Man Without A Country

[doppelganger]

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere. “Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break! - Kurt Vonnegut, "Cold Turkey"

I saw an interview with Jon Stewart on Bill Moyers Journal a few months ago in which Stewart discussed his feelings of profound shock at the deaths of 33 people in "the Virginia Tech Shootings," but guilt over his relative lack of shock at reading that very same day of the deaths of nearly 200 Iraqi civilians in several bombings. I think about the cold calculations by which we dismiss hundreds if not thousands of deaths a week as part of the interplay of American politics, as though these snuffed out lives, and those of the spouses and children left alone to mourn, were merely chips on a political poker table. Why are the tears of one grieving mother more valuable than those of any other?

What is a nation? Is it just another piece of arbitrary social reality, that exists only because we insist on pretending it exists? Can a conscious person be genuinely awakened to the Spirit of Love, and still regard himself as a subject of a nation's government? Who is our "enemy"? And why?

The "Declaration of Sentiments" adopted by the Peace Convention of 1834 was written by slavery abolitionist, Christian, and lifelong devotee of non-resistance, William Lloyd Garrison. In his Declaration, Garrison gives a different image of what it means to be a subject of the "Kingdom of God" through one's awareness of the truth of the Gospel, and spells out in no uncertain terms what non-resistance has to do with earthly citizenship:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind. We love the land of our nativity only as we love all other lands. The interests, rights, liberties of American citizens are no more dear to us than are those of the whole human race. Hence, we can allow no appeal to patriotism, to revenge any national insult or injury . . .

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by love; that evil can be exterminated from the earth only by goodness; that it is not safe to rely upon an arm of flesh, upon man whose breath is in his nostrils, to preserve us from harm; that there is great security in being gentle, harmless, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit the earth, for the violent who resort to the sword are destined to perish with the sword. Hence, as a measure of sound policy—of safety to property, life, and liberty—of public quietude and private enjoyment-as well as on the ground of allegiance to HIM who is KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS, we cordially adopt the non-resistance principle; being confident that it provides for all possible consequences, will ensure all things needful to us, is armed with omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over every assailing force.[/FONT]

What is my "country" other than the power of the people who control the activities of its government? Democracy doesn't make a country "my" country. Democracy is the process by which ambitious chimpanzees, lusting for power over social reality, tell me lies to get me to feel good about ceding my will and identity to them. It's hardly something worth dying for, is it?

Love and non-resistance, the ideal as expressed in the Beatitudes, is worth dying for though. That is, at its end, the Gospel. It has nothing to do with what I "believe," or whether an imaginary "God" became a man some 2000 years ago. God has always been man, regardless of whether it was noticed by anyone.

No, the Gospel has everything do with seeing myself in the joys and sufferings of others. It is non-resistance. It is perceiving that whatever I do to the "least" among us and even what I do to my enemy is done to Christ. To know this is to become a man without a country.

One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us. - Kurt Vonnegut

 

[lunamoth]

Love it! Great post Dopp.

Rats...the System *curse you System!* will not let me frubal you...

 

[doppelganger]

Love it! Great post Dopp.

Rats...the System *curse you System!* will not let me frubal you...

Thanks, Luna. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

What do you think a "country" or a "nation" is?

 

[Quiddity]

That was an interesting read.

I've always seen a country as a group of people who share a common border who pretty much value the same things. Or atleast are trying to.

 

[lunamoth]

Thanks, Luna. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

What do you think a "country" or a "nation" is?

As William Lloyd Garrison uses it in "Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind" I liken it to the concept of Beloved Community.

[SIZE=+0]“The Beloved Community” is a term that was first coined in the early days of the 20th century by the philosopher-theologian Josiah Royce, who founded the Fellowship of Reconciliation. However, it was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., also a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, who popularized the term and invested it with a deeper meaning which has captured the imagination of people of good will all over the world.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]For Dr. King, The Beloved Community was not a lofty utopian goal to be confused with the rapturous image of the Peaceable Kingdom, in which lions and lambs coexist in idyllic harmony. Rather, The Beloved Community was for him a realistic, achievable goal that could be attained by a critical mass of people committed to and trained in the philosophy and methods of nonviolence.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]Dr. King’s Beloved Community is a global vision, in which all people can share in the wealth of the earth. In the Beloved Community, poverty, hunger and homelessness will not be tolerated because international standards of human decency will not allow it. Racism and all forms of discrimination, bigotry and prejudice will be replaced by an all-inclusive spirit of sisterhood and brotherhood. In the Beloved Community, international disputes will be resolved by peaceful conflict-resolution and reconciliation of adversaries, instead of military power. Love and trust will triumph over fear and hatred. Peace with justice will prevail over war and military conflict.

[/SIZE]

From: The King Center - The Beloved Community

 

[Pariah]

Aren't we biological inclined to be communal? - to want to belong, to exclude certain aspects, and group with those similar to us?

 

[Panda]

Hmm I would say humans are by nature pack animals. We seek companionship through out our entire lives, be it friends or a lover. We are willing to change who we are to be accepted by other people in our friendship circles. I see a country as a larger version of this. Each country is like a different friendship circle, and just like in a friendship circle the people within it are more important than those that are not in it, ie if your friend died you would grieve more than if a stranger died.

Also the numbers of people that died come into the equation as well. How many can truly visualize the millions and millions that died during the First World War? I would say not many can truly comprehend coming close to that. Only when I stood in Tyne Cot or Langemarck have I ever been close to comprehending the sheer volume of the deaths. However when one single person dies, or when a small number do we can comprehend that far easier because in a sense we can visualize it.

Also good thread Dopp.

 

[doppelganger]

As William Lloyd Garrison uses it in "Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind" I liken it to the concept of Beloved Community.

Can there be people in groups without violent disputes? Sometimes I think that wrapping our identity up in external things like country, family, political philosophy, religion, etc. means that struggles for made up things become struggles for existence and survival. And in such struggles, violence is inevitable, isn't it?

 

[doppelganger]

Aren't we biological inclined to be communal? - to want to belong, to exclude certain aspects, and group with those similar to us?

Perhaps. Why do you say "biologically"? Can language and social reality be adapted to break down barriers between group identities instead of just building them?

 

[doppelganger]

I've always seen a country as a group of people who share a common border who pretty much value the same things. Or atleast are trying to.

By that standard is "Iraq" even a country? Is "The United States"?

 

[jacquie4000]

Very interesting article.

I would like to believe a nation is this:
As William Lloyd Garrison uses it in "Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind" I liken it to the concept of Beloved Community.

I would say a county is defined by borders and it's people having a common language and culture.

Then I would have to add that it becomes even more defined in small communites within the country.

Reguardless I believe their will always be violence.

 

[lunamoth]

Can there be people in groups without violent disputes? Sometimes I think that wrapping our identity up in external things like country, family, political philosophy, religion, etc. means that struggles for made up things become struggles for existence and survival. And in such struggles, violence is inevitable, isn't it?

In any government (or central authority) I think violence, or at least the threat of punishment, is inherent. There is both internal policekeeping and external protection of borders.

The beloved community, the government of God, and the citizen of the world are all principles by which individuals can guide their lives. The cohesive force has to be the attactive impetus of love. It can't be imposed...it can only be chosen.

So, practical reality is the tension between these two.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I've always seen a country as a group of people who share a common border who pretty much value the same things.

Who is your neighbor, Victor? Who is your King? (These are rhetorical questions and not aimed at challenging your faith.)

Hebrews 11:13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them. NIV

 

[Pariah]

Perhaps. Why do you say "biologically"? Can language and social reality be adapted to break down barriers between group identities instead of just building them?

No doubt.
I can't imagine that doppelganger on Religious Forums is the only person willing to say, as the great Diogenes said, ""I am a citizen of the whole world". Needless to say, not everyone thinks as you do.

The only solution I can see is an economic one - an EU for the entire world. Culture, especially in capitalist nations, seems intertwined with financial stability and economic expansion - if we sell music, literature, etc. across borders, from country to country, it might be possible to soften or "loosen" the chains of political lines.

Of course, it could simply to serve emphasize each country, thereby strengthening cultural identities. This, however, would not be a bad thing. Emphasizing ones identity while doing the same with others speaks of a powerful form of individualism without conflict.

 

[Wandered Off]

No, the Gospel has everything do with seeing myself in the joys and sufferings of others. It is non-resistance.

While I agree with a great deal of this, I can't bring myself to be convinced that non-resistance is always the best course. My own probably flawed reasoning tells me there isn't an afterlife I can wait on for bliss. When someone is trying to force me to live in a way I don't want to, why shouldn't I resist? As I see it, this life is all I have.

Of course, some stuff isn't worth dying for, but there are times when passively taking whatever someone else decides makes it not worth living for either, IMO. Non-resistance in all things can carry with it the practical implication that my own wants are of less value than anyone else's.

Is there a balance, or did I misinterpret non-resistance as presented?

 

[doppelganger]

Of course, some stuff isn't worth dying for, but there are times when passively taking whatever someone else decides makes it not worth living for either, IMO. Non-resistance in all things can carry with it the practical implication that my own wants are of less value than anyone else's.

You raise some excellent concerns, WO, that are well worth investigating. Do think "death" is a metaphor for something, or is it a "thing" in itself? What does "death" represent to you?

 

[Wandered Off]

Hmmm... Well, certainly death can be a metaphor for something - some kind of change, letting go of past behaviors or attitudes perhaps. I guess I was not really looking at it that way when these questions were percolating in my head though.

I have to confess that viewing so much metaphorically is still very new to me, Dopp. I've followed your posts since I got here, and they have opened up some incredible new perspectives for me. I even went out and got a Joseph Campbell book to help me out. I am still not very good at it, though. Sometimes, metaphor and mythology seem to add unnecessary layers of interpretation that for me more often end up obscuring the point rather than clarifying it. I think the problem is mine, however.

I guess the best definition I can come up with off the top of my head is that death is the end of my own perspective. Unless I can achieve some kind of enlightenment, that probably will coincide with the end of my bodily functions.

 

[doppelganger]

Hmmm... Well, certainly death can be a metaphor for something - some kind of change, letting go of past behaviors or attitudes perhaps. I guess I was not really looking at it that way when these questions were percolating in my head though.

That's okay, that transition from the way we see "the world out there" to the metaphorical representations doing their work "in here," is something I consider incomparably valuable. Unfortunately, other than metaphor and parables, I don't think there's another way to convey this transition.

 

[Wandered Off]

Fair enough then. So when Garrison extols the virtues of non-resistance, is he referring to something metaphorical? He isn't really saying that we should become doormats (hey, I can do a metaphor! ) and just let other people or groups do what they want and achieve their 'bliss' while we are denied in piety?

 

[doppelganger]

Fair enough then. So when Garrison extols the virtues of non-resistance, is he referring to something metaphorical? He isn't really saying that we should become doormats (hey, I can do a metaphor! ) and just let other people or groups do what they want and achieve their 'bliss' while we are denied in piety?

Check the text and you'll find that he considers "non-resistance" the most powerful form of resistance.

The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by love; that evil can be exterminated from the earth only by goodness; that it is not safe to rely upon an arm of flesh, upon man whose breath is in his nostrils, to preserve us from harm; that there is great security in being gentle, harmless, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit the earth, for the violent who resort to the sword are destined to perish with the sword. Hence, as a measure of sound policy—of safety to property, life, and liberty—of public quietude and private enjoyment-as well as on the ground of allegiance to HIM who is KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS, we cordially adopt the non-resistance principle; being confident that it provides for all possible consequences, will ensure all things needful to us, is armed with omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over every assailing force.