“Fear
leads to anger. Angers leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” And while it might have been Yoda from Star Wars who said these
words, over this weekend, we were treated to the horrific aftermath that it
implies. With 50 dead, and 53 injured, it was the worst terrorist attack in the
United States since the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001.
When it was revealed that the attacker was
of the Islamic faith, once again fearful cries were heard about how this could
happen when Islam is supposedly a “religion of peace.” And yet Islam is not the
only religion who has had its atrocities. In 1939, a man who wrote in his book
Mein Kampf, “Hence today I believe that I
am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending
myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord,“ initiated
his own Final Solution. And the Crusades certainly need no introduction either.
All religions claim to be religions of
peace, and condemns killing, from the famous line of the Torah, in Exodus 20:13
– “Thou shalt not kill,” to the words
of Jesus, in Matthew 5:21-22 – “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not
murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his
brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable
to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of
fire,” and the Qur'an 5:32 – “If anyone slays a person, it would be as if
he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he
saved the life of the whole people.”
Even those atheists who subscribe to a set
life stance, such as Humanism, agree that people should live and make their
ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and
other sentient animals. But not all those who do not believe subscribe to the
same ethical principles – after all, atheism is simply a statement of what one
does not believe, not what one does. And the non-religious also have their
atrocities – under the rule of Mao Zedong, an atheist, he managed to cause the
death of an estimated 78 million Chinese.
Religion, it seems, is simply but an excuse
that is used to justify killing. And mankind has killed one another for quite a
long time indeed, as I elaborated upon in last year’s Theory of Interest, “War
Never Changes.” But except for isolated instances, mankind does not wantonly
kill each other. When we do, it usually starts with fear. Fear of those
different, who do things differently from what we do. Fear of the unknown, and
the other. And it is usually coupled with a sense of moral certainty and pride
in ourselves and our ways, whether that is centred on the personal, the nation,
or the religious faith.
And it is through those avenues that
humanity finds a way to kill its fellow humans – by dehumanizing them. “They
are different, and therefore less than us.” The fear leads to anger. “Why
should those less than us have privileges we deserve?” Which leads to hate.
“They should be cleansed from this Earth to make our society pure again!” And
that leads to untold suffering.
HL Mencken said, “Moral certainty is always
a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is
that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. […] The truly
civilized man is always sceptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others.
His culture is based on ‘I am not too sure.’” Science has always been based on
the assumption that discoveries can only be accepted as true as long as no
evidence against it has been found. As soon as such evidence is found and
verified, science no longer considers it true. It is why, after all the
evidence in favour of it, the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution are
still just theories.
In the end, when you think about it, all
you can really be sure of is your existence. “I think, therefore I am.” I think
I’m sitting at my desk, typing, but for all I know I could be in a padded cell,
yelling at the wall “Why can’t we all just get along?!?” So whenever you
consider a certain fact or action wrong or right with absolute certainty,
beware. You are exhibiting the same signs that could be used to ‘radicalize’
you. You are exhibiting signs that could lead you down untold suffering.
Try instead to develop a tolerance for
those different from you. As per UNESCO’s declaration, tolerance is respect,
acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our
forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge,
openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief.
Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty, it is also a
political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible,
contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace. Tolerance
is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an
active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and
fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify
infringements of these fundamental values.
Which bring us back to the terrible events that
occurred in the United States over the weekend. It reflected a moral certainty
that those of a different religion and of a different sexual orientation were
not to be tolerated, and were justifiably allowed to be killed. Namibia, I felt
assured, would not foster that kind of culture. After all, in the preamble to
our constitution, we claim “recognition
of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members
of the human family is indispensable for freedom, justice and peace,” and
that these rights include “the right of
the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of
race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, religion, creed or social or economic
status.” And then I saw the map indicating countries with laws intolerant
of sexual orientation.
Why have we, a country that has “finally emerged victorious in our struggle
against colonialism, racism and apartheid,” and has a desire to “promote amongst all of us the dignity of
the individual and the unity and integrity of the Namibian nation,” by
striving “to achieve national
reconciliation and to foster peace, unity and a common loyalty,” decided
that we will institute a new apartheid against some of our citizens? Why have
we decided to strip them of their protection against discrimination by removing
sexual orientation as a ground for non-discrimination from the 2007 Labour Act?
Why, when so many of our citizens still remember the discrimination they suffered
prior to Independence?
We, too, are sowing the seeds of discontent
in our nation. Maybe it is time we take the lessons learned in blood by the
world at large to heart, and start trying to make sure we become the country
that wants to secure for “all our
citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment