Can we heal the world with Love? 1

30th Aug 2009

Hello lovely people

Justice or mercy?  The more emotional the issue, the more divided the opinions.  We often encounter issues that tempt us to decide:  should we insist on justice, knowing that justice always have consequences?  Should we show mercy and always try and understand the other side of the coin?  Or should public opinion be the determining factor?

In the past weeks a number of these emotional issues have been in the headlines.

In May Burma’s military regime jailed and charged the pro-democracy opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, because a man swam across a lake to her house.  She is accused of violating the terms of her house arrest and faces a possible five years in prison.  She has been confined to her house for 13 of the past 19 years.  Is that not a form of imprisonment as well?  So the fuss is not about her being in prison.  It is about her exchanging one kind of prison for another without having any say in the matter because she stands for democracy.  And where is the justice in punishing her for the actions of another person?

But could there possibly be another side to this argument?  She will probably be charged under the Safeguarding the State from the Dangers of the Subversive Elements law in Burma.  There are people in Burma that do not want complete democracy.  There is a culture in Burma that suits the Burmese people, and they regard democracy as subversive and as a threat to their culture. Are they entitled to take such a stance?  Surely they have freedom to choose against democracy as much as they have freedom to choose for democracy?  If democracy works in one country, how can we assume that it will work in every other country?

South Africa, a country that is known for its hospitality and ubuntu (love for your neighbour) is in the news for having no mercy for their neighbours.

Many Zimbabwean citizens have entered South Africa illegally.  The health system in Zimbabwe has collapsed completely, and there is hardly any food for the citizens.   On the other hand, South Africa has only just entered a recession, and conditions in general are far better than in Zimbabwe.

The overloaded health system in South Africa is already under pressure because of the high incidence of HIV/AIDS and the population growth.

South Africa has less than 7 doctors per 10 000 people whereas the UK has around 21, the United States around 24 and many European countries more than 30.  More than 60% of medical doctors who choose to stay in the country, serve less than 20% of the population.

Now South Africa is being criticised for failing to provide health services to Zimbabwean citizens that are illegally in South Africa.  These people are unable to pay for their food, let alone any medical service.  Should the South African government provide for Zimbabweans who are suffering because of an insane dictatorship, or should they look after their own tax-paying citizens first and ignore the plight of these old, frail illegal immigrants?

The closure of Guantanamo Bay has been heralded by some, and questioned by others.  The inmates of Guantanamo Bay have been accused of horrendous crimes against humanity and tortured for these crimes.  Is torture justified when it is done on behalf of a government, but not justified when the opposition to the government become the torturers?  A terrorist and a freedom fighter are defined by one’s perspective.

It is interesting to see how many of the opponents of Guantanamo Bay are now unwilling to accept the prisoners that will be released from the camp.  Is this really a matter of “we only look after our own”, or is it a matter of “not in my back yard, even if it is my own”?  On what grounds could the countries that protested against the imprisonment and torture of people now refuse to provide refuge to those same prisoners?

This reminds us of the legal action against Nazi war criminals.  Yes, atrocities were committed by these people.  But how just is retributive action now when it is taken against a sickly octogenarian who must be uprooted from the country where he has lived for over 50 years so that he can die in prison?  Where is the mercy in that?  Surely those people have had to live with their consciences all these years.

People have donated money to World Vision, only to discover that more than $1 million of the donations never reached Liberia because of fraud. Is it such a good idea to give money to charitable organisations, especially when the donations are solicited by means of expensive television ads and uniquely labelled free pens to sign the donation slips with?  Or should we actually support these international charities knowing that some of the money they receive does make a difference?  How much worse off would the recipients of this charity be if there was no charity?

In May the Iranian government blocked access to Facebook.  In June the Chinese government banned Hotmail, Twitter and Flickr on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.  There will be people in China that applaud this move because they understand the immense damage that the media can do when they get hold of a story and blow it out of proportion – we see that al the time with a celebrity culture in the Western world.

There will similarly be people that will object to their freedom of thought and free speech being taken away from them.   Is there ever a reason that is good enough to prevent people from accessing information so that they can read and decide for themselves what is right?

The Justice card in tarot reminds us that whenever we look for justice, we should be aware of the consequences.  We should open our hearts to our fellow human beings and understand that we are Love above all.  Justice can never be applied without mercy.

Is it possible that Love alone can provide answers to all these issues?

To be continued.
First printed in The If Journal volume 124

Please leave a comment if you feel inspired.

Love and Light

No Comments


Let’s Play Soldiers 2

25th Aug 2009

Hello lovely people

Of course I can say but I did not ask any soldier to go and die for me, and I do not believe in war.   All that is true, but still one-dimensional.

This reminds me of a company that I once worked for where there was a company-wide celebration, complete with balloons, computer games during work hours, lollipops in company colours (yes, this was for adults, and you would not believe how seriously they took it all).   And then someone commented on how ridiculous all that may have looked to outsiders, and one person piped up and said “but think of the effort we put into ordering those balloons and lollipops – you are really ungrateful and make us feel bad after all our hard work.”   Really?  Shame.

What the email brought home to me was the contrast between Michael Jackson and the soldiers.

What did the soldiers do?  They fought and killed.  Their actions were entirely centred in the base chakra, which governs fight or flight.  Our base instincts relate to self-protection and preservation of the self.

We may try to justify our actions at that level by saying “but I do it for you”, but that does not ring true.  The sacral chakra does relate to relationships, but it is not about fighting against the world to have a relationship.

The base chakra is about exploring the self, and the sacral chakra is about exploring the self in relation to others.  When you use violence against one person, you do not do it to protect another person.  As long as you feel the need to use violence, your focus is on the self and on self-preservation.

When you move up to the sacral chakra, you in fact become less destructive and more co-operative.  Saying that you voluntarily kill people to protect others does not mean you have moved from the base chakra to the sacral chakra, just like singing in the shower does not make you an opera star.

What did Michael Jackson do?  He sang, danced and entertained.  He touched the hearts of millions of people in many different ways.  He loved and was loved.  He gave of himself, even when he was in pain, because he wanted to make people feel happy.  Michael Jackson worked from the heart chakra.  He touched people’s lives because people wanted to be touched.

I would not go as far as saying he was an angel or without fault – if he was, he might not even have bothered to incarnate.  But if you look at his entire life, and if you really feel that you are in a position to judge, you would probably find that the good in his life weighed far more than the bad.  And if you compare the sales of his records in the year before he died to the sales in the year after his death, it will show that he is still touching people’s lives.

Why does the American Congress have a moment of silence for Michael Jackson but not for the soldiers?  Why did millions of people crash the Google website when news of Michael Jackson’s death leaked out, but the newspapers come up with politics and crocodile tears every time a soldier dies?

Could it be because humanity chooses to function from the heart chakra rather than from the base chakra?

Please leave a comment if you feel inspired.

Love and Light

No Comments


Let’s Play Soldiers 1

21st Aug 2009

Hello lovely people

I have been bothered about the fuss over the deaths of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time, but could not quite put my finger on the reason for feeling bothered about it.

Was my concern about the fact that people died?  Not really.  People die, and that is a law of nature.  People choose to die in many different ways, and that is destiny.

Was my concern about soldiers dying in a war?  No.  This was more sadness about the choices that these soldiers made.  But then they planned the blueprints for their lives before they came into this world.  They had reasons to plan dying in a war.  We have to respect their choices, even if we do not understand them.

Was my concern about soldiers dying far from home?  No again.  Where a person dies far from loved ones, the focus should really be on the loved ones, because they are left with questions and grief.  The soldier is gone and taken care of in another dimension.

I was also more irritated than concerned about the fuss in the press regarding the number of soldiers that have died recently.  For goodness sake, if you go to war there is a very good chance that you may kill or get killed.  So why on earth do people get so excited about the number of people that got killed because of a lack of equipment?  If the equipment was available, they would probably have been killed by their own equipment.

And why do people get upset about soldiers getting killed in a war?  This does not mean injustice or foul play.  They did not attend a tea party, they went to war, and people die in wars.  And if more people die on my side than on your side, is it suddenly unfair, like when you buy a hotel in Monopoly because I have run out of money?  War is not a game, it is real and real blood flows.  I want to say to the body-counters:  grow up!

I realised this week what was bothering me about this whole war business and the fuss about the soldiers who died.  One of these forward-me-to-ten-people-or-you-will-get-rabies emails were sent to me.  For a change I did not simply delete it, because it hit me that this is the reason for feeling disturbed about the soldier deaths.

The email was allegedly written by a soldier in Iraq.  The author describes the way Americans are mourning Michael Jackson, even with a moment of silence in Congress.  His argument is that Michael Jackson was just an entertainer.   OK, not just an entertainer, because he was hugely successful as an entertainer worldwide.  But still, he was an entertainer who did not “give his life”, and therefore people should have given far less attention to his death.

On the other hand, the author argues, soldiers give their lives “so that others may live” and therefore we should all be so grateful to them and have a moment of silence for every soldier who dies.
To be continued

Please leave a comment if you feel inspired.

Love and Light

No Comments


The Book on Coping with Widowhood is ready!

19th Aug 2009

Hello Lovely People

I have been very busy working on the final copy of my new book, Coping with Widowhood – a Spiritual Approach.

The book is available on from today.

I can send you a very long email, but I would rather refer you to the website where all the details are.

I would love to hear your comments.

Love and Light


No Comments


Bigamy does not undermine the institution of marriage 2

6th Aug 2009

Hello lovely people

For some religions marriage no longer provides the opportunity to manipulate people who choose to have a strong love relationship without the massive expense that a wedding ceremony requires.  One religious group recently attempted to get some of the control back by offering a bargain combination of marriage for parents and baptism for their children at a discount.  If those people wanted to succumb to the pressure of the church to control their lives, surely they would have done so before they had children?

All of the above actions undermine the institution of marriage, which should be a union of love (with witnesses and paperwork that confirms love rather than a legal cover-your-backside for future actions).

This bigamous woman probably has serious relationship issues that she brought with her from one or more previous lives as part of the blueprint for her life.  Her sacral chakra may be completely out of balance, which means she will keep searching for a secure relationship but not understand what she wants or why she is never satisfied with a partner.  She may have serious relationship issues stemming from incidents in her childhood where she formed a perception which are still impacting on her decisions and actions.   She may have brought unresolved memories from previous lives with her.  The lithium that has been prescribed to her will not neutralise any of these issues.

Did she undermine the institution of marriage?  Or did she get people to question their own beliefs and perceptions?  Did she get spiritual support on resolving her relationship issues and growing towards wholeness?   Or was she punished for not toeing the line or “playing the game”?

Nothing prevents her from having a string of relationships without getting married – she had boyfriends in between her fake marriages and was not punished by law for any of those.  However, she chose to rock the boat by having sham marriages, and her environment responded by punishing her rather than questioning to what extent the marriage ceremony has been degraded to a means of manipulation rather than a union of love.

When you read the title of this article, did you react because you wanted to protect your union of love, or because you responded to fear of shaking up your own beliefs in case I have a point?

Please leave a comment if you feel inspired.

Love and Light

No Comments


Bigamy does not undermine the institution of marriage 1

3rd Aug 2009

Hello lovely people

I can feel just this heading is enough cause for me to duck some eggs, oranges and other missiles, but your actions would be uninformed, so let’s have a truce while I state my case.

A woman was recently sentenced to ten months in prison, suspended for two years, for “marrying” four men while she was still married to her first husband.  She was cautioned by police for two of these illegal marriages, and spent six months in prison for one of them. Despite all this, she went ahead and “married” a fifth man who discovered his place in the pecking order while they were on honeymoon.

This woman was twelve years old when she persuaded her parents to buy her first wedding dress, and got married to her first husband when she was eighteen.

When she was sentenced, the judge claimed that her actions “undermine the institution of marriage”.  This is where I disagree.  I believe she exposed the institution of marriage for what it has become, and nobody is listening.

I believe any legal actions which are based on the institution of marriage in fact undermine marriage.  Marriage is a contract of love between two people.  This contract has over hundreds of years become so deeply ingrained as a means of solidifying things other than love that we have lost focus.

In many cultures marriage has been a financial bargaining tool, and to this day men in some cultures are expected to pay a dowry when they “buy” a bride.  Marriage has also become a means of tying dynasties together, as we still see in royal or wealthy circles.

Marriage has also become a legal means of managing property, as we see every day in prenuptial agreements, marriage contracts and divorce settlements.

The wedding ceremony became part of a strategy for ingraining religious fear and control, and some cultures still have a strong censorship against people that have relationships outside of marriage.  There are people who cannot imagine a worse future than marrying outside of their religion.  They chose one version of faith as the be-all and end-all, and are too afraid to consider any possibility of falling in love with someone who does not accept such man-made limitations.

Many people choose to have no sex before marriage, and expect to be treated as some kind of modern-day martyrs for their stance.  Yes, stay away from sex until you are absolutely sure you can emotionally commit to a sexual relationship – this will ensure you make an informed choice based on love rather than hormones.  But does a marriage certificate guarantee a satisfying sexual relationship?  Many people would tell you the opposite – or would they rather keep quiet about their sexual failure or incompatibility because it is not acceptable to openly discuss the true motivation for two people joining in marriage, namely love?  A wise man once told me that where a marriage relationship is solid and healthy, sex forms 5% of the relationship.  However, where the relationship is rocky sex forms 95% of the relationship.  If you insist on waiting for sex after marriage, maybe you are focusing in the wrong place and heading for disillusion?

To be continued.

Please leave a comment if you feel inspired.

Love and Light

No Comments