Communication and Compromise: The Twins of Peace

There will have to be, at some stage in the tempestuous history of humankind, a line drawn in the sand where we, whatever faith we each may subscribe to, broaden our outlook and embrace the concept that all faiths are equal; all faiths are right and, by the same token, all faiths are flawed. A day must dawn when dogma and doctrine accepts that compromise is not necessarily a sacrilegious fracture but an unavoidable fact of life. For without compromise the only alternative is a tribal conflict, a constant clash of ideologies that can only in end in more innocent deaths with the only winners the lunatics who masquerade as religious zealots and lets face it, people who kill others are not in truth religious in any shape or form, they are nothing more than a collection of like minded individuals who tag their twisted insanity onto the back of well natured, goodly faiths so that they can best legitimise their base beliefs. This is not to say that violence should not be used in the defence of life but defence and offence are two markedly different principles and although I would be the first to advocate a strong self defence I can not abide extremist who by their very actions give credence to wanton acts of terror against innocent civilians

I know and have met a considerable amount of Christians and Muslims; not one of those I have encountered have been anything but kind, loving souls whose only desire is to live in peace with their neighbours while being allowed the generally accepted human right of living their lives according to their faith. Not every Christian subscribes to the view of the IRA and by the same token, not every Muslim is a member of Al Qaeda nor is every Afghanistan a member of the Taliban. These extreme groups with their self satisfying violent principles are nothing more than a sad, dark reflection of humanities more unpleasant side and there remains only one way to confront them and that is by communication. The organised religions of the world will have to, if not sooner then later, sit down with an agenda that proposes a way forward, a way out of the clash of religious titans, a way out of the impending Armageddon that is growing ever likely day by day as the world’s two largest faiths square up to each other with the only object being the single domination of world religion. The idea of having one faith dominate is a frightening thought as it leaves no room for any form of individuality at all, no room for tolerance, no room for acceptance, no room for compromise. There are those who have no particular faith to live by that have their own life codes; these too are good people who broadly speaking adopt and live by similar principles as those shared by Islam and Christianity. The principles of love and peace are not the exclusive remit of either of the two larger faiths but are ideals the majority of people share.

There are those among us who hold firm to the belief that organised faith, specifically Christianity and Islam are the causes of many of the world’s conflicts and without either mankind would be free of war and of secular division. This is not the case for as long as man has existed and for as long as he is spared men will continue to fight whilst they meet with unmovable dogma and doctrine. The only way to defeat both is by utilising communication and compromise for if we don’t then surely we all will continue to suffer.

Of course there are, and always will be, those who suggest that compromise is nothing but admitting defeat, giving in, but it is nothing of the sort. It is fine not to compromise ones principles when creating art as the object of creativity is to be unfettered and free of such limiting factors but when faced with human life compromise must be faced, embraced, utilised to heal the rift that exists and to act as balm to help heal the wounds of discord.

So much of the reluctance to accept compromise surely comes from the fragile male ego? So many strictures and foolhardy rules are placed upon us men from birth. To be free of such inane doctrines of gender would free and liberate not the only alpha male in us but would grant our weaker gender a potent, level headed, female ability to accept that in any community a degree of compromise has to be given.

This, of course, will prove to be the fatal flaw in my argument as the big three faiths are governed by the rules of men, certainly not of God as surely the supreme being would not be so shackled to the self same frail human logic, and they may find that adopting anything mildly viewed as of being female is not justification enough to allow a debate let alone adapt a doctrine to. Nonetheless, we have the evidence of ages, of our collective human history to review and revisit to see that it is our inability to even think of compromise that has caused so many problems.
One only has to look at the references made about women in the three major monotheist’s religious works to know that women and all things female are considered to be somehow weaker than the male variant. The natural physical differences are often employed to highlight the male’s superior physicality. This may be the general accepted view which in itself is only true in the majority of cases but not as a given fact as there are some individual women who are equally capable of defending themselves. The male physique is by and large more robust, more powerful but I strongly doubt that any man in his right mind would like to have the greater part of his life punctuated by blood or voluntarily go through childbirth. Men may be physically stronger but they are no tougher, no more resistant to pain than women, in fact I would be so bold as to suggest that women are as naturally resistant to pain as men are naturally larger and more able to lift heavy objects.

But I don’t want to dwell on what has been discussed to the point of tedium regarding equality, nor do I want to go over historically ‘old ground’. My point is this; the three big monotheist faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have doctrines that are founded on the fear of women rather than the respect of them. All three faiths, and I appreciate that all have somewhat evolved and during that evolution changed their opinions and practises but still the fact remains, as does the dogma passed down by countless years of tradition, that women are to be feared not followed.

That fear manifests itself into being seen as a weakness, a sentimentality that prevents female emotion and the natural desire to protect offspring at any cost as lacking the steel reserve of men. This is a false ideology as in point of fact it is women who are tougher and whose nature given desire to provide security to those in their protectorate grants them the intellectual and emotional ability to see the logic in compromise. A man is more likely than a woman to violently protect his territory whereas a women is more likely to protect her offspring at any cost and with as equal a violence as that produced by any male but with the additional layer of emotion that so many males do not have; the vision to see that compromise will benefit the family, the herd, the tribe, the nation and therefore grant security to all.

Obviously, I am not suggesting that women are a paragon of peaceful virtue, that would be wantonly misleading of me to make such a suggestion. Women too can be equally cruel and violent, equally as barbaric as men in times of war. We only have to recall Boudica of the Iceni, that ancient British warrior queen who plagued the Roman forces to know what an angry woman can do. Then there was Queen Elizabeth the first who was born with a steel rod running through her. Both were capable of horrendous deeds but that is not the point I am making. Women, by nature and as a genearl rule, like to bring peace and stability where ever possible as this provides them with a sense of security. It is only after that security has been broken that they will open their claws to strike.

Something like 95 % of the world’s scientists now agree that Global Warming is going to bring cataclysmic changes to our globe. The majority agree that the human race has added to these natural changes and should now play their part in acting responsibly with the world’s resources. It is a situation that may see, ultimately, the greatest challenge we humans have yet faced but still, in the face of forces far greater than our selves we prevaricate and delay. This same evasion is evident in our disagreements. One side takes one point of view whilst the other side does the polar opposite. With war though, rather than nothing being done, a vile, unspeakable horror is unleashed and once initiated the juggernauts remorselessly roll on clashing against each other until one or other destructs or rusts.

This need not be the case. Communication is not acquiescence, compromise is not defeat.
Perhaps it is now time for more women to lead us as they have the courage to engage in communication with even the fiercest of foes and they also see compromise as a tool for peace and not as a state of concession.

.