Courageous Justice vs. Fear Based Justice
Courageous Justice vs. Fear Based Justice
There are two types of justice. The first type of justice is primarily concerned with equalizing the scales. You insult me, so I have the right to insult you back. You break into my home, so I have the right to break you. You attack my nation’s soil, so I have the right to put you into the soil. This type of justice is commonly referred to as punitive or retributive justice; it has its most popular basis in the Biblical sanction to redress harm by taking an “eye for an eye.”
Punitive justice relies on fear. A justice of fear is preoccupied with the loss of something deemed important or valuable, and it is generally fixated on the militant preservation of social comforts. These social comforts range from material possessions to intangibles such as relationships or values. The fear of losing respect has spilled more bloodshed than all of the isms combined. On a personal level, the cycle of violence that fear based justice perpetuates is founded on a lie that we must sometimes want to harm another person. Fear based justice is incapable of stopping the cycle of violence because it makes self- defense morally preferable to creative suffering. On a national and global scale, this mentality has resulted in unfathomable atrocities.
Countering a justice of fear, the supreme Chinese philosopher of the Tao Te Ching advises that, “There is no greater misfortune than underestimating your enemy. Underestimating your enemy means thinking that he is evil. Thus you destroy your three treasures and become an enemy yourself.” (Mitchell 69). The three treasures are simplicity, patience, and compassion. If one is “patient with both friends and enemies, they will accord with the way things are” (Mitchell 69), and if we are compassionate toward ourselves, we will reconcile all beings to the world. Whereas fear based justice may succeed in presenting a mirage of mutual understanding, in actuality it only establishes the practical foundation for revenge.
Unlike the selfish and sometimes malicious characteristics that define fear based justice, the virtues of simplicity, patience and compassion are the cornerstones of authentic justice, or what can be referred to as courageous justice; it is a type of justice that radiates with luminescent empathy for the alienated and downtrodden. Courageous justice sees the scales of equality as a devious device of distraction that takes us away from the truth of our inner connectedness to each other and the Earth. The scales can never be even in the eyes of courageous justice because equality presupposes separation.
Courageous justice was totally embodied by the political saint Mohandas K. Gandhi. Throughout his life Gandhi worked for a type of justice rooted in the undying vitality of truth and principled action. Early in his career he became a barrister and strove to master British jurisprudence. As a leader of ashrams he was expected to arbitrate disputes and settle petty grievances. As an intrepid opponent of untouchability and child marriages he challenged Hinduism to renounce its dogmatic affiliation with hate injected casteism. And as a social reformer in South Africa and India he struggled against the barbaric precepts of white supremacy.
But perhaps the purest expression of courageous justice can be seen in the way Gandhi related to the rural poor of India. At the age of 51, he vowed to stop wearing his familiar garb and don simple Khadi dress. Gandhi wanted to completely self- identify with the poor. What did it mean to be called Mahatma (translated as “Great Soul in Beggars Clothing”) and own more than the lowliest child? Towards the end of his prolific life he had forgone eating anything except nuts, some fruit, and an insipid porridge. Gandhi could not stomach the thought of enjoying more nutrition than a starving mother. He once said that “there are people who are so hungry in this world that God can only come to them in the form of bread.” This is a beautiful example of courageous justice because Gandhi did not want to be equal to the poor; he wanted to become one with the poor. Courageous justice stands in opposition to the fallacy of separate but equal; it also stands for the proposition that we are all inseparable.
Finally, courageous justice is a significant feature of a larger scientific, social, and spiritual phenomenon called ahimsa. Ahimsa can be understood as the power which emerges within an individual once they eradicate the desire to harm any living entity. The individual who is consumed with the power of ahimsa is not at all concerned with fear based incentives such as personal reputation, the protection of commodities, or even national pride.
So according to Gandhi, we can trust ahimsa to achieve a type of justice that does not leave dirt and destruction in its wake. Ahimsa is a clean and constructive justice that can only be understood “in its positive form, which means the largest love, the greatest charity.” A follower of ahimsa must love their enemy. Gandhi said, “The gift of life is the greatest of all gifts. A person who gives it in reality disarms all hostility… And no one who is himself or herself subject of fear can bestow that gift. She must therefore herself be fearless. We cannot practice ahimsa and be a coward at the same time. The practice of ahimsa calls forth the greatest courage.”
Sources
All quotes from Gandhi are taken from The Penguin Gandhi Reader, Edited by Rudrangshu Mukerjee (Penguin Books 1993)
Tao Te Ching, Translated by Stephen Mitchell (Harper Perennial 1998)
The Peril of Unending War: the story of Sebastian
by Kit Miller
On April 18, 2012, the Gandhi Institute co-sponsored an talk called ‘The Courage to Refuse War’ with Columbian conscioustions objector Sebastián Patiño with several Rochester faith groups and with the Fellowship of Reconciliation. These are my notes from the talk. All errors in terms of facts and figures are mine!
While US youth struggle with little or no funding for jobs, education, and services, the US spends over $6 billion a year in support of Columbia’s military…….
Sebastián Patiño is 19 yrs old. He is a Conscientious Objector (CO) in Columbia, a US ally. Officially, Columbia does not have a mandatory draft for the armed services.
Sebastián began by describing what it is like to live in a country that has been enduring civil conflict for close to 60 years.
The numbers are hard to integrate:
More than 50000 people are gone, victims of what are called ‘forced disappearances’;
Recruitment of child soldiers aged 8-17 is the 4th highest in world;
More than 800 mass grave sites, some with hundreds of bodies, dot the country–one just a few miles from Sebastian’s home.
He shared his reasons for resisting military service, in a country where resisting such service renders you a second class citizen, or worse. “I resist because I don’t want to have connection with so much violence and devastation. 46 percent of my people live in poverty. The only way to get ot of military service is by ‘paying out’.
People who can afford it opt out, so it is the poor who pay again by having their young men forced to serve.”
Trying to be a CO in Columbia is difficult and dangerous. Without the military ID that young recruits receive, Sebastian is unable to obtain a job, or to officially graduate from the school he attended, or to travel by road in the country. It is dangerous for him even to use mass transit in Bogota, the city where he lives, because the military stops young people using the trains and detains them if they do not have military identification. Sebastian described ‘street run ups’ when the military illegally detains young people (see photo).
Many youth disappear through these roundups; from 2004-2007 there were 150,000 registered complaints of this happening.
Although Columbia’s Supreme Country outlawed street run ups in November, 2011, they continue to occur.
A friend and fellow CO, Jose, who was illegally recruited during a street run up was taken from Bogota to the Amazon region on the other side of the country. He was threatened with a knife by a military officer for refusing to participate. The Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Mennonite church of Columbia and others created a campaign to release him. After some months, Jose was released. When he went to a security office to get a background check for a job, he was arrested and charged with desertion. The campaign to release him was re-eneacted. He was released but is now on parole. All of this happened to Jose simply for following his conscience.
Sebastian is grateful to his family, to the Fellowship of Reconciliation and to the Mennonite church in Columbia for their support of him as well other COs. Unfortunately the Catholic church, a major institute in Columbia, does not support them.
US taxpayers are heavily involved. Current annual allocation to Columbia from the US is $9 billion dollars. 72% of those funds goes to the military. In addition, the US military maintains 14 bases in Columbia.
Sebastian asks the people in the US to do whatever they can to stop funding the war and violence in Columbia.
For more information about Sebastian and his national speaking tour with the fellowship of reconciliation,
see Columbia project
To contribute to the Fellowship of Reconciliation project in Columbia,
donate here.
Paul Chappell at the University of Rochester Interfaith Chapel by Jason “Jayce” Olshefsky
I was inspired to see what Captain Paul K. Chappell will discuss in a lecture titled Why Peace is Possible and How We Can Achieve It. I heard rumors that — as a graduate of West Point and having served in the army — he had concluded that it was possible to redirect the efforts of the U.S. military toward true peacekeeping rather than the delusion of using war. He spoke at The Interfaith Chapel at the University of Rochester (Wilson Blvd.) and the lecture was recorded by C-SPAN. (If I hear about a link to the recording I’ll note it here.) I was quite inspired indeed.
Chappell grew up being taught that world peace is a “naïve idea”. Central to the argument is that human beings are naturally violent. But is that true?
According to him, the greatest problem of every army is getting soldiers to be willing to die, and it’s even hard to get people to fight. An effective technique is to instill the notion of a “band of brothers” so everything becomes self-defense. For instance, West Point teaches to treat your fellow soldiers as your family.
Second, no war has ever been fought for money or oil — at least not officially. In fact, people desire peace so much that every leader claims to be “fighting for peace”. War is traumatizing because people are naturally peaceful.
An army study conducted in World War II (specifically Combat Neuroses: Development of Combat Exhaustion by Roy L. Swank, M.D.; Walter E. Marchand, M.D.) showed that after 60 days of sustained day and night combat, 98% of soldiers become psychiatric casualties (the 2% that can go on indefinitely already aggressive sociopaths).
Chappell spoke about how reading On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society
- Create psychological distance such as derogatory name-calling — everything from “barbarian” (which comes from Greek interpretation of foreign language sounding like “bar bar bar”) to a more subtle term like “illegal alien”.
- Create a moral distance by declaring your enemy to be evil.
- Create mechanical distance (physical distance). For instance, the Nazis switched to gas chambers because shooting was too traumatic for the soldiers — they were protecting the executioner from psychological damage.
Chappell asks, “why would this be necessary if humans were naturally violent? If we are not naturally violent, why is there so much war?”
We’re told we need war to stop war, violence to stop violence. Most soldiers want peace but that is not the means they are taught to use.
Chappell notes that at West Point he learned that the nature of war is drastically changing. It’s now about “winning hearts and changing minds”. This leads most directly from media coverage, since “collateral damage” is no longer acceptable: you can’t kill any civilians. Yet, historically, the most people killed in past wars were civilians.
So how do you win hearts and change minds? The masters of this were peaceful like Ghandi: someone able to transform an enemy into a friend; someone actively waging peace. This includes peace marches such as were used for civil rights or for attaining voting rights. (From Chappell’s example, consider that prior to the 1830′s, only a small percentage of tax paying people could actually vote, and it was through peaceful protest that we now take for granted that “no taxation without representation” is the bedrock of our country.) These peace movements of our country should be taught in schools as being at least as important as the wars.
Waging war or waging peace share many needs: people, strategy, unity, tactics, and winning hearts and changing minds. However, Chappell points out that there are tremendous differences as well:
- Peace has truth on its side, war has myth.
- War is about killing people versus peace which is about making a friend.
- All war is based on deception. (He pointed out that in all cultures, the fundamental behavior of the “devil” is that of a deceiver.)
- The people who perpetuate war control lots of wealth and power — just as the enemies of the civil rights did.
So what does being “pro-military but against war” look like? Well, pretty much like Star Trek in a lot of ways. For instance, what if the army was chartered with disaster relief and we had the worldwide reputation of arriving to help then leaving?
Chappell said that Eisenhower was the first to ask why the Middle East dislikes the U.S. He found it was because our policies block democracy and instead support or install dictatorships — they are angry that we don’t live up to our ideals. As such, we need to hold our politicians accountable to change foreign policy so it is in line with the ideals we profess.
Chappell concluded by saying that war is not inevitable, and world peace is possible. Consider that 200 years ago, the only democracy in the world was America and even it was only fractionally so. And we don’t need to convince everyone — for instance, the Civil Rights movement succeeded with only 1% of the population actively participating.
During the question-and-answer, some evocative questions were asked.
First off, can the world be united? Chappell noted that in the United States, we have moved from state-identity to national-identity. And consider Europe: can you imagine Germany declaring war on France today? This progress can be expanded to all nations.
I asked about how, prior to the Iraq war, 250,000 people marched to protest it yet it happened anyway, so is protesting dead? He said that people romanticized the past: while the Vietnam War was being debated, it was not uncommon for students to try and attack peace protesters. To my specific example, he said that the government learned how to defuse protest from what happened in Vietnam: to avoid risk of a draft, they censor the media by embedding journalists in military units, privatize the military, and by propagandizing “if you don’t support the war you don’t support the troops”. As such, protest needs to evolve too.
In a later question, Chappell was asked what techniques should we use? He said we have lost our way to positive change. Consider how the Tea Party movement called attention to issues that were the same everyone cares about, but liberals were too busy calling them stupid. Remember to never demonize your opponent: identify with your opponent. In many cases the problem will boil down to hatred and ignorance. Remember that the government retains control of people by dividing them. So start with common ground and don’t reinforce divisiveness.
In another question, someone asked, given that peace is an active task, what would non-violent passion look like? Chappell said it’s easy today to isolate yourself in peer groups and reinforce demonization of others. To be passionate is to defeat ignorance and to defeat hatred.
Another question had to do with conscientious objection: that by paying taxes, we are actively participating in and supporting war. To that, he said we should focus on how war makes us less safe, and how preparation for war is economically destructive. Consider Eisenhower’s “Cross of Iron” speech where, in the central argument against “the way of fear and force”, and what would be the worst- and best-case scenarios, he says:
The worst is atomic war.
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Chappell echoed this, reiterating that our infrastructure is hurting because of war. He suggested we seek out the works of Douglas MacArthur and President Eisenhower as he had.
The concluding question asked if peace is based in truth, yet battle and conflict is a fact of nature, how can we be truthful? Chappell said the language of “waging peace” is accurate. We are trying to defeat ignorance and hatred, but the person is not the enemy. So ask yourself: how can I most effectively attack ignorance and hatred without hurting the person?
* Jason is a member of Restorative Rochester and has been a participant at Gandhi Institute classes and events. Visit his blog at http://jayceland.com/blog/.
Aphorisms
NONVIOLENCE
Conditional nonviolence is incapable of overcoming unconditional evil.
Nonviolence is the opportunity to suffer for your enemy.
To harbor zero malice towards any sentient being is only the beginning of nonviolence.
Only through self-identification is it possible to treat a vicious person with grace.
Pacifism is the refusal to preempt war on oneself.
Faith without action is unpublicized doubt.
VIOLENCE
Logic and violence are never far apart: notice how there is always a reason for striking back.
The world ferments with undistilled violence.
No weapon is more sinister than another; from stones, to switchblades, to stealth bombers, all weapons have agony as a goal.
In cultures of violence a normal person is someone who walks around under great duress without saying anything.
Violence is a burning lack of awareness.
Without restorative justice prisons become monster farms.
“Coexistence, Dinner and Dialogue”
As valuable as e-communication and social mediaare, when it comes to understanding and appreciation of other views, there is no substitute for the good old-fashioned, face-to-face sit-down.
All the more so when the subject is religion and spirituality.
Happily, around Rochester anyway, college students are among the first to grasp the importance of dialogue. Husain Bawany, 21, a junior biology and religious studies major at St. John Fisher College, organized a recent, highly successful event he dubbed “Coexistence, Dinner and Dialogue” for about 65 students and a few others from Rochester-area colleges. They met Dec. 10 at Fisher, where they shared a meal, shared some of their religious beliefs and experiences, and began to explore ways they can be a part of each other’s lives. They were Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and others.
Bawany, a Muslim and a native of Pakistan, has lived in Brighton since he was a young child. He pulled this event together as part of his work as a fellow with the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence at the University of Rochester.
“There’s a lot of support from the colleges,” he says, “for us to come together and expose ourselves to others’ religious beliefs, eye to eye, with a civil discourse.” In all traditions, Bawany says, “service is a universal.” Pulling together to do something for others, he says, is a powerful way to build a relationship. One of the first things they’ll do, Bawany says, is write cards with greetings of hope to be distributed to refugee children at Mary’s Place, a refugee services center in Rochester.
“I grew up Baptist,” says Eric Williams, 20, a junior accounting major at Fisher with a religious studies minor.
His faith is important to him, Williams says, but he’s very interested in other religious views.
Faith “isn’t about following rules,” he says, “but finding a relationship with God.” He believes there are things he can learn from students from other faith traditions.
Naomi Ahsan, 22, a UR neuroscience major from Brighton and a Muslim, says an Interfaith Leadership Institute that she and Bawany attended last year at Georgetown University in Washington taught them there are protocols (speaking only for yourself, for example, not for all members of your faith) that make the conversation easier. The Coexistence gathering, she says, “is one of many efforts to foster a real dialogue. There is a belief that people do have similarities if you dig deep enough.”
There are many misconceptions and simple questions people have concerning other faiths, Bawany says. And this event gave students a chance to ask, and test. It also was an opportunity for students who have no religious faith or who are skeptical to sharetheir views.
I give these students a lot of credit for being smart enough to know that the conversation is essential not to bridging all religious differences, but to seeing the humanity in others — and discovering that humanity puts us on the road to nonviolent approaches to solving problems. It’s a tough thing — to share deep principles of faith that we accept as true, all the while learning to accept and even search for the truth in others’ views.
“We welcome people coming together,” says Kit Miller, who directs the Gandhi Institute, “because in an odd way, we are so conflict-averse these days that we actually add to the potential for violence by ignoring its causes.”
But to make the most of dialogue, she says, “you have to be willing to be changed.”
Mark Hare’s column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. He can be reached at (585) 258-2351.
Gandhi Fellows Reflect on the Meaning of Nonviolence
“I study theories and abstractions in class. Working with the Gandhi Institute allows me to take that knowledge and use it with a commitment to love and truth in a project that empowers oppressed youth.” – Joseph Gardella (UR Senior)
“As a native Pakistani, I had known quite a bit about Gandhi. But, I only learned about his passion for inter-religious and intercultural understanding after becoming a Gandhi Service Fellow. One of the first gifts I was given when I became part of the Institute was a book called Vows and Observances. After reading it, I was able to see how knowledgeable Gandhi was about other faiths and how he worked to incorporate all religions into his community, the Ashram, making people of all backgrounds feel welcome and respected.” Fatima Bawany (UR Freshman)
“Working with the Gandhi Institute changed my life completely. I became at peace with my inner self. The frustrations that I felt during my first year of college disappeared. I am happier and even much better at my relationships with other people. I am learning to accept people the way they are without losing who I am. If more people acknowledged the power of nonviolence, we would solve many of the world’s problems such as global peace and security…Before I started working with the Gandhi Institute, I considered people who didn’t like me as “enemies.” However, through nonviolence lessons, I found out that an enemy is the one whose story I don’t yet know. Many people think that nonviolence is a weapon of the weak. I have found out that nonviolence is actually a weapon of the brave and not the weak.” Lendsey Achudi (UR Sophomore)
“Working with the Gandhi Institute has been such a beautiful and worthwhile experience for me. I have always desired to achieve peace in my community, and I feel like I am one step closer to my goal after learning about the many forms of peace initiatives in Rochester. The journey to peace on Earth seems endless, but does not every journey begin with a few small footsteps in the right direction?” Faye Gura (UR Junior)
Members of Gandhi Institute Celebrate Special Birthday
From the sidewalk, the house at 929 S. Plymouth Ave. looks like it’s seen many better days.
But Sunday, members of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence picked this old house to celebrate the birthday of the man who inspires their work because next year this former abandoned crack house will be the home for the institute.
“We are celebrating Gandhi’s birthday — he was born Oct. 2, 1869,” said Kit Miller, institute director. “This was originally scheduled to be a house-warming party when we started rehabbing this house months ago, but it has been an abandoned house for the past 17 years and it needed a lot more work than anticipated.”
Mohandas K. Gandhi, more commonly known as Mahatma which means “great soul”, organized nonviolent protests that eventually freed India from British rule in 1947.
Named after Gandhi, the institute is a nonprofit organization that helps individuals and communities develop resources and practical skills to promote nonviolence. The organization also sponsors classes on nonviolence, mindful communication, sustainable living and restorative practices. It is currently based at the University of Rochester.
The new center, expected to be completed in December, will offer office for staff, a meeting area and rooms for visitors.
“But literally when we got in there it was filled with furniture with crack pipes on the floor and it was a crack house,” Miller said. “It’s actually looking beautiful to me right now.”
The century-old house is actually owned by David Skinner and David Knoll, who own 26 houses in the southwest neighborhood across the river from the University of Rochester. Skinner said he first came to the neighborhood in the 1970s as a UR student. After graduation he returned in the 1980s to Rochester and started investing, with partner Knoll, in the area.
“We are really delighted at the prospect of luring the Gandhi institute into the neighborhood,” said Knoll. “They wanted an urban community presence and we are looking to bring a positive energy to our neighborhood.”
The university has been promoting the area for students for the past several years. Neighborhood leaders are beginning to see changes in the area with new investment such as the Staybridge Suites hotel at Brooks Landing and the Gandhi Institute.
“Words cannot describe what is happening in this neighborhood,” said John Borek, co-chair of the Southwest Common Council. “It is transforming and it is a collaborative effort of many, many people.”
Gandhi Fellow Fatima Bawany Reflects on 9/11
Bismillahir rahmanir raheem; with the name of God, most gracious, most merciful.
For me, September 11, 2001 seemed like any other day. As always, my third grade class went through our writing exercises; as I was practicing my cursive, suddenly, our teacher received a phone call, and grew very silent. Immediately, he turned on the TV, and cries of confusion and wonderment filled the classroom as we watched the Twin Towers crumble to the ground, surrounded in dark gray clouds of smoke. As an 8-year old, I didn’t quite understand what the images meant, or why the eyes of the people onscreen were shining with fear, and my frustration only grew when the same footage was on every TV channel at home.
I realized the next day how directly 9-11 would affect me; at lunchtime, one of my classmates determinedly stood up, pointed at me, and loudly declared, “Fatima. If I ever saw one of your people, I would shoot them right in the middle of their turbans.”
Throughout the rest of the day, my mind was buzzing with questions and ideas, sparked by confusion, anger, and fear. Who were these people, these strangers, who had twisted my religion, one of the most influential forces in my life, into something evil and monstrous? The Muslims I knew were people I admired, people who inspired me with their love and kindness: my parents, my teachers, and my friends.
In the next few years, Islam faced attacks from all sides of the political and social spectrums; at the same time, though, people grew more curious to learn about the faith that seemed so controversial. I resolved that the only way others would open their eyes to the peaceful and beautiful truth of my faith, a truth that was apparent to me, would be if Muslims, including myself, took on an active role in educating others as well as themselves about Islam, through their actions, words, and character. I became heavily involved in interfaith work, seeking out opportunities to build relationships based on an exchange and appreciation of another’s experiences. I began to observe the hijab, the Islamic way of dress, eager to strengthen my personal connection with God, while acting as a clear symbol of my faith.
As a result of my efforts, and those of other Muslims and non-Muslims alike, I saw my peers begin to understand Islam more clearly, to the point where my friends would quickly reprimand anyone who even suggested that Muslims supported violence. The Rochester interfaith community is unique in this sense, eager to celebrate and explore differences rather than suppress or criticize them. It is this quality that must carry us into the future; on this tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001 we must make a decision: will we let ourselves be consumed by the negativity and hurt that resulted from 9-11, or will we accept it as a challenge and emerge from it stronger, on both a personal and community level? In the end, how we deal with this tragedy, and how we let it affect us, will decide whether we strive for a brighter future, or live in a painful past. 9-11 was a shocking and heartbreaking event for all Americans, and it is through remembrances and dialogues that we will come together as a community and unite in the face of hardship, striving for healing and supporting each other. Our nation was able to bond together against intolerance in the past, with the civil rights and suffrage movements; today, interfaith understanding presents a beacon of hope for Americans of all generations, and just as we have in the past, we shall overcome.
The Double Anniversary of September 11
The following is the text from remarks that Gandhi Institute director Kit Miller offered during Rochester’s Interfaith Remembrance ceremony on Sept 11, 2011.
I am here to speak about a call to action. I have thought of dozens of things to share in these 5 minutes. I have wondered about all of you, whose lives have been directly and indirectly changed forever by the events we remember today. I would like to share three calls to action with you.
The first is a piece of wisdom I have treasured since hearing it ten years ago, at an interfaith gathering in Rochester just after the events we remember today. Responding to a heartfelt question from the audience, I remember Dr. Mohammed Shafiq from the Islamic Center of Rochester recommending ‘people of faith cool down and get humble’. I repeat, ‘people of faith, cool down and get humble. ‘
I have carried that advice with me to many situations and it has served me well. This is the first call to action I recommend today.
The second thought I would like to share comes from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King pointed out that many of us focus the majority of our attention on the people involved in the situation, rather than on underlying issues.
He urges us to do the creative unexpected thing-to focus our attention on the issue instead of the people. Individuals come and go, and the issues stay the same. I have found this principle helps at home and at work as well as in community and political life. The second call to action today is to keep your attention on issues.
Today is a double anniversary. 105 years ago a crowd in Johannesburg, S Africa stood with Mohandas Gandhi and made a vow of nonviolent resistance against a proposed law that would in effect reduce Indians and other ‘Asiatics’ in S Africa to semi-criminal status. Sept 11, 1906 marked a new way of waging conflict, when thousands of people chose to peacefully harness their spiritual values to create political change. The power of the golden rule, do unto others as you would have done to you, which every religion in the world espouses, was harnessed. They vowed ‘We will not oppose the person, we only oppose the injustice that person currently stand for’, which frees us both. What was born that day ultimately influenced more than fifty countries to shake off the yoke of colonialism. It has been and remains a mighty force for change. The events this year in Cairo in Tahrir Square which launched the Arab spring attest to that.
The third call to action today therefore is to watch your own thoughts and stories about what this day means. If we believe that evil and violence are inevitable, then that is the future we will likely create. Instead, include the golden rule in your dealings with others and let’s ask our leaders to do the same at the national and international level. We are part of an unfolding story whose unknowable outcome is up to us. Thank you.
For more information on the 9/11 double anniversary, view the booklet “Hope or Terror? Gandhi and the other 9/11” written by Professor Michael Nagler, founder of the Metta Center in Berkeley, California
http://mettacenter.org:8000/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/hot.pdf
2011 M.K. Gandhi Summer Institute
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110818/NEWS01/108180324/1002/NEWS
Donna Durbin spends her workdays helping to mediate such issues as custody disputes and visitation rights.
But this week, Durbin, who is director of family programs for the local Center for Dispute Settlement, is using her vacation time to sharpen her peacemaking skills.
As one of 26 participants in the M.K. Gandhi Summer Institute at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, Durbin is exploring — in a big way — the principles of Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
“We as citizens must do something about violence,” Durbin said Wednesday, after watching a video in which King explained his nonviolence philosophy.
Participants this week have listened to guest lecturers, meditated together, and joined in discussions and other group activities. The sessions end Friday.
“What is inspiring is to learn with other people of different backgrounds,” said George Payne, who is on the staff of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, the group that organized the event.
One of Wednesday’s activities was a game called “crocs and frogs,” which promotes team-building and cooperative use of scarce resources.
Whenever the sound of a box of rice being shaken stopped, the participants — the frogs — had to hop on pieces of newspaper strewn on the ground, representing lily pads in a pond.
Anyone not able to find a piece to stand on was out of the game — devoured by the crocodile.
“If the crocodile eats you, I’ll give you a hug,” said Gandhi Institute staff member Shannon Richmond, wanting to ensure that a cooperative spirit would not be lost during this activity.
As the game progressed, organizers reduced the pieces of newspaper on the ground — requiring the participants still in the game to share what they stood on.
The Gandhi Institute is a nonprofit organization that is legally separate from the University of Rochester but based on its campus. UR is the institute’s biggest funder. A house on South Plymouth Avenue soon will also be used by the institute as it expands into the community.
Gandhi organized nonviolence protests that eventually freed India from British rule in 1947. This week’s program is another example of the institute increasing its community outreach.
The 26 participants are almost all from the Rochester area, but include Australian resident Emily James, 25, who this year has been traveling to South America, Mexico, Canada and the United States, staying with activists and attending events that promote peace.
Another participant, Devin Wiesner, 37, of Rochester recently left his corporate job and is hoping to find a new career working for social change.
He said that some of the principles that he used in dealing with people in his past career will have application in his new endeavor.
“Show compassion,” Wiesner said.
