There has to be a concomitant moral response to why people are driven to destroy one another. To do this here are some salient instructions to follow. Moral rights are a necessity and the way to begin this dialogue is with those whose dignities were violated beyond human recognition. It is a belief that moral human beings have to accept the values of those who survived the horrors of war as the standards of moral righteousness and therefore rights. Blasphemy against God are crimes and no one human being is blameless in this regard. The task lies now in identifying and removing that blasphemy as a means of resurrecting moral law. It is probably hubris to claim that victims of world war II, especially those who perished in labor camps both in Europe and in South Asia, the Jews and those under the rule of a deceitful dictatorship. Non-violent movements during that time is as good place as any to begin such a conversation. But these two events come up over and over again as crimes that are not acceptable. They are not forgivable and never will be because the incidents also were connected to the affairs of God in our lives. The Shoah is not something God accepted, and brutality as a means of living is also not what a loving God accepted. Therefore, the number one lesson that we must draw as moral is that one does not make victimhood a right to their personhood but rather a place of moral contestations. EVERYONE should be a part of this important appeal as it pertains to self-government demonstrated by MK Gandhi and by ambitious democracies in the world such as Israel. Proponents of terror such as ISIS and AlQeida are ruled by the same laws that govern Blasphemy in religion. Their blasphemous activities injure and remove the one on one relationship that human beings are ENTITLED to have with God. No one has the right to take this humanity away. Laws from important religious authorities such as the ones in Jerusalem will take being to take into account events and judge them accordingly. Thus, if one is a terrorist or is training to become one, they should know that the hand of justice is going to reach out to them and mete out concomitant punishment. The only relationship to law a human being has in our world is with free individuals. God is widely acknowledged as the chief advocate of liberty and thus of a different dimension of human freedom, moral liberty. We need God’s help to repair lives and the only way to accomplish is to obey his works. Licentious, predatory, incriminating and other murderous acts that plague our world today have to be accounted for. Both free and enslaved human beings if they espouse the validity of truth dejure establishes all laws, criminal, civil, moral, commercial and so and so forth. Such is the power of truth in action. It is then easy to remove corrupt and disgraced people, whether they are governments, politicians, terrorists, gangsters, law enforcement and every other kind of human being. Without God life is unlivable and this is a moral reality we all accept whether we are religious adherents or adherents of a greater power than ourselves. This is the ONLY way to curb human egotism, the culprit of all actions in this world and beyond.
In 2008, The President’s Council on Bioethics tried to arrive at a consensus about what dignity meant but failed. Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D., the Council’s Chairman, says in the Letter of Transmittal to the President of The United States, “… there is no universal agreement on the meaning of the term, human dignity.”
Moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions use the concept of dignity to express the idea that a being has an innate right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. In the modern context dignity can function as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. English-speakers often use the word “dignity” in proscriptive and cautionary ways: for example, in politics it can be used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been applied to cultures and sub-cultures, to religious beliefs and ideals, to animals used for food or research, and to plants. “Dignity” also has descriptive meanings pertaining to human worth. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depending on how the term is used and on the context. Wikipedia.
Causes of World War II: Susan Heep, Pinterest.
Geneva Disarmament Conference 1932
“This was a success for Hitler because: a. it wrecked the conference b. it left him free to rearm however he wanted c. it drove a wedge between the French and the British d. British politicians, while they were trying to persuade Germany to stay in the Conference, had agreed in principle that the arms clauses of the Treaty of Versailles were too harsh.”
Prelude to World War II and the Partition of British India
Hitler’s virulent anti-Semitism had, since 1933, helped fuel his rise to dictatorial power over Europe, whose aggressive expansion into defenseless Czechoslovakia in 1938 was sanctioned by Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Munich. On the eve of World War II Chamberlain spoke of his pathetic betrayal as “Peace with Honour” claiming it would bring ‘peace in our time’ Gandhi when asked what he thought about the persecution of Jews, replied, “My sympathies are all with the Jews. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler. Gandhi expressed his tacit support of Chamberlain’s policy and called for simultaneous world disarmament: “I am as certain of it as I am sitting here, that this heroic act would open Herr Hitler’s eyes and disarm him.” To Agatha Harrison he wrote “My participation in the event of war would be no participation.” Gandhi’s Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, By Stanley Wolpert.
MK Gandhi is thought to have rejected the Zionist appeal for separate homeland for the Jews in Palestine. However, he made no mention of disavowing property rights related to the practice of individual liberty for the inhabitants of Palestine where there were a substantial population of Jewry. In-fact, MK Gandhi promoted individual liberty as fervently if not more so during his struggle for Independence from British colonial rule commonly referred as Satyagraha. What he was not prepared to do and rightly so was to be a power broker between the British, Jews and Europe. His coalition to fight Britain was made up of Hindus and Muslims. While the Muslims were a minority, Gandhi felt obligated to offer them the same rights as he wanted for Hindus and thus for all of India. To blame a servant of God, (he practiced civil disobedience based all most completely on divine ordination) for the offensive behavior of Europe and Britain is unfair and thus illegitimate. Many decry his refusal to come to the aid of Zionists against the barbarity of Hitler, a betrayal that remains intolerable and unforgivable. However, hind sight is twenty-twenty and therefore we of the 21st century are left with important tasks of protecting and promoting obedience of the civil laws, (not rights.) Therefore, societies have to strive to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness via embolden governance. In some cases, revolution and the practice of truth as a means of protecting society is the bulwark. The founding owners of legal Constitutions practice this mantra and according to Mahatma Gandhi it is time for everyday people to fight evil and take up its yoke as well. Non-violence is one way of formulating a case against tyranny, oppression, assault, imperialism and bonded labor (slavery) to secure victory that is determined as opposed to assured.
GANDHI: If I had been still alive at the time of your death, Sir Winston, I should have found it difficult to say very much that was favourable in your behalf. I hope you will at least appreciate the frankness of this confession.
CHURCHILL: Not only its frankness, Mr. Gandhi, but its justice. -After all, I had no kind words to offer in your behalf upon your death.
GANDHI: Nor indeed during my life. I fear I never struck you as being much better than, as you put it, “a half-naked fakir.”
CHURCHILL: That, sir, is a misquotation. What I really said was rather more severe. I called you a “seditious fakir.”
GANDHI: Well, I do not take it unkindly that you should have called me either “half-naked” or “seditious.” For, indeed, both were true of me: I was a revolutionary in a loincloth and am not insulted to have you say so. But that you should call me a “fakir”-a monk. I know what insult you intended by this. You intended to deny me the honour of sharing your own calling-that of a statesman.
CHURCHILL: Exactly so. Though why you should feel insulted by this I’m sure I don’t understand. It was just as much a statement of fact as that you were “seditious.” A monk, a mystic, a visionary-you might have been any of these. But a statesman-never!
GANDHI: I hope you will explain this to me, Sir Winston. A statesman is one who leads people, is he not? You must admit that many people followed where I led-in fact, many more, I think, than ever followed’ you.
CHURCHILL: A great many children followed Stephen of Vendome on the Children’s Crusade. This did not make Stephen a statesman. For similar reasons of religious delusion, many millions followed you into a collective act of rebellion and folly for which your country is still paying the price of disunity and poverty. No sir, a statesman is not simply any Pied Piper who can beguile a crowd into following at his heels. That is far too simple. He is essentially a man who pursues realistic goals with a realistic appreciation of
GANDHI: I shall leave to one side the question of who bears the responsibility for both India’s disunity and her poverty. I doubt this is a matter that any British politician could pursue very far without embarrassment. But surely, Sir Winston, you must give me credit for understanding how to wield power. Else how should I have managed to arouse so many millions to the struggle for independence?
CHURCHILL: You did that, of course, by playing freely upon their religious sensibilities, by indiscriminately stirring their moral passion.
GANDHI: But if this is a transgression, you clearly stand condemned of it yourself. After all, it was your gift of eloquence that inspired the British to their heroic war effort. My fasting and preaching was but the Indian counterpart of your magnificent BBC broadcasts. It seems to me we both stirred our people’s moral passion, for we both knew that a people’s moral passion is the greatest source of political power.
CHURCHILL: Ah, but I spoke of a “realistic appreciation of power.” The difference between us is that I knew where moral fervour must be bounded by political necessity: I knew where the compromise must be struck between principle and practice, between the ideal and the
possible. But you-you were an ethical inebriate: you spoke of “love” and “truth” and you went flat out for them-as a drunken man might leap off a housetop trying to embrace the moon, never caring what sacrifice of life or limb or simple self-respect it may cost. Why,
in the name of “love,” you would have denied your people proper defence against the Japanese! There are always cowards and simpletons around to cheer on such folly. But in my eyes, you were simply another sorcerer’s apprentice of the human conscience. If I may quote myself: “The human race cannot make progress without idealism. . . .”
GANDHI: I know there will be a “but” in this somewhere.
CHURCHILL: Indeed there will: “but idealism at other people’s expense, and without regard to the ruin and slaughter which fall upon millions of humble homes, cannot be regarded as its highest or noblest form.” Painful as it may seem to a man of your “saintly” sensitivities, politics is the art of choosing among lesser evils.for the sake of greater goods.
GANDHI: And what was the obliteration bombing of “millions of humble homes” in Dresden and Hamburg deed for which you bear the primary responsibility? Was this a lesser evil or a greater good?
CHURCHILL: A great, a regrettably great, but still a lesser evil; a strategy that helped crush the enemy and end the war all the sooner. And so to save many innocent lives.
GANDHI: I wonder that you do not see how deeply warped must be any concept of “statesmanship” that forces so good a man as yourself to order the mass killing of innocent hundreds of thousands in Dresden and Hamburg-and this in defence of innocence! What you are saying, Sir Winston, boils down to the oldest of political clichés: the end justifies the means. But how can we talk any longer of ends and means as if they were separable rather than an indivisible spectrum of causes and effects? MINT politics, which I called satvayraha [nonviolent resistance-literally, “soul force”], insisted that to
divide ends from means, even when this is done by a good man, is the beginning of evil and ultimately of political disaster.
CHURCHILL: Well and good But should I then have stinted in waging war against Hitler and by so doing have risked defeat? You know what Nazism meant. You know the risks we ran.
GANDHI: I know that Britain went to war to preserve the freedom of Poland and I know that Poland along with all the rest of Eastern Europe-is not free today. Similarly, I know the Americans went to war to overthrow the genocidal terror of Nazism and I know they
finished by annihilating Japanese cities with atomic bombs.
CHURCHILL: Eastern Europe need not have suffered its fate, had my wartime counsels not been ignored.
GANDHI: You mean Eastern Europe might have been saved from total Russian domination by restoring a few selected bits of it to British and American domination. Just as you were quite willing to save India from Japanese domination-provided we agreed to accept
indefinite British domination.
CHURCHILL: Do you deny these would have been lesser evils?
GANDHI: But when shall we have done with seeking to calibrate and balance goods and evils with such impossible precision! Moral rights and wrongs are not ,simply so many onions and potatoes to be weighed up in a scale. To what last, least perceptible discrimination between the vile and yet more vile does this weighing of evils extend? You yourself called communism “a ghoul descending from a pile of skulls.” Yet you allied with “Russian barbarism” to fight Hitler. You even said, “if Hitler invaded bell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” Apparently your “statesmanship” excludes not even an alliance with hell.
CHURCHILL: All this only proves that you were never a politician. You wanted perfection. You wanted moral purity. But the world is a mixed bag. There is evil in it, all too much evil. We must have the courage to be practical; which means, we must be prepared at times
to weigh blood against blood, crime against crime.
GANDHI: I must protest, Sir Winston! How can you call me a political purist? Who would know better than I the perverseness and weakness of men? How many times did I fast to atone for my Himalayan miscalculations of human goodness? Of course there must be suffering and perhaps death wherever there is human conflict. But we shall never have the foresight or judgement to make careful predictions and discriminations your sort of statesman deals in. We think we have chosen a means which is a “lesser evil”- but it perversely generates an end we did not foresee and which is ten times worse than the evil we sought to elude. So I insist: what we really know of good and evil lies here before us in our immediate action. We must be good and do good now, not later. “The only guide to a man is his conscience.” These are your own words.
CHURCHILL: Then what would you have had me do when the enemy was at our gates? Advise my people not to defy him?
GANDHI: The enemy at your gates in 1940 was the product of a long catalogue of vengeful and selfish actions in the 20 years before 1940-and further back than that. A catalogue to which your own people contributed heavily. Hitler was a monster of your own making.
CHURCHILL: An observation I made myself many times. I shall not dispute that. But you avoid my question: when he was at the gates, what should I have done then? Surrender? Should I have let him crush our liberty, destroy our dignity, our very souls?
GANDHI: I presume you speak symbolically, Sir Winston. It was, after all, not you who resisted the Nazis. It was the British people as a whole-as you yourself said: they were the lionheart, you were but the roar. Suppose Hitler had occupied your country. Occupation does not imply surrender. Could Hitler have destroyed the souls or dignity of the British people, with their proud Dunkirk spirit? The British who occupied India could not destroy our souls or dignity. Were not your gallant people prepared to fight on the beaches, in the streets?
CHURCHILL: If it came to that, yes. But we would not have fought nonviolently as you desire. That would have been useless.
GANDHI: You say that, despite the victory we achieved over Britain by nonviolence?
CHURCHILL: You did not achieve that victory from my government, remember!
GANDHI: But we would have, you know. Even you we should have “weaned from error by patience and sympathy”– or forced into compliance by sheer dogged resistance. And out of our nonviolent struggle you see what has come: we have freed ourselves and we have made you a better, prouder people, because we avoided as far as possible bloodshed and hatred and so forced you to recognise the criminality of your position in India.
CHURCHILL: Our criminality indeed! Of course, you can never admit what Britain brought to India. But my father was right when be said, “Our rule in India is, as it were, a sheet of oil spread out and keeping free from storms a vast and profound ocean of humanity.” And
but for your revolutionary precipitousness, the Raj should have matured toward greater justice and enlightenment.
GANDHI: How typical of you, Sir Winston! Such patrician generosity. So long as the downtrodden whether they were your own British working classes or our Indian masses-were willing to ask politely,wait patiently and accept with thanks, then of course you could be magnanimous with them, like a good father rewarding his children for their obedience. You could give social insurance and generous measures of self-rule. Never all the underprivileged wanted, but something more-than they had. But let them once demand their rights and reach to take what was rightfully theirs-as your workers did in the General Strike-and there was no open hand, only a clenched fist.
CHURCHILL: You are deucedly clever at steering a conversation into irrelevant detours. I seem to remember your suggesting that your satyagraha could have been used successfully against Hitler. And your proof, amazingly enough, is that it worked against us in India.
This is a very crooked argument, Mr. Gandhi. There is simply no comparison between the British Raj in India and the Nazi Reich in Europe. There is all the difference between them that lies between a not quite cloudless day and a starless midnight.
GANDHI: Of course you British prefer to flatter yourself on that score. You conveniently forget Amritsan and the Rowlatt Act, don’t you? I think it almost fills the British with pride now to say that nonviolence worked against them; it surely would never have worked
against other, less humane, less sportsmanlike people I like the Germans. But of course it did! You recall the success of the Norwegian teachers against Hitler.
CHURCHILL: An exceptional situation.
GANDHI: Every situation is an exception. For every situation is unique. How many such “exceptional situations” have men failed to recognise because of their blind commitment to armed force?
CHURCHILL: All that you say again proves you are no politician. For you cannot see the most obvious realities. I saw the horror and brutality of Nazism and knew that our flawed society and those of France and America-yes, even that of Russia-were better. We fought through to victory and we survived. Imperfect, yes. But amid our imperfections the ideals that Hitler would have ruthlessly blotted out survive. Satyagraha would have saved nothing from Hitler. War saved something. And intelligent diplomacy-in the Twenties and Thirties-would have saved everything, just as it can save everything now, if the Western nations can keep their heads and their nerve. What you fail to see is the way in which power can serve principle. But principle divested of power is doomed.
GANDHI: What you fail to see is that there are sources of power as yet untapped in men-the power of their love and their ideals. And this power is not incompatible with intelligent diplomacy. Remember, Sir Winston, your country never dealt with a diplomat so courteous
and yet so cunning, and ultimately so successful against you, as this “seditious fakir.” Indeed, my argument is that the power of love and idealism alone can generate intelligent diplomacy, by which I mean open communication and fair bargaining. What would a little love and honesty have-done in 1919 to prevent 1939?
CHURCHILL: And what would a little air parity have done in 1937 to prevent 1939?
GANDHI: But must you always see power as a weapon? Is it not sufficiently clear that this kind of power- military power-can really no longer “serve principle”? This policy of deterrence your Western societies now cling to involves you in a commitment to
genocide, the very crime for which you punished the Nazis at Nuremberg. And if you should ever unleash that power, there will be neither principles nor people left in your societies. The technicians have, I fear, rendered your Realpolitik obsolete.
CHURCHILL: Not at all, sir. The weapons change, but not the ancient principle: si vis pacem, para bellum. In 1953 1 said, “when the advance to destructive weapons enables everyone to kill everyone else, nobody will want to kill anyone at all.” This is what deterrence amounts to, and what it requires is that we arm and remain armed as never before in history.
GANDHI: You can still believe that politics proceeds on the basis of such rational calculation-you who have seen madmen like Hitler rise up on the stage of history, you who saw relatively sane men blunder into catastrophe in 1914! When I hear you speak like this, I wonder that you can call me a mystic and a dreamer. I seem to hear the eloquent voice of a hopeless romantic: “the Byronic Napoleon,” as my biographer Louis Fischer called you. You are someone whose politics belongs to the distant past, to the day of your great ancestor,
Marlborough, when wars could be surgically neat and world affairs could be pursued like a sport among generals and gentlemen. But that is all over, you know. Ours is the age of the masses and of massive violence, a revolutionary age that requires a revolution in our
conception of power. And this, for all my failures and miscalculations, is what I offered as a pioneer of nonviolence: a revolution in the meaning of power which called for “the vindication of truth by the infliction of suffering not on the opponent but on one’s self.”
CHURCHILL: And when I hear you speak, I hear an even more distant voice-the voice of untold numbers of prophets and visionaries, none of whose inspiration would have been preserved but for the grim resolution, the hard sense and the steadfast responsibility of the
statesmanship that has always stood between civilised life and the barbarian at the gates.
GANDHI: I see, then, we can finally agree on very little. But you know, Sir Winston, though we never spoke to one another in all our lives, I believe there was between us, through our life and work, the greatest dialogue of our time.
CHURCHILL: On that we can agree.
LIFE IN CHRIST
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS
1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.
1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.
A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good such as almsgiving.
An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (St. Thomas Aquinas) does not justify the means. A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstancestogether. There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
The book was written in biographical form nearly 60 years after the assassination of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and challenges his image as a saintly, benevolent and non-violent leader of Indian independence, told through Gandhi’s own writings and actions over the course of his life. The book claims that Gandhi emulated racism from the Hindu ideology of caste towards the Blacks of South Africa and the Untouchables, instigated ethnic hatred against foreign communities, and, to this end, was involved in covering up the killing of American engineer William Francis Doherty. Singh puts forward that the portrayal of Gandhi as a great leader is “the work of the Hindu propaganda machine” and Christian clergy with ulterior motives; and, furthermore, it was based on irrationality and deception which historians have failed to critically examine.
The author, Colonel Singh, states that he spent 20 years collecting Gandhi’s original writings, speeches and other documents for this research book. An earlier article by the author, Would the Real Gandhi Please Stand Up in AAH Newsletter (publication of African Americans for Humanism) had resulted in protests by an active Black group in South Africa, when a statue of Gandhi was unveiled in central Johannesburg.
The book is organized into 7 parts and 30 chapters. It starts by presenting a majority of earlier publications on Gandhi and the interactions and exposure (if any) of the authors of those publications to Gandhi and his ideology. In the first part, the author starts by explaining the reason for yet another book on Gandhi and then continues by presenting the major previous literary work done on Gandhi including the Gandhi movie in the first part of the book. The book claims that the Christian clergy first started “the Gandhi myth” – they wanted to elevate Gandhi to a 20th-century messiah and then convert him to Christianity, something that would open the floodgate for evangelizing Hindu masses.
The second part deals with Gandhi’s alleged role in War against Blacks during the Bambatha Rebellion (Zulu war) followed by part 3 of the book in which the author talks about the methodology of Satyagraha used by Gandhi to uphold the status of Indians by preaching racial hatred and segregation against South African Blacks. Later parts 4, and 5 consider Gandhi’s politics before and after the Boer War in South Africa, providing examples of what the author sees as racism from Gandhi towards blacks. Singh states that racism against Blacks of South Africa was an integral part of Gandhi’s Satyagraha in South Africa, and he never fought for the rights of the native people. Singh further discusses how Gandhi actively encouraged the British to raise an Indian regiment for use against the Black Zulus, contrary to his image of a non-violent leader. The author also says that Gandhi had accepted the superiority and predominance of the white race, and believed that the upper-caste Indians shared with the Europeans a common Aryan heritage.
Part 6 of the book deals with Gandhi’s alleged caste ideology and black Untouchables of India. This part starts with a chapter on Singh’s views on Hinduism and the claim that it segregates people based on skin-color with the “Blacks ending up at the bottom as Untouchables”. Singh claims that Gandhi received fierce resistance from B.R. Ambedkar as Gandhi continued to play his “racial and ethnic politics against the rights of Untouchables”.
The last part of the book deals with alleged “White Murders” done during Satyagraha movements against the British which Singh contends have been ignored by Gandhian scholars. The book claims that Gandhi was involved in covering up the murder of an American Engineer William Francis Doherty during the campaign against visit of Prince of Wales, Edward the VIII. It also presents the content of original sworn on oath affidavit filed by William Francis Doherty’s wife Annette H. Doherty in which she testified that Gandhi resorted to bribery to cover up the murder. Further, the book talks about Gandhi’s alleged role in support of ethnic cleansing for his defense of Adolf Hitler, his “condemning” of Jews and British for not committing “collective suicide” by surrendering to the Nazis and also his condemning of Sikhs for not accepting the partition of Punjab in 1947 over their own massacre and uprooting.
It is only after practice and penance can one say with a degree of faith that God loves all, meaning both the good and the evil. In historical terms, God is present in a mad man such as Hitler, and a professed saint, Gandhi. The problem haunting humans has been how to get moral authority from a God that is loving, not moral. A law of value for those who listen to wisdom that is hard fought yet gentle on the soul.