The question often asked is: What kind of perfection is desired and what is the code bringing under scrutiny the correct balance of law of consumption and the law of “the other” or law that preserves relationships, or law of love? Where on the “peace continuum” is the optimal location for living life together bearing the fruit of hope (future is secure), joy (purpose is fulfilled) and love (free to create)?

To help make the task more clear we must consider this three-fold nature. For example, the Hindus speak of three ways modally as Gyana Marga (mind or knowledge), Bhakti marga (emotion or devotion), and Karma marga (will or works)[1], and Christians understand these modes to be studying the mind of Christ, praying with Christ, and serving Christ. Thus it is safe to say that moral laws are born out of each religion’s acceptance of the divine nature and find themselves fulfilled somewhere on the continuum between base-consumption and sentimentalized creation. The above indicates there exists commonality across religious traditions. Perfection in the human contract is the locus of common solution sets as defined by the constants in the equation. Our grasp for the correct location along the continuum then is based upon our differing religious traditions and understanding of the nature of the divine or the mystery of the unknowable spirit.

If we are to seek a locus along the continuum then we must speak of the moral landscape as the moral universe and not a moral multiverse because based upon the above argument we can posit by all that God (or my higher power) requires of me, I can know that he himself must be[2]. What is called forth here is a level of perfection not in infinitude or quantity but a perfection of quality where from such quality is born fruits of hope, joy and love. These three are the fruits of a disciplined character worked out of each faith tradition. What must happen is a wringing out the faith within each tradition.

We must accept however that our moral task not be held hostage by our differences in understanding the end of perfection if we desire to experience the liberation of life to be realized day-to-day.

Peace as a discipline of the spirit of the human enterprise becomes a central focal point to take hold of the possible solutions required for peace. Why? For the human spirit to be whole, all three (mind, heart, and body) must be exercised. Exercise understood in this context is the need for each of the three to feed on the moral laws of the faith (mind or knowledge), feed on the joy of life found in devotion to what are the life-sources of the faith (e.g. prayer, worshiping, fasting, etc), and feed on regular practices of the faith. This kind of discipline is key to finding the correct balance. If can be assumed here that the continuum is best represented by love of law on the one end and love of the power to create on the other. To connect the dots then, we will learn that we first must have hope before we can experience joy, and before there can peace there must be joy. Together these three equal love.

In this context I want to direct our attention to two doctrines: the doctrine of retribution and the doctrine of reconciliation.  In the first, doctrine of retribution, an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth “presupposes that the universe is grounded in legal justice.”[3] True, there are laws that govern the order of creation, but often overlooked is the law of love. In this later doctrine, doctrine of reconciliation, it is presupposed that human beings are “governed not by legal attitudes but by love attitudes.”[4]

Any maturing society goes through three essential experiences or stages of progress: unlimited revenge, for example, guns equal justice or make for peace; limited vengeance where crimes against the person equal crime against the collective and one gets what one deserves in like kind; and finally unlimited goodwill, or active love where the focus in not on the law but on the one the law is called to serve.

Still today, society is caught in stage two where penalties fit the deeds and legal focus is on the deed committed and not the doer of the deed. In some way this feels like we have chosen to create the law to serve the process of adjudication when the law is given to guarantee hope, joy and peace. Even so, attempts are being made to reach for this third stage.

In the mean time, the legal system approach restrains the deed and barely touches upon the surface of any attempts of transformation; whereas stage three acts of love seek to restrain the doer by going to the heart (or center).[5] The role of stage three is to break the hearts of doers and not heads. It is to affect people in such a way that they would rather go to jail than violate the heart of another, and until the world catches up with stage three we continue to live between two poles: the pole of force restraint (deed) and the pole of love restraint (the persons).

We sow what we reap goes the wisdom of the ages. Another one is you are what you eat. We hear about toxic politics and blame politicians; yet in a republic driven by democratic processes, our politicians are us and we are they. We have ourselves to blame for the violence in our land, and we must hold ourselves accountable for the senseless act of terror on the streets in Tucson this past week.

I don’t know what our citizens spend each year on violence – virtual reality shoot’em up cut’em up games, paintball and laser tag recreation parks for example. I suppose the number runs in the millions. I don’t know how may hours we Americans sit in front of TV programming filled with sitcoms and reality TV turning outrageous behavior into comedy acts. There seems to be no alternative programming to help our people experience wholesome living. Instead life is turned into a joke and made cheep in the end. This is what sells TV executives say. If this is true, we are the ones who are paying for it, not only out of our pockets but also with our souls as well.

As a nation, taxpayers pay more on the dollar to support a police force than most other nations in the world. I suppose if someone did the numbers we would learn that we pay almost fifty cents on the dollar to support the work of violence (law enforcement, incarcerations, and military forces), leaving very little to spend on more wholesome life building and life sustaining capabilities.

Last week’s shooting in Tucson has forced many to take a look at themselves in the mirror wondering what is wrong. It is to these that I find hope, because to these I can find the entry point to say that it is we who are to blame. We are a democratic people after all. Our silence continues to perpetuate the myth that violence is cool, exciting, and OK.

Peace building, peacekeeping, peace operations, peace logistics, etc., are critical peace disciplines. So too is peacemaking: disciplining the spirit of the people and nation. Why? Peace at its very core is concerned with the restoration of brokenness (non-peace) and the creation of something new — transformation (new relationships).

The peacemaking task can be likened to the growing of a great tree. We see the tree and all its wonderful branches and shade ourselves beneath its foliage and eat of its fruit, but what we do not see is most important: its structure of roots that feed the tree and anchor it to the ground. Without proper care given to the root – without good soil, water and feeding the structures are never fully realized and the tree never rises to its potential in the forest. It is the realization of this root structure of a society that is first and foremost the work of religious activity – that being the tasks of realizing the tenants of belief such that the tree grows and bears fruit. The question then is: What is the fruit of this tree and can it be consumed to create and sustain life ? Of course, what can be tasted in the fruit and seen in the tree helps to evaluate the symptoms of approaching decay resulting from the rise of conflict between the two worlds of visible tree and invisible root-ball.

Here is found the spiritual question we are afraid to ask. It is a question dismissed by most organizations seeking to realize peace. This is the question that honestly engages the hearts of human beings, and this is the proper role of religion.

There are as many definitions for religion as there are religions, but at its core, religions establish a set of practices defining its values and systems of belief (structures) whereby adherents realize in concrete ways those relational patterns valued and honored (that visible tree and its fruit). Thus, the goal of religion is to realize itself in the corporate body of the community. This working definition of religion is posited to help us find a common language to speak of peacemaking as a spiritual practice (work).

The concept we need to address as conversation partner is the role religion has played in creating myths to help us understand unexplainable life-experiences and the questions life throws at us. One key myth is the myth of redemptive violence.

A well-balanced discussion of the myth of redemptive violence can be found in Walter Wink’s book The Powers That Be, where redemptive violence is the corporate view of reality that says violence is the only way to ensuring people behave themselves to the end order is maintained – hence, society is controlled and preserved through the guaranteed use of violence on offenders. Nations practice this religiously in the prosecution of corporal punishment and wars where the offending parties are permanently removed from relationship with the other (person, society, or society of nations) and order is redeemed. Simply pay attention to the themes of movies, video games, cartoons and the like for verification that the spirit of this myth is alive and well in our societies. It is this spirit that must be redeemed before we can ever hope to realize sustainable peace. The mandate is not destroy the myth but to transform it, and even the most practiced of fighters knows that one never uses the opponents’ methods if there is going to be any hope for success. In other words, uses of redemptive violence to fight the same always end with the myth intact. Asymmetric-engagement of peacemaking capabilities is called for.

Why this myth remains so powerful is self-evident and only through the concentrated employment of new spiritual values can we hope to convert the spirit of this myth to be more restorative in nature and practice. Understanding the spirit of the myth provides possible points for intersection for transformation. Let us use the ancient Biblical story of the fall of creation that continues to shape the three largest religious groups in today’s world environment – the expulsion from the garden and the fruit of violence birthed by humanity’s first creation (Cain). Let us also consider how the theory of atonement processes evolved in attempts to shift from the spirit of redemptive violence to more peaceful and restorative living; even though the theory was never able to accomplished the task of transforming the spirit of violence.

The emphasis in these stories, however, is not the fallen state of humanity but the nature of the God of the Bible over and against the gods that birthed the myth of redemptive violence. The Biblical story in this setting is seditious because it gives testimony to a God who brings out of chaos (disorder) order and creates not out of violent action but in a thoughtful provocative way, and calls what is created “very good.” Thus the spirit of this story is not one of violence that redeems but one that thoughtfully brings order and creates goodness.

At this point it is very important to affirm the role of science (material and visible world) in all its forms as partner with spirit in connecting what has for so long been disjoined. Both are meant to be mutually supportive. The careful re-integration of these help us complete the equation of peace, but this requires examination of said stories in their context in juxtaposition.

John D Zizioulas makes an important observation here. He posits that the fissure between communion and otherness is at core the birthplace of conflict. He offers the explanation that fear is the wedge between one person and another (or between one community and another) and that this fear results in non-peace par excellence. His following insight is most instructive: we come into self awareness through coming to know our separateness … and we accept the other only in so far as he (she) does not threaten our privacy or … until our personal happiness has been fulfilled. Thus we see the matter before us is how we measure our identities … e.g.; I am this because I know I am not that. For Zizioulas and for many Christians, Jews, and Moslems this is the essence of the origin of sin – or “missing the mark” or failure living up to the fullest measure of our original (divinely) created nature.

Fear of losing our individual identity (or in the instances of communities – their identity) gives birth to non-peace where this non-peace is sustained through violence in all its forms (structural in form and function). Through structural violence we redeem our lost identity and the myth of redemptive violence saves the day as we huddle together in our separateness as individuals and groups one from another. This myth of redemptive violence is the forcing function driving the sustainable peace equation to instability as violence spirals out of control. What then is the proper control mechanism needed to sustain stability? What are the actions required to drive the equation back into the environment where peace is sustained?

Stability is sustained when the care and feeding of the souls of people and thus the soul of the community are cared for. This soul work is the spiritual feeding of the roots of our individuality and societies – the communion of our being together. This task is spiritual in nature realized in concrete ways in the fruit of the tree. And, what is this fruit?
It is the fruit of mercy in our relations, graciousness in humility, empathy, and desire to restore what has been broken to its original form of goodness. But before this fruit can be conceived the threat of non-peace must be transformed whereby individuals and whole identity groups are safe and secure in their being. This was the original intent of the given Biblical commandments. In them is established the vision set for all to reach for. Their purpose was to preserve the spirit of love between one and another – the True measure of peace and security.

The single most important point to be gleamed from the Biblical story of origin is this: The Spirit of Creation has its orientation towards the workings of the system – the spirit is systemic in its very nature. Taken in its fullest context, the whole of Biblical creation came into being as communion from its inception all the way to the fullness of its completion. Nothing survives without its connection to the other. Nothing created was in enmity with another. This is the vision that continues to be scandalous before the current established myth of redemptive violence. Not surprising is that the objective nature of science is proving this true and it has an important role the transformation of the myth.

Transforming the myth of redemptive violence will involve shining the spot light on the theology of atonement – the religious activity designed to keep the lid on the myth of redemptive violence. The commandments not to kill, covet, bear false witness, steal, or violate one’s oath (e.g. acts of adultery) did not land in some abstract context but came into being in the context of communities who practiced these things contrary to the commandments – most specifically the taking of human life either through the sacrifices made in war or religious atonement. Such acts both recognized the reality that the commandment not to kill was impossible to be realized thus violations (sin) had to be dealt with. Atoning for such sins became the ancient path to begin the task of transforming the myth of redemptive violence with the result of falling prey to the very same myth. The language “people must atone for their sins” continues to live in this context of the myth today. Thus exposed, this practice of atonement can be transformed. How can this process be accomplished?

The process begins by seeing how this myth lives within the structures of our societies and work to call these structures to accountability to serve the real purpose they were created for – sustainable peace. Second, show how these structures have morphed over time into self-serving entities whose survival today demands allegiance to the myth. Finally, develop the relationships within the social equations that leverage peaceful outcomes where minimizing fear between groups results in realizing life-producing actions as solutions to resolving conflicts.

The fruit of the work for peace requires self-sacrifice of one’s own desires to ensure the needs of the other is met. I truly support efforts to work for non-violence and to create pockets of cooperation. These are core values that any healthy family system tries to instill in their children. The problem as I see it however is this: It fails to understand the ultimate vision of peace, the need for the wellbeing of every living creature on Earth.

One might say: Yes, but that is what cooperation is all about. But I respond saying that too often cooperation means We can get some of our way if we can negotiate such that the other gets some of their way as well. As such, cooperation as a negotiation style remains focused on our self-interests and never fully achieves the goal of peace.

Authentic attempts to peacemaking must first seek to confront the motives of the parties involved in conflict; then have the desire to meet the interests of others; and finally seek to measure results with measurable rule-sets. In this way we can honestly begin to think about the real possibility for transformation.

Transformation is a long won process of connecting ones current reality to a future reality. Often times this future reality can only be first understood through a negative prism – e.g. to begin to articulate what peace can look like then first ask the question: What is “Not Peace?” I refer the reader to the Biblical vision of peace: turning swords into plow shares, and spears into pruning hooks, and every person will sit under their own vine (implying safety, security, good health, and self-fulfillment).

Current reality is this: the making of peace has been placed in the hands of The Department of Defense and the arms manufacturing industrial complex. Peace is all too often managed through military cooperation agreements, arms sales, and alliances to build military strength. This only serves to make one side stronger than another. Such cooperative efforts are fear based as are most cooperative-based negotiations tend to be.

I conclude thusly, if The Peace Alliance is to succeed it will need to understand the language and science of the DoD. Only then will they begin to appreciate the task of peacemaking before them, and only then will the warriors, into whose hands our government has traditionally delivered the process of peacemaking, take them seriously.

Fifteen years ago Deb and I lived in the Northern Virginia area not far from where the Battles for Manassas were fought.  I would often go out and either jog or prayerfully walk along the old unfinished railroad bed known as Deep Cut. It was along this line that a portion of Jackson’s Confederate forces held Reno’s Federal forces during the second battle for the north-south railroad line at Manassas.

For me the journey along that road bed — along that old battle line, whether on a jog or walking, was never easy – not easy to imagine the horror of battle in that place – especially at the one spot where Jackson’s men ran out of ammunition and in a desperate act of panic (some might call it bravery) these men began to pick up and throw stones at the advancing Federal line. It became a time when men became boys again, when the Federal troops threw down their weapons and began to throw back the stones, both sides acting much like street gangs. Such is the desperation of combat I suspect.

Each time I walked down the Deep Cut my soul was stirred. The experience has taught me that we need to listen to these and all who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that in our hearing correctly they may finally rest in peace.

In the two battles for Manassas, the combined losses of American combat soldiers, whether they wore grey or blue, approached the number of our total losses in the Viet Nam War.

Well, it was this war that gave birth to our celebrated Memorial Day each year. Nonetheless these too are veterans worthy of our memory and honor. And, I believe we need to ensure we welcome them into this time of remembering our veterans on this Veteran’s Day.

Veteran’s Day came into being in 1947.  On this day each year the nation is asked to pause and remember the men and women who have served their nation in the armed forces. Previously to this, our nation celebrated Armistice Day – a day of remembering those who were unable to return from our nation’s wars –  particularly the dead in World War I. 

I believe it is fitting that we now honor all veterans – both the living and the dead. In this way, we remember correctly the terrible wounds that many of our veterans carry on their bodies as well as in their spirits, and the terrible grief that their families suffer every day. It is also a time for the few of us who have been spared to say: “Thanks be to God.” It is in this way we become genuine in our remembering.

 And so, let us remember the cost:

1.    In the war to end all wars – World War I: more than 20 million military and civilian dead and an additional 21 million wounded for life.

2.    Because war never ends war another 21 million military and 28 million civilian dead in World War II – roughly half of these Russian.

3.    2 million in Korea in a war that continues to this day

4.    1 million Vietnamese, 0.5 million Viet-Cong and North Vietnamese; and more than 50,000 American men and women in the Viet Nam war.

5.    And this remembering does not count the dead and wounded in the many secret wars waged nor the loss of life in wars waged in the past three decades in Africa, Asia, Central & south America, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Inscribed on this wall are many names once called out by loved ones – names of people filled with hopes and dreams. Their voices are now silent and they dream no more. If they could talk, what would they say to us? I suppose they would want to remind us what they fought for and what it was they spent their lives to protect. And I suppose they now know better than we that war is the absence of peace and that peace is not necessarily the absence of struggle.

Inscribe on walls in places all over our land are names of war-dead and are cemeteries filled with men and women who gave their fullest measure for the cause at the time. Tributes to war are found all around the world.

In one of many travels to Russia I visited their World War II memorial and museum located in Moscow… the memorial is a powerful witness to the tragedy of a time now gone and of the required sacrifice of millions to hold Hitler’s armies and air forces in check … all Russians continue to carry the scars of this era, but what caught my attention were the many bridle parties visiting the memorial … It is customary there for the bride and groom to travel to the nearest veteran’s memorial where the bride lays her flowers as a way of saying thank you to her ancestors who preserved her land … it is done in great seriousness and sweetness of spirit – done in remembrance of those who sacrificed their dreams that she may realize hers …

This is not a time for hero worship my friends but a time to be serious about the terrible demands a nation sometimes asks of her citizens … when we listen to their voices now silent, what are they saying to us?

When I listen to them in my heart of hearts I hear them say: Work for what we died for … work to over come that age old song that speaks of time for war and time for peace … work for the other half of that phrase that the work we have now completed will bear the fruit of peace  …

The prophet Jeremiah cried out saying: They have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying: Peace! Peace! When there is no peace … (6:14). Today we continue to live in a world of a false peace. Even so, peace is the task of every citizen. Even more so is this the task of those of who are veterans.

It was former Commander of Allied Forces Europe and later Commander in Chief Dwight Eisenhower who asked that the nation establish a day called Veteran’s Day. And it was he I now quote: I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than are governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it … 

Who better suited to take up this vision than veterans who know first hand the cost required for our freedom … It will not be easy but if we have the courage to work for peace we will find it ever more difficult but far less costly.

When we do, the voices of those named on our walls and lying in our cemeteries will finally find their wellbeing and truly rest in peace.

For a while I have to leave my home in New Mexico. Today, while driving across the Great Plains I needed radio distraction from the howling wind and speeding semi-tractor trailers. I could find only one station with sufficient power to burn through loud and clear over the many other static-filled ones. Forget about FM.

I landed on a 24 hour talk news station and was bombarded with the political debate over Senator Obama’s seemingly lack of integrity. Evidently, according to this particular news host, Senator Obama’s failure to immediately distance himself from the Reverend Wright and other notable un-American clergy (so says the show’s host) puts a large question mark over the Senator’s integrity, trustworthiness, and hence ability to act as President of this country.

What interested me most was how folks on the radio program handled conflict. One said that Obama should have immediately and publicly severed all friendships and / or contact with notable un-American activists while others said that open and honest conversation is important for unity (my interpretation). So, on the one hand the show’s host handles conflict either head on in direct confrontation or through immediate retreat while the other advocated for more central way – I call this standing in the middle of the whirlwind holding in tension the two wings of descent.

The conversation turned into what to me appeared to be a shouting match between left and right ideology – evidently, Senator’s Obama’s desire to use diplomacy with our enemies is not a popular policy. Thus, I became lost in the noise of the debate while fighting the whirlwind along the Interstate highway. It came to me then that a one-wing airplane acts like a gyro and spirals to its grave. It takes both a left and a right wing for an airplane to fly. 

I have been watching from a great distance the work of the Jerusalem Peacemakers. Witnessing their success is very heart warming. I have never been to the Middle East but as a peacemaker believe that violence anywhere ultimately reaches across great divides – if for no other reason than for its own sake. Maybe my saying it this way personifies violence. It does seem, however, that it takes on a life of its own in communities embroiled in distrust giving birth to fear.

I once remarked that sovereign nations do not have the courage to be peacemakers. This was something I intuited in the moment and when challenged by others, was not able to qualify this comment. It is a hard statement and few truly want to accept it, as we all, I believe, want to believe that our governments have this capacity. But, history bears this reality out. I do not know of any government that has survived the centuries without under going significant and painful change – often change brought about through force, if survived at all.

I believe that it takes a people to make peace through people to people discourse (track two diplomacy). But here is the rub: This scares the sovereign. It is also easy for the people to wash their hands of non-reconciled interests and scapegoat it on to the back of their governments. Bottom line: The sovereign must provide the listening space for people to people discourse and the people must engage in discourse with integrity. The sovereign then can enforce the desires of all sides.

The recent work of the Jerusalem Peacemakers is but one sign of what the conduct of this “discourse with integrity” looks like. Following are commentaries from two religious leaders reflecting on their approach:

Rabbi Landes taught from the Midrash (Biblical commentary)– how Aaron would resolve conflicts by going to both wronged persons in a conflict and telling each how badly the other felt for what he did and how much he regretted it.  Then when the two would meet, they would embrace and reconcile immediately.   The Rabbi said that today we have the opposite of Aaron because we have the media and our leaders continually telling us how much the other side hates us and wants to kill us and doesn’t want to reconcile.  He emphasized how important it is for each of us to share our experience here with our own communities, that members of the “other side” do feel badly for what has been done to us and wants to reconcile.

Sheikh Izhak Taha said that the basic teaching of the Quran is a message of love and tolerance and that this love extends to all creatures and all humanity.  Those who do turn to violence are not true Muslims, they are choosing the path of darkness rather the light that the Quran offers. He shared that his grandfather told him many stories of the time when Jews and Arabs lived together here like family, how his grandmother wet-nursed the Jewish baby of a neighbor who couldn’t give milk. Though he hears most often the pain of his own people, the sheikh sees that two nations in the Land are suffering. We should we should eat and dance at each others celebrations, this will build trust and love between us, he said. We have forgotten how we used to live together.

What I hear in the above is the important requirement to look at matters through the many different sets of lenses that people bring to the discourse table. These lenses represent life-lived historical contexts and over time have been used to develop the means to evaluate everyday experience live out in community. Right or wrong are never the issue here. It is what truths these lenses bring to the discourse for even though no single lens provides perfect clarity; together they offer the hope needed to make for peace. It takes people to people diplomacy to realize this. 

P2-Planning For Peace envisions a world where nations intentionally plan for peace. Today, peace planning is accomplished under duress of threat of war or economic sanctions. Unfortunately, it seems the nations continue to intentionally choose the “big-stick” way of relating to one another.

In today’s Washington Post, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be “extremely stressing” but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force. “It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability,” he said at a Pentagon news conference. Speaking of Iran’s intentions, Mullen said: “They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power.”

The Pentagon is on top of matters. Our nation has invested billions of dollars in some of the finest war planning and gaming technologies and capabilities to date. What is desperately needed are similar capabilities to plan for peace. Just as war planners are developing courses of action to wage war with Iran so too peace planners are needed to ensure all of the pieces of the puzzle are on the table for conversation. Sadly, we are not yet ready for this capability. Some might say, “The vision for peace is beyond our reach.” To that I say, a vision within our grasp is a vision not worth our reaching for … 

Vision sets before us a way of living life, and the realization of this vision is the life-long task of the community that begins again and again with each new generation. Vision is the measure of perfection sought and in our seeking we will discover that it is fall down get up again work. This work is the offering of vision that chooses us and provides us the direction and encouragement to continue going on.

Without vision to provide direction for our lives we will discover it too difficult to develop the rigor of character we need to live through our “falling-down” times. Without the rigor of character given to us through our obedience to the vision we will soon lack the needed fidelity that must be rooted in our very being. Such fidelity is required to get up again and again.

Peacemaking is a vision. It is not a product that can be bought or sold, but the outcome of our journey made under the guidance of a grace-filled director.  Peace is the fruit harvested and eaten along the way of our disciplined journey made together. The grace-filled director that we need to guide us can be discovered in those all important collection of principled rule sets guiding our decision making. 

I recently finished reading The Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafon. I notice that the reviews are mixed – not everyone liked the book, which in my perspective makes for an authentically good book. What I liked about the book is its “simple-complexity.” Sorry about that! What I mean is that I appreciate the author’s reaching for the margins of life, even if potentially exaggerating, in an attempt to paint a fuller picture of our humanity. Read it yourself if I am not sufficiently clear for you here.

I introduce this book as prelude to what I need to write this day. The setting of the story is Barcelona Spain during a time of Spain’s civil war and what the author has to say about the experience of war brings to my thought – the forced feeding of forgetfulness. I take from page 428 of the book this excerpt: Nothing feeds forgetfulness better than war.

Nothing feeds forgetfulness better than war – enveloping whole societies in a forced quietude all the while trying to convince everyone that what has been experienced (seen, heard, tasted and felt) about ourselves and others in our world is simply an illusion or a passing nightmare (my paraphrasing). The author then states: wars have no memory and nobody has the courage to understand them until there is no one left to tell what happened… and this all in the service of future wars because hiding the truth perpetuates the myth of glorious sacrifice.

I witnessed this growing up as a child watching my father’s generation mesmerized sitting in front of television war shows (e.g.; Twelve O’clock High, Combat) instead of speaking out from their experiences of the real truth of the ugliness of war. Its as if everyone all of sudden exhales at the end of war – having held their breath for so long out of fear.

When war ends it is as if a heavy mantle of collective forgetfulness descends the day the violence subsides only to give birth to a new form of violence more destructive – shame filled silence that allows the cancer of guilt to rot the collective soul of whole societies. In the end, our warriors and those abused by war take the secret (truth) to their graves and in so doing leave behind loved-ones with their hearts filled with unspoken shame.

Truth telling and embracing the truth found in historical context is one of the principles of planning for peace. This must be done with care of course. When it is not done, however, what is left behind for future generations is a world based on unprocessed shame leaving the burden of guilt with the next generation. This is why wars force-feed forgetfulness – war needs it to ensure its own survival.