UN Peacekeeping: Bosnia 1992-5

The 1992-1995 Bosnian War was initiated after the breakup of Yugoslavia. The Slovenian and Croatians seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991 and the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina also tried to pass a referendum for independence but was rejected (boycotted) by the Bosnian Serbs who desired their own republic. They received support from the Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic and the Yugoslav Peoples Army (JNA) and the sporadic fighting then turned into an all out war, crossing the newly created international borders. Bosnia has long been a multi ethnic territory, inhabited by Muslims (44%), Orthodox Serbs (31%) and Catholic Croats (17%). The conflict could be described as a territorial conflict but is was largely an ethnic cleansing forcing all non-Serb, mostly Muslim, populations out of Bosnia. The human rights abuses were many including ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass rape and psychological oppression. The most recent research places the number of people killed in the Bosnian War at around 100,000–110,000 and the number of people displaced at over 2.2 million. This makes the Bosnian War the most devastating conflict in Europe since WW2. Estimates of the numbers raped range from 20,000 to 50,000 and for the first time in history, sexual violence, on its own, was not just considered a crime against humanity but led to its first conviction. Understanding the UN’s role in the Bosnian conflict necessitates the context of the peacekeeping missions that came before, most notably in Somalia and Rwanda. I highly suggest you read the previous posts about those conflicts before reading on.

Many blamed the UN and specifically the DPKO for the failures. Kofi Annan however, says to the contrary, “The limits on our resources, the extreme reluctance of troop contributors to take risks with their troops, and, above all, the profound division over policy and strategic direction that often existed among members of the Security Council were often conveniently forgotten when apportioning responsibility for what was routinely referred to in those years as the ‘crisis in UN peacekeeping’” (60). Understanding the climate of international governance and how Rwanda and Somalia shaped UN peacekeeping efforts is critical to understand the evolution of UN involvement in Bosnia.

In February 1992, after the disintegration of Yugoslavia, at the end of the Cold War, the Security Council approved the deployment of UN peacekeeping troops (UNPROFOR) to oversee the confrontation between Serbian and Croatian forces. After full-scale war broke out in April 1992, the conflictt proved to be largely one sided. Serb militias and paramilitary forces, with help from the Yugoslav army, displaced around 1 million people from their homes. All non-Serbs were forcibly removed even from areas where they constituted a majority population. Pressure slowly began to build on the international community to “do something.” Boutrous-Ghali however was quite reluctant to add another peacekeeping mission in the Balkan territories. In May of 1992, Marrack Goulding was sent on a fact-finding mission to better assess the escalating situation. Goulding reported on the conflict and noted that they were attempting to create “ethnically pure” regions through any means necessary. Although, he ultimately concluded, “in its present phase this conflict is not susceptible to UN peacekeeping treatment” (62). As time went on, the barbarity and human rights violations continued without any international witness. Nonetheless, reporting on the conflict eventually began to reach the community of nations. The images evoked familiar sentiments to the WW2 era, further adding to the pressure for the international community to “do something.”

In June 1992, UNPROFOR assumed control of the Sarajevo airport and used it as a hub for humanitarian assistance to the population. Later that year, in September, the Security Council approved an increase to UNPROFORs strength in order to protect convoys delivering humanitarian aid. However, “doing something” at this stage still did not involve engaging in combat. Many, including the US and Germany, began to debate the validity of the traditional nonconfrontational peacekeeping norm. Many began to call for engaging in combat through air power, which would keep risks for troops on the ground at a minimum. Although there were around 40,00 troops across Bosnia, they were lightly equipped, widely dispersed, vulnerable and still reliant on the consent of all involved parties to carry out their tasks.

There were three major purposes of the UN peacekeepers in Bosnia. First, deliver food and medicine, which involved protection of other humanitarian agencies such as the Red Cross as well as protection for convoys. Second, to “contain the conflict and mitigate its consequences as far as possible, making sure it did not spread…” (64). This also involved enacting various constraints such as no-fly zones and weapon-exclusion zones. Third, attempt to reach a peaceful settlement to the conflict including local cease-fire agreements. Annan says, “while these were all important goals, they did not constitute a clear political objective for the UN mission” (65). The peacekeepers were simply not there to end the war.

In 1993, the city of Srebrenica was filled with upwards of sixty thousand Muslim refugees. Bosnian Serb forces targeted the town and began to lay siege with daily bombardments. This action necessitated a strict reaction from the UN.  In response the Security Council demanded that Srebrenica be considered a “safe zone” as well as other threatened towns such as Zepa, Gorazde, Bihac, Tuzla and Sarajevo. However, this did no more than provide a temporary respite. UN forces, already stretched thin, were beginning to be widely recognized as grossly inadequate and Kofi Annan knew that the attainment of more troops would be near impossible. No cosponsors, including the US, France, the UK, Russia and Spain, were willing to increase their troop presence. Nor were they willing to even redeploy existing troops to the newly established safe areas for their protection. General Maurice Baril then gave a presentation to the Council calling for an additional 32,000 troops to implement the safe areas concept. Cosponsors reacted with anger accusing the DPKO of “incompetence” and “failing to properly conduct their duties.” Their preference was still the “light and minimum” option drawn up by France that called for a force of only 5,000 troops.  

These deep divisions in the Security Council outlined not just the differences in opinion on the nature of the conflict but also the means of appropriate action. The main area of disagreement was in the use of air power to engage militarily. By spring of 1995, cease-fires were failing and the conflict was intensifying. The need for more direct intervention in the conflict began to be more widely acknowledged. NATO forces began performing targeted air strikes around Sarajevo but in retaliation, Serb forces illustrated the vulnerability of UN troops by capturing and holding hostage 400 UN personnel. Their tactic worked and air strikes immediately ceased.

After three years of UNPROFOR presence, the conflict not only continued but also worsened. UN forces were continuously “obstructed, targeted, denied resupply, and restricted in our movements” (70). In July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces overran Srebrenica. Thousands of Muslim Bosnian men and boys were immediately executed. The exact figure of the murdered is still unknown. As a reaction, UN forces began to solidify their positions with concentrated troop density and better-defended positions. The Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) was created with seven thousand British, French and Dutch troops and heavy artillery. NATO air power was again authorized and threats were given to the Serbs that if they attacked safe zones there would be continued NATO air strikes. The Serbs saw this as a bluff. And continued to operate on the assumption that if attacked, the UN presence would wilt and withdraw.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was a mortar strike on Sarajevo in August. It targeted one of the cities main markets, where people were lined up for bread. Thirty-nine people were killed. On the first night alone, over one hundred aircrafts from the US, the UK, France, Spain and the Netherlands destroyed 24 targets, including strikes near the Serb headquarters in Pale. Jets were attacking “arms depots, command and control centers, artillery positions and surface-to-air missile batteries” (72). But most importantly, UN troops were now in well-defended and concentrated positions preventing fear of reprisal and hostage taking. This was called Operations Deliberate Force and it broke the hold of the Bosnian Serbs. This action required the Security Council to take sides, to actively embrace war over peacekeeping. The Serbs who once controlled in between 70-80% of the territory were forced to negotiate. The Dayton Accords were born and they effectively ended the war in Bosnia. The peace has continued to hold.

After these three failures of Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia, it was clear that reform to the UN peacekeeping process was needed. Kofi Annan wanted to acknowledge, with complete honesty, the recent history of failure. Any successful reform he said, needed to come from such honesty. The Brahimi Report released in August 2000 was his contribution. The report needed to address the inherent shortcomings in UN peacekeeping, particularly in civil war scenarios, as they are the most common form of conflict in the world today. As Annan said, “Almost all peacekeeping operations since 1992 have been deployed to conflicts that cannot be readily categorized as between countries, and there are now, at the time of writing, almost 100 thousand uniformed personnel serving on sixteen such operations” (78).

Nonetheless, the consent of belligerent parties, impartiality and the use of force only in self-defense had to remain the “bedrock of peacekeeping.” Annan suggested however, that peacekeepers needed more viable means for self-defense, that any self-sustaining peace must to be continued through long-term development efforts. The bureaucracy of the Secretariat, Security Council and troop-contributing governments needed significant improvement: clearer communication and cohesive coordination with decision-making. Most importantly, Annan says, member states could no longer use the deployment of forces as a “fig leaf designed to conceal their unwillingness to intervene with the true commitment necessary, as a means of appeasing demands for forceful humanitarian intervention” (77).

The Brahimi Report, perhaps more importantly, outlines a larger issue, which Annan calls “complicity with evil.” How can the UN, mandated with peacekeeping and the protection of civilians, merely watch the murder, rape and brutalization of civilians without taking any action? Annan’s intent is to show that UN peacekeepers, when they witness such violence against civilians, must have the authority to stop it. He elaborates,

Evil in civil war zones occurs due to the will of the conflict protagonists, which must be rounded upon, confronted, and stopped – through force if necessary. But while I was serving as secretary general, there were many in the international community, in diplomatic missions, and in capitol cities around the world, who clung to a vision of the UN Charter that, in their view, said that the use of such force was unacceptable…this left me with what would become my greatest challenge as secretary general: creating a new understanding of the legitimacy, and necessity, of intervention in the face of gross violations of human rights” (78-9).

In the next few blog posts I will discuss Annan’s views on sovereignty and human rights, focusing on East Timor, Kosovo and Darfur. 

UN Peacekeeping: Rwanda 1994

Prior to the 1994 genocide, Rwanda has had ethnic power struggles for some time, between the Tutsi minority (who occupied a privileged position in the colonial administration before independence) and the Hutu majority. The former Tutsi dominance of the colonial era gave way to Hutu dominance through a violent power struggle following independence from Belgium in 1962. After independence many remained fearful of a Tutsi return to power. 

In 1990 the predominantly Tutsi Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) launched an assault from Uganda against the Hutu dominated government of President Juvenal Habyarimana. In February 1993, the RPF launched its largest offensive and came within 15 miles of Kigali, the Rwandan capital city. Under pressure from France, Belgium and the US, the RPF and the Rwandan government entered negotiations to end the conflict. This resulted in the Arusha Accords, signed in August of 1993. The accords established a power sharing democratic government that represented both sides and a unified army composed of both sides. As part of this agreement, a neutral UN force was to be deployed to uphold the deal.

Although there was much resistance to sending a peacekeeping force to Rwanda, the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda was created (UNAMIR). The vote to approve UNAMIR happened just days after the Somalian catastrophe. The US was insistent on rejecting any situation that might put their troops in a potentially forceful situation. Domestically, the US also had an agenda for reducing the budget for UN peacekeeping missions. In 1994, the US rejected a proposed peacekeeping contingency fund that would allow for the US to provide emergency financing for rapid peacekeeping efforts. The US was becoming more and more isolationist in its foreign policy altogether. They still owed around “$900 million in unpaid contributions to the regular UN budget and its peacekeeping expenses” (50). Congress had “refused to approve [these contributions] despite the legal obligation as a UN member state” (50). However, this is another topic that I’ll hopefully write about in another post. As a result, the US first argued to send only 100 troops for UNAMIR. 8,000 were requested, with a 5,000 troop minimum requirement. The US sent 2,500.

The international community was somewhat ignorant of Rwanda and its history. There was awareness of a history of ethnic conflict and also in neighboring Burundi. However, UNAMIR was cast off with an air of optimism. It seemed like much safer ground than Somalia. However, the UN troop deployment got off to a rocky start. By December 1993, it was clear that the forces were “totally inadequate.” No troop contributing country had been willing to supply a self-contained 800-man infantry battalion. This was considered an essential force for the capital city of Kigali. Instead two battalions were given, one from Belgium consisting of 398 men and the other from Bangladesh consisting of 370 men (of which only 266 arrived). UNAMIR was meant to have 22 armored personnel carriers and eight helicopters yet no country was willing to provide them, which meant a lack of deterrent capability, and a reserve mobile force. Engineers and logisticians were reassigned as infantry due to this lack. The carrier vehicles that were provided were completely “dilapidated”, and only five were serviceable. They often broke down and had to be towed by other carriers. This was an embarrassment. The potential for a disaster started to become much clearer and fear grew of a repeat of Somalia but with a considerably smaller military presence, and without “any possibility of reinforcement” (53).

Romeo Dallaire, the force commander of UNAMIR, in January of 1994 wrote to the DPKO detailing the growing crisis. Later in April, from his car, he witnessed two Belgian peacekeeping troops being held and beaten. He could do nothing but negotiate. He said, “I just can’t get those guys out of there. I just don’t have the forces.” In response, the DPKO told Dallaire to pressure President Habyarimana, that if violence did occur that the Security Council would take action. This was meant to convey the impression that powerful nations could bring serious repercussions upon Rwanda.

In April 1994, a plane with President Habyarimana and President Cyprien Ntaryamire of Burundi was shot down. Everyone was killed. The Hutu government initiated violence. They blamed the RPF and the Tutsis for the attack. The following day, the ten Belgian troops assigned to protect the Prime Minister of Rwanda were captured. They were ordered to lay down their weapons and not engage in combat by their commander Luc Marchal. The prime minister was then assassinated and the troops murdered and mutilated. Massacres began to spread beyond the capitol. Civilians were being killed in the open by government troops, militias and bands of Hutu civilians.

Any collapse on the Arusha Accords would result in the termination of UNAMIR, and the Rwandan government knew this. Shortly after the violence began, a senior Rwandan official spoke of a plan to kill the Belgian peacekeepers. He said, “We watch CNN too, you know,” This was referring to the Somalian crisis. He knew that if UN troops were attacked and killed, the troop-contributing countries would pull the rest of their forces out. He was correct. Five days later the Belgian government pulled its troops out of Rwanda. This was the core fighting force of UNAMIR. It effectively gutted UNAMIR of any clout. By April 27^th 1994, the Security Council voted to bring the UNAMIR force down to only 270 troops. There was simply no interest in becoming involved. Bob Dole effectively portrayed this perspective saying, “I don’t think we have any national interest here. I hope we don’t get involved…the Americans (US citizens in Rwanda) are out. As far as I’m concerned, in Rwanda that ought to be the end of it” (58).

Secretary General Boutros-Ghali pushed for a major military intervention but it was unanimously rejected. The Security Council took no responsibility for the worsening situation in Rwanda and continuously denied the fact that it was genocide. At this point an estimated 200,000 people had been killed. 250,000 more people had escaped into Tanzania, the largest mass exodus of refugees ever witnessed by the UN. Eventually, on May 17^th, the council reestablished UNAMIR calling it UNAMIR II and called for a force of 5,500. However, once again, no one was willing to provide these troops. Annan said,

At DPKO, we spent endless days frantically lobbying more than a hundred governments around the world for troops. I called dozens myself, and the responses were all the same. We did not receive a single serious offer. It was one of the most shocking and deeply formative experiences of my entire career, laying bare the disjuncture between the public statement of alarm and concern for the suffering of other people on the one hand, and, on the other, the unwillingness to commit any of the necessary resources to take action. The world knew the scale of the killing in Rwanda, and yet we could not get anyone, from governments across the world, to do anything serious to help (59).

The genocide eventually ended due to the victory of the RPF. They overthrew the government in July but not before 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu’s had been murdered. 800,000 people were killed in Rwanda in 100 days. A new government was established, and after this, troops were finally sent to UNAMIR II, well after the genocide and civil war was over. The lesson here, Annan says, is that the genocide and protection of citizens could have happened if there was the military capacity and political will. However, in 1994 “there was simply no culture or precedent in the international system of UN intervention in an internal conflict to use military force decisively to protect citizens” (59). Combined with the impact of Somalia, the result was inaction. 

UN Peacekeeping: Somalia 1993

Introduction:

I am beginning to read Kofi Annan’s new book Interventions: A Life in War and Peace. I don’t know very much about the history of the United Nation or its evolution of purpose and scope since its inception after WW2. This book provides a thorough account of major world events including human rights issues and abuses, civil wars, peacekeeping, global governance, the millennium development goals and terrorism. As I read this book, I’ll be posting little summaries of interesting information particularly, the history and facts of certain events that I believe most of us, myself included, have a limited and narrow understanding.

In my studies at DU in International Human Rights, I did not focus on human rights issues through the lens of major international conflicts or civil wars in the developing world. I also did not focus on genocide of which DU has many classes and expertise.  In my undergrad work (Contemplative Psychology and Religious Studies), I also did not have the opportunity, outside of my lack of personal initiative, to learn a lot about international affairs and various humanitarian conflict-type situations. From this vantage point, I view this book as an incredible learning tool to make up for this lack. Most of us I think, myself included, have either an idealistic, pessimistic, reductionist or naive understanding of how the UN operates in regard to peacekeeping and responses to conflicts around the world. Having the facts of what actually happened from the perspective of the former UN secretary general is invaluable.

Annan begins his book by describing the complex world of UN peacekeeping, especially in the context of civil wars. He focuses on three examples that he refers to as the United Nation’s “toughest-ever crises – and greatest of failures” (32): the 1993 Somalia crisis, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the massacre in Srebenic, Bosnia in 1995. I want to briefly go over his testimony of these events. Hopefully, they will not only provide historical knowledge but also elucidate the inherent complications of peacekeeping and global governance.

Background Context:

In between WW2 and the 1980s, there were only a handful of UN peacekeeping missions. Before 1988 there were only a dozen, but between 1988 and 1992, another ten were created. This is due in part to the Cold War. In its early years, the five permanent members of the Security Council (Russia, China, the UK, France and the US) were not able to contribute troops to peacekeeping efforts mainly due to the potential for escalating Cold War rivalry. After 1988 and the beginning of the end of the Cold War, the Security Council was able to agree more often without this kind of confrontation. There were many peacekeeping successes during this time including monitoring ceasefires between Iraq and Iran, the political transition in Nicaragua and the withdrawl of Cuban troops from Angola. Most notable however was Operation Desert Storm in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The response was a UN-authorized, US-led coalition. Almost a million men and women were deployed from 34 countries.

This new era of peacekeeping however also led to the alteration of its principles. Codified in 1973, the formal rules of peacekeeping were as follows:

· Peacekeeping troops could only be deployed only with the consent of the parties to the dispute.

· Peacekeeping had to be strictly impartial in their deployment and activities.

· Peacekeepers could use force only in self-defense.

· Peacekeepers should be mandated and supported by the Security Council in their activities.

· Peacekeeping operations had to rely on the voluntary contributions of member states for military personnel, equipment, and logistics.

The then Secretary General Boutros-Ghali was commissioned to present a document on how the UN might operate in the transforming geopolitical climate. He created a document called An Agenda for Peace. In this document he focused on the rising civil war conflicts around the world and how they demanded a new level of international intervention. He also proposed that due to the nature of these types of conflict, the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces should no longer require consent from all parties. This change presented a new level of risk for peacekeeping forces. Force was now something to be more prepared for. Troop contributing forces had to accept this new level of risk as well as higher levels of political will and commitment. However, these risks and commitments were largely unrecognized as it was hard to foresee how these conflicts and peacekeeping missions would play out.

The UN peacekeeping governing structure is highly complicated. Firstly, you have the Security Council, which has the power to form a UN field operation and is “responsible for determining its mandate, objectives, and parameters” (36). Second, the UN Secretariat, which is the administrative body of the UN, manages operation logistics and day-to-day practicalities. Thirdly, the troop contributing countries retain authority over the forces they deploy. This creates a bureaucratic nightmare. Decision-making is fragmented and the communication and coordination between governing bodies can be difficult. Reform of this system was never pushed for because none of the peacekeeping missions up to this point had displayed its flaws in a serious way. Troop contributing countries also benefited from the existing structure. For instance, the deployment of troops in peacekeeping efforts carries their foreign policy humanitarian ambitions and the deployment of troops allows one to take responsibility for responding to crises. However they are able to abdicate a certain amount of responsibility by simultaneously deploying troops without proper acknowledgement of the inherent risk.

Case One: Somalia

In 1991, Somali President Barre fell out of power and his void gave way to an intense power struggle between interim president Ali Mahdi Mohamed and the chairman of the United Somali Congress, General Mohamed Farrah Aidid. Power structures eventually gave way to multiple armed factions and competing gangs that created a series of mini-wars. The Somali civilian population suffered greatly from these conflicts and the UN presence was not capable of dealing them. A great famine was created not just due to environmental reasons but also due to the armed forces consciously obstructing aid from reaching the population. Annan said, “services and systems of trade and food distribution disappeared as the months rolled past” (39). A large portion of the population suffered from malnutrition. “1.5 million were considered at immediate risk of death.” Delivering humanitarian aid was simply not enough. At the transition from 1991 to 1992, some agreements were reached culminating in a ceasefire in March of 1992. As part of this deal the UN Operation in Somalia was created (UNOSOM). This operation was created to oversee the ceasefire and to accompany humanitarian aid around the country.

Despite the ceasefire, in August of 1992, eleven Red Cross workers were killed in Kismayo (a southern port city). 250 tons of food was stolen from the ports. Gangs and looters were blocking food trucks in Mogadishu. People, including children, were dying of malnutrition even at UN feeding centers. It was becoming clear that the political resolution was not taking hold. The capabilities of the UN mission were “inadequate.” All efforts to increase aid were met with responding efforts to disrupt their access to the population. Food warehouses were full while “an estimated 3,000 Somalis were dying every day, with perhaps 300,000 already dead” (42).

Boutros-Ghali recommended that the use of force was “the only feasible option.” The Security Council then unanimously adopted a measure (UNOSOM II) that established any means to secure an “environment for humanitarian relief operation in Somalia” (42). The US, under George H. W. Bush, sent 28,000 troops and twenty other countries collectively provided another 17,000. This force however was thought to be in Somalia for a short period of time. It was there merely to “prepare the way for a return to peacekeeping and post conflict peacebuilding. (42). Initiatlly this mission was very successful. Humanitarian supplies were being delivered to 40% of the country. The troops were being pulled out even as the fighting continued.

With a much smaller troop presence and a more fragmented command structure, a mandate was given to begin disarming the competing factions within Somalia. This force was never above 20,000 troops. This mandate presented many problems. For example, any faction targeted for disarming would find itself in a disadvantaged position against its rivals. No Somali warlord was about to let this happen. Following a series of small incidents, 25 Pakistani soldiers were killed and fifty other wounded. General Aidid was blamed. Attention quickly shifted away from the broader picture of peacekeeping, peacebuilding and disarmament to focus on capturing this one man. This focus was the straw that broke the camels back and ultimately crippled the UN mission in Somalia and sent the country into years of chaos. Boutros-Ghali sent a separate force of US troops specifically to hunt General Aidid. This chain of command was independent of the UN mission and was done so without the knowledge of existing UN troops in Somalia. The attempt to capture General Aidid failed horribly and resulted in “two helicopters being shot down, 18 US soldiers killed, and scores of others wounded” (45). Images were screened around the world of dead US soldiers stripped naked and dragged through Mogadishu streets.

This level of causalities was not anticipated and in response, there was a call for an immediate end to US involvement. This gutted the UN mission, taking its best-trained and best-equipped soldiers away from a worsening situation. The rest of the troops from other nations, being now more vulnerable, followed suit and pulled out of Somalia. As Annan said, “Thus ended the greatest experiment ever attempted to use peace enforcement in a mission motivated by humanitarian goals” (45). Somalia was abandoned and the population was punished by perpetual civil chaos and suffering. The world saw fit to ignore Somalia until it was recognized that international terrorists began to emerge there years later.

This failure brought into clear view the “dysfunctional nature of the peacekeeping system” (46). President Bill Clinton even said after this mission that the US would never again put troops in harms way in a UN peacekeeping mission. There grew an international aversion to taking risks. Nonetheless, more peacekeeping missions were deployed in more civil wars around the world. Unfortunately the very first operation to occur after this failure in Somalia and in this new UN climate was the Rwandan genocide in 1994. I will post about Rwanda and Bosnia in a separate post.

Meditations for the Humanist - Part 2 - Tolerance and DOMA

“The peak of tolerance is most readily achieved by those who are not burdened with convictions.” – Alexander Chase

An intolerant person is defined as one who “wishes others to live as the thinks they ought, and who seeks to impose his practices and beliefs upon them” (Grayling 2002, 7) True tolerance states that humanity thrives most by “permitting a variety of lifestyles to flourish, because they represent experiments from which might be learned about how to deal with the human condition” (Grayling 2002, 7-8).  Democracy has a similar aim in that a government run by the people, for the people, must include the voices and active participation of all demographics for it to flourish, especially if it is to afford the protect of minority rights. There is an inherent danger in democratic style government, namely majority oppression of minorities.

Grayling says,

Tolerance is, however, not only the centerpiece but the paradox of liberalism. For liberalism enjoins tolerance of opposing viewpoints, and allows them to have their say, leaving it to the democracy of ideas to decide which shall prevail. The result is to often the death of toleration itself, because those who live by hard principles and uncompromising views in political, moral and religious respects always, if given half a chance, silence liberals because liberalism, by its nature, threatens the hegemony they wish to impose.

Foreseeing this danger, the founders blessed us with the Bill of Rights as well as checks and balances in government. This was done in order to protect all citizens, especially minority demographics from majority oppression, including religious oppression.

The traditional republican platform has always had a foundation in states rights and a smaller federal government. The power of the federal government was seen as a threat to personal liberty.  However, when it comes to civil liberties and human rights issues, puritan morality seems to trump this age-old Republican value. This is becoming quite relevant with various contemporary social issues, especially homosexuality, marriage and the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). 

Traditionally marriage has been a religious ceremony, and many prefer it to remain as such. However, in this country, in this secular country, marriage is a civil right. Vermont, Connecticut and New York, which all have legalized gay marriage, now content that DOMA is a violation of states rights. They contend that the federal government has not right or authority to regulate the institution of marriage. The civil rights granted by marriage simple have nothing to do with religion, such as social security benefits, child-care tax credits, family and medical leave to take care of loved ones and COBRA health care for spouses and children. By denying a citizen these civil rights, they are thereby being denied human rights. The fourteenth Amendment to the Constitutions provides all citizens equal protection under the law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also speaks to this issue in its first, second and seventh articles, which says “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law…”

DOMA is designed to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage at the state level. The LGBTQ community is being discriminated against as they are denied this equal protection. They are being denied their civil/human rights. Once more, they are being denied this right from the Republican Party that supposedly champions personal freedom and liberty and views the Federal government as intrusive and oppressive. This is a fabulous example of how the Republican platform has lost its way. It is no longer centered around small government and states rights, but it has been hijacked by moralistic, intolerant religious fanatics who at their very core are opposed to the liberalism, pluralism and democratic ideals that America is founded upon.

I am not saying that marriage cannot be a religious ceremony. What I am saying is that in a democratic, pluralistic society, those who do not wish to be religious, those who do not want religion to have any part of their civil/human rights, shouldn’t be denied their rights because it makes religious people uncomfortable.

By providing the same rights to all citizens, society will thrive and become more cohesive and functional. Chris Kluwe, the punter for the Minnesota Vikings said, “You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing…?” Chuck Norris recently said a thousand years of darkness will not ensue. And many prominent figures who claim that hurricanes and other natural disasters are Gods punishment for sanctioning equality are intolerant religious bigots who should not be tolerated, let alone be given a platform to spew their fear. Intolerance itself is merely a symptom of fear and insecurity. And this is what the Republican Party has become in my eyes, a political party based on intolerance rooted in fear and insecurity. The relevant question is….”Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?” And the answer is obviously no. Tolerance must protect itself. No one can force another to adopt a certain viewpoint or practice. The only coercion should be argument and honest reasoning, which is what we would expect from our government. Religious freedom does not entail the right to discriminate. Protecting minorities and civil rights is not an attack on Christianity. It is compassionate. It is based in identification with all of humanity, regardless of creed, sex, color of skin and any other label. It is based in ethics, an ethics encouraged not by religious discourse, but by secular discourse, which provides and equal footing for all. For a deeper in depth discussion please see my previous post “Tolerating the Intolerant.”

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/09/160840674/states-rights-and-doma-clash-on-a-shifting-battlefield?ft=1&f=1001

Grayling, A.C. (2002). Meditations for the Humanist: Ethics for a Secular Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Romney's So-Called Religious Freedom

Mitt Romney said, “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone…

“We are a nation under God, and in God we do indeed trust. We should acknowledge the Creator, as sis the founders, in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in the Pledge, and in the teaching of our history.” He delivered this speech at the George Herbert Walker Bush Presidential Library, in Texas.

I wonder what the nonreligious nations of Europe would have to say about this. Especially since those nations with the less religious affiliation and influence are also happier according to their gross national happiness index. And why is it that the more religious nations tend to be less free and are less happy?

Are non-Mormons, non-Christians and non-theists still Americans under the vision Mitt Romney has for America? And what kind of America is Mitt Romney envisioning? What kind of freedom does his religion create and allow? He speaks of freedom and religious liberty, of family values and moral vision. Yet he would cut all funding for Planned Parenthood because a fraction of their public health services include providing abortions, and even when they use no public funding for those abortions. He wants to enact a federal law that would ban gay marriage. Yet this is in no way attached to his Mormon beliefs right? He speaks of “moral pollution.” He says he is “concerned with the drug culture, the pornography, the violence, sex and perversion.” He says every computer sold in the future should block all pornography. He says he wants to enforce obscenity laws. This is ironic considering that multiple studies have shown that “conservative religious type, especially Mormons, are more likely to use porn.” – Adam Greenwood (March 2, 2009).

Mitt Romney lives in his religious bubble. He will make public policy decisions based on his limited and exclusivist idea of morality and social order. It was not long ago that George Bush Sr. said, “I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, or should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.” Those with no religious affiliation, whether atheist, non-theist or agnostic, represent 19% of the American population.  It’s time to get religion out of politics. Its time to take religion completely out of the public sphere. It’s time for nonbelievers to come out of the closet! It’s time to acknowledge and celebrate our secular heritage, our pluralistic heritage. It’s time for those with so called religious values to stop pushing their views onto other people. It’s time for a secular ethics that encourages dialog and conversation to take the place of misguided and outdated moral certainty.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/03/are-mormons-crazy-for-porn/

http://skepticism.org/timeline/december-history/8317-mitt-romney-freedom-requires-religion-one-nation-under-god.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/08/mitt-romney-will-put-an-end-to-porn-somehow.html

Agnostic Buddhism - Buddhism Without Beliefs

Stephen Batchelor, in his book Buddhism Without Beliefs, describes an agnostic Buddhism. He does not describe Buddhism as a religion per se but as a method. Buddhism, he says, is not so much something to believe in, but is something to do. It is an activity, a lifestyle and a practice that we can integrate into every aspect of our experience. To be a Buddhist, do you have to be someone who believes certain propositions such as the four noble truths or reincarnation? According to Batchelor, the answer is no. He says Buddhism is not particularly religious or spiritual in the usual ways we understand these terms. It is simply a way to be in the world. Rather than being focused on deities, beliefs and supernatural claims, Batchelor claims Buddhism is founded in the agnostic tradition.

T.H. Huxley first coined agnosticism in 1869. He explained it as a method “realized through the ‘rigorous application of a single principle.’” This principle has both positive and negative aspects. The positive aspect exclaims, “Follow your reason as far as it will take you.” The negative aspect asserts that one should “not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. “ An agnostic Buddhist would not regard Buddhism as a source of answers to questions of where we came from, where we are going or what happens after death. Batchelor says an agnostic Buddhist would seek knowledge in the appropriate domains such as science. As for supernatural claims and questions about the origin of the universe or what happens after death, the Buddha himself remained silent. These questions were seen as distractions, as irrelevant to our human condition, irrelevant to the reality of suffering.

Buddhism however can become a dogmatic system when we elevate the matter of fact-ness of the four noble truths to holiness. They can become propositions to believe in. (Western scholars even superimposed the term Buddhism. This label allowed Buddhism to become a creed, which could be then compared to other creeds around the world. It can be easy to reduce a tradition and a religion such as Buddhism to a list of beliefs and practices that obscures its agnostic heritage and complexity.) Supernatural questions are seen as mysteries, not problems with answers that can be solved through meditation or prayer or through belief in a set of doctrine. Arbitrary answers to supernatural questions that are not demonstrated or demonstrable are simply irrelevant.  Strategies such as prayer and beliefs in doctrine merely replace mystery with beliefs in an answer that are often clinged to with such fervor that they distract from true ethical conversation and can even cause a great deal suffering, hatred and divisiveness.

Batchelor makes an important distinction between existential confrontation and existential consolation. Most of what we understand as religion can be seen as consisting of condolatory elements such as assurances of a better afterlife. Buddhist practice can be said to start not with belief in a transcendent reality but through embracing the “anguish experience in an uncertain world.” This is the essence of the first noble truth. We must have the courage to face whatever life throws at us without recourse to supernatural claims or consolations. To accept whatever comes with equanimity, and the humility to learn from every situation. Agnosticism shifts concern away from the future life and supernatural dialogue and brings it back to the present moment. Agnosticism is not passive. Instead, it is a dialogue, an ongoing encounter and existential confrontation with the unknown and mystery of our existence. Buddhism in this way, Batchelor says, might have “more in common with godless secularism than with the bastions of [western] religion.”

We must also make a distinction between ethics and morals, or more specifically ethical integrity as being distinct from moral certainty. A priori certainty about right and wrong is simply at odds with a changing and unreliable world. An ethical question should not be framed as ‘what is the right thing to do?” but “what is the compassionate thing to do?” This question can be approached with integrity but not with certainty. Likewise, agnostic Buddhism demands ethical conversation rather than moral claims based in supernatural hope and fear. This dialogue inevitably forces an encounter with our moral conditioning, which is based largely in psychological and social habit. We tend repeat the gestures of parents, authority figures, or religious texts. And while this sort of moral conditioning may arguably contribute to some aspect of social stability, it is nonetheless inadequate as a paradigm of ethical integrity. Encountering our socialized norms of morality, ethics, and supernatural claims and assumptions is precisely the type of encounter that agnosticism and Buddhism seek out. It is a creative and ongoing process that can be said to be the very basis of a genuine religious lifestyle, of genuine ethical conversation, both as individuals and collectively. Moral certainty based in supernatural claims that are not demonstrated or demonstrable, also inevitably lead to fantasies of moral superiority. As Batchelor said, “Instead of creatively participating in a contemporary culture of awakening, we confine ourselves to preserving those cultures of a vanishing past…we repeat the clichés and dogmas of other epochs.” We have seen many times how fantasies of moral certainty do not foster compassion or ethical dialogue, but usually result in arrogant, elitist and confrontational perspectives.

Our definition of religion itself is being challenged and expanded. Publishers Weekly, in reviewing Batchelor’s book said, “Buddhism is not strictly a religion, since it does not adhere to a belief in God; that the Buddha did not consider himself a mystic or savior, but a healer; and that Buddhism is less a ‘belief system’ than a personal ‘course of action’ that naturally instills morality, compassion, and inner peace in the practitioner.” The problem with this quote however is that it equates religion with theism and having a belief system. Buddhism is better said to be a nontheistic religion. After all, a tradition can be a religion even if it does not believe in a God or gods or have supernatural beliefs. Buddhism instead, can be thought of as a method. It is continuously evolving and adapting to the needs of the human condition without recourse to supernatural claims and without belief in a god or deities. Agnostic Buddhism is at its core, a confrontation and dialogue with our human condition. For further elaboration on the definition and understanding of evolving religion, see my previous post on Ken Wilber. 

Batchelor, Stephen. (2008). Buddhism Withouth Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening. Riverhead Trade.

Meditations for the Humanist – Part 1 – Moralism

Oscar Wilde famously said, “a man who moralizes is usually a hypocrite.” According to A. C. Grayling, a moralizer is a “person who seeks to impose upon others his [or her] view of how they should live and behave.” It reflects a coercive and exclusive worldview that is inherently opposed to democratic and pluralistic ideals.

Moralizers want others to conform to their views. They do this through coercive measures such as social disapproval as well as their more preferred option: legal controls. You can see this reflected in our nations history with blasphemy laws as well as more contemporary, hot button, issues such as gay marriage, abortion, religious symbols and text in public areas and prayer in public schools. 

Attacks on liberal policies such as these are expressions of hostility towards lifestyles moralizers personally dislike. Their hostility is brought into the public sphere, often through declarations of religious freedom, and manifest aspects of insensitivity, intolerance, ignorance of alternative interests and needs in the human experience and arrogance in believing there is only one acceptable way of living. They claim to have a “monopoly on moral judgment.’” We can recognize the familiar rhetoric of those claiming to defend the “traditionalist fantasy of ‘family morality’”. But the true attitude underneath moralizers is fear. The moralizer fears policies and practices that allow and encourage diversity in lifestyle and the freedom of choice.

Justification for their rigidly and arrogance comes from so-called religious doctrine and values. This is a pure reflection of exclusivist religion, which I’ve spoken about plenty in previous posts. This fear and its effects are inherently anti-pluralistic and anti-democratic. Diversity of thought is not allowed or encouraged. The demand conformity to lifestyles they see as personally acceptable. The external world, others, must conform to their internal preferences. Compromise is shunned and viewed as weakness. Their religious anxieties compel them to prevent the rest of society from “thinking, seeing or doing what they are afraid to think, see or do themselves.”

Secularism has become the enemy. Atheists and humanists alike are seen as being deviant and unworthy of any serious dialogue. Christianity is seen as being under attack. But secularism, in actuality, does not attack religion just like an umbrella does not attack rain. It provides a platform and foundation for diversity of thought, conscience and lifestyle. It protects all citizens’ right to have equal protection under the law, to have equal opportunity, voice and representation. Secularism encourages an ongoing, ever-evolving, creative process in public policy and societal norms. It sees culture and values as something malleable and dynamic, not fixed and rigid. And most of all, secularism, is not coercive or exclusive. All have a place at the table. Unfortunately, it also allows for the voice of the intolerant and the fearful (See “Tolerating the Intolerant” post).

Grayling, A. C. (2002). Meditation for the Humanist: Ethics for a Secular Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

How Islamist Are They?

I recently read an article called "How Islamist Are They?" in the Christian Science Monitor Weekly about the emerging constitutions in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. It was written by Kristen Chick and John Thorne for the August 20-27 Edition. Here is a summary of their article:

Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are all in transition, writing new constitutions. All three countries are coming out of dictatorships that more often than not oppressed Muslims. These new constitutions will usher in a new era that will answer many questions about the role Islam will play in the governance of these countries, and for the region as a whole. Many are watching with a close eye to how these new governance structures will deal with civil rights, women’s rights and free speech. 

Balancing tradition Muslim values and western culture is not going to be an easy task in any of these countries. While in Tunisia, western culture may be more prominent due to their French roots, even those who call for an absence of Islam in their constitutions shy away from the term secular as it connotes a godlessness that is not easily embraced anywhere in the region. Many call for a strict interpretation of sharia and would seek to impose restrictions on a wide variety of behaviors such as drinking alcohol in public, outlawing offense to religion and gender segregation. Others call for a more liberal undertaking. Sharia not only means “Islamic Law” but is also a guide for personal life and behavior. There are many different interpretations on what it means and calls for, let alone how it should be incorporated into law and policy. So when groups say they will use it as a basis for lawmaking, it is difficult to say exactly what this means.

Tunisia:

The moderate Islamist party that leads the coalition government has explicitly stated that it will not cite sharia in its new constitution. This party, called Al Nahda, took 89 of 217 seats in parliament. The coalition government is power-sharing government, with two other non-Islamist parties. While Tunisia, in comparison to both Egypt and Libya seems to exhibit a more mild approach to the incorporation of Sharia into governance, there are still calls for its influence. For example, Al Nahda proposed a law that would “criminalize any offense toward core elements of Abrahamic faiths including God, the prophet Muhammed, and holy books.”

There have been several riots the past few years centered on art and films that were deemed blasphemous. Free speech is a new commodity in Tunisia. After five decades of religiously oppressive dictatorship, many are worried that a religiously driven government will erode this newly enjoyed enterprise of free speech.

Egypt:

There are two main parties in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and the Nour Party. Nour came in second in the elections and was formed by the Salafis, the most conservative of Egypt’s Muslims. They call for similar policies to those of Saudi Arabia, such as strict gender segregation. The Nour Party has also called for harsh punishments such as chopping off the hands of thieves, and the banning of alcohol. However, there have been other, more liberal, proposals such as an attempt to make it easier for women to divorce. The FJP won nearly half of all parliament seats and are calling for a slow, gradual increase of the influence of Islam in society and in governance. FJP member Muhammed Morsi won the presidency and he has repeatedly stated he will implement sharia. The FJP even said that women and Christians couldn’t hold the office of president. They have also called for the creation of a council of clerics that will interpret whether or not a given law conforms to sharia. But which version of sharia is the question, and that will remain to be seen. Egypt, however, is the likely candidate for the nation that will have the most influence of Islam in government.

Libya:

Following suit with Egypt, Libya has agreed that, “sharia should be the basis for lawmaking.” However, despite their conservative leanings, the National Forces Coalition won the majority of votes in July’s elections. They have rejected both Islamist and secular labels and call for “problem solving over ideology.” Nonetheless, having Islam inform lawmaking is still considered natural. Chick and Thorne say, “The question is not whether to apply Islam in governance, but how.” Those who desire for Islam to be kept out of politics altogether are certainly the minority.

In all three countries, these new constitutions will open a dialog that will give the people the ability to experiment and evolve a governance structure of their own. We will eagerly keep watch and see how this pans out.

"In God We Teach"

The newly released documentary “In God We Teach” follows the story of Mattew LaClair, a high school student in Kearney, New Jersey. LaClair brought forth allegations of his high school history teacher, David Paszkiewicz preaching Christianity in the classroom. This documentary examines this case and its underpinning issues in just over an hour. I highly recommend you watch the entire film. However, if you would like to skip around and see just the highlights if have a few key moments referenced.

21:50 - 23:00: Paszkiewicz likens Christianity to having the cure for cancer. If you have the truth, why would you keep it from other people?

26:00: Paszkiewicz says, "there are a lot of lost people out there. If they are unreached, the consequences could be terrible"

29:00: Is the younger generation as aware as older generations of issues around separation of church and state?

31:30 - 34:00: Academic freedom is discussed.

34:42: Paszkiewicz says, "Teaching Darwinism is something thats going to take poeple's eyes off of God, especially Jesus Christ."

37:30: Paszkiewicz says, "and it may be against the law to teach creationism as fact but that doesn't mean its wrong."

In addition to being a youth pastor, Paszkiewicz also leads Christian Club Meetings for youth. At these meetings he attempts to disprove evolution and the big bang. This is something that has always rubbed me the wrong way. Regardless of my personal opinions about religion and its constant denial and suppression of science in fundamentalist followings, religion and science, especially religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There are certain folks, that would like to be seen as representative of religion, who draw this distinction. They do not represent religion, and they certainly are not representative of Christianity as a whole. That being said, evolution is not, and should not be associated with atheism. It is nontheistic. It is science. Nothing more. If this disproves any aspect of religious thought, then that religious thought must adapt, change or be destroyed. It is no longer representative of our current knowledge about the world and our relationship to it.

42:15: Paszkiewicz says, "I don't believe that my religious beliefs trump the constitution but I do believe that the word of god does."

42:00 - 44:00: Paszkiewicz says, "Religious neutrality is one thing but hostility to Christianity is quite another, and what I find is that this neutrality often means the exclusion from Christianity in the public square."

There is to often the argument that there is a war against Christianity in this country, or a war against Christmas. This is all complete nonsense. If the government does not support a certain view of Christianity or any religion, it is automatically seen as being hostile to that view/religion. The government is a secular institution. It is meant to be free of competing religious ideas as these are the most virulent competitions.

46:00: Paszkiewicz says, "We take god out of the equation, in time, i fear what kind of government we could have."

46:30: Paszkiewicz says, "I do think we ought to be unified around a set of values that are essentially Judeo-Christian"

48:00: Paszkiewicz "I don't see the danger in promoting, lets say the 10 commandments, how can things like 'thou shalt not kill' be psychologically damaging to a student?"

It is so easy for a supporter of the ten commandments to cite the “thou shalt not kill’ commandment as evidence that all ten should be accepted and taught. It neglects to mention the majority of the other nine. Why is this? Maybe its because “thou shalt have no other gods before me” or “do not take the lords name in vain” or “on the seventh day the lord rested” have absolutely no place in civil society, let alone its governance.

A year after this incident Paszkiewicz formed a student “Alpha and Omega Club.” This club was planning a trip to the creation museum in Kentucky. The “educational rationale,” for the trip was that: "students will be exposed to the science behind creationism."

This is a great documentary. I highly recommend it. If anything else it’s a great introduction into the multifaceted debate on the separation of church and state, prayer and other religious ceremonies or ideas in public schools, the so-called evolutionism/creationism debate and the growth of the nonbeliever population in the United States and what its effect could be on combating the religious right and the organization of “nones” as a political demographic. The link for the documentary is here: http://ht.ly/cndug 

Humanism 101

Bam. This is the newly updated manifesto of humanistic philosophy. A few things really stand out for me. In the opening statement, it says explicitly "without supernaturalism". This may bother some people, both religiously inclined and perhaps those who would prefer the label of spiritual. Fact of the matter is, supernaturalism has no bearing whatsoever in the collective interest of society in terms of building a cohesive and ethical system in which to live. If you disagree, please argue your case. 

Humanism aspires "to the greater good of humanity". This naturally curtains any racist, sexist or other form of discrimination based on human circumstance. Religion, as well all know, is the best at excluding others based on circumstance, whether its based on skin color, gender, sex, nationality, a different idea and symbol of the divine, or even just a different name for the same or damn near similar idea of God. The in-group/out-group dynamic has no place in humanism and it does everything in its power, from the very foundation of its ethical system, even down to its name and label, to avoid any possibility of discrimination on circumstance. 

This obviously is something we can spend a lot of time talking about and dissecting. But for newbies to humanism who constantly ask me "What's that?" or "What did you say you were?" Here is your answer. Humanism 101. 

Evolving Support for Marijuana Legalization

There is obvious growing support for Marijuana legalization. There is an even larger support base in general disapproval of the drug war. Federal legalization of marijuana is just one answer and possible solution to the many ills of marijuana's inclusion in the war in drugs. Decriminalization is another often spoken of solution. Currently, only thirteen states have enacted decriminalization laws for the non-medical use of marijuana: California, Alaska, Connecticut, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Mississippi, Ohio, Minnesota, Nebraska, Colorado and Oregon. 

In this next graph we can see support of marijuana legalization by demographic and political affiliation.

This graph shows an amazing trend. The more liberal you are, the more likely you are to support marijuana legalization. You are also more likely to support legalization if you are younger, are a democrat, moderate or an independent. Generally speaking, if you identify as a Republican or a conservative, the more likely you are to oppose legalization. You are also more likely to oppose if you live in the Souther and Midwestern regions of the country. And of course, you are more likely to oppose legalization the older you are.

Does this trend sound at all familiar? In my mind it also correlates strongly with levels of religiosity. The older you are, if you live in the South or Midwest, if you identify as a Republican or a conservative, the higher chance you are of being religious. Likewise, the younger you are, the more liberal or democratically inclined you are, if you live in the Western or Eastern U.S., the more likely you are to identify as nonreligious. Broad generalizations yes, but the evidence is clear.

My question then is this: Do levels of religiosity directly correlate to ones perspective on marijuana in its legality and morality? If so, why is this correlation present? Why would the religiously minded be opposed to using marijuana for recreational or religious/spiritual purposes? The answer I hope will become clearer in later posts. But these graphs certainly are interesting.

Understanding Marijuana

I’d like to write the next few blog posts about various issues related to the drug war and to marijuana policy. I would also like to discuss how religion plays a subtle, but prominent role in the formation and perpetuation of this war and these policies through the construction of sin as well as what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate alterations of human consciousness. I read a number of books on these topics and I’ll be writing about a few of them. Towards the end of this series of posts I’ll begin to weave the various authors and viewpoints together into a cohesive whole. I’d first like to start with a book called Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence by Mitch Earleywine. This is a great book to get us started because it offers an excellent survey of the current research surrounding marijuana as well as its history and uses. I’ll briefly summarize his points adding my own thoughts throughout.

History and Context

Marijuana originally spread from Taiwan. It was first used as a fiber then expanded its use to cloths, papers, food, various cosmetics such as soaps and oils and of course, for the alteration of consciousness, both recreational and religious.

Hemp fibers were likely the first in history. They decorated clay pots as far back as 8000 b.c.e. Linens first appeared in 3500 b.c.e., an entire thousand years before the emergence of cotton. Hemp fibers and linens were used to make bowstrings and ropes for ships in Russia, Greece, England and Italy as well as the Vikings. During the American Colonial period, England even ordered the colonies to grow hemp for this purpose but the colonies instead turned to a more lucrative crop: tobacco. After the civil war, hemp production in America sharply declined due to processing improvements of cotton. However, cotton has been criticized for a number of reasons. It yields less fiber per acre, requires more water and pesticides and causes more environmental harm. There are many current arguments to begin producing hemp again for these purposes on a much larger scale.

Hemp paper first appeared in the first century b.c.e. in China. It quickly spread to Japan and then to the Arab nations. It has been said that hemp may be more economical and more environmentally friendly than wood. The plant is ready to harvest quicker and it causes much less damage to ecosystems. Once again, modern arguments are emerging for the large-scale production for this purpose.

Industrial hemp actually contains as little as .15% THC. Those who oppose the manufacture of industrial hemp on moral grounds or because they don’t want people to smoke it and get high (we will get to this), cannot use this as an argument. You simply cannot get high with industrial hemp. It is very different than the marijuana people smoke to alter consciousness and should be treated as such.

Hemp was used for foods as well. Hemp seed porridge was found in ancient Russia, Poland and Lithuania. It contains “20-25% protein and contains healthy amino acids, minerals, calcium, potassium and essential fatty acids.”

Marijuana’s medical use began around 2737 b.c.e. It was used for a wide range of physical ailments including pain, seizures, muscle spasms, poor appetite, anxiety, nausea, insomnia, asthma and depression as well as labor pains, premenstrual symptoms and cramps. Even the United States Dispensary in 1868 declared that marijuana “improved appetite, sexual interest, mental disorders, gout, cholera, hydrophobia [?] and insomnia.”

Marijuana’s use as an intoxicant has a complicated past and present. Reactions to its use necessarily include the wide spectrum of reactions to “novelty, pleasure and the unknown.” We will return to this point in greater detail later. The Chinese it seems were the first to use marijuana this way around 100 c.e. The Taoists used it to “induce hallucinations.” This use was more religious than recreational, used in conjunction with other religious practices such as meditation and yoga.

Marijuana’s transition to illegal status is both complicated and simple. It is no secret that opium became illegal in the United States due to racism against Asians. Marijuana can be said to follow suit with comparable discrimination against Mexicans. Likewise, its illegality corresponds strongly with a general human tendency to fear the unknown and the different.

Cannabis became essentially illegal in the US in 1937 when Harry Anslinger championed the Marijuana Tax Act, which created high taxes and harsh sentences for marijuana. The harsh sentences increased with the 1951 Boggs Act. The dominant perspective of the time was said to be that marijuana use inevitably led to heroin addiction. This gateway theory we will see later is completely false.

General Research and Figures

A researcher named Hilts asked two prominent drug researchers in 1994 to rank features of six common drugs: nicotine, caffeine, heroin, cocaine, alcohol and marijuana. Features included the drugs ability to produce withdrawl, tolerance and dependence in the users. Both researches placed marijuana last in all three features. Another study had experts rank 18 drugs on how easily they ‘hook’ people and how difficult they are to quit. Marijuana ranked 14^th behind nicotine (1^st), alcohol (8^th) and caffeine (12^th). Only MDMA, mushrooms, LSD and mescaline ranked lower.

How we define drug addiction, dependence and abuse largely shapes how date is presented. The following criterions are the ones used. Their accuracy to an unbiased presentation of the evidence may be misleading. Nonetheless, here are the definitions and findings:

“Dependence” according to the DSM 4 is a collection of three of any seven symptoms: tolerance, withdrawl, use exceeds initial intention, failed attempts to decrease use or a constant desire for the drug, loss of time related to use, reduced activities due to drug use and continued use despite problems. All symptoms must create “meaningful distress” and occur within the same year. The drug user must require the drug to function and must make maladaptive sacrifices to obtain and use it. “Abuse” is defined in terms of four symptoms: interference with major obligations, intoxication in unsafe settings, legal problems and the consistent use despite problems. According to interviews conducted with over 42,000 people who had used marijuana in the last year, 25% qualified for a diagnosis of abuse and 6% for dependence. Abuse is much more common in rural areas and dependence is more prevalent in those persons with depression. 85% of people who used marijuana in the last year reported none of the problems, 15% reported one, 8% reported at least two and 4% reported at least three.

This current approach of using dependence and abuse definers may overestimate marijuana’s negative impact. The diagnosis may say more about the culture and its values than the actual negative consequences marijuana creates. Although problems are not common, a spectrum of 6% to 23% report some difficulties with the drug.

Gateways and Stepping Stones

Data do not support the idea of marijuana being a stepping-stone or “gateway” drug to harder, more harmful drugs. Marijuana and hard drugs do share some biological effects. “For example THC, opiates and cocaine all alter the dopamine system in comparable ways.” The cannabinoids however have their own receptor that does not react directly to drugs like heroin and cocaine. They are unique and should be treated likewise. This much is clear: “Physiological mechanisms do not explain any link between marijuana and the use of other intoxicants.”

The gateway theory simply does not hold up under basic critical reasoning. Of all 221 million adult Americans, 76 million have tried marijuana and 145 have not (2002 figures). Lets assume that the six million Americans who tried crack cocaine also tried marijuana. That assumption leaves us with the conclusion that 70 million people who have tried marijuana have never tried crack. “Thus the correlation between marijuana consumption and the regular use of these harder drugs in negligible.”

Health Effects

Earleywine says, “In general, the drug [marijuana] is incapable of creating an overdose. It can exacerbate the symptoms of some mental disorders but does not appear to cause them. Data fail to show any marijuana-induced changes in brain structure, but long term exposure to the drug alters the way the brain functions during complex tasks. People who smoke marijuana but not cigarettes have yet to show severe pulmonary problems like lung cancer or emphysema, but mild respiratory problems [do] appear.” Thus, in the tong term, consistent, lifelong use of marijuana can cause complication in performing complex tasks. This is it’s negative health effect. Compared to other legal drugs, marijuana’s “impact on health is minimal.” Said another way, “Cannabis seems to have fewer negative health effects than legal drugs, like alcohol, caffeine, or tobacco…”

Social Problems?

Arguments for marijuana’s illegal status often cite the social problems it might cause including “decreased productivity and performance in school, dangerous driving, and uncontrollable aggression”. Lets discuss these three topics independently.

1.     Performance in school and productivity

In terms of performance in schools, over a half a dozen studies reveal that marijuana users and nonusers have comparable grades in college. There is no difference in grades whatsoever. Some studies even found higher grades in marijuana users than nonusers.

High school however shows a different trend. Users do tend to have lower grades than nonusers. However, this is only the case with “heavy marijuana smokers.” But most heavy marijuana users earn lower grades prior to their marijuana use. This suggests that cannabis could not have caused their poor performance. “High school students who smoke cannabis heavily also tend to use alcohol and other illicit substances” as well. Causation in these instances is difficult to establish. The supposed link between cannabis and poor academic performance simply does not exist. Rather, heavy marijuana use follows a general “pattern of deviance”. Marijuana use does not cause people, or especially youth, to become depressed and unmotivated. Rather, depressed or unmotivated or unconventional people and youth may have a higher likelihood to choose to smoke marijuana.

The drug itself does not create deviance. There is no evidence for a marijuana-induced a-motivational syndrome. “Long term exposure to cannabis in the laboratory fails to show any meaningful or consistent impact on productivity”.

2.     Dangerous driving:

Many say or imply that marijuana contributes significantly to accidents. However, there is no data to support these conclusions. Marijuana does not increase the risk of accidents that cause injury, although it may increase the chances of other, more minor accidents but there is no data on this subject. In fact, drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to “drive more slowly, leave more space between cars, and take fewer risks”. In this way, marijuana is far different from alcohol, which clearly causes drivers to be more reckless and dangerous.

3.     Increased aggression:

The association between cannabis intoxication and aggression is unlikely. Marijuana users “do not show more aggression than people who receive placebos”. In fact, in some studies users occasionally show a decrease in hostility. Those that may fit the bill in this instance are more likely to be aggressive people who also happen to smoke cannabis.

The data in all three categories of arguments is in sharp and contradictory contrast to the dominant assumptions about the drug.

Law and Policy

Despite all this scientific evidence, marijuana remains illegal. Debates on its prohibition usually focus on moral and “pragmatic” issues rather than science and empirical evidence. “Moral arguments in support of prohibition generally portray the drug as unethical or corrupt”. Pragmatic arguments in support of prohibition, on the other hand, cite supposed health consequences, use by youth, and the gateway theory. My argument, that I will be writing much more about, is that in both instances of moral and pragmatic argument, the perspective comes from religious assumptions about sin and being dirty/unclean (both overt and covert – consciously and unconsciously).

More research is unneeded to change current law and policy. We have all the hard information we need to change the paradigm. However, this change is not going to come. Why not? Because the political climate, fed by subtle puritan religious assumptions will not change so easily. Earleywine says, “If anything is to change, it will have to come about in changes to the political climate, not to science.” The current laws and policies towards marijuana and the drug war in general may “reveal unspoken attitudes about the people who want to alter consciousness.” Some citizens may view people who want to change their consciousness in general or in certain ways as being evil or bad. These views, in my opinion, are the strongest determinants of cannabis policy, particularly as news of the drugs limited harm reaches everyone the public.

Everyone carries assumptions about thoughts, awareness and internal life. It is perfectly human to make these assumptions about consciousness. And to think that it should be a certain way. We all have stereotypes about techniques designed to alter thoughts and awareness. Both chemical, physical and mental activities can change consciousness. Mental activities for changing consciousness can provide good examples. Just examine attitudes about meditation, frequent prayer, and hypnosis. People who do not engage in these practices may see those who do as deviant in some way. Yet the activities remain legal. Perhaps because they cause no harm? Physical activities also change consciousness. Skydiving and bungee jumping remain legal. They are not harmless. But more people have died from these activities than from using marijuana. A few chemicals that alter consciousness also remain accepted. Caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol have established effects on thoughts and moods. Their toxicity is much higher than that of marijuana. Citizens seem to trust adults enough to let them use these drugs in a way that will not cause problems. Why is this privilege, on these grounds, unacceptable in regard to marijuana?

Final Thoughts

Earleywine concludes, “from a combination of economic incentives and a sense of justice, the world has slouched toward progress in appreciating diversity. [However} people are starting to respect each other a little more, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender, occupation, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, or education. Many argue that this greater respect benefits everyone. We approach a point where people might tolerate others who think differently. Perhaps we could tolerate people who want to use marijuana without causing harm to themselves or others.” It’s a beautiful conclusion. And it’s true, there is more respect for diversity now more than ever in human history. The alteration of consciousness however retains subtle and intense assumptions that are not easy to perceive let alone change. How we go about this process is difficult to say. The political climate changes quite slowly as does the evolution of religious thought. But perhaps we are reaching a threshold; one where on the other side we can celebrate and enjoy different ways of experiencing the world in a non-harmful way. Perhaps we are on the threshold of openly celebrating marijuana and its effects on consciousness.