Prerequisites to ethical understanding

Equanimity is more rare a treasure
than pleasure. (cc) Mark McQuitty
(Tingy), Flickr.com.

I've noticed it is sometimes difficult to convince some people of why ethics matters. Recently I've realized this is because there are certain realizations that must be achieved before ethics can be comprehended.

By ethics I do not mean such things as the Ten Commandments or other authoritarian rules. Those are merely extortion and have little to do with true ethics.

One of the reasons some people are incapable of understanding the nature of true ethics is because they still believe that wisdom consists of, or results in, avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. However, pain is unavoidable, and pleasure always fleeting.

Thirst for pleasure is unyielding. Any particular instance of pleasure never lasts and yet there are always new opportunities for pleasure. So pursuing pleasure is like trying to horde water flowing in a stream with your bare hands. There is nothing necessarily wrong with pleasure, but as a path to the good life it is both pointless and unnecessary as a subject of pursuit.

What we may find over time is that something else is far more important to the good life - more rare, and difficult to capture, but also more lasting once obtained - which is equanimity, contentment, or true happiness. Although pleasure may temporarily distract us from our lack of true happiness, it is quite a different thing from mere pleasure, in both its form and the manner in which we can obtain it and hold on to it.

Meanwhile, on the matter of pain, over time we may find that although it is unavoidable, we can learn how to confront it.

But in pursuing the good life, first we must abandon the notion that wisdom is about avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. Then we must understand how to cope with pain, tell the difference between happiness and pleasure, and learn that the former is the more central to a good life. Rather than 'avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure' we move to 'handling pain and pursuing long term equanimity and peace'. Only once that shift has been made is someone ready to comprehend what true ethics is about, and why they ought to be ethical.

A message inspired by Dr. King

Yesterday I spent a little time viewing interviews with, and documentaries of, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his struggle against injustice and inequality. There was a particular aspect that struck me on this occasion, likely one of many which are relevant to our nation today.

In his interviews and speeches Dr. King often spoke, not only of freeing blacks, but also of freeing whites. He noted that segregation had two bad effects, in that it gave black people a false sense of inferiority and gave white people a false sense of superiority. He referred to the situation with those white supremacists as a psychological harm from which they needed to be freed, as a matter of having compassion for one's enemies. In his most famous 1963 speech, everyone remembers his use of the phrase "free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty we are free at last". But more of the quote reveals who precisely the "we" pronoun refers to:

"...when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'"

So everyone, whites included, will give thanks that they are free. Free from hate, free from the burden of constant struggle to maintain dominance, free from the psychological harm of evil to the mind and conscience. Dr. King fully understood and realized what Gandhi understood through the doctrine of karma and what Socrates and his students understood - that when we do evil we harm ourselves, and that the oppressor is victimized along with his victim.

This is the message our nation needs to hear as it struggles obsessively to maintain dominance over the world. Since we abandoned non-entanglement principles after World War II, our history has been one of continuous warfare. Only the names and locations have changed. Meanwhile, we have grown our military far beyond several of the next-sized militaries on the planet combined, comprising a substantial amount of our resources as we continue into debt. Further, we have divided these expenses into a different category, psychologically setting apart other expenses as "discretionary" - as if the money we choose to spend on our massive military is not at our discretion. We pretend to ourselves that these expenses and such a military is necessary to 'defend' our nation. Yet, at the same time, that military is not solely at home. Over our long period of warfare from WWII to the present, in our relentless effort to gain tactical domination over the globe, we have extended a network of permanent military bases within the territories of other sovereign nations. Yes, at their request or with their permission in most cases - but not without contention from locals and not without financial or spiritual costs to us as a people. And while we speak of military use as a 'last resort', when one maintains such a gigantic military dominance and widespread presence, the temptation to resort to it whenever a challenge arises becomes so great as to be nearly irresistible. This was made clear by our shocking and unimaginable turn of national character as we embraced a doctrine of self-initiated wars of choice.

And as we spread ourselves more and more, we make ourselves broad targets and we give ourselves much to lose. With so much to lose, and taking more hits, we feel more and more threatened rather than more safe. We fear that letting up any at all will result in our cities being bombed and our nation falling to enemy forces. We falsely believe that the proper response to feeling threatened in this way is to seek greater control. We believe if we had more control, more bases, more military might, more violations of personal liberty, that we will be more safe. Yet this only broadens our target and further inflames our adversaries. Thus we continue in a never-ending cycle of fear and power mongering; a trap of our own creation.

There is a reason some nations, even those with little or no military, are not hated and threatened by others. Yet, unfortunately, many of us cannot even see the insanity of our situation as it has become in the last decade, let alone the last six. We have become normalized to it, or forgotten our way. But Dr. King's message holds true between nations just as it does within nations. Isn't it time we began to let go of the fear to which we've become enslaved, shrug off our heavy burden of the master, and began to seek greater brotherhood with our neighbors?

Dalai Lama: non-religious people can be good too

Copyright © The Office
of His Holiness the Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama has over 1.2 million 'likers' of his Facebook page. It's probably maintained by assistants I'd guess, but it seems to be official in that it has inside information on his travels, schedule, and seems to be real messages from him.

Anyway, he wrote recently about the relationship between goodness and religious belief...

"My belief is that the various religious traditions have great potential to increase compassion, the sense of caring for one another, and the spirit of reconciliation. However, I believe that a human being, without religious faith, can be a very good person - sincere, a good heart, having a sense of concern for others - without belief in a particular religious faith."

We Humanists would agree! :)

[See also: Why this Humanist admires the Dalai Lama]

Progress vs consumerism

Merry Consumas!
(cc) khaybe, Flickr.com

Especially as a person gets older and they see their incomes go up while their free time goes down, it becomes more and more tempting to simply buy things for people for the holidays. With online shopping it's become even easier, and many people are now getting gift cards. Between those two, gift selection has become little more than a few clicks of a mouse and a deduction from the bank account - and it feels about as meaningless. Many people want something media-related, such as movies, music, and the like and these kinds of products are becoming more virtual and easier to obtain and transfer, making the process all the more shallow. This is not only an issue when it comes to problems with consumption, but also with the real meaning and value of a time where giving and sharing something real is important.

But this past holiday season my wife and I made some progress in our aim to make things less focused on consumerism, which I was happy about. We both gave more presents that came from things we made ourselves, and spent our own time on, rather than bought purely in stores. As an artist, I painted some pictures and my wife made baked goods.

But we still have a ways to go. We still bought several things from stores, bought online, and gave some gift cards. When asked for our wish lists by friends and family, we also asked for purchased media and other goods. So now that we're at the start of a new year, I'm looking ahead at birthdays and next winter solstice and trying to plan things out. After all, the issue has not been so much about money as it has been about the much more scarce resource: time. Therefore, it seems to me the really meaningful gifts are those that involve giving of that more precious commodity. This can take the form of making things for others, or of spending that quality time directly with them.

But how do we tell people, "No, I'm not going to give you that season of your favorite TV show you've told me you wanted"? And, when they ask us what we want, how do we tell them, "Don't get me anything you're going to simply buy"?

This year, when I gave my dad a picture I had painted of his beloved dog, he doted over it and really seemed to appreciate it far more than any gift card or store bought item I'd ever gotten him. So that answered for me the first question. Even if people tell you what they want, they'll more appreciate something they can't simply go buy themselves. As for the second question, it might help them to ask for something specific like, "I'd like to spend an afternoon with you" or "I'd like one of those scrapbooks you like to make".

Of course, time being what it is, we're likely to see less gifts exchanging hands, but I think that's ok. None of this is really about stuff we need. Oh one last thing - if you have kids, instead of asking them, "what do you want for Christmas?" how about, "What are you going to do for your friends and family for Christmas this year?"

My hope is to eventually transition to some specific sets of personal rules whereby I do not give gifts unless they are something I put time and thought into, and perhaps some other rules of thumb to make gift giving occasions more meaningful.

Top 10 posts of 2010

Now that we're nearing the end of the year, I will follow my tradition of selecting a 'top 10' from among my posts over the past 12 months. They are chosen based on (1) how much original thought of my own is present in them, (2) how important the concept is to the overall focus I'd like my work to represent, (3) how entertaining or interesting I think the post is. All listings are in order of posting. Without further ado, here they are:


TOP 10 POSTS FROM 2010
Two approaches to desire
A response to Sam Harris on moral questions
David Brooks & Justin Bieber on "Happiness"
Do you have a sense of progress in your walk?
On loving humanity
Taking a pass on wisdom?
Stoic Compassion
The hidden vice
What we worship
Jesus in New York

I also keep a collection of top 10 posts from previous years, and I've selected from among those a top 10 list of all my posts (going back to 2004). The full top 10 page can be viewed HERE.

Best wishes to all my readers for a happy new year!

Charter for Compassion live webcast Thu, Nov 18th

Karen Armstrong

Photo: (c) Charter for Compassion.

This Thursday, November 18, 2010, the Charter for Compassion will be celebrating it's one-year anniversary with a live webcast, taking place 10:00am CST (Houston time). Viewers will be able to see it then by visiting www.charterforcompassion.org.

When the Charter was first unveiled I reported on it, which can be read HERE. The project was initiated by former nun, author, and religious historian Karen Armstrong after winning a prize from TED for her presentation on the topic. The Charter was then developed over about a year and 9 months and involved leaders from multiple faiths and others. By 10 months into the process 150,000 people from over 180 nations had submitted suggestions for the charter and a Council of Conscience then formulated the final draft. It called for all people and ethical centers to recommit themselves to the golden rule. Since then, there have been efforts to promote it and causes which are consistent with its message.

One of my aims in my articles, essays, and occasional speaking engagements, has been to reassert the central and foundational role of compassion in Humanism so I, of course, endorse their efforts. The webcast on the 18th will include talks on compassion from Karen Armstrong, Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, Matthieu Ricard, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Chade-Meng Tan, Krista Tippett, Fred Luskin, and more.

Twellow adds Humanism category

Twellow adds Humanism category.

Photo: Twellow logo (c) WebProNews.

Twellow Humanism!

In response to my request, the website Twellow (www.twellow.com), a "yellow pages" for Twitter users recently added Humanism as a sub-category to its Religion & Spirituality section. The popular website allows users looking for interesting Twitter accounts to follow to browse by topics and categories, as one would in a yellow pages telephone directory. It also has a handy feature called Twellowhood, that lets the user find people in their city.

I use Twitter to put out announcements of my new articles, as well as some other occasional notes that may be of interest to my readers. As such, I wanted to update my profile on Twellow. When selecting categories yesterday, I noticed there were many other faiths and traditions listed under the Religion & Spirituality section, but not Humanism. So I emailed them the following request:

I am writing to ask that you please add Humanism as a sub-category under Religion & Spirituality. Humanism, though a minority, is a major tradition with a long history. Humanist organizations, both local, national, and international exist all over the world. In many European nations their populations are significant. There is a Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University. Many notable figures such as scientist Carl Sagan, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, and noted writer Kurt Vonnegut are Humanists, as are many Nobel prize winners today.

Humanists outnumber some of the sub-categories you already have listed, and many are twitter users. While Humanism is non-theistic, so is Buddhism. Like Buddhism, Humanism is more than mere atheism and has specific principles.

I am a Humanist minister who writes one of many Humanist columns on Humanism for newspapers and other publications (in my case, the Houston Chronicle and Examiner) and would appreciate being able to list myself by my actual tradition.

For more information, please see:

International Humanist & Ethical Union
http://www.iheu.org/

American Humanist Association
http://www.americanhumanist.org/

Council for Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org/

Humanism at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_%28life_stance%29

Thank you :)

Daniel Strain
Humanist Minister

This morning, to my surprise, Twellow responded with the following:

Hi Daniel,

I am pleased to announce that "Humanism" has been added to Twellow's 'Religion & Spirituality' category. The respective URL of this new category is provided below.

http://www.twellow.com/category_users/cat_id/3008

Please be sure to follow @twellow (http://www.twitter.com/twellow) for future category additions and updates.

Thank you for your category suggestion and also for your continued interest in Twellow!

--
Chad Sweely
Support Analyst
Twellow.com

So I went back to my profile and added myself under the new category. In the process, I discovered that currently the number of Twitter accounts falling under the Humanism category outnumber those in the categories of Baha'i, Gnostic, Hare Krishna, Hinduism, Jehovah's Witnesses, New Age, Santeria, Scientology, Taoism, and even Unitarian Universalism. There are 16 other categories outnumbered by Humanism, which are other sorts of things, such as Interfaith or Feng Shui, for example.

I have made a request long ago to MySpace to add Humanism to its list of religion choices in the drop-down menu on the Details section of a person's profile. There was no response. Yesterday I was inspired to ask MySpace again to add Humanism - and got back a similar 'we'll look into it' form letter. I guess we'll see. If you'd like to contact MySpace and join me in requesting Humanism be added, you can click here.

Christian writer: why being gay is not a sin

Stacey Johnson Donovan,

(c) Stacey Johnson Donovan.

Today's post is from guest writer Stacey Johnson Donovan. Stacey writes romance novels and poetry. Her blog is, The Poetry Habit
***

Most people understand how this works, but just in case.

First off, don’t talk to me about Leviticus. Don’t even. Are you doing everything in Leviticus? Really? Every time you have your period, you go off by yourself for seven days and you don’t touch anything for fear of getting your lady cooties on it? And on the eighth day you take two pigeons or two turtles to a priest and have them sacrificed? And you don’t wear any clothes with mixed fibers…no rayon/spandex, no cotton/polyester? Your church doesn’t let any handicapped people near the altar? You think buying slaves is fine? If you believe everything in Leviticus, I think you are a terrible person, and also a very weird person. Seriously. Just shut up about Leviticus.

All right, what about the New Testament? Well, it's good to be a little knowledgeable here. When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he had just visited an area where people were having orgies in the temples, castrating themselves in honor of Venus, and having sex with child prostitutes. In that context, his talk about people exchanging the natural for the unnatural is probably a little more specific than being gay and lesbian. As far as Corinthians goes…no one is really sure what the Greek words “malakois” and “arsenokoitai” really mean. The most likely bet is that one of them refers to married men who use child prostitutes, which is in fact disgusting.

The truth is, I take Paul’s opinion with a grain of salt anyway, because he seemed to be okay with slavery also. I don’t know anything about slavery in his time and region, and I doubt that it matched the horrors and holocausts of slavery in the Americas, but I’m sure it was wrong. Anti-abolitionists and segregationists dug up Bible verses supporting their positions, too, but in the end most people listened to their innate understanding of good and evil.

Paul was human, a product of his era and his culture. I think it’s okay to recognize that people have evolved and become more enlightened in some ways over the centuries. As far as I can tell, Jesus was kind of hoping for that.

Speaking of Jesus, let's move on to the Gospels. What does Christ Himself say about same-sex couples?

Nothing.

If it’s important, why didn’t He mention it? If you believe He’s the Son of God, and perfect, I think it would be sort of heresy to suggest He just, like, forgot. You could say they neglected to write down the anti-gay rant part of the Sermon on the Mount, but whatever, I could argue that they left out the part when he said, “Blessed are the gays, for they are God’s favorites.” And honestly, my guess would seem more in character than yours.

The most logical conclusion is that Jesus didn't care if people were gay.

What did He care about? We know his Big Rules are Love God and Love One Another. Other favorite topics include taking care of poor people and working on improving yourself instead of going around judging others. Now whether you’re a Christian or not, you are almost certainly doing a better job at these things than I am, but you’ll probably still admit that just focusing on these things is plenty of a challenge for one lifetime.

Even if a Christian can't convince herself that it's okay to be gay, she should ask herself why other sins aren't condemned with the same fervor. Why aren't judgmental people kept away from children who might pick up their bad habits? Why aren't people who aren't generous enough with their money (i.e., almost all of us) ostracized? The argument that gays aren't trying to change doesn't hold up. Are you trying to become someone who sells all her belongings and gives all her money to the poor, like Jesus suggested? Is that going to happen soon? If not, then who are you to get up in arms about this one thing? And if so, I'll buy your elliptical machine, if it's cheap.

Jesus in New York

Statue of Jesus and the twin towers,

(cc) Michael Dolan, Flickr.com.

A friend recently posted on his Facebook wall about the parable of the good Samaritan. In this familiar tale, a Jewish traveler is beaten, robbed, and left for dead. Others walk by, including a priest, without helping him. Then a Samaritan (a member of an ethnoreligious group once numerous), stops and helps the Jew. Many of us take the parable as a simple story underscoring the importance of being kind to others, but its lesson is much deeper.

I have actually heard some individual Christians try to qualify the ethical dictate to 'love thy neighbor' by saying that neighbor means other Christians, or Americans, or literally those living around you. They do this in a poor attempt to reconcile the teachings of their savior with the massive military of their country, and what they see in their own lives as the practical necessity of violence in certain cases.

But the whole meaning of the parable of the good Samaritan is an answer to the question, "who is my neighbor?" It was significant that a Samaritan helped the Jew. The term 'good Samaritan' was seen as an oxymoron by Jesus' Jewish audience who would have been shocked to hear this because Jews and Samaritans disliked one another. Tensions were high and the Samaritans had desecrated Jewish temples and had even given Jesus a hostile reception. Yet, here was a Jew teaching other Jews that their neighbor was the Samaritan.

It would be as if Jesus in today's time told a story to Christians in which a Muslim was the hero, and then said: the Muslim is your neighbor, and you are to love him as you love yourself.

Such humility and nobility of character shames us all.

It's unfortunate that so many who call themselves Christians do not take seriously the greatest teachings of the one they claim to follow. It's *easy* to love the neighbor who dresses like you, goes to your church, or lends you sugar on the weekends. This was not Jesus' profound prescription.

Many Christians do try to live by Jesus' teachings, and we need more of them in the spotlight. My father would be the first to tell you he is not a 'perfect' Christian (there are none, of course, as there are no perfect people). But in a modest church in a run-down part of his small town, he decided to help the poor. He played host to the poor, the elderly, the homeless, drug addicts, prostitutes, and others simply on hard times; sharing conversation with them over coffee and a doughnut. Believe it or not, there were times he even took Jesus' example and washed their feet. He never questioned whether or not these people deserved their condition, or whether they would make use of his help to set themselves right, and he never admonished them. That was his 'program' for the poor: compassion. The rest fell into place. Many of them did begin to see a return of hope and improve their condition, and some simply enjoyed doughnuts and coffee.

In the book of Matthew, it is written that if someone tries to sue us for our tunic, we should give them our cloak as well. Peter asks Jesus if we should forgive others as many as seven times, and Jesus responds "seventy times seven" times. Point being, by the 490th time we surely would have lost count.

I am not a Christian by any common use of the term. When it comes to the unknown or the improvable, I prefer the humble approach of making claims only regarding what I can measure and prove to others. As a naturalist, I hold no supernatural beliefs, yet we all have the ability to understand truth when it is presented to us. I have found similar truths in Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Stoicism, and other philosophies; and in these lessons of Jesus there is truth. I know this by the evidence of their efficacy in my life and in the numerous examples I've seen and read in the lives of others.

While I have lost people close to me at other times, I did not lose anyone close to me in the tragedies of 9/11, or any similar attacks. But it is the right and the responsibility of everyone to support and convey wisdom when and wherever it is needed, as well as they can understand it.

Judging by his parable of the good Samaritan, it is easy to know what the Jesus of scripture would say were he to visit New York today. Not only would he say to let the Muslims build their center, but once it had been built he would tell the families of victims of 9/11 to invite those Muslims into their homes, to feed them, and perhaps even to wash their feet.

And if Jesus were to come to New York and when you had heard what he'd said, the counter-intuitive profundity of it would shock you to your core. And, if you truly loved Jesus, you would then realize how huge was the gulf between where you had come to and his teachings; and you would fall to your knees in shame.

But the best part would be what would come next. Because after you had put his teachings into practice, you would understand why he had told you to do this.

The heart of the approach found in the philosophy of Jesus, the Buddha, and others when it comes to one's enemies, is reliance on the fact that there is goodness in everyone, and certainly when you're talking about large groups of people. When others see complete sincerity and kindness, they cannot help but be transformed by it. No one wants to consider themselves "the bad guy". Jesus' teachings are wise because they recognize deeper truths about how human beings operate. They are based on a transformation of the human heart, moved by extraordinary acts of peace, courage, and compassion - especially in the face of danger and hostility.

But Jesus' philosophy is meant to be applied in full, without reservation. If you extend one hand, with the other holding a weapon 'just in case', then what would be an act of peace, humility, and sacrifice becomes an ultimatum. The message is twisted into something like, "I'll offer you peace if you behave the way I want, but if you don't then you're going to get it". This is about as far from Jesus' teachings as one can be, and as such the technique loses all its power.

Your enemy must see and know that you are trusting him. This convinces him that you believe there is good in him, and you are willing to risk yourself in order that the two of you may find it in one another. But it also shows that you believe so strongly in peace that you are willing to give your life for it if you must. Only such a risk and sacrifice has the transformative power in the heart of others - the same transformative power in the story of Jesus' sacrifice which built a faith of billions.

This is what Mohandas Gandhi understood when he forbade his followers to use violence in resisting British rule in India (something which they imperfectly followed). It was the pearl within Dr. Martin Luther King's struggle for equality which endeared him and his cause to so many. It was the Buddha's intention in teaching compassion for all beings without exception.

Thus, you have to be willing to risk - and yes, it is risk because many times an enemy's heart may not be transformed, or it may take longer to transform it than the time until more deaths occur. So many of us are willing to die for a cause - as long as we get to go down with a machine gun in our hands. But this is not the cause which Jesus assigns us. The question is, are you willing to die for his cause; for the cause of peace?

Yet, after doing as Jesus said, breaking bread with the Muslims at the center in New York, and caring for them in your home, you would realize that what he had commanded was not just about helping the Muslims. While the Muslim would leave with a fuller belly and cleaner feet, you would have gained something as well. You would have felt the deep healing such humility, kindness, and forgiveness can create. Then you would see that in the effort to transform the heart of your enemy, yours had been transformed.


_______________
Special thanks to Joe, whose post on the parable of the good Samaritan inspired this article.

To those against the Quran burning: you're doing it wrong

Book burning. (cc) Michael
Bina (mrtwism), Flickr.com

As many know by now, a small church in Gainesville, Florida has gathered national attention with its plans to burn copies of the Quran this September 11th. Muslims, other Christian churches, General David Petraeus (U.S. commander of the war in Afghanistan), the U.S. Attorney General, and even the President have all been urging the church's pastor to call off the event, but their approach is misguided.

At least as far as the General, Attorney General, and the President are concerned, the argument has been that such an event will inflame public opinion, incite violence, and endanger U.S. forces. Firstly, if one was of the mindset of those in this Gainesville church, then confrontation would be expected; perhaps welcome. As for U.S. forces, part of their duty is to fight for our freedom of self expression, so from these folks' perspective, not putting on their event to lessen danger to the troops would undercut a major reason for having troops in the first place.

But worse, the real problem with this line of argument is that it is based on fear. It attempts to motivate with the fear of violent reprisals from extremists. The very endeavor of terrorism is about motivating people through fear of violence. In that regard, this approach turns the President, the General, and everyone else voicing this argument into the media services center for the terrorists. In order to terrorize a people, you must do two things: violence, and make broad threats of further violence unless compliance takes place. People who try to motivate by threatening further violence from terrorists are simply saving the terrorists time and expense on the second part of the terrorism formula. Osama doesn't need to make another video because Obama already has.

Consider that the people in this church already have a mindset based on fear - fear of islam and what it means, and this argument is only more of the same. To make matters worse, the pastor has been getting death threats, which only serve to justify his fear-based views and see himself as some kind of warrior or potential martyr. Fear should never be used as a tool, no matter how good you think your cause or purpose.

The right approach is the truth. The real reason why members of this church shouldn't burn the quran has nothing to do with fear of reprisal. Is that why you don't burn qurans? Simply because you're afriad of Muslims attacking you? If this fear didn't exist, you'd be burning Qurans? I hope not. Let me share with you why I don't burn Qurans...

1. I am not unaware of the fact that Islam does not equal or necessitate terrorism. I understand that most Muslims are not terrorists and do not condone terrorism.
    
2. I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. If I am offended by some Muslims' choice on where to put a mosque, or even by the terrorism of some, it doesn't justify similar behavior. My behavior is based on my values and standards; it is not to be determined or controlled by the actions of others. How I behave is about who I am, not about who they are.
    
3. I have tolerance and respect for the beliefs of others, even if I don't share those beliefs. I do this because I would want the same in return, and because I know that's the only productive way diverse people can proceed in the future.
    
4. A love for learning gives me a natural revulsion at the idea of destroying books. A respect for reason and thinking brings me to reject the notion of 'dangerous ideas and thoughts'. I believe thinking people can learn about all things, evaluate them, and come to good conclusions without censorship or banning things.
    
5. Love of my fellow human beings makes me considerate of their feelings. Even if I think they have bad ideas, I separate the ideas from the person. If I disagree with them, I will try to discuss with them in the spirit of brotherly love.

These are the reasons why we should not burn Qurans, and they are the only legitimate reasons to present. When we resort to fear based arguments, we ourselves forget those principles above. Before long, we start to believe what we're telling the people in Gainesville - that fear of reprisal is the reason for not burning books. If burning the Quran was right, then no fear of reprisal should stop the people of that church or this nation. But, alas, it isn't right, and that's the point.

The issues burdening the people of the church in Gainesville run deeper and are more broad than this one topic. They don't see that, ironically, their position at its core runs counter to these American and Christian ideals and virtues. The only road back from their dark place can be a loving and truthful one. Unfortunately, walking that road may take longer than the time until this planned event, but if we had all been promoting these positive points, perhaps some with a wider conscience at the church may have been reachable. Perhaps they still are.

No matter what happens on the 11th, let us remember that these people are burdened by their own demons, and more of the same toward them is not the way out.


_________________
Comment, Tom B:
Hatred does damage to the 'hater'. Violence invites retaliation. Fear is a very unpleasant emotion. So if one wants to be an unhappy, fearful person inviting others to hurt one, go for it. Personally, it's a lot easier to just live in an imperfect world trying to 'get a grip' on one's emotions and 'power' through 'stuff.' Oh, and courage is precisely the refusal to let fear govern one.

Comment, @nervoustwit:
Finally someone says something sensible on this subject. You're right. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. That's not just a biblical idea, any mature adult of any belief system would agree that it is a sensible way to live. The fear factor that dominates the dialogue on this subject typifies our cultural self-centeredness. Similarly, most people who object to sending troupes over-seas usually site the cost, and the risk to American lives as their main reasons.

Comment, little chair:

Thank you for reminding us about the dangers of using fear as a motivator.
It's nice to see/hear/read that some people do not enjoy inciting destructive emotions in other people, for whatever reason. Compassion and tolerance for fellow human beings is the only way to move towards peaceful... times.

Comment, DT Strain:
Thanks for the comments everyone. As for having the right to do this, I do support that right and would not agree with government interference or force from others to prevent it. But not everything we have a right to do, is right to do. And for those who say that it doesn't matter because it's just a book, or that they themselves wouldn't care whether they did it, or that Christians and Muslims 'deserve one another', I'd ask you to consider the following. It's true that it's just a pile of paper. Books are destroyed all the time, when they're old, discarded, won't sell, and so on. And, it doesn't even really matter so much whether others care what you're doing or not - not in itself. What matters is *motivation*. What will performing certain acts based on anger, hate, fear, or even apathy or disregard, do to your 'soul' (or, to your habits, inclinations, and character as a person). Actions condition us over time. What is a person like who would do things needlessly without concern for the feelings of innocent people, or who wish for those they dislike to meet horrible ends, or who justify any kind of action on the basis of the same behavior by their worst enemies? And becoming more like that kind of person - how will that affect your quality of life? When we act from pure motivation - good, loving, and pure motivation, we cultivate a character that is more capable of enjoying a deeper and more genuine joy.