No matter what dies, that death is a tragedy

SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday July 20th, 2009

here was a story this week about three cougars being shot in recent days in Princeton, B.C.

Before I go any further, I think I should point out that this is an unusual story. It seems the cougars were actually stalking humans as prey; almost unheard of. In one case the cougar looked like he was about to pounce on two girls who were floating down the river in tubes.

Everyone involved thinks this is very unusual and perhaps the three cougars were siblings.

It seems that the RCMP and the animal conservation people were very reluctant to kill the cougars, and the language of the news reports, both on radio and in print was very balanced.

Now, all of that being disclosed, and at the risk of getting myself into real hot water; there was a sentence in the news reports, in almost all of them, that speaks of something different. The RCMP officer who was quoted said, "We had to do it before anything tragic happened."

Why is it that the killing of three cougars is not seen as "tragic"?

Now I don't want you to think I am heartless and misunderstand how tragic it would be if some girl in a tube got eaten by a cougar; It would be absolutely heart wrenching. At the same time, can anyone define just why the cougar's life is less valuable?

One of the cougars was shot by a hunter who decided it posed a threat. Again, I was not standing in his shoes, but I imagine that I would have no way of judging if a cougar was a threat or not. I know nothing about the psychology of big cats; I know nothing about cougars in particular. And I am going out on a limb here, but he probably did not either.

For that matter, neither would any single RCMP officer.

Sure, if a cougar were actually attacking my daughter, I would kill the cougar if necessary. Of course, if a person were attacking my daughter I would be just as likely to kill them if necessary. In both cases I would feel extremely bad about ending a life.

I would however, do everything in my power, in either case, not to kill them.

I firmly believe that this is our major problem on the global stage; we as a species have not truly come to terms with our own arrogance.

There are theories that place the human race at the bottom of the totem pole; after all, we can be seen as nothing but a scourge on the face of the planet. We cause the most destruction of habitat, ecosystems, and even ourselves. Of all the species of life that exist, we serve the least purpose, we do not contribute to the life cycle of any other creature in a positive way, except by choice.

A cougar, for example, lives in an interdependent family and covers a hunting range of over 300 kilometres, and its main diet is deer and elk. Their niche in the ecosystem is to control the elk population; and they do not even waste any of it. Once an elk is killed, the cougar covers what it cannot eat with debris and continues to feed on it until it is all gone.

In a pinch they will eat up mice and smaller animals too; keeping the population down.

Like us, however, a cougar is an apex predator; no one feeds on cougar meat.

There are a few examples of them attacking humans. It is rare, but it is possible the three in question needed to be killed to preserve more human life. I am not arguing that; I am simply objecting to the concept that the loss of a human life would be tragic, while the loss of a cougar life is merely necessary.

In this, you should read everything from cricket to house cat, from cow to African elephant. Death is tragic, no matter what is doing the dying.

As long as we can easily separate ourselves from the results of death, as long as we can justify it without peering too deeply into the dark recesses of consequence, then we are doomed to continue in our own self destruction.

Those three cougars were hunting; which means they were providing. If, as has been suggested, they were siblings, they are part of one family unit. If three hunters of one family unit suddenly go missing, there is a strong possibility you have just killed off any number of female and young at the same time.

So here is the thing. If we can start to see ourselves as 'one' of the occupants of the planet; neither the most important nor the most useful; then we can start to interact in a better way with the others.

If we can begin to have empathy for just what it might be like to be a cougar, or an eagle, or a butterfly, then perhaps we can start to see a better way to coexist with all other life.

It is tragic when a plane goes down and kills 150 people. It is tragic when a river is polluted and kills 150 fish. It is tragic when a family dies in a motor vehicle accident. It is tragic when cougars are shot because of human encroachment.

I am not reducing things ad absurdum; there is a better way to understand the interrelatedness of the ecosystem. One step along the way is to see ourselves for who we really are, just one part of the whole organism.

Violence is directly related to meaning

SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday July 13th, 2009

Violence is directly related to meaning.

We have probably all heard sayings about how dangerous a cornered animal is, or that violence is the last resort. The thing is that when we think of desperation, and how it often leads to violence, what we are really talking about is resolving cognitive dissonance.

That is a big fancy way of saying a crisis of meaning.

If you look back at almost every period of violence you will see that something huge was on the horizon. Back in the day when empire's ruled the world, the most violent period was when the barbarians were at the gate. Taking Rome as an example, because they are our cultural ancestors, there was a time when the barbarians were at the gate.

Almost before anyone realized just how precarious their future was, the culture began to become more violent. Crime rates soared; violent spectator sports like gladiatorial games gained prominence; and sexuality became a bigger and more confused part of daily life.

Almost without the populace knowing it, they were living in a state of confusion because the world was changing around them in ways they could not, in the moment, recognize.

But do you realize that the 20th century was also the most violent century of human history?

Over 100 million people were killed in two world wars. Many smaller wars claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

In fact, a survey completed for research at the Harvard medical school puts deaths during war at 378,000 people every year from 1985-94.

An estimated 170 million civilians were murdered by their own governments during this century. Places like Afghanistan, Rwanda, Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Chechnya, along with others, experienced unimaginable violence and bloodshed. Words like holocaust, genocide, terrorism, and mass suicide entered our common understanding for the first time in the last few decades.

In America, the later portion of the 20th century witnessed a dramatic increase in violence. From 1960 to 1993, violent crime increased by 560 per cent. In 1987, the U.S. Department of Justice estimated that eight out of 10 people will be victims of violent crimes at least once in their lives. Even more alarming, violent crimes committed by children ages 10 to 17 increased 400 per cent since 1960.

Canada actually has had a more stable couple of decades in terms of violent crimes; with the exception of the rate of murder, which is increasing every year.

All of this is not even including domestic and international terrorism.

The rhetoric of the politicians tells us that we must fight a war on terror, that violence as political act is increasing; but what we never hear any discussion of is what is behind the increasing desperation of people that leads to horrendous acts of violence.

What must have gone wrong with the world around you to lead you to the conclusion that the best possible next step is to kill as many people as possible.

And no, before you jump in with an answer, these people are not crazy. They have a genuine belief that there is a problem with the political and societal world and they must draw attention to it in such a dramatic way that change actually occurs.

Just to give a tamer example, next time you encounter someone with piercings, tattoos, a Mohawk, or some other counter-cultural expression of self, remember that this is the exact same thing they are trying to draw attention to; something about our culture is so wrong that it needs to be shocked out of its present state of being.

It is all about a crisis of meaning.

The American Civil War, or, if you own property south of the Mason-Dixon line, the War of Northern Aggression, was one of the most violent wars ever; it was fought between friends and family, because the definition of "America" was changing. Was it a collected band of individual states, or was it a unified nation with central government?

The two World Wars did not "just happen" to occur at the end of one of the longest periods of western colonialization. All of a sudden having colonies was no longer possible, so how did you define yourself as the biggest and best?

And what about right now; not only are there violent wars happening all over the place; plus genocide in two or three countries lately; but violent acts are up everywhere. People are walking into schools and shooting, there are terrorist bombers, and suicide rates are skyrocketing.

In the middle of that, every current economic system has dissolved. First the socialist economics of communism failed, and after the whole world became capitalist, that system is also dissolving around us.

I do not often agree with the current Pope. Well, that is an over statement, I think I have never agreed with anything he has ever said, until now.

The Pope, of all people, has called on the governments of the world to consider that this might signal the time for a major sea change. He concludes in his latest encyclical on the economy that we should be looking at "the very foundation of our system -- and to build on the bedrock of ethics rather than the sand of determinism."

I don't know what he has in mind, nor do I have a better idea than the way things are. But I do know that any casual student of history would be a little wary about the future.

To quote another great philosopher, Bob Dylan, "The times, they are a changing."

What we have to keep in mind is that our way of thinking about things, our way of feeling about the world, and the meaning we derive from things is all in a state of change.

It is a scary time, but it is also an exciting time. If we are creative enough, the future could be extraordinary.

Are there too many, or to few, rules?

SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday July 6th, 2009

Our intrepid editor, Norbert Cunningham, suggested a book for me to read; it is called "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker.

Part of my reading in the book reminded me of some old school social/political philosophy I learned back in the Mount Allison days of my youth.

So today my column will be based around a fictional argument between Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher from the 1700's and Thomas Hobbes, who wrote way back in the late 1500's.

OK, so here is how Hobbes saw the world; he said that ". . . during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war . . ."

The thing is, Hobbes believed that left to our own devices, we would all be violent and miserable; what we really need is someone to take control and force us to act in ways that would benefit us.

In the other corner, we have Rousseau who argued that ". . . nothing can be more gentle than him in his primitive state . . ."

Rousseau had the belief that indigenous people, when not corrupted by society and modernization, were essentially peaceful, selfless and happy.

But let me put this a different way; do you think people are naturally good, or bad?

What makes people different?

Now, a lot of people would tell you that it is entirely the environment, that upbringing and opportunity, and social status, and any number of factors make us turn out the way we are.

Others will tell you that they know people who are simply bad apples.

It seems to me that it is impossible to test this theory. There is absolutely no way to have two people raised in exactly the same way -- even birth order makes a huge difference in how we treat our kids. So perhaps the argument is not worth having.

If we cannot prove that environmental factors make a difference, and we cannot prove that people are born the way they will turn out, why argue about it?

Well, think about it this way, are there too many, or too few rules?

If we look at life one way, it is the rules that get in the way of our happiness and if we just could get back to nature, back to basics, life would be perfect.

From the other side, it is only the rules that corral us into being a workable society. What we actually need is better and stronger laws that force us to abandon our evil ways.

As you can guess, Hobbes' theory that we are all pretty incapable of rising above violence and need rules has always won the day. Witness the laws about seat belts and the taxes on smoking and alcohol.

I am honestly never sure which way to go with this. The Americans, it seems to me, fall more into a Rousseau camp. Although, it never pays to remind them that most of their political philosophy is based on the French.

Freedom of the individual is one of the most cherished institutions of the United States. Thus you should be free to own a gun, to drink yourself to death, not wear a motorcycle helmet and many other interesting things.

It is not anarchy; however, there are still speed limits and no smoking signs. There is still a sense that we need rules, but there is a sense that there is less that we should give up our freedoms for. There is certainly less trust that the institutions that make rules, be they police officers or government, are doing so for the common good.

So what do you think? Should you be free to drive a motorcycle without a helmet even though you are almost 100 per cent likely to be brain dead after an accident?

Should cigarette smoking cost almost nothing even though it causes some of the harshest and most expensive diseases our health system faces?

Do you trust everyone around you to make wise choices most of the time?

Or do you trust that the law will constrain them from doing what they naturally want to do?

There are tests all the time about this; remember a little over a year ago when they were doing a secretive survey to see what city was the most honest, and what city was the most helpful. Metro Moncton ranks pretty high when you consider how many lost wallets are turned in and how many strangers will stop to help you change a tire.

But is it because we are naturally nice or because our Maritime parents kept at us and taught us how to behave civilly?

The truth, as always, is probably somewhere in between.

To be open to the possibility that it is not black and white might be really helpful. Sometimes there are people we encounter who are who they are because of bad circumstances; sometimes there are people who are just born that way; but most often, it is a combination of everything that has brought them to this point.

Society is. There is no point in arguing against what has already happened as it is part of where we find ourselves. The real trick is learning to understand how it functions and why. The better handle we have on that the more capable we are of navigating the sometimes mysterious world we live in.

Religion believes we can all be better

RELIGION TODAY - Published Saturday July 4th, 2009

We are about as far away from Christmas as possible, so I thought it might be a good time to bring up "Holiday Trees."

Season's greetings, happy holidays and all the rest are touted as the best way to make the celebration of the winter solstice into a universal holiday for everyone. Fair enough; but are there also specific rights and rituals for individual religious practices that we need to honour?

Would we want to change the menorah candles into "candles of light"? Should we really have "Holiday Trees"?

I got thinking about this sort of thing this week because of a broader conversation in my head, the civic function of religious observances.

You see, I did a funeral last week. Most clergy of whatever faith do funerals on a constant basis. Many times we do funerals for people who have no religious connections of their own -- so we either get called in as the religious care providers for the supporters, or because there really is no "one" person who should do it, and we are next on the list.

So that is one side of the coin; since only some 20 per cent of the people out there go to church, 80 per cent have no church affiliation and all of a sudden need one. People expect to have a funeral.

I have no problem with this. The 'Rev' said the words at the OK Corral when the gunfighters were put in the ground, and they had never been to church either.

One of my roles as a clergy person is to perform a civic duty.

The thing is, it is getting harder. For example, who is a funeral for? In the real sense of what is going on, it is a service 'for' the survivors; be they friends, relatives, co-workers or neighbours. It is both a celebration of the life lived, and a formalized way to say goodbye.

It is also, in almost every case, a religious rite.

How do you balance these two things in today's society, when half of the people there may never have been to church, when a third of the people might be from another culture or religious background?

Should you?

A church is one of the few places that tries to appeal to at least five different "generations" of people, from net gen right through to builders, the people who actually gave birth to the baby boomers.

That in itself is an impossible task; tack on to that the idea that we must be the public keepers of religion in an increasingly anti-religious society and you are really making it difficult.

So to borrow a phrase, what would Jesus do?

Well, for one thing, believe it or not, Jesus never forced anyone to listen to him, and was not one for overt evangelism. When people came and asked him questions, he responded. When crowds gathered to listen to him talk, he preached. When people came and asked to be healed, he had compassion.

So there is thought one: when someone asks, be prepared to tell. The role of the religious person in society is to be able to answer religious questions.

Secondly, Jesus always challenged people to be better than they were acting. Religion is at its core a belief that we can all be better. So in every situation where it is possible, expect more from people. Not in a bitter, or confrontational way; perhaps it would be easier to say, expect the glass to be half full, and invite people to live into your expectations.

Last but certainly not least; Jesus always lived faithful to what he believed. This did not mean that he was a monk, or that he lived in a cave. He ate good food, he drank good wine, and he went to parties and travelled around talking to people. He took days off and had time alone. At the same time, he walked the walk. He was open, honest and understanding.

I think that to be a religious person in the modern world requires us to live in just this sort of way; and be willing to be who we are in a way that shows the best of what religion offers -- peace, love and hope.