One of the strange threads of lovelessness that pervades human history is the cruelty of war. Leaders and their led have, from the ancient days of Viking conquest through the mindless cruelty of Hitler to the countless deaths from hundreds of mini-wars going on today to gang warfare in the streets, inflicted the most horrendous tortures on their fellow human beings. The choice of war is easily explained as a choice of power, riches, and the perverse pleasures of pain.

It is simple to define a group as an enemy, be they another nation, race, or merely a group of people with whom you disagree. For those who choose the physical pleasures of power over love, the conversion of human beings into the enemy, and from an enemy into inanimate targets, is simple and automatic. Perhaps it is accompanied by some form of logical argument such as freeing of the oppressed, creation of a master race, etc. Perhaps it is supported by a vocal cadre of men, women, and children urging on the conquest of the infidel, the bourgeois, the communist, etc. Whatever the rationale, the bad guy is defined, the good guy is identified, and the war is on.

The view of the enemy depends a great deal on the reason for the war. Initiators of the confrontation may see themselves as breaking the bonds of economic oppression, and thus "love" the victims but hate their leaders. They may see themselves as protectors of freedom, or religious soldiers, or any other manner of noble warrior who hates no one and who kills only so others may live. Or they may see themselves as simple killers, whose mercenary skills are listed on employment applications. Each of these groups, no matter what the rationale, kills people.

Soldiers sometimes adopt intense devotion to their own families, as though they receive some cooling balm from those relationships that makes their atrocities toward others less real. The intensity of "love" of family that accompanies combat is a prelude to the destruction of true love that is the inevitable result of war. Though it may appear love plays some part in the motivation for fighting, by its very nature love can only be a victim of warfare.

For those who understand love, it is not hard to condemn war as the opposite of love. It is less easy, however, to condemn the deterrence or containment of war. If, for example, the presence of nuclear arms prevents a war, can such weaponry be a tool of peace? Can someone threaten to destroy an entire nation out of love for its inhabitants? The answer must come from your understanding of love. What does appear true to me is that humankind will always have among it human beings whose choice of physical pleasures will lead them to war. The person who espouses disarming must accept that the consequence of doing so may literally be the death and/or subjugation of the majority of the human race. Indeed, the elimination of the nuclear weapons umbrella might return the world to confrontations between troops armed with conventional weapons that would kill and maim millions.

On the other hand, a world without weapons might be a world at peace. I am not suggesting that there could ever be a reason for actually using nuclear weapons, as opposed to the maintenance of a peacekeeping bluff. Nor am I suggesting love does not require an absolute rejection of use of any violence, I believe it does. What I am saying is that if we are to be honest with ourselves, we know that if we reject violence even in self-defense we must accept that the possible consequences may include death and subjugation.

You never "have" to commit any violent act against another, it is always your choice to do so or not. If love requires rejection of all violence against another human being, as I believe it does, those who understand love should understand it is worth enduring pain and torture in this life if accepting such pain leads to love, both now and in whatever existence follows death. Subjugation and death followed by a joyful eternal life of love seems far superior to a pleasant life followed by eternal torment. We need to remember that no matter how hard we try to avoid our inevitable deaths, the fact is that we live lives that are no more than single grains among the infinite sands of time. We will discuss this difficult conclusion in more detail in a later note.

Where are we? We have said that since existence may not end at death, you should live for the possibility you will continue to exist after your physical death and, in anticipation of that continued existence, should do the best you can while you are alive. We said it is always your choice to love or not to love. We said that if you understand love you know that the best anyone can do for other people is to love them, and therefore you should always choose love. We said it is reasonable to believe life after death will offer eternal love for those who choose to love each other while on earth. We concluded that since each of us must die, it is totally right to love on earth and enter a "heaven" of never-ending love, even if choosing love brings immediate physical death, and it is totally wrong not to love, even if not loving prolongs earthly life and pleasures.

NEXT > Is It Bad To Be Not So Bad? HOMEPAGE