Henri Reynard Speaks Out

Know What I'm Against, But What Am I For?

---

At a peace rally that I attended yesterday that question was asked. The rally was held in a church that I have never entered since I lived in this town. I am not a real advocate of organized religion; I think God can sort out the good from the evil without the help of checking attendance records at church. I also think it is easier to define yourself by what you are against in this world than what you are for. I too suffer from the common dilemma of too much to be against and not enough to be for in my world. It takes a reminder like that question to refocus my attention on the positive values that I use to define my nature. It is easy to be for abstract things like Justice and Peace. The meaning in what we are for is derived from how we use those things in the art of living. For instance I am for argumentative grandchildren and against argumentative children. I am for comfortable clothing and against stiff formal wear. I am for good whole food and against anything that looks like it is predigested by the cooking process or damaged by an overzealous chef. Most of all I am for the pleasure derived from doing the right thing, not always an easy proposition.

When we define what we are for, first, that should then define what we are against. I have seldom met a real advocate of war; most of the people I disagree with about that subject merely want to use war to get to peace. Peace is at least nothing I have ever heard anyone rail and rant against. Well maybe there was one sergeant in basic training but it was his job to make us into warriors, poor fellow. It is just those of us who think that peace coming out of war is unlikely as good coming out of evil or kindness coming out of anger that most of the people who want us to support our troops have trouble with. I support our troops! I know what shitty positions we can stick them in without even trying. I just think using them for any purpose except in self-defense is wrong. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! I seem to be stuck on that word. It is because I seldom use the other word, the four letter one to describe the actions of those I oppose, Evil, yes that's the one. Evil is always capitalized in every comic book I have ever read. It has made me cautious about using that word to describe those who oppose me. When others tar their enemies with that brush I listen for the comic book balloon that surrounds such pronouncements, it creates a false echo around everything that appears within it.

Make no mistake, there is evil in plenty in the world, it is more common than dirt in some places on our planet. Cruelty is evil, even cruelty done in a good cause. Abuse of those who depend on us is evil, whether done by leaders of nations or a parent in a household. Lying is normally too common to be evil but there are evil lies told every day. Spreading distrust of the honor of another human being can be evil if it is done against the known truth about that person. Torture is evil, as is the use of power to oppress others. The use of the collective power of the press to destroy the truth is evil. Note that all of the descriptions of what is evil are acts of one kind or another committed by one or more persons on another or a multitude of people. Such evil acts include terrorism, but terrorism is no more evil than many of the other acts enumerated here, just more frightening..

Are there such things as evil men and women, or evil nations? I have seen those who embrace evil as their power in our world. Does that make the person evil? Jesus would not have had it be so; he would have looked for a way to cast out the evil spirit in those people. Can a whole nation be evil? Nations have no conscience they are abstractions. Evil is in the intent of the doer and the destruction done to another. Nations can do great evil, but it is not in their nature to be evil. That is why such pronouncements as to name countries as "evil" by a man as powerful of the President of the United States serve no good end. Is war evil? It is among the great evils invented by human beings. Can it do good? Not to those who are its victims, only for those who use it to establish their power over others. Can evil be eradicated by war? Evil is in the nature of humans and part of their range of behavior toward one another, it will always be with us.

It is perhaps the easiest thing on earth to declare your hatred for evil; that is something easy to be against. The question we must all answer is what are we for that opposes evil? It should be an easy question to answer but it seems to be subject to a lot of interpretation. If I am against the evil of war can I support our troops? Of course I can! They are fellow travelers on this confusing planet and while they may commit evil acts in war it is the nature of war that responsibility for those acts is spread out across the whole society making war. The troops are no more evil than those of us who want to stop war in this nation; they are just forced to be closer to the results of the evils of war. It would be profoundly evil to send these men and women out in the world to commit horrible acts on our behalf and then to condemn them for committing those acts.
Does this position mean that we have to support the war itself in order to support our troops? No it is that distinction that is lost on those who curse peace protestors and commit acts of violence against them. We can abhor the policy of the nation that forced our troops to wage the war and support their efforts to make the world a better place in spite of war being the instrument that they are forced to use. The answer to that question is in the nature of being for peace and therefore opposed to war rather than merely opposed to war. If the point of life is to affirm the good and eradicate the evil in ourselves first and then in the world around us then if we are for peace it is our statement about war. That position is not antagonistic to the troops who are among the victims of a national policy of waging war. In fact it supports their search for dignity and good in a complex and confusing world. There are acts of great courage and profound decency found on the field of battle in wars waged by our nation. Does that mean the nature of war is changing? No it merely means that the good in humanity will come out no matter how terrible the task in front of them may be. It also speaks well of our troops that they risk death in order to make life better for their fellow humans. It is their leadership from the political side of this nation that we must argue with, not their intent as good warriors and caring human beings.

Oh yes I am splitting hairs again, I am profoundly interested in hairsplitting, it is a useful skill if you want to get down to the essence of things. We are a fractious species and our wars are a part of the world we live in today. The attempt to control weapons that can destroy huge masses of people will fail as long as our world is as dangerous as it is by its nature unless we use all of our tools to devise a true method for containment. We are getting to the point of knowledge where so many dangerous bits of knowledge are lying around waiting to be used by those who think war is an answer to ending that fractiousness that such weapons will get more and more common in spite of our efforts to suppress them by using war. We will ultimately fail to control Weapons of Mass Destruction if a rule of law is not supported by all nations that can prevent that proliferation. Eradicating those weapons by use of the structures of international law is the only way that offers us a chance to succeed. That is why those of us who support peaceful means of controlling those dread weapons are for international law and against unilateral war. God bless and keep you and our troops and our protestors safe in these trying times.