World Order/Series2/Volume 4/Issue 2/Text

←Issue 1

World Order, Series 2 Volume 4 - Issue 2

Issue 3→

Return to PDF view Proofread once

[Page -1]

World Order

WINTER 1969-70

THE TABLET

TO THE HAGUE

Firuz Kazemzadeh

THE ESTABLISHMENT

OF UNIVERSAL PEACE

John A. Davidson

THE HUMAN DIMENSION

OF THE VIET NAM WAR

Gary L Morrison

TV JOURNALISM:

MEETING THE CHALLENGES

OF WORLD AWARENESS

Nathan Rutstein

[Page 0]

World Order

A BAHÁ’Í MAGAZINE • VOLUME 4 NUMBER 2 • PUBLISHED QUARTERLY

WORLD ORDER is intended to stimulate, inspire and serve thinking people in their search to find relationships between contemporary life and contemporary religious teachings and philosophy

Editorial Board:

FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH

BETTY FISHER

HOWARD GAREY

ROBERT HAYDEN

GLENFORD E. MITCHELL

GAYLE MORRISON

Art Consultant:

LORI NEUZIL

Subscriber Service:

JEANETTE ROBBIN

WORLD ORDER is published quarterly, October, January, April, and July, at 112 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, Illinois 60091. Subscriber and business correspondence should be sent to this address. Manuscripts and other editorial correspondence should be addressed to 2011 Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut 06520.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, or of the Editorial Board. Manuscripts and suggestions for articles and subjects to be treated editorially will be welcomed and acknowledged by the editors.

Subscription: Regular mail USA, $3.50; Foreign, $4.00. Single copy, $1.00.

Copyright © 1970, National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, World Rights Reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.

IN THIS ISSUE

1 From Alienation to World Peace

Editorial

2 Interchange: Letters from and to the Editor

4 The Tablet to the Hague

by Firuz Kazemzadeh

12 Four Poems, by Timothy H. Breen

14 The Establishment of Universal Peace

by John A. Davidson

23 Home Town Fire

a poem by Raymond Hudson

26 A Letter to My Friends

by John Huddleston

36 TV Journalism: Meeting the Challenge of

World Awareness, by Nathan Rutstein

45 The Human Dimension of the Viet Nam War

a book review by Gary L. Morrison

Inside Back Cover: Authors and Artists in This Issue

[Page 1]

From Alienation to World Peace

EDITORIAL

“NO TWO MEN can be found”, Bahá’u’lláh wrote a century ago, “who may be said to be outwardly and inwardly united.” Today the diagnosis remains disturbingly valid. The fragmentation of modern life is compounded of both social and personal disintegration.

Those of us who long for world peace and a just society often tend to overlook the importance of the individual except as a builder of the new order or a destroyer of the old. Social endeavors—group action, the transformation of institutions or the establishment of new ones, programs and projects—are emphasized. Yet it is evident that no plan, no spontaneous action, will have effect unless it is backed by an inner revolution, a dramatic and rapid change in the attitudes of the individual. Peace and justice and freedom are unattainable unless men will allow themselves and others to be peaceful and just and free.

At this point lies perhaps the greatest impediment to the establishment of a new world order. Alienation—the feeling of inward disunity, of estrangement from our environment, our fellow men, and ourselves—immobilizes us. It is not new to this age, but in its modern form, largely the result of secularism and industrialism, it is especially virulent. While we are making great strides in mastering our world, we find ourselves unable to exert control over the processes we have set in motion—or perhaps even to care.

Although the stakes were not so perilously high, some societies have in the past proved capable of shaking off the pall of alienation, their members infused with a new sense of direction and purpose. But still other societies have failed, and disintegration has run its course. For modern man disintegration entails the risk of annihilation or a scarcely conceivable debasement of all life.

Bahá’ís seek, above all, to spread and nurture the conviction that life has meaning. The antidote prescribed by Bahá’u’lláh for twentieth-century ills is a new understanding and belief in ourselves—not the rejected religionism of the past, but a renewal of religion in its broadest sense. To the Bahá’í mankind is an organic whole, yet a whole in which each component is of incalculable worth. There must be constant interaction, however, if the system is not to break down. Striving to know himself and to appreciate his true worth, the individual is compelled to manifest his worth in loving involvement with others. Inwardly united, he seeks the unity of mankind.

[Page 2]

Interchange LETTERS FROM AND TO THE EDITOR

SEEING Medium Cool shortly after reading Nathan Rutstein’s manuscript, “TV Journalism: Meeting the Challenge of World Awareness”, was an eery experience for the editors, for the film provides a visual confirmation of the validity of Mr. Rutstein’s stinging indictment of the news-at-any-price policy of TV journalism. Both the movie and the article convey a depressing sense of the plight of a few humane individuals in a corrupt, artificial, and soulless society. But it is not just the TV news game which was condemned by the film; it was the ugliness of our whole civilization—the sordidness of ghetto existence no more and no less than the antiseptic corridors and offices of the communications establishment,

Medium Cool does not go beyond the indictment. Mr. Rutstein, however, must be among the journalists countable on the fingers of your right hand who keep alive confidence in the ultimate humanity even of his colleagues. Without the corrective of Mr. Rutstein’s unconquerable idealism, seeing Medium Cool would he a shattering experience leading only to despair. WORLD ORDER readers who have not seen Medium Cool must see it. Those who have seen the film must read Nathan Rutstein’s article.

* * *

In a recent issue of Saturday Review (Oct. 11, 1969), Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island has published “The Oceans —Man’s Last Great Resource”. Senator Pell, after reviewing the problems and potentialities of the ocean as battlefield and as source of food (as well as object of pollution), recommends the Malta Resolution now before the United Nations, for some international control of the waters and beds of the sea. Laudable as one must find his intention, one is left nevertheless with the gnawing feeling that the UN is not equipped to provide answers as fast as accumulating crises demand them.

Thus it is reassuring to find those who do confront the issues of time and political inefficiency and inefficacy with jarring bluntness. Dr. Paul Ehrlich in his article “Eco-Catastrophe!” in Ramparts (Sept, 1969) considers the results of letting environmental destruction continue at its present rate: he predicts the demise of the oceans by 1979—with attendant political, social, industrial, agricultural, and military chaos. WORLD ORDER readers will recall that Arthur Lyon Dahl, in an article of a year ago (Winter 1968-9) entitled “The Ocean—Our Last Resource”, recognized that nations, in order to cooperate for the welfare of the world, must give up more sovereignty than any country is now prepared to do.

So much for those who pin their ultimate hopes on the UN. What about the 10-year respite? Mr. Dahl, in conversation with one of the editors, says he agrees thoroughly with Dr. Ehrlich— except that he gives the oceans less than ten years. And so, man is confronted with the interrelatedness of his own irresponsibility. Most politicians are too busy defending national interests to solve ecological problems on which mankind’s survival depends, while many journalists are too busy giving the public “what it wants” to ferret out the facts it should know about its own future. Against this intricate game of social and environmental immorality stands the corrective which slashes through [Page 3] the limited perimeters of our own construction.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in a talk in Paris in 1912, told his audience:

I want to make you understand that material progress and spiritual progress are two very different things, and that only if material program goes hand in hand with spirituality can any real progress come about, and the Most Great Peace reign in the world. If men followed the Holy Counsels and the Teachings of the Prophets, if Divine Light shone in all hearts and men were really religious, we should soon see peace on earth and the Kingdom of God among men. The laws of God may be likened unto the soul and material progress unto the body. If the body was not animated by the soul, it would cease to exist. It is my earnest prayer that spirituality may ever grow and increase in the world, so that customs may become enlightened and peace and concord may be established. . . .

God in His infinite goodness has exalted us to so much honour, and has made us masters over the material world. Shall we then become her slaves? Nay, rather let us claim our birthright, and strive to live the life of the spiritual sons of God. The glorious Sun of Truth has once again risen in the East. From the far horizon of Persia its radiance is spreading far and wide, dispersing the dense clouds of superstition. The light of the unity of mankind is beginning to illumine the world, and soon the banner of Divine harmony and the solidarity of nations will be flying high in the Heavens. Yea, the breezes of the Holy Spirit will inspire the whole world!

Oh, peoples and nations! Arise and work and be happy! Gather together under the tent of the unity of mankind!

* * *

To the Editor

ENGLISH AS “WORLD LINGO”

Inasmuch as a common world lingo is imperative to world-wide understanding and subsequent prosperity and permanent peace, why doesn’t WORLD ORDER devote a section to simplified English as the potential world lingo? Altho Anglo-American children may have to learn to READ traditional English orthografy, the inconsistencies of traditional English need not,—and should, not be carried ever to international Inglish. The international Inglish should be looked upon as in independent language, —only coincidentally BASED on English. Thus there should be no inconsistent spellings, —irregular verbs or irregular nouns in the world language. And by Using small capitals A, E, I, O, U, as long vowels and lower-case a, e, i, o, u, as the short, we have enough vowels for basically fonetik spelling—Let’s hear what your readers have to say in this field.

LEO G. DAVIS

PionEEr teacher

Palm Springs, California.

MAKING PEACE WITH GUÉNON

Our good friend, Alessandro Bausani, calls attention to an error in our translation and editing of his article in the Spring 1968 issue, “The Religious Crisis in the Modern World”:

The translation and editing of my article is wonderful. Only a little misprint (or misunderstanding in translation?). At page 11, left hand column, 15-16th line “the school of Guénon, Schüon, and others” should be put after the word “inconceivable” as a last item of the preceding paragraph; after “third” should come “the Catholic progressive . . .”. Otherwise one might think that Guénon is a progressist: his body would turn in despair in his grave! But this is the only thing, and, as almost nobody knows Guénon, it is not too serious!

ALESSANDRO BAUSANI

Rome, Italy

[Page 4]

The Tablet to the Hague

By FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH

“There is not one soul whose conscience does not testify that in this day there is no more important matter in the world than that of Universal Peace.”

THESE WORDS, written half a century ago, have never been more meaningful than now. Great nations, armed to the teeth, live in constant anticipation of catastrophe. Incredibly complicated and powerful weapons systems are built only to give way to other even more destructive ones. Humanity’s very survival is no longer assured, and the fear of the holocaust is poisoning the life of the generation that has matured since the advent of the atomic age.

Reason, morality, and the will to live should long ago have forced world leaders to dedicate their greatest efforts to the search for peace. Yet today the pursuit of peace is no more earnest, no more intense, no more constant than in the past. Having failed to resolve their differences, to find a common ground, and to abandon nationalistic ambitions, the leaders of mankind have assigned “low priority” to the search for peace. While the threat of catastrophe remains undiminished, no realistic proposals to prevent conflict are seriously entertained by those who hold in their grasp the destiny of man.

Shortly after World War I had ended, and the memory of its horror was still fresh, peace became “popular.” President Wilson’s initiative in proposing the formation of a League of Nations was enthusiastically welcomed by the masses and reluctantly followed by the leaders. However, the League of Nations was a purely political institution, a loose and far from universal association of sovereign states each of which reserved to itself the ultimate power to wage war. A vast majority of those who met at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 paid lip service to the cause of peace while placing the narrow and selfish interests of their respective nations, classes, and parties above the interests of humanity. At the conference table and in the crowded corridors “the peacemakers” sowed the seeds of future conflicts. To them peacemaking had no spiritual dimension and they did not address themselves to the deeper levels in the nature of man.

It was then that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, son of the Founder of the Bahá’í Faith and its spiritual leader, sent a letter to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace at The Hague. He praised its members as “pioneers among the well-wishers of the world of humanity” and vividly contrasted the evils of war with the blessings of peace.

“This recent war [He wrote] has proved to the world and the people that war is destruction while Universal Peace is construction; war is death while peace is life; war is rapacity and bloodthirstiness while peace is beneficence and humaneness; war is an appurtenance of the world of nature while peace is of the foundation of the religion of God; war is darkness upon darkness while peace is heavenly light; war is the destroyer of the edifice of mankind while peace is the everlasting life of the world of humanity; war is like a devouring wolf while peace is like the angels of heaven; war is the struggle for existence while peace is mutual aid and cooperation among the peoples of the world and the cause of the good-pleasure of the True One in the heavenly realm.”

“There is not one soul,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá proclaimed, [Page 5]

[Page 6] “whose conscience does not testify that in this day there is no more important matter in the world than that of Universal Peace.” The leaders of humanity, however, have conceived of peace in purely political terms while “. . . the wise souls who are aware of the essential relationships emanating from the realities of things consider that one single matter cannot, by itself, influence the human reality as it ought and should, for until the minds of men become united, no important matter can be accomplished. At present Universal Peace is a matter of great importance, but unity of conscience is essential . . .”

THE ELIMINATION OF WAR and the establishment of universal peace, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá reiterated, depended upon the acceptance of certain teachings which Bahá’u’lláh, the Author of the Bahá’í Faith had promulgated fifty years earlier. Though exiled from His native Persia and held prisoner most of His life, Bahá’u’lláh gave mankind sublime teachings which His followers have spread to the four corners of the earth. Central to Bahá’u’lláh’s message, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá informed the Hague Peace Organization, “. . . was the declaration of Universal Peace. People of different nations, religions and sects who followed Him came together to such an extent that remarkable gatherings were instituted consisting of the various nations [nationalities] and religions of the East. Every soul who entered these gatherings saw but one nation, one teaching, one pathway, one order, for the teachings of His Holiness Bahá’u’lláh were not limited to the establishment of Universal Peace. They embraced many teachings which supplemented and supported that of Universal Peace.”

First among these teachings ‘Abdu’l-Bahá lists independent investigation of truth. Fifty years later, in a world dominated by propaganda and advertising, the need for each individual to “be saved from the darkness of imitation and attain to the truth” is more palpable than ever. Men everywhere disagree; yet “As reality is one and cannot admit of multiplicity, therefore different opinions must ultimately become fused into one.”

Independent investigation of truth must lead men to the full acceptance of the oneness of humanity: “that all human beings are the sheep of God and He is the kind Shepherd.” So central is this principle to the well-being of mankind that Bahá’u’lláh made unity the main purpose of religion. Never before in history had it been stated so explicitly “that religion must be the cause of fellowship and love. If it becomes the cause of estrangement then it is not needed, for religion is like a remedy; if it aggravates the disease then it becomes unnecessary.”

Unity of mankind implies the abandonment of religious, racial, political, economic, and patriotic prejudices which have divided humanity into hostile sects, groups, parties, classes, and nations. “As long as these prejudices persist,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote, “the struggle for existence must remain dominant, and bloodthirstiness and rapacity continue. Therefore, even as was the case in the past, the world of humanity cannot be saved from the darkness of nature and cannot attain illumination except through the abandonment of prejudices . . .”

In the twentieth century nationalism has been the most destructive of all social forces and ideologies. Legitimate love of country has been perverted and turned into hatred and fear of all nations except one’s own. For ‘Abdu’l-Bahá “the patriotic” prejudice was a result of “absolute ignorance, for the surface of the earth is one native land.” With sublime simplicity He conveyed to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace these profound truths:

“Every one can live in any spot on the terrestrial globe. Therefore all the world is man’s birthplace. These boundaries and outlets have been devised by man. In the creation, such boundaries . . . were not assigned. Europe is one continent, Asia is one continent, Africa is one continent, Australia is one continent, but some of the souls, from personal motives and selfish interests, have divided each one of these continents and considered a certain part as [Page 7] their own country. God has set up no frontier between France and Germany; they are continuous. . . . and if this conception of patriotism remains limited within a certain circle, it will be the primary cause of the world’s destruction. No wise and just person will acknowledge these imaginary distinctions. Every limited area which we call our native country we regard as our mother-land, whereas the terrestrial globe is the mother-land of all, and not any restricted area. In short, for a few days we live on this earth and eventually we are buried in it, it is our eternal tomb. Is it worth while that we should engage in bloodshed and tear one another to pieces for this eternal tomb? Nay, far from it, neither is God pleased with such conduct nor would any sane man approve of it.”

TO ACHIEVE UNITY and peace man must abandon his prejudices and learn to see himself as the citizen of the world. He must also reconstruct his economic and political life and follow ways that would lead to the strengthening of international ties and the increase in the exchange of commodities between countries. The development of communication and transportation since 1919 has already led to substantial integration of the economies of nations. However, their political and cultural integration has been prevented by “patriotic prejudice”.

The abandonment of political and economic prejudices would produce “universal benefits”. Yet these will not lead to harmony and peace, says ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, unless they are justly distributed and the opportunity to participate in them is open to all as a right. Thus extremes of poverty and wealth must be eliminated, women must receive equal rights with men, and “Every child must be instructed in sciences [various branches of knowledge] as much as is necessary.” Justice and right also are among the necessary conditions for the establishment of universal peace: “Until these are realized on the plane of existence, all things shall be in disorder and remain imperfect.”

‘Abdu’l-Bahá proclaimed man’s freedom, but not the freedom so commonly sought today, not freedom to indulge one’s appetites, not freedom from those restraints which educate and humanize. Rather He proclaimed man’s freedom “. . . that through the ideal Power he should be free and emancipated from the captivity of the world of nature; for as long as man is captive to nature he is a ferocious animal, as the struggle for existence is one of the exigencies of the world of nature. This matter of the struggle for existence is the fountain-head of all calamities and is the supreme affliction.”

IT WAS FREEDOM to develop the distinctively human part of man’s nature, freedom to spiritualize oneself, freedom to transcend one’s limitations that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá recommended as a prerequisite for the creation of a harmonious and peaceful society.

Here ‘Abdu’l-Bahá touched the central problem of modern civilization, a civilization which has produced almost unlimited material power yet has starved man’s inner self.

“And among the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh [‘Abdu’l-Bahá writes] is that although material civilization is one of the means for the progress of the world of mankind, yet until it becomes combined with Divine civilization, the desired result, which is the felicity of mankind, will not be attained. Consider! These battleships that reduce a city to ruins within the space of an hour are the result of material civilization; likewise the Krupp guns, the Mauser rifles, dynamite, submarines, torpedo boats, armed aircraft and bombing aeroplanes —all these weapons of war are the malignant fruits of material civilization. Had material civilization been combined with Divine civilization, these fiery weapons would never have been invented. Nay, rather, human energy would have been wholly devoted to useful inventions and would have been concentrated on praiseworthy discoveries. Material civilization is like a lamp-glass. Divine civilization is the lamp itself and the glass without the light is dark. Material civilization is like the body. [Page 8] No matter how infinitely graceful, elegant and beautiful it may be, it is dead. Divine civilization is like the spirit, and the body gets its life from the spirit, otherwise it becomes a corpse. It has thus been made evident that the world of mankind is in need of the breaths of the Holy Spirit. Without the spirit the world of mankind is lifeless, and without this light the world of mankind is in utter darkness. For the world of nature is an animal world. Until man is born again from the world of nature, that is to say, becomes detached from the world of nature, he is essentially an animal, and it is the teachings of God which convert this animal into a human soul.”

Once awakened to his own humanity by the teachings of God, man embarks on the great journey of constructing and maintaining civilizations. He is at all times in danger of losing his way, of following false leaders, of succumbing to the promptings of his own untamed nature. For man “religion is a mighty bulwark.” It preserves and protects both the individual and society more securely than any other force: “If the edifice of religion shakes and totters, commotion and chaos will ensue and the order of things will be utterly upset, for in the world of mankind there are two safeguards that protect man from wrongdoing. One is the law which punishes the criminal; but the law prevents only the manifest crime and not the concealed sin; whereas the ideal safeguard, namely, the religion of God, prevents both the manifest and the concealed crime, trains man, educates morals, compels the adoption of virtues and is the all-inclusive power which guarantees the felicity of the world of mankind.”

BAHÁ’U’LLÁH’S teachings are numerous. They constitute, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá declared, “The greatest basis for the felicity of mankind . . .” They must be “added to the matter of Universal Peace and combined with it . . . Otherwise the realization of Universal Peace (by itself) in the world of mankind is difficult.” Fifty years after ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote these prophetic words mankind has not yet established peace. The basic principles stated by Bahá’u’lláh more than a century ago have not received universal recognition and acceptance. Attempts are still being made at peacemaking in a vacuum—even though ‘Abdu’l-Bahá warned that “If the question is restricted to Universal Peace alone, the remarkable results which are expected and desired will not be attained.”

Universal Peace is not only composed of myriad component parts, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote. Universal Peace must also guarantee all peoples the fulfillment of their highest aspirations. The salient characteristic of the Bahá’í Faith is that it can unite members of all races, nations, and religions. “At present the teachings of His Holiness Bahá’u’lláh are such,” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá declared, “that all the communities of the world, whether religious, political or ethical, ancient or modern, find in the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh the expression of their highest wish.”

Believers in every religion have been able to find in the Bahá’í Faith “a religion that perfectly conforms with present conditions, which in reality effects the immediate care of the incurable disease, which relieves every pain, and bestows the infallible antidote for every deadly poison.” Traditional religions cannot serve as the basis for the establishment of world unity. They were born and matured in other ages and under totally different conditions than those of the present. Their specific laws and theologies belong to the past. “But the essential basis of all the Divine Religions which pertains to the virtues of the world of mankind and is the foundation of the welfare of the world of man, is found in the teachings of His Holiness Bahá’u’lláh in the most perfect presentation.”

The most advanced political and economic notions and the most progressive attitudes on issues of race are also to be found in the teachings of the Bahá’í Faith. “These teachings,” says ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “constitute the all-inclusive power among all men and are practicable.” The question of Universal Peace is itself an example of the practicability of [Page 9] the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh:

“although the League of Nations has been brought into existence, yet it is incapable of establishing Universal Peace. But the Supreme Tribunal which His Holines Bahá’u’lláh has described will fulfill this sacred task with the utmost might and power. And His plan it this: that the national assemblies of each country and nation—that is to say parliaments—should elect two or three persons who are the choicest men of that nation, and are well informed concerning international laws and the relations between governments and aware of the essential needs of the world of humanity in this day. The number of these representatives should be in proportion to the number of inhabitants of that country. The election of these souls who are chosen by the national assembly, that is, the parliament, must be confirmed by the upper house, the congress and the cabinet and also by the president or monarch so these persons may be the elected ones of all the nation and the government. From among these people the members of the Supreme Tribunal will be elected, and all mankind will thus have a share therein, for every one of these delegates is fully representative of his nation. When the Supreme Tribunal gives a ruling on any international question, either unanimously or by majority-rule, there will no longer be any pretext for the plaintiff or ground of objection for the defendant. In case any of the governments or nations, in the execution of the irrefutable decision of the Supreme Tribunal, be negligent and dilatory, the rest of the nations will rise up against it, because all the governments and nations of the world are the supporters of the Supreme Tribunal. Consider what a firm foundation this is! But by a limited and restricted League the purpose will not be realized as it ought and should.”

NEITHER will the purpose of establishing permanent and universal peace be attained in our day through the agency of a limited and restricted institution such as the United Nations. The League was undoubtedly a step in the right direction, yet it failed. National ambitions, ingrained prejudices, isolationism, and apathy prevented the member states from abdicating a portion of their sovereignty to the League. As a result it was paralyzed, deserted, and died in obscurity in the midst of a world war it should have prevented. The United Nations has not yet been put to such a test. However, since the United Nations came into being in 1945 the world has witnessed several wars, two of which are currently under way. The United Nations has been able to prevent or settle only a few of the major conflicts of the last twenty years. Neither the League nor the United Nations has been able to touch the hearts of mankind, to inspire allegiance, or to instill a higher loyalty than that traditionally given to a nation state. The quest for world peace must itself become transformed into a spiritual search, into a religious experience. Fifty years ago, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá pointed to the source of such a transforming power:

“Consider how powerful are the teachings of His Holiness Bahá’u’lláh. At a time when His Holiness was in the prison of ‘Akká and was under the restrictions and threats of two bloodthirsty kings, notwithstanding this fact, His teachings spread with all power in Persia and other countires. . . . for fifty years the Bahá’ís in Persia and most regions have been under severe restrictions and the threat of sword and spear. Thousands of souls have given their lives in the arena of sacrifice and have fallen as victims under the sword of oppression and cruelty . . . All this oppression and cruelty, rapacity and bloodthirstiness did not hinder or prevent the spread of the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh. They spread more and more every day, and their power and might became more evident.”

The power inherent in the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh transformed individuals and built communities composed of members of many races, peoples, religions, and creeds. They have been united by love for mankind into a fellowship that conquered division, reconciled [Page 10] enmities, and dispelled suspicions. Unity brings strength, while division leads to social decomposition. The annihilation of things, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote, “consists in the decomposition and separation of elements.” The union of diverse flowers, leaves, and fruits constitutes the beauty of a garden. “Likewise, when difference and variety of thoughts, forms, opinions, characters and morals of the world of mankind come under the control of one Supreme Power, that influence of composition among the elements is the cause of life, while dissociation and separation is the cause of death. In short, attraction and harmony of things are the cause of the production of fruits and useful results, while repulsion end inharmony of things are the cause of disturbance and annihilation. From harmony and attraction, all living contingent beings, such as plant, animal and man, are realized, and from inharmony and repulsion decay sets in and annihilation becomes manifest. Therefore whatever is the cause of harmony, attraction and union among men is the life of the world of humanity, and whatever is the cause of difference, of repulsion and of separation is the cause of the death of mankind.”

Is such union possible? ‘Abdu’l-Bahá Would answer:

“Should any one object that, since the communities and nations and races and peoples of the world have different formalities, customs, tastes, temperaments, morals, varied thoughts, minds and opinions, it is therefore impossible for ideal unity to be made manifest and complete union among men to be realized, we say that differences are of two kinds: One leads to destruction, and that is like the difference between warring peoples and competing nations who destroy one another, uproot each other’s families, do away with rest and comfort and engage in bloodshed and rapacity. That is blameworthy. But the other difference consists in variation. This is perfection itself and the cause of the appearance of Divine bounty. Consider the flowers of the rose garden. Although they are of different kinds, various colors and diverse forms and appearances, yet as they drink from one water, are swayed by one breeze and grow by the warmth and light of one sun, this variation and this difference cause each to enhance the beauty and splendor of the others. The differences in manners, in customs, in habits, in thoughts, opinions and in temperaments is the cause of the adornment of the world of mankind. This is praiseworthy. Likewise this difference and this variation, like the difference end variation of the parts and members of the human body, are the cause of the appearance of beauty and perfection. As these different parts and members are under the control of the dominant spirit, and the spirit permeates all the organs and members, and rules all the arteries and veins, this difference and this variation strengthen love and harmony and this multiplicity is the greatest aid to unity.”

Through the potency of the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh differences and conflicts give way to harmony and fellowship. “Praise be to God,” says ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “in this day the light of the Word of God has shone forth upon all regions, and from all sects, communities, nations, tribes, peoples, religions and denominations, souls have gathered under the shadow of the Word of Oneness . . .”

TO CONCLUDE His message to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace at The Hague, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá quotes a letter written during the first World War and addressed to the people of the world. He reiterates some of the basic principles of the Bahá’í Faith and calls upon the followers of Bahá’u’lláh to “purify their sight” and always to think of doing good:

“They must see no enemy and count no one as an ill wisher. They must consider every one on the earth as a friend; regard the stranger as an intimate, and the alien as a companion. They must not be bound by any tie, nay, rather, they should be free from every bond. . . . O ye dear friends! The world is engaged in war and struggle, and mankind [Page 11] is in the utmost conflict and danger. The darkness of unfaithfulness has enshrouded the earth and the illumination of faithfulness has become concealed. All nations and tribes of the world have sharpened their claws and are warring and fighting with each other. The edifice of man is shattered. Thousands of families are wandering disconsolate. Thousands of souls are besmeared with dust and blood in the arena of battle and struggle every year, and the tent of happiness and life is overthrown. The prominent men become commanders and boast of bloodshed, and glory in destruction. One says, ‘I have severed with my sword the necks of a nation,’ and one: ‘I have levelled a kingdom to the dust’; and another: ‘I have overthrown the foundation of a government.’ This is the pivot around which the pride and glory of mankind are revolving. In all regions friendship and uprightness are denounced and reconciliation and regard for truth are despised. The herald of peace, reformation, love and reconciliation is the Religion of the Blessed Beauty which has pitched its tent on the apex of the world and proclaimed its summons to the people.

“Then, O ye friends of God! Appreciate the value of this precious Revelation, move and act in accordance with it and walk in the straight path and the right way. Show it to the people. Raise the melody of the Kingdom and spread abroad the teachings and ordinances of the loving Lord so that the world may become another world, the darkened earth may become illumined and the dead body of the people may obtain new life. Every soul may seek everlasting life through the breath of the Merciful. Life in this mortal world will quickly come to an end, and this earthly glory, wealth, comfort and happiness will soon vanish and be no more. Summon ye the people to God and call the souls to the manners and conduct of the Supreme Concourse. To the orphans be ye kind fathers, and to the unfortunate a refuge and shelter. To the poor be a treasure of wealth, and to the sick a remedy and healing. Be a helper of every oppressed one, the protector of every destitute one, be ye ever mindful to serve any soul of mankind. Attach no importance to self-seeking, rejection, arrogance, oppression and enmity. Heed them not. Deal in the contrary way. Be kind in truth, not only in appearance and outwardly. Every soul of the friends of God must concentrate his mind on this, that he may manifest the mercy of God and the bounty of the Forgiving One. He must do good to every soul whom he encounters, and render benefit to him, becoming the cause of improving the morals and correcting the thoughts so that the light of guidance may thine forth and the bounty of His Holiness the Merciful One may encompass. Love is light in whatsoever house it may shine and enmity is darkness in whatsoever abode it dwell.

“O friends of God! Strive ye so that this darkness may he utterly dispelled and the Hidden Mystery may be revealed and the realities of things made evident and manifest.”

Thus fifty years ago ‘Abdu’l-Bahá addressed those who were trying, however unsuccessfully, to establish a durable peace. Since then several wars, great and small, have demonstrated the inadequacy of the conventional diplomacy and of the traditional nation-state system to prevent armed conflict. Modern wars tend to be total wars. Peace too must be total. To achieve peace modern man will have to undertake a complete reconstruction of society and self. Habits of living and habits of thought will have to change. False values will have to be abandoned. Outworn attitudes will have to be shed and new, constructive ones acquired. The task is enormously complex yet absolutely essential. To those who undertake it ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s words will continue to provide guidance and inspiration.

[Page 12]

Four Poems

Mountain Trails

Mountain trails wind upwards,

Through the hardwoods first,

And then the pines,

To burst upon the rocky peaks,

Where summer birds,

And many men,

Never choose to climb.

Connecticut September

The sweet-soft scent of Fall

Is in the air.

The trees and plants,

Announce their presence,

With an arresting burst,

Insisting on Nature’s place

Along indifferent country roads.

The Butterfly

As I locked the gate,

A Butterfly

Flew through the bars.

The Professional

Can the historian hear

A Cry of Pain?

How many centuries

Does it take,

Before a Scream

Becomes a Whimper,

And then a Footnote.

—TIMOTHY H. BREEN

[Page 13]

[Page 14]

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIVERSAL PEACE

By JOHN A. DAVIDSON

“How long will humanity persist in its waywardness? How long will injustice continue? How long is chaos and confusion to reign amongst men? How long will discord agitate the face of society? The winds of despair are, alas, blowing from every direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be lamentably defective.”

—Bahá’u’lláh

WAR HAS BECOME an institution of our world society in much the same way as the legal system and instalment buying. It is essentially a national endeavor and has two phases. The first of these is called “peace”. During the period called peace the victors of the previous conflagration group themselves into two mutually antagonistic alliances. They swiftly rehabilitate the fortunes of such of the vanquished nations as may have fallen into the ambit of their political and strategic influence. Recalling the recent evidences of that peculiar resourcefulness and singlemindedness with which human beings, when once aroused, set about annihilating other members of their species, they gear their economies and military planning to the development of such armaments as may be necessary to defend their vital interests, or, if this is not possible, at least enough to devastate large numbers of enemy. Conscious that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, they await that propitious moment when national interest coincides with strategic opportunity. The cycle then enters upon its active phase, which is called “defense”. The objective of this phase is to obtain the unconditional surrender of the enemy by killing or injuring as many as possible.

The economic and scientific aspects of war are equally worthy of comment. It has been estimated that throughout the world 140,000,000,000 dollars a year (400 million dollars a day) are spent on defense. Indeed once an economy is geared to defense the threat of peace causes great consternation. The following is an extract from an Australian Broadcasting Commission news bulletin —7 p.m. 11/3/59: “The heaviest drop in nearly four years was registered yesterday in the New York Stock Exchange. It is reported that the slump reduced the value of all listed shares by a total of about seven thousand million pounds. The decline started with the news of the forthcoming exchange of visits between President Eisenhower and Mr. Khrushchev. Reuter blames the reversal on the psychological impact of the belief that there might be a ‘thaw’ in the cold war with the possible reduction in America’s defence stocks, including aircraft, missiles, and rocket fuels.” The vast financial allocation to defense profoundly influences not only technology but also basic research in the social, biological, and physical sciences. For example it was estimated by L. J. J. Nye in his book, Homo Insapiens, that in America during [Page 15] 1960-61, that is, before the Vietnam War, about one third of the scientists and engineers were directly engaged in war work, about one half of scientific research and development was used on military projects, and about one third of the entire American economy was, directly or indirectly, dependent on the manufacture of goods needed for war.

Nor should the contributions of the literary and dramatic arts, the mass media, the public schools, and even the religions pass unnoticed. How else might young and old alike discover the glamor and excitement of military action, the tyranny and oppression of the enemy, the threat thus posed to national life, and National Ideals, the unique role of one’s own country in defending what is right, and the zeal to crush the advance of the ungodly. Indeed, when one contemplates the total involvement of the nations of our world society in the vast enterprise of war, there seems no more fitting a measure of the progress of our civilization than the one which the nations themselves have chosen—a yearly body count of the slaughtered multitudes of their lost and anonymous sons.

The Necessity of Controlling War

“There is not one soul whose conscience does not testify that in this day there is no more important matter in the world than that of Universal Peace.”

The control of war becomes a practical necessity when the method of war is no longer adequate to protect the vital interests of any nation and in fact even endangers the continued survival of all nations. It becomes a moral necessity when war is a primary cause of the greatest injustice and suffering afflicting human kind. It becomes a spiritual necessity when throughout the world war casts the human spirit into the darkest depths of savagery and degradation and undermines the very basis of that affinity and friendship between peoples which is a fundamental precept of all revealed religions.

The practical necessity of controlling war is related to the inability of military strength to fulfill the functions and objectives for which it has been used: (a) the defense of a nation’s territory and people, and (b) the pursuit of national goals. War is no longer able to secure these objectives because in essence a technological revolution in armaments has taken place, primarily in the development of nuclear weapons but also in biological warfare. It is much to be feared that neither the military, moral, nor political implications of this revolution have been adequately appreciated, either by the people generally or their military and political leaders.

Whereas once the accumulation of armaments increased national security, with nuclear weapons the reverse is true. The relationship between the increase in military strength and the decline in national security is summarized by Jerome B. Wiesner and Herbert F. York, two eminent scientists who served as advisors to the Eisenhower and [Page 16] Kennedy administrations:

Ever since shortly after World War II the military power of the U.S. has been steadily increasing. Throughout this same period the national security of the U.S. has been rapidly and inexorably diminishing. In the early 1950s the U.S.S.R., on the basis of its own unilateral decision and determination to accept the inevitable retaliation, could have launched an attack against the U.S. with bombers carrying fission bombs. Some of these bombers would have penetrated our defenses and the American casualties would have numbered In the millions. In the later 1950s, again on its own sole decision and determination to accept the inevitable massive retaliation, the U.S.S.R. could have launched an attack against the U.S., using more and better bombers, this time carrying thermonuclear bombs. Some of these bombers would have penetrated our defenses and the American casualties could have numbered in the tens of millions.

Today the U.S.S.R., again on the basis of its own decision and determination to accept the inevitable retaliation, could launch an attack on the U.S. using intercontinental missiles and bombers carrying thermonuclear weapons. This time the number of American casualties could very well be on the order of 100 million.

The steady decrease in national security did not result from any inaction on the part of the responsible U.S. military and civilian authorities. It resulted from the systematic exploitation of the products of modern science and technology by the U.S.S.R. The air defenses deployed by the U.S. during the 1950s would have reduced the number of casualties the country might have otherwise sustained, but their existence did not substantively modify this picture. Nor could it have been altered by any other defense measures that might have been taken but that for one reason or another were not taken.

From the Soviet point of view the picture is similar but much worse. The military power of the U.S.S.R. has been steadily increasing since it became an atomic power in 1949. Soviet national security however, has been steadily decreasing. Hypothetically the U.S. could unilaterally decide to destroy the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.S.R. would be absolutely powerless to prevent it. That country could only, at best, seek to wreak revenge through whatever retaliatory capability it might then have left.

Both sides in the arms race are thus confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security. It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no technical solution. If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation. The clearly predictable course of the arms race is a steady open spiral downward into oblivion.

The development of an extensive system of defense shelters is a potential threat equal to the proportionate increase in one’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, because it provokes the same response of increased stockpiling of armaments. It is the paradox of the nuclear age that increasing one’s stockpile of nuclear weapons leads to a decrease in one’s national safety. Nevertheless the stockpiles continue to grow. We are failing to adapt to the essentials of survival.

The moral aspects of nuclear warfare are equally paradoxical. It is generally conceded to be immoral to initiate a nuclear attack. But it is no less immoral to retaliate, for what moral justification can there be for the annihilation of hundreds of millions of civilians who can have no real responsibility [Page 17] whatever in the decision to wage a nuclear war. Furthermore, it is actually to the advantage of a nation which has sustained a nuclear attack and yet retains the capacity for massive retaliation to withhold that retaliation. It is in a position of strategic and moral advantage. Having very little to lose, it can fully exploit the resources of the attacking country for its own reconstruction and can also exert enormous influence at a world political and intergovernmental level to establish such institutions and procedures as it deems necessary to secure peace and stability in the future.

The moral necessity of controlling war is so obvious that it scarcely bears elaboration. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá spoke on the subject of war in Paris in 1911 and said: “If man had even the rudiments of justice, such a state of things would be impossible.” The spiritual necessity of peace is implicit in the teachings of all the world religions. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá writes: “All the divine Manifestations have proclaimed the oneness of God and the unity of mankind. They have taught that men should love and mutually help each other in order that they might progress. Now if this concentration of religion be true, its essential principle is the oneness of humanity. The fundamental truth of the Manifestations is peace. This underlies all religion, all justice. The divine purpose is that men should live in unity, concord and agreement and should love one another.”

The Means for Controlling War

“The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded.”

The possibilities for the control of international violence depend on the basic system of government. The present system is one of unlimited national sovereignty; within such a system international violence can he controlled only through a unilateral decision to renounce war or through adherence to international agreements to renounce aggressive military action. The former alternative is clearly unacceptable to the majority of nations; it is neither reasonable nor morally justifiable to expect nations to commit themselves to purely passive means of resistance, regardless of the well-being of their own people. The latter alternative is equally unsatisfactory. International agreements may well be deemed an expression of pious hope. They are not, however, to be confused with any effective means for the control of international violence, since the parties are, in the last resort, able to place their own interpretation on them, and furthermore they remain bound by them only for so long as they choose to be bound.

The reason for these hard words is not simply that the two largest world powers are engaged in military action which contravenes international agreements. It is not the purpose of this discussion to attempt to pass judgment on the special circumstances or national values which led to these measures, far less to lavish moral indignation on any individual action in the midst of international anarchy. The reason is rather this: for an international agreement to be effective nations must be prepared to abide by it even when circumstances arise, as they invariably do, which make it detrimental to the interests or values of a particular nation to continue to carry out its provisions.

The recognition and fulfilment of obligations is associated with group membership and depends on the significance of the group to the individual. It is the nation-state which provides security for life and property and [Page 18] affords the individual a means of livelihood. It is not surprising, therefore, that for the majority of individuals their primary loyalty is a national one, and that these individuals elect members of the government who hold office by virtue of their ability to further the national interest. Confronted by a situation in which it appears detrimental to abide by an agreement, rationalization is all too swift. The desirable becomes imperative, the imperative necessary, and necessity legitimate.

The institution of the nation-state perpetuates a set of limited ideals and obligations. Strict adherence to international agreements presupposes, on the contrary, a level of morality which is consonant with the sacrifice of national interests for the sake of supra-national order. This can never transpire while the nation remains of much greater significance to the vast majority of mankind. It is not simply that at present international agreements are inadequate to secure peace; the basic social value structure is incompatible with the evolution of the level of morality which is essential if international agreements are ever to be adequate.

Lest the problem of peace appear insuperable, it may be timely to recognize that it is not a new one confronting mankind. In fact, it is one which has already been solved with a substantial measure of success at each level of social evolution. In essence the successful approach is to treat the problem of peace as a problem of justice to be resolved through enforceable law. Tribal law, though unwritten, was nonetheless largely effective in regulating the internal behavior of the tribe. With the size and complexity of the nation it has been necessary to develop appropriate social institutions—a parliamentary system to enact law, a judicial system to apply it, and a police system to enforce it.

For these institutions to function effectively certain conditions must be realized. The parliament must be representative of the people who are being bound by its laws. The court must have the power to act even when one of the parties is reluctant to have a court decision made, and such decisions must be binding on both parties. The police force must be able and willing to enforce the law. Finally there must be an adequate and mandatory source of revenue. Granted a reasonable measure of justice, loyalty, and social unity, this system is effective in maintaining peace and internal order, irrespective of the size of the country. It is, therefore, reasonable to consider the adoption of this system as the basic pattern of a world authority for the maintenance of peace.

The Bahá’í concept of the basic institutions of such an authority is delineated by Shoghi Effendi:

Some form of a world Super-State must needs be evolved, in whose favor all the nations of the world will have willingly ceded every claim to make war, certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments, except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective dominions. Such a state will have to include within its orbit an International Executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth; a World Parliament whose members shall be elected by the people in their respective countries and whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments; and a Supreme Tribunal whose judgment will have a binding effect even in such cases where the parties concerned did not voluntarily agree to submit their case to its consideration.

Granted an acceptance of these basic principles, the next requirement is to provide for discussion a detailed legal formulation of the constitution and functioning of the institutions of the World Authority. This service has been performed by Grenville Clark, a prominent New York lawyer, and Lewis B. Sohn, a professor of law at Harvard, [Page 19] in their book World Peace through World Law, which has received consideration not only in the West but also in the U.S.R.R. In seeking to implement these proposals World Federalists have championed the transformation of the United Nations into a World Authority of this kind. In this connection it is encouraging to note the record of the International Court of Justice which functions as an organ of the United Nations. Despite the present adverse circumstances, its judges have established a commendable precedent for impartiality which befits a body representing the most illustrious members of the legal profession throughout the world.

The basic requirement for the establishment of a World Authority adequate to secure peace is, in a word, unity. The greatest obstacle to its establishment is disunity in all its forms—prejudice, fear, hatred, suspicion, apathy, insularity. In a previous age nation-states were formed through conquest, but the balance of military power makes it improbable that world unity could he established in this way. It would appear that there are only two forces capable of generating this unity. One is the extension of the sentiment of universal love and affinity which is the true mark of spiritual faith. The other is suffering, so universal, so terrible, and so profound as to stir humanity to its very depths and bring about the realization of the oneness of all mankind.

One additional point needs to be made. It is the central thesis of this essay that the control of international violence has become a practical necessity for the survival of civilization on our planet, that this is not possible within the present system of unlimited national sovereignty, and that it requires the establishment of a world body possessed of adequate authority and powers. The governments of the world, on the contrary, have become more and more deeply committed to the institution of war, by preparedness, by threat, and in actuality, as the means of maintaining their security. The clearly predictable course of events is a series of recurrent crises drawing the masses of mankind into a vast and terrible conflagration. If human civilization is to continue, it requires both the recognition of the principles of the unity of mankind and of the right of all people to peace and security, and also the establishment of institutions which are able to safeguard and perpetuate these principles. How long this will take depends on the course of a learning process in which, one can but note with extreme regret, the most painful experiences seem to be the most instructive.

The Basis for Universal Peace

“. . . until the minds of men become united, no important matter can be accomplished. At present Universal Peace is a matter of great importance, but unity of conscience is essential, so that the foundation of this matter may become secure, its establishment firm and its edifice strong.”

In His letter to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace, the Hague, 17 December 1919, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá not only explains Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings about a Supreme Tribunal to ensure world peace (and affirms the inability of the League to fulfil this function) but also expounds in some considerable detail those principles which supplement and support the tenet of Universal Peace. The principles He discusses include the independent investigation of reality; the oneness of the world of humanity; making religion the cause of fellowship and love; the conformity of religion with science and reason; the abolition of religious, social, political, economic, and patriotic prejudices which destroy the edifice of humanity; the origination of a universal language; the equality of men and women; the necessity of freedom from the struggle for existence; the constitution of religion as a mighty bulwark for mankind; the combination of material civilization with divine civilization to make possible the felicity of mankind; universal education; [Page 20] and the necessity of justice.

There are a number of reasons for taking a broad approach to universal peace. As it is not preeminent among human values, as the occurrence of war amply demonstrates, it must therefore he supported by other values if it is to be translated into effective action. The establishment of the necessary social organization to secure peace is dependent on agreement and common consent between the majority of peoples and nations. This presupposes a substantial measure of agreement on basic values.

Whereas peace, in itself, is a passive quality, the absence of war, the relevant positive value which can command respect and action is justice. It is therefore upon the foundation of justice that universal peace must be based. Considering the need for unity of conscience, it may well be that the greatest contribution of the United Nations to the eventual establishment uf universal peace was the promulgation on December 10th, 1948, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This charter affirms that the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world, and it details basic rights in a set of thirty articles.

While the agreement by the member countries of the United Nations on a charter of human rights is a wonderful thing, it is noteworthy that in scarcely any country of the world is it possible for these basic rights to be fully realized. It may be useful to contrast the legal approach of upholding human rights with the approach of the great world religions, which have placed their emphasis on human duties and obligations. The legal approach leads individuals to concentrate on improving their own positions, possibly with recourse to legal action or by other methods. The religious approach leads each person to reflect on his own duties and obligations, the conscientious fulfilment of which will protect the rights of others.

These two approaches are not contradictory. In fact both are necessary for the wellbeing of society. An emphasis on freedom and human rights without at the same time finding a means to perpetuate the ideals of loyalty and obedience to properly constituted authority, respect for other people, and trustworthiness in fulfilling one’s obligations towards them, can lead only to the negation of human rights, and to the chaos and disorder which are becoming increasingly characteristic of the world society. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s remarks on the unique role of religion in perpetuating these values are therefore worthy of the closest consideration. When one is slipping down a short rope that hangs from a high cliff, it does not pay to bypass ledges.

The Sovereign Remedy

“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician.”

Between the form of social organization, the basic values, and the spiritual aspiration of a people, there is a mutual influence and interaction in which it is difficult to distinguish cause and effect. Suffice it to say that the coming together of mankind will be associated with a search for a spiritual ideal which will illuminate the essential unity of humanity in the presence of many continuing differences—be they physical, psychological, or cultural; which will give meaning to the course and pattern of human history; which will preserve and cherish those traditions which have proved of unique value to mankind; and which will inspire and animate the ideal of world citizenship. It is beyond the [Page 21] scope of this essay to attempt to summarize the contributions of the Bahá’í Faith towards world peace, such as for example its recent worldwide activities in support of the United Nations International Human Rights Year. It is, however, pertinent to indicate four particular aspects of the Bahá’í Faith which make its contribution unique and distinctive.

In the first place the Bahá’í teachings provide a basis for the reconciliation of the world religions. The basic principle enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh is that Revelation is a progressive process. He teaches that the great world religions are all divine in origin, their underlying principles being in complete harmony, but that they are adapted to the needs of the society in which they are revealed. Their Founders have the same station as Manifestations of God, yet each has unique personal qualities and also a definitely prescribed mission which represents one of the successive stages in the spiritual evolution of human society. It is because of this dual station of Unity (as Manifestations of God) and of individuality (as servants of God) that the teachings of the Manifestations about their own stations have been in apparent conflict, both within and between the world religions; it is through misguided theological attempts to elucidate these statements that the greatest barrier to religious reconciliation has been raised. When one considers the element of religious conflict in wars of recent years it is clear that any contribution to harmony between religions may have very far-reaching consequences for peace.

Second, the ideals and moral principles to which Bahá’ís are committed are world-oriented. Bahá’u’lláh writes: “The purpose underlying the revelation of every heavenly Book, nay, of every divinely-revealed verse, is to endue all men with righteousness and understanding, so that peace and tranquillity may be firmly established amongst them.” “O ye the elected representatives of the people in every land! Take ye counsel together, and let your concern be only for that which profiteth mankind. . . .” “O people of God! Be not occupied with yourselves. Be intent on the betterment of the world and the training of nations.” Recognizing the unwillingness of the world’s leaders to take effective measures to protect mankind from the continual recurrence of war, Bahá’ís are required to seek exemption from combatant duties. If this exemption is not granted, however, they are obligated to perform military service, since the principle of loyalty to government is vital to the future stability of a world order. One cannot refrain from commenting that in view of the military and economic development, and the political and legal sophistication of the Christian nations, if even a majority of Christian people had possessed this measure of commitment to universal peace, ways and means would long since have been found to make it reality.

Third, Bahá’ís are committed to the establishment of a limited form of world government, a provision which must constitute an essential part of any program to secure world peace. It is no criticism of the dedicated efforts of World Federalists to promote the ideal of world peace through enforceable world law to comment that a very substantial proportion of the peoples of the world who have embraced this principle are Bahá’ís, because the Bahá’í teachings of love and unity, and the continual guidance of God to man, have an attraction to many in both east and west who have neither the political sophistication nor even the interest to investigate the question of world government. There can be little doubt that the most [Page 22] effective contribution which a Bahá’í can make to world peace is simply to teach his own Faith.

Finally there is in the Bahá’í Faith a unique quality of inspiration and vision which reveals itself in the writings of Bahá’u’lláh and continues to be reflected in the writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, of Shoghi Effendi, and of the Universal House of Justice. It was Bahá’u’lláh Who, in the last century, recognized the potential threat to humanity in the rapid development of Western civilization without an associated development in responsibility or wisdom, Who warned of the discovery of “an instrument which has the power to change the atmosphere of the whole earth, and its infection causes destruction”, Who called for the establishment of an international tribunal possessed of sufficient powers to secure peace, Who identified justice and unity as the essential qualities for ensuring the tranquillity of mankind, Who demonstrated the power of religion to create love and unity where formerly there had existed antipathy and hatred. It is this inspiration and vision continuing to the present day which has guided and motivated the efforts of the Bahá’í World Community. It constitutes both a challenge to the limited national and religious concepts of the present day and an ideal which is worthy of a newly emerging civilization.

Shoghi Effendi writes:

The principle of the Oneness of Mankind—the pivot round which all the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh revolve—is no mere outburst of ignorant emotionalism or an expression of vague and pious hope. Its appeal is not to be merely identified with a reawakening of the spirit of brotherhood and good-will among men, nor does it aim solely at the fostering of harmonious cooperation among individual peoples and nations. Its implications are deeper, its claims greater than any which the Prophets of old were allowed to advance. Its message is applicable not only to the individual, but concerns itself primarily with the nature of those essential relationships that must bind all the states and nations as members of one human family. It does not constitute merely the enunciation of an ideal, but stands inseparably associated with an institution adequate to embody its truth, demonstrate its validity, and perpetuate its influence. It implies an organic change in the structure of present-day society, a change such as the world has not yet experienced. It constitutes a challenge, at once bold and universal, to outworn shibboleths of national creeds—creeds that have had their day and which must, in the ordinary course of events as shaped and controlled by Providence, give way to a new gospel, fundamentally different from, and infinitely superior to, what the world has already conceived. It calls for no less than the reconstruction and the demilitarization of the whole civilized world—a world organically unified in all the essential aspects of its life, its political machinery, its spiritual aspiration, its trade and finance, its script and language, and yet infinite in the diversity of the national characteristics of its federated units.

It represents the consummation of human evolution—evolution that has had its earliest beginnings in the birth of family life, its subsequent development in the achievement of tribal solidarity, leading in turn to the constitution of the city-state, and expanding later into the institution of independent and sovereign nations.

The principle of the Oneness of Mankind, as proclaimed by Bahá’u’lláh, carries with it no more and no less than a solemn assertion that attainment to this final stage in this stupendous evolution is not only necessary but inevitable, that its realization is fast approaching, and that nothing short of a power that is born of God can succeed in establishing it.”

[Page 23]

Home Town Fire

She sang among the burning until it all burned down,

Old woman with a cup of coffee saved when the fire spread

Through half a century of quiet grace.

Like sunlight on water

Like an explosion of Autumn leaves

Like a girl at the edge of the water

White Queen

With a cup of coffee saved when the fire spread

White Queen in a white gown

With a cup of coffee

Through the ruins Like a swan.

—Raymond Hudson

[Page 24]

[Page 25]

[Page 26]

A Letter to My Friends

By JOHN HUDDLESTON

A FEW MONTHS ago I became a Bahá’í. I expect this caused the raising of a few eyebrows. Whether or not this is so, I feel that perhaps I owe some sort of explanation, especially as in the past I think my views on the whole have been very similar to those of most of my friends. No doubt some attributed this change to my Bahá’í marriage. Of course, my wife’s beliefs have had some influence on me, but it was far more than that. For several years now I have grown gradually more disenchanted with the conventional values of our time and I feel that sooner or later, marriage or no marriage, I would have eventually come to the same decision.

In the past, any ideas I might have had about the meaning of life were more in the nature of a reaction against the Christian churches than anything positive. By the time I was fifteen I had come to identify organized religion with superstition, hypocrisy, and factionalism. In varying degrees the Christian churches demanded that one believe in such concepts as a physical heaven and hell, angels, miracles, a literal interpretation of Genesis, the Trinity, the Resurrection, the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary, and so on. I found it simply impossible to reconcile such ideas with all else in my experience. I was distressed, then deeply angered, as I came to understand how vast was the gap between the teachings of Christ and the practice of His churches. Christianity was supposedly about love, concern for the poor, humility, detachment from worldly wealth. These principles seemed to have very little connection with so much of the churches’ record: the Crusades, the Inquisition, Renaissance Rome, the Thirty Years’ War, the indifference to misery in the industrial cities, the acquiescence in slavery and segregation. As if this were not bad enough, it was difficult to respect a religion which was split into a multitude of factions fighting over all sorts of issues, most of which had very little bearing on the original teachings of Christ, or indeed relevance to present day society. I felt at that time I had no choice but to reject the churches. In so doing I put out of my mind the idea of God, which had been presented, like so much else, in unacceptable terms. I should add, however, that I never became so arrogant as to assert that there was no God. Rather, I preferred to get along without thinking of the idea. If I ever thought about a purpose in life, I would have some general notion of man aspiring to an ever-rising standard of civilization and culture—and leave it at that.

I was soon conscious that there was something missing. The vision of something beyond material life which inspired the greatest of artists and scientists, Rembrandt, Tolstoy, Einstein, could not be reconciled with my limited philosophy:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Page 27] Like others I had seen the running dispute between the churches and the scientific community as a direct confrontation between the religious and atheist viewpoints. However, as more and more was discovered of the order and logic of the universe, I began to sense that science, though destructive of superstition, was pointing in the direction of some much greater meaning behind material existence. On the other hand, I began to comprehend the consequences of the philosophy that man was master of his own destiny and did not need or want a God. Almost daily I would read in the newspapers the disastrous results of such arrogance. One would have thought that the madness of the last few decades might have taught a little more humility. This growing awareness only served to strengthen my doubts about the cavalier way modern man has broken with the accumulated wisdom of the past. Even at the height of my militancy against the churches, I had always regarded Jesus as far more worthy of respect than any modern theorist.

Whatever my doubts on the wider aspects of the meaning of life, I have always had deep feelings about the degree of injustice in society, which I could never accept as being inevitable. The answer seemed to be in radical politics. Of the radical parties the socialists are those with which I found myself most in sympathy. They represented the interests of the largest group of underprivileged in society, the industrial working class, and unlike laissez faire radicals they preferred not to wait on the accident of history but to plan ahead to avoid social disaster. Like other young people, I wanted clear-cut answers and quick action, and it followed that revolutionary socialism, or Communism, had a superficial appeal. However, I was sufficiently aware of history to be skeptical of the dynamics of revolution which in the past had corrupted objectives and indeed often created worse injustices than those which it had removed. I had no illusions, either, about the implication of the Communist theory of the end justifying the means. I felt, therefore, that the parties most realistically and genuinely concerned about social justice were the democratic socialists (in England the Labout Party), and I have as a result supported them with varying degrees of enthusiasm since my early teens. Despite many blemishes, the record of the democratic left in the West has been, I think, praiseworthy. It is clear that directly or indirectly it has greatly ameliorated the lot of the working class, whose condition during the last hundred years or so has been the most important social issue of the West.

Times have changed, however, and much greater issues face the world. The national state, racial antagonism, and a mushrooming world population, have become the major barriers to further human progress. In a sense the first two issues overlap and interrelate, and the third is partly their product. Each is a cause of great injustice and is potentially a major threat to the survival of civilization. Most other problems such as those we are familiar with in the West (structural poverty, the city, conservation, communications) are all basically side effects of the three main issues. Seeing society in this perspective I came to realize that the old political institutions, including the democratic left, were no longer adequate to meet our needs, and furthermore there was little or no prospect that they ever would be.

Take the first issue, the sovereign national state. This is not only a daily threat to our very existence in an age of nuclear weapons; it is also probably the major [Page 28] cause of economic and social inequality across the world. As politics now stand it seems to me that there is not the slightest chance that nations will remedy this situation by agreeing to surrender their sovereignty to a single world authority. Such action would be against the whole nature of politics, which is to demand an immediate return for every concession made. Even at times of strongest popular revulsion against power politics, as in 1919 and 1945, no nation has been willing to take the risk of acting with vision and in the interest of the world community as a whole. It is a source of constant amazement to me to contrast what should have been with the petty and boring disputes which actually concerned our statesmen at these times. The fault lies not only with the traditional square-jawed patriots of the right. For all the talk of world brotherhood, the socialist parties have always hesitated when it came to the point of having to act in a wider context than their own national state: witness the German Social Democratic Party in August, 1914. In fact, in recent years it has become fashionable for some socialists to see the national state as a defense against outside interference in the reforms they have carried out.

Of course, it is true that in the last half century there has been a considerable increase in international cooperation, and much has been achieved. However, it would be unwise to regard these successes as anything more than marginal. At the heart of the matter is still the powerlessness of the United Nations and its agencies, not only in such obvious areas as power politics, but also in such activities as getting the rich countries to carry their share of the cost of developing the poorer parts of the world. When it comes to the point, all that has been achieved could be destroyed overnight. The nuclear treaties are about as fragile as the lives of the statesmen who signed them. Most of us prefer not to think of these factors, but it would be myopic indeed not to admit their reality.

It might be argued that the present timidness of statesmen might be overcome if some political movement of real vision were to grow in key areas of the world, either by inspiring an outburst of universal enthusiasm or by finding a major political base. I am very skeptical of such hopes. In modern politics at least, the chief reform parties, for the most part the socialists, have largely had the solid support of the biggest reasonably homogeneous group in society, the industrial working class, which recognized a direct relationship between their own interest and the reforms being advocated. I do not see any such solid base appearing for any party dedicated to the establishment of a world government, which might very well involve some initial sacrifice especially for those in the rich countries. Today’s poor, the people of the world who have the most to gain from world unity, are, unlike the working class of yesterday, completely outside the real political system (i.e., that in the rich countries) and have little or no effect on decisions which vitally affect their lives. The reformer starts off, therefore, at a great disadvantage. He can persuade the rich no more than could the reformer of the past that what he advocates is for the advantage of all in the long run.

There have been great outbursts of enthusiasm and social solidarity in history, most obviously in the springtime of a new religion or when a nation has been fighting for its very life. Experience in recent years has convinced me that it is highly [Page 29] unlikely that the political system could channel and maintain such enthusiasm sufficiently long, and on a sufficiently broad base to achieve the voluntary abolition of the sovereign national state. Society is too cynical now, perhaps rightly, for such a thing to happen. It has learnt that politics really does corrupt and enmesh in its coils even the best motivated men. In the hurly-burly of the struggle for power, men become convinced of their own indispensability, and those who should be united in one cause fight among themselves; for instance, one only has to remember the 1968 primaries in the United States. Principles become bent in compromises with other pressure groups, and these groups rarely represent the true interests of society. When power is finally achieved, the shackles of office suddenly become all too apparent. How often have we seen a man reverse his campaign pledges when he reaches office. Realism? I wonder. More likely it is because he cannot break out of the shackles which seem almost to have an independent life of their own. How can it be seriously argued that the issues at stake, say, in Vietnam, or Cuba, or Suez, or Berlin, or in the other international crises of the last few years, has anything to do with the real interests of ordinary people? Yet on each occasion their lives have been put in the balance. I am sure we are all aware of similar gaps between the interest of society and of political government in domestic affairs.

A great deal of the above is true, too, of politics in relation to racial antagonisms. Perhaps, however, the main point with regard to race is the need for a deep moral education for all members of society, and it is precisely this that the political parties cannot provide. Political parties responding to the immediate desires of the frustrated downtrodden or to the fears of these on top tend to polarize views and in the process destroy any chance of a rational dialogue and moral education. A reforming party if it can achieve power will force justice, or its concept of justice, onto the conservatives willynilly. If it cannot achieve power it will vent its spleen in diatribes of hate (read any U.S. or U.K. radical weekly), or perhaps in acts of violence. It is true that such methods have sometimes brought superficial success. There is no doubt for instance that the civil rights and black power movements have forced U.S. society to make considerable improvements in the daily life of the black community. However, in a broader sense, such activities will never bring real equality. That will be only achieved when the white sees his black neighbor as his brother, and no amount of force will achieve that, though it is fashionable now in some circles to make such assertions. In the same way one of the failures of the socialist movement has been that, in forcing the rich against their will to pay for social reform, it created deep antagonisms which have all but destroyed the true spirit of the welfare state. We all know how the rich use every means possible to avoid paying their fair tax. In a truly just society the fortunate would consider it an honor to pay their share for the needs of society.

In short, I had come to believe that the present political system is like a house built on sand. We rush around patching up the walls here and there but avoid the main issues. Perhaps it could be said, to paraphrase a famous Welsh statesman, that government has become too important to be left to politicians.

Having broken completely with organized religion, my points of fererence for a code of ethics for personal relationships have been, I suppose, generally humanistic. [Page 30] In personal conduct one would try to be truthful, straightforward, considerate of others, and moderate in all things. One would be very tolerant of other people’s behavior and reluctant to make any sort of judgment except in the most obviously anti-social cases. The breakdown of the old Christian ethic, whether of the puritanical variety in the United States or northern Europe, or of Catholic custom elsewhere in the West, which has gathered momentum in recent years, I greeted with approval. I felt it was right that the hypocrisy and “killjoy” atmosphere of puritanism and the harsh Catholic views on women, divorce, birth control, freedom of expression, and so on, should be questioned. How much misery had all this brought in the past, particularly, and as usual, for the underprivileged (top people always had means to get around moral conventions)—and to what end? I hoped that this breath of fresh air would make life at the personal level more balanced, tolerant, dignified, and—just.

However, things have not worked out like that. Part of the trouble is, I think, that the new “humanistic” ethic is vague and without a central authority, so that the majority do not fully comprehend and still less feel any enthusiasm for it. In practice the abandonment of old rules has meant a steady slide into permissiveness; anything goes if it appears to give immediate pleasure and does not obviously and directly hurt the neighbor—and this qualification has some pretty minimal interpretations. With no sense of purpose or any other sort of backbone, custom has become like a jellyfish. What was once a healthy skepticism has now sunk to an indiscriminate lack of respect for authority, other people in general, and even for the self. The balance between rights and duties attracts no interest—duty is something the old-fashioned used to talk about. The only rule is consumption, consumption, consumption—which may be good for G.N.P. statistics but not much else. It is ironic that when society as a whole, but particularly in the Western industrial nations, is becoming so mobile and so subject to an ever increasing tempo of change, it should have been deprived, when most in need, of strong guiding moral principles. The result is clear for all to see who wish to see. My own impression is that after an initial burst of optimism at new found freedom, people in the West have lost sense of direction and peace of mind. I can sense in the air indifference, a lack of challenge, cynicism, selfishness, escapism, and, more and more, sheer brutality. Dishonesty in public life has occurred to a greater or lesser degree in all ages. But it is a long time, I think, since public men from the head of state down have so flagrantly shown contempt for the truth whenever it suits their purpose to do so. If detected they need hardly fear a public outcry. The effect on social institutions does not need elaborating. In everyday commerce sheer dishonesty has reached the point where one now almost expects to be deceived, either by some sleight of hand proposal, or by being sold shoddy goods or services—and it is not sufficient explanation by a long chalk to attribute this to the age of mass production. The once sharp line dividing crime from normal social transactions becomes more blurred each day. What a reflection on society it is when a child’s maturity is in effect judged by the degree to which he has shed his innocence and acquired a “healthy” suspicion of his fellow human beings.

On another level, declining regard for any sort of value is shown in the [Page 31] widespread acceptance, not to say approval of, every variation of sexual promiscuity: the human body becomes a supermarket commodity, and love between man and woman a concept to be derided as romantic junk. The familiar answers justifying such ways may satisfy the cocktail circuit, but they seem shallow indeed when one thinks of the cost in terms of loneliness—yes, the loneliness of those who can never be sure of even the closest relationships, and of the inevitable further undermining of the family for which no substitute has been found as a foundation of love and integrity for the child. With regard to the subject which now seems to be close to the heart of the rebellious young, parents acting out the permissive ethic themselves have no credible answer to their children’s question: “Why not take drugs?”; they are reduced to the farce of searching desperately for proof of danger in drugs in order to try to deter with fear. of course, an ethic with any purpose would pose the question “Why drugs?” and the answer would be more clear.

Though more and more despondent with conventional Western values, whether on the religious, social, or personal level, I could not see any real alternative. In recent years my hostility to the churches has mellowed, partly because of Pope John, partly because of the creditable part some of the clergy have played in civil rights and urban problems in the United States. But tolerance, even tinged with sympathy, is very different from support or membership. There was too much in the past and the present which would forever prevent tolerance from growing into anything more positive. What was true of the main institutions was also true, though for slightly different reasons, of groups like the Quakers or Unitarians who generally had a better image in my eyes than most. On examination I found their appeal negative rather than positive. True, they were not cluttered up with outmoded beliefs, and they practiced more or less what they preached. However, they were basically white middle class and just a little inbred. Further, they had neither the vision nor the ambition to lead society as a whole to a better life. I felt there was a similar lack of completeness in other movements such as Zen Buddhism which at first sight had some appeal. There was no answer in politics either. Initially, I sympathized deeply with the new radical movements mainly amongst students and Negroes in the States and elsewhere which grew to a head in the nineteen-sixties, and which seemed straightforward and honest in their idealism. The last year or two have shown just how tough this idealism is when it is tested. The methods the new radicals have come to use to impose their ideals on society betray the cause of justice only a little less than those used by the Communists fifty years ago.

Just when life seemed to have lost all meaning I began to discover something of the Bahá’í way of life; and the effect was like the rising sun after a cold, bleak night. The Bahá’í Faith has its roots in a radical reform movement which started in Persia in 1844 to raise society from the depths of corruption and ignorance into which it had fallen. The movement spread like wildfire but was soon savagely persecuted by the authorities; its leader, ‘Ali Muhammad, surnamed the Báb or Gate (1819-1850), and many thousands of His followers were killed, imprisoned, or driven out of the country. The movement widened into a truly independent religion with [Page 32] universal meaning under the leadership of its second and greatest Figure, Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892), Who, driven from Persia, spent most of the last thirty years of His life as a prisoner of the Turkish Empire. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (1844-1921), the eldest Son and main support of Bahá’u’lláh in his later years was appointed by his Father to succeed Him as leader of the Bahá’í Faith. It was ‘Abdu’l-Bahá Who brought the Faith to the West and elaborated plans for its permanent administration. Under the guidance of Shoghi Effendi (1896-1957), who was appointed to the position of Guardian of the Faith by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the Movement spread to all corners of the earth and became truly a World Faith. There are now Bahá’ís in more than 311 countries, territories, and islands throughout the world. Since 1963 the Movement has been governed by an elected council of nine men called the Universal House of Justice.

Bahá’ís believe in one God. However, He is unknowable directly to man because of man’s immaturity and limited imagination. Without God there is no future, and society drifts into apathy and moral decline. Past societies have been saved from disintegration because they were shown the way to God by extraordinary profound men who had an insight into the meaning of the universe. On each such occasion society advanced in maturity. The pattern was for this stage to be followed by a falling away as the teachings became corrupted with the interpretations and failings of lesser men. As the spirit of society begins to wither another prophet appears, and a new cycle is set in motion. The great Prophets of the past include Moses, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, and Muhammad. Such men are easily distinguished by the fruits of their teachings from the many false prophets who have appeared throughout history. Bahá’ís believe that the Prophet who has come to reawaken the spirit of society today is Bahá’u’lláh.

Bahá’u’lláh showed that the teachings of all the great religions could be divided into two main parts—the spiritual and the social. The spiritual teachings deal with universals and the ultimate meaning of life. In this respect all have given the same message, some elements of which are one God, the universal virtues of love, faith, and detachment. The social teachings, on the other hand, though all following the same basic principles, have varied according to the capacity of the people for whom they were initially intended. In this way Bahá’u’lláh reconciled the great religions to one another and overcame the superficial barriers which man has erected between them. True religion does not divide; on the contrary, it is a force binding men together in brotherhood under one God.

The distinguishing feature of Bahá’í social teachings is the great emphasis which is placed on world unity. Society has reached the point where nations can no longer live without regard for other nations. Moreover, man cannot further advance along the road to maturity and spiritual fulfillment until he has resolved the great divisions in society. Modern technology, particularly in communications, has made world unity administratively feasible. All that is needed is the leadership and the social machinery—and that is what Bahá’u’lláh has provided. The Faith is essentially practical. Bahá’ís worship God, not by putting in time at church, but in working for the establishment of a just society in the world. The difference is the difference between religiosity and spirituality.

[Page 33]

The Bahá’í view is that a true world society cannot be built with present methods. We have to start anew. However, unlike some political radicals, the Bahá’ís do not withdraw from society or revel in its miseries. They support and encourage all movements for the advancement of social justice. After all, a Bahá’í society cannot be created overnight and meanwhile people have to live. What is required of Bahá’ís is that they should not take part in party politics, for obvious reasons. In practice this means obedience to the established government except in cases where to do so would mean breaking higher Bahá’í principles. Bahá’ís are not interested in overthrowing the present system. They see it as fundamentally corrupt, and believe it will fall apart of its own accord over a period of time.

Meanwhile the Bahá’ís have begun to build a new society. Its foundation is the moral integrity of all members of that society—the creation of a new race of men. To start with, Bahá’ís are enjoined to have self-respect, without which love and respect for others is at best insecure. Down-trodden races, for instance, Indian tribes of the Americas, are taught to take pride in their history and culture and not to be intimidated by the power at the white man. The importance of the family as a source of security and love for both parent and child is stressed. An example of the weight given to family unity is the requirement that Bahá’ís should marry only when they have the approval of all living patents. Divorce is allowed but only when all efforts at reconciliation have failed and, if, after a year’s separation, the situation has not improved. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is a basic tenet of the Faith, as it has been for other great religions. Bahá’u’lláh gave many practical guidelines to this principle. For instance, great importance is placed on the conscious elimination of prejudice and of speaking ill of one’s neighbor, particularly behind his back. Backbiting comes all too easily in present society: the harm is immense—in effect it is the murder of character. It follows from these social teachings that Bahá’ís should not only attempt to attain great standards of personal integrity but that they should be devoted to the betterment of the whole of society. This affects not only the work they choose to do but the spirit in which it is done. To be a Bahá’í is to know the joy of giving as well as receiving.

All this should not be interpreted as suggesting that Bahá’ís are puritanical: they enjoy the good things in life, but with moderation and detachment. Habits which are harmful to the body or undermine the clarity of the mind are discouraged. Bahá’ís do not take drugs or alcohol, and smoking is not favored. At first a Bahá’í may find it difficult to shake off old habits. This is a matter of personal conscience and normally such problems soon pass as it becomes apparent how all the laws and principles stand together. Meanwhile no judgment of any sort would be made by other Bahá’ís, provided, of course, that such habits are not excessive and public enough to bring disrepute on the Faith. The whole point of Bahá’í teachings is to help one grow.

It is fine to talk of high principles, but what really counts is whether or not one lives accordingly. As far as I was concerned, meeting Bahá’ís and moving in their communities was probably the decisive factor in opening my eyes to the true quality of the Faith. Perhaps the most immediate thing that struck me was the complete elimination of all these barriers of race, religion, class, age, and cultural prejudices [Page 34] which so plague the rest of society. Bahá’í unity is unity in diversity. Differences are not barriers but an enrichment of the total experience. The atmosphere is one of love, cheerfulness, comradeship, openness, maturity, and a sense of purpose in life.

Moral integrity is the first element of the new society. The second is a new administrative order to replace the unjust and rotting political institutions which now exist. Once a year each Bahá’í Community elects a Local Spiritual Assembly to look after its own day-to-day affairs. In countries where the community has become sizable Bahá’ís also elect once a year a national convention which in turn chooses a National Spiritual Assembly. Every five years members of all the National Assemblies of the world meet in Haifa to elect the supreme body of the Faith, the Universal House of Justice. It is important to stress that in the Bahá’í world people do not run for office or campaign. The community is close-knit and active, and a man of ability and dedication to society as a whole becomes known for his deeds, not for hollow campaign oratory with which we are all so familiar. When elected to an assembly a Bahá’í acts and speaks as a member or part of that assembly, not as an individual with a separate name and point of view. At meetings Bahá’ís try to give points of view with complete detachment, and often it will happen that speakers will change their views as the consultation progresses. Once a decision is made, by majority vote, all stand by it, and the rest of the world is not told who did or did not vote for a given decision. In the overriding interest of unity it is the duty of all Bahá’ís to accept the decisions of their elected assemblies without question whatever may be their initial private views of particular issues. In making decisions lower assemblies consult closely with the next higher organ if in doubt. The Universal House of Justice itself has the firsthand guidance of the main Figures of the Faith as incorporated in their writings which cover the whole sweep of life, often in considerable detail. In having so much firsthand teaching available, the Faith is able to avoid the doubt and corruption which has occurred in other religions from reliance on secondary and lesser authority, and which, in turn, helped to cause these religions to splinter into myriads of sects and movements. In extreme contrast with present institutions which focus power on the national state, the Bahá’í Administrative Order places authority in the first instance with its founders and, beneath them, with the Universal House of Justice.

Bahá’ís believe that though such a plan may take a long time to come to full maturity, it is nevertheless the only practical way to achieve world unity. When unity is achieved, Bahá’ís envisage that it will be cemented together with a universal auxiliary language, an international currency, universal free trade, and the abolition of extremes of poverty and wealth. (Complete economic equality is considered neither possible nor desirable.) This latter objective would be achieved by genuine progressive taxation, a law concerning wills which would tend to prevent wealth accumulating excessively from one generation to another, the widespread creation of cooperative organizations, universal education, and, not least, the establishment of new social values. When the social principles of the Faith are taken as a whole, it is apparent that socialist ideals have come the same way but on a much more narrow and shallow base. For this reason I have come to believe that it is the Faith which is the true radical reform movement of our time.

[Page 35] In summary, the Faith can be understood at many levels, from a simple and straightforward guide for everyday life and belief to a grand though practical design for the building of a new and ever advancing civilization. Not surprisingly the appeal is all encompassing: the most primitive tribesmen and the most sophisticated scholars at the world’s greatest universities become true brothers. It might be asked how it is that this is not more known by the general public. I think the answer lies partly in Bahá’í methods. Large scale advertising is avoided because it could create an undignified image and lead to misrepresentation and futile argument. Though free discussion is an essential principle of the Faith, Bahá’ís are not anxious to waste precious time in debating games with those who are out to cause trouble. Bahá’u’lláh said that in an age when universal literacy is within the grasp of mankind there is no need, as there was in past religions, for intermediaries between the word of the Prophets and man. Hence the Faiths has no clergy. Perhaps if there had beeen a clergy the Faith would have been at least more physically evident. Bahá’ís believe that in the long run the most effective way of spreading their ideas is by the example of the way they live and by discussion only with those who show interest. Perhaps a second cause of the general ignorance concerning the Faith is that the world press, reflecting what it thinks is the popular feeling towards religion, has not bothered to show much interest. Events are now moving fast, and the press may wake up suddenly to find it has nearly missed the greatest event of the century.

This hardly skims the surface of what the Bahá’í Faith is all about. However, I hope it gives at least some idea of why it has provided the answers to my doubts. In one perfect whole it has made it possible to believe in God, it has provided a practical means of establishing social justice on a world scale, and it has given us a firm guide for a purposeful, a fruitful, and a growing way of conducting our personal lives. How this contrasts with the barren conventions of society! Once this had sunk into my mind it was not difficult for me to believe in the true significance of Bahá’u’lláh. It would be easy to leave it at that. One can find minor points to argue about; one can plead that the standards are too high for oneself but very good for others if they wish to try, and so on—anything to avoid standing up in front of all and making a commitment. That has never been my way. It takes a long time and some intellectual humility to find truth and justice. When it is found, then there is an overwhelming moral demand for commitment. Last October I made my decision. Since then I have started to understand what it really means to live beyond oneself—to live for something which is leading towards an infinitely richer and just world for all. In short I have come to know something of the meaning of the word “fulfillment.”

March 1969

[Page 36]

TV JOURNALISM:

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF WORLD AWARENESS

By NATHAN RUTSTEIN

A TELEVISION DIRECTOR inside his control room glances at a clock on the wall, then leans toward a microphone.

“We are ready in New York,” he says. “Are you set in Brussels?”

“Yes, we are ready for transmission,” the Brussels director replies.

A New York TV technician pushes a button. In less than a tenth of a second, the first frames of a fifteen-minute news report shoot along a land line to a satellite station in Andover, Maine, flash through a communications satellite about 30,000 miles above the Atlantic ocean, hit the Brussels receiving station, and fan out to more than thirty networks in Europe and millions of TV sets from London to Moscow.

Five years ago this exercise would have been considered magic. Now it is as familiar to network TV journalists as the land line which is used to transmit a film story from one point in the United States to another. When a major international news story breaks outside of their continent, news editors now immediately wonder, “Are there facilities nearby to satellite the story?” In two or three years these transmission stations in the sky—high above the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans—could be relaying daily filmed news stories to all five continents.

The communications satellite has thrust TV journalism into the era of electronic intercontinental news broadcasting, establishing unprecedented communications opportunities. For a moment, let us expand our vision and dare to contemplate what could happen if these opportunities were noticed and developed by farsighted and dedicated leaders. TV journalism would burst out of its cocoon and take on a new, a more universal look. It would adopt new values, broaden its responsibilities, and deepen its commitment to serve all of the world’s people. Technologically this world-oriented television news scheme is now possible, but the world of TV journalism is full of skeptical minds for which the mere conception of a world news agency based on the principles of service and true impartiality would be nearly incomprehensible and which even they could hardly take seriously as a replacement for the present system. A close look at the reality of television news today, I believe, bears out both this observation and the pressing need for change.

Though television news is the youngest form of journalism, its scars and wounds— caused by volleys of criticism from almost every stratum of society—make it appear much older than it is. The trouble is that it is noticeably lacking in wisdom.

In addition, a large segment of the public has expected more than TV journalism has delivered. People feel it has failed to live up to their expectations and to its obligations. But then how many present-day institutions and organizations have?

It seems that a fearful and frustrated people expect more from TV news than it is capable of giving. Perplexed by the dramatic, swift changes taking place all around them, and frightened by the breakdown of a way of life once considered “good”, many people sit gazing at their TV sets, secretly hoping a [Page 37] newscaster will announce the end of war forever, and as proof show a film of swords being forged into ploughshares.

The Trap

BUT THE TELEVISION SET is no Aladdin’s Lamp. It is a box with a big bulb, which echoes visually the tensions, the agony, the tumult of our rapidly changing world. Inevitably those who work in television, including journalists, are influenced by the condition of the world. Even those who are aware are affected. The TV journalist, who is supposed to be open-minded, unwittingly reflects the callousness, the selfishness, the prejudices, the fears of a deeply disturbed society. It is the journalist’s job to look at the world with eyes trained to spot the unusual. To be effective, he cannot turn away from what he sees. Exposed daily to the despair of the poor, the torment of the half free, the lunacy and carnage of warfare, the absence of justice, the cheating, the hypocrisy, the desperate groping for something to believe in—how can a TV journalist avoid absorbing at least some of the symptoms of a troubled society?

Television journalism in the United States is caught in a trap set unknowingly by the society it serves. Not even its glittering gadgetry, its sophisticated systems and powerful personalities can protect it. Why? Because they too are products of the society that created the trap.

The trap is essentially our national way of life in which more emphasis is placed on quantitative achievement than value; outworn principles upheld as a guide to “salvation” are continually violated; tired thinking passes for originality; corruption is tolerated as long as it is carried out smoothly; “progress” is more important than honesty; undetected fraud is hailed as shrewdness; unrecognized prejudices have been woven into the pattern of life; the Neanderthal spirit abounds in Ivy League suits; and the longer you stay, the more difficult it is to escape. Even the mightiest political, economic, and religious institutions are caught in the same trap. The challenge is: How to spring loose?

Recognition of the condition of TV journalism is a first step. It could be that we in TV journalism have been so busy reporting the world’s problems that we have not spotted the rust in our typewriters and the dust of habit clouding our vision; that we, like big business, education, government, and even religion, have failed to recognize that the techniques and formulas of the past cannot cope with today’s very complex problems.

In many instances the technological advancements in television are diverting the attention of TV journalists from their profession’s most serious problems. Many TV journalists —like many educators—equate professional growth with the development of fancy tools. As educators point to new school buildings, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and computers, newsmen point with pride to the use of satellites, of wireless microphones, of telephones that flash pictures with sound to stations thousands of miles away.

These technological achievements were needed, and further exploration is always needed, but our technical triumphs have lulled us into thinking that all is right when, in fact, television journalism is in deep trouble. This is true despite attempts by a dedicated minority of newsmen to improve their craft. Their efforts, unfortunately, have made no significant headway.

Purists saw a flicker of hope when the Public Broadcasting Laboratory was established in 1966. Some of the most brilliant TV journalists in the country—all idealists and experimenters—gave up lucrative jobs with network news units to participate in the new electronic journalism venture. But it failed. Many educational television stations refused to air PBL’s programs because they were considered too controversial. Though a wholehearted attempt was made to develop original TV news concepts, nothing really innovative was produced. It seems PBL’s staff [Page 38] was too steeped in the techniques and attitudes they had mastered at their former jobs to create anything new.

A preoccupation with professional survival which generates a working atmosphere of fear and anxiety in many newsrooms is another difficulty. Because of this feeling many newsmen are quick to blame others for the mistakes they have made; as a result much creative energy is expended hunting for scapegoats. Worse yet, basically good people are reduced to actions they know are wrong.

The drive for professional power turns many newsrooms into marketplaces where the craftiest and the most aggressive—not necessarily the most gifted—succeed. And often those who have secured positions of power are careful to spot those who represent a threat. This leads to the professional paralysis of many good journalists. It turns idealists into cynics and those who reject the craft of politicking into apathetic wage earners. It has benefits, however, for those who accept without reservation the established formula for success. Considered safe, they are appointed to key positions. Their presence creates a haze of mediocrity in the newsroom, retarding sincere initiative and making excellence difficult to perceive.

The obsession with having the highest TV rating is yet another difficulty which drives newsmen to compromise journalistic principles. The staging of stories is one by-product. The first films of U.S. Marines burning Vietnamese homes—hailed as a great journalistic feat—were actually staged by a television journalist. The obsession is so strong that it has forced some newsmen to do things they would ordinarily reject as repulsive and unethical. A network television camera team, for example, paid a South Vietnamese army sergeant to cut off the ears of a dead Viet Cong in order that the so-called “war souvenir game” could be filmed.

In 1969 a New York City television station, in order to compete with some of the more successful news units, violated almost every journalistic principle. When the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia in August, this station’s major newscast reported the story “via satellite from Prague”. It turned out that the “satellite feed” was a crude exercise in fakery. The producer used library film of Bucharest, Rumania, to establish Prague; the reporter was a free lance newsman in Vienna who phoned in a report which was taped at the station. A slide reading, “Live via satellite from Prague,” was superimposed on the film. When asked why he used film of Bucharest and not of Prague, the producer said: “All I needed were pictures to establish the flavor of an eastern European city.”

Some news producers have shaped stories of demonstrations to make them appear more exciting. In some cases relatively peaceful demonstrations were made to look violent in film editing rooms. For example, most of the New York stations made the massive New York City peace march in the summer of 1966 look like a massive battle because their producers concentrated on fringe scuffles between hecklers and marchers, ignoring the generally peaceful spirit of the march.

It is not uncommon for a reporter to urge pickets to shout slogans in unison in order to enliven the story. Placing words in the mouths of interviewees is also quite common. Some news producers and editors admit to staging, giving the excuse that television journalism is, after all, part of show business and subject to ratings.

Determined to improve their news ratings, a number of stations owned and operated by a leading network purchased the services of a West Coast gossip reporter who delivered gossip from Hollywood and Broadway five [Page 39] nights a week. At first, efforts by certain conscience-stricken news executives to fire her failed, because their bosses pointed to her extraordinary rating pull power. According to Life, one ecstatic deskman, whose station’s rating had doubled since she came on the air, said defiantly, “I don’t care how we did it—we did it!” Embarrassed, the network news executives pushed harder for her expulsion. They finally won, but only after a bitter battle—and, only after most of the network’s owned and operated stations had made substantial gains in their newscasts’ ratings.

Serving What the Public Wants

THE OBSESSION with being number one encourages editors and station managers to feature stories they think the public wants. By adopting this credo, editors abdicate their responsibilities, and, in a sense, a confused and troubled public dictates to the news media what is news.

Young journalists are particularly susceptible to the “win-at-any-cost” philosophy. Eager to impress the editor, they quickly find out what pleases him and work very hard at just that. Most TV editors want—more than anything else—their news units to have the highest ratings; and the young, ambitious newsman tries to deliver.

I, too, tried to deliver, and some of the things I did as a result haunt me. About 12 years ago I was assigned to cover a murder story—a teenager had strangled his great-grandmother for some pocket money. My cameraman and I raced to the school where the teenager’s mother called for her seven-year-old daughter every day. We planned to tell her the bad news and film her reaction. When we arrived, a newspaper reporter noted for his bold news coverage approach was already there waiting to do the same thing. To make sure we all got what we wanted, we worked out a scheme: the newspaper reporter would break the news; my cameraman would remain in a good position to shoot; and I, holding the microphone, would be ready to catch the woman in case she fainted or collapsed. After three still shots, the newspaperman would join me in either carrying or guiding the woman into the school building.

The plan was executed perfectly. When we returned to the newsroom, our colleagues shook our hands and pounded our backs in praise; our editor was particularly impressed with my ingenuity. That night hundreds of thousands of people watched on their television screens a woman weep and collapse, and never wondered how those scenes were captured on film. I wonder, how many similar “enterprising” acts of journalism have taken place.

To most newsmen bad news makes a good story. Tension, confrontation, riots, murder draw our greatest attention. We have been conditioned to dwell on the negative aspects of life because we believe they generate the most excitement, and excitement is what the viewer wants. A positive story is often considered Pollyanna-ish, and unworthy of coverage. But on slow news days some good news is covered—like a story from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where black and white cooperation helped to save that city’s public transportation system. A veteran reporter was assigned to the story, but when she investigated it she was so unimpressed she complained to her editor in New York that it lacked controversy. When it was aired, however, the story received a favorable public reaction; even some newsmen complimented the reporter. She later expressed amazement at the reaction, admitting she had been brainwashed into thinking that a good story had to contain strong elements of conflict.

Many TV newsmen are so controversy conscious that it affects their news judgment. In Chicago, for example, a veteran reporter was assigned to do a feature story in a manufacturing plant that produces food for astronauts in space. Failing to find anything controversial, the reporter ordered the cameraman [Page 40] to film anything that appeared unclean. In his interview with the plant manager, the reporter labored to prove the facility was a public health hazard, when, in fact, it was spotless.

Merchandizing the News

JOURNALISM should be more than a mirror reflecting society’s condition; it should be an X-ray exposing the causes of the condition. But most television stations, lacking the courage to try the X-ray role, resort to what they consider the next best thing: they create the impression that their news unit is journalistically responsible and dynamic.

To do this, an illusion is woven by promotion experts, utilizing vast amounts of brain energy and costing thousands of dollars. Billboards, newspaper ads, radio and television spot announcements exaggerate the station’s scope and depth of reporting, the size and quality of staff and equipment, and its “crusading journalistic” spirit. These are so cleverly done that many of the station’s newsmen swear the ads and promotions are true.

Frenetic street movement adds sparkle to the illusion. Brightly painted news cruisers are dispatched to fires, accidents, homicides, demonstrations—wherever crowds gather. This makes many people believe the station’s news unit is always where the action is. Microphones with call-letter badges also help to achieve the same impression. Exciting sound is always emphasized. For example, stories hours old are delivered as if they have just occurred. Flippant and cliché-riddled copy is written to provide what some producers call “punch”. And newscasters read as if there will be no tomorrow.

Politicians find the TV newscast an inexpensive and very effective publicity tool. They know that colorful gimmicks and exciting rhetoric, whether relevant or not, will attract TV news coverage. Local TV news units are particularly quick to react to certain politicians’ news conference calls because of their performances. Some Washington personalities who rarely have anything profound to say excite most assignment editors because of their showmanship. Instead of wasting thousands of dollars covering insignificant political news conferences and the empty pronouncements of politicians, journalists could use the money to unearth news that the politicians are trying to hide.

Public relations agencies, in particular, find newscasts a productive image vehicle for their clients’ interests. To sharpen their ability to plant stories, public relations firms hunt for specialists who have had TV news experience and who still maintain important contacts in journalism. These specialists are aware of the need to make their stories appear legitimate. They expend considerable creative energy engineering extraordinary events that are usually very pictorial, that will excite an editor’s curiosity.

Politicians employ this tactic to draw attention, especially when they are campaigning. This skill has been so refined that cutting ribbons at new housing projects has become a cliché. Now, to demonstrate disapproval of air pollution, for example, public relations men would most likely put a gas mask on their politician-client, and have him walk through a shopping center where a “spontaneous” rally would form, and at an appropriate time he would rip off his mask to deliver an “impromptu” speech.

Industries spend millions to plant their stories on television news. For example, the apple growers of America may decide to stage a national apple pie eating contest in Yakima, Washington. News releases accompanied by crates of apples would be mailed to TV news editors in New York. Some carefully selected editors might receive an “expense free” invitation to cover the stories themselves.

Newsrooms receive many news clips produced by groups that call themselves news film companies. For example, a leading car manufacturer who was successfully represented in an international auto race, will produce a film clip of the race, showing 3 or 4 seconds of their car, and another second or [Page 41] two of a close up shot of the company’s name on the car. These companies can assure industrial firms that the films they produce for them will be used by a good percentage of newscasts in the United States and abroad. The strategy works because many local TV news units—who find filming costly—will air a news clip that looks good; and these films are, for the most part, slick, professional productions usually with well-written scripts.

The success of the public relations men is indicated by their numerical strength. In Washington, D.C., alone, there are close to 3000 public relations agents, it has been estimated, more than twice the number of newsmen working in that city.

The Newsman as Public Servant

MANY OF US TV newsmen have lost sight of our responsibilities. The idea of being a public servant has never registered with most of us; and others who have considered the possibility, especially during our years of training, now brush the thought aside as too idealistic. Professional satisfaction seems to come from impressing co-workers. The result is the establishment of an inward-looking group, almost scornful of the public. One glaring manifestation of this was a major network’s treatment of the British forces landing on the tiny Caribbean island of Anguilla. Those responsible for putting the newscast together played the story as a comical farce. Behind the film of battle-ready British paratroopers landing on the island’s beaches, the song “Stout Hearted Men” was played without narration. Most of the journalists in the newsroom who saw it howled with laughter; even those who really did not think it was funny forced a few chuckles. It was a newsroom hit—but a hit that, unfortunately, failed to convey to the viewer outside of the newsroom what really was happening in Anguilla.

Most TV newsmen usually reflect the establishment’s thinking on the pressing issues of the day. And in many instances we also reflect the establishment’s prejudices. The pressure of meeting critical deadlines reinforces the condition. We have little time to think deeply. The job becomes mechanical. Mention of a certain personality, organization, or government sets off a pavlovian reaction in many of us.

“Red China”, for example is pictured as a land inundated with masses of screaming robot-like figures waving little red books. A “hippie” is viewed as an unwashed, hairy, lazy nuisance to society, devoid of morals, selfish, and unprincipled. A “black militant” is considered a villain. Malcolm X, after his dissociation from Elijah Muhammad’s religious movement, after his pilgrimage to Mecca, and even after his assassination, is still pictured as a fire-eating racist. A white Mississippian is pictured as a bigot, unable to express any love or kindness towards another human being. There are newsmen who are aware of this pattern, but feeling helplessly trapped, they learn to live with it.

TV journalism cries out for new approaches, new direction, a spirit strong enough to resist the pull of the degenerate practices that enjoy great popularity today. Above all, a new kind of television newsman is needed—one who understands clearly that his role in society is to be a servant of the people. Without this awareness, the newsman becomes a mechanic with words and television tools; his influence on society’s institutions deteriorates.

Norman Isaacs, the Executive Editor of the Louisville Times, underscored the importance [Page 42] of a journalist’s dedication to his profession when he told a university audience several years ago:

“We need men and women . . . willing to serve journalism as Schweitzer served medicine.” “The kind of professionalism we need is one of the spirit. More of our people must come to it—more and more and more—if we are ever to attain our proper stature as servants of the people.”

Enlightened leadership and creative university training could—to some degree—develop a feeling of dedication to public service.

An enlightened leader should set an example of how a TV journalist should work and also create an inspirational working atmosphere. He should have the respect of his staff—an attitude gained by having a deep understanding of the purpose of his profession, the insight to know what his men can do best, the vision to see in what direction his profession is moving and the capacity to meet new challenges, the ability to get top performances from every man, a readiness to accept good ideas from anyone on his staff, the time to listen to staff members’ problems, the courage to withstand and overcome the commercial and political pressures to compromise professional principles, the wisdom to make right decisions, and the humility to acknowledge mistakes. Unfortunately, most of our leadership pay little attention to journalism’s responsibilities. Mounting day-to-day pressures and an exaggerated concern about what the competition is up to afford today’s TV news leaders very little time for deep reflection on the condition of the profession. Hiring practices reveal the prevailing value system. It seems that very little concern is given to creating a service-oriented staff. Instead, technical proficiency is stressed. People with developed journalistic reflexes are given top priority in hiring.

Every time I applied for a job in journalism, for example, I was not asked to explain my thoughts and feelings on the purpose of journalism and the responsibilities of a journalist. Instead, I was asked to describe what I had done in previous jobs and what tools I was able to operate. After my resumé was carefully studied, I would invariably be directed to a desk, handed some paper and news wire service copy, and asked to write a newscast.

The great majority of the universities that teach TV journalism in the United States also stress technical achievement over professional motivation. Professional adaptability is promoted while the development of a sense of public service is neglected, or often never mentioned. Experimentation is almost unheard of.

The TV journalism graduate is primed to fit easily into the prevailing system. He graduates believing there can be no better system and may go into broadcasting never wondering whether the system needs improvement. When he leaves the shelter of campus life with one or more degrees in hand and enters the pressure chamber of a TV news unit, his vision is usually focused on the glory, the fame, the power, the romance, and the money that he thinks come with a television career. The thought of service probably never penetrates his mind. This young man does not realize, however, that, although he was awarded a college degree, in reality, he spent four years getting a vocational education.

The university’s TV journalism departments should try to instill in each student a deep understanding of a newsman’s responsibilities to society, with particular emphasis on service.

What is needed are journalism graduates with a pioneering spirit, who are so well grounded in the purpose of their professional mission that they are able to resist the [Page 43] enticements of a decaying system and become a dynamic influence in the establishment of a new one.

But more than enlightened leadership and creative university training are needed to develop this new kind of TV newsman. The men themselves must take the responsibility for developing a new outlook toward the purpose of their work, an outlook based on the spirit of service. But I am afraid a term like the “spirit of service” would have little impact on most journalists, because that term has the ring of piety. It would be brushed aside as a useless abstraction associated with God; and God receives very little consideration in newsrooms these days. This does not mean newsmen are devoid of feeling or concern for their fellow man, but with most of us, cynicism has slowly replaced idealism.

The new TV newsman must have a different orientation: one that is service oriented and not self centered. Such a behavioral switch would take the kind of strength that saints possess, and, most newsman instinctively know they cannot alone generate that kind of strength. Only a Greater Will can help a man reorient his life. But where can a man find a source of this Will, when even the established churches, struggling to stay alive, are gripped by the mass confusion that is now sweeping our planet? That most of our existing institutions have failed to provide the direction man desperately needs today does not mean the Greater Will (God) he searches for is not available. God is here, and has always been here. But today Divine Will comes in a new form, not easily discernible because of man’s chaotic state. Those who have discovered the Greater Will and use it find that, in its new form, it contains more than the ability to refine and strengthen one’s character; it possesses, for the first time, the social dynamic needed to draw together people from all areas of the planet regardless of social, political, ethnic, or religious background. It is demonstrating to a cynical world that human nature can change, that the unity of mankind can be achieved.

The Bahá’í Faith is the form for God’s latest message to humanity. Bahá’u’lláh, its Revealer, in a compact and powerful utterance focuses the cause of man’s present dilemma and explains how Great Will can be found and tapped: “The vitality of men’s belief in God is dying out in every land; nothing short of His wholesome medicine can ever restore it. The corrosion of ungodliness is eating into the vitals of human society; what else but the Elixir of His potent Revelation can cleanse and revive it?”

Toward an International TV News System

THE PRESCRIPTION for His wholesome medicine,” which Bahá’u’lláh revealed 106 years ago, is a charter for a world society in which a new race of man will live and work. From these men will evolve the truly new kind of TV journalist. He will understand the reasons for our present day groping, our fumbling, our fear-driven ambition for professional survival and recognition, our worship of television ratings. But he will have a new vision, for he will see man as fundamentally good. Service to the human race will be his uppermost concern and his finest reward. This new kind of TV journalist would work within a truly international TV news system which would be based on the spirit of universal service. It would operate as a service institution of a planetary government, directed by a central editorial board composed of the best editors in the world. It would service every station. This agency would front for no vested interest group, would reject all attempts to be used as a public relations vehicle. It would favor no station, ideology, or cause. It would press relentlessly to unearth the truth and report it in the most understandable way possible. By [Page 44] doing this well, it would serve to strengthen the government’s concern for its citizens; it would also help to lift humanity’s vision to higher social and spiritual aspirations.

This non-profit organization, as I envision it, would be composed of journalists from every region of the world, all possessing a planetary consciousness and a deep awareness of their role as public servants. Its funds would come from subscribers, with the wealthy paying more for the service than the less economically fortunate. No network or station would be without it. Those who could not afford it would use it free until they were able to pay something. This economic arrangement would be based on the principle that nowhere should people be denied information about their region or the rest of the world because of their nation’s lack of financial resources.

All the networks and stations would voluntarily and gladly share their stories with the agency. Cooperation between networks, not competition, would be emphasized, because, again, the prime objective of the agency and the networks and stations would be to inform all of the people.

The agency would operate newsrooms in the major regions of the world, all within easy electronic access to satelliting stations. The journalists of each newsroom would be experts on the regions in which they work and would have some knowledge of the local languages. All of the human and technical resources needed to produce filmed and videotaped satellite reports would be available in the newsrooms. Bureaus—staffed with an editor, reporters, cameraman, video technicians, and sound engineers—would operate in all of the countries within each newsroom’s area of responsibility. The national bureaus would feed their reports daily to the regional newsroom, where they would be video-taped and integrated into a satellite transmission to the rest of the world.

These reports would come from Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Latin America, North America, Africa, the Far East, Australia, New Zealand. They would consist of the leading stories of the countries within each region. The Southeast Asian report, for example, coming from, say, Hong Kong, might be 12 minutes long, including stories from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Ceylon, and the Philippines. The length of the reports would vary, depending on which region had the most important news of the day. The agency’s central editorial board would make that and other important journalistic decisions. Stories would be evaluated on the degree of present or future impact on society. The present practice of giving people the kind of news they like most, along with the use of the audience rating system, would be looked upon as foolish fossils of a very confused period in history.

Because of this world-oriented television news scheme, all of the earth’s people would be better informed and thus more socially aware. But it would profit mankind in other ways as well: it would dtaw the human family closer together and help to fashion in man an allegiance to a world government; it would underscore the need for a universal language and encourage the creation of one; it would help develop an understanding of the basic oneness of mankind as well as a world-wide appreciation of all of the planet’s cultures; it would expose war as madness, dashing the warped romantic attitude humans have harbored toward it for thousands of years; it would be an instrument used to expose any manifestation of injustice or outbreak of corruption; it would be a vehicle used to preserve world peace; its greatest contribution would be the reporting of the development of the Kingdom of God on earth.

[Page 45]

The Human Dimension of the Viet Nam War

A review of Viet Nam: The Unheard Voices by Don Luce and John Sommer (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1969)

By GARY L. MORRISON

FOR THOSE OF US who have lived and worked in Viet Nam in neither a military nor an official political capacity but simply as individuals, Viet Nam: The Unheard Voices is indeed our own story. It is a catalog of what we continually heard, what we saw, what we felt, and, most important, what we have tried to communicate to our fellow Americans but what has, alas, as the authors of this work poignantly illustrate, too often gone unheeded.

Since 1965 the catastrophic militarization and politicization of the Viet Nam conflict have increased the gap between policy controllers and the people affected. The human dimension of the war has been lost in a morass of terrorism, bombing, defoliation, death, and social turmoil coldly couched in official rhetoric and simple statistics. What do we know of the children like Kim Quy, forced by the disruptions of war to become a beggar outside the Hollywood Bar in Da Nang? Of the Vietnamese farmers with homes and lands irreparably destroyed, forced to leave behind the tombs of their ancestors, to become nameless numbers in the expanding ranks of the refugees? Of the frustrated idealism of a generation of youth desperately wanting an alternate, peaceful solution to the problems of Viet Nam but gradually forced by the exigencies of an expanded war to choose one side or another although both appear to be reprehensible? What do the Vietnamese people feel? What is their respcnse to such momentous events as the destruction of Hue, historical and spiritual center of Vietnamese culture?

The “unheard voices” of the Vietnamese people have been heard and recorded by Don Luce and John Sommer, whose work with the International Voluntary Services (IVS) in Viet Nam spanned the years 1958-1967. Both Luce and Sommer are fluent in the Vietnamese language. Their perceptive observations and collection of anecdotes and stories range over a wide variety of topics: Saigon politics, the highland tribes-people, the divisions between Catholics and Buddhists, the Buddhist non-communist third-force, pacification and its effects, the problems of refugees, American troops in battle and on leave, the Vietnamese students, the appeal of the National Liberation Front, and finally the authors’ conclusions on postwar prospects and the lessons Americans can learn from the Viet Nam experience. The Vietnamese people speak for themselves throughout; thus the book never loses sight of the basic human dimension. It is a tragic reminder that in the face of war society is disrupted and the moral fiber of a people is destroyed.

But this is not a story of the sufferings of war. “Our purpose,” the authors emphasize, “is to demonstrate that understanding people is the key to successful policy, that failure to understand them and respond to their needs is to fail in one’s goals, and finally, that a great America cannot win the hearts and minds by technology and material means alone.” American misunderstanding of the Vietnamese pattern of behavior and social life, disregard for Vietnamese sensibilities, and failure to communicate because of a lack [Page 46] of personnel trained in the Vietnamese language provide the stuff of NLF propaganda, creating the image of Americans as imperialists rather than as advisers.

But there are no villains or heroes in this book, as the authors make clear. They outline the failures and strengths of both sides, remaining impartial and constantly tuned to the voices oi the Vietnamese people. Luce and Sommer themselves were involved in “the other war”, fought not on the battlefield with military technology but in the rice fields and classrooms. They were concerned more with sweet potato and rice cultivation than with politics and warfare. After 1965, however, their work became more difficult; winning the hearts and minds of the people assumed for strategists a secondary importance. They witnessed the effects of acute politicization and militarization on the Vietnamese people resulting in a dichotomy between the simple humanitarian impulse to help and the ever more complex pressures to choose sides. This growing dilemma is reflected in the voice of a Vietnamese girl who wrote:

We want to do many things but with a very vague idealism of helping poor people. . . . So far, what did I do?—a few workcamps, a few patriotic song performances . . . , but look at the whole; blood, death. . . . We can’t decide our own fate. The non-communist revolution that I expected seems to die away now, the modern nationalism seems faded. Around us, guns, B-52, Phantoms, heavy trucks, noisy helicopters, barbed wire. . . . I don’t want to sit at school to ponder the philosophies of Darwin, Emerson, Zen, though they are necessary, while my people get killed more and more. . . . I got to heal their pains, stop their crying, help them look up, walk straight, smile. That’s all I want, just little things like that.

A terrible polarization in the society appears to have been the greatest change since I left Viet Nam in 1965. The young people now find themselves having to choose between two perhaps equally unattractive sides. A young Vietnamese student wrote to the authors:

Maybe this is the last letter I send you—because I must make the choice, the choice of my life. I am pushing to the wall. To choose this side or the other side—and not the middle way!

I can no more use my mouth, my voice, my heart, my hands for useful things. All the people here have to choose to manipulate guns—and they have to point straightly in face of each other. One side the Vietnamese city people and Americans, another side Vietnamese rural people and Communists and Leftist minded people.

What have I to choose?

But all things are relative now—I can’t side even with Americans or Communists. But you have no choice. Or this side or the other side—With Americans, you are accused of valets of Imperialism, of pure Colonialism—You are in the side of foreigners, of the people who kill your people, who bomb your country, with the eternal foreigners who always wanted to subjugate you for thousands of years. . . .

No it’s a desperate situation. I want so desperately to be still in jail—It don’t pose before you a terrible problem: to choose. . . . I can’t keep quietly, I can’t have a peaceful mind in these days.

I can’t become a mercenary in this kind of puppet army. Americans in uniform are not my friends at all. They’re just foreign troops in my country. Furthermore, I can’t carry the gun and kill my people, Communist or not. They’re all my compatriots that I learn to love, to encherish.

This sociopolitical dilemma in Viet Nam, becoming critical with the escalation of the war, helps in large measure to explain why the Bahá’í Faith has been so rapidly accepted by Vietnamese people of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds and of various political [Page 47] and ideological persuasions. Although Luce and Sommer do not touch on this subject, their book suggests to one who knows the principles of the Bahá’í Faith and the fact of its amazing growth in Viet Nam that there may well be a resolution of the tragic dilemma. From my experience in Viet Nam in 1964 and 1965, I would postulate that the Bahá’í institutions have special appeal to Vietnamese desiring a stake in creating their own environment, free from the momentum toward politicization stimulated by both the American-backed Saigon government and the National Liberation Front. It is evident that the Vietnamese are crying out for a greater role in the determination of their own destiny; the embryonic Bahá’í society offers a new channel of participatory action on the local level, a new road toward self-determination.

The Bahá’í Faith is more than a simple declaration of belief in the claims of the twin Prophet-Founders, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. Its sacred writings spell out in no uncertain terms the social and administrative institutions around which, it is believed, society must eventually be reorganized to create a new world order to insure a just and universal peace. The basic administrative unit is the annually elected nine-member local Spiritual Assembly. It is responsible for the direction the community takes, serves as the spokesman [Page 48] for the community, and is the arbiter in all community problems. The social institution created as a forum for the open expression of the opinions of the people is the Nineteen-Day Feast. Bahá’ís assemble as one community once every nineteen days to hear reports an the activities of the local Spiritual Assembly, to consult on and to discuss community affairs, and to make recommendations for action to the assembly. The Nineteen-Day Feast is the meeting-ground between the assembly and the Bahá’í community at large. It can be seen therefore that the Bahá’í local Spiritual Assemblies are inherently responsive to the people, to regional and local needs, checked from excessive bureaucratization and safeguarded against administrative rigidity by continuous community participation and consultation and by annual elections.

The Bahá’í assemblies also contribute to the strengthening of the social fabric, so vital to a traditionally tightly-knit, family-oriented society like that of Viet Nam. While refraining from the partisan political involvements which have tended to fragment an already divided society, the Bahá’ís are active in constructing a healthy body politic. Bahá’ís and their assemblies can tackle very real problems like those of refugees and resettlement, housing and giving assistance in crisis; these problems help to mature and to strengthen the community and its institutions. The assemblies form the local action base of the national community, which is linked together by a guiding National Spiritual Assembly.

Above all, the Bahá’í Faith integrates the spiritual with the active everyday world; therefore work done in the spirit of service is elevated to the act of worship. The Faith is a viable alternative then for those seeking to identify themselves with a constructive movement; it is a “Middle Way.” Its emphasis on the role of education, the family, and the moral and spiritual development of the individual in strengthening the social order, and its stress on positive action in the world, make it attractive to youth desiring change and to their elders wishing for continuity in the social order.

Furthermore the Bahá’í Faith appears to be a successor of that earlier practical-spiritual system, Buddhism. The Four Noble Truths of suffering and the Eightfold Path to the elimination of suffering were practical guides to the ultimate attainment of a spiritual condition. The Bahá’í Faith, with its practical steps to social and world order, appeals to the rootless, the dislocated, the suffering. Hence the rapid growth of the Bahá’í Faith in Viet Nam. The spirit is peace. The goal is unity. The love engendered is based on the recognition that “the earth is one country and mankind its citizens.”

In the final analysis, Viet Nam: The Unheard Voices is essential to an understanding of what is happening in Viet Nam in the political, military, and social spheres. It is by no means an “anti-” book. It is simply and beautifully the reflection of Vietnamese aspirations, reactions, and feelings, and of two Americans’ sensitive impressions of the effects of war, culture confrontation, and social dislocations in the Viet Nam setting. For Bahá’ís it is also a vital account of the real context within which the Vietnamese Bahá’í community must function.

The authors offer no premature conclusions, no solutions, and they pronounce no diatribes. In fact they still believe that “Americans can and should play a large and helpful role in the affairs of peoples of developing countries” with the one qualification that they “would prefer this role fulfilled in an international framework.” Their concern is “not the fact, then, but the quality of the American role abroad”; and they maintain that listening to and understanding “the unheard voices” of the people—beyond the privileged, urban elite—is the key to effective American participation in developing countries. There are lessons to be learned from this book by everyone concerned with the Viet Nam war as well as by all humanitarians.

[Page 49]

Authors and Artists

TIMOTHY H. BREEN, an assistant professor in the History Department at Yale University, is known to our readers for his poem, “Horses, Who Knows?”, which appeared in the Summer 1969 issue.

JOHN A. DAVIDSON is at present taking a postgraduate course in Psychology at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. He has been a Bahá’í for some six years and has served on the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Australia.

JOHN HUDDLESTON has been in the United States since 1963, when he came to work on the International Monetary Fund in budget and planning. He was educated in England (Manchester Grammar School, and the University of Manchester, where he specialized in Modern History, Economics, and Politics).

RAYMOND L. HUDSON, a former first- and second-grade teacher in Unalaska, Aleutian Islands, acquainted WORLD ORDER readers with some of the inspiration he received from those Islands in the poem, “Summer’s Bay”, which appeared in the Fall 1969 issue. He recently completed a tour of military duty in Viet Nam.

FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH, Editor of WORLD ORDER, is Professor of History at Yale University.

GARY L. MORRISON is a second-year graduate student in the Southeast Asia Studies program at Yale University. He lived and worked as a civilian in Viet Nam before and after the Americanization of the war in 1964-1965.

NATHAN RUTSTEIN is a veteran journalist who worked for newspapers, radio, and television in Tulsa, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and New York. He is now a news editor with a leading American television network. Much of his work involves coordinating coverage and transmission of western hemisphere stories to television viewers on all five continents. The major stories are transmitted via communication satellite. Mr. Rutstein was among the first American television newsmen involved in the development of electronic intercontinental news telecasting.

ART CREDITS: P. 5, photo, courtesy of the Bahá’í Publishing Trust; p. 13, drawing by Mark Fennessy; p. 15, drawing by Sando Berger; pp 24-25, drawing by Mark Fennessy; p. 47, drawing by Mark Fennessy; back cover, photo by Jay Conrader.

SANDO BERGER has displayed his artistic talent in several issues of WORLD ORDER. He specializes in sculpture, water colors, oils, and pen and ink sketches.

JAY CONRADER, a freelance writer and photographer, contributes photographs regularly to WORLD ORDER.

MARK FENNESSY graduated with honors from Yale University where he was a Scholar of the House in sculpture and drawing. His art adorned the pages of the Fall 1969 issue of WORLD ORDER.

[Page 50]