Children's Pictures, June-July, 2014

On the way back from the Church on a Sunday

Daniel on his first day in school, 2nd July, 2014

                                                      

Relaxing at home with Luke

The daughters!

Must Soldiers Fight Unjust Wars?

If the state ever legislates an act that says that all the citizens must worship the statue of the Prime Minister/President, do I have to obey the law? Or must I obey a law that says that I should never ever utter a word against the economic policy of the government? Living in such a state of condition would be terrible! It is likely that most people in 21st century may say that it would be better to rebel against such system and overthrow it; put to an end such kind of system. However, as many would be willing to fight against such regime – not even worthy of being called a government – there would be many others who would be willing to die fighting to protect such system.

Wars come and go. Some wars are just; some unjust. If we are to loosely define them, one may define them as wars that are waged to expand territory are unjust whereas wars that are fought in self-defence are just. On both counts, the soldiers play the key role. Even when it is an unjust war, it is the soldiers who go out to the field to fight; and again in just war too, it is the soldiers who go out to fight to protect the people and the territory. Whether it is the US invasion of Iraq on the pretext of Saddam Hussein producing WMD or the Qaddhafi's army fighting to protect his dictatorial regime, it was the soldiers who composed the main fighting unit. The moral dilemma that may emerge before a soldier is whether they join the fight against bad regime or fight and even kill the civilians who attempt to overthrow such oppressive government; or whether to go and even fight in a foreign territory as an occupational army or leave the army.

Army units do not function on democratic principle which guarantees one a significant amount of right to dissent though it is the civil government which may be in place. Whether it is a big army or a small army, army personnel are bound by the oath they have taken to follow the order of their superior. The order given by the superior may not always be just and fair, yet they are bound by the oath as long as they remain in the army. Imagine a situation where someone puts a revolver on your forehead and asks you to shoot a child. You can refuse to shoot and get yourself killed or you can shoot and yet remain blameless. The reason why you remain blameless despite killing an innocent child is because your action was not intentional. This is the kind of situation an army personnel face in a battlefield. You disobey an order of your superior and so get court-martialed or you obey order.

These are the options before a person: first, do not join the army and you face no such situation whether one must fight or not fight an unjust war; you take up other job. Second, join the army but quit much ahead because you see foresee potential dilemma. Third, stay in the army and report for duty and be obedient to the orders given to you. The third option is what many army personnel do. If the fight is judged to be unjust later, the responsible official or officer who gave the order is to be held responsible for the order, not the soldiers acting on the order.

Moral Policing the Policemen

Few years back I was walking in the foothill of Langol Hill, near a village. Then appeared on sight a team of policemen on a Gypsy led by an inspector. The Gypsy halted right in front of the village, and the inspector came out to talk with few of the villagers. Since I was not quite near the scene I could not hear the conversation, but could only watch the action. Then a man went over to the garden to pluck a big ripe papaya and gave it to the police officer. The police officer took the papaya, got into the Gypsy and drove away. There was no exchange of money. The police officer, shameless and politely, had asked for the papaya, and without any audacity refuse, it was given away freely, though bitterly perhaps. 

Not too many moons after this episode, I witnessed a similar case at Khuyathong. A man was on a rickshaw when he was stopped by a policeman. The policeman frisked him. With him was a bag that contained yongchak. From the look, one cannot miss the fact that he arrived from a neighbouring district. The policeman asked him to part some of his goods. The man obliged. The policeman asked for more pieces. Reluctantly, the man obliged again. The policeman, whose reporting station and place of origin could not be ascertained, then shifted position and faded out of sight with yongchak pieces dangling in his hand. 

These incidents are not rare ones. So many people have stories to tell about many policemen grabbing and snatching from shopkeepers and travellers as part of their daylight ‘robbery’ operations. The thieves loot at night; these policemen loot during the day, goes the saying. The worst part is that one can arrest the robber who comes at night, but one cannot arrest the robber who appears at daylight in a khaki coloured uniform with a baton or a gun in his hand. Not only being notorious, the police department has been hardly helpful in preventing crime in the society. Drug paddler, money swindler, bike lifter etc abound. Yet police department seems least bothered by these ever increasing crimes. Senapati town has multitude of drug users. The heroin did not drop down from the sky, but is supplied from certain sources by certain people. Had the police department shown an iota of interest to smash this wicked ‘drug’ business that destroys families and society, it would take just a week or two to put an end to all this. However, there is no indication that they are keen to destroy such wicked business. The moral decay in the police department has hit the bottom! If there are those who maintain a strict vigil on drug paddling or drunken brawl, more often it is the local NGOs or the womenfolk. And these folks sacrifice their time for their kids or household chores to maintain peace and order in their locality or town. 

All citizens pay taxes in the form of direct and indirect taxes. Direct taxation is exempted for many; whereas indirect taxation is paid by all. The goods – sugar, salt, truck, lipstick, cigarette, television etc. – generate revenue for the government. From what customers pay to the shopkeepers who would have bought the goods from the manufacturers, part of the money goes to the government as tax. This is indirect taxation. The government collect such taxes from all the citizens, besides direct taxation, to pay as salary to the government employees and for other purposes. Thus it is all of us, the citizens – rich or poor, who contribute to pay as salary for the government servants, including the Chief Minister and his Ministers. The collected money is also supposed to be utilised for public goods – roads, bridges, street-light etc. If the police department is corrupt and fails to do its duty, then the money that the citizens have paid as taxation is not being efficiently utilised. Because we pay money for their salary in return for their service, when they fail to perform their duty, they are not fulfilling the moral obligation that they have towards us, the citizens. Asking them to arrest, say, drug paddlers are to ask them to fulfil their moral obligation towards us. It is not asking too much when we ask the police department to fulfil their moral obligation. 

 ‘Police’ comes from the Greek word ‘polis’, which means city-state. Policemen are required in any given city or a state for the proper functioning of the society. Just as much as being polite – whose root word is also ‘polis’ – is required for a city or a state to flourish, so much so is policing of the citizens required to maintain law and order, which is a requisite for human flourishing. Thus, when the department of a given society which is to maintain law and order is hitting the rock bottom with respect to its moral and legal conduct, human flourishing is going to be a distant dream. 

It is no wonder that Aristotle regards shame as a kind of virtue. Shame is required for healthy living. A normal person will feel and experience shame whenever it is required.  A person who cannot feel shame requires admission in mental hospital. A society that regards robbery or bribery as shameful deeds will eventually progress towards growth and prosperity. Whereas a society that cannot feel shame of such deeds will eventually self-destruct. Policemen who shamelessly harass citizens and fail to do their duty in tackling crimes, a moral obligation embedded in their being a government servant, are gradually descending into hell. And hell is more of a state of condition where you lose your true state of humanity – a state where you cannot feel shame, guilty and  repentant. It is high time that the police department undertake moral reform, individually and corporately, before it is too late for their own sake and for the sake for the society at large. And perhaps learning to feel shame of its past sins is the first stepping stone to a bright future.

(Hueiyen Lanpao  published this article on 19th June, 2014 ) 

Moral Relativism: A Critique

By moral relativism I mean the idea that moral norms are relative to some group of people, and that there is no moral norm that is superior to some other moral expression. Implication of such idea is that since there is no moral norm that is inherently superior to some other moral expression, one should be tolerant of other value systems and moral practices.

There is no disagreement that different societies express different aspects of  moral norms differently. Some people at certain point of history throw away deformed babies at dungheap while some people within that same society try to adopt these deformed babies discarded at the dungheap. Are these two practices equally honourable? Some people in certain society burn their daughter for marrying a boy outside of their society; while some people in that same period of history allow daughter to choose their spouse. Are these two moral expressions equally good? 

Our societies have got rid of slavery now.  We also have gone beyond owning gladiators. We do not burn the widows alive today (sati). Has there been moral progress? I think so. I do not suppose that one should say that we should be tolerant of those who own slaves or gladiators or burn widows alive. If indeed every moral expression is equally valid, then there is no way one can say that slavery or gladiatorial fight is morally wrong. But if we do say that they are wrong, it's because we judge them to be morally wrong from certain moral standpoint -- a higher level of moral standpoint.

Which moral expression is right or wrong is not always easy to decipher. But just because there are times when get confused, that does mean that every moral expression is equally valid. Some moral practices are evil. Rape, murder, theft etc has to be morally wrong. The fact that a society that considers them okay cannot really flourish, and this implies that there is incoherency in our human society when they are rampant. This implies that they must be morally wrong.

Do Christians Pick and Choose Commands in the Bible?

If one would browse through the Bible from Genesis via Exodus, Leviticus, Number...till Revelation, there would hundreds of dos and don'ts. Sometimes one hears comments from the skeptics that Christians pick and choose the commandments of the Bible.  For example, Leviticus 19.19 says, " Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of materials". (NIV) Furthermore the Bible says " Keep the Sabbath holy", but Christians observe the sabbath on Sunday, not Saturday. You take what you like, and you reject what you don't like, goes the argument of the skeptics. 

At face value this is true. Christians don't always follow whatever kind of commandment is given in the Bible, and Christians do not have to follow them. There is no inconsistency in taking some and leaving out some others. This is so because for the Christians command as such is taken to be obeyed whatever is repeated by Jesus Christ and in the New Testament Bible. The Old Testament Bible was given to the Jews. Christians accept the Old Testament as God given Scripture. But Christians interpret and understood the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. This is the reason why so many commands given in the Old Testament is not followed or need to be followed now. 

These are Hilarious!

  The shots are not mine. I think they are not copyrighted. I too them from here.