Where's the PC in Peace and Compassion?

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama Meets with Thai Buddhist Scholars

I'm struck by the notion that there is a "political correctness" attached to peace and compassion.  When, in fact, peace and/or compassion is "right".

In 2012, Californians voted to uphold the death penalty.  In 2012, the world witnessed war, upheaval, and atrocities at every corner of the earth.  In 2012, we continue to determine when "an eye for an eye" is justified.

My questions remain.  When are peace and compassion universal truths and not just words to use at this time of year or words to invoke during a healthy meditation exercise?

When are retaliation and punishment "acceptable"?  Do peace and compassion begin with the individual and ripple out to our family, neighbors, nation, and world?  Do the rules change for a nation under siege?  Do numbers of lives lost constitute a repeal of a compassionate response?

Is war different from a single slaying?  Is the children's song, "Let Peace Begin with Me", a hope, dream, fairytale?

We seem to assign an appropriateness to morality.  We seem to decide when it is OK to "show mercy" and when we can stray from that ideal.  Does this judgment and determination defeat the entire concept of peace and compassion?  Is a compassionate life conditional?  Are we capable of deciding when it is OK to wish ill upon another?  How many people have to arrive at a conclusion to make an exception to our moral code?  When is the consequence "it's all right to take a life under these circumstances" acceptable?

Does the anonymity of a group vote make a difference?  Are we safer casting our judgment and punishment when we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with fellow executioners? Do we dilute our personal responsibility and personal cognitive dissonance?

It is not always politically correct to say that peace and compassion should be exercised in some personal and global situations.  It will not win you a popularity contest.

In an article on this site, we discuss the notion of refraining from voicing opinions about issues or situations of which we know nothing.  But, we all do that.  Our jury system counts on that.  We are specifically removed from cases in which we DO have personal or business experience that may impact the case.  In fact, the more we know and experience, the less we are wanted on a jury.  Biased with first-hand knowledge and experience.

I've been called to jury duty again.  I get called to serve every year without fail.  If you believe in the concept that we bring about events in life that we dread or fear, time and time again, until we deal with our issues, I am an example for you.  Judgment.  A concept that I dread delivering when I am not the individual impacted by the horribly painful deeds of a perpetrator.  Most recently, following the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, we saw Robbie Parker, father of 6-year-old Emilie Parker, express compassion in a situation requiring supernatural fortitude.

I have lived, forever grateful, that there are laws and law enforcers in the world.  I am extremely grateful that we have willing jurors who actively participate in our system as well as the "couch critics" who are steadfast and confident in their own determination of meting out punishment.  I get hung up in the details.  I get tied up in the contradictions.  And...I feel "who am I to say" what punishment fits the crime.  The victim may be sitting across from me in the courtroom or in another country.  I'm being asked to give my opinion in something I know nothing about and worse than that...I'm not the one in agony.

It would be easy for me to crusade in the name of peace and compassion.  It would be easy for me to dole out righteous punishment.  Neither would give me peace.

How many wars are fought in the name of peace and compassion?

Even the youngest of all have a sense of what is "right".  Even the weakest and meekest know peace, compassion, fairness, and goodness when they see it.  No matter how rudimentary their understanding may be.

In The Moral Life of Babies, Professor of Psychology, Paul Bloom of Yale University, discusses his research.

Morality... is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented. Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest.

Babies have an understanding of morality and we can be grateful for that.  In our  "adult wisdom", we understand when morals are conditional?  Is maturity knowing when compassion and kindness are no longer appropriate?

When legal and/or political "paperwork" is in order, are we "free and covered" to proceed without honoring our code for a compassionate response?  With the proper documentation, our transgressions from the natural, biological, innate moral code can be usurped.  Our "grown-up, "mature" cultural moral code includes a clause to dismiss ethics and compassion for all?  When is "do unto others" dismissed and retribution the "right" course of action?

Do peace and compassion "begin with me"?  I like to believe so.

I like to believe we are all active participants in the "ripple".  But, when circumstances change, when there are numerous victims involved, when countries are threatened, are we all Charlie Brown?  Is our moral code essentially Lucy's football?

Contracts and declarations cover our departure from the moral code?

If we speak of peace and compassion on a global scale... our voice may not only be ignored, but likely censored if it is determined that the "unrest" that "peace talk" may bring will put lives at stake.  No small irony.  Sometimes, "peace and compassion talk" can be the greatest threat of all.

Journalism, in particular, has always courageously treaded in this territory.  Journalists hear the not-too-subtle message from powers that be, "Hush.  We have our 'reasons' to depart from (ethical conduct) here".  Of course, ethical conduct gets redefined.  Truth and fairness get redefined.  Retaliation and retribution may now BE ethical.  Suddenly, what is in the "public interest" and what will save lives (peace and compassion) is no longer the answer.  Fundamental TRUTH itself has changed.  Reality changes.  Peace and compassion are not PC.

Many single, courageous voices in history have proven the dangers of peace and compassion.  In fact, peace and compassion may be the most dangerous and fearless position of all.

Those who walk the walk, and talk the talk, following these standards and codes are the most steadfast of all.  In fact, with no weapon and no retribution, those who live lives of complete peace and compassion hold the greatest power and make the greatest lasting changes we all enjoy long after their often-too-soon departure.

Often, they give their lives staying true to what is good, right, peaceful, and compassionate.  Staying true to our nature.  With or without realizing it, they remain the greatest threat.  Their weapon.  Peace and compassion.  Perhaps more feared than any automatic weapon or drone strike.  If they speak about peace and compassion, they are not PC.  Perhaps, most unfortunate of all, they are completely misunderstood.  They are not heard to be speaking out for saving the lives of ALL of those in harm's way.

To those who don't understand the deepest meaning of peace and compassion, peace and compassion in certain instances, under certain conditions, is just not PC.  At some point, I think most of us fall into that category.  Most of us can only aspire to become more like Robbie Parker, father of Emilie.

But, peace and compassion is for all.  Peace and compassion is for those fighting in the name of peace and compassion.  Peace and compassion needs to come out from the closet and be spoken about in ALL circumstances.  

We are only human.  But, we have people speaking and living with higher ideals.  Higher moral codes are possible.  Are we using excuses?  Reasons?  Is there an excuse to stray from what is "right"?

We knew what was fair and right from the beginning.  As babies, we had a moral compass.  What are we so afraid of now?

Freedom is at stake.  Are we "free" at all when we react against our morals and ethics and lose ourselves to something we know to be wrong in the first place?  Are we prisoners and victims for the offenders?  Controlled by their deeds?  Or, are we pioneers and free to act true to ourselves?  As is true in so much of life...we may need to look to the children.