Communications, Compromise, Tolerance, Intolerance and the need for Female Guidance in matters Monotheistic.

I wrote and posted this on my personal blog three years ago. I repost it here as I firmly believe a truth is well repeating. I have made some amends, some changes, but the thrust of the piece remains the same. Communication requires compromise requires commitment. The three C's form a holy trinity.

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 accept 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 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 faith so that they can best legitimise their base beliefs. However, there can be no denying that Monotheism, by virtue of its holy books, not only allows for such acts but positively encourages their followers to employ such methods. Religion causes war.and the holy books that the faithful read condone these acts.These holy books need to be amended now.

There exists at this point in time a depraved desire to be tolerant of all faiths. It is as if we should not speak out when one faith or another, and I am speaking of Monotheism here, commits some atrocity. Rather than standing up and speaking out we tend to back-off by suggesting that tolerance is the only way to behave in the face of blatant intolerance. It isn't. Not when some lunatic fake Muslim or mad fake Christian blows up someone or beheads them in the street.

As I have said before, I know and have met a considerable amount of Christians and Muslims and Jews; 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. Having said that Islam needs to evolve its ways, to re-think how best to speak the word of Allah, separating it from that of man the better to progress the faith and harness harmony.

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. I think this is, broadly speaking, true. Religion has brought untold horrors onto mankind. However, as long as man has a hole in his arse he will manufacture ways to wage war. Having books that not only accept that but positively encourage it is something we should challenge.

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 one's 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 a 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 a 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 generally 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, equally physically strong. 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. Women are stronger by far than men. They may not have the same musculature but they are able to deal with pain far better. Anyone who has their lives punctuated by blood and who are able to give birth has to be tougher both mentally and physically than their male counterparts. 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.

We need more women (there already are a growing number) to take hold of Islam, replace its hormone imbalance with more Oestrogen.  We need the fairer sex to lead us to a fairer world, one not frightened of compromise, one prepared to communicate.

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 general 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 agrees 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,  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 nor is a compromise 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 whilst recognising compromise as a tool for peace and not as a state of concession.

However, before we even begin to think of communication and compromise first we must deal with the faiths that allow and encourage such acts of terror.The Bible and Koran contain many murderous instructions suggesting violence is right in given circumstances. It is not. It never has been nor ever will be. Monotheism must alter those passages, delete them or better still educate those who practise these acts that these passages were written long ago and have no place in the modern world.

"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice." We must, at all costs, confront and challenge such acts and demand that organised religion expunge all and any texts that encourage violence from their books.  To this end, we need women to lead the way for the males of that species seem incapable of such foresight.