Blindness is not just lack of eyesight.

I wonder if anyone recalls the tale, by H G Wells, about a mountaineer who finds himself in a hidden valley where all the inhabitants inherited a disease that causes all new babies to be born blind. Now after several generations everyone is blind. 

When this mountaineer arrives and tries to explain what sight means no one believes him. He realises that his sight gives him an advantage over the community and attempts to take control. He gets angry when the populace ignore his ideas. In fact they resent it and accuse him of having dangerous ideas and an unhealthy "obsession about sight" and a doctor suggests they remove his eyes that "are greatly distended".

Before this happens he manages to escape and climb his way back out of the valley. 

But I wonder if the moral of the story (as I understand it) - that blindness is not just physical but a mental shortcoming as well; that those who don’t see the world as you do must be guilty of an obsessions or accepting "fake news" as the truth, can be accepted today?

Similarly those with disabilities, real or imagined, are usually considered "inferior" and not worthy to live in the community. 

This seems to be quite a common refrain and not just in the social media "world" but in the political and business spheres as well. 

Pity - but the old saying " there are none so blind as those who will not see" still holds true. Unfortunately. 

Lying.

Lets start with the simple question: why do people lie? 

The thing is we all lie. I know that. We tell “white” lies to please someone; we lie to get out of trouble – “it wasn’t me, Sir!” And we may lie to serve whatever cause we are promoting.

Sometimes what was written 3000 years ago still has great relevance today. For instance it is reported that Odysseus (he who devised the Trojan Horse that was instrumental in defeating ancient Troy) when asked the question, “Do you not really think it is disgraceful to tell lies?” answered, “No – if safety is what the lie brings”.

What are we to make of that? And whose safety? Safety for the one who lied? 

No one ever likes being lied to – least of all the liar! And I really don’t believe that a person who consistently lies can ever be at ease – they must know that one day they will be caught out. They, metaphorically, must be constantly looking over their shoulder to see how close behind them is “truth”. Likewise no one wants to be known as a liar. Liars will fight tooth and nail to defend their “integrity” and blame others for any falsehoods that may be exposed. This is why liars hate whistleblowers. Whistleblowers generally expose the truth and shine a light on the liar.

But can one ever trust a liar?  

Surely a Democratic Society can only exist if trust (and honesty) is evident? Without trust in government, in financial institutions, in health care, in the judicial system (and institutional religion), I truly believe that society would collapse and chaos would ensue.  As seems to be evident today, however, many people, who should know better, will lie to gain power, pervert justice and pursue the accumulation of wealth (money) that seems to consume their waking moments. In so doing, I believe that, under their feet, such people prepare for themselves a steep inclined plane which propels them down an ever increasing slippery slope, lower and lower into ever more deplorable activities. And more lies. Lies to counteract the original lies.

No matter what legislation is promulgated, laws will never cure cupidity or ethical and moral shortcomings.

Recall that Confucius had this to say about justice and laws some twenty-five centuries ago: 

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.” 

Illinois ex- Governor Blagojevich

Amended 19 February 2020.

As you will see I wrote this quite a time ago – 10yrs to be exact – but the dear ex-governor has now had his prison sentence commuted by President Trump. I’m staggered. But there we are – a good example of “draining the swamp”?

----///----

Okay!  “The governor of Illinois has been arrested on charges of conspiring to sell Barack Obama's recently vacated US Senate seat.

The news that Illinois Governor Blagojevich was taken into custody complicates the matter of filling the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Governor Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were also accused to trying to "induce purge of newspaper editorial writers," critical of him at the Tribune Company, the US attorney's office said in a statement.

"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement...” (From ‘The Australian’ web site 10 December 2008).

I know that politics is often considered a ‘dirty’ game and I am no great respecter of politicians, of any persuasion. Just because they hold the positions they do does not mean that I respect them – they have to earn my respect. They can say what they like, it is what they do that counts and which may, or may not, earn my respect.

In this case I am just amazed at the audacity of someone like the governor. Does he (or did he) believe that as governor he is (was) above the law? He is just a man of straw – not worthy of the office of governor. He is just a common felon and a con-man to boot. He fooled the electorate of Illinois into electing him. But what staggers me more than anything is the lack of moral understanding; the lack of the appreciation of values and  that any conception of ethics seems to be totally wanting from his psyche, from his understanding as to what it is to be a human being. Maybe he now has an appreciation of the law of cause and effect!

As governor he is obviously not short of money. He has one of only fifty such positions, so he is already in somewhat rarefied atmosphere in American politics – he is head honcho in the state - he has authority, he has power. Very obviously that was not enough.

He must believe that his sole reason for existence is to make money – and the more the better. Now I am the last person to say that having a desire to make money is wrong, because I like money as much as the next person, but not at any cost. Does this bloke actually LIKE himself? When he looks at himself in his bathroom mirror in the morning when he shaves, what does he see? Can he honestly say to himself, if positions were reversed, “ I would like to be governed by me?”

What also alarms me is the is the possible answer to the question, “Is this what unbridled capitalism breeds?” Laws, no matter how tightly enforced will never cover all human failings. There has to be self regulation (self discipline) there has to be trust; there has to be respect not only for yourself but for others. Laws are essential but unless they are applied and followed from the bottom up (and not just enforced from the top down) anarchy will prevail and the ‘rule of law’ will not be worth the paper it’s printed on. 

I am going to watch this one with great interest. I hope and trust that my respect for politicians generally is not reduced any further and that he gets what he deserves.

And this is something wrote a few days later - also in 2008:-

The latest on the Illinois Governor case is that the Illinois House of Representatives has voted to begin an impeachment inquiry into Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell the US Senate seat vacated by president-elect Barack Obama.

The inquiry, approved 113-0, will be placed in the hands of a special committee. 

If it determines that impeachment is warranted, the House would vote on whether to impeach, to be followed by a trial in the state senate.

If convicted at trial the governor could be forced from office.

It seems that no one wants to be seen to ‘like’ this bloke any more!!

Hubris

In this day and age, when pride and excess seem to be common themes, and when extraordinary claims are made by individuals about their abilities and mental prowess, particularly by leaders – both public and business – it is well worth recalling that the ancient Greeks had a name for this – “Hubris” (defined as placing oneself on the same level as gods). And this hubris will be called to account. It always is.

Never forget that the “law” of cause and effect will always apply. Humans reap what they sow. It has always been thus. This “law” is unwritten and not codified but applies in every situation – it cannot be avoided and is forgotten or ignored only at great personal cost. This law incorporates the profoundly realistic doctrines of “Hubris” and “Nemesis”. Whenever there is any kind of over-weening and excess; whenever people or societies go too far either in dominating others or exploiting them, or exploiting nature, for their own advantage this unseemly exhibition of pride, this hubris, has to be paid for. 

Hubris seems to invite Nemesis and the “Goddess” Nemesis is implacable in the pursuit of her cause – justice; to track every wrong back to its doer. To the ancient Greeks Nemesis was conceived as shaping the demeanour of mankind; of keeping society in equipoise. She was often portrayed holding scales, a sword and a scourge. Nemesis deals retribution in due proportion to what is deserved – in a just balance.

Where governments, and the laws they promulgate are not founded on the ultimate reality behind all phenomena, described in that fascinating compilation of ancient wisdom “Tao Te Ching”, as the Tao (Dao) - the Way (the Flow of the Universe) – society will falter. 

For clearer understanding of this statement it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about justice and laws some twenty-five centuries ago: 

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.” 

In light of the astounding lack of moral leadership (and the subsequent loss of trust) shown by many of today’s leaders (both government and business) which reflects back on society and world events, I truly believe that it is time for everyone to stop, even take a step back and look, I mean really examine, their actions and see whether they make any sense.

The old saying applies to all – “pride comes before a fall” and no one can foretell what the effects of this “fall” will be or when it will take place.

Nemesis in her deliberations misses not one of all. 

Another way of putting this is in the old saying, “the mills of God grind slow but exceeding fine”.

The Catholic Church and its Moral Authority.

I ask the question – a valid question – where is God? Is God “up there”, here, everywhere? If, as I suspect, God is everywhere why is it then claimed that a priest is a required “intermediary” through which a believer can “talk” to God.

If God is everywhere is a priest really necessary?

This brings me to comment on the truly appalling, even horrifying revelations in the 2017 Report by the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The Catholic Church, while certainly not the only one, has the worst record of any institution mentioned. The Catholic Church, through its Archbishops in Australia, has stated, in answer to recommendations in the Royal Commission Report, that any change to the requirement for priests to be celibate, and changes to the confessional will not be considered.

My questions then are:-

Why is “celibacy” so important to the Catholic hierarchy?

Also, why is the Confessional so “sacrosanct”?

And why is it that “Canon Law” cannot be challenged or altered?

Celibacy:

The Church, as I understand it, considers clerical celibacy to be not a doctrine, but a discipline. 

There has never been any doubt, however, that it is an ecclesiastical discipline, as Pope John Paul II said at a public audience on 17 July 1993, that celibacy "does not belong to the essence of priesthood.” He went on to speak, nevertheless, of its aptness for the requirements of sacred orders, asserting that the discipline "enters into the logic of (priestly) consecration."

Because the rule of celibacy is an ecclesiastical discipline and not a doctrine, it can, in principle be changed at any time by the Pope. Nonetheless, the current Pope, Pope Francis, and his predecessors have spoken clearly of their understanding that the traditional practice was not likely to change.

Throughout the early centuries of Christianity, let it be known, clergy continued to get married, though marriage was not required. It was not until the turn of the first millennium that the church started to canonically regulate clerical marriage, mainly in response to clerical abuses and corruption. It was of particular concern that at the death of a clergyman, his wife and children would inherit church property. The Council of Pavia (1018), for example, issued regulations on how to deal with children of clergy, declaring them serfs of the church, unable to be ordained and barring them from inheriting their father's “benefices” (income connected to a church office or parish).

So, it can be seen that celibacy has nothing to do with God (at least no more so that any other human activity) but a lot more to do with mercenary and ecclesiastical considerations – the wealth and authority of the Catholic Church.

Confessional:

Again, as I understand it, this requirement was originally imposed in the Middle Ages, at least in part, by church leaders who expected priests to interrogate penitents and learn if they might be heretics.

Confession and the authority to grant absolution also greatly enhanced the power of the priest. With sins absolved, the believer would gain heaven. Without absolution, death could bring the spiritual pain of purgatory or the eternal damnation of hell.

It would appear that from the very beginnings of the confessional, practices varied widely among both priests and laypeople. Some clergy emphasized compassion and forgiveness and faithfully kept secret what they heard. Others exploited their power and the information captured during the sacrament. The 11th-century monk Peter Damian (1007 – 1072) famously excoriated clerics for the sexual abuse of minors, which often began with the penitent-confessor relationship. In the later Middle Ages, apparently criminality among confessors was widespread and entrenched. Much of the criminality involved sexual assaults and priestly transgressions against the church's sexual mores (adopted as a rule or canon).

So, again, there is nothing “sacred” about the confessional – quite the reverse. At best a priest should be acting only as a counselor for a troubled parishioner.

Canon Law:

I offer the following (adapted from Wikipedia):- “The canon law of the Catholic Church is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church.

What began with rules ("canons") adopted by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (held about 50 AD) has developed into a highly complex legal system incorporating not just elements of the New Testament, but some of the Hebrew (Old Testament) Roman, Visigothic, Saxon and Celtic legal traditions.

It is the internal ecclesiastical law, or operational policy, governing the Catholic Church and other churches. Canon law wasn't just a body of rules and regulations governing members of the church, but rather an elaborate code of ethics shaping family life and marriage. Due to this, it was able to manipulate the fundamental operations of family life within the areas that it oversaw. The Catholic Church (and other churches), have manipulated the basis and validity of marriage, the ability to end a marriage as well as remarriage abilities, and the norms for sexual behaviour. The way that such church laws are legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely. In all these traditions, a canon was originally a rule adopted by a church council; these canons formed the foundation of canon law.”

So you see, again, there is nothing really “God like” or sacred in these canons (laws) – at least no more so that in the Common Law of Australia. A canon law cannot, ever, take precedence over the Laws of Australia. Otherwise should we now allow “laws” that apply to Scientology, to Islam, the Hindu or any other faith to also take precedence?

The Catholic Church has no claim to any “moral authority” while it hides behind these so called inviolable “laws of the Church”. They are nothing of the sort.

So I ask again, where is God? Is God “up there”, here, or everywhere?  

Bank Ethics (and trust).

I feel that I may (repeat may) possibly have had a small influence in the Australian Banks decision to "allow" a Banking Royal Commission - I'm not boasting mind!! Some weeks ago I wrote to the Australian Bankers Association and I offer this contribution for those interested to read:-

The Chief Executive Officer

Australian Bankers' Association
Level 3, 56 Pitt Street,
Sydney. NSW 2000

Dear Ms Bligh,

Re: Bank Ethics (and trust).

I am sure I need not remind you that it is obvious, not just to me, that the lack of ethics and morals evidenced by banks in Australia needs to be addressed. Banks, ALL banks, direct their activities at preserving and protecting shareholders, their “market position”, their liquidity and their profitability, with SERVICE and the poor old CUSTOMER way down the list of priorities.

We have had, in the recent past, the terrible social effects of the blatant greed and moral shortcomings evidenced by Wall Street banks in 2007-2008, (the GFC); we have had the LIBOR scandal in London; we have seen many billions of dollars in penalties paid by banks world-wide for aiding and abetting questionable financial transactions - now it is the Australian banks falling foul of the regulators, the public and politicians.

So far all four of Australia’s biggest banks have allegedly been guilty of breaching laws and regulations set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The banks have been variously accused of defrauding customers through questionable investment advice and dodgy insurance cover, rigging the Inter Bank Rate, lacking moral judgment and generally being unethical in their dealing with their customers money.

I will reiterate what I have said before, many times, that without customers (people) there would be no money, no need for banks and therefore by default, no need for shareholders. Money is not “self-emergent” – it is a human construct.

Pursuing the logic of this it would appear to be a “no brainer” that customers (i.e. people), are the vital part of the banking system, not just in Australia but world-wide. It should be a simple case of “look after the customer” first and foremost, legally, ethically and with moral undertaking. Do this and the money will look after itself. And what is of utmost importance, trust in the banking system would be restored and banks would no longer invite opprobrium and be considered “bastards”.

This will require a cultural shift  - the “fiduciary culture” - by all concerned, starting with the boards of directors, chief executive officers and managers. Until all these people conduct themselves with ethical and moral underpinnings nothing will change.

Unfortunately, for all concerned, until there are changes, banks will continue to be mistrusted and reviled.

I will be very interested in any response you may offer.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Campbell-Watt

Oh dear! Israel’s “moral” army – again.

It is very unfortunate that it is necessary to question, again, the Israeli Government’s assertion that it has the “most moral army in the world”.

Recently an Israeli Court has convicted Israeli Army reservist, Sgt. Elor Azaria, of manslaughter for shooting dead a severely wounded Palestinian attacker. Now, it has been reported, that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will call for him to be pardoned for this cowardly and totally unprovoked attack - by an army medic – no less.

The question that should be asked is, to be ethically and morally unbiased, what would have happened if the situation had been reversed and the (now dead) Palestinian had been accused of killing a wounded Israeli soldier (the said Sgt. Elor Azaria)?

I know the answer, and so do you.

I suggest that no quarter, no mercy would have been extended to the Palestinian. He would have been shot in retaliation – or at best, if captured alive – would have been condemned as a “terrorist” and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Israel cannot claim that history, the admittedly appalling treatment that has been meted to Jews since time immemorial, gives them licence to claim the “moral” high ground while still indulging in self pity and making excuses for blatantly racial acts such as that carried out by Sgt. Elor Azaria.

Sgt. Elor Azaria should be condemned and serve out the sentence the court decides. To do otherwise will just enflame the Palestinians and push any “peace” even further into the future.

The Israeli’s have to understand and accept the hard truth that every action has a cause – and an effect. The to me (admittedly an outsider and a non-Jew) unfair occupation of Palestinian land is the primary cause of the “unrest” between the Israelis and Palestinians. No compensation is, or has ever been offered – merely the reference to the “God given” Biblical historic “right” of Israel to the land.

This is an entirely spurious argument. Should Japan be given back to the original Ainu? Should the Iberian peninsular be returned to the Celts? And then should America be returned to the original inhabitants – the North American “Indians”? What about handing Australia back to the “first people” the Aborigines?

Come on! Get real. Everyone, yes everyone, is a descendent of an immigrant – we all came out of Africa. We all have traces of Neanderthal genes.

No one has any God given or Biblical or any “right” to any land anywhere. But it is only fair, the ethical and moral thing to do, to offer compensation or reparation for land and houses “commandeered” from Palestinians.

Hasn’t Israel been given billions of Euros as “reparation” for the properties, in Germany and other countries, confiscated by the Nazis?

What is the difference, morally and ethically, between what the Israeli’s are doing and what the Nazis did? Both actions are actions on a spectrum – the Nazis at the appalling extreme end (10) with the Israelis round about the middle (say 4 or 5 out of 10).

Both are wrong.

It just is a matter of degree. A pardon for Sgt. Elor Azaria – would be wrong. Totally, morally and ethically, wrong.

Amended Feb 21, 2017:-

Sgt. Elor Azaria was found guilty of manslaughter for shooting dead 21-year-old Abdul Fatah al-Sharif in Hebron, in the occupied West Bank, last March and jailed for 18 months.

Amended Nov 21, 2017:-
The Israeli courts have rejected a plea for this man's pardon! Pardon! Thank God someone in Israel has the moral understanding to see that a wrong is still a wrong.

Azaria had told a colleague that Sharif, who had stabbed another soldier, "deserved to die".

Dangers of a strict adherence to the “Word”.

My latest concern is about a strict even “religious”, adherence to the “word”- not what it means – the spirit or symbolism – but how the word appears in printed form. Such a narrow interpretation has led to much grief and misunderstanding in the World. Particularly now -today.

What are we supposed to believe? What people (politicians, business and religious leaders) say is not always what they do – their actions often belie their words. All leaders employ legions of media advisors or “spin doctors” – those skilled in semantics to change perceptions. A standout in this regard is the “morphing” of Torture (which is illegal and banned by the Geneva Convention) into Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (which is apparently legal – at least according to the CIA’s interpretation of the Geneva Convention).

Similarly, some followers in all religious faiths are guilty of focusing on the words (and often their interpretations of those words) to promote THEIR version of scriptures. Just look at the difference between the vast numbers of Christian belief “systems” – very strict Baptists and Catholics through to more tolerant Church of England(?). The Jews have a similar range of belief systems, as do the Buddhists. Similarly with Islam – Wahhabism (very strict narrow interpretation of the Koran) ranging through Sunni and Shia to the Sufi (some Muslims don’t believe that Sufi’s are Muslims at all). The tyrannous assemblage known as ISIS or Daesh are allegedly followers of Wahhabism – this profanity is so outside normal human conduct that it is difficult to understand what they “believe”.

But they claim to be followers and defenders of the WORD!

Another ploy greatly favoured and resorted to by politicians (particularly in Australia) when they are caught out spending taxpayers money on self-indulgence is, “I have done nothing wrong – what I did falls within parliamentary guidelines”. There is apparently no consideration of fairness or the moral aspect of their actions and ethics seems to be an unheard of concept.

It is written in the rules and regulations – the “word” is there for all to see!