There has been much said in the media about politics and religion over the past months, indeed over the past years. It seems that we are in a period of history in which tension, in one form or another, is the "normal" state of being. Is it any wonder that we have global rates of suicide increasing every year? Politics and religion seem to, once again, or even permanently have been mixed up together.
There just seems to be too much of each within the other. Religion seems to have gone political and politics have become, in many instances, of a religious nature, or at least based on a particular religion. This is not even the real problem. It is just scratching the surface of the problem in my view. The problem is extremism.
The problem is extremism in all of its forms. It does not matter whether it is religious extremism of political extremism. When a position is taken where there the options are "Us" and "Them" and nothing in between there becomes no place for negotiation no place where compromise can be made so agreement can be had. I has been said that uncompromising people are easy to admire. They are also easy to hate as well, and this is also the problem, such extremism breeds with it the seeds of hate.
What there is are too many "-ists" that people tie themselves to and too many radicals of these "-ists", and it does not matter what form of "-ist" it is. Once a radical position is taken where everything concerns this particular "-ist" and can be turned to be about this particular "-ist" then there are problems. Once the views about this "-ist" become radicalised there are problems because there is very little room to move, the word extrem-ist becomes appropriate.
The easy one, at this point in history to point at is fundamental-ist. For the most part when this word is used the first thought is regard to Muslims, and the various acts of terror which have been more recently perpetrated around the world. But, a person must be cautious because the same word can also be applied to Christian, and then a person can talk about Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidians. With regard to fundamental-ists, there are very few religions that can claim absolute purity that they have not had theirs.
So, religion and fundamental-ists, are not a great thing, but the "-ists" of politics are not so squeaky clean either. So we can point to the obvious "dangerous" one anarch-ist, had most of their "fun" back in the nineteenth century with a small spate of activity which was claimed anarchist in the 1960s. There were social-ist terrorists who went on sprees throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. These are but a few examples, of course there is also the environmental-ist, which for most people brings to thought the peace-loving flower-children, but not all of them were. The history books are dotted with examples of what is called eco-terrorism. In each case the radical element of these "-ists" took it upon themselves to perform criminal acts to make their points. In all cases they are extrem-ists.
Where does this leave us? The most important "-ist" that people should be concerned with is coex-ist. This is not possible where there are lines drawn and two distinct sides and "Us" and "Them" determined. In every case there must be room for negotiation and compromise on both sides. There needs to be room for at least the acceptance of the other's point of view, even if there is no agreement. Extremism in all its forms is damaging. Extreme positions about subjects leave little room for negotiation and differing points of view.
"Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinkingA new definition for humanism needs to be coined, focussing on the individual whose focus is on humanity, and the humanity in each individual. This is the sort of thought that we need to day a thought process which overrides politics and religion and focuses on the common aspects of humanity to find the commonality amongst us all. This individual would in their most radical form be of a sort to seek what universal commonality can be found amongst all and how to achieve this.
and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition." - Wikipedia
In light of recent occurrences in New Zealand, we must take a stand against all forms of terrorism regardless of its cause, political or religious. This is to demonstrate to those who would attempt to use such methods that it is not a legitimate means of getting what they want. Thus we must take a stand against all forms of terror tactics which would attempt to subvert our way of life or our thoughts.
Each form of terror tactic feeds another which feeds another in an endless cycle of fear and oppression, it is up to us to take a stand against it NOW. The easiest way of taking this stand is through denial. We deny the terrorist their names in public. We deny them publication of their manifestos. We deny them publication of their acts.
What this also means that we need to take a stand against much of our modern media who use such sensationalist stories to prop up their ratings. They would claim that they are merely informing their public of what is happening with regard to the incident and the results of it, but it is not. If this was the case then why does the same story get played over and over again? Why does every story for the next week get related back to the same incident? Having such material in our faces does nothing but increase the tension in our communities. Switch them off. Having such material causes distress to those who may have been involved or who know those who were involved. Don't share their stories. Terrorism feeds on publicity and modern media is feeding it. Don't feed it, starve it. Let our media outlets know that will not be party to it.
If you need to talk about the incidents, talk about the victims and the families. These are the people who need our support. Deny the terrorist name and fame. Let them be forgotten. Let the real heroes of the day be remembered. The greatest effect of the stand can only be achieve through unity. Not one faith, or one colour or one gender, or one ethnicity, but the unity of all humanity.
Cheers,
Henry.
