The American Nation, on the other hand, is a living and breathing thing. It is the collective of human beings -- bodies, hearts, minds, and souls.

The US Government seeks war. Thus this vast machine perpetuates itself, grows, and, through fear, seeks to impede the intelligence, good will, happiness, altruism, and vision of the American people; otherwise the American people would rise up and replace the Government.

George W. Bush and the US Congress represent the American Government, but I, in my way, represent the American Nation. I am a graybeard and have both that right and responsibility. Moreover, I am quite likely one of the few who even bother to claim this right.

Therefore in response to recent US Government saber-rattling towards Iran, I offer a different message: one of friendship and respect towards the Iranian People (but not towards the Iranian Government, which has, to the people of Iran, roughly the same relationship as the US Government has to the American people).

On July 4, American Independence Day, I placed this webpage online:

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/ip.htm

dedicated to the noble tradition of Islamic and Persian Neoplatonist philosophers. May Western and Middle-Eastern people come better to understand our common intellectual heritage. Better still, may we come to understand that God has providentially granted that we may collaborate in activities such as philosophy for the advancement of humankind, to His glory.

The American Nation, on the other hand, is a living and breathing thing. It is the collective of human beings -- bodies, hearts, minds, and souls.

The US Government seeks war. Thus this vast machine perpetuates itself, grows, and, through fear, seeks to impede the intelligence, good will, happiness, altruism, and vision of the American people; otherwise the American people would rise up and replace the Government.

George W. Bush and the US Congress represent the American Government, but I, in my way, represent the American Nation. I am a graybeard and have both that right and responsibility. Moreover, I am quite likely one of the few who even bother to claim this right.

Therefore in response to recent US Government saber-rattling towards Iran, I offer a different message: one of friendship and respect towards the Iranian People (but not towards the Iranian Government, which has, to the people of Iran, roughly the same relationship as the US Government has to the American people).

On July 4, American Independence Day, I placed this webpage online:

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/ip.htm

dedicated to the noble tradition of Islamic and Persian Neoplatonist philosophers. May Western and Middle-Eastern people come better to understand our common intellectual heritage. Better still, may we come to understand that God has providentially granted that we may collaborate in activities such as philosophy for the advancement of humankind, to His glory.

Some day in the near future, within our lifetime: The U.S. Congress authorizes and funds a Department of Peace or something like it, perhaps transforming the Homeland Security, Education, Health and State Departments to be well-funded agencies focused on violence prevention and human development. The United Nations acquires greater loyalty from its members and investing $60 billion per year provides shelter, health care, AIDS control, adequate nutrition for everyone on the planet over a 10-year period. Literacy and citizenship become universal. Churches are de-institutionalized and spirituality is commonly integrated into everyday life.

Before that happens: The pro-warriors agree that security is the goal. Lobbying develops into a highly creative art form. Nonviolence becomes a household word, and major conflicts transformed nonviolently are more common, recognized, and extolled. Corporations begin producing peace-building products and services on a large scale because it becomes profitable. The UN reforms into a more democratic, horizontal partnership of nations. Religious leadership is shared with lay persons, experiential testimony takes precedence over dogmatic beliefs, and ancient scripture is deeply understood.

Before that happens: The anti-warriors, the pro-peace-builders, and environmentalists agree that the means are the ends in the making. They create a united movement that presents an in-depth evaluation of strategies for security on a cost-benefit basis. The movement takes ownership of media broadcast networks producing nonviolent entertainment, news of progress in the environmental and nonviolence fields, educational programs on lifestyle change and citizenship skill-building. Major funding is acquired from progressive globalized corporations who leverage their influence on U.S. Congress and the United Nations.

Before that happens: The Peace Alliance (promoting a U.S. Dept. of Peace) unites with just ONE other group, possibly Beyond War or Nonviolent Peaceforce. Partnership becomes the new trend among environmental, anti-war, and peace groups. Corporate partners are enlisted in support of economic sustainability. Effective boycotts of corporations involved in damaging practices are organized. Specific plans are developed for re-tooling the weapons, petroleum and automotive industries into ultra-efficient organic production systems for new forms of transportation, housing, water purification, energy generation, agriculture.

A year from now: All the pro-peace groups who are working to build a culture of peace, the ones who have endorsed The Peace Alliance, everyone from the social justice and environmental movements, and anyone else who wants to come, meet in a large, open field under a huge tent with world-wide video linkups with similar audiences. Small donations from millions of people come pouring in. Some music, some meditation, and much conversation about goals occurs. Not much is said about strategies and no final conclusions are reached on the rational-intellectual level, but enough emotional-spiritual electricity is generated to fry the circuits of NBC and ABC. Fox News is speechless.

Building a Culture of Peace:
How Can UUs Lead the Way?

You are warmly invited to join in a series of informal discussions by teleconference featuring noted UU leaders and scholars, on the topic of how UUs can provide leadership in building a culture of peace. This presentation is sponsored by the UU Peacemaking Congregational Study/Action Core Team.

Seminar #2 – "Strategic Options for Building a Culture of Peace" – presentation by Sharon Welch

8 pm Eastern Time, Monday, April 28

Presenter: Sharon Welch, provost of Meadville Lombard Theological Seminar, and author of several books including After Empire: the Art and Ethos of Enduring Peace. Sharon is a leader in the UU Peacemaking Congregational Study/Action Issue Program. Her new book, Real Peace, Real Security will be published very soon.

Moderator: Judy Morgan, CSAI Core Team

Host: Mac Goekler, CSAI Core Team

Part 1 of the CONTACT 2007 movie

As I watched the movie about CONTACT 2007 made by Dil Bhusan and sent all the way from Nepal, I became a little nostalgic. I miss all the 72 participants -I have been in touch with each and every one of them from their first inquiry to their campus arrival. I was happy to see them come and sad to see them go. Fortunately, nowadays we are only one click away and we have plenty of photos that captured the beautiful moments together.

But let me not get carried away by nostalgia and concentrate on the 2008 Group of Peacebuilders. Applications for the CONTACT program came in from 35 countries. Rich backgrounds, inspiring stories, determined personalities.

CONTACT, the Conflict Transformation across Cultures Summer Peacebuilding Program will take place June 1-20. For 3 weeks students from 30 or more countries, ages from 20s-70’s, who work in development, education, human services, mental health, peace, religion, government, and many other professions, will be immersed in experiential learning, skill development, and community building.

Now in its 12th year, CONTACT is an acclaimed program led by renowned faculty from around the world. CONTACT participants build mutual understanding and authentic relationships across the differences of identity, experience, and perception that keep us divided. Students practice the art of peacemaking, refine their skills, and explore the rich challenges of reconciliation and forgiveness. The learning community becomes a laboratory where participants make shifts in their own attitudes and behavior as they create a culture of peace, compassion, and tolerance. The group engages in conflict analysis, develops interventions and strategies for actions in situations of protracted conflicts, and practices skills of dialogue, mediation, training, and other essential tools of peacebuilding.

For participants who would like to expand their theoretical knowledge and practice base beyond the CONTACT Summer Program, CONTACT also offers a one-year distance learning Certificate Program in Peacebuilding. This includes two online courses and a very meaningful midyear seminar of 10 days in Rwanda, where the group meets to learn directly about post-genocide healing and reconciliation.

Certificate students are then halfway to a MA degree, which they can complete on campus or through a new low residency program.For an application form and additional information, please visit our website or write to us, or call 802 258 3433.

Google Expands Free Phone Number and Voicemail Project
San Francisco Chronicle
February 28, 2008 4:40 PM PST

Google is partnering with homeless shelters in San Francisco to distribute free phone numbers and voicemail accounts to those without homes, the company said Wednesday...

Since the acquisition of Grand Central last year, Google has been participating in periodic Project Homeless Connect events in which it has been providing the homeless with free phone numbers and voicemail accounts that they can access from any phone. More than 4,000 phone numbers and voicemail accounts have been distributed this way, Craig Walker, a senior product manager of voice products for Google, told the San Francisco Chronicle...

On Wednesday, Google announced that it would expand Grand Central's project and partner directly with homeless shelters that will now be able to give out phone numbers and voicemail accounts and help individuals set up their accounts anytime. The idea is to expand the service, and eventually offer it in other cities, a Google spokesman said...

For homeless individuals, a phone is a luxury, and yet, telephony communications is an essential tool in our society. Without a phone number you can't apply for a job or even get on a waiting list for low-income housing.

Said Google's spokesman, "Being able to give a phone number to people and access voicemail can be a very powerful thing in sustaining quality of life...."

Read a complete article:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9882460-7.html?tag=newsmap

or here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/28/BACBV9MBG.DTL

Mohandas Gandhi called his philosophy of social change by peaceful means satyagraha. The word is derived from the Indian words satya (truth) and graha (from the same Indo-European root word from which comes our 'grasp', 'grab', and 'grip').

Satyagraha is more than a philosophical system; it is a metaphysical force. Thus it would be more correct to call Gandhi a discoverer of satyagraha than its inventor. We should be willing to extend and refine our understanding of it, and to adapt Gandhi's principles to modern issues and circumstances.

Consider satyagraha the subject of a cumulative science -- something we collectively experiment with and gradually improve our ability to use.

* * *

Gandhi said many times that he developed his ideas about satyagraha in large part from New Testament teachings. Yet he also, when asked what he thought of Christians, replied: "I don't know; I have yet to meet a real Christian." Together, these remarks remind Christians that (1) they may, potentially, learn more about what satyagraha is and how to use it by looking more to their own Christian scripture and traditions than to the writings of Gandhi, and (2) they should try harder to use the spiritual tools of their tradition to promote change in the world.

As evidenced by Gandhi's life and writings, there is a link between satyagraha and suffering. The link is not spelled out; there is no definite metaphysical theory that explains the connection. We must rather infer it from various specific actions and indirect comments of Gandhi, along with other data.

There are clearly psychological mechanisms by which ones suffering may change the opinion of others. For example, oppressors may be moved by compassion to change oppressive policies and practices; or oppressors may become convinced of the others' sincerity and good will by their acceptance of suffering.

But these psychological mechanisms, while important, are not the only consideration. What of silent, private suffering? What of sacrifices made that others never directly observe? It seems a near-universal practice in spiritual traditions that one person may assist another by voluntarily accepting suffering on their behalf. In Christianity, Christ himself accepted suffering for the salvation of others -- for undeserving others, in fact, as St. Paul points out (Rom. 5:7-10). Christians, whose model is Christ, are expected to similarly accept sacrifice both to help alleviate the suffering of the oppressed, and to promote the moral advancement of others, including ones enemies and persecutors.

* * *

Satyagraha, as "truth force", involves truth; people lose sight of that too easily. Social activism undertaken in a spirit of militant self-righteousness or indignation is not satyagraha. One must first align oneself with truth. That is no easy task.

It is especially ironic, then, that so many people engaged in activism choose to distance themselves from traditional religions. For example, young people today are quick to follow Gandhi's beliefs about social change; he is taken as a credible, authoritative source in that matter. But people pay much less attention to his support of traditional religion and spirituality. If his example is authoritative in the one case, why not in the other? Should one admire his political actions, even to the point of calling him a mahatma, which means great-souled, yet ignore his obvious support of traditional religion? That makes little sense.

To apply satyagraha one must align oneself with the truth. This means one must first seek out the truth -- which is God, or comes from God, or is in any case closely associated with God -- and then overcome the personal obstacles that cause one to prefer self-will, egoism, or selfish ends to God's will.

Thus, the person who wishes to follow the methods of satyagraha effectively should also be a religious person, in the traditional sense.

Today when a person says such things it is thought strange; yet this is completely consistent with Gandhi's teachings.

* * *

Various rules and principles of satyagraha as outlined by Gandhi and Christianity:

Love your enemies

* harbor no anger towards your enemies
* suffer the anger of the opponent
* do not insult the opponent
* do not trivialize the beliefs or intelligence of opponents
* forgive as you wish to be forgiven; hate the sin but love the sinner
* opponents are God's children, made in His image and likeness
* defend your opponent against insult or assault
* look for God's face in the face of others

Truth

* set an example of truth-seeking
* educate yourself, expand your perspectives, question your assumptions
* be honest with yourself; habitually examine your conscience and scrutinize your motives
* God is Love. God is Truth. When you stop loving you depart from truth.

Mental transformation

* do not stereotype any ethnic or cultural group or any person
* understand the dynamic of projection: what you do not like in yourself, you project onto others
* a strong, irrational attitude towards others implies projection
* first see if faults ascribed to others apply to you
* external conflict mirrors internal conflict

Personal virtue

* do not be angry
* do not curse
* patience is the foundation of all other virtues
* concupiscence is the enemy of patience; practice temperance; moderate and control appetites

Religion

* have a living faith in God
* have faith in the inherent goodness of human nature and peoples' ability to change
* pray
* read scripture
* prefer God's guidance to the voice of false reasoning

* * *

It is very ironic and counterproductive that many advocates of peace today express themselves in negative, hostile, and aggressive terms. If, for example, you preach peace but hatefully ridicule George W. Bush, people will pay more attention to your actions than to your words. Moreover, acting in so plainly counterproductive a manner, you will have lost touch with truth and the truth-force.

The idea of collecting independent testimonies presupposes that 'civilizations' have arisen in the world independently of one another; or even that humanity has had several independent emergences on this planet. The biology and anthropology involved in such an assumption are extremely doubtful. It is by no means certain that there has ever (in the sense required) been more than one civilization in all history.

This is a very important point to remember. Sometimes we act as if Christian culture and Muslim culture are two different things. In truth, they are not distinct. This might be true concerning some (but by no means all) of their religious doctrines, but it is most definitely not true of their religious cultures, broadly defined.

Take but one example. Christians prefer certain postures of prayer, and Muslims prefer others. In Hinduism and Buddhism still others are to be found. Are these postures efficacious only for a particular religion? Or are these postures collectively the proper spiritual heritage of all humankind? The latter seems far more plausible.

But if that is so, should we not study each others religious cultures, and freely borrow from one another. Do not mistake that for syncretism, the mistaken notion of producing a bland, watered down world religion which glosses over doctrinal differences. Our concern here is rather with practices, not doctrines. And the model is a more complex one. The suggestion is that the spiritual practices of our most ancient ancestors, say those of the ancient Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Indians, are now found scattered throughout the modern religions of the world, each retaining a subset. We are then not seeking to produce a new religious culture, as much as to reclaim an old one.

As I write this, the Muslim children are playing ball outside in the pool of Anspach fountain, drained for the winter, in St. Catherine's place. Their teacher, leading the play, is a young Belgian woman, scarcely more than a girl herself. I do not speculate on the significance of this, except to vaguely consider that it has <i>some</i> meaning. It has happened; it is part of the Tao, and is worthy of comment on that basis alone, and for this reason: I planned originally to write something else -- in fact, to quote a poem by the Sufi poet, Rumi, for the express purpose of participating in a mingling of cultures, and by that simple action, to further it. Here is the poem, chosen before the events outside my window began:

I used to be shy, you made me sing.
I used to abstain now I shout for more wine.
In somber dignity, I would sit on my mat and pray,
now children run through and make faces at me.

The children have not made faces at me, but they have enjoyed themselves playing as I wrote this.

Finally, here are two quotes cited by Lewis:

'Men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good.' (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. vii)

This is obvious enough, and needs little comment. Another is this:

'Man is man's delight.' (Old Norse. Hávamál 47)

This simple statement speaks volumes. How many of modern misfortunes have come from our constant attempt to improve upon nature, and to seek something beyond what is already given to us. We imagine that one day in the future, when all problems have been solved, then humankind may have happiness. We seek to be rich, to have automobiles, and wide-screen televisions.

In truth, technology has already succeeded. We have beaten most of the diseases that afflict humankind. We are no longer at the mercy of the weather. We can feed everyone, if we simply try. Having conquered these enemies, who do we not enjoy the blessings that God has given us? Foremost among these is the gift of life itself. And second is the gift of others. God, in his kindness, has designed us so that little, if anything, on earth gives us more pleasure than to see the smile of another, to see the sparkle in their eyes. This is what truly makes us happy, and it is all free.

This blog entry is not as so rigidly organized as the others; consider it poetry, if you like, just writer's notes.

A logical proof:

1. I am an American currently living in the center of Brussels. Perhaps half of the dealings I have each day are with Muslims from countries like Morocco, Pakistan, and Turkey, whose shops I visit and whose services I use. These are my neighbors, my colleagues, and my friends. If they are treated unfairly it is impossible for me to ignore that. Human beings are such that they are psychologically incapable of ignoring the suffering, unhappiness, or oppression of those around them. The natural instinct is to help others and to be concerned for their welfare.

Therefore the Muslims from these countries in Brussels are my brothers and sisters. It is impossible to think otherwise.

2. The European Muslims are brothers and sisters with the Muslims in their home countries, and in other Muslim countries, including Gaza.

3. Therefore if the European Muslims are my brothers and sisters, then so too are the Muslims in these other countries.

4. But I am still an American, and brother of the people there. That is hardly a bond that distance can abolish. Therefore, by this series of links (as if it were not apparent for other reasons), Americans and the people in Gaza are brothers and sisters.

So now I ask my younger brothers and sisters: please stop the quarreling. Americans: try harder to help the people in Gaza. At the very least, pray for them and take the time to learn of their difficulties. People of Gaza: stop sending missiles into Israel; re-examine the Hamas regime; work constructively to make your difficulties known, so that Americans and the rest of the world can help redress them.

I am aware of and distressed by the current suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza. I am also deeply concerned by the terrorist tactics of the Hamas political regime. And, naturally, I am concerned about the threat of Muslim terrorism in general.

As a religious person who seeks to love and serve God and neighbor, I must try to act in some way to improve things. How? Naturally I must look to God first, that I may do His will in this and all things.

Sometimes God makes plain to us what we should do. Other times He allows us to use our reason to decide this. In the present case, reason informs me that God has given me certain skills, interests, or "talents." Among these are philosophy. But that I mean not the lesser things -- scholasticism and sophistry -- which have perenially passed themselves off as philosophy, but true philosophy -- philo-sophia, which means the love of God's wisdom. I am also trained as a psychologist.

Let met then humbly devote my skills, such as they are, to address the current problem by means of a logical analysis or scholia. I present this as a series of short propositions and conclusions.

1. Many Muslim terrorists call America the Great Satan, or hold opinions similar to this. Some apparently hold similar views towards the state of Israel.

2. It is clear from these statements that these Muslim politicians and activists believe Satan exists, and makes war against the Muslim people.

3. If Satan exists and wars against Muslims, then surely he must also wage equally malicious war against the other spiritual children of Abraham, namely Christians and Jews.

4. History shows that a very effective means Satan has for warring against religion is by political oppression.

5. In the broadest sense, political oppression occurs both within a country and by means of one country oppressing another.

6. Just as Palestinians are oppressed internationally, the faithful religious of the United States and Israel are oppressed domestically by their own governments. In each case, People of the Book should recognize Satan at work.

7. When terrorists attack the United States, or when Hamas launches missiles or mortars into Israel, their destructive actions are indiscriminate: they harm the righteous and unrighteous citizens of those countries alike. If military jihad could be justified at all, then it would have to be directed exclusively against the agents of oppression, and not harm other innocent people -- but this is not possible. This leads us to our first preliminary conclusion: that terrorism as military jihad is unjust, because it harms innocent people.

8. Further, the inevitable consequence of terrorist attacks is to strengthen the central government of the attacked countries. This leads to further oppression of the devout religious communities within the target countries. Moreover, the central governments of these countries, which are effectively machinelike, beyond human control, and, if one may be so bold as to say it outright, often tools of Satan -- these governments use terrorist actions as an excuse for more oppression. This leads to our second preliminary conclusion: that terrorist jihad is counterproductive, because it leads to more, not less, suffering of God's children.

9. People of the Book believe that Satan works in conjunction with an "army" of daemons. Scientifically, we do not know what daemons are. Whether they are disembodied entities, or something else, is not clear. At present, the word "daemon" is a placeholder term for a range of phenomena that we observe but to not fully understand. We use the word daemonic to describe states of mind in which a person is "seized", and in which they act irrationally and impulsively, especially in a violent way. It is also characteristic of daemonic states that people cannot clearly scrutinize their own motives.

10. From all the preceding, points, it would appear that terrorist actions are daemonic, not holy. They do not reflect the wisdom of God, which comes from above, and which is recognized by qualities of peace, gentleness, patience, and insight.

We then conclude this: any logic by which people, through desperation, suffering, anger, or resentment, reach the conclusion that they must engage in a military jihad must be immediately recognized as false, and daemonic in origin. Yes, the suffering is unjust and unfair. It must stop! But to act violently is certain not to end the misery, but to continue it. Further, armed aggression does not harm the sources of oppression, but is displaced onto other innocent victims. Finally, we must recognize that as long as people respond to suffering with violence, then Satan will produce more suffering.

Even (or especially) the most fundamentlist Muslims, Christians, and Jews should admit that the real enemy is Satan. Then why not face the real enemy, and wield against him those weapons which he most dreads: holiness, peace, virtue, and trust in God? Do the young men who brandish machine guns and grenade launchers consider themselves courageous? That is not courage. Courage, the true way of jihad, is found in the battle to acquire virtue, and the struggle to follow the more difficult path of peace.

People in America -- the awake and decent ones -- want to see peace and justice for the Palestinian people. The people in Gaza need to understand that we are all suffering together, although in different ways. The corporate-dominated media do not tell Americans the truth. Americans are, in any case, beaten down by their own political system, and barely able to act to change things.

Despite all these difficulties, we have the one tool at our disposal which Satan cannot remove, namely prayer. Indeed, Christians believe -- and I would be greatly surprised if Muslims did not also believe it -- that prayers are rendered even stronger when made in the midst of suffering.

Don't march into Gaza

Only thorns and scorpions await Israel if it decides to invade that hostile territory.
By Amos Oz

February 15, 2008

Anger, frustration and invective are riling us. Israel must not fall into the trap that Hamas is setting for us -- we must not march into Gaza. Because the number of casualties in a ground invasion of Gaza would be much greater than the number of casualties caused by Kassam rockets over the last seven years. Because during five of the seven Kassam years, we controlled the entire Gaza Strip and hundreds of rockets were fired on Sderot anyway, in addition to repeated bloody assaults on the Israeli settlers who lived there. Apparently, we've forgotten.

Reoccupying the Gaza Strip would not necessarily end rocket fire on Sderot and its environs. In addition to the continuing attacks on Sderot, our occupying force would face gunfire and suicide bombers, day in and day out.

Moreover, an invasion of Gaza would unite the Palestinian masses and the Arab and Muslim worlds around Hamas, which at present is isolated and loathed by most Arabs. If Israeli forces invaded Gaza, Hamas' fighters would immediately be seen as defenders of a Palestinian Masada to the Palestinians, the Arab world and international public opinion -- the few against many, residential neighborhoods facing an army, refugee camps under the shadow of bomber squadrons, boys battling tanks, David versus Goliath.

If we conquer Gaza, we'll find ourselves sitting on thorns and scorpions. The occupying force will not have a day of peace. Neither will the inhabitants of Sderot and the area around it.

Even in such times of anger, when our hearts go out to the ongoing suffering of the Israelis of Sderot, we must not forget that the root of the Gaza problem is that hundreds of thousands of human beings are rotting there in refugee camps, camps that are incubators of poverty and despair, ignorance, religious and national fanaticism, hatred and violence.

From a historical point of view, there can be no solution to the problem of Gaza as long as there is not at least a modicum of hope for these desperate people somewhere on the horizon.

Then what can we do? We can and must achieve a cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza. A cease-fire would come, of course, with a high political price. But among all the prices Israel would have to pay for a mistaken and rash decision, it is the least deadly and the most bearable.

Amos Oz is an Israeli novelist and essayist. This commentary was translated by Haim Watzman.

Just consider: what would people think if a national columnist had the temerity to suggest that the real solution is, say, for Americans to pray more! Yet the great irony is that, deep down inside, that's what a lot of Americans know to be true – that is, this is completely consistent with their personal, though often unspoken religious views. When the chips are down, even an atheist turns to prayer. Yet somehow publicly and collectively we act like such a thing doesn't exist. We've constructed a social myth that you can't be intellectual and be religious. Intellectuals never talk about prayer seriously. And, at least since C. S. Lewis left, the people who do talk about it seldom strike one as being very intellectual.

This is not a good thing. Even apart from the religious dimension, it's psychologically unhealthy to dissociate personal religiosity and public affairs. It divides the personality. If one puts on an agnostic face to discuss politics, eventually one forgets that one has just been putting up a front. If you spend more time living a facade than as your true self, the facade becomes you.

But back to the malaise. Kipper sees the symptoms. We all do. There evident everywhere, at least to anyone old enough to compare the quality of American life now with 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago. But she sees them from a status-quo perspective, paying too much attention to things like interest rates, debt, and credit. Yes, these are problems. But they're symptoms. Fix the real problems, which are social, psychological, and spiritual, and these other things will also get solved. On the other hand, if we focus attention too exclusively on economics, we remove attention from and fail to address the substantial issues, and so insure that these other symptoms continue.

Worse, Kipper sees the solution as being had in electing a strong leader as president:

"Only a leader who will genuinely tell the American people the truth about their situation at home and abroad will be able to introduce meaningful reform and change in the way Americans live."

I could scarcely disagree more. In fact, it seems to me that this is exactly the kind of thinking that put Hitler in charge of Germany in the 1930s. It's part of a predictable historical cycle: (1) things get really bad socially and economically, until (2) people are so desperate that they turn to a charismatic leader to fix everything. Not only does history show that looking to a charismatic father figure for answers is a recipe for disaster, we also have to confront the larger dynamic: a cycle that repeats itself, and will continue until we step up and decide ourselves to take control of collective destiny.

As described in my article, "Nobody for president," we need to stop participating in the cult of the leader. Having a media president carries inherent and irremediable problems. For one thing, such a figure must appeal to the lowest common denominator of society -- so you can forget about an intellectual approach to politics. Further, experience shows that the truly lowest common denominators are things like fear and anger. Hence, mass-media politics inevitably revolve around fear, war, and conflict in foreign affairs, and name-calling in domestic ones.

I can't blame Judith Kipper for not describing the situation completely accurately. She's not a psychologist. I am. And it's my job, not hers, to try to understand and communicate this dimension of the problem. If you want to see what I've come up with so far, see, for example, this article.

My articles – which say audacious things like that Plato is relevant to the renewal of American society – may sound strange, hopelessly quaint, or eccentric to some. But I'm right. And the very fact that such ideas seem unusual is evidence of that. These are viewpoints that were common among educated, progressive people before the positivist-materialist worldview took control of the intellectual arena.

Again, I have to give credit to Judith Kipper for at least talking about America's malaise. She's closer to the truth than a lot of others. But on the other hand, we need to make the right diagnosis and prescribe the right medicine for America; the wrong ones only delay recovery.

And while we're on the subject, let me say that I don't think you can expect to find many real issues addressed somewhere like the Huffington Post, where, despite the publishers' good intentions, half the webpage is crawling with animated ads. It's just ridiculous, and ought to convince you that the articles there exist to sell merchandise, not edify you. This kind of thing is the American malaise.

SUSTAINABLE CITIES, SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION

From the article:

Urbanization - A Glimpse of the Future

"Cities continue to be seen as offering economic opportunity superior to what can be realized in the countryside. Urban migration takes place on such a scale that we now have a new category of cities 'megacities', with populations over 10 million. By 2015 there will be 23 of these megacities; most will be found in the developing world. They will include Beijing, China; Cairo, Egypt; Mumbia, India; Lagos, Nigeria; Mexico City, Mexico; and Sao Paulo, Brazil. In 12 years, nearly 3 out every 4 city dwellers will live in a megacity. By 2030, conditions in megacities will define the quality of life for nearly 5 billion of the earth’s inhabitants, most of whom will be under 18 years of age."

My main criticism is that the view here is somewhat limited by prevailing paradigms of thought. The solution isn't necessarily to build more trains and bus lines, as was done in the previous century. We need an entirely new post-modern approach, with things like:

• Pedestrian-friendly cities. We need to get people out walking (or biking); getting exercise and, hopefully, fresh air.

• Better designed cities, where people need to travel less to get to work, shopping, and healthcare

• Things like courier services. Let a delivery cart bring the groceries to your house.

• Telecommuting and distance-learning

Nothing in the report explicitly contradicts these ideas, but neither are they emphasized. The conclusion:

"To meet these challenges, sustainable mobility will need a model representing a social and political approach to sustainable development in cities, one that invites and embraces public-private partnerships to create and finance sustainable transport solutions."

also concerns me for two reasons. First, as always, the "public-private partnership" model leaves out the spiritual dimension. Second, there is too much emphasis on institutions, whether private or public. It's like saying, "to save people for the harms produced by institutions, let's promote new institutions." The hidden premise is that we need to do more to solve the problem. Maybe we need to do less -- or at least to consider obvious simple solutions before resorting to grand schemes of mass transportation, etc.

Here's an example of what I mean by doing less, or perhaps we could call it doing by not doing. Last summer, Brussels had a "car free Sunday." For one day, all unnecessary transportation by cars and trucks was discouraged. People took to the streets, families on bicycles, enjoying the sunny day. It utterly changed the tone and complexion of the city, from a stressful urban center to a charming European capital. Just do this every Sunday and see what happens. No new "public-private" partnerships. No new bonds. No new taxes. Just gradually ban internal-combustion vehicles from the city centers. This will produce immediate benefits, and also change peoples' values. Values: that's the key. We need to change people's values and attitudes. That is both a relatively inexpensive solution, and a better one than building more mass transportation systems.

Finally, the article seems to take as inevitable that urbanization will continue. We should examine this assumption carefully consider whether post-modern de-urbanization is attainable and better. There's an old saying that bears repeating: God made the country, man made the town, and the devil made the city.

Do we want urbanization to continue or not? We can stop it if we choose. As the report's opening paragraph makes clear, this is something of historical importance. In the past human civilization evolved blindly, subject to economic forces, and innumerable problems resulted. But now we know enough to shape our own destiny.

My views are themselves doubtless shaped by my own North American and European experience. The situation in developing countries is potentially different. But if the developing countries de-urbanize, this will set an example and establish paradigms that developing nations will emulate.

Epilogue:  After posting this , I found an informative article about sustainable cities and ecocities in the Wikipedia.

John S. Uebersax

In one of his recent entries, "Money, money, money..." Matt, while deploring the self-defeating greed of companies like -- well, AOL (he does not mention names) -- also affirms the common-sense principle that the way to succeed in business is to supply a good service and keep customers happy.

I think this view is a big step in the right direction, but would like to suggest the principle can be taken still further. I'll explain, but first let's tie in a few other things.

I often hear people complain about how "multi-national corporations are ruining the country." While this may be partly true, one also has to consider how much good corporations accomplish. The computer I'm writing on, and yours, the software we're using, and the internet are all the products of corporations. Without corporations, human beings could not work together collectively to produce such marvels of technology.

In fact, since I have some interest in religion and culture, let me present the potentially novel and radical suggestion that corporations are related to the God image in man. The God-image, for those of you who aren't theologians, refers to the fact that we are made in God's image and likeness. Latently, we are divine beings -- we just don't do a very good job of acting that way. The standard religious view is that our job on earth is to glorify God with good works; to renew the face of the earth; to use our human intelligence in harmony with nature to produce something new and better than either of these could by itself. Through corporations, individual human beings pool their efforts and talents to accomplish far more than individuals can alone. Corporations accomplish things on a vast scale that uniquely reflects our divine roots.

Consider the pharmaceutical industry as a case in point. Yes, we can easily identify a few instances of greed and very poor judgment. But the fact remains that there are now many important medicines available, and new ones continually being developed. This would not be possible without private corporations. There are other ways human beings work collectively: governments, universities, non-profit organizations, and charities, for example. But it seems that none of these are as efficient as private corporations when it comes to making and distributing things or providing services.

Consider, for example, what happened when the federal government tried to sequence the human genome. They had a plan to do this in 10 years. Then a single entrepreneur came along, founded a company, and managed to do the same thing in a fraction of the time.

While I think of it, there's another thing I wanted to mention. I live in Brussels now -- right in the middle of the city. Every day I see the people there -- what their lives are like, what their concerns are. When I left the U.S. to pursue professional opportunities five years ago, I also hoped to learn a lot of good social ideas in Europe -- things I could later bring back to the U.S. with me. But what's mostly happened is the reverse. I see better now how much America has to offer the rest of the world. And, believe it or not, part of this is our corporate know-how. Corporations, first of all give people jobs. But beyond that, they inspire people; they motivate them to apply their talents; to learn. They generate enthusiasm, energy, vitality, and excitement. Those are the things I see missing in the lives of so many people.

One more side issue. It's significant that I learned of Matt Heaton's views reading his blog, that I'm commenting on them here, and that you're here reading them. This means we're involved in a collective, social enterprise of a different sort. We're networking: comparing notes and trying to advance society at a grass-roots level. This is a whole lot better than taking our marching orders from the cultural propaganda machine and weapon of mass negativity that the news media represent.

Now back to Matt Heaton's article. At one point he says, "We are in business to make money!" That's ok for me, but I would want to adjust the emphasis a little. Corporations should make money. It is an appropriate goal, per se. Money is often society's way of telling you that you're doing something valuable. But this goal must be properly ordered and prioritized. Profit should not be the ultimate goal. Otherwise, one ends up reasoning like this:

1. We should treat customers well, because we want to make money.

Rather, the reasoning should be more like this:

2. We should try to make money, because we have a passion to serve people, and the money is a sign that we've succeeded.

See the difference? The two models reverse the ends and the means.

You see the latter at work in some pharmaceutical companies. What keeps people motivated is knowing that, as a result of their hard work and long hours, somebody somewhere halfway around the world is going to get a medicine that may extend their life 10 years. People will work much harder for that goal than to make money.

Is that true only of making medicine? Of course not. This is where companies like BlueHost.com comes in. These corporations empower other people. I have a biostatistics website that shares technical information with clinical-trials statisticians around the world. In other fields -- medicine, education, political science, environmental engineering, to name just a few -- thousands of other people are doing the same thing. The information revolution is happening, and BlueHost and countless other technology companies are making this possible.

The Unique Role of Corporations

Corporations have the potential to transform our society into a futuristic utopia that far exceeds anything people dreamed of in their "Tomorrowland" visions of the 1950s. Already computers have launched launched a second information revolution, potentially greater than that of the Renaissance.

Corporations turn our inspired visions into reality. Moreover, many of these visions can only be materialized by means of corporations. What is a corporation but a body of people working together. That's where the word comes from -- the Latin word, corpus, or body. A corporation is a body of people working together to accomplish a noble purpose.

We have to believe that God has a plan for all this. These tools are put into our hands today, and at the same time we're born into this world with the skills to use them rightly. If God is good and providential, suppositions few doubt, then it follows from reason that if we align ourselves with this plan we should be in good shape. Imagine what we might do, dare to believe it. Trust that this is what God wants: collective, 'corporate' activity used rightly.

Corporations can and should be at the forefront of renewing America.

First, corporations have to provide genuinely useful services. That much is a given.

Second, corporations should pay more attention to improving the quality of life of their employees. In short, an ideal corporation would have two more-or-less equal goals: to serve society profitably, and to advance the lives, careers, and happiness of the employees.

The collective nature of a corporation leads to many opportunities to promote employee quality-of-life. Examples include a company-sponsored van pool to relieve commuters, and a company cafeteria with nutritious, affordable food. Such programs help the employees and promote productivity. It's a win-win situation and is demonstrably cost-effective. Why isn't it done more? The main reason that corporations don't see it as part of their working model; it's outside their current self-image.

Ultimately, that's what needs to change: the self-image and the philosophy of the corporation. Matt Heaton and others like him are saying good things, but we need to carry this positive thinking still further. Let's divest ourselves of the inherited, obsolete myths (1) that money (not happiness) is what really matters; and (2) that corporations have nothing to do with our spiritual natures and humanitarian concerns.

Here's an excellent example of how a modern corporation can be uniquely insrumental in promoting social justice:

Google Provides San Francisco Homeless with Free Phone Service and Voicemail

Finally, it should be mentioned that we should not hesitate to pray for God's help with this. There's little point going to church services on Sunday and being dismissed with the words, "now go to love and serve God" if we don't put them into action in our daily lives. And a lot of this time is spent working in corporations. Nobody is suggesting commencing board meetings with a benediction and scripture. But privately, people can and should pray for God's guidance and help. I'd venture to suggest that this alone would be the single biggest step we can take to put us on the right track.

Heavenly Father, you made all things and a proper use for each. Show us how to do your will, glorify you, and serve others, using our talents to work collectively to help bring about your kingdom on earth.

A central message of the Republic is this. The soul consists of many individual members (appetites, drives, desires, etc.). Discord and strife result from these members working selfishly and at cross-purposes. Peace and harmony are attained when the soul is not governed by transitory drives and desires, but instead continually looks to something higher -- wisdom -- for guidance; that is the true meaning Plato's famous term, the philosopher king. This does not mean some kind of enlightened social leader, but rather a person (you or me) who has achieved a new psychological structure: that of being ruled by love of wisdom.

Wisdom, for Plato, is not mere knowledge, but something divine. Wisdom, for him, comes from God. Further, it is closely related to Beauty, and Goodness itself. A fact readily ignored in modern universities is that Plato was an explicitly religious writer. There is a remarkable similarity, in fact, between Plato's model and the psychological model found in the New Testament. We see this clearly in the letters of St. Paul to the Romans and Ephesians, and especially the letter of James.

A point made by Plato, Paul, and James alike is that wars and external conflicts reflect internal conflicts. James 4:1 says, From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?.

People sometimes read this and get hung up on the word, "lusts", thinking this is just religious moralizing. Actually, the Greek word is hedone, or pleasures -- a much more general term -- so one may see that this is quite a broad principle.

James, again like Plato, also distinguishes between earthly wisdom and the wisdom that is from above. The former corresponds to the false reasoning we typically engage in -- conclusions that masquerade as prudent ones, but which are actually formed by appetites and desires. These are what modern psychologists might call rationalizations. In contrast is true wisdom, which, among other things, is experienced as coming 'from above.' Earthly 'wisdom' is ego-generated, something one constructs oneself: one knows the conclusion in advance, then selects facts and arguments to support the conclusion. True wisdom, however, is experienced more as inspiration -- a subtle whisper, a revelation, an unearned insight. Whether its source is God directly, or our higher self, the point is that it comes a source above our competing and conflicting appetites.

So how does this relate to Elections 2008? Quite directly, in fact. The problem is that peoples' thinking about the election is dominated by 'earthly wisdom'. People have set up, for example, spam agents to automatically add defamatory news articles about candidates as comments to blogs like mine. I've had to partially disable comments, in fact (but that's not really a problem). These spammers evidently feel they are doing a service by posting such articles. That is, they think they're being wise. They've confused earthly and true wisdom.

Then what is true wisdom as it applies to the forthcoming elections? That isn't hard to figure out. Wisdom, Plato and the New Testament tell us, is recognized by its ability to harmonize the disparate and potentially contending drives and desires of human nature. It always seeks the welfare of all. Further, it presupposes that there is a way to achieve happiness, and that we're designed to be in that state. There is a natural way, in other words, for the desires and drives to be in balance.

What we obviously seek in life are peace and happiness. That isn't going to happen in society unless and until it happens in our own souls. Within each of our souls are inner Democrats and inner Republicans, vying for control. (Maybe the inner Democrats want pleasure, and the inner Republicans want money -- a simplistic model, but perhaps not too far from the truth.) All the contention, anger, mudslinging, and name-calling you see in the current elections is mirrored within your own psyche. External politics is ultimately a projection of inner politics.

How do you find peace of soul? By letting yourself be governed by true wisdom, which is characterized by humility, love, and genuine concern for the welfare of others. Discover your higher sources of knowledge, and stop being led by emotional reasoning. The latter does not reflect your welfare, but rather the narrow purposes of particular appetites and drives.

If we do this individually, we'll likely find that our external political solutions are not as difficult as we currently make them out to be. In any case, we'll certainly see the absurdity of all this political fighting.

In October of 2007, 138 Muslim leaders, clerics, and scholars published an open letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI titled, A Common Word between Us and You. The letter was unambiguously positive and well motivated. The summary of the letter states succinctly (and correctly): "The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians." Historians may well look back on the publication of this letter as a pivotal event in reconnecting Christian and Muslim cultures.

It is obvious that one benefit to be achieved by greater unity of Christians and Muslims is their cooperation in remedying injustice, poverty, violence, hatred and other social problems in the world. But in a more fundamental way (and one related to these other issues) there is an opportunity to join in "raising the consciousness" of humankind. As a Christian psychologist and philosopher, it is natural that I should direct my comments to this latter issue.

To remedy the critical problems that face us, there must emerge a new level of understanding of ourselves as human beings, individually and collectively. If we approach things optimistically (the only view consistent with the premise of an all-Good and Providential God) then we should expect to already see signs of this emergence. Several features in A Common Word that pertain to this are addressed below.

Surrender to God

The very word "religion", derived from the Latin root, ligare, to bind, denotes the re- establishment or strengthening of bonds between man and God. At the psychological level what is sought is a radical transformation of the human mind. Concerning this St. Paul wrote:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:2)

The mental transformation St. Paul refers to, this sine qua non of religious life, can be understood as a radical change from self-centeredness or egoism to God-directedness. Obviously, a fundamental tenet of Muslim religion is the need for surrender to the will and guidance of God -- the very meaning of the word Islam. This basic reorientation of the human soul or personality away from egoism is also fundamental for Christians, who refer to it with terms like humility and poverty of spirit. This idea is emphasized throughout the Bible. In Proverbs it is written:

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding./ In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. (Proverbs 3:5)

In the prayer that Jesus Christ taught, the Lord's Prayer, Christians ask of God: Thy will be done (Matthew 6:10, Luke 11:2). In the biblical drama of the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, a central theme is the final submission of his will to that of the Father; at a symbolic level, the crucifixion signifies a death of personal willfulness which the individual Christian should emulate.

We may also note that the phrases, Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven, which appear prominently in the Gospels, could be interpreted to mean a state of mind in which one is ruled by the promptings of God -- that is, to mean "being ruled by God" or "submitting to the reign of God." The writings of Christian saints and Doctors attest again and again to humility as the foundation of Christian virtue.

All this leads to a conclusion that some may take as utterly bold but others as perfectly ordinary: that to be a true Christian implies that one is "Islam," in the sense of the latter outlined above.

This inner state of humility or Islam, Christians and Muslims agree, is the natural, intended form of human psychological functioning. To the extent that we are not in this state, we are in a fallen condition. We cannot expect to make much progress in any sphere of life, personal or social, until it is corrected.

Jihad as Inner Struggle

There appears to be broad consensus by Muslim scholars that the main meaning of the term jihad in the Qur'an refers to an inner personal struggle to attain this state of surrender to God. The importance of this struggle is similarly recognized by Christians. St. Paul wrote:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. (Ephesians 6:12)

This spiritual warfare is a prominent feature of Christian life. To pursue the metaphor of warfare, to prevail against ones enemies one rightly ought to use all resources available, including, and perhaps especially, allies. Christians and Muslims, then, would appear to have much to gain by seeing themselves as allies in the inner jihad of personal spiritual development.

The Religious Meaning of Heart, Mind, and Soul

A Common Word refers to the Great Commandment of the New Testament:

Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: / And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. / And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Mark 12:29-31)

Yet what are the heart, mind, and soul? It stands to reason that the better one understands these things, the better one can employ them in the love and service of God. Although these words appear frequently in the Bible and the Qur'an, we are hard-pressed to define or explain exactly what they mean.

For example, in the passage above, are the heart, mind, and soul presented as mutually exclusive parts of human nature, or do they overlap? How is it that, in various passages, the heart is referred to in a way that suggests it may not just feel and desire, but may also will, choose, think, and be illumined?

And what is the nature of the mind? Does it have different levels? Is there validity to the Platonic distinction between higher (noetic) and lower (dianoetic) levels of mind? What is the relationship of the mind to such subtle concepts as wisdom and conscience?

What is the nature of the soul itself? And what is the relationship of soul to spirit?

These are questions that vitally and profoundly affect us, and ought to stir our greatest interest. Yet, to judge from what has yet been written, we appear to know very little about them.

It therefore seems very significant that the authors of A Common Word chose to refer to this subject, with particular emphasis on the meaning of the heart, in their letter. Perhaps this is an opportunity for our two traditions to collaborate, drawing on their different perspectives and cultural heritages, on formulating a new and deeper understanding of human anthropology and psychology.

In previous eras, such as during the thriving of Muslim culture in Cordoba, Muslims, Christians, and Jews collaborated freely on philosophical, theological, and scientific research. Elsewhere in Europe, the great Christian theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, borrowed much from Muslim philosophy and the works of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina; Muslim scholars were viewed by Christians with great respect.

Doctrine and Revelation in Theology

Finally, we should consider how both Christians and Muslims have struggled throughout their histories to understand the proper relationship of doctrine and personal revelation in theology. Sometimes this is referred to as the issue of Faith vs. Reason, but, in truth, no terms we use exactly convey the nature of the tension or difficulty here. It is as if human beings have two levels or realms of knowledge -- one associated with reasoning, and one with direct personal experience.

Few would disagree that the most important dimension of religion is experiential -- words are as nothing compared to the direct encounter of the human soul with God. Yet at the same time we cannot entirely dispense with the need for systematic terminology and rational arguments in theology. Error may result from false experience, just as from false reasoning. The only acceptable conclusion is that both doctrine and personal experience are necessary in religion; but as yet we have not found an easy way to relate the two.

This, then, becomes a challenge for the present and future generations: how can we integrate the logical and experiential dimensions of our nature, so that we may love God with the totality of our being, and also more fully experience this life and God's blessings here on earth.

A Common Word wisely downplayed the issue of doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam. It is possible that, motivated by charity, believing in God's Providence, and led by God's Spirit, we may have new insights by which we discover some of these differences are not so great as has previously been supposed. In any case, while the extent of differences is not clear, it does seem apparent that our religions are far more in agreement than disagreement.

We are privileged to live in this time of great opportunity to serve God by effecting greater cultural harmony. Let us approach the future of Christian - Muslim dialogue optimistically, placing our trust in God to lead us. Meanwhile, let us pray together for peace, the alleviation of poverty, and the advancement of people of all nations, never doubting the efficacy of our prayers.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God. (Romans 8: 28 )

John S. Uebersax PhD

Brussels

30 January 2008

John S. Uebersax PhD

Preface

Following the attacks of September 2001, Osama Bin Laden has delivered several addresses to Americans (e.g., October 2004; April 2006; September 2007). Since the American people themselves, and not their government or corporations, were addressed, and further since the people were the victims the attacks, I, as a citizen of the United States, feel it my personal duty to reply. My sense of responsibility is increased by the fact that I am a Catholic, and so see things in religious terms, and because I am a psychologist, and therefore have some knowledge of the workings of the mind -- including its misuse as exemplified by terrorism.

It is important to make a reasoned reply to bin Laden, and to the accusations and arguments of his several messages. Some may criticize me for attempting to reason with terrorists, but I disagree. Terrorists demonstrate by their actions an inability to think correctly; therefore it is all the more imperative that others demonstrate to them correct modes thought and action, and appropriate ways to resolve injustices. In any case it is foolish to not show respect for an adversary.

The Reply

Certain themes have recurred in your (bin Laden's) messages. Here I shall respond to several of these, paying particular attention to four general issues.

1. An eye for an eye

In your message of September 2007 (assuming it is genuine), you begin by justifying terrorism based on the scriptural concept of "an eye for an eye." There is a well-known saying: "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose." Here is a case in point. You apparently believe that you act on God's behalf in exacting vengeance; but the truth is that emotion has distorted your mind, making you unable to discern the true meaning of scripture. Your intentions, that is, are formed by malice beforehand; you then select whatever passages and give them whatever interpretation you please to support your prejudices.

The words of scripture permit many different interpretations. For this reason generations of learned and pious souls have searched to find the true meanings. You entirely disregard the opinions of these others, and presume to impose whatever meanings you find personally convenient. That is a sure sign of pride, and of not genuinely seeking to learn and do God's will.

We could find a hundred other passages in the Qur'an or the Bible which make clear that terrorism is evil and contrary to God's ways. For example, there is this:

Let not hatred of any people seduce you into being unjust. Be just, that is nearer to piety. (The Qur'an, al-Ma'idah 5:8).

And this:

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, Do not contend with people of the Book except in the fairest way. (The Qur'an, al-Ankabut 29:46).

Now it is generally understood by Muslims that Christians are included in the term "people of the book." By what strange definition, then, could killing thousands of innocent non-combatants be considered fair? Fairness, according to the principle of "an eye for an eye" would be, potentially, to exact revenge upon the specific person or persons who committed a crime. Thus, if a man kills your brother, then, according to this principle, one could justify killing that man. This is far removed from applying the principle in an abstract and generalized way. Were any of those who died in the Twin Towers personally responsible for killing Muslims? And is it not certain in any case that at least some were wholly innocent? Many were not even Americans! To appreciate the gravity of your offenses and to see how inconsistent your acts are with the spirit of your own Qur'an, you should ponder the following:

Whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether. (The Qur'an, al-Ma'idah 5:32).

The choice of terrorism

In your October 2004 speech you described what led to your decision to pursue terrorism. Referring to the 1982 bombardment of Lebanon you said:

"I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy." (Source: October 2004 video, Al Jazeera transcript)

And then you said:

"In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors." (Souce: ibid.)

We should examine these statements closely. To witness such carnage is obviously difficult and produces strong and complex feelings. The strongest feelings are those of horror and of compassion and empathy for the afflicted. Compassion is stronger and more fundamental than any subsequent feelings of anger. Witnessing such destruction, the immediate natural human impulse is to say, "I wish that this did not happen, and I resolve for such a thing to never happen again!" And if this resolve is strong enough, the soul will struggle further with the hard-to-describe feelings you allude to, until the only real solution is reached: "I will embark on a campaign of peace, and so convert even my enemies from their evil ways; thereby I will insure that such things happen no more, and that no more people suffer this way."

This is a difficult point in the deliberations of the soul, for we are not just guided by divine promptings, but prone to "demonic" influences as well. In this case, the latter infected your reasoning process, suggesting the path of revenge. Your thinking then became consumed by this single, incorrect idea, and you chose the wrong path. You chose, in fact, the very path most certain to produce more of the very suffering you wished to end. Is it not for this reason that it is written:

But (remember that an attempt at) requiting evil may, too, become an evil: hence whoever pardons (his foe) and makes peace, his reward rests with Allah- for, verily He does not love transgressors. (The Qur'an, Ash-shura 42:40)

And if you object to this translation, which some render differently, consider this alternative, the meaning of which is beyond dispute:

If a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah.

You should have seen in Lebanon in 1982 that your enemy is neither the United States nor Israel. Your enemy -- the enemy of all of us -- is hatred itself. And if one hates this enemy enough, one will stop at nothing to defeat it, even adopting the seemingly illogical plan of forgiving ones enemies.

This is the truest meaning of jihad or holy war: the struggle conducted within ones own soul to overcome the elements of baseness and egoism and to be conformed to the will of God, who seeks peace for His children. The insight that peace is the correct path, however, only comes with struggle. It is true that there are specific passages in scripture that refer to vengeance. But God has given us reason, by which we may see that these passages must be considered in the entire context of God's word, which unmistakably teaches the way of peace.

Here, then, is a sign by which one may distinguish between legitimate punishment of injustice, which may potentially serve God, and the lesser species of malicious revenge: if one delivers just punishment, then one feels no hatred or anger, just as a judge may feel true compassion and sorrow for the soul of one he has been required to sentence; the judge keeps the humanity of the one sentenced foremost in his mind; if there is a more merciful option, he considers that one instead; he is willing, even eager, to distinguish between a reformable and unregenerate person. But if one feels anger and hatred in exacting 'punishment', this is not divine retribution but instead reflects only the workings of men and demons; it is malice disguised as justice.

We may also state things thus: terrorism places the motive of revenge ahead of the motive of serving God; it is a fundamentally wrong and unreligious mentality. A pious man does not rashly embark on a course of action and then stubbornly cling to it; that is like a sailor who sets his course once and then lashes fixed the rudder. The right way is to continually remain open to the subtle promptings of God's spirit, which "goeth where it listeth" (Gospel of John 3 : 8 ) and to constantly search for the wisdom that comes from above:

"But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
This wisdom descendeth not from above, but [is] earthly, sensual, devilish.
For where envying and strife [is], there [is] confusion and every evil work.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."
(Epistle of James, 3:15-17)

2. Terrorism is counter-productive, making worse the very conditions it seeks to remedy.

From your messages it is not clear exactly whom among Americans you believe your enemies to be. Often you imply that you consider George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, and other members of the current administration your enemies. Yet other times you seem to blame the American people themselves for complicity in the Iraq war, and for the injustices of capitalistic imperialism generally. In any case, it seems that one of your expressed purposes is to drive a wedge between the American people and their government.

Americans are naturally critical of their government. Many or most would like to see extensive reforms. This interest long predates the attacks of September 2001. Terrorism, however, does not weaken the American government -- it plainly strengthens it. When any country is attacked, demagogues capitalize on public fears to seize or increase power. Then, to remain in power, these individuals or parties characteristically prolong or manufacture conflict to maintain their control. Martial law -- either formal, or informal as with the so-called "Patriot Act" -- is invoked to weaken the power of citizens, instill fear, and suppress dissent. All of these things have happened, and predictably so, following the September 2001 attacks. And as long as there is a threat of terrorism, they are likely to continue.

You evidently fail to appreciate that many Americans are extremely dissatisfied both with the current administration and with the general political system. It should be no secret that Americans are oppressed by their own government. This is not evidence that Americans are bad or negligent. Nearer the truth is that because the United States is the oldest modern democracy and the most technologically advanced society on earth, we occupy the cutting edge of social progress. We feel the 'growing pains' of modern culture first. If some other people were in our place, they would have the same crises of democracy and culture that we experience.

Americans understand the need to change, but change is made difficult by the power of the existing political system. Now here is the question you must consider: does one punish those in prison because of the actions of the jailers? That can only have the effect of making their misery worse, weakening them, and making them less able to free themselves.

Terrorism does not stimulate the higher powers of others souls to understand and remedy injustice. Instead it perpetuates fear and ignorance; it deadens the spirit, producing a kind of individual and mass mental stupor; these things ensure further injustice.

There are Americans who are trying to change things. You mention, for example, the intellectual, Noam Chomsky. Many Americans, myself included, remembering the experience of Viet Nam, protested the Iraq war at the beginning, and have continued to do so. But the saner voices are drowned out by the beat of war drums -- for which you and your fellow terrorists are responsible.

3. Terrorism fails to address the real problems.

You often complain of capitalism, ignoring the obvious benefits which capitalism has brought. If there is any country, Islamic or otherwise, where people are willing to forego cellphones, computers, video cameras, automobiles, and wide-screen televisions, I have yet to see it. All people seem attracted to the benefits of technology rightly used. The truth is that corporations have been instrumental in producing marvels of technology and improving our quality of life. It is not corporations per se that are evil, but corporations in the hands of amoral people that do harm. Therefore it is naïve and simplistic to say that corporations or capitalism are the problems. The problems, rather are those things that cause misuse of corporations and capitalism.

The System

There are two dimensions to this problem -- material and spiritual. At the material level, we, as modern human beings, must come to grips with what, lacking a better term, we may call the System. Due to our technological sophistication the various institutions of society are interconnected more than ever. We have produced a vast social and economic machine. It is something unprecedented in history, and we have yet to understand how to cope with it.

Decades ago President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans to beware the military-industrial complex. He did not define what this was, relying instead upon the self-evident fact that such a thing existed. To this day you will find few scientists who claim to know exactly what it is, or to understand the laws that characterize it. But it surely exists.

Moreover, it is now apparent that this is something larger than the military institutions and government contractors to which Eisenhower referred. It also encompasses, among other things, the media, governments, corporations, global financial institutions, and the energy industry. It has further corrupted our educational institutions and led to an erosion of Christianity in the West; from your comments, it seems you would agree that a certain erosion of Islamic values has also occurred in many countries.

The terrible aspect of the System is precisely that nobody controls it. It is naive to think that George W. Bush or corporate heads direct it. Rather, the system is something larger and impersonal -- something with the ability to misdirect the thinking of political and economic leaders. It is pointless, then, to hate George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, or any other specific person. The worst that can be said about such individuals is that they have let their thinking be distorted by the System. But since nobody understands the System, that is almost inevitable.

Now here is the thing to consider: global terrorism is itself part of this same System. What other conclusion can be drawn? Acts of terrorism strengthen, not weaken military institutions and government regimes in the victim countries; they reduce the freedom of the people, making them unable to defeat the System that rules their lives; they replace education, intelligence, and sober judgment -- the means by which people may prevail against the System -- with fear and hatred, things which feed the System and increase its domination.

The Devil

Beyond this is the spiritual dimension of the problem. In his letter to the church at Ephesus, the great apostle of Jesus, St. Paul wrote:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Epistle to the Ephesians, 6:12)

What this means is that beyond the actual institutions that cause injustice, Satan operates. That is the position of Christians. While we acknowledge that individuals or nations may harm us, we remain mindful that these are merely material manifestations of a greater spiritual enemy. It is unfortunate that some Muslim radicals refer to America as "the Great Satan." Satan does exist, and he does wage war on both Islam and Christianity. But the United States is not Satan, and to equate the two is a certain mistake. Satan uses the government of the United States, just as Satan uses the governments of other nations. Satan uses any means possible to wage war on humankind. It is to be expected that he will seek most to corrupt the strongest governments, and so do the most harm.

4. Christians and Muslims should cooperate.

Satan's obvious strategy is that of "divide and conquer." Most of all he wishes to turn people of faith against one another. The response should be obvious: Muslim and Christian culture should make peace and abandon the hatred and violence which empower Satan. As "people of the book" we should be cooperating. Islam means surrender to God. Christians believe the same principle, but use other words, like "humility" and "poverty of spirit" to refer to it. Were a Christian to practice Christianity faithfully, to live by the words of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament, then this person would also be islam in the sense of living surrendered to God.

You suggest that the current problems might end if America were to convert to Islam. Needless to say, that is a most unlikely proposition. Here is a more fitting one: since Christians and Muslims alike wish to see an end to the suffering and injustice that fuel international conflict, and since we have found that terrorism and war do not solve these problems, may we now try instead a much more potent remedy, and one more fitting for religious people? I refer to the remedy of prayer.

If every devout Christian and Muslim were to spend but a minute a day praying for an end to injustice and oppression, do you think God would deny this? And if not all, what if only half, or only one in ten prayed so? How much simpler this would be, and how much more to God's glory, than incessant hatred and violence!

How much more starkly than this can the erroneous thinking that produces terrorism and war be revealed? Should one fight for ones religion, and then act as though one does not believe one of its most basic tenets: that God is faithful and responds to prayer?

To not see so obvious a thing we are surely like ones asleep. Let us awaken then and conduct ourselves with the dignity fitting people of God. Let us not doubt the power of faith and prayer. Let us not doubt that God will favor with peace those who truly follows His ways.

Summary

To summarize:

1. Terrorism seeks to weaken oppressive elements of the American government; but it strengthens these elements.
2. Terrorism seeks to redress social injustice; but it promotes injustice and delays solutions that peace and cooperation may achieve.
3. Terrorism divides the Christian and Muslim worlds, which should be seeking to live in harmony.

May the Almighty and Merciful God grant clarity of mind that we may see the errors of violence and recognize how directly our problems may be solved through peace and cooperation.

John S. Uebersax

Summary

Here we make two main points:

1. Religious inclusivism -- the view that "all religions are but different paths to the same goal" -- is often presented as a means to promote peace. However, if religions actually are true to varying degrees, then radical inclusivism merely tries to sweep genuine differences under the carpet; that might, in the end, promote more discord than peace.
2. If different religions each wish to convert the other, the best way to do so to compete on setting an example of love, compassion, tolerance, peace, and good works. Positive examples would then cause members of the other religion to spontaneously convert. If approached in this way, religious competition could be seen as a positive thing.

Recently I did some reading on the subject of religious exclusivism. This issue concerns (a) whether one religion may be said to be true and others false, or (b) whether all the world's religions are more-or-less co-equal alternatives. (A convenient review of the topic appears in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article titled "Religious Pluralism", by David Basinger; among the more interesting of opinions expressed are those of Alvin Platinga, 1999.)

We are naturally motivated to study this question in view of the need to improve relations between the Christian and Muslim worlds

One view, which we may call radical inclusivism, is quite popular today. This opinion seeks to end religious conflict by suggesting that all faiths are merely different roads to the same goal.

While based on laudable intentions, this view unfortunately suffers from a subordination of truth to pragmatics. It reasons that, since it would be very convenient if all religions were equal, that this must be true. At least in its most naïve form, then, this view is simply wishful thinking.

If some religions are truer than others, we cannot deny this merely for expedience, nor would it likely achieve peace. Peace is not founded upon falsehoods: while outwardly people might assent to a lie, inwardly they would know it to be false, producing inner, and eventually outer, conflict. Stable and lasting peace must be founded upon truth and honesty. If members of one group really believe their religion is true and another is false, and if they love the others and genuinely wish for their welfare, then they should wish for the conversion of the others.

Therefore, for example, if Christians truly believe their religion is superior to Islam, and if (as Christianity teaches) they love Muslims, then they should wish for the conversion of Muslims. This is not achieved by an "all roads lead to the same place" view. Such radical inclusivism would instead seem to imply either disregard of Christian doctrine, tepidity of faith, or lack of love. This is why I am rather astonished to see legitimate Christian philosophers arguing for radical inclusivism, or at least (as in the case of the eminent philosopher John Hick) promoting it without even remotely addressing the issues raised above.

Now, logically, Christians should be prepared to accept that Muslims may feel the same way towards Christianity. Where, then, does this leave us? What hope is there if two great religions, Christianity and Islam, each lay claim to exclusivity?

We should not give up too easily. Here we have been careful to use words like "wish to see the other converted" rather than, say, "aggressively try to convert the other." There is a reason for this distinction, and it is the gist of my argument here.

Suppose that members of one faith were compelled by conscience or duty to seek the conversion of another. If so, then since this would have to be seen as God's work, one ought to pursue it by the most effective means possible. But, by far, the most effective means of changing another is by setting a good example. A good example is efficient -- it simply involves acting in the same way that your religion teaches you to act for your own salvation; no additional 'cost' is involved. And it is immensely powerful: human beings are instinctively impelled to imitate any good example they see.

If you wish to convert another, then, demonstrate by your kindness and compassion the action of God's grace upon you. Demonstrate that God works through you. Win the hearts, minds, and souls of others through your good works. Contrarily, if you treat others harshly, if you try to convert them with aggression or violence, you will succeed only in showing that you are not a person of God. You will make your religion seem less, not more attractive. This principle, in fact, is an explicit Scriptural tenet of Christianity, though insufficiently acknowledged or practiced.

This simple logic, something apparent even to a child, shows the way out of the exclusivism--inclusivism impasse. To have two exclusivist religions does not necessitate conflict. Rather, if two exclusivist religions were completely sincere, the stage would be set for a positive and productive competition. To have an 'opponent' is not necessarily a bad thing. Is it not true that positive competition spurs on the finest of human achievements? Let us, then, confound the professional philosophers who wish to make this issue more complicated than it really is, and state things simply: let Christians and Muslims engage in a friendly competition to see who can extend greater kindness to the other.

In summary, we have here refuted two popular myths prevalent in the current debate on religious pluralism:

• That radical inclusivism necessarily breeds peace
• That exclusivism necessarily breeds conflict

We have further suggested that maintaining some degree of exclusivism is ethical and appropriate if a religion truly considers itself superior. Having two exclusivist religions ought to lead to a positive competition, promoting love and tolerance, leading more directly to peace than an artificial or pretended inclusivism.

We hasten to add, so there is no misunderstanding, that the kind of moderate exclusivism envisaged here is one where a faith considers itself superior, but also allows for the possibility that members of the other faith may be saved without formal conversion. This view, which could as easily be called a position of moderate inclusivism, is or approximates the position of the Catholic Church towards Muslims.

References

Basinger, David. "Religious Pluralism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007. (Retr. Jan. 18, 2007).

Hick, John. "Islam and Christianity". Lecture to the Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Tehran, March 2005.

Platinga, Alvin. Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism". In The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity (Philip L. Quinn & Kevin Meeker, eds). Oxford University Press, 1999. Reprinted from The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith (Thomas D. Senor, ed), Cornell University Press, 1995.

The problem is not that prayer doesn't work, or only works sometimes; it's that people forget to pray. Scripture teaches, the saints affirm, and I am personally convinced that prayer works. And it always works.

You are not just some lump of clay who utters a few words, thinking God might hear, and then weakly hopes God might choose to act on them. You are a divine, immortal being, made in God's image and likeness. Further, if you are properly on the spiritual path, you are a Son of God. Your prayers are not minor things, then. They are, or are meant to be, immensely powerful cosmic forces.

Well-Motivated Prayers

God always hears; and He answers all well-motivated prayers.

What is well-motivated? That means, principally, that the impetus for the prayer comes not from you, but from God. You, to be sure, must apply your will in prayer; prayer involves an active effort of faith and will. In some sense, your will is probably instrumental in making happen what you pray for. But if the prayer is well-motivated, working beneath or within your will is God's will, moving yours.

If you pray for something entirely selfish -- like to win the lottery -- chances are that God's will is not at work in the prayer. But if you pray for another person, and out of genuine concern or compassion, then God is likely at work. Then pray fervently, believing not just that your request will be granted, but that you act on God's behalf in making it.

People sometimes wonder why we're put on earth. Theories include that we are here as punishment, as purification, or as education. But perhaps the most important reason we are here is to assist God. We are unique beings -- part material and part divine. On that basis we have a special role in making things happen here. Our prayers have a unique efficacy -- we can accomplish things that angels cannot.

When you pray for another, the person is always helped. Sometimes the help is not recognizable: God's wisdom and foresight are infinitely greater than ours. But if you request benefit or help for another the prayer will be answered -- and in ways better than you could have planned or imagined.

It's truly a wonder that people don't take advantage of this tremendous resource, prayer. It's like a person who lives in direst poverty, oblivious to a purse full of gold coins that they hold. If one could see how valuable and effective prayer truly is, ones life would be transformed. One would pray all the time, and for everyone.

So be moderate in most things, but not in prayer. Pray for small things and great things. Pray for those around you; for whoever is in need. Make prayer your vocation.

Most of all, pray now for world peace. Pray sincerely, and with full confidence.

My goal here is to convince you to vote for a third-party candidate -- ANY third-party candidate -- in the 2008 presidential election.

The reasoning is simple:

First, it should be evident to all that the Democratic and Republican parties are 'in cahoots'. There's not much real difference between them. They distract public attention by arguing about superficial differences, obscuring the fact that they actually agree on nearly all the important things, like:

(a) the BIG GOVERNMENT model is the only option
(b) America needs a huge military budget
(c) war is not insane
(d) term limits are not practical

Then why not just vote third-party? Here's the reason people give: "If I vote for a third party, I just throw my vote away."

Let's dispel that myth once and for all. First, if one thing is plain, it's that you have thrown your vote away if you vote for the Democrat or Republican candidate. The two parties are basically the same, and regardless of which party is in power, things don't improve. Recall that it was both the Democrats and the Republicans who rushed into the Iraq war, waving the flag, without a plan.

The truth is, the Republicrat party has arranged so that we have a Democrat for one or two terms, then a Republican, and then back again. It's a sweet system where both parties win. Neither is out of power for very long.

Consider also how both parties together have succeeded in making you feel you have to vote against someone. In 2000, for example, you may not have liked Bush much, but felt you needed to vote against Al Gore, or vice versa. That, I propose, is precisely what the two parties want. They have, by picking the right issues, managed to completely polarize the American public into two camps, split almost 50/50. Further, they've set the tone of American politics as one of constant acrimony and argument. Far too much attention is spent criticizing the other camp, and not enough on presenting new, positive ideas. It's a divide and conquer strategy. By polarizing the American public, the Republicrat power coalition has kept people too busy fighting with each other to see what the real problem is. It's the old case of 'let's you and him fight'.

This makes each person think, "My vote is essential to prevent the other party from winning; I can't afford to vote for a third-party candidate, or someone with original ideas." But considering the dearth of good ideas among the current Republican and Democrat candidates, it's evident that, whichever wins, we'll be stuck with another bad president for at least another four years.

This November, then, you'll have two choices:

1. Vote for the Democrat or Republican candidate, in which case you truly will throw your vote away, or
2. Vote for a third party candidate.

In the second case, it's true your candidate will not likely win. But you haven't thrown your vote away. If enough people do this, then the Democrats and Republicans will get the message. By the time the next elections come around, they will be thinking about adopting some of the ideas from the third parties. Further, any vote for a third party encourages the founding of new third parties, with valuable new ideas.

The potential for positive change in America exists. What we must do is create a climate in which these ideas will come to the fore in public discussion, and find implementation as social policy. Third parties can meet this vital need.

Therefore, here are two suggestions for you to consider:

1. Investigate the current third party candidates. Read their platforms and identify any promising ideas they have. In just doing this you will have broken free from the mind-conditioning of the two-party system. You will be actively contributing to making American a true democracy. Then, just consider voting for the candidate whom you would like to be president, not worrying about the issue of 'throwing your vote away.'

2. Most of all -- though this is really a separate issue -- approach the election with a positive attitude. This shouldn't be about whom you dislike or disagree with. It should be about developing positive vision of the future. Pay particular attention to noticing how the big-party candidates (and their buddies, the news media) try to manipulate public consciousness by eliciting anger and hatred -- and then don't oblige them.

Be the change you want see in the world!

Summary and Analysis of Third-Party Platforms

"...we have an audacious idea that says nonviolent peacekeeping is effective and infectious."

                                         Mel Duncan

http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/en/summaryia2007

... whose wars?  Our wars. We pay the bills, we elect the representatives who vote the war appropriations, and in daily actions, we oppose, support, or acquiesce to U.S. wars. These are our wars and our students' wars - to support or to stop."

                                                   Bill Bigelow

www.rethinkingschools.org

The Economist patronislingly comments "Kishore Mahbubani makes some sensible recommendations. Strangely, The Economist says this is a "an anti-Western polemic, designed to wake up Americans and Europeans by making them angry. In that goal, it will certainly be successful." Reportedly, The Economist further says that Kishore Mahbubani is an "Asian Toynbee preoccupied with the rise and fall of civilisations."

The Shanghai daily gushes "Singaporean author Kishore Mahbubani has been likened to an Asian Toynbee"; Deccan Herald joins the fray with "Kishore Mahbubani is the ultimate foreign policy guru" Niranjan Rajadhyaksa of the Mint (a HT-WSJ publication) intones," Asia has both suffered and learnt a lot from the West ... Mahbubani has been extremely fair.”

1. Free Markets

I was a non-believer in Western free markets. After reading Kishore Mahbubani's interview, I realized, I was reading too much propaganda about how Indian mangoes could not be exported to USA for the last 18 years - because of pesticide residues.

However, Indian farmers (with some devious trickery) ensured that pesticide residues vanished. A believer in free trade, USA allowed imports of mangoes into USA.

USA, in turn taught India a thing or two about free trade. An enlightened India agreed to allow imports of Harley Davidson motorcycles. Of course, India was wrong in disallowing allegedly, 'over priced, gas guzzling, polluting' Harleys.

For the last 300 years, the West did not allow imports of fabrics and garments. Dhaka's de-urbanization due to this in the 1800-1900 is written into history - wrongly. The last law was the MFA agreement which created a quota based regime for textiles in the West.

Agricultural subsidies of nearly 20 billion dollars by USA and EU each, to their farmers is also in the spirit of free trade. For the benefit of the starving Rest, the West is giving these subsidies to Western farmers to lower food prices. How does it mater that the agricultural economy of the the receipient nations gets destroyed.

Things like non-tariff barriers are hookum and over-worked Eastern imagination.The story of repeated and frequent rejection of mushroom exports from India is also in the spirit of free trade. Indian applications for 'equivalence' certificates have been pending with EU for the last 7-8 years - and not processed for the last 7-8 years due to lack of manpower. Interim annuals approvals are given instead - in the spirit of free trade, after some 'concessions'.

Of course, the Western zeal for free trade extends to enforcing opium trade (just ask the Chinese). Kishorebhai, I only wish, as an ignorant Easterner that we in India can enforce 'free trade' in opium today in USA and the Europe.

When the ignorant East, did not see the benefits of Western invention of free trade, the West was compelled to use use force (remember Commodore Perry? For more details, ask the Japanese).

St.Barnum's