World Peace or Whirled Peas; Is There a Difference?

Lately I have been trying, in addition to everything else, to learn the words and tune to "Let There Be Peace On Earth." (I'll include the lyrics I found to the song at the end of this blog posting.) It has made me wonder if world peace may, indeed, be a possibility or whether it is a merely Utopian dream that can never be fully realized. I feel strongly that world peace may very well be possible where a Utopian society is not.

Part of reaching for world peace has to be done with the recognition that "perfect" is impossible in an imperfect world, for one thing. World peace can become a practical, political reality - granted with tremendous difficulties - but we need to realize a few things before it can take its place in the lives of humanity at large. Firstly, we need to acknowledge that there will still be crime; that creeps, jerks, liars, cheapskates, adulterers, and selfishness in all of its many forms will still be very much with us. There will still be murders and car accidents, babies will still die of hunger, natural disasters will still take their toll, children will still be abused, ignorance will still run rampant, and cures for the most deadly diseases may never be found; all of these things will still exist even if world peace is achieved. This makes the concept much less appealing, but it is necessary to mention all of these negative aspects in order to get at the core of what a genuine and lasting world peace might entail.

The one major criteria for a formal world peace is, and must remain, an end to war on both national and international levels with there being no military interventions in civil affairs permitted unless absolutely necessary, and that type of decision would have to become subject to a world court of some sort in order to be enforceable. Negotiations for world peace might also have to involve a mutual agreement to forbid or end certain totalitarian or dictatorial types of government and outlaw genocides and political imprisonments across the board, which many countries, if not all, might find too difficult to condescend to when everyone would want to be the ones in charge.

Another venue that would have to be discussed that might pose major roadblocks is the desire of most major world religions for their religion to be the one in charge of everything. This is, perhaps laudable in that it is a sign many people are seeking of have found a moral compass that suits them, but no one religion can be permitted so much political power as that, unless what we want is not truly world peace but merely the selfish and despotic ambition for world domination. This is also one reason the church and the state desperately need to remain seperate. It needs to be enough to have a very general recognition at the national level of the majority religious affiliation, but religious concerns and beliefs need to be kept firmly and resolutely out of governmental venues except on the personal level, with each individual acting according to their own good conscience as they participate in the running of their country, city, town, or home. This alone would ensure a freedom of religion that would be critical to preserving the very diversity that, aside from causing the frictions we must live with every day, makes this world such an interesting and special entity and so very worth preserving and fostering. It is only when we stop threatening or feeling threatened by the religious beliefs of others that we will be able to take a positive step forward toward world peace. In light of the current climate in which every nation and every person presently exists, this one step may be the most important to achieving such a goal and is certainly at least one of the most necessary.

It would also likely involve some discussion about the potential creation of a single world-wide governmental system, but I would oppose this as being one of the most potentailly harmful ideas to the world at large and to the many and varied societies, cultures, and religions this world possesses. This would mean that each nation would have to remain autonomous but willing to acquiesce to a world tribunal on matters of peace and military interventions at the state or country level, which, in turn, would hopefully prevent any need for the same at international levels.

Negotiations for a practical and realistic world peace would also have to take into consideration all of the most basic reasons nations have made war in the past, among them the fight to procure natural resources with which to care for their native populations. There can be no true world peace without the conviction and willingness required to alleviate the problems of famine and rampant disease found in most, if not all, third world countries by those countries more blessed in natural resources and scientific benefit. The world cannot move into an era of genuine peace without addressing the problems that might reasonably threaten such a peace almost immediately upon its being mutually declared. There would also have to be a redistribution of many of the worlds resources in order to allow those nations whose poverty exceeds their GNP to revive and survive, while also stopping the overuse and abuse of highly abundant resources available elsewhere.

There are also many global issues that would have to be recognized and regulated as aptly as possible, global warming and its catastrophic effects upon various environments and the weather world-wide, being one of the most urgent.

A more egalitarian policy toward the general world population would have to be adopted,with sufficient safeguards put in place to ensure that the world would never again be ruled solely by those with the most guns or who lived their lives clad in the protections of being members of the top 2% financially of the entire population. This would mean that certain political schemes and practices and many traditions of business and power playing would have to be relegated to the trash heap - this would definitely cause a few ripples in the waterworks, but anyone who believes this would all be fairly simple needs to climb out of their personal dream world and back into reality.

Most, if not all, nations would have to be willing to transition their governments into a more democratic direction and many current world leaders would have to be willing to step down. The general population would also have to have certain assurances, such as their leaders no longer being able to live above the laws required of the majority of the inhabitants of this earth. There could be no more executive privileges extended in order to whitewash blatantly criminal behavior and the methods of selection for government officials and heads of state would have to become sufficiently objective in order to prevent any one person in any one country from ever gaining a majority of power either politically or militarily; no more dictators, despots, tyrants, murderers, or thieves. My personal preference for selection of the leadership is to utilize a process similar to our current jury selection process, with service being obligatory, recompense in line with the median national income, and certain guidelines as to education and character being tantemount. This would preclude most of today's world leadership but "That's the way the cookie crumbles!"

It also might surprise some people to realize that, in their pursuits of diplomacy and finding solutions to tense or volatile world class issues, they have already been working in this direction for quite some time. Perhaps the time is coming when all such activities and efforts will finally be classfied according to their level of importance in the pursuit of world peace and will, eventually, help clarify just what roads must be taken more assiduously than others, what concessions are truly the most critical, and just how world peace should be defined in order to make it clear that it is not merely some Utopian dream, but a concrete and genuine potential in which we can all participate and share.

Lastly, at least for now, is the fact that all of this would be taking place over several years, if not decades. Changes this radical cannot take place overnight, next week, next month, or even next year. They have to be planned, thought about, discussed and worked on by any number of people adept at their chosen task and well educated in their fields. Major problems such as world hunger and famine, disaster relief and the restraining of political corruption must still be worked on at the lower levels until a working world peace can be discovered and implemented. It is a miracle of major proportions that will take time to evolve, but it is a goal worth fighting for, worth pursuing, and worth the wait; it is the one, true miracle God may have placed solely in human hands.

Presented to all of you in love and hope for a brighter and better future for all of us,

Izzlebug

"Let there be peace on earth
and let it begin with me.
Let there be peace on earth,
the peace that was meant to be.
United here together,
we are family.
Let us walk with each other
in perfect harmony.

Let peace begin with me,
let this be the moment now;
with every step I take
let this be my solemn vow:
to take each moment,
and live each moment
in peace eternally.

Let there be peace on earth
and let it begin with me."

Author Unknown