and a university article, visit http://jdgrose115.tripod.com/nrotc/bridgman.html and http://dailyuw.com/2009/4/28/historic-treasure/

For more about WWI Veteran Charles Choule see http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/05/australia.ww1.veteran.dies/index.html?hpt=T2 and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/military-obituaries/naval-obituaries/8494591/Chief-Petty-Officer-Claude-Choules.html

 



The Witch is Dead. Now What?

In the movie “The Wizard of Oz,” Dorothy’s sudden and involuntary arrival in Oz causes the death of the Wicked Witch of the East. The Munchkins celebrate her death and acclaim Dorothy… until another evil villainess shows up – the Wicked Witch of the West. Seems the Munchkins' celebration was not really justified, doesn’t it? There was still a Wicked Witch in power near Munchkin-Land. Stay tuned for more on the Wicked Witch analogy near the end of this post. Now on to the 2011 real-world parallel to those events in the Land of Oz…
- - - - -

I breathed a sigh of relief last night when I heard the announcer declare that Osama bin Laden had been killed. Skeptical at first, I was quickly convinced by the quality and specificity of the reports. For the next 45 minutes I sat and listened to reporters, then the president, tell how the world’s most notorious terrorist had met his end.

Along the way I thought about the timing of this development, which is very good. The democratic impulse which is being heard throughout the Middle East is in full swing, and the influence of Al Qaeda is on the wane. The good people who may at one time have accepted or at least tolerated the message of hate espoused by Al Qaeda largely have come to understand that he is not a messiah, not the Mahdi, not a noble liberator, but only the chief executive of an organization dedicated to spreading death, terror, and intimidation – a notorious, immoral killer-of-innocents. The death of bin Laden a few years ago might have made him a martyr, might have caused intense reactions against the free world. Today, that is less likely, and in fact, his death may actually provide a boost to pro-democracy forces of the “Arab Spring” movement.

I thought about the historical implications of the end of bin Laden. Yes, he is just one man, and the organization Al Qaeda still exists and will still demand our attention. But he was the instigator and the figurehead, the face of the monster. Decades in the future, when our grandchildren and great-grandchildren study the first decade of the 21st century, it will look different because U.S. forces did in fact wreak judgment upon the one responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. If bin Laden had never been found, the history books might have portrayed the excursions into Afghanistan and Iraq as misguided “adventurism,” as a frustrated lashing-out at a target of convenience. Regardless of whatever good results might have come out of these efforts, they likely would have been seen as a failure. Now that bin Laden has been disposed and sent to meet the god in whose name he killed, now that the determination of two administrations has been realized, now that American forces have slain the one who attacked us and killed thousands of our people… Now the historical perspective will be that our efforts have been successful. Now our national determination to avenge the innocent will be seen as heroic, dogged determination.

My personal ethics prevent me from celebrating the death of a fellow human being, however much evil that one might have done. The man Osama should have lived his life for a different reason, should have rejected hatred as a guiding force for his life. His life and death are a tragedy. Even so, Osama bin Laden made his choices. He harmed and killed others deliberately, continually, remorselessly and with joy. His sadism and convoluted ethos of hate brought war and death and loss to the peoples of the world, his own as well as others he never met. His death marks the end of a terrible force for evil in our world. So, while I do not find joy in the tragic end of the man, I do find relief in the end of the most vile force for hatred and death.

The death of bin Laden offers a tiny little glimmer of hope. In the days, weeks, perhaps months following this event, we may have the opportunity to reorient ourselves away from the mindset of hatred, mistrust, fear and division that have plagued us for two decades, and toward a mindset of cooperation and cautious optimism. In the Middle East, the forces of liberty may continue to spread freedom as the oppressors of Al Qaeda retreat. In Europe the nations who have been re-learning war in Afghanistan may reorient themselves toward the peace and stability they have enjoyed for most of the past half-century. The reasonable people of Islamic traditions who love their children more than their Imam may be free to live prosperous, happy lives rather than finding themselves pressured to support a death-cult of jihad they know in their hearts is wrong. In the United States, the radicals from the political left and right may realize for a moment that we are all Americans, that we are all in this together, that political opponents are not enemies, and we may begin a new era characterized not by hyper-partisan division, but by honest, respectful debate and cooperation.

I am no blind idealist. I recognize that the odds are against my dream of a reorientation for humanity. I realize that there is a very strong possibility that we will squander this opportunity as we have before.

Yet I know that we have a real opportunity now.  On the one hand, we have the path that we have been on, which appears likely to be leading us to a 21st century filled with warfare and angst. On the other hand, we have a tiny moment of real opportunity to create a new setting characterized by peace and stability rather than endless conflict and desperate positioning for advantage.

I’m not talking about Utopia. We will continue to have controversies and conflicts no matter what we do. But we can frame future conflict as incidental and issues-based, or we can relapse and frame conflict as existential, inevitable, and omnipresent.

I pray that we, the decent people of the human race, will take a deep breath and collectively sigh our relief. I dream that we may look at one another honestly for a change… that we may begin to build a new world order based on cooperation, not confrontation… with interactions characterized primarily by mutual respect, not slander… with efforts inspired by compassion, not rage… with attitudes of humility, not arrogance.

What will the world of the next decade, of the rest of this century, be like? Suddenly we find ourselves at a fork in the road, with options. The choice is ours, and the choice is upon us.
- - - - -

There is the matter of a return to Oz that I alluded to in the beginning. Is our happiness at the end of bin Laden a bit premature? Were the Munchkins too quick to celebrate, knowing as they did that the forces of Wickedness were still on the loose in Oz? Maybe. But then again, Dorothy did destroy the other Wicked Witch in the end, didn’t she?

Was the Munchkin celebration premature? Maybe. 
Is ours? Maybe.
Were the Munchkins' happiness and hope justified? In the end, yes. 
Are our happiness and hope justified?  That, friends, remains to be seen.

Gryphem

 - - - - -

            Postscript

            For the Gryphem opinion on what we should do now, please see

            Gryphem posts from 25-27 March entitled, "It's Time to Come

            Home" (parts 1 and 2) at:

            http://gryphem.blogspot.com/2011/03/its-time-to-come-home-part-one.html

            http://gryphem.blogspot.com/2011/03/its-time-to-come-home-part-two.html