God, Country and Family

 

Families perpetuate their own myths,

     cycled through time and an unwavering length of infants;

follow the same road, child,

     and don't hesitate to swear

     to god-country-family.

 

Countries perpetuate their own logic,

     projected in color TVs and neon lights;

perfidy is unpatriotic, child,

     don't ever lose the faith

     in god-country-family.

 

God perpetuates sophistry,

     obfuscating virgins and listening to hymns;

ascend ever to the Father, child,

     and don't stop to think

     against god-country-family.

 

          Three traditional virtues: God, country and family. Religion guides us to lead moral lives; patriotism gives us a feeling of national unity; and our families are a home base - we can always count on them when in trouble.

         Over the centuries, God, country and family have probably been the most important social units governing the strength of a society. They provide feelings of cohesion and a sense of belonging. These are positive forces, which in contrast to other stabilizing forces such as a military or a police force, generally cajole rather than compel the citizens of a community to abide by the existing laws, regulations and conventions.

         Let's begin with the family. The family unit is probably the strongest and most pervasive of all social units. The infant is born foremost into a family, not a country or a religion. It takes years before the child comes to appreciate what country or God is supposed to represent, whereas the infant is completely and instantly dependent on his/her mother and father as a source of nurture and for a feeling of security. Children who are raised in orphanages or are passed from one foster home to another will develop, but they are likely to lack the self-confidence and feelings of secure freedom that "belonging" allows.

         In our society, loving, caring, responsible parents also save money for their kids so they have the finances to weather periods of adversity. Moreover, when the parents die, they usually leave to their kids everything or nearly everything they own. Children without families have none of these benefits. They certainly will not be provided with the financial means to attend an institute of higher learning for a period of years, which even in state funded universities is becoming increasingly expensive.

         Both positive and negative forces that tend to reinforce their importance and downgrade alternatives are perpetuated in most established social institutions. As the family unit is one of our oldest and most established social units, you would expect this principle to be particularly applicable to it. Young people just escaping from their parents' apron strings are under tremendous pressure to follow the well-worn path into a traditional family setting, date members of the opposite sex, get married, and have kids. Anyone who resists following this traditional path, choosing a single lifestyle, for example, is branded as different, strange, abnormal or suspect. They may even be considered worthy of ridicule and torment. Gay bashing is so common, that we read about such events in the newspapers with alarming frequency, and the "old maid aunt" fares only somewhat better.

         Traditional family lifestyles are also reinforced by religions that consider families good, and alternative lifestyles evil. Some very religious people consider gay lifestyles wrong and even consider people with dark skin to be inferior. Why are white supremacy advocates generally self-proclaimed Christians? National institutions such as the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of America, like the religious institutions, attribute virtue to traditional family life and the opposite to any of the other lifestyle choices. I have heard that homosexual boys and girls are excluded from these organizations.

         The family unit in America is so strong that almost all our social behaviors stem back to its influence. It is commonplace for doting fathers who are also members of the business community to intentionally but surreptitiously cheat their customers in order to increase their profits. They can then confer greater benefit to their own children, even though they know that their illegal or at least immoral behavior harms the children of others. It also allows them to provide their own children with a swollen inheritance, diminishing that of their neighbors. I remember my mother, who was very poor during the great depression of the '30s, telling us with a deep sense of disdain, of a family in her town that had arranged bankruptcy for their family business, in the process saving the money for themselves while depriving their creditors of their just due. The disgust she felt towards this family was so strong that it caused her to despise members of that family, even the "fortunate" children who had had nothing to do with the transactions. She spoke disparagingly about them to others and me. Resentment of this type, directed towards a family, can cause unjust and unwarranted feelings and actions towards another member of society. But it was for the sake of the family unit that the selfish choice of bankruptcy was made. Don't these foolish people realize that all human beings are more than 99% identical at the genetic level, and that someone else's child is likely to be as lovable as their own? Why shouldn't we share the beauty of infancy, childhood and youth with all members of the community rather than only with members of the family unit? There is no need for the parents of our young people to pressure their kids to get married and have a family. They need only look around them to realize that the beauty and joy they seek in having grandchildren can be found everywhere.

         The influence of the family unit has been prevalent throughout the development of society. The Greeks believed that one's fate is influenced by and closely allied to (1) one's own actions, (2) those of one's family, and (3) the whim of the Gods. I have always considered this analysis most insightful as it remains valid today. Fate can be a consequence of our own doing, in which case we must take responsibility for it. However, it can also result from the action of another member of our family (or community or nation), and it can also result from a chance event for which no one can be held responsible. This last possibility can be equated to the whim of a God.

         In the Orestian Trilogy by Aeschylus, the importance of family destiny is strikingly illustrated. The sins of the parents rest on the head of the child who seeks vengeance and expiation. The trilogy describes "the curse of the House of Atreus." In Greek mythology, a curse was something that lasted forever. Every member of the House of Atreus would have to feel its weight; all would be trapped in the net of the curse. Aeschylus, however, did not approve of the unending feuding cycle of revenge and used the Goddess Athena to lift the curse from Orestes, thereby ending the bloodshed. In spite of the more democratic structure of our social order, these principles still apply to the family unit. For example, a child may still feel the need to avenge a wrong done to his parents.

         Shakespeare's play "Romeo and Juliet" provides another vivid example of the damaging consequences that can result from family pride overstepping its bounds, giving rise to open conflict. In this case, two families, the Capulets and the Montegues, have a longstanding disagreement, the original cause of which everyone has forgotten. Still, no Capulet is willing (or is allowed) to associate with a Montegue and vice versa, and the members of both families consider it a matter of family pride to fight, even to the death, if necessary, in order to defend the family name. Of course, that is exactly what happens in the play, and tremendous grief results. While bloodshed resulting from family disputes is rare nowadays, it was still common in the American civil war days, and conflicts between families still cause tremendous dissention.

         The examples cited above illustrate how families can and do create the framework for destructive and divisive forces, generating feelings of antipathy between peoples of different families. In a like fashion, nations create artificial barriers between the members of an international community.

         People often emigrate from one country to another. If one is to become a citizen of the newly adopted country, it is usually necessary to swear an oath of allegiance to that country. How many people feel allegiance to the United Nations, or the human race, or the international community, or the biosphere instead of their country? Very few, I would wager. Yet nationalism has always been a destructive force, probably being a greater cause of war and human suffering than of any other factor.

How many wars have been declared between France and Germany over the past two hundred years? Yet today they are part of a single European Commonwealth with a single army. Any German youth can choose to enter into military service in France rather than in Germany and vice versa. This novel system of military service eliminates even the remote possibility that France and Germany will ever again find themselves at war with each other.

How wonderful it would be if we could eliminate national boundaries and form a "United States of the Earth" with a federal government stronger than any of its constituents. And if people would feel allegiance to this federation rather than their Nation, war between the countries could be largely eliminated. In fact, since there would be no enemy, there would be no need to spend billions of dollars on military, so all available resources could be spent to benefit the planet and its biosphere. A World government would prevent politicians with personal vendettas from achieving a position which might allow them to declare war on another nation or group of people. And with a strong international government, it would be possible to have a responsible world commitment towards maintenance of a healthy planet bearing a social order that supports only the number of humans that can be sustained indefinitely. Imagine being a citizen of such a world community and looking back at our present world: Wouldn't you consider our present situation of national strife primitive and barbaric?

         Religion has traditionally been a third divisive force. Although there are hundreds of religions and sub-religions, almost every religious person assumes the belief system of their parents. While taking a bike tour of Southern Germany, I was surprised to learn that the country is divided into small regions, each with its own predominant religion. You will find yourself in an almost exclusively protestant community, but travel a few miles away, and the next community will be predominantly catholic. Then continue along the same route, and you'll soon find yourself in another protestant enclave. I was surprised to learn that the boundaries that delineate these separate communities were each ruled by different princes some 100 years ago. The princes could choose the religion of their principality, and the citizens would be required to follow the belief system of their prince. That was a long time ago, but the people who live in these districts still profess the beliefs of their ancestors.

Since different religions profess very different sets of beliefs, it is clear that they cannot all be right, yet very few people sample the diversity of religions before making their choices. They merely accept the religion of their parents without thought. Nevertheless, people have often been willing to sacrifice their lives for their belief system just as they have for their nation. There have been countless "holy" wars, and the present era is showing no signs of improvement. Arrogant but powerful leaders such as Osama Bin Laden and George Bush seem bent on creating a massive "holy war" that could easily develop into World War III, a conflict far more devastating than World War I or II, involving atomic, chemical and biological warfare tactics.

         One further divisive force should be acknowledged - the human ego. Even within a single family, conflict and dissention may incite people to commit theft or murder. One of my colleagues spent ten years and over a hundred thousand dollars in the courts fighting with his sister who felt she had rights to a house that he believed he owned. Most amazingly, before and afterwards, they were emotionally close to each other. Only two strongly egocentric personalities would not be able to resolve such differences peaceably. Thus, individual egos can be considered to be a fourth highly disruptive force that can divide people into warring factions.

         The creation of a utopian international society requires that we eliminate divisive forces and lead responsible, ethical lives aimed at the long-term greater good of humanity. Such a society must be based on a rational philosophy motivated by compassion. It must affirm dignity and maximize liberty and opportunity for all. Most importantly, it must recognize our place in the Earth's biosphere and respect the rights of other planetary inhabitants. This humanistic view teaches selfless unity and respect for our fragile planet. It provides practical solutions to many of the world's problems.