|
1-Introduction
On the 6th of this month, the Maronite Patriarch delivered a
speech where he spoke about Lebanese politics and its issues
and analysed them in a manner that is characteristic and
traditional of the Patriarchate. His speech, then, was
important and dangerous at the same time. This speech can’t
be ignored like others emanating from the Patriarchate. It
demands to be answered and clarified in accordance to modern
political thought, especially since the Patriarch talks
precisely about the Syrian Social National Party (SSNP),
which in turn puts on us the burden of answering it in exact
terms.
We were waiting for the patriarch’s speech to deliver issues
and directions that would add political dimensions to the
speech itself. However, what followed was neither germane to
it, nor was it expressive of the speech’s content. What
followed were political manoeuvres, which aimed at using the
Patriarch and his influence.
Before we start analysing the patriarch’s speech something
has to be said about the political aspect of his character,
which is construed from his positions vis-à-vis different
issues. For one, the patriarch had a positive stance on the
issue of unity between Lebanon and Damascus. It seemed that
he was very close to the national renaissance [in this
matter]. His stance regarding the monopoly of tobacco
growing and manufacturing in Lebanon was a strong one too.
However, It was belated and ineffective.
If Patriarch Arideh had several blessed stances, he also had
his share of not so blessed ones. Such was the case of his
stance regarding the Jewish infiltration into Lebanon, an
issue that caused Bishop Mubarak to exclaim:
“We elected you as a patriarch of the Maronites and not the
Jews.”
We don’t mention Bishop Mubarak’s words so as to glorify
him. It must be noted that the bishop too followed his
master and became a bishop for the Jews.
From his past activities we see that Patriarch Arideh
personally has no specific and calculated stance. He does
not follow a certain political line. His political
activities are dictated by events and by those who are close
to him. Most of his stances are thus superficial. They are
built on only shallow understandings of the events. In this
regard the patriarch’s position on the 6th of this month was
no exception. Here is the dissection of his speech.
In his speech the patriarch goes on to solve problems that
had already become irrelevant due to the passage of time.
His stance regarding the issue of government in Lebanon is
like his stance regarding the tobacco monopoly, since it is
built on the same theory; to look into catastrophes after
they happen and to see mistakes after they take place,
without giving any importance to the real issues and without
understanding their real motives. His stance would seem a
most successful one at first glance. However, what happens
is that he mixes right with wrong. He instils the people
with joy only to fill them with sadness once they try his
position. The same thing repeats itself and the people are
repeatedly joyous and sad…
It is obvious that identical actions lead to identical
results. Thus the opposite of cure is created and the
peoples’ yearning is dead. It seems that religious peoples’
dealing with political issues today is like their dealings
with physical and psychological illnesses in the
Middle-Ages, when the clergy had this omnipotent power over
ignorant people. And as research in medicine showed that the
clergy couldn’t take the place of doctors, so did also
research in the fields of politics and sociology. Thus a
bishop or a patriarch is not equipped to handle issues that
belong to the political or social scientist. Thus, if a
clergyman involves himself in the cure of political, social,
or economic issues, he creates bigger problem for scientists
in those fields who try to come up with a solution for an
important issue.
From our own experience we have concluded that Patriarch
Arideh is but a clergyman. He might be very righteous, peace
loving, and devoted to Christ; however, he is not and could
not be an expert in the political, social, or economic
realms, even if he has the help of some of his close friends
who advise him on such issues.
What remains is the traditions and importance surrounding
the Patriarchal Seat, which comes to us from old centuries,
the Stone Age, before the advent of iron, the machine, the
Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions and the era of
specializations…
We have to confess that during ancient times the Patriarchal
Seat was consumed with the religious aspects of its herd.
During those times the herd was a religious entity in
itself. There was religious unity, which manifested itself
in the political unity of the herd. Therefore, if one wanted
to know the stance of a people regarding an issue all he had
to do was ask the religious leader of that people. There
were no personal opinions during these times. The power of
the religious leader was complete and absolute.
In those times it was acceptable to refer to the religious
leader as the political leader of the people as well. It was
thus that the Patriarchal Seat gained importance and
momentum that unfortunately continues to our days. What is
more dangerous is the fact that this assumed importance is
meddling in our political and national affairs, which are
issues of utmost importance and dangerous to meddle with in
an unprofessional way.
It is true that the Pontifical Seat had in many past
instances defended the religious rights of the people and
found the ways for continuing its existence. It did great
things in its role as the protector of the people. It is
because of this role that the Seat keeps its importance and
power up to our times. Much did change from the old times.
However, people are very slow in understanding social and
political change. The people still remain a religious entity
and work as such even though there is no reason for them to
continue as such. This continuation was the reason why the
Patriarchal Seat involved itself in Syrian issues after the
World War I (WWI). Its interference in this was the
beginning of the creation of the issue of Modern Lebanon,
which brought the Lebanese people to their current stage of
ignorance. This created the atmosphere for clergymen to
interfere in and have influence over the people and the
solutions of their national and political future.
These are the issues that make Patriarch Arideh’s speech a
dangerous one. It is simple, confused, general, and doesn’t
grasp important issues except those concerning the SSNP and
the Lebanese Communist Party (LCP). However, as general as
the speech is, at some points it negates some principles
that can’t be neglected as we shall see.
2-The Confused Success
After thanking the delegations that came to visit him in his
Winter Headquarters, His Beatitude starts his speech by
declaring his sorrow vis-à-vis the events that surrounded
the governmental decree to dissolve the Lebanese Youth
Organizations.
Let us start by saying that the dissolution of the
organization had saddened many, and His Beatitude was not
the first among them.
The Patriarch also expresses his sorrow “for what was said
as criticism regarding the parliamentary elections.” He then
absolves himself from “these elections” by declaring that he
left the issue “to its masters,” that is “the people and the
government.” The reason why the Patriarch didn’t interfere
in these elections was because he considers all to be his
beloved children. Therefore, he can’t be with one group and
against the other, since he is for all and he has to “put
all under his protection.”
While the patriarch declares in his speech that he
leaves a very important issue such as the elections to its
masters, i.e. “the people and the government,” and states
that he is obliged to have all under his protection, he
suddenly declares that he finds no fault in spiritual
leaders interfering in “temporal issues.” He then supports
his stance vis-à-vis the temporal power, with this very bold
and dangerous statement:
“The people, regardless of their divisions, ask us and
expect from us to take care of not only their spiritual
needs, but their temporal issues too. We protect the people
and do our best for their good. The same people who gave the
government the right to deal with their temporal issues,
also want us to look after the same needs as well, etc…”
If there is a kernel of truth in this declaration, that the
people had asked the patriarch to take care of their
temporal needs as well, how can he explain his saying that
he left the elections issues “to its masters” and yet the
people wanted him to take care of these same issues?
We want to believe that the patriarch had no say or
“interference” in the elections. However, we have to look
for the reasons that led him not to interfere, when he
considers that the people, “regardless of their divisions,”
had asked him “to take care of their temporal needs and
protect its rights.” Did the patriarch then disregard the
people’s request, or was it that he didn’t expect what
really took place and led to the “much regrettable”
“criticism regarding the parliamentary elections?” Or is the
reason the SSNP’s ideology and reformist principle of the
separation of Church and State, so that religious leaders
would deal with the people’s spiritual needs while the
temporal leaders take care of the government and the state,
without colliding with the clergy in their temporal
dealings?
Yes. How does the patriarch on the one hand say that he left
the temporal issue of the elections to its masters and on
the other hand say:
“The reality of the situation is that the Lebanese people
regard the Maronite Patriarchate and its leader as their
father and absolute representative. The people expect from
the patriarch to preserve its rights. And if the patriarch
doesn’t accomplish this the people blame him, since he has
always been their refuge in all matters.”
If His Beatitude acknowledges that he has been negligent of
the trust that the people put in him, then he must also
accept the fact that his interference in the people’s
temporal needs was misplaced. If His Beatitude also
acknowledges that he didn’t expect the sorrowful results
that emerged, and, furthermore, also acknowledges that he is
not so knowledgeable in political, social, and economic
issues, then this acknowledgement would be interpreted by
the Lebanese people as a disappointment regarding the
Patriarchal seat and its holder. If His Beatitude doesn’t
acknowledge either this or that, then the best way for him
is to acknowledge the SSNP’s stance, so that the spiritual
matters would not collide with the temporal issues and
vice-versa.
If His Beatitude thinks that he can still bring in some sort
of acceptance vis-à-vis these two diametrically opposed
stances by saying that:
“We want to have all sides under our protection”
We would then answer by saying how ignorant is the
patriarch’s in his thinking that he can bring these two
opposite ideas into a harmonious unison?
3-The Lebanese People and the Patriarchal Seat
The reality is that we were very easy on His Beatitude
regarding some temporal issues because of the fact that he
acknowledged the situation as “Status Quo.”
His Beatitude says:
“The
people, regardless of their divisions, ask us and expects
from us to take care of not only their spiritual needs, but
their temporal issues too. We protect the people…”
However, in another place he states:
“The
reality of the situation is that the Lebanese people regard
the Maronite Patriarchate and its leader as their father and
absolute representative. The people expect from the
patriarch to preserve their rights, etc…”
We don’t think that when His Beatitude said “The Lebanese
people, regardless of its divisions, expects from us,” that
individuals from here and there were inciting the patriarch
to interfere in some of the administrative issues for the
benefit of these individuals, under the disguise of the
general welfare.
We also don’t think that His Beatitude considered these
individuals “The Lebanese People,” since under no
circumstance can the few be considered the whole “people
regardless of their divisions.” This can be so only if logic
and reality are left aside and His Beatitude wants us to
believe that he was in the realm of theology when he made
those declarations.
We want to assure His Beatitude that thousands of
SSNP members in the Lebanese Republic do not adhere to him,
either as a whole or as individuals, and do not accept that
he represents their temporal issues. We also want to stress
that we doubt it greatly that non-Maronite religious
congregations in the Republic of Lebanon look at His
Beatitude as a “father and absolute representative to care
for their general and private needs.”
If by “the Lebanese People especially” His Beatitude means
the Maronites only then it becomes clear he creates a
dichotomy by stating “The people, regardless of their
divisions.” Furthermore, we also want to assure His
Beatitude that Purely Lebanese SSNP members as well as many
educated Maronites who have not yet had the time to enter
the SSNP, would not consider themselves as inclusive of the
patriarch’s definition of “The People.”
4-Spiritual Authority and Temporal Authority
We believe that His Beatitude addresses the SSNP when he
says:
“Some objected to our course by saying that we, the
spiritual leader, are interfering in temporal issues.”
We thank His Beatitude that he pays attention to our
objection to the extent that he answered us. Now we have to
answer him and make clear what needs to be clarified in this
regard.
Let us first present the reader with His Beatitude’s answer:
“Even though spiritual issues intend to salvage souls
through faith and Godly intervention, they have a lot to do
with the body. Human beings are neither simple soul like
angels, nor are they independent bodies. They are a mixture
of the two. The body, which is the lower of these two parts,
has to abide by the soul, which is the purest part of the
body. The body is but a machine that is used by the soul to
do its spiritual things through the body. And since
Christian religion is based on the love of God and people
close to you, it becomes imperative that the religious
leader must help the people in all aspects of life,
spiritual or temporal, which are important for their
spiritual and temporal existence.”
His Beatitude’s answer is divided into two parts. There is
first the part that is purely theological in nature and then
there is a part whereby theologians see temporal issues. The
first part is that which is devoted to the soul and the
body. The second part is what a spiritual leader must do
regarding temporal issues.
We don’t want to enter here into purely theological
discourse; since we consider the spirit as God given while
the body is of earth and the two are independent of each
other…We want to hypothetically accept the theological
discourse about the connectivity of the soul to the body. We
will then analyse this theological discourse in the stage
when the mixture of soul and body is established and the
human being, whose bodily existence is but a machine for his
spirit to act through, exists.
If the human being is born with the upper and lower parts,
the soul and the body, he becomes complete only through the
mixture of the two parts. Here we have to disregard all the
teachings and research in the fields of psychology and
psychoanalysis. In other words we can’t differentiate
between what is psychological and what is physiological. We
thus answer His Beatitude with his own theological premises
and say: Since the great spiritual issues are directed by
the relationship of the soul to the body, then each human
being has a soul that takes care of his/her body.
And since the goal of the spiritual realm is “the recovery
of souls through faith and Godly intervention,” then, by the
same token, however strong the soul’s effect on the body, it
must not come out of its spiritual form to enter the bodily
form. Therefore, the education of the soul through faith and
Godly intervention is a spiritual matter that has nothing to
do with the body. This spiritual action must not interfere
in the bodily functions. If it does so it is then devoid of
spirituality. Therefore, the task of the spiritual leader is
to teach the human being his/her spiritual needs so that he
can then take care of his bodily needs “through faith and
the rules of God.” Thus, if the human being is taught about
his spiritual needs through the clergy, that human being can
then independently pursue his/her temporal needs, without
any ties to his spiritual leader. This is so because
temporal needs are based on complex and sophisticated
temporal culture, which is built on scientific and artistic
knowledge that is different from the realm of “faith and
Godly rules.” The spiritual leader then can teach the human
being how to recover his soul and not be condemned to hell.
However, that same spiritual leader can’t teach the human
being in finance, economics, statistics, medicine,
chemistry, geometry and other sciences that come through
research and innovation and not through the dogmatic
premises of faith and divine intervention.
We say that the duty of the spiritual leader must not
transcend the realm of the spirit so that he is not obliged
to teach in the matters of the body and thus become of the
body and not of the spirit. This means that if and when a
spiritual leader transcends into the temporal realm his
teachings will be useless because they will be measured by
how much he is knowledgeable in the temporal sciences and
not based on his faith.
As to what concerns the theological relationship of the soul
to the body, especially with regards to the interpretation
that since the body is under the jurisdiction of the soul,
therefore, it, the body, must comply to the temporal powers
of the spiritual leader, is a deduction that, if it happens,
would lead people to wandering in the dark. This could mean
not only that the body is under the jurisdiction of the
soul, but could also mean that all bodies are governed by
one soul [that of the spiritual leader], which will in
essence paralyse all the activities of the other souls and
negate the concept of the soul being given by God. If the
soul is responsible in its subjugation to “faith and Godly
rules,” however, it is not responsible to let its temporal
bodily functions be under the jurisdiction of a single soul,
that of its spiritual leader.
Even the soul is not subject to be governed by the spiritual
leader whose mere function is to adhere to issues of “faith
and Godly rules.” Therefore, the body is totally free from
such distractions.
As to Patriarch Arideh’s saying that:
“And
since Christian religion is based on the love of God and
people close to you, it becomes imperative that the
religious leader must help the people in all aspects of
life, spiritual or temporal, which are important for their
spiritual and temporal existence.”
It can be said that this can happen only within the realms
of “faith and Godly rules,” and not in issues pertaining to
the administrative and political aspects of government and
its power to deal with temporal issues.
Therefore, the insistence on having a say in temporal issues
is something based solely on church traditions and has
nothing to do with temporal needs of life.
5-The Spiritual Temporal Politics
I don’t object that His Beatitude be involved in issues that
are good or bad for the patriarchate. Issues pertaining to
the patriarchate are things that His Beatitude must look
after with care and prudence. However, it is strongly
objectionable that the religious leader must interfere in
temporal issues by virtue of his religious leadership.
We want to
underline here that a great danger exists if a spiritual
leader interferes in temporal issues. This could lead to a
power struggle between the spiritual leader and temporal
leaders vis-à-vis temporal issues. And since the people have
not only one but many spiritual leaders that are imbued in
religious and sectarian fanaticism, which His Beatitude
already acknowledges in his speech that this fanaticism
exists in most of the Lebanese people, and since the
interpretation [of the religious leader being the temporal
leader as well] will definitely transform temporal groups
into religious entities, this means that the people will
remain divided among religious-sectarian lines and will
never reach the stage of national consciousness, which is
the only indicator of its political and economic unity.
After creating this power vacuum by asserting that a
religious leader has the right to interfere in a people’s
temporal issues, His Beatitude starts dealing with the
temporal issues of the people. He assumes that there are
eight issues, some of which are essential, such as the issue
of independence and economy, and others that are secondary,
such as general security and the judiciary.
And since His Beatitude starts to deal with the issue of
independence, we saw it fitting to deal with that issue
first.
Speaking of independence His Beatitude says: “One of the
most important matters that a people wants is
“independence.” Thus, His Beatitude considers independence
as one of the most important matters and not the most
important one that people need. This means that His
Beatitude doesn’t suppose independence an integral national
or popular condition. We thus see that His Beatitude deals
with the integral issue of independence as a secondary
matter.
His
Beatitude continues by saying that Lebanon had enjoyed a
“semi independent” position, and that it [Lebanon] is now
“granted full independence under the auspices of the League
of Nations and through the benevolence of the beloved
France.” Here, His Beatitude reads independence as a “given
one” through a “giver” whose credentials are derived through
international agreements because of political situations. He
tries to represent this independence as a substitute to
integral independence that is built on the will of the
people. His Beatitude doesn’t see that this “given”
independence is wrong and can’t substitute for real
independence. He doesn’t acknowledge that a “given”
independence can’t be considered a real independence, since
what is “given” can be taken away and can lead to struggle
if the “giver” changes its mind.
His Beatitude also assumes that the treaty that gave Lebanon
its independence, and which is still a matter of acceptance
or denial by the League of Nations, is a complete and total
independence. He makes his assumption real by stating that
Lebanon is really independent, so that his listeners or
readers would also assume that Lebanon has really became
completely independent, that is it possesses all the
pertinent conditions of “complete independence.” This is far
from the truth, since the country is still under mandatory
power until the treaty is acknowledged [by the League of
nations]. And assuming that all this did take place, there
is still the fact that is still has to undergo a three year
trial period, which, if anything, doesn’t qualify it to have
“complete independence” as His Beatitude assumes. This shows
that His Beatitude is not professional enough in his
utterances.
And since His Beatitude doesn’t deal with the issue of
independence as a real expert in the field of politics and
sociology would, he continues his erroneous explanations and
speaks about secondary issues such as government, which has
nothing to do with independence, to supplement his
explanation. He says:
“Those who assumed (he means, were given) the power in the
name of the Lebanese people have to do their best in their
mission. They have to do everything and to sacrifice in
order to keep [independence]. They have to prove to the
people that they are worthy to rule and they are worthy of
the confidence that the people put in them.”
His
Beatitude refers to “those who assumed the country’s
resources” as the government. However, what does the
government have to do with the country’s resource?
In an independent country the government does not “assume
the resources of the country,” but rather it is chosen from
the real owners of these resources, namely the people.
Moreover, they have to work within a political line that is
acceptable by those who chose them to do that job. This is
what democratic, parliamentary systems are all about. This
choosing happens through the parliament. Those who have to
work and sacrifice for independence are the people and not
the government, which is merely chosen by the people or the
nation for the purposes of taking care of the country and
its resources.
As to His Beatitude’s words regarding “those who assumed the
resources of the country in the name of the Lebanese
people,” let’s just say that this is far from reality, since
the resources of the country are still under the rule of the
mandatory power, which has the last word vis-à-vis those
resources. It is really a great responsibility that someone
like His Beatitude would say that Lebanon has achieved
“complete independence” and that there are those “who
assumed the country’s resources in the name of the Lebanese
people.”
His Beatitude after erroneously replacing the issue of
independence with that of the rulers extends his words to
them in a manner unfitting to the modern notion of
government. Rather, he speaks about rulers of antiquity such
as King Dabshalim. He most definitely speaks in a language
that reminds us of the philosopher Bidba, who put his words
of advice in the mouths of animals in his writings. One of
Bidba’s writings goes as such: “Rulers are maligned with
their love of tyranny, etc…” or “How many are the kings who
lost their thrones because they cared less of their own
people” or “Whoever rules the people must be above them in
his character, etc…” What His Beatitude is trying to do is
to show us modern government in the form of ancient rulers
who thought that they were above the people and that their
power was given to them by God. However, His Beatitude later
gives us another picture about rulers in the section “the
distribution of jobs and advantages,” where he says: “The
rulers are privy to the benefits of the people for a certain
income.” He thus leaves his listeners or readers to be
engulfed in uncertainty regarding what government and ruler
is all about. He does this while at the same time he
advocates a notion that is diametrically opposed to the
principles of constitutional rights and state: That the
government is the ruler who is above the people.
His Beatitude returns to the issue of independence and he
once again privatizes the “assumed Lebanese Independence”
and expresses sadness that:
“A
group of Lebanese and some [political] parties that are
under the influence of foreigners, such as the SSNP and the
Communist Party, are against Lebanese independence.”
These are all the negative aspects that the founding fathers
of Lebanon’s independence are facing. On the other hand the
positive aspects that work hard to keep this assumed
independence can be summed up by:
“Those
Lebanese organizations, which were formed by the
government’s knowledge, under its permit, and utilizing its
blessing, in order to defend the Lebanese independence,
[These organizations] have not shown any bad attitudes in
their effort toward that end.”
As to His Beatitude’s saying that “A group of Lebanese and
some [political] parties that are under the influence of
foreigners, such as the SSNP and the Communist Party,” let
us note that it is far from the truth. We think it is the
consequence of people with bad influence [on His Beatitude]
who mixed up night with day and acted as if light is
darkness for them. Thus, it seems that His Beatitude,
because of the huge number of those whispering in his ears
listened, to Father Louise Khalil and was deaf to what
Father Bulos Mis’ad told him. His Beatitude thus preferred
to listen to those around him who instigated the lie that
the SSNP works for foreign entities, while the reality is
that since its inception the party negates and fights
foreign intervention in the matter of deciding our own
future. It is the party that works hard to find the real and
single basis for real and complete independence, which is
rested on the unity of the nation and its aspirations. He
[His Beatitude] thus put the SSNP beside the Communist
Party, which is founded and works because of foreign
assistance. His Beatitude should know well that the history
of the SSNP and the real principles behind its foundation,
shows, if anything, that it is the only party in the country
that set forth the principle of the unity of the nation and
worked hard in order to identify the principles for the
attainment and defence of real and complete independence.
It is also imperative to mention here that during all the
conversations and interrogations that were done with the
SSNP because of the instigation of some people who are sold
to foreign interests, the known and unknown interrogators
found nothing regarding these dangerous accusations, which
His Beatitude now uses for the benefit of a foreign state:
“This is the state of Italy, one of the most successful
states of the world,” which His Beatitude brings as an
example through “the beloved France, the generous state.”
As to the issue that His Beatitude puts the SSNP within the
anti-independence sector, this is based on his skewed
knowledge of the reality of the SSNP.
As for his
statement that “Lebanese organizations” are positive
elements and pro independence, and that “these organizations
didn’t work against that noble goal,” our answer to that is
this: If the sectarian and religious divisions are the
foundations of independence, then these “Lebanese
organizations” would be as such because of their workings
vis-à-vis the events of November 1936 and the events at Bint
Jbeyl and other places. These events show, if anything, how
misguided is His Beatitude when he says that “these
organizations didn’t work against that noble goal.”
In reality, these Lebanese organizations should have been
mentioned in His Beatitude’s speech as elements that work to
divide the nation and make it impossible for the nation to
achieve total independence. These would then have to be
added to the other factors such as the incorporation of
religion with the state and the interference of religious
leaders in the national issues pertaining to politics and
the judiciary.
Concerning His Beatitude’s thanking the government for its
struggle against the SSNP, his positive attitude to the
state would be apropos if the issue was related to the
benefits of the Patriarchate. However, if the circumstance
was regarding the nation and its independence, then the
whole issue of thankfulness was misplaced, because it was
meant to topple the party that is based on the right
national ideology and that wanted the nation to rid itself
from religious and sectarian strife and divisions, which, in
our opinion, is the basis for real independence.
6-Economics, Administration, Judiciary
His Beatitude then leaves the political arena with his
readers and listeners still wondering between independence
and government. He then precedes to the second issue at
hand, the economy.
Whatever His Beatitude says in this regard contains no
professional ideas. He stays in the realm of generalities
and things that the regular population is used to hearing in
any regular society or club. His words are nothing new. They
have been repeated for a long time in political and
non-political speeches until they have become common
parlance, Such as:
“As
to giving people more resources happens by encouraging
agriculture and increasing national projects.”
He also says:
“Improving
agriculture can take place by improving water distribution
and not letting a source as important as water to wastefully
empty into the sea.”
He adds too:
“This
can happen by opening agricultural school. Etc…”
All what His Beatitude talks in this regard contains no
solution for a single economic problem. Improving
agriculture, for example, has a direct correlation with a
government's economic and national policies. His Beatitude
doesn’t show that he feels that there is such a correlation.
On the other hand, opening agricultural schools has to do
with state budgets, tax collection and expenditures. So it
is obvious that His Beatitude speaks only of simple and
beautiful things but leaves aside the more mundane and
professional procedures regarding real economic issues and
the manner by which they must be solved.
His Beatitude then speaks about the issue of general
security, which is also an administrative matter. He points
out that one of the first obligations of a government is to
protect the peoples’ physical existence and riches from
internal or external aggression “by giving a decisive blow
to criminals and wrongdoers.”
Here, His Beatitude attributes things to the SSNP, which
would have been better if left to scoundrels. We understand
that His Beatitude wants to protect the traditions of the
church and the Maronite Patriarchal Seat by having a say on
temporal power. This in itself is against the SSNP and its
ideology. His Beatitude wants to keep the status quo, in the
proliferation of which he had a great deal. However, he also
wants to negate all other ideologies that run against this
policy.
It would have been better if His Beatitude underlined this
policy of his in the first place. It would have been better
if he said that he is trying to protect the traditions of
the church and the Pontifical Seat to the detriment of the
SSNP and its national aspirations that is based on the unity
of the people. It would have been better if he did not
exercise his spiritual power to force a religious standpoint
on political situations. If he had done that it would have
been more befitting of him and his seat than by accusing the
SSNP of something that the party is innocent of.
His Beatitude doesn’t dwell long on general security. He
immediately shifts his attention to the judiciary and speaks
about the court-system and how some law-suits remain
unresolved for thirty to forty years. He points out that the
government must, in this case, take an example from the
Catholic Church, where law-suits are decided in a maximum of
two year period.
It is not hard for us to understand where His Beatitude
comes from when he speaks about the judiciary system with
all its corruption and indolence. However, as the popular
saying goes, one must not throw stones at someone else’s
house when his house is made of glass. His Beatitude knows
that even religious courts under his jurisdiction don’t
really function the way he wants us to believe.
His Beatitude then makes a detour and once again
speaks about administrative issues under the rubric of “the
distribution of jobs within governmental institutions.” Here
too His Beatitude talks only in general terms and asks the
government, which is the product of the old political
school-- which the patriarch doesn’t seem to wish to change,
and which he prefers over the SSNP and uses it to struggle
against the SSNP—“to be fair in their distribution of the
governmental jobs regardless of political or factional
differences.” In other words, he asks the rulers to be fair
and not to adhere to their personal or factional
consciousness. What His Beatitude doesn’t understand is the
fact that this can be achieved only if we adhere to the
teachings and the ideology of the SSNP.
His
Beatitude Says:
“Because of the religious and factional fanaticism that
exists in almost all of the people, Lebanon would not rest
until each of the religious sects is given its fair share of
governmental jobs, under a comprehensive and detailed
program.”
How can satisfying religious and sectarian fanaticism bring
about a good administration and benefit the people?
Under the rubric of “distribution of governmental jobs” His
Beatitude interferes in the state’s tax collecting ability
and stresses that this collection must be done in such a way
that it will take into consideration the situation of the
poor and those who barely make for the food necessary for
their families. This is good but is not enough to advocate a
real change in this regard.
7-Civic and Political Rights
After his discourse in the realms of administration as well
as monetary, political, and economic policies His Beatitude
shifts gears to speak about “freedom.” Here he takes into
consideration civic and political rights, as well as
economic openness.
His Beatitude resurrects himself from the realm of state to
the skies of absolute thought to declare:
“Freedom is a natural right for the human being.”
After some talk about this absolute right [of freedom] where
His Beatitude takes the individual as his basis, he returns
to the realm of society and economics to state:
“Every
person must see the fruits of his/her own toil and benefit
from it. He has the right possess what he was able to get
through himself, his parents, and his relatives. The
government must abolish all kinds of slavery and at the same
time protect the personal belongings of each person.”
We don’t know what exactly His Beatitude means by the term
“personal belongings.” Is civic feudalism part of it? Are
the villages of the Emirs, Sheikhs, Beys part of it?
Moreover, is religious feudal owning such as the huge and
almost borderless Awqaf part of it?
The theory of the individual as a basis is important in
society. Social Order or Social Contract is but a plural
contract that has been in circulation for centuries. We
don’t want to delve into a solely social or philosophical
diatribe. We will only take those issues that His Beatitude
spoke about in his speech regarding “freedom” and which have
a strong relation to modern critical thought and the status
quo, especially when relates to the national issue for which
we work.
We start with His Beatitude’s following statement:
“The human being is free to believe what he wants or whom he
wants. However, he can’t oblige others to believe in what or
whom he believes in. Moreover, he can’t distribute decadent
principles that hurt others.”
We want to take the first part of the above quote that deals
with the right of belief and not obliging others to do the
same.
It is precisely with the intent of this declaration the His
Beatitude negates himself when he advocates a struggle
against the SSNP. This is so especially since the principles
and the ideology of the party were distributed through
acceptance and not through coercion. Coercion happens when
one fights those with other beliefs and obliges others to
assume his or others’ beliefs. This is what happened with
Galileo when he declared that he believed the Earth was a
round sphere that journeyed around the sun and not the
opposite as it was believed at the time. This belief, which
was later accepted as the truth was, at the time, contrary
to the belief that said that it was the Sun that rotated
around Earth. It also negated the biblical story of the
Jewish prophet Esau who stopped the sun from rotating around
Earth so that the Israelites could win a victory. It was
because of this biblical belief that everybody had to assume
that the Sun rotated around the Earth.
The issue is not as simple as it seems. In its current form
it relates to the political order in which we live.
Therefore, we have to take it out from its simplicity and
try to use it within the context of the society we are part
of. This would mean the civic rights of the individual in
the society. Since this individual is a working member of
the society he lives in. In a democratic system, such as the
one that we are told we live in in this part of the world,
there is this sacred rule that an individual can believe in
what he wants and he can tell and persuade his friends to
believe in the same. Moreover, he has the right to speak out
about his beliefs and to meet with others and discuss those
beliefs. He even has the right to think about what kind of
government suits him best and to dispense these ideas among
others. This will allow the people to be exposed to
different ideas regarding an issue. The people will then
choose which suits them best and bring those people to
government whom they think are the best to implement their
beliefs. If those who are elected try to change this
democratic process for their own ends then they will become
tyrants. Is this what His Beatitude wants us to advocate
when he says:
“But it (the
government) is free to struggle against political
ideologies…and anything else that it sees as endangering the
people.”
This is a very
dangerous statement. Because it advocates that the rulers
have a free hand to fight against those political systems
that it despises. Pay special attention to the segment:
“…and anything else that it sees as
endangering the people.”
From where would a normal government, which was elected just
to comply with the system and to deal with normal issues,
find the righteous wisdom through which it would know which
political ideologies to fight and which to struggle against?
From where does this higher authority come which would
supply a government with a vision to see what is good and
what is bad for the people? After all, this government was
not even elected by the people in order for it to muster
absolute power. If you ask the government what it does, will
it answer you with His Beatitude’s big words, such as “I saw
in this a danger to the people” and “I saw in that a benefit
for it“? After deciding on such a dangerous course and such
a dangerous role for the government how does His Beatitude
imagine that he would criticize the government for its
actions, since it acted as it saw fit?
It might be that a people would give such absolute power to
a government to do what it sees fit regarding problems.
However, such a government can act as such only if it has
the absolute confidence of the people that elected it in the
first place. Absolute power can only exist when there is
such absolute confidence. But to give absolute power to a
government that was elected with no popular confidence would
only take us back to slavery and the dark Ages.
Does His Beatitude want to punish SSNP members, who are
extremely confident that what they are doing is for the
betterment and advancement of all the Lebanese, for their
ideology and for their right to think the way they think?
Does His Beatitude want to give a government that was
elected for a definite term the right to monopolize thinking
and ideology in the state? Does he want to forbid members of
the state from generating wonderful and brilliant ideas that
such a government is not a match for in the first place?
Does His Beatitude want the government to be able to shut
down the creative thinking of the people? What would be the
destiny of such a state that forbids its citizens from
coming up with good ideas? Did His Beatitude think about
these questions when he declared what he declared in his
speech?
Regarding
his saying that “…a
human being can’t distribute decadent principles that hurt
others,”
it is something that takes us out of the realm of the
political system and into the open world. In a state there
are no “others” except by their rights and personal
conditions. As to what concerns civic and political rights
there is only the people, the totality of which constitutes
the nation, and a government’s task is to look after its
prosperity, security, and well being, before the security of
the “other” individuals.
We consider this discussion as enough regarding the subject.
We don’t need to delve into the philosophy of jurisprudence
and its historical development. I would dare say, however,
that we were considering addressing this issue because of
the irresponsible words of His Beatitude.
8-Sociology
By exiting from the portal of civic and political rights His
Beatitude leads us into the realm of society and marriage.
For this diatribe he chooses the title “harlotry.”
In his expose His Beatitude constructs the longing of the
society to religion when he says:
“Marriage
is a divine condition whose aim is to bring males and
females together to protect the continuity of the human
race.”
After this His Beatitude makes the following absolute
declaration:
“Census
data show us that there are almost equal percentages of
males and females, even though it is also accepted that
males outnumber females by about ten percent. This leads us
to the conclusion that each male can only have one female
companion and vice-versa.”
He says this by totally ignoring what he said about males
being ten percent more then their counterparts.
It becomes very easy to speak about issues if we start with
absolutes and generalities. Moreover, finding solutions—
i.e. superficial ones—become much easier. However, this
solution finding process turns upside down when we leave the
realm of generalities and step once again on the solid
ground of the status quo.
If we totally accept the census results His Beatitude
provides and we don’t take into consideration the
statistical differences between different countries and
states and take 110 men for 100 women and marry them we will
still end up with ten men who will not have a soul mate. How
can this simple arithmetical question be solved then?
Even though in our age and time the issue of marriage is not
regarded as an issue of males vs. females, but rather a more
complex problem that contains many psychological, economic,
and social issues, we still want to argue about numbers
only. Statistical surveys completed after the war show that
there is a big gap between male and female percentages. Thus
the simple mathematical theory that there is a man for each
woman and a woman for each man can’t be accepted as such.
This definitely leads to a disturbance within the divine
condition and divine intervention and thus creates fissures
within the normal state of human affairs.
It would have been wiser for His Beatitude to not enter the
realm of statistics and thus to encourage marriage over
whoredom.
If His Beatitude only spoke about the physical and material
damages that prostitution entails and he supplemented that
with the benefits that a married life and a family brings,
he would have said the best and the most logical in this
regard. He would not have opened the wormhole of personal
issues and the bigger and more complex issue of marriage
that we encounter in our country. We dare even say that we
are creating more problems because of our dogmatic social
traditions, frozen political activism, and desperate
economic condition which lead to secondary issues like
immigration, deprivation of social freedoms, as well as
archaic marriage rules like dowries.
We agree with His Beatitude that prostitution and any other
form of harlotry is bad and damaging for society. However,
we don’t agree with the cure that he is prescribing for
it... Doing away with and cleansing from sexual abuse can’t
be achieved by just forbidding it. It can happen if we take
a closer look at our social traditions and amend them and
our economic woes and by educating the people with the right
social and especially national education so that members of
society will work toward bettering and elevating their
social status and virtues. These are only some aspects of
personal education that enrich real national education and
which the SSNP did bring to the light through its ideology.
9-National Education
In the eighth part of his speech His Beatitude speaks about
giving special attention to education. He titles this
section “National Education.” Once again he starts with an
absolute basis when he says:
“A
child is born devoid of any knowledge about anything.”
He borrows from St. Erma the Syrian his thanks to God that
he was born a Christian in a Christian house and from
Christian parents. He uses this example to stress the
importance of education and its positive results. His
Beatitude’s saying that whoever was born and raised in a
Christian family remains a Christian and whoever was born
and raised in a Muslim family remains a Muslim remind us of
the words of the Syrian eternal poet
Al Maary:
Each of our children is raised with what his father teaches
him
Thus the son of Persian parents is raised on being a
charlatan
His Beatitude wants national education to be divided among
the different religions. He also says that the government
can’t open or encourage the opening of non-religious public
schools. This means that His Beatitude is against secular
schools and secular education. Thus, His Beatitude advocates
that the government must leave the issue of education to the
clergy and religious, sectarian institutions, rather than
the national ones that are built on the notions of
secularism. This is another way of making certain that we
will never become a one and united nation and our faith will
always be in the hands of the foreigner who knows well how
to play on our religious and other divisions.
His Beatitude then praises of religious education and
ridicules and pities those who speak against educational
scholarships. He then closes the issue of education by this
marvellous religious picture:
The Christians will accept a more fair distribution of
educational scholarships if they are treated justly in other
matters and are not thrown out when it comes to other
governmental jobs. If they remain silent while others make
commotion, it doesn’t mean that they are accepting the
situation. Moreover, the commotion that others make is not
the result of them being neglected, it rather shows their
greed and an appetite that knows no shame.”
10-Conclusion
Patriarch Arideh concludes his speech by summarizing the
demands he mentioned earlier, such as those duties of the
government that he aspires for but not “other duties.” He
does this not for an important reason but “only not to abuse
the patience of his listeners.” He also worries that his
advice will go unnoticed as before and asks those in the
government to heed to his words “if they want to succeed and
benefit the people.”
Dear Patriarch:
You see that by dissecting your speech we have demonstrated
how spiritual matters have registered an all time low
because of the audacity of the clergy. This happened because
the clergy are interfering in domains that are not of their
area of expertise while they are neglecting the real domain
of their specialty, which is the spirit.
We have
also made it clear, Your Eminence, that you prefer those
political parties that were born under your patronage and
are ready to accept religious authority in everything
concerning the domain of the state. Those parties miss no
opportunities to make it clear that they are under your
patronage. So it would be better for us to ask you to
establish the real value of such political organizations.
In your speech you attacked two political parties. One of
them, the SSNP, has been free since its inception and
doesn’t bow down to anybody or anything because its mission
is that of power and victory. This was not your first
“sacred” attempt or campaign against the SSNP, which under
your tutelage has seen all forms and colours of persecution
for its case toward a united people and state. The second
party you attack, the Communist Party, has been, since its
formation, a slave to foreigners, since its mission is one
of weakness and surrender.
It seems that after your speech this second, slave party
announced that it abides by your authority. This is so
because that party has no confidence in itself. If you want
to have poisonous snakes under your robe add the communists
to your side. But be aware that these snakes bite and poison
their masters suddenly and without advance notice.
However, the free party will keep on struggling to achieve
justice until it is victorious. When our free party wins
such a victory be assured that all those working for reform
will be in safe hands and they will have no reason to be sad
anymore.
|
