It seems that there’s been such clamor of words in my ears for the past few weeks that it’s hard to sit down and sort them into quiet thoughts on a keyboard.
If you haven’t been battered with the details of two murder trials, in Florida and in Hawaii, you’ve succeeded in being a better hermit than I am. It’s the topic not just in incessant news media coverage but in conversations. By the time this is printed, we’ll probably know what jurors believed about which man was right and which wrong.
But that won’t stop the clamor of analysis, dialogue and downright gossip about what makes one person want and believe he has the right to destroy another, how civilized society fails to draw the line at what behavior and attitude is acceptable, or when stupidity or fear or bullying crosses the line into racism. Nah, of course it won’t be in such highfaluting language. On news programs or community podiums, the academics and advocates, news media, sociology and law enforcement professionals will be talking about it with the same earthy examples as grass roots folks.
The old guys in a booth at Zippy’s recall that they didn’t get all huhu back in the day when everyone referred to each other as Pake, Pocho, Kanaka and Buddha-head, a tradition that began when first-generation immigrant plantation workers were housed in separately ethnic camps. I’m not so sure it was the good-humored golden melting pot as their memories allow.
The young parents in folding chairs at the kids’ sports events talk seriously about “sportsmanship” but aren’t even conscious when their conversation segues into speculation about one or another kid’s advantage because of his size, or his speed, which they link to his ethnicity.
People of an age to tune into lyrics of modern music don’t even blink when they hear the “N” word or the “M” word, and if the “F” word offends, forget about going to the movies. There’s a clamor that I do choose to tune out.
A cluster of folks at a church event tentatively explored whether the “H” word offends. Oh, wait, it’s OK to say haole, right. As long as it’s minus the adjective.
It depends on the context, I said, and I have certainly not been oblivious to implied or direct insult. But I’m mercifully not burdened by raging testosterone. And my strategy has been to give my specific ancestry as a counterpoint to the generic word for Caucasians. But here I am, contributing to the clamor in my head.
We got focused on the “K” word at an interfaith gathering July 3. People came up with examples of the ways kill carries positive connotations in our society.
He’s a ladykiller. She dresses to kill. He made a killing in the stock market. The volleyball team wins with a lot of kills. The Warriors have the killer spirit.
One attendee pointed to a recent television program with musician Jake Shimabukuro when the interviewer’s ultimate compliment was “You really killed the audience, Jake. You killed them.”
Another mentioned a public radio discussion of a recently published book, “Ninja Innovation: 10 Killing Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses.”
Accepted by all major religions
Retired political science professor Glenn Paige was the guest speaker at the Interfaith Open Table discussion, a gathering of people from several faith traditions. The informal, open-to-the-public seminar is reconvened at 7 a.m. on the first Wednesday each month at Harris United Methodist Church in downtown Honolulu.
Just as the stories of one man killing another were headlined as crimes, the professor reminded the small crowd that the teachings of all major religions accept killing and all governments consider killing within their valid authority.
An Army veteran who served in the Korean War, Paige has researched and ruminated on humanity’s embrace of killing as a natural and accepted behavior for decades of his professional life. His 26 years at the University of Hawaii followed teaching at Princeton University and the Seoul National University in South Korea.
He is known for developing the concept of a nonkilling society, which is taught in political science courses at the UH Spark M. Matsunaga Peace Institute.
The Honolulu-based Center for Global Nonkilling, with Paige as chairman, works to disseminate the non-killing philosophy into the world through books and other publications and the development of classes, seminars and programs. His 2002 book “Nonkilling Global Political Science” has been translated into 28 languages and read by scholars in 300 universities, he said.
The concept of getting governments, religious leaders and education institutions to promote a nonkilling world is mind-boggling. So is the center’s website: www.nonkilling.org.
We may think religions already get it. Christians and Jews know “Thou shall not kill” is one of the 10 Commandments. How about the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel when Jesus told the crowd, “You have heard that it was said ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
We’re not familiar with the language, but “Let there be no injury and no requital” is a tenet of Islam. Buddhism sutras are replete with teaching against killing and violence.
Yet, Paige said, all religions have beliefs that support killing. “We have shared assumptions about killing. We believe that as a government, we kill under that authority. The basic belief of most people is that it’s human nature to kill in self-defense, a primordial response. We believe that you don’t have to have religion or government involved at all, that it is natural to kill to save yourself, or to save a loved one.”
“Religions align themselves with political power, supporting resistance to invasion by other societies. Almost all religions jump in and pray for their side to prevail,” he said. And that’s a theme we are familiar with, as politicians at all levels so frequently use “God bless America” in the context of current military conflict, meaning we are killing with God’s blessing.
Nonlethal weaponry
“Do religions need to continue to justify killing?” asked Paige, pointing to the fact that non-lethal weaponry has been developed. “In a nonkilling ethic, we would support defending ourselves with nonkilling weapons.” We are outraged at the hidden roadside bombs that don’t discern noncombatants; what’s the likelihood that we’ll expand that disgust to equally lethal but oh-so-macho automatic weapons.
“The main problem is not to have dialogue between faiths, but to have members of the same faith dialogue about what they believe about killing.”
“I’m not teaching doctrine, it’s not about creating a movement,” said the retired professor who describes himself as “a scholar about to leave the planet.” He said “the idea is open to infinite creativity. The genie is loose.”
The World Health Organization, in a report on violence and health, described “human violence to be a preventable disease,” Paige said.
“We need to combine the spiritual resources of all humanity, love for other people is in the language of all religions. We have to engage science in it, and all of the skills people have, from medicine to media, to the goal of nonkilling. We need all the arts to reflect it, song, poetry, theater, architecture. And we have to have the leadership to combine those things.”
He was solemn when he read to his audience the affirmation of the Center for Global Nonkilling: “In remembrance of all who have been killed, of all the killers, of all who have not killed and of all who have worked to end killing. Guided by the global nonkilling spirit taught by faiths and found within, we pledge ourselves and call upon all to work toward the measurable goal of a killing-free world with infinite creativity in reverence for life.”
The professor who would be prophet confided later about a mantra he sings like a ditty when takes his daily walks. He distills the nonviolent spirit of major faith traditions into a simple chant of “Om, aloha, Allah; shanti, love, shalom.”
It’s simple. It cleared the clamor from my brain. It opens up space to contemplate nonkilling. I hope it catches on.
