In a world waging war with words, how do we know what to believe?

    The classic illustration of how our understanding or belief is related to the truth, is the one used by Stephen Covey and others. In the illustration, a ship was travelling in the night, when the person on duty saw a light directly ahead, and notified the captain that they were on a collision course with another ship. Wanting to avoid a collision, the captain of the ship sent a message to the other ship, “Change course 20 degrees starboard (to the right).”  The reply came back, “Unable to comply. Suggest you change your course 20 degrees to starboard.” As the light got closer, the captain again sent the message, “Change course 20 degrees starboard.” Again the reply came back, “Unable to comply. You should change your course 20 degrees to starboard.” Angry now, the captain sent the message, “I am a military destroyer. I insist that you change your course 20 degrees to starboard.”  The reply came back, “Unable to comply. Suggest you change your course 20 degrees to starboard. I am a lighthouse.”

    The story has become a classic because it illustrates so clearly how our understanding, or belief, can be very different from the reality that is “out there.” We can give the Reality that is “out there” the label “Big R” and the reality as we understand it, the belief that is “in here”, in our minds, the label “little r.” To avoid a collision, the ship’s captain had to adjust his “little r” to be consistent with “Big R”. And so it is with all of us.

    With the Internet so available today, we are bombarded with messages that disagree with each other. So what are we to believe? So many different perspectives tend to overwhelm us, which is why it is popular today to believe that there is no absolute truth. “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.” Oh? “I believe you’re a ship, you believe you’re a lighthouse. What’s true for you is not true for me, so I’m going to just continue straight ahead.”

    Eventually, if we’re thinking, we realize that Reality stands apart from our belief of it, just as the lighthouse stands on the rock, warning of danger, whether the ship’s captain believes it or not.  To truly achieve success, then, we must be constantly seeking to bring “little r” more and more in line with “Big R”.

 
    In trying to know what to believe, one of the questions we have to consider is, “How are our beliefs shaped in the first place?” It doesn’t take a genius to realize that babies don’t have beliefs at all, much less firmly held ones that they would die for, or kill someone else over. But often, by the time they’re 20, they do. In western civilization, we tend to believe that knowledge is something we discover, and freedom of speech is important. We believe those things. In Islamic tradition, however, knowledge is revealed (by Allah), and freedom of speech has little value at all. That’s what they believe. So for some, whenever freedom of speech violates what Allah has revealed, the conflict in beliefs is worth dying for, or killing someone else for. This at least partially explains the killing of 12 people in the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo. But how do such divergent beliefs develop, in the first place?

    As we watch the war in the Ukraine, we become more and more aware that the war is the result of different perspectives on the same issues, developed by people who have grown up in the same general area. How did the different perspectives develop? Obviously, it’s because different people were influenced by different viewpoints as they grew up. As individuals, we may like to think we’re brilliant, and too smart to be deceived by propaganda, but for most of us, the only perspectives we have available to us are those we have already been exposed to. Most of us never think an original thought – our originality is limited to the way we mentally rearrange and interpret those ideas to which we have been exposed from outside influences. So two people can be exposed to the same information, and develop different opinions about it, but the differences in opinion become even greater when two people are not even exposed to the same information. Russian media, for example, is known to be controlled by the state, so it appears clear that certain information is being withheld from the Russian audience, and other information, which may not reflect all the information available, is what is broadcast. How can people believe information to which they have never been exposed?
All of us have limited information, so all of us, to a degree, are in the same situation the Russian public is in. We simply don’t have access to all the information there is. From the information we do have, we still have to sort out what is truth, and what is not.

    Fortunately, there are some basic tests of truth that can be applied. One test is whether the information agrees with what I already believe to be true. If it does, then it’s easy to believe it. But that is certainly the case with Russian media broadcasting, that it supports what most of the audience already believes, so that is not a good enough test.  Another test is whether the information is complete. This one is much more helpful. If we consider Russian broadcasting about the war in the Ukraine, we can immediately see that the information is not complete. If we look at almost any religion’s treatment of the views of other religions, we can see that they are not complete. Or if we look at the western media’s treatment of couples living together before marriage, we can see that the whole picture is not being shown. When only part of a much bigger picture is presented, we have reason to question it’s truthfulness. Would it be just as believable if the opposite position were also presented?

    Another test for truth is whether it is coherent, that is, does it have parts of the information that don’t agree with other parts of the information. Within minutes after the Indonesian airliner was shot down over Ukraine, there was communication from the separatists that they had shot down a military airplane. However, when it was revealed that the plane was a civilian airliner, then those same separatists denied any involvement at all. That’s incoherence. The two parts of the story don’t fit together. When we see incoherence, it should make us more alert, because something is wrong.

    One of the difficulties with knowing truth, is the tendency of proof to elude us. Many people have never thought of the difference between proof and evidence, but the difference is profound. Proof is conclusive. It finishes the argument. When something is proven, there is no more room for doubt or argument. Evidence, on the other hand, is not conclusive, but it points in the direction of a logical conclusion. When evidence is presented, it tends to lead to a conclusion, but there is still room for some doubt and discussion. It is often said, then, that proof is elusive, but evidence is all around us.

    We have to take the evidence, ask ourselves which direction it points toward, ask ourselves if it is complete, coherent, and consistent with what I already believe, and when we have done that, we have to decide for ourselves which direction we need to go. If the evidence disagrees with what I already believe, but if it seems to be essentially complete and apparently coherent, then I may need to rethink my personal viewpoint.

    For me, there are two more critical points that affect my evaluation of what is presented as truth. The first one is motive. If I can see that those presenting the information clearly have some benefit to gain if I believe them, they I am immediately suspicious. This is true of the car salesman, but it is especially true of politicians – so anytime profit or power are potential motives, I’m suspicious.

    The second critical point is whether the information is likely to prove true over the long term, or just in the short term, and who it affects. If movies can convince young couples that it is wise to live together before marriage, that may serve their interests in the short term. But what will the long term affects be?  The research shows that it basically doubles their chances of divorcing later on. And does it serve the interests of others equally well? How does it affect children born to the couple? Research shows that it hinders the children in every area of life. Hitler convinced virtually everybody in Germany that his way was right. They believed him.  But the rest of the world responded with an opposite perspective, and today, most Germans would agree that their fathers and grandfathers were wrong, that Hitler was not telling the truth. He was not telling the whole story, he stood to gain if believed, his view took only the short term view, and it did not look after the intersts of others.

    Much more could be said about this topic, but one thing we should realize – children do not have a choice about what to believe, but adults do. If I stay in my own area and limit my input to sources that support what I already believe, I can defend a belief system that does not accurately reflect all that going on in the world.  That is true whether I’m a Russian separatist, a secular westerner, a radical Muslim, or a conservative Christian. Surely, as an adult, I have a responsibility to break that cycle.

    We are not looking for proof. Proof is too elusive. We are looking for enough evidence to justify a commitment. We’re looking for a belief system that seems to be complete, coherent, free of wrong motives, and which over the long term is going to serve the interests of others as well as myself. Evidence that supports such a belief system justifies making a commitment to it. We can make that commitment and still keep an open mind, and time will tell if we have found the truth. Then, as new evidence becomes available, we can make adjustments to our beliefs, without changing the basic requirements – that they be as complete as possible, apparently coherent, free of wrong motives, and serve others over the long term as well as myself.

    The world is waging a war with words, but there is enough evidence out there that we can know what to believe, and be right. I believe that.

Bill Mauldin, publisher and missionary
13 Feb 2015

Nav tādu Greja/pelēkā nokrāsu (nevienas pašas)

    Mēs visi zinām, ka jau kādu laiku kinoteātros tiek izrādīta filma “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas”. Tā ir filma, kas balstīta uz E.L.Džeimsas slavenā erotiskā romāna pamatiem, un visā pasaulē ir pārdoti vairāk kā 100 miljonu šīs grāmatas kopiju.

    Tā kā šī grāmata ir izdota jau pirms laba laika, ir veikti daži pētījumi, kurus var attiecināt arī uz filmu. Izdevums The Journal of Women's Health ir publicējis divus Mičiganas štata universitātes Cilvēku attīstības un Ģimenes studiju departamenta profesores un priekšsēdētājas Eimijas Bonomi rakstus. Pirmais pētījums tika veikts, lai noteiktu, vai grāmata iedrošina un atbalsta emocionālu un seksuālu vardarbību [1]. Atbilde ir – jā. Otrajā pētījumā tika mēģināts noskaidrot, vai vardarbība, kas atainota grāmatā un realitāte, ko piedzīvo sievietes, kas lasījušas šo grāmatu, ir savstarpēji saistītas [2]. Izrādās, ka tā ir. Pētījumā tika novērota spēcīga saikne starp grāmatas “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas” lasīšanu un risku sieviešu veselībai (ieskaitot vardarbību, sieviešu padarīšanu par upuriem un ēšanas traucējumus). Citiem vārdiem sakot, ja sieviete lasa “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas”, viņa vai nu jau cieš no ēšanas traucējumiem un vardarbības, ko nodara “intīms partneris”, vai ir daudz lielāka varbūtība, ka tas notiks nākotnē, salīdzinot ar sievietēm, kas šādas grāmatas nelasa.

    Mēs augstu vērtējam runas brīvību, tāpēc ierobežojumu plašsaziņas līdzekļiem un medijiem nav daudz. Tomēr vai tiešām nav acīmredzami, ka tas viss mūs kaut kā ietekmē? Bērni no spēlēšanās ar rotaļu mašīnītēm un trīsriteņiem tāpat vien neuzaug par komunistiem, džihādistiem, rasistiem, izvarotājiem. Šādas tendences viņos attīstās, piedzīvojot lietas, kas viņus ietekmē, it īpaši, ja konkrētas darbības tiek parādītas kā ļoti pozitīvas. “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas” pornogrāfiju padara par ko pierastu un normālu. Vēl ļaunāk – tā ataino emocionālu un fizisku vardarbību pret sievietēm kā kaut ko romantisku, nevis iznīcinošu. Ja jaunietis, kura seksuālā identitāte vēl nav pilnveidojusies, noskatās šo filmu, vai mums nevajadzētu sagaidīt, ka tā ietekmēs šī jaunieša uzskatus par pieņemamu seksuālo uzvedību?

    Pētījumi jau pierāda, ka katra ceturtā sieviete cieš no seksuālās vardarbības, ko veic viņas partneris. Un tas notiek mūsdienās, kad sabiedrība šādu vardarbību nosoda. Vai nav sagaidāms, ka vardarbība saasināsies, ja tā tiks atainota kā kaut kas pozitīvs?

    Valda uzskats, ka seksuālo ierobežojumu atcelšana “atbrīvo” cilvēku un ļauj darīt, ko vien viņš vēlas. Bet tas, kas tiek parādīts “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsās” dod vairāk varas tikai vardarbīgajai personai, nevis personai, kas cieš no vardarbības. Vardarbīgais multimiljonārs Kristians aktīvi izseko Anu dažādos veidos, ieskaitot viņas darbavietas iegādi un viņas izsekošanu ar telefona programmas palīdzību. Viņš kontrolē viņas uzvedību, to, ko viņa ēd un ar ko viņa drīkst pavadīt laiku, tādējādi izolējot viņu no draugiem un ģimenes. Viņš Anu pazemo, draud un uzveļ viņai vainu, kā rezultātā Ana baidās sadusmot Kristianu, baidās runāt ar saviem draugiem un ir nedroša par savu identitāti.

    Lai gan tam būtu jāizskatās “seksīgi”, grāmatā iekļauti arī vairāki izvarošanas gadījumi, kad Anu ar varu piespiež nodarboties ar seksu.

    Šī nav pirmā filma pēdējo gadu laikā, kas aplūko “vardarbību intīmo partneru starpā”. Galvenā atšķirība ir tajā, ka pārējās filmas vardarbību vienbalsīgi atzīst par ļaunumu, un ir centušās reālistiski attēlot šausmīgās ciešanas, ko izjūt no vardarbības cietušas sievietes. “Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas” tiek reklamētas kā “neticams pasakas cienīgs mīlasstāsts”, kurā vardarbīga uzvedība tiek atainota kā piemīlīga flirtēšana. Atainojot vardarbību kā kaut ko romantisku, šī filma pārraida bīstamu ziņu par to, ka cilvēku, kas tev dara pāri, ir iespējams izmainīt. Pētījumi un miljoniem no vardarbības cietušo sieviešu pieredze pierāda ko citu.

    Viens no skumjākajiem šīs filmas aspektiem ir tas, ka tā reklamē vardarbību kā kaut ko “romantisku”, apklusinot miljoniem upuru balsu, kas grib tikt sadzirdēti. Šī filma mums principā saka: “Viņa uzvedas tā, it kā viņai nepatika tas, kā pret viņu izturējās. Bet vai tad beigās tas nebija tieši tas, ko viņa vēlējās?”. Vardarbīgi draudi un uzvedība tiek atainoti kā kas izklaidējošs. Vardarbība un spēka pielietošana kļūst pieņemama jo, lai gan Anastasija iesākumā no tā baidās, beigās viņa sāk to arī izbaudīt.

“Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas” mums saka, ka tas ir tas, ko sievietes vēlas – viņas vēlas lai vardarbīgas izvarošanas kultūra turpinātos. Šai kultūrā varas pielietošana ir pieņemama, vardarbība ir kas pozitīvs, un otra cilvēka piekrišana tiek ignorēta. Un visi beigās ir apmierināti.

    Psihiatre Miriama Grosmana to visu ļoti labi apkopo: ““Greja piecdesmit nokrāsas” jūsu meitai parāda, ka sāpes un pazemošana ir kas erotisks, un jūsu dēlam iemāca, ka sievietes vēlas vīrieti, kas kontrolē, iebiedē un draud.”[3]

    Kādā citā rakstā viņa šo domu papildina: ““Greja piecdesmit nokrāsās” parādītās idejas ir bīstamas, un var likt cilvēkiem apjukt par to, kas ir mīlestība un likt tiem pieņemt nepārdomātus lēmumus. Ir milzu atšķirība starp veselīgām un neveselīgām attiecībām, bet filma šīs robežas padara neskaidras, un jūs sākat domāt: “Kas īsti ir veselīgas attiecības? Kas ir slimīgi? Ir tik daudz pelēkā nokrāsu, un... es nezinu, ko domāt.”

    “Mēs runājam par tavu drošību un nākotni. Šeit nav vietas šaubām – intīmas attiecības, kurās valda vardarbība (ar abu pušu piekrišanu vai bez), ir nepieņemamas. Tas viss ir melnbalts. Te nav nevienas pelēkā nokrāsas. Pat ne vienas vienīgas.”[4]

    Kāds ir mans padoms? Neskatieties šo filmu. Mēs noteikti varam iztērēt savu naudu daudz lietderīgāk kā atbalstot sociāli iznīcinošus atkritumus.

Bils Moldins, misionārs un grāmatizdevējs

[1] “Double Crap!” Abuse and Harmed Identity in Fifty Shades of Grey
Amy E. Bonomi, Lauren E. Altenburger, and Nicole L. Walton. Journal of Women's Health. September 2013, 22(9): 733-744. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.2013.4344
[2] Fiction or Not? Fifty Shades is Associated with Health Risks in Adolescent and Young Adult Females
Bonomi Amy E., Nemeth Julianna M., Altenburger Lauren E., Anderson Melissa L., Snyder Anastasia, and Dotto Irma. Journal of Women's Health. September 2014, 23(9): 720-728. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.2014.4782
[3] http://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/parent-survival-guide-to-fifty-shades-of-grey
[4] http://www.megmeekermd.com/2015/02/a-psychiatrists-letter-to-young-people-about-fifty-shades-of-grey/[5] Much of this article is based on Kristen O’Neal’s The Real Abuse at the Heart of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/fifty-shades-grey-and-abuse

There are no shades of grey here (not even one)

     By now, all of us know that the movie, Fifty Shades of Grey, is in the theaters. It’s based on E.L. James’ bestselling erotic novel, which has sold over 100 million copies around the world.

    Since the book has been out for awhile, some research has already been done on it that presumably applies to the movie as well. The Journal of Women’s Health has published two articles by Amy Bonomi, professor and chairperson of Michigan State University’s Department of Human Development and Family studies. The first study [1] was simply to determine if the book promotes emotional and sexual abuse (which it does) and the other one [2] was to see if there was a connection between the violence depicted in the book, and the true life experiences of those women who read the book. Turns out there was. The study showed strong correlations between health risks in women's lives – including violence victimization and disordered eating – and reading Fifty Shades. In other words, if a woman reads Fifty Shades of Grey, she either already has, or is more likely in the future, to suffer from an eating disorder or to suffer violence at the hands of an “intimate partner” than women who do not read such books.

    We value freedom of speech, so we place very few restrictions on the media. And yet, is it not obvious that all mental input has some influence? Children don’t become communists, or jihadists, or racists, or rapists, from riding tricycles and playing with toy cars. They develop those tendencies from experiences that impact them during vulnerable times, and especially if those experiences present certain activities as very positive. Fifty Shades is mainstreaming pornography, but worse than that, it shows the emotional and physical violence against women as romantic rather than destructive. If a young person, whose sexual identity is not yet developed, watches this movie, should we not expect it to influence the way that person views acceptable sexual behavior?

    Research already shows that about 1 woman in 4 experiences abuse at the hands of an intimate partner. And that is with the prevailing social viewpoint that such abuse is wrong. Can we not expect such violence to escalate if it is promoted in the media as positive?

    There is a tendency to think of the removal of all sexual restraints as “empowering.” I’m “free” to do whatever I want. But what is shown in Fifty Shades is empowering only to the abuser, certainly not to the one being abused. Christian, the multimillionaire abuser, actively stalks Ana, including buying the place where she works and tracking her through an app on her phone. He controls her behavior, her eating, and who she is allowed to spend her time with, isolating her from friends and family. He humiliates her, threatens her and blames her. As a result, Ana is afraid of making Christian angry, afraid to talk to her friends, and insecure in her own identity.

    Even though it’s supposed to seem “sexy,” the book even includes several instances of rape, where Ana is coerced into or outright forced to have sex.

    This is not the first movie in recent years to deal with the subject of “Intimate Partner Violence.” The difference is, the others have universally recognized this violence as a desperate evil, and have attempted to realistically deal with the awful suffering many women experience from it. Fifty Shades of Grey is being marketed as “an incredible fairytale love story,” treating the abusive behaviors as adorably flirtatious interaction. By showing the abuse as romantic, this movie sends out the dangerous message that, in the end, you can change your abuser. Research and the experience of millions of abused women, indicate otherwise.

    One of the saddest aspects of this movie is that it markets abuse as “romance,” effectively silencing the voices of millions of victims, who for decades have been trying to be heard. In effect, the movie says, “She acted as if she disliked being mistreated, but in the end, wasn’t it what she really wanted?”  Abusive threats and behavior are presented as playful fun; force ends up being acceptable because, although Anastasia is terrified by it to start with, she ends up enjoying it.

    This is what women want, says Fifty Shades of Grey: the perpetuation of violent rape culture. Here, coercion is acceptable, abuse is shown as positive, and consent is ignored. It all works out well in the end.

    Psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman sums it up well:
    “Fifty Shades of Grey teaches your daughter that pain and humiliation are erotic, and it teaches your son that girls want a guy who controls, intimidates and threatens.” [3]

    In another article, she continues:
    “The bottom line: the ideas of Fifty Shades of Grey  are dangerous, and can lead to confusion and poor decisions about love. There are vast differences between healthy and unhealthy relationships, but the movie blurs those differences, so you begin to wonder: ‘What’s healthy in a relationship? What’s sick? There are so many shades of grey … I’m not sure.’

    “Listen, it’s your safety and future we’re talking about here. There’s no room for doubt: an intimate relationship that includes violence, consensual or not, is completely unacceptable.

    “This is black and white. There are no shades of grey here. Not even one.” [4]

    My advice? Don’t go to see this movie. Surely we can do better than spending money to support such destructive social garbage.[5] 

Bill Mauldin, publisher and missionary

13 Feb 2015

[1] “Double Crap!” Abuse and Harmed Identity in Fifty Shades of Grey
Amy E. Bonomi, Lauren E. Altenburger, and Nicole L. Walton. Journal of Women's Health. September 2013, 22(9): 733-744. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.2013.4344 
[2] Fiction or Not? Fifty Shades is Associated with Health Risks in Adolescent and Young Adult Females
Bonomi Amy E., Nemeth Julianna M., Altenburger Lauren E., Anderson Melissa L., Snyder Anastasia, and Dotto Irma. Journal of Women's Health. September 2014, 23(9): 720-728. http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.2014.4782 
[3] http://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/parent-survival-guide-to-fifty-shades-of-grey 
[4] http://www.megmeekermd.com/2015/02/a-psychiatrists-letter-to-young-people-about-fifty-shades-of-grey/[5] Much of this article is based on Kristen O’Neal’s The Real Abuse at the Heart of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/fifty-shades-grey-and-abuse

Am I Charlie? Reflections on the massacre in France

    All France reeled in shock and anger when on 7 January 12 people were killed in the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo. As the news quickly spread around the world, cartoonists responded with satire, sorrow and outpourings of emotion.

    Just as quickly the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie (I am Charlie) began trending worldwide as people joined in solidarity with those whom they believed had died to support freedom of speech. Yet even as they abhorred the killings, others raised questions about the deliberately offensive humour and racial stereotypes prevalent in Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

    How should Christians react?

    Daniel Bourdanné, IFES General Secretary, was quick to comment on the complexity of the situation. ‘As we consider the recent massacre of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo headquarters in France and the other killings at the kosher supermarket, I think we should have two reactions. Our first of course is to condemn the killings. It is never right to kill another, even if you have been deeply offended by something they have said or done. So we can express our shock and horror that these young men have taken the lives of others. And we can express our sympathy to the families of those who have died, and also to all of the people of France who are grieving deeply.

    ‘Our second reaction should be to ask ‘what is freedom?’ Are we ‘free’ to say absolutely anything? Are we free to promote racial stereotypes, to criticise in any way we choose? With freedom comes great responsibility. I think that this is important to remember as we approach these events with grace and sensitivity.’

    Are we free to say anything?

    Andy Shudall, TSCF New Zealand staff worker, writes from a country where a public figure responded to the killings by saying ‘They deserved it.’ Andy thinks such a reaction is both blatantly stupid and dangerous.

    ‘We must engage in rigorous, complex and thoughtful processes as we contemplate our response both to the wickedness of violence in the name of religion and the publication of offensive cartoons; be they satirical or otherwise.

    ‘It's complicated. Some Charlie Hebdo cartoons are reprehensible and viciously racist. But the murders in the offices of that newspaper were not a strike for justice but an attack against freedom.

    ‘It's complicated because the Muslim population of France are much discriminated against and those cartoons will have fuelled much victimisation of innocents within France and further afield.

    ‘Today I've seen "kill all Muslims" and "wipe out the religious" in discussions and comments. It is complicated because within the outrage against the extremist views which have led to this unconscionable violence is a real seam of xenophobia.

     ‘We need to protect satire - it is vital in healthy societal discussion and it acts toward freedom and against oppression. But we cannot simply wave away bile and prejudice that masquerades as satire.

    It's definitely not complicated to describe the actions of those attackers as evil. It is complicated in the aftermath not to canonise racism and xenophobia.’

    Is there hope for the future?

   Isabelle Veldhuizen, staff with GBU France, who fears that the killings will only encourage further secularization in France, wanted to pull back a little from the politicisation of the event. She agreed with a blog post that called Christians to pray – for the victims’ and the terrorists’ families, for justice – and to remember that we have a clear message of hope. She added, ‘In the past few days I have been pleasantly surprised by how French people reacted: with solidarity and care, rather than anger at Muslims.

    ‘For the future I am a bit afraid (but God is full of surprises so hopefully I'll be wrong!) that this incident will give another pretext for stronger and stronger pushing for secularism, because politics use everything as excuse to go in that direction.

Penny Vinden, IFES

13 Jan 2015

Source: http://ifesworld.org/en/blog/2015/01/am-i-charlie-reflections-massacre-france

Vai es esmu Čārlijs? Pārdomas par notikumiem Francijā

   

Kad 7.janvārī franču satīriskās iknedēļas avīzes “Charlie Hebdo” redakcijā tika nogalināti 12 cilvēki, Franciju pāršalca šoks un dusmas. Ziņām strauji izplatoties pa visu pasauli, karikatūristi uz notikušo atbildēja ar asprātīgām dzēlībām, kā arī paužot skumjas un dažādas citas pāriplūstošas emocijas.

     Vienlaikus ar daudzu cilvēku iesaistīšanos atbalsta akcijā par tiem, kuri, viņuprāt, bija miruši izteiksmes brīvības vārdā, interneta vidē un citur pasaulē milzīgā ātrumā izplatījās arī mirkļa birka #JeSuisCharlie(Es esmu Čārlijs). Lai gan kamēr vieni pauda savu riebumu pret slepkavībām, citi lika aizdomāties par apzināti aizvainojošo humoru un rasu stereotipiem, kas dominēja Čārlija Hebdona karikatūrās.

    Kā uz to vajadzētu reaģēt kristiešiem?

Daniels Bordanē (Daniel Bourdanné), IFES ģenerālsekretārs lieki nekavējās paust savu nostāju par situācijas sarežģītību:“Aplūkojot neseno 12 cilvēku slaktiņu Čārlija Hebdona galvenajā redakcijā Francijā un citām slepkavībām košera lielveikalā, domāju, ka mūsu atbildes reakcijām vajadzētu būt divējādām. Pirmā, protams, būtu nosodīt slepkavības. Nekas neattaisno slepkavību, pat, ja tevi kāds ir aizvainojis ar savu teikto vai izdarīto. Līdz ar to mēs varam paust savu sašutumu un riebumu par to, ka šie jaunie vīrieši ir atņēmuši citu dzīvības. Mēs arī varam paust savu līdzjūtību nogalināto ģimenēm, kā arī visai Francijas tautai, kura ir dziļās sērās. Otrā reakcija varētu būt jautājums: “Kas ir brīvība?” Vai mēs esam “brīvi” paust pilnīgi jebko? Vai mums ir atļauts veicināt rasu stereotipus, kritizēt, kā vien mēs to vēlamies? Līdz ar brīvību nāk liela atbildība. Domāju, ka ir svarīgi šo atcerēties, ļoti uzmanīgi pieejot šiem notikumiem.”

    Vai esam brīvi paust jebko?

     Endijs Šudals (Andy Shudall), Jaunzēlandes studentu kustības (TSCF) darbinieks raksta kā tādas valsts iedzīvātjs, kur kāds sabiedriskais darbinieks atbildēja uz slepkavībām, sakot: “Viņi to bija pelnījuši.” Endijs uzskata, ka šāda atbildes reakcija ir uzkrītoši muļķīga un bīstama.
     “Pārdomājot mūsu atbildi gan attiecībā uz ļaunumu reliģijas vārdā, gan arī aizvainojošu karikatūru publicēšanu, neskatoties uz to, ka tās ir satīriskas, mēs iesaistāmies sarežģītās norisēs.
     Šī situācija nav viegla. Dažas no Čārlija Hebdona karikatūrām ir peļamas un izteikti rasistiskas. Tomēr slepkavības laikraksta redakcijā nebija cīņa par taisnību, bet gan uzbrukums brīvībai.
     Situācija Francijā ir sarežģīta, jo tur mītošie musulmaņi tiek ļoti diskriminēti, un šīs karikatūras lielā mērā ir veicinājušas nevainīgu cilvēku vajāšanas gan Francijā, gan arī ārpus tās.
     Diskusijās un komentāros es redzu “nogalināt visus musulmaņus” un “nost ar visiem reliģiozajiem”. Situāciju sarežģī fakts, ka šī rupjā attieksme pret ekstrēmistu uzskatiem, kas savukārt ir novedusi līdz pārmērīgai vardarbībai, ir pavediens uz patiesu visa svešā (ārzemnieciskā) neieredzēšanu – ksenofobiju.
     Mums ir jāaizsargā satīra - asprātīgie vērojumi un izteikumi par sabiedrībā notiekošo, jo tai ir būtiska loma veselīgās sabiedrības diskusijās, kā arī tā iestājas par brīvību un pret apspiešanu. Tomēr mēs nedrīkstam pieļaut dusmas (žulti) un aizspriedumus, kas uzdodas par satīru.
Pilnīgi noteikti nav grūti šo uzbrucēju darbības nosaukt par ļaunām, bet ir sarežģīti šo notikumu atskaņā nekanonizēt, rasismu un ksenofobiju, padarot to svētu un neaizskaramu"

    Vai nākotnei ir cerība?

     Izabelle Veldhūzena (Isabelle Veldhuizen), Francijas studentu kustības (GBU) darbiniece, kura baidās, ka šīs slepkavības tikai veicinās turpmāku Francijas atdalīšanos no baznīcas, gribēja atkāpties no šī notikuma politizēšanas. Viņa piekrīt kādā blogā paustajam viedoklim, ka kristiešiem ir jālūdz gan par upuru, gan arī teroristu ģimenēm, gan arī par taisnīgumu, kā arī viņa atgādina, ka mums ir skaidra cerības vēsts. Viņa piemetināja: “Pēdējās pāris dienās es esmu patīkami pārsteigta par Francijas iedzīvotāju reakciju uz notikušo, kuri tā vietā, lai paustu dusmas pret musulmaņiem, reaģē ar vienotību un rūpēm.
     Kas attiecas uz nākotni, es baidos (bet Dievs ir pilns pārsteigumu un es ceru, ka es kļūdīšos!), ka šis notikums kalpos, kā vēl viens iegansts spēcīgākai sekularizācijai, jo politiķi izmanto visu kā attaisnojumu, lai dotos pretī tam, ka valsts atdalās no baznīcas.
     Bet kas attiecas uz cilvēkiem, es esmu iedrošināta un patiešām ceru, ka, atbildot uz šo slaktiņu, cilvēki sev uzdos jautājumus par Dievu un to, ko viņi dara ar savu dzīvi."

Penija Vindena (Penny Vinden), IFES
2015.gada 13.janvārī

 

Avots: http://ifesworld.org/en/blog/2015/01/am-i-charlie-reflections-massacre-france

Plānot vai neplānot?

   

    Jauna gada sākums ir brīnišķīgs laiks, lai domātu un plānotu. Galu galā - mums būtu jāizplāno mūsu dzīve un strukturētiem plāniem ir diezgan liela nozīme. Mēs to labi zinām un mums tas ir mācīts kopš bērnības. Turklāt nākotnes plānošanas jēdziens bieži ir atrodams visdažādāko avotu citātos:

    "Plāno nākotni, jo tajā tu pavadīsi visu savu atlikušo dzīvi." - Marks Tvens

    "Nespējot sagatavoties, tu sagatavojies neveiksmei." – Bendžamins Franklins

    "Tas, kurš katru rītu plāno dienas gaitas un turas pie ieplānotā, nes sev līdzi pavedienu, kas viņu izvedīs cauri visaizņemtākās dzīves labirintam." – Viktors Igo.

    "Jo kurš būtu jūsu starpā, kas gribētu celt torni un papriekš neapsēstos, lai aprēķinātu izdevumus, vai viņam pietiks līdzekļu darba izvešanai, lai vēlāk, kad viņš jau ir licis pamatu un nevar to pabeigt, visi, kas to redz, nesāktu zoboties par viņu, sacīdami: šis cilvēks iesāka gan celt, bet nevarēja darbu izvest līdz galam. " – Lūkas evaņģēlijs 14:28-30, Bībele.

    "Cītīga cilvēka nodomi piepildīti sagādā pārpilnību, bet, ja kāds ir pārmērīgi straujš un kustīgs, tam labuma pietrūks. " – Salamana pamācības 21:5, Bībele.

    Bet, skatoties no otras puses ...

    Jauna gada sākums ir brīnišķīgs laiks, lai pilnībā atrastos pašreizējā mirklī un uzticētos tam, ka nākotne pati par sevi parūpēsies. Mums nevajadzētu pārlieku aizrauties ar plānošanu – svarīgi būt atvērtam. Mēs to labi zinām un mums tas ir mācīts kopš bērnības. Turklāt jēdziens "būt atvērtam nākotnei" bieži ir atrodams visdažādāko avotu citātos:

    "Peļu un cilvēku vispārdomātākie plāni bieži vien neizdodas." – Roberts Burns

    "Es neko neplānoju. Es tikai ļaušu visumam mani pārsteigt." – Džons Kusaks

   "Ceļojums ir kā cilvēks – nav divu vienādu. Visi plāni, drošības pasākumi, uzraudzība un piespiešanās ir velta. Pēc ilgu gadu pūliņiem mēs saprotam, ka ne jau mēs gatavojamies un dodamies ceļojumā, bet tas pats mūs paņem sev līdzi." – Džons Šteinbeks

    "Labam ceļotājam nav noteiktu plānu, kā arī tā nolūks nav nonākt galapunktā." – Lao Tzu

    "Nu tad jūs, kas sakāt: šodien vai rītu mēs dosimies uz to un to pilsētu un pavadīsim tur gadu un tirgosimies un gūsim peļņu, – jūs taču nezināt, kāda jūsu dzīve ir rītu; jo tā ir tvaiks, kas uz īsu brīdi ir redzams un tad izgaist, kur jums būtu jāsaka: ja Tas Kungs tā gribēs, mēs dzīvosim un darīsim to un to. " – Jēkaba 4:13-15, Bībele

    "Bet dzenieties papriekš pēc Dieva valstības un pēc Viņa taisnības, tad jums visas šīs lietas taps piemestas. Tāpēc nezūdaities nākamā rīta dēļ, jo rītdiena pati par sevi zūdīsies. Ikvienai dienai pietiek pašai savu bēdu." – Mateja evaņģēlijs 6:33-34 , Bībele.

    Tātad ... kura tad no šīm abām pieejām ir īstā? Plānošana vai tomēr neplānot? Šķiet, ka ir iespējams nosliekties par labu, gan vienam, gan otram, atkarībā no tā, kuru autoru darbi, vai rakstu vietas tiek apskatītas. Patiesībā, jo vairāk es lasu kā par vienu, tā par otru viedokli, jo pamatotāki šķiet abi divi, lai gan savā ziņā tie šķiet nesavienojami. Bet ... vai tiešām?

    Pievieno vēl šai dilemmai faktu, ka mums dabiski ir tieksme nosliekties par labu vienam vai otram viedoklim. Veidu, kā mēs uztveram un mijiedarbojamies ar pasauli, plaši izmantotais sociometriskais instruments MBTI (The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), iedala četrās kategorijās. Viena no šīm kategorijām cilvēkus iedala pēc tā, ko viņi iecienījuši vairāk - struktūru vai atvērtību, dzīvi bez struktūras. Tas gan neparāda, kura pieeja no abām ir labāka, bet palīdz saprast to, ka mums visiem zināmā mērā ir dabiska tieksme nosliekties par labu vienam vai otram domu gājienam.

    Mums reizēm ir tieksme slīgt galējībās: vai nu/vai, par/pret, jā/nē. Gan-gan (pretēji tam, ka jāizvēlas viens vai otrs) izvēles iespējas ir vilinošas, bet tās bieži vien nespēj atainot to, cik sarežģīti ir izvēlēties. Vienkāršas izvēles par morāles, finanšu vai attiecību jautājumiem pastāv reti. Ja jūs meklējat skaidru viedokli par to, kuru no abiem izvēlēties – nākotnes plānošanu, vai atvērtību iespējām, tad šis raksts jums nepalīdzēs. Man ir žēl jums to pateikt tagad, kad jūs jau esat nonācis gandrīz līdz raksta beigām. Patiesība ir tāda, ka šī dilemma nav par vai nu/vai (abas izvēles pastāv līdzās un nav iespējams tās pilnībā atdalīt vienu no otras), kā arī tā nav par abi/un (abas izvēles daudzos veidos ir savstarpēji izslēdzošas).

    Sauksim to par vai nu/un paradoksu.

    Pieņemot faktu, ka tas ir paradokss, ko nav iespējams ne pilnībā atrisināt, ne saprast, tas mums ļauj pakāpties soli atpakaļ, dziļi ievilkt elpu un nejusties spiestiem izvēlēties labāko no abiem. Protams, ka plānošana ir svarīga, bet tikpat svarīgi ir būt atvērtam. Tomēr vissvarīgākais būtu pajautāt: "Vai manas rokas ir atvērtas? Vai es esmu gatavs ļaut Dievam, ja tā būtu Viņa griba, izplānot, sastrukturēt un sasistematizēt manu pasauli? Vai es atļautu Viņam paņemt no manām atvērtajām rokām jebko, kas mani atturētu uzņemties risku, izbaudīt mirkli un izmantot iespēju, kas tajā brīdi varbūt nebūtu pats loģiskākais, bet manā dziļākajā būtībā aizskartu kādu stīgu, patiesi mani uzrunātu?"

    Labi. Lūk, es stāvu – rokas plaši atplestas, gatavībā vai nu saņemt, vai dot, pieņemt gudrus lēmumus, vai tieši pretēji – uzņemties muļķīgus riskus. Ko tālāk?

    Piedāvāju pāris praktiskus soļus, lai atrastu zelta vidusceļu starp plānošanu un atvērtību iespējām jūsu dzīvē:

    1. Atklāj sevi. Izpildi kādu no personības testiem (iesākumam labs varētu būt MBTI (The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) tests, bet ir daudz citu testu).
Papētiet, kādā veidā jūs pieņemat lēmumus un mācies no tā. Jums ir savs, unikāls veids, kā atrisināt šo vai nu/un paradoksu. Vai jūs zināt, kāds tas ir? Zinot to, kam mēs dabiski dodam priekšroku, mēs varam izskaidrot, kāpēc mēs tiecamies nosliekties par labu vienam virzienam, vai otram.

    2. Eksperimentē. Jūsu pusaudžu un divdesmitgadnieku gadi ir brīnišķīgs laiks, lai izmēģinātu ko jaunu, saprotot, kas strādā un (tikpat svarīgi), kas ne. Vai jūs izplānojat savu dienu līdz pēdējai minūtei? Varbūt pamēģiniet darīt kaut ko impulsīvu, pavērojot, kādas izjūtas tas raisa? Vai kalendārs jūs interesē tikai fotogrāfiju dēļ? Izmēģiniet darīt kādu lietu vienu nedēļu vienā noteiktā laikā un paskatieties, kāda būs jūsu reakcija. Trenējies, pieņemot mazus lēmumus, lai tad, kad ir laiks lielākiem – karjerai, laulībai un ģimenei, jums jau būtu iestrādnes, zināms pamats. Brīžos, kad jūs izšķiraties par labu sirds vai prāta lēmumiem, pierakstiet, ko jūs darāt un, kāpēc jūs izvēlējaties darīt to tieši tādā veidā. Tas jums ļoti noderēs turpmākajā dzīvē, jo būs iespēja atskatīties un mācīties gan no jūsu kļūdām, gan arī veiksmēm.

    3. Radiet paši savu unikālo lēmumu pieņemšanas veidu. Saprotot sevi, kā arī sākot eksperimentēt lēmumu pieņemšanas procesā un atklājot to, kas ir vislabākais jums, jūs, visticamāk, ieraudzīsiet veidojamies veselīgus lēmumu pieņemšanas modeļus. Piefiksējiet tos, bet neturieties pārāk cieši pie tiem. Mums ir pastāvīgi jāspēj pielāgoties mainīgajai videi, kā arī dažādās dzīves situācijās ir iespējami atšķirīgi risinājumi. Tomēr nebaidieties izveidot un pieturēties pie tāda lēmumu pieņemšanas modeļa, kas ļautu jums virzīties cauri dzīves vētrainajiem posmiem.

    Jauna gada sākums ir brīnišķīgs laiks, lai plānotu uz priekšu. Tas ir arī lielisks laiks, lai paliktu pašreizējā mirklī, uzticoties, ka nākotne pati par sevi parūpēsies. Kad jūs cenšaties aptvert šo vai nu/un paradoksu, gūstiet mierinājumu šajā apsolījumā:
 

    "Un tavas ausis dzirdēs aiz tevis šos vārdus: šis ir tas ceļš, staigājiet pa to! - kaut jūs arī ietu pa labi vai novērstos pa kreisi." - Jesajas 30:21, Bībele

    Ieklausieties Dieva balsī, kura vada jūs jūsu ceļā. Ieklausieties Viņā jūsu atvērtībā un pieejamībā. Viņš jūs vienmēr vadīs pretī labajam.

    Svētītu jums 2015.gadu!

Patriks Nonans, organizācija "Navigatori"

Planning or openness?

    The start of the new year is a great time for thinking ahead and planning in advance. After all, we should plan out our lives; structure is important. We know this well. We’ve been taught this since we were young, and find this concept - planning for the future - reinforced in quotes from a wide range of sources:

    “Plan for the future because that’s where you are going to spend the rest of your life.” – Mark Twain

    “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” -Benjamin Franklin

    “He, who every morning plans the transactions of the day, and follows that plan, carries a thread that will guide him through a labyrinth of the most busy life.” -Victor Hugo

    “Is there anyone here who, planning to build a new house, doesn’t first sit down and figure the cost so you’ll know if you can complete it? If you only get the foundation laid and then run out of money, you’re going to look pretty foolish. Everyone passing by will poke fun at you: ‘He started something he couldn’t finish." - The Gospel of Luke 14, Bible

    “Careful planning puts you ahead in the long run; hurry and scurry puts you further behind.” -Proverbs 21, Bible.

    But, on the other hand…

    The start of the new year is a great time to stay grounded in the present moment and trust that the future will take care of itself. We shouldn’t plan too much - staying open is important. We know this well. We’ve been taught this since we were young, and find this concept - staying open to the future - reinforced in quotes from a wide range of sources:

    “The best laid plans of mice and men/ often go awry” - Robert Burns

    “I'm not making any plans. I'm just going to let the universe surprise me.” - John Cusack

    “A journey is a person in itself; no two are alike. And all plans, safeguards, policing, and coercion are fruitless. We find that after years of struggle that we do not take a trip; a trip takes us.” - John Steinbeck

    “A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” - Lao Tzu

    “ And now I have a word for you who brashly announce, “Today—at the latest, tomorrow—we’re off to such and such a city for the year. We’re going to start a business and make a lot of money.” You don’t know the first thing about tomorrow. You’re nothing but a wisp of fog, catching a brief bit of sun before disappearing. Instead, make it a habit to say, “If the Master wills it and we’re still alive, we’ll do this or that.” - James 4, Bible

    “Give your entire attention to what God is doing right now, and don’t get worked up about what may or may not happen tomorrow. God will help you deal with whatever hard things come up when the time comes.” -The Gospel of Matthew 6, Bible.

    So… which is it, then? Planning or openness? It seems that it’s possible to make a compelling case for either side of the spectrum, depending on which authors you read or scriptures you survey. In fact, the more I read about either of these two perspectives, the stronger the case for both of them appears to be. And yet, they can’t coexist… can they?

    Add into this dilemma the fact that we all naturally lean towards one end of the spectrum or the other. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - a commonly used and well-respected means of discerning what our psychological preferences are - breaks down the way we perceive and interact with the world into four basic categories, one of which is whether we value structure or openness more. It makes no value judgement as to which end of the spectrum is better or worse, but it does help us understand that we all have a natural bias of some degree.

    We prefer to polarize our options. Either/or, for/against, yes/no. Binary options are enticing, and yet they often fail to capture the complexity of the choices. Simple choices, whether they be moral, financial, or relational, rarely exist. If you’re looking for a clear-cut opinion as to which is the better choice - planning for the future or staying open to possibility - this article is not going to help you. Sorry to tell you that now, when you’ve made it through almost to the end. But the truth is that this dilemma is not an either/or proposition (both choices live together and can’t be pulled apart completely), and it’s also not both/and (the two choices are, in many ways, mutually exclusive).

    Let’s call it an Either/And paradox.

    By embracing the fact that it’s a paradox, unable to be completely unraveled or understood, it allows us to step back, take a breath, and not feel the burden of choice, of having to decide which is better. Of course planning is important. So is staying open. But the most important question is this: are my hands open? Am I willing to let God place plans, structure and systems into my world if that’s his choosing? And am I willing to let him take from my open hands anything which might be holding me back from taking a risk, seizing the moment, and grabbing an opportunity which might not make the most sense but strikes a chord that resonates deep within my truest self?

    Ok. So I’m standing, hands open, ready to receive or give, to make wise plans and to take foolish risks. Now what?

     Here’s a few practical steps you can take to find the best blend of planning and openness in your life:

    1. Discover yourself. Take a personality test (the Meyers-Briggs might be a good place to start, but there are many different options available). Look at the way you make decisions, and learn from it. You have a uniquely beautiful way of resolving this Either/And paradox. Do you know what it is? Knowing what your natural preferences are helps you account for inbuilt bias in one direction or another.

    2. Experiment. Your teens and 20’s are an excellent time to try out new experiences, discovering along the way what works and (of equal importance) what doesn’t. Do you schedule your day in five-minute increments? Maybe try doing something impulsive, see how it feels. Does a calendar interest you only for the pictures? Try doing something at the same time every day for a week and observe how you react. Practice with small decisions, so that when the big ones come - career, marriage, family - you have already laid some groundwork. As you weigh the balance between making decisions of the mind or of the heart, write down what you do, and how or why you decided to do it that way. This will be invaluable in later years, as you’ll be able to look back and learn from both your mistakes and your successes.

    3. Create your own unique blend. As you discover yourself, and begin to experiment with the decision-making process to discover what works best for you, you’ll most likely begin to see healthy patterns emerge and rise to the surface. As you do, make note of them, but keep them held loosely in open hands. We need to adapt constantly to our changing environment, and different times in life require different processes to resolve them. But don’t be afraid to develop a decision-making process than can be an anchor to hold on to and guide you through stormy patches of life.

    The start of the new year is a great time for planning ahead. It’s also a great time to stay grounded in the moment, trusting the future to take care of itself. As you embrace the Either/And nature of this paradox, take comfort in this promise:

    “Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, “This is the way; walk in it.” Isaiah 30, Bible.

    Listen for the voice of God directing you in your plans. Listen for him in your openness and availability. He will always guide you into Good.

    Have a very blessed 2015!

Patrick Noonan, staff worker at "The Navigators"