I was at the Saturday Coffee Talk (though late) discussion and the topic was self-righteous anger.
My experience is that anger has always led to violence and we (humankind) would be better served if we could find, and use, new ways of promulgating change than through using anger as the touch stone.
This will most assuredly mean a change in what seems a fundamental part of our character, but wouldn’t it be worth the effort to make that change and possibly eradicate the need for war? People might find more peaceful ways of communication. This does not mean always being “nice” and not being able to clearly point out deficiencies in our system of government or banking, but rather the clarity could be seen as a tool for the viewing of what is, rather than coating truth in false acceptability.
This is where some fundamental differences in belief come into public focus. Western religions have the deep-seated belief that we are fundamentally broken and can never become whole. Eastern traditions believe in reincarnation as the path to perfection (a real possibility). A Transcendentalist (the basis of my tradition) believes we are born in perfection and the personal spiritual path is the rediscovery of that truth within oneself.
If we live in a consciousness of being broken and believe that human characteristics can never be changed, we are doomed to relive the same behavior from generation to generation as we have done for thousands of years. If we could expand our awareness to include the possible release of ideas and behaviors that don’t support peace and learn new forms of communication that allow us to be clear and passionate from a place of love instead of anger, how much more could be accomplished?
It is often said that the news will only show violence because that is what sells. Could the media ignore 3 million people going to Washington D.C. and participating in a non-violent sit-in for change? I am only talking about just over 1 percent of the population — is it possible this could bring about change?