A Time for Passion; A Time for Peace

Our species has been endowed and imbued with a spectrum of emotions, not the least of which is the ability to feel things with a tremendous amount of passion. Our expressions of passion may at times seem to go beyond that which would be considered normal, or acceptable, under “ordinary” circumstances, but we must always remember that this is one of the most powerful of emotions; passion is not only connected with our ability to love and express that important feeling, it comes into play with other emotional states as well. People often speak of being passionate about their work, there is passion involved in the creative act (something that I can attest to without any hesitation), and it is very evident whenever any sort of conflict that strikes an emotional note arises.

Rather than approaching a situation with calmness and logic, passionate feelings well up to the surface and reason is swept aside. At these times we seem to be reduced to unthinking organisms guided by something akin to a reptilian brain, that vestigial portion of our brainstem that controls the involuntary nervous system (respiration, for example) and which guides crocodilians on their quest for prey. If that sounds severe, if it sounds harsh or overly judgemental, please understand that it is said from the point of view of someone who understands the situation by virtue of having learned it first hand. This is not a case of the “reinvention of the wheel”, it is merely a statement of fact: if we allow ourselves to be guided by our passions in all things, we are doomed; Period.

While it must be acknowledged that emotions are vitally important to our lives and we would not be who we are without them, it is important to understand that when we allow them to guide the way we accept things without question and form our opinions based purely on how we respond to the situation on a purely emotional level we are then in danger of missing the real picture.

Rather than experiencing the range of emotions and enjoying them we become slaves to them, slaves to the anger that is stoked by blind rage, a rage that isn’t even understood in rational senses anymore. Emotionalism prevents us from seeing the evidence that contradicts our passionate stance on a subject, to the point of detaching ourselves from the world of facts and evidence-based reality: bodies lined up in streets become propaganda from the “enemy”, props that they arranged in order to elicit sympathy. War crimes are dismissed as being improbable acts, or as having been justified by the situation.

What needs to be done in order to solve the problems facing those living in Israel/Palestine is both difficult and easy; it is a solution that stares us in the face, and yet we do not see it for the elegance of its simplicity. In a time when the concept of “common sense” has been reduced to something no better than a campaign slogan of past campaigns for neo-conservative politicians attempting to sway the electorate in a land far removed from the peoples of the troubled Middle East, true common sense is often abandoned in favour of things that fly in the face of logic; the choice of strife is made over that of peace for the simple reason that to do otherwise would be to dishonour those who have paid for the land with the blood that flowed through their veins. It is this sort of rhetoric that paints them into the corner, leaving them without an alternative that doesn’t end in violence, violence for the sake of justice and the avenging of the losses that they have experienced, sometimes in the distant past. It does not allow for an alternative that doesn’t include a fanatical approach to the “protection” of the land, even if that means the use of techniques inspired by the lessons gleaned from the darkest days of Jewish history, the Holocaust and the Pogroms.

The solution is difficult because it goes against what seems to be the character of our species: we are a passionate and stubborn people by nature. We are a people that allow our passions to guide the creature rather than allowing our intellects to lead us, though we know that we are capable of taking control whenever we put our minds to the task. Our preference is to contend that there is no fault; there is always a way to justify that something is right even when everything points to the fact that our actions are wrong. We may call this the “natural” way of our species as many times as we desire, but that will never change the simple fact that the truth of the matter is quite different; we were never designed to be controlled by the passions that have led us, more times than need to be mentioned, past the point of no return. We were never meant to be led by unbridled passions that lead directly to the deaths of innocent lives for causes that could — and should — have been solved by the greater gift that our species has been endowed with: our intellect and our ability to reason through any issue with well-devised diplomatic solutions that do not involve the deployment of military forces and the deaths of countless innocent lives.

The reason that the solution for this is easy is quite simply because it calls upon the essential humanity found in each of us: rather than looking at the conflict in Israel/Palestine as it exists today, as an ongoing conflict between two different peoples struggling over the same piece of real estate, we must first recast the situation into an entirely new paradigm that will clarify the issue into a way that even the most intellectually challenged individual will be able to grasp the simplicity of the circumstances. Without being torn apart by our passions it becomes possible to see that the problems facing the people of Israel/Palestine are not that difficult to overcome, so long as you understand the importance of a simple word, a word that even the scriptures of the Old Testament say we should hold closer to our hearts than any other; that word is love.

In the fifth book of the Torah, or Deuteronomy as it is known in the Old Testament, Moses is given the “greatest commandment” from HaShem in the sixth chapter. It is important to note that this commandment is given at the time that the Lord God Almighty first promises the “Land of milk and honey”, which the Children of Israel decided to take possession of in a state of disobedience by not following the directions given to them by the Lord. The “greatest commandment” is revealed in Deuteronomy 6, a commandment that is repeated by another – Yeshua HaMoshiach – Jesus Christ – in the Gospel of Matthew (Mt. 22:37). After the “Sh’ma” is declared (“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!”) we are given the commandment: “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.” In the Gospel of Matthew there is an interesting addition, which is also reflected in the teachings of Rabbi Akiva, that the second commandment is like the first, “you shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:39-40).

Why would love, and something that seems to come out of a children’s television show from the 1970’s, being neighbourly with others even when they are different from us, be a required skill to be able to solve a conflict that has gone on for generations? Indeed, that is a question that resonates with intensity for many, but the answer is simplicity itself: what is the real reason for this conflict? Why are Jews and Palestinians at war with each other? Why do Arabs in neighbouring countries, for that matter, have such hatred for the Jews – a hatred that is reflected back by the Israelis? When you look at the blood of Jews and Arabs, when you look at who their ancestors were, there seems to be no reason for enmity; both claim to be descendents of Abraham, brothers with different mothers. Even if you do not accept a Biblical account of their heritage, Semites hating other Semites makes about as much sense as an Austrian from Vienna hating another Austrian by virtue of their living in Salzburg, or the very real situation of people in the Dominican Republic hating and fearing people from Haiti – people who are ethnically identical by virtue of them all having come to the island as slaves – and yet the Dominicans feel that the Haitians are, somehow, “more black” than they are.

It is time to step away from the passions that are leading us towards inevitable destruction and look at how easy it is to live together in harmony when the common goal is to move forward with life rather than towards death through ignorance. During the Cold War a great fear was promulgated by the propaganda puppet-masters behind the American press: the constant message that I remember hearing through the administrations of Ronald Reagan and even, to some extent, his predecessor Jimmy Carter, was that the Soviets were a hair-trigger away from launching an all out nuclear assault against the west – a first strike attack. I never bought into this line of thinking for two simple reasons: First of all, it simply didn’t make sense to me. The Soviets – led by Brezhnev at the time – had to know that the United States possessed the capabilities, with their nuclear submarine force alone, to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike that would obliterate the Soviet Union several times over. Thus the term MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction (or Mentally Addled Decision-makers, depending on your point of view). There is, after all, no such thing as a “limited” nuclear war and the Soviets understood this.

The second reason that I didn’t accept the premise of what the war-mongers in the west were trying to pass off as the “truth” while simultaneously whipping up a frenzy of jingoism and nationalism was even more basic and fundamental: if we accepted the hypothesis that the Soviets loved their children even half as much as the people in the United States did then they would never want to see the horrors of war visited upon their nation again. More Russian lives were lost (Soviet citizens and soldiers combined) during The Great Patriotic War, what the Russians call World War II, than any other nation that fought in the war – on either side. The famines and purges that came after the war continued to claim victims, adding to the twenty-six million that the war had taken.

There is no doubt in my mind that even the most hardened Politburo members and military advisors would have cringed over the images of the “motherland” being ravaged – yet again – at the possibility of a thermonuclear war, even on a “limited” scale. When they advised Brezhnev in regards to the deployments of their nuclear forces they would have been acutely aware of the fact that any first strike use of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union against the United States or any of her allies would be inviting a nuclear holocaust upon mother Russia such as never could be truly imagined; it was, truly, an unthinkable option. After the near disastrous outcome of the Cuban Missile Crises, an event we are still discovering details about, forty-five years after the fact, where the world was led so close to the brink of a nuclear holocaust you can still taste the tinge of a nuclear winter when it snows in North America, it seems unlikely that the Soviets would have been so eager or willing to go as far down that path with the United States as they had with JFK.

The Soviets learned from their mistakes in Cuba. Now, what can we say of the Jews? Why should Jews be concerned with the issue of living together in peace? Only for the simple reason that this simple concept nearly led to our people being wiped off the face of the earth. When the Nazi propaganda machine began churning out its lies about the Jews being the cause of the economic woes of the German economy it wasn’t being original; the Jews of Europe had been blamed for causing the spread of the Black Death in the Middle-Ages as well. Anytime a scapegoat was needed all one had to do was find the nearest Shtetl and grab as many Jews as was necessary, perhaps enough for a private Pogrom.

The Holocaust, if nothing else, should demonstrate what happens when people fail in their responsibility towards all of humanity: we are not only the brothers and sisters of those who look like us, but of everyone, regardless of their race. The answer to that age-old question, “am I my brother’s keeper?” is, in fact, “yes, you are”. You are your brother’s keeper, and your sister’s; you are your niece’s keeper and your nephew’s, and you are your neighbour’s keeper, and anyone else who happens to fall within your sphere of influence as a human. That is what makes us human, that is what defines our humanity; we have the capacity to care for one another and when we allow ourselves to arise above our petty prejudices, we do so. We do not abandon those who do not have anyone to care for them nor do we leave the weak or the sick to die by the wayside. We do not kill a child whose mother has died in childbirth, we find someone to care for them, giving them love and raising them as their own. We love; actions define our humanity, not what we call ourselves.

As the Jews who were freed from the concentration camps often discovered when they tried to return to their pre-war homes, many things had not changed; their homes, if left standing, had often been stolen by other families who would not return them unless the “dirty Jews” could prove ownership (a difficult task considering they had been taken from their homes with few, if any, personal belongings – said belongings having been taken from them at the camps). The same thing went with bank accounts, accounts that to this day are being contested by families trying to prove rightful ownership.

Does this not teach us anything? What would have happened if the German people had stood up and said, “Why should we believe these ridiculous lies? These are my neighbours and I trust them!” If asked to take up stones against Jewish business, “but what have they done to us?” Of course, there is anti-Semitism. That is, alas, a fact of this world. As warped and demented as this fact is, it is even more demented to see such hatred between two peoples who have far more in common (including anti-Semitism, though the Arabs may be experiencing a bit more post 9/11, but the Jews aren’t far behind … neck-n-neck) than the main thing that divides them, religion. There is no “official” religion of the Palestinians, though there seems to be a predominantly Sunni portion with a sizable Christian minority as well, but this should not be used as an excuse for not being able to live in peace with each other.

Religion is what has blinded the Israeli position regarding the land that they protect with higher esteem than anything else; the land that has been granted, they believe, as a sacred covenant to them by the Lord God Almighty. The belief that the division of the land is impossible is seemingly fundamental to the tenets of Judaism, and yet this belief is as erroneous as the very idea that the present State of Israel is a representation of the Biblical Holy Land, the Promised Land, the Land of Milk and Honey.

Who amongst you can relate the story of how the Jews came into the Promised Land? The story is long, quite complicated at times, and filled with some of the most unpronounceable names that you can think of … until you read the Book of Numbers. There is an important preface to the story, contained in the Book of Joshua, that is found a bit earlier, when the Lord makes the actual promise of the land to Moses, in Exodus. Moses is told: “Little by little I [the Lord God Almighty] will drive them [the inhabitants of the Promised Land] out from before you, until you have increased, and you inherit the land. And I will set your bounds from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you. You shall make no covenant [contract or agreement] with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me. For if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you” (Exodus 23:29-33, NKJV, parenthetical comments are my additions).

So, what went wrong? After the death of Moses and the selection of Joshua as the new Prophet of the congregation things didn’t quite go according to the script and it all centres around a simple concept: disobedience. “Woe to the rebellious children,” says the LORD, “Who takes counsel, but not of Me, and who devise plans, but not of My Spirit, that they may add sin to sin; …” (Isaiah 30:1, NKJV). When the reputation of the children of Israel spread through the land the Gibeonites decided that the best way to survive was to avoid having to fight. They managed to convince the congregation and the leadership – including Joshua – to make a treaty [a covenant] with them, swearing it on the name of the Lord God of Israel. The result of this treaty is that the Gibeonites would serve as wood-cutters and water bearers for the Temple (they were slaves), but they were allowed to live.

Unfortunately, things did not go so well for the children of Israel. The Babylonians decided that slavery was an equal-opportunity career and thus, the Babylonian Captivity. Seventy years of … lets call it character building (2 Chronicles 36:1-21). Of course, the Jews were allowed to return to the Holy Land and they began the work of rebuilding the Temple, but that is not the end of the story (of course); rather than adhering to their covenant with the Lord, by not marrying anyone who was not of the twelve tribes, the disobedient Israelites took wives out of the pagans living amongst them (see Ezra 9)

As easy as it is to take the scriptures and point out all of the ways in which the Israelites disobeyed the word of God in regards to their inheritance, it is more important to examine the ramifications of those acts and what the reality of that situation is – for all of us – today. Whatever happened in the time before the Babylonian captivity is, as they say, ancient history. Nothing can change the fact that the children of Israel were carried away from their homes as slaves, just as nothing can change the fact that western imperialists carried millions of African slaves away from their homes to the “new world” and mistreated them for centuries. If there is any doubt that institutional racism still exists one need only look at the current presidential election (which has not even left the level of the primaries) to see the acrimony aroused as a result of racial issues (and gender); for this we should all be ashamed.

The only true solution to the Jewish/Palestinian “question” is to step back from our passions and allow reason to prevail; we must not allow ingrained prejudices to be freed to bubble up to the surface when we know they are inherently wrong, we must rise above the pettiness of racial divisiveness that makes us cringe when we see that our neighbour does not look as we do. For far too long we have lived lives of complacency, lives of disconnection from each other that permit the perpetuation of violent reactions against the people and things that do not adhere to our own way of life. There is no excuse for such barbaric behaviour; by these actions, by demonstrating that they are unable to live in peace with each other, the Zionists demonstrate that they have not learned anything from the lessons of history save for the worst, most despicable portions. The responses of violence from the Palestinians, of course, are no better, and may not be excused for any reason. Violence begets violence, and “an eye for an eye” will, in the end, leave us all blind.

Every act of inequality, every racial slur and every violent action perpetrated against our fellow man diminishes each and every one of us collectively. As neighbours in this continually shrinking world it is far past the time to put aside our differences and begin the process of living together in peace. If our neighbours do not go to our church, or synagogue, if they happen to go to a mosque, or if, God forbid, they don’t go to any house of worship at all, then so be it; let them go where they would, in peace. If that is such a difficult proposition for someone than I have another, even simpler solution: get off the planet and leave it to those who are able to live in peace with each other. The cost of war fostered by human ignorance and stupidity is far too great to be allowed to continue.

New Year’s Wishes: a Lump of Coal in your Stocking?

A Seasonal Missive from the CrazyComposer
Cartoons © by Ben Heine
A recent comment to submitted to this blog (posted here only recently due to a moderation error) asked my opinion on the content of a particular website relating to “a Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East conflict”. I have neglected to respond to the question, though the intervening time has given me a great deal to think about. Before addressing the issues raised in the website, however, there are some other things that I would like to say (well, it is my blog): The end of the year is always a time that arouses mixed feelings for me as I reflect on the things that have been accomplished, the many things that have not been done (for whatever reason), and the numerous other things that have been added to the list of things that I now want to do at some point in time. This is also the time that is used to reflect upon the events that have taken place in the world; what news has emerged as the most significant of the year, what individual(s) have had the most influence on our world … for better or worse.

Thus, the question regarding my thoughts on a website relating to Jewish/Palestinian relations seemed more than appropriate as it fit in perfectly with the seasonal reflections that my mind has been making; near existential musings, perhaps, on the state of our species and its ability to drag itself out of the mud and mire in which it is so firmly entrenched. The discussion of politics and political issues is one that can become deeply frustrating for me (quite quickly, at times, as it would seem my patience for the level of human idiocy is growing shorter and shorter with the passing of days), particularly when those involved refuse to allow themselves to see any other side of an issue merely because it represents an ideology that is foreign to their own political beliefs. This is especially apparent when it comes to the issues surrounding the “Jewish” state, also known as Israel, and the “Palestinian” question … or the “occupied territories”, or whatever other term has been used from time to time.


Let me be quite blunt about my position relating to Israel from the beginning, before even referring to the site in question and anyone else’s comments: if you are incapable of living in peace next to someone who is not of the same ethnic background, religion or political persuasion, you should move to another continent, shave all of your body hair off, cover yourself in honey and roll around in a nest of fire-ants. You should only dress in pink taffeta, and have the word “idiot loser” tattooed upon your forehead. The idea that we are unable to live next to people that are different from us, today – in the 21st century – is beyond anachronistic; it is a reflection of the most closed-minded, racist, bigoted, xenophobic idiocy that has ever inhabited this planet. If this is a description of a Jewish Israeli, too bad; if it describes a Palestinian, tough: when you point a finger at one person there are several pointing back towards you, so there are NO innocents in this conflict when people pre-judge their neighbours.

Ignorance kills; period. End of statement. While ignorance is near the top of that list, nationalism that is allowed to overrun an individual’s ability to reason is another thing that leads to death; such vehement belief systems are found within the supporters of Zionism and the fundamentalist supporters of the Palestinian movement. If this seems extreme, that is too bad; I’ve been listening to stories about the “war” going on in Israel since I was born, since the Israelis captured Jerusalem in 1968. If anyone honestly believes that this can be resolved by anything less than a fundamental shift in human behaviour. In order to promote such a change I propose a United Nations Joint Resolution: Be it resolved that all parties in Israel/Palestine shall live peacefully or they shall be deported to Albania (I hear it is lovely at this time of year … not). Any use of force or violence of any kind will result in an immediate deportation and fines against the government of no less than $1,000,000 (U.S. funds), to be paid to the families of victims/survivors.

I certainly doubt there would be too many “repeat offenders”.

The main premise of the author’s comments, from what I have gleaned from the reading, is that the peace process is doomed to failure, essentially, for the simple reason that the Zionist cause is honourable and just while the Arabs (also known as the Palestinians in this little saga) are completely untrustworthy, inherently dishonest, and predisposed to being deceptive when it comes to matters relating to negotiations.

From the outset the author has established that they do not believe that a lasting peace between the Jews and Palestinians (though he stubbornly refers to them as “Arabs” or, on rare occasions, “Palestinian Arabs” throughout the text) is not only impossible, it is “unusual, immoral, and illegal”. The only thing unusual about the author’s comments is that they so thinly veil the racism and hatred that the author possesses for the non-Jewish individuals making claims on the “Holy Land”. When reading things like “Peace process is highly unusual … illegal … immoral …” amongst many other completely meaningless straw-man arguments that are based on the acrimony aroused by generations of stubbornness making communication and reconciliation impossible.

The issue of peace in the middle-east, especially in Israel, always seems to come back to the subject of the land and the myriad issues that arise from the various parties involved. Is it possible to placate every side with one, all encompassing solution, a resolution that will satisfy the Zionist positions while also placating those of the Palestinians? Anyone that believes that it is, that the vitriol of centuries – nay, millennia – may be resolved after some discussions has allowed themselves to become enamoured by the seductive idea that “peace on earth, good will towards man” is something more than a line in a cleverly composed Christmas carol.

There truly is problem with the peace process, but unlike what the author of “We need a respite from peace” has written, it is not about what the Arabs/Palestinians bring to the table; it has everything to do with the process itself and the inherently flawed philosophy that has been invested into the very nature of the Holy Land and its relationship to Jews, Christians and Moslems. Any people proclaiming to be members of any of the aforementioned faiths who then use violence in order to advance their cause are, quite simply, hypocrites; they are anything but what they claim to be, and are certainly not representatives of the three faiths that call that piece of real estate the Holy Land.

We view the three religions as mere labels to apply to people regardless of the actions that are carried out in the names of those religions. Millions have been killed in the name of “God” (or “Allah”) while at the same time it is asserted that “Yahweh is merciful” and “God is love” and “Allah is benevolent” in classes for young believers in each faith. The problem is not that this teaching is flawed (this isn’t a polemic on the primacy of one faith over another, nor will I entertain such questions – my position should be apparent from previous posts), it lies in the fact that fundamentalism breeds fanaticism and fanaticism breeds minds that are perfectly prepared to be taken advantage of by ruthless individuals bent on promoting their own agendas, regardless of the costs in human lives.

I remember when a particularly vicious terrorist attack took place in Israel when I was a child, living in Sudbury. My parents tried to explain the situation to me as best they could, but the savagery of the situation made even their astute comments seem unable to fully explain the situation. It all boiled down to this, my father ultimately said; “how can you stop someone that is prepared to kill themselves in order to advance their cause?” It didn’t seem to matter whether or not you supported the claims of the Palestinians or disagreed with the policies of Israel; could you do so and agree with the tactics of the terrorist elements acting on behalf of the Palestinians?


No; violence does not bolster any position, it undermines the moral grounds of every argument and diminishes the legitimacy of any claim that may have existed. Violence begets violence and breeds mistrust, hatred, and a myriad of other negative things that work in opposition to true peace. More than anything else violence breaks the human spirit which then seeks something else to fill the void created by the legacy of violence.

There is only one way in which the Holy Land can experience the fruits of a genuine peace process, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the pale counterfeit that has been plaguing the region since the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. True peace will only come when the land is forgotten and people are given the priority that they deserve, the dignity that all humans are entitled too, regardless of their race, religion, or creed. When people are able to accept the differences that have driven them apart and decide that they can live beside each other in peace, there will be true peace; until then the process is an utter waste of time.

A recent example of the curse of fundamentalism has been provided through the brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The subsequent suicide bombing (by the same deranged individual) left many others dead and injured. Do not forget that there are other places in the world where “peace process” is a concept arousing desperation and acts beyond anything in which any sane individual should be engaged. Can anything profitable ever come out of this sort of violence; is it not possible to imagine that there is at least one qualified individual in all of Pakistan to replace Bhutto as the leader of the PPP?

Who was responsible for this act of ultimate inhumanity? There are some that are already saying that al-Qaeda is to blame, raising the question as to who had the most to gain from this vicious act. In the end, it doesn’t really matter who had the “most” to gain from this and other despicable acts; supposed gains made through violence are rendered as worthless as lead, tainted by the blood shed for them. It is easier to see that everyone loses when violence is used: we lose our dignity as humans, we abdicate our morality, and our spirits are diminished in the process.

If there is one comment the author of “Respite” has made that truly demonstrates the futility of the argument espoused by the Zionist fundamentalists it is the following: “Peace process is highly unusual. Every other nation destroyed whatever aborigines happened to live on the land that nation chose to build a state.” What the writer of those comments forgets, as many of their predecessors have and, alas, as many of those who follow in their footsteps shall inevitably do so as well, is that this is not an intellectual exercise in the realm of theories; we are dealing with real, living people here, people that have not been eliminated through a war of conquering or a subsequent genocide (how terribly inconvenient for Israeli). The people that Israel has to contend with have been living in the land for as long as the land has been promised to the Children of Israel. Is it the fault of the Palestinians that the forefathers of the modern Israelis were incapable of obeying the commands of the Lord?

The Old Testament tells us that the Children of Israel were commanded to “cleanse” the land, before taking possession of it, which they did not do; they decided that their way was better than that of the Lord God Almighty. By deciding to follow their own devices the Children of Israel cut themselves off from the promises of the Lord, opening themselves up to the troubles that have befallen them for the past several thousand years.

What I am saying is that you cannot now decide to commit the genocide that you failed to commit when you were brought to the Promised Land. Above all else we must learn lessons from history, lest we allow ourselves the curse of repeating the mistakes and tragedies of the past. History tells us that there is indeed a tradition of the vanquished peoples of the world becoming enslaved and extinguished, but that is not something that should be exalted, it should be observed with the solemnity that hindsight allows the learned pupil to provide insight and wisdom, that those mistakes need not be repeated by future generations.

By stating that the peace process is “unusual” for the reason that vanquished peoples do not live side by side with those who defeated them is tantamount to endorsing genocide; it is a comment that demonstrates that the Zionist movement has learned nothing from the lessons of history. It demonstrates that the Zionist movement has taken nothing from the ravages of war that nearly led to the vanquishing of the Jews in the middle of the twentieth century; is this the type of history that the Jews should be trying to perpetuate against another people? Should Jews not be fighting to the death to live in peace with others, knowing the awful price that nationalism exacts when taken to extremes.

If anyone should have learned about the importance of setting aside differences in the name of being able to live together in peace it is the survivors of the Holocaust: a people that were nearly wiped off the face of the earth by the xenophobic racial purity theories espoused by the Nazis. What is the difference between the near-genocide perpetrated against the Jews (Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals, disabled, and numerous others) and the ongoing atmosphere of apartheid and attempted genocide that has been enacted against the Palestinians over countless years?


I have met survivors of the Camps, both Jew and non-Jew, and there has always been a common denominator amongst these remarkable individuals: they share a desire to see a world without war, a world where everyone can live together in peace. This is something that they would gladly give up their lives to achieve. The violence perpetrated over the “Holy Land” is the worst example of historical ignorance, of a people refusing to learn lessons that cannot afford to be explained more than once. Even little children know that there is nothing to be gained from hatred, when will the Zionists and other fundamentalists grow up and follow their lead?

An End to Taxes ...

It has been said that the only thing that we can be certain of is death and taxes. While this may have been said in jest, the idea, proposed by Benjamin Franklin, has come to mean far more in these days where money has become the single most important force in the world (next to oil, which is purchased with … money). Money, or the lack thereof, has become the defining watermark for whether or not you are on the inside looking out or on the outside looking in. We now have an economically driven caste system where the distinctions are quite easily made: there are those with money and those without.

There are, of course, greater divisions amongst those with money, but the “have-nots” are essentially the new “untouchables” of the old, out of date and banned (though still used) Indian caste system. Living lives as one of the new “untouchables” is simply defined in terms of people living in, or even working in, a world in which they may look at those things that the modern world has to offer, the advances and technological creations abounding that can enhance our lives (dependence on electronica notwithstanding), seen completely from the outside, unable to access any of these magical things reserved for those with the money needed to pay the small ransom required to liberate the items from their stores and then have them activated.

There is, however, one way in which the great disparity between the wealthy and the poor can be breached: a way in which the wealth of the world may be used for the good of the people that truly need it rather than merely servicing an elite few who have become obscenely rich as a result of the sacrifices made by the poorest of the world. The plan is so simple and yet, at the same time, quite difficult: it is simple because it is merely asking for what is rightfully due (even according to the teachings of Christianity), and difficult for the simple reason that the love of money is the root of all evil (not money, mind you, the LOVE of money).

The plan, then, is to end the charitable status of all religions and require them to pay taxes for all monies received through donations as well as taxes for any and all property holdings. Let me make that as concise as possible: I am calling for the taxation of religion. All churches and religions, any ecclesiastical organizations, including the “Church” of $cientology, and all lands owned by religious organizations, will be subject to taxation like everyone else (as it is written, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” cf. Matt. 22:17); and – most especially – all donations made to any religious organization will not be tax deductible. After all, why should the government be subsidizing the giving of monies to religions? It should be a matter between the individual and their conscience if they want to donate (it is also an issue of scripture, which will be addressed later), not because you get a tax receipt at the end of the year.

Please don’t take this the wrong way; this isn’t meant to come out as an attack on religion. On the contrary, the role of religious organizations, with the exception of the “Church” of $cientology, of course, is not to act as autonomous nation states, accumulating massive amounts of wealth that cannot even be articulated due to its massive scope. The fact that many churches provide something akin to extended social programs that are often not provided by, or complimentary to, the government programs indicates a certain truth about organized religion: it is designed to serve people, not itself. However, can you even begin to imagine how many more services could be provided if the immense wealth of the churches that have hitherto been untapped by the taxman were suddenly made available … an influx of wealth from the coffers that have been sealed for centuries, if not longer.

As a tiny example, let me offer the city of Ottawa. The Holy Roman Church owns the land upon which the University of Ottawa has been standing since its foundation, over 100 years ago. Now, when U of O (which also happens to be my alma mater) began it was a Catholic university (St. Josephs Seminary for Men), but that was a long time ago. It is now an international bilingual university with a medical and law school and graduate programs in several areas, including the music program of which I was a student. However, with all the buildings that the university has, including several new ones built in the last five years, the university still rents the land upon which their buildings sit, paying rent to the Holy Roman Church.

Currently there are even more new buildings under construction, but the land will always belong to the church, and they will never pay a penny of property taxes on land that is in the heart of the city, the most congested area of the national capital, an area where property values are astronomical and the taxes from the property would feed many of the homeless that the church purports to care so much about.

Would that care not be better demonstrated by contributing to the costs of caring for the citizens of this city rather than living as they do, completely separate from the real world, untouched by the realities of economic truths? Considering that the City of Ottawa is currently negotiating its budget for this New Year this issue seems even more important. The comment from one of the City Councillors was that they “would not support a budget that included the cutting of social programs.”

How many social programs would have to be cut if the taxes from religious organizations were able to contribute to the money available to the local budget? I dare say there would be quite a bit more for the city to spend than there is at the present time, but that is another issue to explore … in the mean time ….

The main reason that the idea of taxing religion is a necessary act is quite simple: it is a moral imperative. For centuries now, nay, for over a millennium, religions have been the direct cause of the deaths of millions of innocent lives and the sufferings of countless humans who have had the intestinal fortitude to stand against the dogmatic teachings being thrust down their throats by someone claiming to be an ordained “representative” of the Lord God Almighty; every one of them purporting to carry the message of truth that had to be accepted without question lest they face death.

Of course, the idea of facing a temporal death and facing eternal damnation for not having accepted the “gift” of salvation was something that was likely difficult to understand when the “representative” of God was speaking in tongues that were not understood by the savages he was trying to save. Thus, it was far easier to cast these poor savages into the judgment of blasphemy when they continued to worship their idols, rejecting those offered by the Jesuits and other missionaries who brought the savages images of Jesus and Mary to serve as idols in lieu of the more popular mages.

Using only well known examples such as the crusades, the importation of slaves (and the obvious working of said slaves to their deaths in conditions that were so inhumane they are beyond description within the scope of this brief exposition), and the efforts of other monotheistic religions to “spread their messages” with violent means, it becomes obvious that the necessity for reparations is beyond question, and for many it is far too late.

For the indigenous peoples of countless nations reparations are too little, too late. These people were exterminated, more efficiently than when Hitler tried to rid the world of the Jews and other untermenschen through the power of the Third Reich. They disappeared from the face of the earth not necessarily as a result of their opposition to accepting the beliefs of the “white man” when they had come to the “new world”, but because they could not always understand the message that was being offered to them. Genocide cannot be reversed, though there are some survivors of the white man’s attempt to rid Turtle Island of the Red man, the damage done in the name of God is something that money alone could never repay, and yet that is all that we are able to use as a means of punishment, as a means of allowing the religions that have caused so much suffering to begin easing the pain of others.

Atrocities committed in the name of God shall never be fully atoned for, there have been far too many, and they continue even today. That the President of the United States of Avarice would have the temerity to call upon God to bless the actions that he has undertaken against a sovereign nation should be enough to make any true believer feel nauseous.

So long as there are humans alive on this planet and any one of them uses religion as an excuse or a justification to abuse or violate the rights of another individual, then religion must be treated as nothing more than any other organization that exists to earn money and pay their due in taxes.

In a temporal world it is the things that are valued that, when taken away, offer the illusion of punishment; thus, the payment of taxes. While the world experiences the ravages perpetrated and supported by the fanatic elements of several religious movements (including extreme “fundamental” elements claiming to be Christians) these organizations receive the economic favours of the world by being allowed (in most countries) to exist in a state where the money flows in, but they never pay a penny in taxes.

Why should society be rewarding such behaviour with the benefits that true charitable organizations deserve? Can you imagine the reaction that Jesus would have today, having taught the parable of the old woman and her two pennies if he could see the opulence in which the Pope and his cronies live in the Vatican, one of the richest enclaves in the world (to read the complete article click here)? Considering the comments about rich men, eyes of a needle and camels going to heaven, I have a feeling that he wouldn’t be pleased (hey, I didn’t write it … “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven” cf. Matt. 19:24, but also v. 16-30 and 20:1-16).

Another reason, if one is needed, to end the tax-free status of religion, is that it has become a more of a comedic joke, and a convenient vehicle to have a tax shelter, as demonstrated by the “church” of $cientology, a “religion” founded by a bad science fiction writer. The very fact that L. Ron Hubbard wrote: “Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.” This single statement is enough to prove that the scam of $cientology is nothing more than a business, founded on bad writing, psychotic adherence to idiotic concepts and brainwashing of the highest order.

The fact that any organization that slaps a cross (or some other symbol of worship) on their door and proclaims themselves to be a “church”, or a religious organization, entitles them to become “charitable organizations” under the law, allowing them to exist as money-sucking machines where paying taxes is a concept that doesn’t exist, is a scam beyond comprehension. That is not the reason religions exist, at least, it certainly isn’t the reason Christianity exists.

Even the Internet has expanded the scope of this issue, lending more credence to the necessity to end the tax-exempt status of religions. For many years it has been possible for anyone with the inclination (and the credit card) to receive an “ordination” from one of the many “Internet Churches” that exist solely for the purpose of generating money. In many cases, once “ordained” it is even possible for these “ministers” to receive State or Provincial licenses, permitting them to perform weddings and funerals, the two services for which a “freelance” minister can earn a fee.

Look in the Yellow Pages and you will find, if your city is large enough, listings for “non-denominational ministers” who are available to perform “weddings, funerals, baptisms and other services” for “reasonable honorariums”, or other such descriptions. Have Bible; will travel.

Now, I don’t want to sound as though I reject all members of the clergy (of any faith); nothing could be further from the truth. There are some very devout individuals who chose to enter the world of ministry because they felt called to do so, not because it seemed to be a good opportunity to make money. To be in ministry, as in politics, is to be in service to the people, but, alas, that seems to have been lost in the translation somewhere along the line.

Just as some people enter politics for the power, some enter out of a genuine desire to serve their community and help their fellow citizens. So it is with some people in the ministry – regardless of the religion – who made the decision to serve out of a genuine desire to help humanity.

From this point I shall limit the scope of my discussion (or diatribe, depending on your perspective) to the area with which I am most familiar: Christianity. That modern Christianity, particularly through the efforts of the Roman Church and their political influences throughout history, has become so accepted by the governments of the western world is indicative of an extraordinarily serious problem. It indicates that modern Christianity, as represented by institutional religion, has become a powerless, meaningless collection of forms and formalities: it is not that which it was ordained to be by its Creator. Christianity, as seen by the governmental view, has lost the thing that it was created to be, a vehicle to introduce people to the power of the Lord God Almighty through his Son.

Why is it, some may ask, that in the early days of the First Church the believers in this “cult” sect of Judaism, as many of the Pharisees and Sadducees saw the followers of the renegade teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, were persecuted unto their deaths? There are historical accounts, in histories not written by the church, of the martyrdom of the early believers that consistently demonstrates an irrational fear for this burgeoning new faith that became Christianity, but why this fear? What was there to worry about?

The fear was quite legitimate, for there was something different about these “Christians”: the cult didn’t fade away as expected by the Romans shortly after the death of their charismatic leader. This was the pattern of the day; cut the head off of the organization and the body dies, but in the case of Christianity, the head was cut off and the body – the Church – continued to grow, expanding beyond the borders with ever increasing speed.

These new believers were dangerous for the simple fact that they were unlike the other citizens of the day: they didn’t live like the others, they adhered to an entirely different moral view of life, and that went against the status quo within the Roman Empire, it could not be tolerated as they were rocking the boat. Of course, anything that upset the status quo was met with intolerance and had to be curtailed, but there had to be a reason for this strange change that was coming over the people who had been “exposed” to this new “Gospel” that was being preached throughout the Roman Empire.

The strange change was quite easy to explain, and it has a direct bearing on what was being said earlier regarding taxation and the church. Those individuals who decided to join the early church were taught about how one man had stood in a garden and asked others to not raise their swords to protect him when it would have been possible to do so. They learned that this man allowed himself to be captured by those who would eventually torment, torture and execute him, all to fulfill the plan of salvation that had been prophesied to them.

They also learned, from the apostles and others who had been in contact with the founder of this new belief, that there was a different way to live and to think. They were told that being defiled was something that happened through what came out of their mouths, not through what they consumed: it isn’t what one eats, it is what one says and does, and yet, that is not what they were told they would be judged by.

Faith. The First Church was told to preach the message of the Gospel and that signs and wonders would follow. They were taught about faith. They were taught that faith would grow if treated like a living thing, tended like a plant and watered with the food it needed, the Word. With faith the First Church grew beyond their wildest imagination.

Believers in the First Church would also learn that this same Man had taught them that it was right to pay the taxes that were due each of them as He himself paid them (cf. Matt 17:24-27; 22:15-22; & Rom 13:1-7). This isn’t something that is mentioned casually in the New Testament, it is brought up directly on occasions that support the payment of taxes. It isn’t that the payment of taxes is to be considered particularly Godly as an action, but rather that it is reflective of the fact that one of the tenets of Christianity is the submission to authority. We are not only called to be submissive to the Word made Flesh, but to the temporal authorities that exist around us (this is reflected in 1 Peter 2:13-15).

Why should it be important that Jesus paid taxes and it is taught that Christians should do the same? For the simple reason that the Church is part OF the world and is supposed to provide an example for others IN the world. How, I ask, is anyone supposed to have any respect for an organization that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year (as a very low estimate) from its share of global collections, yet doesn’t pay a penny in taxes when someone working forty hours per week, desperately trying to make ends meet, IS paying taxes?

When did the individual become less important than the Church? Why should families have to struggle to survive because of their tax burden when massive tracts of property and funds go untouched? This is, in a word, an injustice that is a perfect example of being diametrically opposed to the tenets of Christianity (and Judaism, and, from my understanding of the giving of funds to the poor, of Islam as well).

As for the other aspect of reparations, due to the religious involvement in violent conflict, I refer to the primary teachings of Christianity which are the archetypes for non-violent demonstrations and have been used to inspire some of the most prominent examples of its use through the history of unarmed conflict: neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King, Jr were the creators of civil disobedience. We do not like to focus on this concept in the modern church for the principal reason that it makes the modern individual feel emasculated, unable to defend against an attack or any violent acts.

How is modern Christianity supposed to expect anyone to truly believe that one of the central tenets of our faith is that you do not answer violence with violence? The concept is not only central in the teachings of Y’shua, of Jesus, it is what makes the true church, and what had made the First Church, so dangerous. By not using violence but changing the hearts of the people the First Church effected genuine change within individuals who had been dedicated to destroying this new “cult”. The most famous example being the conversion of Saul of Tarsus whilst on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-30) during his persecution of early Christians; instead of killing the members of the Church that he was seeking out he ended up being one of the most prominent leaders of the First Church, and, one could argue, the most important of the apostles (considering his position as evidenced through the New Testament Epistles).

It is well past the time to put into practice the idea promoted by the United States of Avarice, that being the separation of church and state. Our modern nations are not mono-cultural, nor do they consist of populations that practice the same religious beliefs. Providing economic favouritism for religious organizations is not only an out of date mode of thinking, it puts an undue amount of fiscal stress on the most disadvantaged in society who are the ones that are forced to make up what the churches should be paying as their share of the tax burden.

With the ease with which certain organizations such as $cientology have been able to become tax-exempt groups it only demonstrates that the system is susceptible to widespread abuse, and that is exactly what is happening. So long as religions enjoy tax-free status and avoid paying their fair share, we will continue to see and hear about the abuses that occur behind closed doors. There have been too many secrets kept for far too long: it is time to open up the coffers and air out the belfry of all its dust.

Beware, the taxman cometh.