Harun Hadžić RE: How is perpetual peace obtainable? Peace can not be imposed from the top-down. 'Exogenous' (Latin 'other-generated') Oligarchs fund, arm & export violent colonization worldwide in order to make war, steal-resources & impose institutional slavery. Humanity lives under an oligarch-controlled: Finance-Media-Religion-Education-Military-Industrial-Legislative-Complex for the past 7000 years. Windsor, Rothschild & Vatican trillionaire oligarchs control the US-Federal-Reserve, Bank-of-England, Bank-of-International-Settlements, World-Bank & International-Monetary-Fund. These banks issue money to their trickledown network of war & artificial life-damaging institutional society. Peace is human-culture not institution or state-driven, so it can only be recaptured from the bottom-up, 'Organizing-from-the-tree-roots'. Perpetual-peace is not a matter of tweaking treaties behind closed door big-power threatening nego-impositions.

REDISCOVERING ALL HUMANITY's INDIGENOUS PEACE HERITAGE

Humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (L 'self-generating') ancestors & 1st Nations today, cultivate the 'Great-Law-of-Peace' aka 'Great-good-way-of-kindness' aka 'Constitution' as the foundation of human relations at all levels of human society. Indigenous peace spreads 'fractally' (building-block, multiplier where the-part-contains-the-whole), from the individual to interpersonal, family, multihome, village, city, region, state, confederacy, continental & hemispheric Councils.

INDIA's INDIGENOUS EXAMPLE OF POPULAR MOBILIZATION

Mohandas Gandhi as part of India's 'Swadeshi' (Hindi 'indigenous' aka 'self-sufficiency') program advised individuals cultivating mutual-aid business or 'busy-ness' in their communities to 'Become-the-change-we-want-to-see-in-the-world'. India achieved 'Swaraj' (H 'self-rule') by encouraging local self-sufficiency for essential-services in harmony with people & nature. When just 5% of the British-&-5-eyes parasitic foreign import & export economy was affected by ~1940, India had achieved significant pride in renewing their self-sufficiency. 100s of British empire companies were going through bankruptcies, through the economic leverage of just 5%, so independence was achieved by 1947.

STEP 1 INCLUSIVE MULTIHOME-HOUSING

Kindness & peace starts with cultivating one's own, family & multihome-dwelling-complex (apartment, townhouse & village) inclusive welcoming livelihood. Everyone can contribute at this appropriate foundation for inclusive-welcoming livelihood & thereby peace. Today's multihomes house 70% of human populations with an average of 32 dwellings or ~100 people. Our indigenous ancestors on every continent & island cultivated 100 people economic units as intimate, female-male, intergenerational, interdisciplinary, critical-mass, economies-of-scale, which start with the collective domestic economic essentials (food, shelter, clothing, warmth, health & relations). Industry & commerce are 'economic' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture') subsets of the primary domestic economy. Both privacy & proximity are essential factors of multihomes.

https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/extending-our-welcome-participatory-multi-home-cohousing

STEP 2 TIME-BASED EQUIVALENCY ACCOUNTING

On every continent & island of the world all humanity's indigenous ancestors employed the String-Shell value system as an integrated system of accounting & universal empowerment in progressive-ownership for all domestic, industrial & commercial contributions within the specialized Production-Society-Guilds. The String-shell integrates a) Capital (L 'cap' = 'head' = 'collective-intelligence'), b) Currency (flow), c) Condolence (social-security), d) Collegial mentored-apprentice educational credit, e) time-math Communication, f) professional Costume identification & much more. All human values relate & interact consciously as part of one system, universal personal-empowerment & continuity, hence forming a foundation for human consciousness towards peace & prosperity.

https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy

This is just a brief introduction to humanity's profoundly peaceful indigenous ancestry. www.indigenecommunity.info contains 77 interdisciplinary web-sections describing different essential aspects of all humanity's indigenous heritage before deliberate colonial suppression, destruction & colonial tarnishing of indigenous heritage, record-keeping & today's institutionally imposed amnesia for 100s of 1000s of years.

I see that; you are from the International University of Novi Pazar in Serbia. From what I can understand, Serbia as part of a once abundant Yugoslavia with Multistakeholder Participatory progressive-ownership was the most productive-innovative nation in the Soviet-bloc. Participatory companies following indigenous-economy traditions are the most profitable, adaptable, environmentally & socially performing companies in the world. Yugoslavia got intentionally targeted-destroyed by western oligarch powers in order to impose suffocating hierarchal controlled finance. The above integrated economic process starting in the multihome enables 'communities' (L 'com' = 'together' + 'munus' = 'gift-or-service') to re-impower at levels invisible to oligarchy. The indigenous model creating kind, welcoming domestic economy builds us allies culturally in every way from bottom to top. Yugoslavia & particularly Serbia have excellent economic traditions, but the whole world needs to support & emulate these practices everywhere.

https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/7-participatory-companies

Dear Douglas Jack,

You have all been beautifully, professionally and analytically explaining.

I accept such an explanation. The same thing I did in school and advocated in my work.

But it is sometimes impossible to apply some theoretical recipes in life. I was convinced of that during the war and the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. There are many of us in the former Yugoslav republics that preferred the survival of Yugoslavia. Undoubtedly, the intolerant and backward nationalism woke up to the war, the break-up of the state, the massive casualties, the devastation of the economy and hatred among the nations that formed the former Yugoslavia. The worst thing is that in this situation the desire for the creation of ethnically pure, national states, which has territorial pretensions against the neighboring states, has appeared. Such an ideology lasts even today and threatens to lead to a new war. That is why many of us advocate the recognition of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the existing multiethnic states and that we all contribute to the success of a secular civil society. Unfortunately, at this moment, the peoples of the Balkans are unable to reach an agreement without the assistance of the UN Security Council or the EU or the OSCC. So we ask the question: How is perpetual peace obtainable?

Regards

My greetings are a good project, lasting peace can be achieved by accepting the other, and the educated, respectful, wise and compassionate dialogue ...

Harun,

But it is sometimes impossible to apply some theoretical recipes in life. I was convinced of that during the war and the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia.

I completely agree with you. I also agree with Douglas that peace cannot be mandated from the top down. And I would point out even such examples as India, since that was one example given, are not immune to internal and external discord and violence. India sees the need for a nuclear weapons arsenal, to feel secure as a country. Indigenous populations too were never immune to tribal discord and violence. Some indigenous tribes, in what is currently the US, were more belligerent than others, and had a culture of warriors and warfare. Before any colonization. The fundamental reasons are always the same: conflicting interests.

Perpetual peace is difficult in all of nature, specifically because different living organisms have conflicting interests. This occurs even between plants and animals. And then to make matters worse, human beings, much too clever for their own good, fabricate their own fantastic ideologies, religious, economic, and political. Ideologies almost designed to create conflict. It should not be surprising that this "perpetual peace" is elusive. Humans would have to become almost mindless drones, to achieve any measure of "perpetual peace."

And there's even more than that, to contend with. Humans, much too clever for our own good, demand an existence that is quite unnatural. For example, we demand health care, we demand an adequate food supply for all, we demand clean water, electric power, we demand climate-controlled living accommodations, we demand mobility beyond what nature ever provided on its own, we demand long lifespans, we demand fertility treatments as necessary, to have as many offspring as we choose. All of these demands put us in conflict with nature, and among one another too. We have created an unsustainable state of affairs, in which the combined mass of human beings, especially when you add to it the combined mass of the farm animals we breed to feed our human population, vastly exceeds the combined mass of all other land mammals. Is it any wonder that the ecosystem is out of equilibrium? This is way worse than any problem with CO2 emissions. Farming alone creates far worse greenhouse gases than just CO2, and never mind how farming pollutes the water cycle, increasing ocean acidity.

This too creates conflict. Competition for the natural resources that we are over-consuming, for our egregiously high human population.

I think it is important to understand the roots of conflicts, before attempting simple solutions. Talk alone won't solve this.

Manfredi,

You have provided a good elaboration, which is contained in your last recitals:

I think it is important to understand the roots of conflicts, before trying simple solutions. Talk alone won 't solve this."

Uh, this is a difficult and complex issue. If we look at history, we will see that lasting peace is not possible at all.

Because the main reasons for human conflicts throughout history were: property plunder, conquest of territories, minerals, oil, the acquisition of strategic points on the earth's ball, geopolitical competition, fear of the enemy, religious wars ...

In the future, most likely, the cause of the war (casus belli) will be food, ecology and drinking water sources ...

However, humanity must do something to prevent its own destruction. If it can not be UN and SC who can then?

I think that it is necessary to reorganize the world organization (UN) and through some new mechanism, try to establish lasting peace in the world.

Regards

Dear Harun:

You fail to mention FEAR. Too many people, afraid of personal Death, allow the worst (psychopaths) to become their tribal chiefs to protect them from external threats [just check out the USA today]. These rotten, BAD people still control our world and the huge armies of the AFRAID permit this to continue. Only very occasionally, have conditions become so obviously appalling that they rebelled.

Cont'd "How is perpetual peace obtainable".

Thank you all for the above comments, responses, recommendations & insight. Harun Hadzic has posed an essential question not only for Yugoslavia, which as the most successful of Soviet economies, was targeted for western oligarch-financed.

Under the present worldwide Windsor, Rothschild & Vatican Finance-Media-Religion-Education-Military-Industrial-Legislative-Complex whereby Yugoslavia was disintegrated by 10s of billions of dollars of this external financing. Any nation anywhere can be & are being targeted. We are all vulnerable.

In oligarch: divide-conquer-command-&-control, once any country is invaded it is all too tempting (but simple-minded) to place the blame-upon-the-victims & their diversity. Diversity was a strength to Yugoslavia, but no match for the cruel, violent, concerted oligarch financial resources, including trained espionage departments with multi-billion dollar budgets.

Foreign western espionage has all the necessary legislative owned-representative connections to precipitate the False-Flag bombing (eg. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia etc) or such as the Maidan western sharp-shooters who killed both sides or Trade-Union massacres to justify their subsequent interventions. When you control the court-of-popular-opinion through oligarch owned media, truth is easily disbursable, cast-off or shed. This pattern of oligarch ownership has us all indoctrinated to believe their dispersions upon 1st Nations of Africa & the Americas, even our association of 'witches & druids' as the bad people of our fairytales.

The reason our 'indigenous' (L 'self-generating') ancestor placed emphasis on 'economic' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture') inclusion & welcome is that this is the spirit of human association which recreates itself. Hence the bottom-up String-shell used by every nation on every continent & island worldwide was a system of 'money' (Greek 'mnemosis' = 'memory') values integrating: Capital, Currency, Condolence (social-security), Collegial mentored-apprentice educational Credit, time-math Communication, professional Costume & much more. Western top-down oligarch-owned (US-Federal-Reserve, Bank-of-England, Bank-of-International-Settlements, World-Bank & International-Monetary-Fund) issued 'money' is considered the 'root-of-all-evil' specifically because as a mathematic formula it doesn't have this bottom-up recognition factor for diverse multistakeholder participatory human contributions & its associated ownership. Hence around the world these economic practices starting in our ~100 person Multihomes, whether on Turtle-Island (North-America) called: the 'Kaianerekowa' (Iroquois 'Great-good-way-of-kindness' aka 'Great-Law-of-Peace' aka 'Constitution'), in southern Africa 'Ubuntu' (Nguni 'Human-kindness') or India 'Swadeshi' (Hindi 'indigenous' aka 'self-sufficiency')

Beyond Economic-Kindness, we are required in our day-to-day intimate & professional relations to implement 'Dialectic-Rights' or what all humanity's indigenous ancestors called 'COUNCIL-PROCESS'. The once universal worldwide Council-Process is the other 2nd essential ingredient to Kindness.

Gandhi under Swadeshi, proposed the same 'Satyagraha' (Hindi 'truth-search') program which was uniting the diversity of India. Churchill & other Ally leaders on their death march to the 45 million killed in WW2, impeded Gandhi's suggested satyagraha mediation. Interaction includes: popular military, government, education, business engaging each other in Collaborative-Research & Dispute-Resolution, listening to both sides. DIALECTIC RIGHTS We need to openly engage our own & other societies in dialectic rights for all people in all relationships.

IGNORANT AGGRESSION BASED IN DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION. Whenever there's conflict both at home & worldwide, we've two main choices to: 1) believe the finance-media-religion-education-military-industrial-legislative-complex, demonize the other, armour ourselves against our perceived enemies, launch pre-emptive war & create hell, 2) engage the other in formal equal-time recorded & published dialogues. Mohandas Gandhi developed 'Satyagraha' (Hindi 'truth-search') based upon simultaneous inquiry with both parties in dispute or re-search asking, "What are your best intentions & how can we help you fulfill these?". Gandhi, "I can imagine a fully armed man to be at heart a coward. Possession of arms implies an element of fear, if not cowardice. But true non-violence is an impossibility without the possession of unadulterated fearlessness." We need transparency in all levels of human solutions at home, school, media, business for all stakeholders. As Socrates proposed, dialectics (both-sided inquiry) should be the foundation of social & economic literacy. The west plays 'Right-to-Protect' game for 100s of colonial years keeping citizens in the dark staging many 100s of False Flag events, colonial invasion & genocide. NO-WAR until we hear Both-Sides present in Equal-Time, Recorded & Published Debate. Most issues & events in our colonially manipulated & consumptive world aren’t as they appear. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues

Harun, I also agree with this:

which is contained in your last recitals

Guilty as charged. The reason is, every time the question is asked again, in one slight variation or another, we get different participants, and the same ground is covered in all of the responses. In my opinion, some of the responses are relatively trivial, not going beyond the idea of "dialogue," and they miss why this "peace" issue is so difficult.

So, as an initial thought, we should be aware that "everlasting peace" is actually unnatural. Then perhaps we can go further. Anything you attempt, that goes contrary to the rest of nature, cannot possibly be trivial!

The best example we can offer of what stable peace looks like might be Western Europe, following the end of World War II. This was achieved through similar forms of representative democracy governments (including the remaining monarchies), which created similar goals and values, which in turn reduced the conflicting interests among these countries. It worked. Notice that educational systems became similar.

The UN does not have the power to reform governments! And yet, to achieve stable peace, it is essential to bring the system of values closer together. It is essential that people understand how peace and prosperity are not a zero-sum game. You will note that in places of greatest tension, that is exactly how the problems are explained to the masses. The reason my country is doing poorly is because the bad guy over there is undermining us.

Another point to consider is the practice of self-flagellation, popular in the West these days, in which you hear many voices reciting their mea culpas. Which are then conveniently seized as the complete answers, by those who feel wronged. But reality is never that simple, even if there is an element of truth in those mea culpa declarations.

Perpetual peace can be achieved by living and letting others live. By refraining from meddling in things that do not concern us.

Dear Maurice Ekpenyong,

I think one Ulpian's theory of justice is:

"Iuris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere".

(The rules of law are: live fairly, do not insult others, give each one their own).

But the question arises as to whether this theory is sufficient to establish lasting peace?

For Ulpian formulated the definition of justice, but the Roman legions and the Roman centuries were continually leading wars. So the Romans knew what justice was and what peace, but they still fought and conquered other territories. Why did they prefer a war option?

Excellent point, Harun. I think the malady you described with respect to ancient Rome still afflicts many developed countries today. I think the logic goes something like this: If only we can convince the other countries to adopt our value system, then everyone will be at peace. The base point being, these other tribes were never at peace previously, so that was the initial justification for war.

We see that same mentality at work in recent history, where the West felt obliged and justified in meddling. For example, Somalia, Afghanistan, Libya, the way too complicated Syria, Mali, and even Iraq.

But before everyone pounces on how unjustified these operations were, and I would be among those pouncing in opposition to most of those examples, let us not conveniently forget the criticism the West got, for not meddling in Rwanda.

In my view, meddling rarely works. It did seem to work at the end of World War II, but that was more of an exception. In every single recent example I listed, the justification was that the previously ongoing carnage had to end. Let us remind ourselves the words used: "We cannot just stand by while this is happening." And then, after the operation fails miserably to bring this elusive peace, after the self-appointed "saviors" have become the bad guys, we forget the initial justification, we even go so far as to fabricate new cynical justifications (such as , "it's all about oil"), and we beat our chests, reciting our meae culpae.

Dear @Harun and readers,

It is an important observation that you've made: "The issue of peace and stability in the world must be within the competence of impartial international institutions" and that "The UN Security Council is not an impartial and objective international forum that can preserve and establish peace."

However, this must not always be the case. There is a way of changing the current structure of the lop-sided UN Security Council (particularly in terms of its decision making and voting trend). We have proposed elsewhere among other things, the need to introduce a reverse consensus in voting at the UNSC; incorporation of Corporate Social Responsibility into the making of International Law (CRASBIL); the Diplomatic and Strategic Deployment of International Humanitarian Law; respect for the independence and sovereignty of all States - irrespective of relative size and resources, etc.

Indeed, as noted earlier by some senior researchers above, excessive theorising will not necessarily solve the problem of conflict in our world today or in the future. It is for this reason that we have to be pragmatic about the issues.

'Perpetual Peace' may be attainable once we as humans become pragmatic. To me, it is not an abstract idea (I am not defending Charles-Irénée Castel de Saint-Pierre or Immanuel Kant here, I am sharing my candid views. As to the merits and demerits of what these two and others may have suggested, we can take that at another time). Thus, the peace we seek is within our grasps if and only if we become pragmatically altruistic.

Albert Manfredi, you have observed that "It should not be surprising that this "perpetual peace" is elusive. Humans would have to become almost mindless drones, to achieve any measure of "perpetual peace."

This is quite interesting, but I find it a bit difficult to understand why it should be so (that is, supposing I agree with your assertion). Does that presuppose that it is only in the State of "mindless drones" that "perpetual peace" is attainable? What about the initial allusion to the Western European pattern? (Which of course has recently been undermined by the BREXIT confusion and rising nationalism, populism, and anti-EU rhetoric in some member states).

I like your illustration of the Western meddling (though still have some reservations). Of course there may be some genuine justifications for some intervention at certain point and that should NOT be seen as a responsibility of any Western country, but as an obligation on the part of the international community (using 'meddling' in such instances may be pejorative).

To be sure, the unnecessary meddling in the affairs of other States by the so-called western countries are among the major reasons that there are several conflicts around the world today and which eventually hampers the chance of attaining anything like the "perpetual peace" we yearn for. What do you think?

نصل الى السلام الدائم عندما نتسامح مع ذاتنا ونتصالح مع الجميع

Dear Manfredi,

You give good explanations, just like Douglas Jack, Maurice Ekpenyong, Intsar Kamal Qassem, Tomas Prehi Botehway, Herb Spencer, and other readers, but the question arises as to whether things should be looked at from other aspects.

Namely, we seek peace-keeping mechanisms and ask whether peace can be preserved by the UN, the Security Council and NATO, etc.

However, the problem must be causative-consequently observed. The question arises, why does a man become a beast at a given moment? Why kill other people, women5, children, why man deliberately violates peace, provokes wars, makes crimes against humanity, genocide ...? Why is man to another human wolf?

(Homo homini lupus). And when such a man becomes the president of the state and comes in a position to start a war, then it causes evil for the entire human race.

Filip Zimbardo tried to explain some of the similar things in his book: The Lucifer Effect.

https://www.lucifereffect.com

https://archive.org/stream/TheLuciferEffectUnderstandingHowGoodPeopleTurnEvilISBN9781400064113/The+Lucifer+Effect+-+Understanding+How+Good+People+Turn+Evil+%28ISBN-978-1-4000-6411-3%29_djvu.txt

Hi Thomas, on this point about "mindless drones":

This is quite interesting, but I find it a bit difficult to understand why it should be so

The easiest way to strictly avoid having conflicting interests is to avoid having interests. Problem solved. The practical reality always seems to be that human beings have diverging interests, even in relatively homogeneous societies, and certainly in less homogeneous societies.

Religion is the trivial example of this problem, almost too obvious to mention. Religious teachings and rules clash, not only between different religions, but also with secular laws. And yet, religiously devout people have a way of becoming demanding of others. This won't go away by itself. Of course, there are plenty of other examples of conflicting interests that are non-religious. Such as, a really innocuous example, some people are tireless hard workers, other people are not. That creates conflict too. The hard workers may get fed up having to support those who don't care.

Of course there may be some genuine justifications for some intervention at certain point and that should NOT be seen as a responsibility of any Western country, but as an obligation on the part of the international community (using 'meddling' in such instances may be pejorative).

I completely agree here, and yet, if anything is ever to be accomplished, it always seems to take one country to really do the pushing. Otherwise, as in the case of Rwanda, nothing gets done. "Obligation" is what certain people might feel strongly about, but almost always, most people just don't care enough, if they are personally unaffected. In my own view, demanding really united international cooperation, before any intervention, is a most effective way, and a great excuse, to avoid intervening altogether. It's probably the excuse I would use.

Take the example of Libya. In that case, it was the combination of the UK and France, who felt really strongly that "We cannot just stand by." In Mali, it was also the French. In Somalia and Iraq, it was the US, who worked hard to convince other European countries to participate, in a show of international cooperation.

So, there's always going to be the one country that leads the parade, so to speak, and the initial justifications are almost never baseless. Do we allow autocrats to gas their own people? Well, you know, apparently we should. If they don't cross international borders with their antics, and if the international community seems not to care, I guess we just sit back and watch. If not, and then the effort fails and becomes counterproductive, as it usually will, after soldiers die, money gets thrown down the toilet, then people seem to forget why it all seemed so imperative at the beginning.

I am very worried: Pollution of the earth, many very poor countries, technological revolutions and especially robotics will replace the majority of work and wars that kill only the poor people. Every world must understand that one hand can not applaud. And as a result, all the peoples of the world must help each other, cooperate and love each other. moreover, we must be more interested in education because the resolution of these problems is very very difficult and complex, otherwise the future of humanity is very dark.

Dear Albert Manfredi, Harun Hadžić and Readers,

You've made very interesting points - very much appreciated.

I would still argue that "Perpetual Peace" is still attainable (that is provided the human race would indeed take some of the views already expressed above and others elsewhere seriously as individuals).

But on the global scale, "perpetual peace" would be attainable if all States will respect international law and balance their international obligation with domestic responsibilities (what I have referred to as the Balanced Obligation). To achieve this, I propose four basic principles:

1. It is the duty of every Sovereign State to determine and charter a suitable path for its own internal development (legally, socially, economically, and politically). Unnecessary interference in the affairs of other States usually creates an imbalance and lack of trust in the international system and this leads to mutual suspicions – elements that usually form the basis for noncompliance to international law.

2. Sovereign States have the responsibility towards other sovereign States in ensuring that their actions and inactions do not pose undue negative threats to each other’s territory in all dimensions (land, water, and space). If all States will be willing to abide by and make conscientious efforts to meet this assertion, there would be little to no interstate and border disputes around the globe.

3. Sovereign States must cooperate and coordinate to ensure that their citizens enjoy the most benefits in all aspects of their existence. Thus, when necessary, coordination and cooperation among Sovereign States should be the key for achieving mutually desirable outcomes in the international system. By this coordination and cooperation, States must make all the necessary efforts to ensure there is adequate and prompt intentionally planned activities that would enhance the exchange of information and resources at all levels of governance and administration. Thus, the seemingly complexities of governance and related security issues must be carefully ironed out to reflect the interests of all parties for the mutual benefits of all. Coordination and cooperation thus imply the building of trust and understanding among all States at all levels for the maximization of mutual benefits.

4. The need to execute an international obligation should not necessarily negate the responsibility for meeting domestic responsibilities. The point must be noted that without the individual citizens there is no State, and without the State there is no international community, much more to speak of an international law. As such, the needs of the citizen must always be at the forefront of every perceivable international law. The idea of the inability to meet the demands of each citizen as they may wish does not invalidate this primary assertion (even as human rights does not permit that people are necessarily free to do whatever they like and when). Instead, the general will and aspirations of citizens must be the motivating factor for agreeing to international treaties. In other words, each State has a duty to ensure that the primary needs of their citizens are well taken into consideration when drafting any international agreement and that when the State fails to do this due to whatever reason(s), it does not necessarily imply noncompliance. Rather, there must be appropriate avenues for meeting both the international obligation so imposed and the domestic responsibility as required.

*Excerpts from "The Balanced Obligation and the Basis for Compliance in International Law: Reflections on the Question of International Obligation", (Botchway, 2019, In Press).

If States in the international system would abide by these basic ideas, we would be on a right path towards lasting/perpetual peace. (I am not saying these ideas are the panacea to the baseless and endless conflicts around the world, instead they add to the many several proposals elsewhere that could serve as an effective guide for achieving a balance in national interest and international obligation which when carefully addressed would promote peace globally).

Thomas, I think your formula may be overly idealistic, almost assuming that conflict doesn't exist at all. Looking at just this one example, among several:

3. Sovereign States must cooperate and coordinate to ensure that their citizens enjoy the most benefits in all aspects of their existence. Thus, when necessary, coordination and cooperation among Sovereign States should be the key for achieving mutually desirable outcomes in the international system.

Let's look at reality, not just some overly difficult corner case. Reality is, some states are democratic, even if representative democracies, while in other cases, the state controls the people. Why should a non-democratic state be expected to "ensure that their citizens enjoy the most benefits in all aspects of their existence"? That's wishful thinking!

What you say may be generally true in democratic states, because the people decide what they consider to be "most beneficial," and their government is sworn to uphold, facilitate, promote the people's preferences, to the extent it can. And even the voices of minority opinions have to be accommodated. If the elected officials don't do this, they are out of office in a hurry. In other situations, such as states run by a religious clergy, the state will only do what their religious beliefs, as interpreted by the ruling elite, claim is "right." They will claim this is the best for the people, of course, whether the people agree or not. And forget those minority opinions. They could just as easily be ignored completely.

All of your suggestions assume common values, similar ideas about what the people want, so that cooperation results in a common greater good. If that were reality today, we would not have the massive migrations and refugee crises that we have. Non-democratic states have agendas set by the ruling elite, using their own ideas on what's right and what's best.

Dear Albert Manfredi and readers,

Thanks for the observation. Interestingly the substantive question is about the attainability or otherwise of "perpetual peace" which in itself might seem more idealistic than my propositions (at least that is how some may arguably view the whole question).

That said, we can not say that the ideal is always unattainable (imagine how people thought a few centuries ago about you being in somewhere in America and me in China, with others somewhere we can hardly imagine, yet here we are sharing ideas instantly irrespective of our distant locations - talk of idealistic perspective). But for the sake of the substantive question, I wouldn't like to deviate so let me just refer to the issue on board:

1. My assumption is not that conflicts do not exist - far from that. Instead, it is a call for avoiding unnecessary conflicts - the two are not the same. And conflicting interest does not necessarily imply violence.

2. Democracies are not always the best systems that provide the needs of the citizens and avoid conflicts. Evidence abound to prove this case. So no one particular system of governance is needed to ensure cooperation and coordination, and eventually the "perpetual peace" we seek in our world. What is required is the willingness of the existing system and knowing what the interest of the entire society is.

3. The four fundamentals I outlined are not meant to operate independently, they are interconnected and work effectively as a team, and as indicated earlier, are not the panacea. They are pointers to some of the existing gaps in our efforts to building peace and sustaining same.

Akramul,

Secular democracy must be replaced by moral democracy for continuously making progress toward perpetual peace.

This statement presumes that a "secular democracy" is not "moral," and that something "more moral" can replace "secular."

"Morality" can only be defined by people. Whether we like it or not, different people, different cultures, disagree on what is "moral." Sometimes, disagree strongly, where what is moral in one culture is a crime in another. As I indicated previously, the best example of peace I can come up with is western Europe and the US, post World War II. In which for the most part, the people have a common sense of moral values, and stability has existed.

Let me give one innocuous example: polygamy. It is considered immoral in western cultures, not permitted, end of story. You cannot pretend that someone, from the top of a government, can legislate polygamy is moral in the West, and have everyone agree. They will not agree. There are very many examples like this, in which people can discuss any number of topics with minimal conflict, feel all good about themselves for the agreements, until ooops, not too fast here, the problem areas arise. I described polygamy as an "innocuous" example, only because it doesn't (necessarily) involve violence. There are other examples that definitely involve violence and oppression, and would be considered major crimes in some cultures, while totally acceptable by others.

Public flogging, public stoning of people, death or imprisonment for so-called "blasphemy," if these are acceptable in some cultures, how can anyone claim these practices are compatible with everlasting peace? They won't be, unless cultures that define these as crimes simply ignore them. Just look the other way, pretend they don't happen.

Who gets to decide, if not the people? Is it enough to claim that only the superstitious or religious beliefs of a ruling elite can define what society must determine to be "moral"?

I think people should think in terms of system design. Everything is a system, fundamentally. So, let's say you have a motor, and you want that motor to always operate in a stable manner, within a safe range of speeds, even as the load might change, over time. How is this stability achieved? Just by saying "it will be stable"? No. You have to develop a way of measuring the rotational speed of the motor, and then use that speed measurement to control how much electric current (or fuel flow) is fed into the motor. A feedback loop, this is called. As the motor slows down, with increased load, you increase the current flow, to compensate. As the motor speeds up beyond a certain point, you reduce the current flow. Without that control mechanism, whatever you say about stability would be just empty words.

Societies have to do the same thing. A society must determine what it considers moral, and that will change over time, and must feed that back into the laws written by the legislature. This is the feedback loop that leads to stable operation. For example, we no longer think it is morally correct to prevent women (or certain minorities) from being educated or from voting. Once, that seemed okay. Today, if anyone indulges in such practices, it would be a crime.

A secular democracy is a moral democracy, because the people have told the government what they consider to be moral, and what they expect their servants running the government to uphold. If these government officials cannot see to it to uphold those laws, the officials are replaced.

So Thomas, let's examine two of your points:

1. My assumption is not that conflicts do not exist - far from that. Instead, it is a call for avoiding unnecessary conflicts - the two are not the same. And conflicting interest does not necessarily imply violence.

In practical reality, "avoiding unnecessary conflicts" is about the same as assuming the problem away. Of course, if a conflict is "unnecessary," it's not a conflict. Think about Europe leading up to World War II, and explain to us how the conflict could have been merely "avoided." There were irreconcilable differences, and appeasement did not make them stop. In practical fact, it was only the adoption of common values that achieved this lasting peace, and it was the people of these west European countries that came to the agreements.

2. Democracies are not always the best systems that provide the needs of the citizens and avoid conflicts. Evidence abound to prove this case.

Really, Thomas? Care to explain? You are making the case that a ruling elite, declaring to the people what the people must do and must think, is a way of achieving peace? This is called, peace at gunpoint. I agree that this exists, even today, and I agree that it can achieve an unstable form of "peace," but only internally, among those who submit to that approach of governance.

Now, let's say that someone from a different culture travels through such a country ruled at gunpoint. Are they oppressed, or maybe imprisoned? That's not peace. And this situation exists in many parts of the world, today.

Peace achieved through force, from the top down, creates an unstable form of equilibrium. Any small perturbation causes the system to collapse. Just the type of thing that happened in Eastern Europe, beginning at the end of 1989. Not what I would call everlasting peace.

Or, similarly, take a much more optimistic example. Same top-down mandates, telling people what they must do and think, but this time, from a completely benevolent leader. He seems to really care. But there is no mechanism to feed back to the top, what the governed want and need.

This benevolent saint of a leader becomes old, or ill, or other misfortune, and must step down. What then? Do we hope and pray for a similar saint to take power?

It does not work. There are many, many examples of this, and it does not work. That kind of government ends up being totally corrupt, over time. Even if everything was rosy for a decade or two, while the saint was in power, this bliss soon comes to an end.

Albert Manfredi

Though you make some interesting observations, you seem not to get my point: democracy is not necessarily the panacea to achieving "perpetual peace" (in fact, NO SINGLE system of governance is - that's my point). Just look around you, see the conflicts we have all over the world today and examine the countries (systems of governance) that are the major causes of these conflicts. And take closer look at some of the countries that promote world peace and development.

What is needed is cooperation, coordination, respect for sovereignty and independence of every State, and the interest of the entire society - not any individual or particular group of people. We have to be realistic about this unnecessary hype about democracy - the idea that only democracies are the answer to every single question in our world is a fallacy. (In fact what may be deemed democratic in one society may be ridiculed in another and vice versa). We even have a so-called democracy in which the views and decisions of the vast majority (simple majority are disregarded for some skewed formula). This democratic fallacy MUST STOP - we have to be pragmatic in dealing with issues instead of seeing any other system apart from democracy as evil and useless.

If the goal is "perpetual peace", then the democratic fallacy MUST CEASE.

By the way, the Second World War was avoidable. YES, if they had done some of the basic things we have already mentioned (that's my opinion though).

Thomas, are you really trying to prop up authoritarian regimes? As a viable way to achieve long-lasting peace?

democracy is not necessarily the panacea to achieving "perpetual peace" (in fact, NO SINGLE system of governance is - that's my point

This sounds too much like a vague truism.

First, in order to achieve a stable and lasting peace, among different people, you need a common set of values. You won't have stable peace with conflicting value systems. So I'm saying, the point of "values" has to be made up front. It is instrumental, yet you never even mention values.

Second, there is no "single form of democracy." However, without some form of democracy, which means, without the people deciding on their moral code and agreeing on their set of values, and making their wishes the law of the land, you again won't get stable peace. You might get temporary peace, enforced from the top. Not long lasting and stable. There are tons of examples of this. Among which, Eastern Europe, before and after 1989.

What is needed is cooperation, coordination, respect for sovereignty and independence of every State, and the interest of the entire society

These are just rosy-colored words! Forget about Europe before World War II, since that didn't seem to make the point clearly enough. Let's just take two neighbors, living in two adjacent houses. These neighbors will have no trouble "cooperating and coordinating," as long as they have a common set of values. If, instead, one of the neighbors is extremely messy, or holds loud parties outside in the middle of the night, or likes to run an illegal drug lab in his basement and has a constant stream of hoodlums coming and going, or likes to flog his wife in his back yard, I would imagine that most people would have major problems with that. Even if he strictly conducts these activities within his property limits, and you "respect" his property limits, you still won't have peace. Why? Because your values are too different.

We even have a so-called democracy in which the views and decisions of the vast majority (simple majority are disregarded for some skewed formula)

As I said, there are different forms of democracy, and what you describe is simply a bad one. I might say, democracy is necessary, for long-lasting peace, but perhaps not sufficient. So, when the people are not the boss, you are guaranteed failure of peace, in due course. Attempting to force long-lasting peace at the point of a gun does not work, Thomas. You need a form of democracy, you need those common values.

Dear Albert and readers,

It must be noted that I have NOT at any point claimed that "trying to prop up authoritarian regimes" or "attempting to force long-lasting peace at the point of a gun" will ensure "perpetual peace." NO. Take my second point for instance:

"Sovereign States have the responsibility towards other sovereign States in ensuring that their actions and inactions do not pose undue negative threats to each other’s territory in all dimensions (land, water, and space). If all States will be willing to abide by and make conscientious efforts to meet this assertion, there would be little to no interstate and border disputes around the globe." I guess this explains Ablbert's analogy of the two neighbors.

And talking of "values", if my propositions are overly idealistic or as quoted above "vague truism", then which society's values are we recommending for all? For instance as can be inferred from the above scenario by Albert, polygamy is evil in "western" societies (though it is a 'right' for a man to sleep with a man and a woman with another woman in those same societies - a practice that is abhorred in other countries in the world where interestingly polygamy is a normal practice). Just imagine.... I guess you get my point, or?

Thomas,

It must be noted that I have NOT at any point claimed that the "trying to prop up authoritarian regimes"

Then explain how a non-democratic regime is anything but authoritarian. Give an example.

"Sovereign States have the responsibility towards other sovereign States in ensuring that their actions and inactions do not pose undue negative threats to each other’s territory in all dimensions (land, water, and space). If all States will be willing to abide by and make conscientious efforts to meet this assertion, there would be little to no interstate and border disputes around the globe."

But, you have simply assumed away the problem of conflicting interests. You have assumed, without stating it outright, that there is no conflict, because everyone can agree and cooperate.

Finally, you get a little more specific, and the conflict becomes entirely obvious and hardly easy to reconcile:

For instance as can be inferred from the above scenario by Albert, polygamy is evil in "western" societies

Inferred? It is illegal, there is no "inference." In western democracies, polygamy has been outlawed. The people have decided. You won't go far, in "everlasting peace," if you try to ignore the general consensus on this. Same with flogging your wife. It is illegal. Not tolerated, ever.

(though it is a 'right' for a man to sleep with a man and a woman with another woman in those same societies

Yes, it is now, although it took a long time to become lawful. As I said, in a democracy, the people can update the laws. The people can say, no, that old law was superstitious nonsense, we won't force people to abide by it, unless they want to for their own reasons, personally.

a practice that is abhorred in other countries in the world where interestingly polygamy is a normal practice). Just imagine.... I guess you get my point, or?

"Abhorred," as you claim, yet practiced in secret. At long last, we have moved past the banal. So, let's be direct. One man's religious beliefs are another man's superstitious nonsense. If people want to achieve this everlasting peace, they need to accept that. And then they need to agree, although they might not like everything the other guy does, they will tolerate the practices, within certain bounds. This is what I mean by common values.

You tolerate same-sex marriage, even if you don't approve, but we do not tolerate stoning your wife to death, for any reason at all. One man's religious beliefs are another man's superstitious nonsense, so we do not tolerate any form of penalty for "blasphemy." Blasphemy might be rude and offensive, but this does not make it a crime. People are allowed to be rude. And so on. Shared values, democracy, will bring stable peace. Imposing one's superstitious beliefs on others, will not.

Dear Albert,

I get your point. I hope you get mine too. Otherwise you may have to maybe read some of my articles here on RG to understand my position on the subject (that is if you still don't get my point and are interested).

Regards,

T.P. Botchway

Akramul,

Morality can not be separated from freedom.

It's a slogan, but I disagree with it. Instead, the way I would state it is, freedom means that a society can establish its own moral code, rather than, as one example of a "rather than," have the moral code of some ancient superstitious belief crammed down their throats, whether they like it or not.

The threat to everlasting peace happens when the moral codes of different societies clash, and these different societies don't tolerate the differences, don't agree to live by a certain set of common values. For example, a common value might be, we can disagree on our individual moral codes, as long as no one's moral code results in violence against individuals, outside the strict limits set by the secular laws of the land. That's freedom, and with that kind of shared value, peace can be achieved. Some examples of moral incompatibilities follow.

If an individual is not a total slave of Almighty Allah (/"God"), the Perfect Moral Being, s/he is not totally free

That is merely your personal profession of faith, to which I am not bound in any way. So for example, many secular laws are in agreement with the 6th of the 10 Commandments, "You shall not murder," the 8th, "You shall not steal," and the 9th, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (lie and deceive). But at the same time, secular laws do not adhere to many of the other Commandments, such as the 2nd, "You shall make no idols," or the 4th, "Keep the Sabbath holy." You can pray to idols if you please, as long as you don't harm others in the process. The purpose of the 4th Commandment, to give people a day of rest, is replaced by the secular weekend. We do not force people to go to church, because we don't force people to follow other people's superstitious/religious beliefs, but businesses are required to give people the weekend off (or compensatory time off), because we accept the wisdom of that concept.

The problems arise when someone's idea of a "perfect moral being" teaches things that some societies find reprehensible and criminal. You and Thomas seem to ignore this fact of life, so you miss the main problem.

Homosexuality is against the sexual instinct for procreation and , therefore, is against human dignity and can not be a human right. Only a sick society can adopt it.

Again, this is merely your profession of faith. Others are not bound by it. The truth is, homosexuality exists in every society, and some societies are merely too sick to deal with it, preferring instead to oppress these people. Freedom means, if someone's practice, which you disapprove of, causes no harm to others, you let them be. You don't cram your superstitious beliefs on others.

I agree with you that we have to erect a system--but it should be a system guided by sound (religious) ideals.

And in part, this does happen. In the example of the 10 Commandments, some secular laws are guided by ancient religious beliefs. Other ancient religious beliefs are very deliberately discarded. Some religious teachings are even defined as crimes.

Religion teaches to find expedient rules in every context in the light of sound set of ideals--such ideals must be prescribed by the Perfect Being and not by the imperfect human/humen with diverse whims.

Not that simple, right? I think this is trivializing the problem, as Thomas does. Which "perfect being" are you talking about? Religions invent their "perfect being," and expect everyone to agree with their invention. Fact is, not everyone agrees with every teaching, far from it, and this works against any sort of lasting peace.

People like to dwell on points of agreement, and there are many, and prefer to forget the difficult parts. Some of these "perfect beings" order people to annihilate "idolaters," including their children. Other "perfect beings" command stoning to death for "blasphemy" and "adultery." Still other "perfect beings" teach it's okay to have many wives. One of these "perfect beings" says flatly, in the 9th Commandment, that you must not lie and deceive, yet another "perfect being" says it's okay to lie and deceive, to make converts to one's religion.

Our secular laws forbid all of the above. These are crimes. You will not achieve lasting peace by insisting that crimes are not crimes, in a free society which has written its own laws.

But, as secular democracy alienates theism, it gradually crumbles theist ideals and invites sickness of socio-psychological confusion.

Perhaps this is partly true, and for sure the opposite is true. Theism has obviously resulted in ample sickness and has created sociopaths. Some religions teach quite openly, that violence, to promote their "perfect being," is actually virtuous. Should I quote the verses? Here's one of many:

"(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels... "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Not exactly a good recipe for lasting peace, eh?

Hi, I agree with Maurice Ekpenyong answer

Dear, N. U. M. Akramul Kabir Khan

You are talking about a secular view of the world and you call it atheism.

There should be a distinction between atheism as a doctrine in general, and secularism as a model for regulating the internal political system in the country.

If we observe the practical application of the secular model, then we can see its good side. Because the secular state does not necessarily mean an atheist ideology in society. We have such an example in the former socialist countries, especially in the former Yugoslavia. It was a secular state, but the society was multireligious and religion was the private matter of every individual and every religious community. Such societies were stable, and it was possible for them to live a common life of all peoples and all religions in the same state. That is why the secular state is the best solution for multiconfessional communities and heterogeneous societies.

Regards

Perpetual peace can be obtainable by;

- Fair income distribution between countries,

- Leaders without personal ambition,

- International mutual respect,

- Reduced investment in armament,

- Regulations that make it difficult for politicians to make a war decision,

- End of supporting to all kinds of terrorism,

- The real ending of the colonial system

اتابع

Follow

Well said, Harun!

Akramul,

At the end we are not able to conclude that 'you remain with your personal profession of faith'. That is, we must either accept secular (/atheistic) world view or theistic world view to govern us (and not the both). However, we can easily say that 'your religion is with you and mine is with me' under theistic world view--but if we permit (, under illusion,) the secular world view to govern us for saying that, then no one's (theistic) religion remains with him/her any more.

I don't think this is correct. We can certainly accept a set of common values, one being tolerance, and establish only certain baseline laws. The baseline laws have to promote peace and harmony, tolerance for different religious beliefs, tolerance for those who don't buy any of the religious beliefs, and intolerance for religious beliefs incompatible with general peace and harmony.

As always, examples get us past mere platitudes. No society should be made to accept intolerant religious beliefs, of the type I quoted previously and repeat here:

"(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels... "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

There are many such quotes, in which religious texts promote criminal behavior. No one should be made to accept such teachings, and no talk of "moral democracy" can possibly ignore these.

Every society has all types of sickness: killing, stealing, homosexuality, etc. We must not be indifferent to those.

Hmmm. You should reconsider. I would suggest to you that the religious quote above, among others (there are also quotes which command genocide and other such crimes), is far more sick than is a society which understands that homosexuality will exist, whether the society persecutes homosexuals to death, or leaves them be. So, perhaps the religious texts need to be reviewed with extreme care, and all the immoral passages taken away? You can't just pretend that these immoral passages don't exist. Too many lunatic fundamentalists take these passages all too seriously.

the leader of the house announced, ~ “you (the elected members) keep morality in the outside before entering in this room”. No one objected—this is what secular democracy does.

As it should do. I would have said it slightly more clearly: "keep your personal so-called 'morality' outside, if it is incompatible with our laws!"

Notice, I put "morality" in quotes. That's because "morality," such as persecuting homosexuals or persecuting so-called non-believers, is not morality at all. It is immoral, criminal behavior.

If we were living in different times, I might not be so insistent on these points. I frankly cannot see how religiously-motivated intolerance and violence can ever be condoned, if we have any hope of everlasting peace.

Akramul,

In principle, the end-point of (secular) democratic capitalism is the whims of the “sacred” majority (of citizens/legislators)

This first part is not true. You should read well-written Constitutions, to understand about the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. There is a wisdom in the combined will of the people. Even the ancient Romans understood this much, when they said, vox populi est vox dei.

without any regard for the Perfect Being or/and exhortation/caution for the higher reward/punishment in the hereafter.

And as I suggested previously, this so-called "perfect being" is different for different people, says different things to different people, commands a variable combination of virtuous and immoral acts, depending whose holy books we read, so let's not take our fantasies too seriously.

It is not proper to make comments on “verses” without reference of authenticity and contexts.

My quote was directly from your own holy book. Please search for it, and other similar quotes about "virtuous violence."

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/bible-quran-violence.aspx

I can also quote from the Old Testament, similar quotes. Please read the Book of Judges and Deuteronomy. You cannot conveniently ignore these verses. See what God supposedly commanded, with respect to tribes like the Philistines, Canaanites, Sidonians, Hivities, Hittites, Amorities, Perizzites, and Jebusites, why they were where they lived, and what Israel was to do with them.

Sorry, but there is a real problem when religiously devout people conveniently ignore the root causes of religious intolerance, and shift the blame to everyone else.

Crimes such as terrorism are secular phenomena

As I said, shifting the blame. This is nonsense. This is the problem with the disconnect, between religiously devout people and the reality all around them. Careful omission of certain teachings of their own religion, which other faithful followers obey all too seriously.

Albert,

This first part is not true

The "sacred" majority can amend/replace constitution. If (the first set of) such majority is taken from a society with great wisdom [i. e. socio-ideological consciousness developed by the theistic exercises (/thought experiments) during the past centuries] then we can have a "well-written" constitution. But, then we must not abandon theism (and start making immoral laws)--we must always be oriented toward Him (, the Perfect Being,) as because reality is a combination of minorities and majorities, created by the Perfect Being. We can not make any law as because we can never be free. But we can continuously increase our (relative) freedom from the (inappropriate) influence of our desire and other creations by continuously increasing our loyalty to the Perfect Being--this gives us the right to find expedient laws (under His guidance) as His Vicegerent. In Him (only) is the sublime wisdom--ancient Romans were inferiors like us. Messengers/Prophets (of the Perfect Being) are the best examples and every people have received Messenger(s).

"perfect being" is different for different people

The essential message of the Perfect Being has always been the same. Out of His great Wisdom He has created us as different people/nations. At different times/places some rites/regulations were prescribed differently to cover the complete spectrum (of problems and possible solutions). This way, He has raised up the mankind to this level. Even within a mission of a particular Messenger this process of abrogation has been followed (to teach us the benefits of gradual change and flexibility). We are allowed to interpolate/extrapolate rules in essential, necessary, commendable contexts. Moral democracy, thus, guarantees true progress. Our differences are thus an asset and not a liability. In every (separate) domain, the "Divine Book" accepted by the majority must coordinate by properly accommodating every minority. We (, the Muslims,) claim that no other Messenger (, except the final Messenger, Muhammad s.a.,) was commanded to preserve Divine Revelations--therefore, other Books may not be perfectly congruent (due to human failure to correctly preserve). But those Books should still be the best guides to the respective people. If every people claims that (, like Muslims), there is no harm. Because, honesty and sincerity taught by every Book will take us toward the (whole) Truth--the Truth and its path is beautiful. Arrogance of ego is lesser in theism (than secularism). In every case, moral democracy is aided by a sound (expedient) set of moral standards in addition to the wisdom of the majority (embraced in the respective constitution).

My quote was directly from your own holy book

I have studied Qur'an intensively for several years. Usually, a verse of a Divine Book can not be (properly) interpreted without related other verses (and respective contexts). Qur'an absolutely does not promote any crime--humanization process usually is not perfect, but theistic (humanization) process is the best.

As I said, shifting the blame

Actually, it is pushing back the blame which has been wrongfully shifted from secularism to theism--please, read the related paragraph again.

As it should do. I would have said it slightly more clearly: "keep your personal so-called 'morality' outside, if it is incompatible with our laws!"

This is the whole argument: Secularism (in secular democracy) intimidates their theists in favor of amorality/immorality/atheism--secularism is thus a pseudo-religion (of having no set of moral standards of its own) presenting itself as an alternative religion. In the domains where theists are the majority, secularism must not be adopted, at least not at the beginning. In a legislative session, every legislator (should) give free opinions (otherwise expedient laws can not be found) --if s/he is nurtured in a secular background, is confused (~"secularly biased") as secularism has no sound set of moral standards (of its own). And, theistic set of moral standards (, without which secularism even can not start,) has successfully developed the deep-seated/natural socio-ideological consciousness which must not be undermined by scio-psychological confusion (of chaotic secularism/atheism).

Akramul,

The "sacred" majority can amend/replace constitution.

Not just a simple majority, though. It takes a 2/3 majority, which means lots of support for the change, from many political points of view. To get large majorities like that means that plenty of people, from all sides, have to agree with the change. That's what I meant by well written constitutions. The rights of the minority are also accommodated, or things like "freedom of religion" would never exist.

But, then we must not abandon theism (and start making immoral laws)--we must always be oriented toward Him (, the Perfect Being,) as because reality is a combination of minorities and majorities, created by the Perfect Being. We can not make any law as because we can never be free.

Fortunately, we had a specific example, so we don't have to base this on vague concepts. Homosexuality exists, whether you like it or not. Some percentage of people are born this way. Your idea is that this is evil, and these people must be persecuted, shamed, banished, remain in hiding, whatever. And many other people find that approach reprehensible and immoral.

Then, you try to convince them, by quoting some ancient text. To you, the book you quote seems strangely compelling. To them - excuse the brutal honesty because it seems a difficult point to get across - maybe they think your ideas come from ancient superstitious beliefs? Made-up fairy tales? What might seem compelling to you might be nonsense to them? If your "perfect being" says to persecute homosexuals, or stone your wife to death (for any reason at all!), or prevent children from being educated, or persecute those with different religious beliefs, is it possible that many other people will want none of your theology? There is nothing "moral" about any of these teachings.

This is the whole argument: Secularism (in secular democracy) intimidates their theists in favor of amorality/immorality/atheism

But this is a misconception. Secularism is not in favor of amorality/immorality at all. On the contrary, consider how theists who believe in immoral behaviors, such as those mentioned above, those might actually be the immoral ones? And, while I've heard this frequently, the excuse that "the specific quote was taken out of context" does not work either. There is no context which can justify murdering a "non-believer," there is no context that can justify someone flogging or stoning his wife to death, and the is no context in which your imagined "perfect being" will command you to commit genocide against other tribes.

In short, you are simply stating, without justification that others will accept, that only your brand of theist is moral, and that other people are deliberately wanting to be immoral or amoral. Not so. Religions in no way have the monopoly on morality!

Akramul Kabir Khan,

I agree that the society should be free and without imposing any ideology, because there is no compulsion in faith. The model of the theocratic state may possibly be established if the state is made up of residents who belong to only one religion and one nation. However, the question arises as to how to reconcile the various religions in the state, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Jews live, if it were edited as Christian or Islamic, etc. state. That is why it is the best solution in it - the Secular State, with the autonomy of religious communities and the highest degree of freedom of religion for each individual.

Secularism is not the same as atheism.

Atheism is the negation of God, and secularism is not.

That is why I think that a secular state is an acceptable solution for multinational and multiconfessional societies.

The principles of secularism which protect and underpin many of the freedoms we enjoy are:

- Separation of religious institutions from state institutions and a public sphere where religion may participate, but not dominate.

- Freedom to practice one's faith or belief without harming others, or to change it or not have one, according to one's own conscience.

- Equality so that our religious beliefs or lack of them doesn't put any of us at an advantage or a disadvantage.

https://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism.html

Regards

If a new UN body makes all countries with equal power (no more big countries with veto, etc) , then we might have some real peace. I agree with your suggestion!

Akramul, so let's dissect each point:

(i) You are morally obliged to defend yourself against any aggression (by believers and/or disbelievers/non-believers;

We are not talking about defending at all. Why mention defense, when that was never even being discussed? (And parenthetically, in the New Testament, as far as I can tell, even violence in self defense is not "moral." So ideas of what is "moral" seem quite personal and variable, depending what God or gods we invent.)

(ii) There must be retributive/corrective law/procedure against every criminal/abnormal behavior--congenital and/or nurtured. No such abnormal behavior should be given equal status to any normal (social) institution--much less to the most fundamental institution of marriage;

Corrective procedure is governed by secular laws. There is a reason. What I define as criminal is obviously different from your definition, so we have secular laws that override the old superstitious rules. Otherwise, you must agree, anyone can write any lunatic text they please, define what "criminal" means to them, and then through violence, force it on society. Do we carry out human sacrifices to the gods? No. Why not? Because those old fairy tales were just old fairy tales. Secular laws say, some of those old religious rules are crimes, every bit as much as human sacrifice is a crime. Criminal acts are not moral.

(iii) Anything less than 100% (and more than 50%) is also (absolute) majority--sometimes (, in secular democracy,) a law is made by just the (effective) simple majority,

The formulas used are carefully chosen. For example, you have the presidency, lower house, upper house, each with elected officials, each one balancing the others. Some of these bodies are representative of the population of each region, others give each region equal representation, to balance the effects of simple majorities. Imposing superstitious beliefs on top of this makes matters far worse, not better.

(iv) Theocracy and moral democracy are not same

Perhaps you make a fine distinction, and yet, you seem to equate "moral" with some particular religious ideas on morality. I've listed many examples in which religious "morality" is criminal. Stoning someone to death, for any reason at all, is barbaric, criminal, and immoral. Same with persecuting homosexuals. Having many wives is also seen as immoral, by the way, in many societies. In a real democracy, no fictitious set of rules can override the will of the people.

(v) Theists are those who believe that morality comes from the Perfect Being (alone),

Please let's not go around in circles. Being blunt to get the point across, different "theists" believe in different fairy tales, is the way this sounds to me. If your sense of "moral" includes violence against homosexuals, wives, blasphemers, idolaters, and so on, then this "perfect being" is pure fiction. The secular laws override pure fiction.

(vi) Highest degree of religious freedom is not possible outside moral democracy

It's the other way around. A truly moral democracy requires religious freedom. Otherwise, all people in a society are oppressed by some specific set of arbitrary fairy tale ideas. A moral society must find the common baseline set of laws that never oppress people who cause no actual harm to others.

(vii) Secular democracy will end up into a moral democracy if theists thrive

Which theists? Those whose who flog or stone their wives? Those who turn the other cheek? Those who sacrifice goats to the gods? Theists can certainly thrive, as long as they follow the laws of the land.

(ix) Moral democracies will (naturally) advocate to protect every minority (in moral and secular democracies);

And yet, you just finished telling us that homosexuals are to be persecuted, in your "moral democracy." That's a minority. In secular democracies, today anyway, the laws protect this particular minority. In your theist system, they are persecuted.

(x) Equality does not always mean same—‘man is equal to woman’ can not mean ‘man is same to woman’;

No one ever says that men and women are the same. But tell me this: does your wife mandate that you must wear a tent when you walk outside? Or that you must never walk outside without your wife along with you? Or that you must not get educated just like members of the other sex? Many people do not see the "morality" in any of these rules. Why feel it's okay to impose these restrictions on women, when you don't have to follow those same oppressive rules yourself?

(xi) Theists easily become corrupt/”vegetables”/timid in secular democracy

Maybe so, but some theists become lunatic criminals, wife beaters, and suicidal mass murderers, all of these proclaiming their imagined "perfect being," straight out of theist societies. So, how to explain that?

We seem to have different views on reality, I would say.

Dear Akramul Kabir Khan,

We're not talking about the same thing.

You explain to me the Islamic understanding of society. I do not deny that. But the Islamic government and Islamic democracy can be applied exclusively in Islamic society. It is not possible to apply the Islamic system of governance in a non-Islamic society, because in that case the Koran rule would have been violated - "To you be your religion, and to me my religion". This Islamic rule applies to society in a state, rather than state institutions.

I am looking for a practical solution for a multireligious state. In such countries it is not possible to give primacy to any religion. In such states, faith must be separate from state institutions. So faith should be a private matter of religious groups, and the state must be neutral in relation to any religion. This common multireligious state must have secular laws that should also be moral, humane and democratic.

Therefore, in Islamic learning there is a difference in the organization of the state, so there are: DAR AL ISLAM - a state with a complete Islamic society, DAR AL AKD - a state with a signed agreement between different religious groups, and DAR AL HARB, a state whose Muslims are under the control of the non-Muslim system. So the secular state would be some sort of DAR AL AKD.

Regards

Dear Harun Hadzic,

Every republic with a popular constitution is a Dar-ul-Aqd--thus, the state under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad (s. a.) followed the written contract Dastur Madina [Madina Charter, which accommodated (/was agreed upon by) all groups]. In every domain/republic (de-jure) primacy of the (principles of) conducts of the mainstream group ("law of the land") is unavoidable, except by de-facto brute force (/selling) such as done in Kashmir, Chechnya etc. Thus, a society with majority Christians will (, by default,) adopt Bible as the final guidance, unless the majority choose otherwise. So, who should decide?—the majority. That is, there should be no external compulsion against the will of the theist majority to establish a moral democracy.

Religion(s) has/have two components—(internal) faith and (external) action. Nobody can infringe the internal principles (, about the nature of the Perfect Being, of the salvation in the hereafter etc.,) of anyone (wherever s/he might be), and external principles of every group should/do also remain intact—because in every type of republic we should/must compromise/share/reciprocate/reconcile our (individual) rights (in the contract) for optimizing the expediency of the state and security of the individuals’ dignity and rights. Thus, practically, the primacy/coordinating roles of the majority can/must not be avoided: neither in the society nor in the state institutions as because state institutions are run by the people and works for the people (of the society).

Regards.

Akramul, this is also a misconception:

Thus, a society with majority Christians will (, by default,) adopt Bible as the final guidance, unless the majority choose otherwise. So, who should decide?—the majority. That is, there should be no external compulsion against the will of the theist majority to establish a moral democracy.

First, you are contradicting yourself. Now you are stating that the majority should rule. Before, you were claiming that some idea of "Perfect Being" should rule, not the majority.

But anyway, you almost had it, in the quote above, but you came to the wrong conclusion. In all of majority Christian countries of the West, the majority and the minority have very emphatically agreed to establish a separation between Church and State. This was not imposed by foreign dark forces. Even countries like Italy, almost 100% Christians, have this separation. The papal states are long gone, Akramul. So total is the separation that in Italy, marriage has to be conducted in separate civil and religious ceremonies (religious only for the faithful, of course).

The "moral democracy" that Christian theists demand is a secular democracy, to maintain the peace, and to ensure freedom of religion. The State does not impose religious ideas on the people.

To understand this point completely, you should really think in terms of "fairy tales." Because that is why the separation exists. What a devoutly religious person thinks is a religious "truth," someone from another religion, or no religion, thinks is a fairy tale. No one should be forced to believe in, or to comply with, fairy tales. And worse, what some religions decree, other societies find harmful and evil. Not just fairy tales, but unwelcome fairy tales.

Harun, so I think now you have seen first hand why your utopian ideal of "everlasting peace" is so difficult to achieve. As long as some governments find it acceptable to impose fairy tale ideas on their people, oppressing many in the society, sometimes exporting their oppressive beliefs, you won't have peace! And here we have only been talking about religiously motivated problems. There are other ideologues that also want to impose their oppressive beliefs on people.

Dear Akramul Kabir Khan,

This is the continuation of my previous discussion.

If we look at things at the level of doctrine or at the level of the bare theory, then your explanation can be accepted by a dominant religion in a state. However, european practice has shown that minority groups are not protected in a country dominated by a majority religion that does not belong to that minority. At the present moment, it sounds very utopian that in a state of the theocratic type you can make a stable society in which all religions will function in complexity. Because, the right of minority religions will be much reduced and blocked. In such a state, there would be permanent inter-religious tensions and "conflicts of civilization". We know that by the 1970s there was a Christian ecclesiastical rule: Extra aeclesiam nulla salus, and Extra aeclesiam nulla profeta (Outside the church there is no salvation, and Outside the church there are no prophets), while in Islam there is a Kur'an's ayat which says - Inneddine indallahil islam (By Allah, the only faith is Islam). The question arises as to how to ameliorate these diametrically different rules. An even more prominent example is the Christian Trinity and Islamic monotheism. These are incompatible things wich warned by Kur'an - you will be disturbed by the Hebrew and Christian until the day of judgment.

Of course, a positive exception is the Madina Charter, however, in the history we have had many negative examples - the crusades for the liberation of the Christ's grave, or the 30-year war between Catholics and Protestants. Thus, the secular state has successfully stabilized inter-religious problems, with the widespread autonomy of religious communities, and complete freedom of religion in the private sphere of society, rather than the theocratic state.

I would like to hear your opinion, dear Khan, about how you would, for example, arrange for the state of Montenegro, in which we have four religions: the Orthodox Montenegrin Church, the Orthodox Serbian Church, the Catholic Church and the Islamic Community. None of these religious groups is numerically dominant in relation to others. Found the most acceptable a solution, which is a secular state, with the autonomy of religious communities and the broader freedom of religion.

I expect you answer.

Regards

From Albert (17/5/19)

you are contradicting yourself

This is nonsense/nuisance—I am not contradicting (myself) at all. If you were not following (/carefully reading) me all along, what is the real intention—just arguing? Human is conditionally sovereign (with limited free will as the vicegerent of the Perfect Being under His absolute sovereignty) to choose between right and wrong—thus, the society with majority theists has the right to install (theist) moral democracy and the society with majority secularists has the right to install secular (amoral) democracy. Divine scripture is the final check up in moral democracy—in contrast, sacred majority (of legislators/citizens, who are indifferent of divine Book and are not Messengers/Prophets of the Perfect Being,) plays the roles of the Perfect Being at the final point (and their ideas are imposed on many who do not believe in those/them). We are talking about two types of democracies: (i) Moral Democracy—Government of the people (guided by divine Book) by the people and for the people, and (ii) Secular Democracy—Government of the people (guided by their whims, under the influence of desire, shaitan, other creations etc.) by the people and for the people. Moral democracy includes thorough religious nurturing including determination of good and bad through intuitive, rational, and empirical knowledge (in every new context). Such nurturing must not exclude the guidance of the Perfect Being as because (none of) our intuitive, rational, and empirical realms is perfect/invincible.

There can be no peace without direction. The Ultimate Truth is (/must be) unique in the entire universe—the Perfect Being does exist, and it is essential that He exists; otherwise we have no goal to proceed. If secularists think that they can (continuously) advance toward the Perfection (by allowing indifference about religions) let them have secular democracy. In juxtaposition, theists have the right to proceed with (relevant) religious guidance. In this way, the truth (in every context) will stand out clear from the errors (and will thrive), and false will be debated out. Religion(s) have (already) given the general concrete shapes of good and evil without which we are in an all out chaos (instead of peace)—secularism can not start without those shapes. The best (possible) ending of secularism is the re-invention of the wheel through un-necessary arduous journey (of turmoil and chaos). Secularism (, during the last few centuries,) has already undermined the foundation of sincerity, honesty, self-control etc. (due to its lacking in relevant nurturing)—the worst probable ending of secularism is all out chaos. Deep-seated socio-ideological consciousness in each society has been developed/maintained by the religious nurturing during the (relevant) past centuries. Separation of religion(s) from the State is an attempt which is tantamount to separation of its consciousness (from itself, the state)—it must neither be added to the set of small mutual concessions for writing the contract nor such a contract can be expedient enough.

From Harun (17/5/19)

…warned by Kur'an – you will be disturbed by the Hebrew and Christian until the day of judgment…

I believe this is mis-presentation. Here, Jews and Christians must mean those who are not honest/sincere enough in search of the Truth—there exists hardly any difference between a Muslim, and anyone who is sincere and honest (but, with un-Islamic conclusion). Many Jews and Christians had/have (indeed) accepted Islam. There are many other (related) verses (such as “… tears comes in their eyes…” ) which must be supplemented to get the (relevant) complete message. Qur’an clearly teaches to invite other people for making agreement on the common principles. I have already mentioned that internal faith does remain independent in every situation—it may change due to new understanding/confusion. In fact, the doctrine of trinity is not exclusive of One and Only Perfect Being—even Hinduism (with many gods) end up at Paramatma, the One and Only Perfect Being. In any case, (socio-moral) ideas/religions do work in complexities in every society, no matter how you name it. Political ideologies/interests too work in complexities—these complexities will not decrease by separating religion(s) from the state (, it will actually increase due to lack of mutual understanding/tolerance). Moral democracy (, not theocracy/papacy,) is a natural solution (, and not a utopia,) for plural society [, and other types of states have been abrogated by the advent of Madina Charter]. Qur’an teaches that other Messengers were sent to their respective people and Prophet Muhammad (s.a.) has been sent to the entire mankind. Failures of theocracies/papacies invited (another erroneous system,) secularism—we must correct this error, if we want continuous progress toward peace. The worst affect of secularism is that secularists label their contenders as fundamentalists [in the negative connotation of static (/anti-progressive) burdens]. The fact is, theism has the highest potential to be progressive. Because, it starts from a sound set of principles and continuously expand the scope by making suitable Ijtihad (/juridical rule) for solving issues/problems in every (new) contexts—this is why religion must not be separated from the state so that the application features of theism expand/develop continuously by keeping up with the pace of (the march of) civilization. Separation of religion and state has indeed created (twofold) gap between religion(s) and society—in one hand theism has lacked behind (in formulating new solutions) and in another hand secularism has invented erroneous features/conclusion. But it is better now than future/never. Let me repeat/add (how plural complexities starts/work in a Moral Democracy):

Take referendum to select the coordinating (theist) Book—if absolute majority is not achieved for any Book in the first round, then take the highest scores to select the Books adding up just more than half (for next round of voting). This way end up with the two (Books) with more than half (of the votes) and complete the final round of voting (for the final selection of one Book only for coordinating theism). Then accommodate the people of every Book/creed in a similar way as shown in my ‘The Republic Re-engineered” (~500,000 words).

Outside the church there is no salvation, and outside the church there are no prophets

This must not mean (theistic) religion should be kept within the (theistic) “church” only (and not in the socio-econo-political world)—this should mean success comes through (theistic) religion only and there can be no (true) prophet without (theistic) religion. Besides, Bible includes verses foretelling the coming of Prophet Muhammad s. a.—and in any case, it is a reality. However, if this creed does insist that there can be no prophet after I’sa (Jesus) (a. s.), then such imperative remains independent within the realm of internal faith—such faith can/must not be obliterated by secularism [/other faith(s)]. But externally, we can/must still work side by side in cooperation (and not in isolation)—that is the reality, and not only a perception.

By Allah, the only faith is Islam

Islam means peace—Muslims are those who follow (the religion of) Islam. If other related (Qur’anic) verses are taken, it will be clear that every Messenger/Prophet of Allah (before Muhammad s.a.) and their true followers were Muslims. Besides, Qur’an also makes it clear that Messenger had been sent to every people (before) by Allah. Again, if someone insists that Muhammad (s. a.) is the only prophet, then it (also) remains as an internal faith (only).

Thus, moral democracy is the way to go for continuously increasing mutual tolerance (, through proper/practical process of understanding,) which is essential for making progress toward perpetual peace.

Akramul,

This is nonsense/nuisance—I am not contradicting (myself) at all. If you were not following (/carefully reading) me all along, what is the real intention—just arguing?

Remaining focused on my response to your previous comment, instead of moving in too many different directions to follow. Your original comment was:

In principle, the end-point of (secular) democratic capitalism is the whims of the “sacred” majority (of citizens/legislators)

And I explained how secular laws do not do as you claim. The "sacred majority" is far from all there is to a truly moral, democratic government. So then after I explained this, you come back with this comment:

Thus, a society with majority Christians will (, by default,) adopt Bible as the final guidance, unless the majority choose otherwise. So, who should decide?—the majority. That is, there should be no external compulsion against the will of the theist majority to establish a moral democracy.

So, as I read it, when it comes to theism, you previously distrusted "sacred majority" must instead have complete control. Not so. In majority Christian, western democracies, there is very overwhelming agreement that Church and State must be separate. The majority does not force its views, or odd customs, on everyone. And I also explained why. If you want peace, don't impose your imagined "truths" on others.

I'm not "just arguing," but rather, quite completely disagreeing with you, on what constitutes a truly "moral" democracy, and how long-lasting peace can be achieved.

As to "religion of peace," all religions claim that, and yet their holy books tell a very different story, as do their members. I might argue that of the big religions, the only holy book that preaches no violence, under any circumstance, is the New Testament. And yet, because Christianity does not obsolete the Old Testament, or any parts of it, even Christians are in principle taught that God sometimes has commanded humans to commit atrocious acts. I listed some of these acts, including genocide against a list of tribes, who were supposedly put there by God, to test whether or not humans would obey him even in immoral situations.

Is genocide an atrocious act? Yes or no? Is stoning one's wife to death and atrocious act? Yes or no? These are simple questions, Akramul. I conclude, from the teachings and from the practices of the faithful, there is no actual "religion of peace." That's a slogan, but sadly not practice.

Here, Jews and Christians must mean those who are not honest/sincere enough in search of the Truth

"Must mean"? You are only speculating what the words say, and even that is not very believable. In search for the truth, I can only conclude that at least some religious laws only make sense to the totally devout Believer. What some might call, "brainwashed." To other people, these questionable laws are just plain wrong. A God who commands genocide is a God that humans have created, but with flaws that are only too obviously human flaws!

Albert,

If you want peace, don't impose your imagined "truths" on others.

I agree with you--I have expressed/implied it repeatedly.

The Perfect Being has created us with free will (with Guidance) to choose either the ways of shaitan or of His Guidance. This Guidance is for the management of life/society on this earth (of generation and corruption) and must include (religious) laws for retribution/distribution--the life in the paradise is different.

I agree with Albert Manfredi answer

Peace is achieved by reason and wisdom and away from deceit, deceit and commitment to honesty ...

Preprint THE PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY OF INTELLECT EVOLUTION

There are some naive answers like "humans or nations should do / not do this", like what have been proposed since millenias.

But for this kind of questions, only hard answers are valid. Like this one : nothing humans can do will give perpetual peace, nor even a century of world peace.

Because at least any solution must take into account hidden force in modern history, like this one :

http://conscience-sociale.blogspot.com/2019/03/sabbateanism-and-frankism-spiritual.html