The unresolved conflict Of the Abrahamic family Responsible of the current Wars of religion
We have been used to respect religions as equals rather than judging them critically as alternative approaches to conflict resolution, differing like Abel and Cane. But the Globalized world sees daily their differences on our TV-screens and has an opportunity in recognizing them as dramatically different. The public judges and religions are no longer immune to criticism.
Beheading people in the name of God is one way to assume moral leadership. Dying on the cross is another. Wrestling with God is a third. These are the messages of the Abrahamic religions: Islam means ‘submit’, Christos is ‘be good’, Israel means ‘wrestling with God’. We see the differences of the Abrahamic religions manifest in the alternative cultures’ styles of political authority, family relations and in their dealings with sectarian conflicts. We love the pope. Yet does he realize that he is compromising clergy’s normal sexual life and exposes them to opportunist pederasty, while talking of climate control and poverty with the church’s norms he is practically inviting the opposite: population explosion, poverty and climate deterioration? The Ayatollahs seek nuclear weapons. Are religions using their moral authority resolving or creating conflicts? They talk of peace but are they resolving or generating conflicts? The world is divided morally.
In a similar way we listen to the republican candidates and see the stark differences in policies and personality types. Typically Donald loves to criticize but abhors being criticized. He likes radical policies and beheading his opponents. He is engaging the public by disparaging others like a champion fist fighter. We like his feistiness and overlook his pattern as dangerous in the hands of the leader of the world. He is the insulter in chief. He does not want to be vulnerable. We see him being defensive and evasive of criticism instead of respecting his critics, he is attacking them.
Ben Carson is different. He is critical not of people but of issues; one of them emerged as Islam. Confronting religion he is being honest but he is becoming vulnerable to criticism. Carson’s accomplishment in surgery could be useful in splitting the Siamese twins of the right and wrong values. He clearly separated Sharia Law from the Constitution.
All candidates are ambitious people yet they are different in their approaches. Do we get engaged in their display of power or examine their ways of resolving conflicts? Do we want a fighter in the White House or an introspective human? Do we want a beheader on the helm, or a wrestler with the issue of moral justice?
The public born to the alternative religions and political parties thinks along these very different moral paradigms as sanctified absolutes. Can the world be awoken and stand in judgment of the candidates for divine and political moral endorsement? Can the world evolve better criteria in judging policies and moral values rather than by inheriting prejudices? Can we use our judgment and detect moral differences both in our religions and in personality types? Is democracy exercising freedom of choice or complying to the rules of one party? Are we free to think or are we prisoners of moral monopolies and party affiliations? The time for objectivity has come as we see the differences between the religious paradigms and the presidential candidates competing in providing moral leadership dividing the country and destroying the world.
To establish peace in the world the public needs to go beyond religions. This is what Obama represents for me, a moral leader free of religious dogma and free of egotism. His policies present firmness in engaging opponents respectfully. He began his government engaging his political rivals to collaborate in leadership. He addressed the enemies of this country negotiating compromise agreements and holding people to be responsible. We have seen him retiring armies and pursuing diplomacy, containing Assad’s chemical weapons, Putin with financial measures, Iran by unifying the world, and China with libations and firmness.
The 21st century is defined by religions at war. WWIII began with the destruction of the WTC, the new Babel Tower and has been escalating without a foreseeable end. The question of peace on earth is about the world speaking the same moral language. Is it right for a religion to command moral authority by resorting to nuclear weapons or alternatively is it right for religions in dividing humans into genders and regulating their physical essence?
Can we unify our moral perspectives, understand what is optimal structuring of relations, good power management between partners indifferently of genders and sexual preferences? Can we question our religions rather than buying them hook line and sinker? Does the public have any say on moral norms or is it at the mercy of infallible administrators? Could there be a Moral Science commanding moral authority by understanding psychology as morality driven rather than agnostic? Could we Identify alternative ways of resolving conflict as based on principles of equilibrial balance?
The public today has a chance electing a president to pass judgment on moral issues. Do we need a leader who is a polarizer or a unifier? Should our new president be divisive or considerate, be a self-centered maniac or a servant of fairness, a selfish aggressive defensive individual scared of criticism or someone who is concerned, compassionate and self-critical?
The time has come to ponder on the issue of a common language. We need to understand morality as the alternative paths to power management unifying agnostic psychology with moralistic religions. If the world wants to find peace on earth we need to evolve moral consensus, reconciling the religions of the world. Are tehy partial and complementary discoveries of the scientific and moral psychology?
No matter who is the winner of the next election, I will miss the kindest and wisest leader, President Obama, whose commitment has been to a peaceful united world. I am comforted to know that he will be around. We need to remember as we cast a vote that we are all captives in one cage, one kitchen, one atmosphere, one living-room, and one bedroom. In this household we need to remember that we are running out of space, water, food, and clean air and possibly love and compassion. We choose a president. He will have to decide on issues of weather, population, style of conflict resolution and the power of religions.