In a different forum, a reader of my article about judging people based on their actions rather than on their words, my response to one of those who replied seemed to deserve its own place.
Naomi wrote:
> Diplomacy would be measured by actions.
Diplomacy is like swimming through a stew of lies in order to reach a truth (or reality) that is grudgingly accepted by all parties.
It's almost a given that no one will do what they promise in diplomatic negotiations.
Maybe diplomacy can only be measured by how successful your negotiable lies were compared to those of the other parties involved.
Measure diplomacy by actions? Are forgiveness and purposeful oversight actions?
We could only wish to have the luxury of evalutating diplomacy by the actions that result from them.
If our reality is "the truth," what value can we place on the realities of others who see the world differently? Suicide bombers believe that they will go directly to take an honoured place in heaven. Those that die with them will go to another place, one that is at least inferior, so of no interest to them.
Thus suicide bombing is a selfish act perpetrated by people who have convinced themselves that they are killing themselves at the will of God.
How can diplomacy handle that?
The answer is: it can't. Diplomacy is a secular activity, whereas suicide bombing is practised by devoutly religious people. Misled, but religious by their own standards.
This leads us back to the core principles of TIA (Turning It Around). Teach the children what you want them to know and be as adults.
The bad guys are doing it, effectively. The good guys need to learn how to do it as well. The bad guys are more knowledgeable about the principles of sociology than good people.
Religion is an activity of the mind. Politics, of which diplomacy is a part, deals more with matters at whose core are always things composed of atoms and molecules.
Religions and governments cannot negotiate diplomatically because they each work within their own dimension of reality, dimensions which do not recognize the others.
The only place where religion and politics might have an equal footing is in the teaching of young children. However, religions believe in teaching the very young, whereas secular politicians believe that it is better to wait to teach life principles when children get older.
For that reason, perhaps more than any other, religions win, in the battle for young minds, over politics almost every time.
Bill Allin
'Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems,' striving to make sense of realities shrouded by emotion.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 6
Here is something that I have never read anywhere, but is completely in line with the TIA philosophy and program.
Religion (or teachings of a religious nature) are part of the emotional development of a child, thus must begin at a very young age. If they are not taught purposefully and intentionally, the kids will pick up what they need incidentally. That is, kids will form their own concept of life with or without teaching from their parents.
Therefore, teach it or leave it to someone else to influence them.
The end result is I am politically motivated without the cloud of religion hanging over me. I believe in God but I find organized religions of any variety to be a hinderance to diplomacy and the main cause of all the strife in the world.
Very insightful thoughts on Naomi's part, IMO.