I would never tell someone how to grieve.
I don't know how I would react if someone took the life of a loved one...these philosophies of peace and nonviolence might go right to hell if I faced the situation. I hope not, but I admit I can't know for sure. And I hope I never know.
I do believe, from my experiences with situations less than death, that rage and retribution and violent thoughts (without even the actual violence) get in the way of peace.
I think there is a lot to be learned from those who can see peace through grief, like Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, who fight the death penalty. One of the directors is Bud Welch:
Bud's daughter Julie Marie was killed in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in April 1995. When Bud travels the country and tells about the day, audiences are drawn into one particular heart of a tragedy that they felt vividly, and in some sense collectively, when it originally took place. Bud talks about how wrecked he felt after the bombing, how strong was his desire to retaliate by killing McVeigh and Nichols himself. When he learned that President Clinton and Attorney General Reno would seek the death penalty, he looked forward to it, "because here I had been crushed, I had been hurt, and that was the big fix."What do you do with the hurting? For weeks Bud smoked too much, drank too much, felt what he now recalls as a kind of temporary insanity.
Then about nine months after the bombing, he went down to the place where it happened and stood under an old American elm tree which had survived that April day. He let his mind wander to the upcoming trials and the likely executions, and he said to himself, "How's that going to help me? It isn't going to bring Julie back." He realized that the death penalty "is all about revenge and hate, and revenge and hate is why Julie and 167 others are dead today."
A few weeks ago there was a Washington Post story about Judea Pearl, father of Daniel Pearl, who sits on stage with Islamic lecturer Akbar Ahmed to discuss Jewish/Muslim relations. Dr. Pearl's aim:
"I'm driven by pragmatics," he says. Even if he could retaliate against the murderers, "What do I achieve? There will be 100 more." True revenge, he decided, meant taking aim "at the whole ideology that created the madness." So when he tells audiences that he's offering a "weapon" -- a little intake of breath generally follows -- he explains that he wants to "tame that hate."
And there is Peaceful Tomorrows, family members of victims of September 11 who have, in the words of their mission statement "united to turn our grief into action for peace." (Thank you, Zenchick, for pointing me here.)
From their statement dated tomorrow:
Every day, we choose to create the world we want to live in, through our words and through our actions. Today, we reach out to others around the world who recognize that war is not the answer. Today, three years after September 11th, we continue to choose peace.Posted by Nic at September 10, 2004 02:31 PM
Then they also choose death or conversion to Islam. It takes two to have a peace, and the terrorists have made it very clear in word and deed that the total destruction of all infidels is their goal.
While I can admire the sentiment, I feel contempt for those who refuse to see the evidence in front of them, who refuse to believe the words spoken by the terrorists.
That attitude doesn't make the world better, it just makes it easier for the terrorists to achieve their goal. It also makes you dead for no good purpose.
Posted by: Ted at September 10, 2004 08:12 PMHow can one have contempt for how a victim *chooses* to carry on the love of the person they lost?
And yes, peace takes two. If both are waiting for the other to start, it never happens.
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
-Gandhi
Peace, Ted.
I can't accept the idea that choosing peace equals choosing death or a conversion to Islam. Peace is not the same as inaction, it is trying to find means other than violence to change violent behavior.
It's admitting defeat, I think, to conclude that our enemies are utterly beyond redemption and that we need to meet violence with more violence...because that just ensures that the violent cycles will continue.
In discussing this with Victor last night, he remarked that peace is a fine idea "in an ideal world." My position is that we aren't going to wake up one day magically in an ideal world, and we aren't going to make it ideal using the failed approaches of rage and retaliation. Our best hope for reaching ideal is to work for ideal (that is, peaceful) methods instead.
Posted by: nic at September 11, 2004 08:22 AMWell, you're certainly both entitled to live in fantasyland.
The Islamic fundamentalist terrorists do not want peace. They do not want understanding or compromise. They've told us that repeatedly. If you refuse to believe their words, then pay attention to their actions. World Trade Center (twice), embassies in Africa and Indonesia, Pentagon, US Naval vessels and military barracks, commuter busses, subway stations, pizza parlors, hospitals, schools... The list goes on and on.
"failed approaches of rage and retaliation"
They also have acknowleged that they only admire strength, and only respect us when we're strong. They don't acknowlege the possibility of any way but theirs.
Your position, in their eyes, is that you're ready to put on the burkha and become the property of one of their superior men. Until they tire of using you, at which point they'll kill you without a second thought.
You can't 'enlighten' someone who believes that killing you is a holy act, and mass murder is a sacrament.
Posted by: Ted at September 11, 2004 11:55 AMI believe that anyone can be enlightened. I believe that 'enlightenment' is on a continuum.
But I can't be part of anyone else's enlightenment, until I look inside myself. Good and evil are possible in every individual. So if I have a choice, I choose good. And I believe that that matters.
Hate and violence beget more hate and violence. We have proven that in our reaction to 9/11; they attacked us, so we began attacking "them" (whoever "they" are).
"We need to bring our enemies to their senses...not to their knees." -Gandhi
My wish for peace for you was genuine, Ted.
Posted by: zenchick at September 11, 2004 12:47 PMZenchick, I truly appreciate it too.
This is a hot-button issue for me, so I tend to rant about it. Let me try to make myself a little more clear.
Your choice, and Nic's, to do good and practice peace is fine and admirable. The fact that you *are* making a choice is the whole world of difference. Too many people refuse to acknowlege any way but their own, like the Islamic extremists and a lot (not all) of anti-war activists. I have hatred for the former and contempt for the latter, because their worldview is the only one they recognize. If you don't think like them, then you are evil and must be wrong.
I disagree with you and Nic, but you certainly aren't evil and it'd be nice if you're right (but I obviously don't think so).
It's a subtle distinction, but important to my mind. Maybe another way to describe it is "rational worldview" vs "childlike stubborness". The very act of this spirited debate is proof, we can discuss and lay out our points without petty BS and namecalling.
My apologies for the over-the-top way I phrased my comments earlier, although I stand by my beliefs, just as you do yours. You've given me plenty to consider, and I hope I've provided you with some food for thought as well.
Posted by: Ted at September 11, 2004 06:20 PMThanks, Ted, for clarifying. You and I have very different perspectives, and I definitely will consider what you've said. I'm always ready for more food for thought.
Thanks, Zenchick, for your comments, too. You and I are obviously on the same page, and I'd even considered using the "Be the change you want to see in the world"quote to wrap up this week's entries, but you beat me to it. :-)
I'm going to relax and watch football today, but I just placed a massive Amazon order, so I expect I'll be revisiting this subject here again!
Posted by: nic at September 12, 2004 11:11 AMTed: Much appreciation for the honesty and healthy debate. I did want to add that depending on your perspective, the way our country is acting in the world right now could be seen as violent, extremist, and attempting to dominate, due to finger-pointing at enemies. I know there are a lot of subtle distinctions, and I'm not trying to oversimplify it. I'm just saying that I think the broader view is that we humans, all of us, need to find some way to live on this planet together.
Nic: email me if you ever want to exchange book-list ideas :)
Peace, all. Truthfully.