Latest initiative of Ayatollah Abdol-Hamid Masoumi-Tehrani for religious coexistence in Iran

 

http://www.amasumi.net/article164.html

https://www.facebook.com/AbdolhamidMasoumiTehrani/

In the name of the Lord of both life and mind

Now that the fourteenth century in the solar calendar is coming to an end, and we are entering a new century, the time has come for us to reflect upon ourselves and decide on how we want to be the future of Iran and Iranians.

More than a century has passed since the inauguration of social, religious, and cultural transformations of Iran. Amidst all these changes, religion has been one of the primary agents of change in our country. However, the general public, as well as politicians or even some Iranian intellectuals, view religion in the context of the majority and minority groupings and hold the belief that their religion is superior to other faiths. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention that historically the whole region we have called our homeland shares common cultural and religious roots. Also, the current changes happening in Iran’s political, social and religious system have affected all Iranians including the traditionalist and progressive Shia communities, Sunni Muslims, Zoroastrians, Baha’is, The Yarsan or Ahl-e Haqq, Mandaeans, the Jewish community, and Christians. This lowly one believes that the only way to overcome and put an end to the series of crisis that has been happening in Iran is to liberate our thoughts and minds from all types of racial and religious prejudices and egocentrism and to reflect upon and transform our religious stance, accordingly.

This symbolic piece of art is presented to all fellow Iranians who are the carriers of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Baha’i, Yarsan, Mandaean, Shia and Sunni cultural and religious heritage. The message presented by this piece of art is not merely a simple invitation to cooperation, but rather to emphasize that the only way to have and maintain a united Iran is to acknowledge our religious differences and abolish any sense of religious superiority. We have to stress our fundamental similarities, innate sense of human dignity, equal human and citizenship rights, and, in particular, the freedom to choose one’s way of living. The outcome of these ideas and beliefs contributes to strengthening our national culture while consolidating the foundation of a multi-faith identity in Iran. It also prevents the spread of dishonesty, hypocrisy, corruption, religious and ethnic monopoly and creates the grounds for peace and reconciliation in the entire Middle East.

 

The eight religions that are presented in this piece are parts of a circle of unity that have historically considered as essential aspects of Iran’s national culture as well as the entire region’s spiritual and religious reservoir. Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians, Mandaeans, Yarsanian, Baha’is, and Sunni and Shia Muslims, all carry an essential part of Iran’s ancient culture and heritage. In fact, the national system of this country is composed of all religions of Iran, each bearing a unique heritage of its history, culture, and religion. Our national identity would be incomplete without each one of them. Furthermore, it would be impossible to implement security and progress in the nation and the whole region without appreciating each and every one of these religions.

Even though artists are unlikely to cut their own work into pieces intentionally, I have acquiesced to split this work of mine into distinctive fragments to symbolically express the importance of one sensible and crucial matter to my fellow compatriots. The issue at hand is that dogmatic insistence on one’s own religious beliefs and carelessness towards universal human characteristics that are shared by the followers of all religious beliefs would result in emotional, spiritual, and mental separation and lead to the breakdown of the Iranian spirit, similar to this fragmented artwork. Iran once had a reputation for uniting diverse religions or ethnicities. Today, however, we are suffering from agonizing experiences of isolation, separation, displacement and exile, conflict, hostility, and distrust within the nation. These complications did not arise as a result of the armed intrusion but rather resulted from our own negligence towards each other’s   fundamental human rights. Our intellectuals and thinkers should also be aware that if their discourse is bereft of basic human rights and focused on particular Shia narratives that ignore other religions’ rights, they too will be an accomplice in arising afflictions. Their intellectual framework should shed light on lives of various religious minorities and portray a unified vision of a multi-faith Iran. If those who aspire to be thought leaders are not capable of illuminating the life of diverse minorities, they would ultimately contribute to the cultivation of discrimination and religious apartheid. This matter also holds true in the area of national affairs. Our national culture only has the power to support national sovereignty if each and every time the words Iran and Iranian are uttered, the real meaning and implications of those words would illuminate the hearts and minds of everyone including minority groups.

Eighty pieces of diamonds are used in this work symbolizing Iran’s current population of eighty million individuals. Each piece is set with ten diamonds to demonstrate that being part of the majority or minority religion does not imply superiority towards others; it rather indicates that preserving the rights of minority groups and exclusively attending to their matters is the human and patriotic duty of all Iranians. It is the responsibility that is laid upon the shoulders of Shias, Sunnis, Mandaeans, Baha’is, Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians, and Yarsanians.  We also have to be mindful that our entire national heritage, many of them illustrated in this work, are actively connected to an integrated national culture that all religious groups in Iran are part of it. Today, the entirety of this heritage is not defined by the political boundaries of Iran. However, the human side of our heritage is not bound to our familial beliefs; it is universally shared by the belief systems of all religious traditions. Therefore, it is essential to highlight the humanitarian aspects of our national culture. Instead of poisoning our social life with lengthy disputes intended to destroy others and justify ourselves, we need to promote a sense of mutual trust and sympathetic understanding towards each other. For the same reason that environmental issues and natural disasters are not limited to political and religious boundaries and affect everyone regardless of ethnicity and faith, in today’s interconnected world, we need to act and rely on universal human rights to resolve our social, political and environmental issues. If we belong to the majority group, we must let go of any trace of superiority, and, if we are a minority, instead of choosing isolationism, we have to actively participate in public affairs because this country belongs to us all. 

We must understand that government-sanctioned endorsement or censure of religion does not constitute a basis for discrimination or denial of fundamental human rights; the right to have freedom of religion is universal and should be respected around the world. If any belief system - religious or secular - disregards the human rights of other people, everyone is accountable and duty bound to confront that belief. Any demarcation between human beings based on religion or belief system results in social alienation; the society becomes so bereft of compassion, and the body politic of the nation is impelled toward isolationism, opportunism, and corruption.  More importantly, national borders among the countries of the region should not be used to legitimize nationalistic tendencies and discriminatory behaviors in our relations with the citizens of other nations. These political demarcations must never restrain us from basing our thoughts and actions on the essential oneness of all human beings.  The emphasis on patriotism and national integration is certainly acceptable when it is based on reason and the preservation of human dignity. Our national honor would make meaningful sense only if we are mindful of the nation’s diverse structure, internally, and the need collaboration and goodwill with our neighboring countries and the world as a whole, externally. 

This artwork consists of eight pieces, symbolically representing eight historical religions of Iran. Each piece has been delivered to the followers of the religion represented by the symbol.

·        The Chief Rabbi of Iranian Jewry along with a Jewish worship group, representing our Jewish fellow countrymen

·        A group of Sunni scholars from Kurdistan, Iran; representing our Sunni fellow countrymen

·        The Association of Sabean-Mandaean religious community, representing our Mandaeans fellow countrymen

·        The Mobedan-e-Mobed and a Zoroastrian Mobed, representing our Zoroastrian countrymen

·        A group of Baha’is, representing the Baha’i community of Iran

·        The Representative of Yarsanis from the Sadaat of the Heidari Dynasty, representing our Yarsanis fellow countrymen

The section belonging to the Baha’is has been presented to the Baha’i World Center since there is no Baha’i Center in the country. The section pertaining to Shia Muslims is temporarily kept in possession of this lowly one since there is neither sole authority nor institutions independent from the government. Unfortunately, the Armenian Caliphate Council (the Armenian Khalifa- Gari) for some considerations refused to accept the section representing Christians in Iran. This section will remain in my trust until the time that the autonomy of religious institution is firmly established. Meanwhile, our Yarsani compatriots abstained from taking pictures because they were not sure of any security and support for themselves.

As the body politic of human society would suffer because of estrangements and separations, likewise each section of this piece would be incomplete if it remains unaccompanied by the other sections. This piece is only complete when all the parts are put together. I anticipate a day in the near future, an environment where the motivation to respect fellow humans would be not the religion they believe but rather their altruistic attitudes; a future where this land does not only belong to certain religion, class, ethnicity, and mindset but belongs to all Iranians with any religion, attitude, or gender without discrimination. I hope that different segments of this piece, as symbols of national union, equal citizenship rights, respect for human life, and coexistence of all classes and opinions, be placed aside each other and become unified again, to display the splendid history of this nation once more proudly.

My hope and desire are to contribute as much as possible to intellectual and practical grounds conducive to bringing people’s hearts together regardless of religions and beliefs, even if I do not live to witness the time when the inherent dignity of all Iranians is proclaimed, and their universal human rights are materialized. This lowly one believes that today’s movements both in Iran and all over the world concerning attention to humanitarian principles and global reciprocity, especially the matter of religious minorities in Iran, will provide the means to revive our national culture, and in a very near future to provide future generations all over the region with these lasting experiences and valuable results.

Iran - Tehran

The imploring one, Abdol-Hamid Masoumi-Tehrani

برابری دینی پیش‌شرط تحقق امر کرامت انسانی

به نام خداوند جان و خرد

اینک که چندسالی تا پایان قرن چهاردهم خورشيدی باقی مانده است و در آستانهء ورود به قرنی جدید قرار داریم، وقت آن رسیده تا به خود بنگریم و تصمیم بگیریم که آیندهء ایران و ایرانی را چگونه می‌خواهیم.

بیش از یکصد سال از تحولات اجتماعی، دینی و فرهنگی در ایران می‌گذرد. در این میان دین و مذهب رکنی از ارکان تغییر در اوضاع کشور ما بوده است. اما، نگاه عموم مردم و نیز سیاست‌پیشگان یا عمدهء متفکرین ایرانی بیش از همه به دسته‌بندی‌های غالب و مغلوب بین آحاد شهروندان ایرانی نظر داشته‌ و در رأس نگاه خويش، مذهب و دین متعلق به خود را جای داده‌اند. این در حالی است که سرزمینی که به ما به میراث رسیده در مرزهای ایران امروز خلاصه نمی‌شود و تمامی منطقهء ما از ریشه‌های مشترک فرهنگی و دینی متفاوتی برخوردار است؛ همچنین تحولات جاری در نظام سیاسی، اجتماعی و دینی ایران بر تمامی ایرانیان اعم از مسلمانان شیعهء سنت‌گرا، شیعیان دگراندیش، اهل تسنن و فرق تابعه، زرتشتیان، بهاییان، یارسانان، مندائیان، کلیمیان و مسیحیان تاثیر گذاشته است. این کمترین بر این باور هستم که هرگز نمی‌توان از  بحران‌های پشت‌درپشت ایران عبور کرد، مگر آنکه بنیاد نگاه و تفکر خود را از تعصبات و خویشتن‌پرستی‌های قومی و عقیدتی رها کنیم و در موضع دینی خود دست به بازنگری و دگرگونی بزنیم.

این اثر هنری نمادين كه به تمامی هموطنان ایرانی تقدیم شده، حامل میراثی از فرهنگ ادیان و مذاهب مندایی، مسیحی، کلیمی، زرتشتی، بهایی، یارسانی، شیعه و تسنن است. پیام این اثر فقط اشاره بر یک دعوت ساده برای همگرایی ادیان و مذاهب ایرانی ندارد، بلکه مدعی است که تنها زمانی می‌توانیم ایرانی یکپارچه و همبسته داشته باشیم که تفاوت‌های دینی و مذهبی خود را به‌رسمیت شناخته و هیچ‌ دین و مذهبی را با هیچ بهانه‌ای برتر از دیگران ندانیم؛ و در کنار آن بر شباهت بنیادین خود به‌عنوان انسان‌هایی تاکید کنیم که از کرامت و منزلت ذاتی برخوردار است و حقوق اساسی و شهروندی ما به‌خصوص در آزادی انتخاب سبک زندگی‌مان با هم برابر و یکسان می‌باشد. ثمرات تأکید همهء ما بر چنین باوری نه‌تنها به انسجام یک فرهنگ واحد ملی، اما برخوردار از ماهیتی چنددینی و چندمذهبی در ایران کمک می‌کند؛ بلکه از گسترش و ترويج دروغ و رياكاری و فساد و انحصارطلبی دينی و قومی جلوگيری كرده، زمینهء برقراری صلح و مودت را در مناسبات انسانی در تمامی منطقهء خاورمیانه ایجاد خواهد کرد.

هشت دین و مذهبی که در این اثر بر گرد دایرهء وجود یکپارچهء تاريخ انسانی اين كشور در کنار یکدیگر قرار گرفته‌‌اند، هر یک پشتیبان ذخایر معنوی-دینی فرهنگ ملی ایران و سراسر منطقهء ما هستند. زرتشتیان؛ کلیمیان؛ مسیحیان؛ مندائیان؛ یارسانیان؛ بهاییان؛ مسلمانان اهل تسنن و تشيع؛ هر كدام بخشی از فرهنگ و ميراث كهن ایران را تشكيل داده و به‌همراه دارند. در حقیقت تمامی ما ایرانیان حامل میراثی بی‌نظیر از تاريخ و فرهنگ و دين هستیم که نظام ملی این سرزمین بدون یکی از آنها نمی‌تواند کامل باشد، و بدون پاس‌داشت همهء آنها نمی‌توانیم در كشور و کل منطقه امنیت و شکوفایی را به ارمغان آوریم.

با وجود آنکه هیچ هنرمندی حاضر نیست تا اثر هنری خود را قطعه‌قطعه و ناقص کند، اما با قطعه‌قطعه شدن این اثر مایل هستم همهء هموطنان گران‌قدر خود را متوجه این مهم کرده باشم که پافشاری متعصبانه بر عقاید دینی خود و غفلت از اشتراکات انسانی ما با دیگر ادیان و مذاهب، نتیجه‌ای جز جدایی‌ روحی، عاطفی، فکری و انسانی ما نخواهد داشت؛ و چنین رویه‌ای به پاره‌پاره شدن روح ایرانی خواهد انجامید. این در صورتی است که آن ایرانی که هرگز نیاز به اتحاد اقوام و ادیان نداشت و همگی ذیل فرهنگ ایرانشهری یکپارچگی و یگانگی را باور داشتند؛ امروز تجربهء دردناکی از جدایی‌ها، دوری‌گزینی‌ها، مهاجرت‌ها، خصومت‌ها، خشونت‌ها و بی‌اعتمادی‌ها را به خود می‌بیند، که این‌بار نه به دلیل لشکرکشی‌ها، بلکه به علت غفلت‌های ما از حقوق اساسی یکدیگر بروز یافته است. همچنین متفکران ما باید آگاه باشند که اگر مبانی اندیشهء آنان خالی از اصول بنیادین انسانی باشد و به‌صرف گرم بودن تنور بحث‌های عقیدتی در يك قرائت از مذهب شیعه به غفلت از حقوق ادیان و مذاهب دیگر ادامه دهند، ایشان نیز در این ابتلائات سهیم خواهند بود. این سهم تا آنجا ادامه می‌یابد که هرگونه نظام فکری ایشان که نتواند ماهیت چنددینی ایران را به‌شکلی یکپارچه به تصویر بکشد و روشنفکری‌های ایشان نتواند نور و روشنایی بر زندگی اقلیت‌های مختلف بتاباند، چنین محصولی خود زمینهء تبعیض و آپارتاید دینی و عقیدتی را پرورش خواهد داد؛ به‌خصوص اگر در چهارچوب داوری‌های اکثریت و اقلیت فروغلتند و نتوانند از تفاوت‌های ظاهری بگذرند و شباهت‌های اصیل انسانی را در بطن آراء فکری خود پرورش دهند. همین امر در حوزهء امور ملی نیز صدق می‌کند، چراکه فرهنگ ملی ما زمانی می‌تواند قدرت آن را داشته باشد که از همبستگی ملی حمایت کند، که هرگاه سخن از ایران و ایرانی می‌آید و نامی از مردم برده می‌شود، فحوای آن بر دل و جان همه از جمله اقلیت‌ها نیز بنشیند.

 در این اثر هشتاد قطعه الماس به‌کار رفته که نشانی از هشتاد میلیون نفوس ایرانی کنونی است، و سهم هر بخش آن 10 عدد الماس شده است که نشان می‌دهد اکثریت یا اقلیت بودن در تعداد پیروان یک دین و مذهب نه‌تنها نمی‌تواند دلیلی بر برتری یکی بر دیگری باشد، بلکه حراست از حقوق اساسی و رسیدگی به نیازهای اختصاصی گروه‌های اقلیت وظیفهء خطیر انسانی و ملی همهء ما ایرانیان است. در این امر همهء ما شیعیان، سنیان، منداییان، بهاییان، زرتشتیان، کلیمیان، مسیحیان و یارسانیان باید مسئولیت انسانی خود را برعهده بگیریم. همچنین باید توجه داشته باشیم که تمامی میراث‌های ملی ما، که چندی از آنها در این اثر به تصویر کشیده شده است، همگی به یک فرهنگ یکپارچهء ملی وابسته هستند که هریک از ادیان و مذاهب ایرانی سهمی در آنها دارند. اگرچه بخشی از این میراث امروز در درون مرزهای سیاسی ایران نیستند، اما همین نشان می‌دهد که میراث متعلق به انسانیت ما الزاماً قرار نیست در مرزهای عقیدتی-خانوادگی ما باشند، بلکه می‌توانیم آن را در عقاید دیگر ادیان و مذاهب نیز بیابیم. بدین‌منظور لازم است مبانی انسانی را در بطن فرهنگ ملی خود برجسته‌تر سازیم و به‌جای آنکه حیات اجتماعی خود را آلوده به بحث‌های پرمناقشه و كش‌دار به قصد تخریب دیگری و اثبات حقانیت خود کنیم؛ با ترويج و گسترش حس اعتماد و جلب اطمینان یکدیگر بتوانیم به شناختی همدلانه از یکدیگر دست ‌یابیم؛ كما اينکه مسائل زیست‌محیطی و احیانا بلایای طبیعی به مرزبندی‌های سیاسی و عقیدتی اهمیتی نمی‌دهند و همهء ما را در معرض زیان خود قرار خواهند داد. در جهان امروز نیاز داریم برای حل کلیهء مسائل و مشكلات اجتماعی، سياسی یا زیست‌محیطی، بنابر اصل یکپارچگی حقوق انسانی عمل کنیم و اگر در اکثریت هستیم، از خودبرتر‌بینی‌ دست برداریم، و اگر در اقلیت هستیم، انزواطلبی نکرده و خواهان مشارکت در امور عامه باشیم؛ چرا كه اين كشور متعلق به همه‌ء ماست.

ما می بايست به اين باور برسيم كه به رسمیت شناختن یا نشناختن یک دین یا مذهب هرگز نمی‌تواند دلیلی بر مشروع بودن مرزبندی‌ها میان حقوق بنيادين شهروندان یک کشور باشد؛ و حق دینداری یک فرد حقی جهانی و برابر برای همگان است. تنها درصورتی که عقیدهء فرد -خواه ناشی از دین و مذهب او باشد یا غیر از آن- موجب تضییع حقوق انسانی فردی دیگر بشود، همگان وظیفه دارند در برابر آن عقیده بایستند. هرگونه مرزبندی میان انسان‌ها می‌بایست در جهت احقاق حقوق ناشی از تفاوت‌های مشروع انسانی باشد، و الا مرزبندی‌های غالب و مغلوب دینی یا غیردینی تنها به انسانیت‌زدایی اجتماعی می‌انجامد و موجب می‌شود همدردی، همدلی و همبستگی انسانی جامعه با ابتلائات و دردهای ديگر همنوعان ناممکن شود، و بدنهء جامعه را بیش‌ از پیش به انزواطلبی، عافیت‌جویی، ظاهرفريبی و فساد سوق دهد. از این بالاتر آنکه: به رسمیت شناختن مرزهای ملی میان کشورهای منطقهء ما هرگز توجیهی بر این نیست که مراتب احترام به کرامت ذاتی نوع بشر را در مناسبات و ارتباطات خود با اتباع کشورهای دیگر زیر پا بگذاریم؛ و چنین مرزبندی‌های سیاسی هرگز نباید مانع از آن  بشود که در تفکر و عمل خویش بر جهانی‌ کردن ایدهء نیک همبستگی انسانی پای بفشاریم. اصرار بر میهن‌پرستی و انسجام ملی اگر مبتنی بر عقلانیت و حفظ شئونات انسانی باشد قطعا پذیرفته است؛ اما عزت نفس ملی ما زمانی معنا پیدا می‌کند که اول: بر گوناگونی‌های پیکرهء انسانی کشورمان آگاه باشیم و آن را بپذيريم؛ و دوم، آن را به بستری برای ستیز با این قوم و آن کشور تبدیل نکنیم. به دیگر سخن؛ حفظ حرمت ملی ما، هم به احترام به تفاوت‌های درون کشور وابسته است و هم مستلزم تلاش برای حسن همجواری و نیک‌خواهی در برابر ملت‌های همسایه و منطقه خواهد بود.

هر بخش از اين اثر به نمایندگان دیانتی كه نمادش در آن نقش شده تحويل گرديده است:

·        حاخام اعظم  کلیمیان ایران به‌همراه جمعی از نمازگزاران کلیمی، به نمایندگی از هموطنان یهودی

·        جمعی از علماء اهل تسنن کردستان ایران، به نمایندگی از هموطنان سنی

·        انجمن صابئین مندائی، به نمایندگی از هموطنان مندائی

·        موبد موبدان و موبد زرتشتیان، به نمایندگی از هموطنان زرتشتی

·        جمعی از بهائیان، به نمایندگی از هموطنان بهایی

·        نمایندهء یارسانیان از سادات دودمان حیدری، به نمایندگی از هموطنان یارسانی

 بخش متعلق به بهائيان به دليل نداشتن مركزی در كشور به مركز جهانی بهائيان امانت داده شده و بخشی كه متعلق به مذهب شيعه می‌باشد، به دليل عدم‌ وجود تمركز نهاد و يا استقلال از حكومت، در نزد اين كمترين موقتاً باقی مانده است. در کمال تاسف، خلیفه‌گری ارامنه بنابر ملاحظاتی از دریافت بخش متعلق به دیانت مسیحیت امتناع کرد و این بخش از اثر تا زمان استقلال نهادهای دینی مسیحیت در ایران در نزد اینجانب به امانت باقی خواهد ماند. همچنین، با وجود آنکه بخش دیانت یارسان به نمایندهء ایشان تحویل داده شد، اما هموطنان یارسانی ما به دلیل آنکه اعتماد و اطمینانی به هیچ‌گونه «پشتیبانی و امنیت» برای خود احساس نمی‌کردند، از ارائهء هرگونه تصویری از جمع خود خودداری نمودند.

همان‌طور که پیکرهء انسانی جامعه با گسستگی‌ها و جدایی‌ها دچار نقصان و خسران خواهد شد، آن قطعات نیز هر كدام به تنهایی ناقص خواهد بود و زمانی اين اثر كامل می‌شود كه تمامی این قطعات در كنار يكديگر قرار بگيرند. اميد دارم که به‌زودی و در فضا و نظامی كه حرمت انسان به انسان بودنش ارج گذاشته شود، نه به دين و مذهبش؛ و اين آب و خاك بدون هيچ تبعيضی به همه‌ء ايرانيان با هر دين و مذهب و گرايش و جنسيتی متعلق باشد، نه فقط متعلق به يك قشر، طبقه، مذهب و انديشهء دينی؛ اين قطعات به عنوان نمادی از همبستگی ملی، تساوی حقوق شهروندی، احترام به حيات انسان و همزيستی همه‌ء اقشار و افكار؛ در محلی در كنار يكديگر قرار گيرند و دوباره یکپارچه شوند تا تاريخ باشكوه اين سرزمين را بار ديگر به نمايش بگذارند.

امید و آروزی این کمترین آن است که حتی اگر عمری برای بنده باقی نمانده باشد تا سروسامان گرفتن امر کرامت انسانی و احقاق حقوق اساسی تمامی ایرانیان را شاهد باشم، اما سعی و تلاش خود را در حد وسع و توانم به خرج داده و زمینه‌ای فکری و عملی را برای نزدیک شدن قلب‌های ایرانیان با هر عقیده، دین، مذهب و باوری که دارند ایجاد کرده باشم. این کمترین باور دارم، تحرکات امروزی در ایران و جهان در جهت توجه و تعمق در موضوعات انسانی، به‌خصوص در مورد اقلیت‌های دینی و مذهبی سرزمین ایران، موجب خواهد شد تا فرهنگ ملی ما با همبستگی انسانی‌مان جانی تازه بگیرد، و در آینده‌ای نه‌چندان دور، ثمرات ارزشمند و پایدار خود را در اختیار نسل‌های آتی در تمامی منطقه بگذارد.

تهران - ايران

الراجی؛ عبدالحمید معصومی تهرانی

Address by President Obama to the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly

The United Nations
New York, New York 

10:29 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Mr. President; Mr. Secretary General; fellow delegates; ladies and gentlemen:  As I address this hall as President for the final time, let me recount the progress that we’ve made these last eight years.
From the depths of the greatest financial crisis of our time, we coordinated our response to avoid further catastrophe and return the global economy to growth.  We’ve taken away terrorist safe havens, strengthened the nonproliferation regime, resolved the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy.  We opened relations with Cuba, helped Colombia end Latin America’s longest war, and we welcome a democratically elected leader of Myanmar to this Assembly.  Our assistance is helping people feed themselves, care for the sick, power communities across Africa, and promote models of development rather than dependence.  And we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative, while establishing a framework to protect our planet from the ravages of climate change.
This is important work.  It has made a real difference in the lives of our people.  And it could not have happened had we not worked together.  And yet, around the globe we are seeing the same forces of global integration that have made us interdependent also expose deep fault lines in the existing international order.
We see it in the headlines every day.  Around the world, refugees flow across borders in flight from brutal conflict.  Financial disruptions continue to weigh upon our workers and entire communities.  Across vast swaths of the Middle East, basic security, basic order has broken down.  We see too many governments muzzling journalists, and quashing dissent, and censoring the flow of information.  Terrorist networks use social media to prey upon the minds of our youth, endangering open societies and spurring anger against innocent immigrants and Muslims.  Powerful nations contest the constraints placed on them by international law.
This is the paradox that defines our world today.  A quarter century after the end of the Cold War, the world is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before, and yet our societies are filled with uncertainty, and unease, and strife.  Despite enormous progress, as people lose trust in institutions, governing becomes more difficult and tensions between nations become more quick to surface.
And so I believe that at this moment we all face a choice. We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration.  Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion.
I want to suggest to you today that we must go forward, and not backward.  I believe that as imperfect as they are, the principles of open markets and accountable governance, of democracy and human rights and international law that we have forged remain the firmest foundation for human progress in this century.  I make this argument not based on theory or ideology, but on facts -- facts that all too often, we forget in the immediacy of current events.
Here’s the most important fact:  The integration of our global economy has made life better for billions of men, women and children.  Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent.  That's unprecedented.  And it's not an abstraction.  It means children have enough to eat; mothers don’t die in childbirth.
Meanwhile, cracking the genetic code promises to cure diseases that have plagued us for centuries.  The Internet can deliver the entirety of human knowledge to a young girl in a remote village on a single hand-held device.  In medicine and in manufacturing, in education and communications, we’re experiencing a transformation of how human beings live on a scale that recalls the revolutions in agriculture and industry.  And as a result, a person born today is more likely to be healthy, to live longer, and to have access to opportunity than at any time in human history.
Moreover, the collapse of colonialism and communism has allowed more people than ever before to live with the freedom to choose their leaders.  Despite the real and troubling areas where freedom appears in retreat, the fact remains that the number of democracies around the world has nearly doubled in the last 25 years.
In remote corners of the world, citizens are demanding respect for the dignity of all people no matter their gender, or race, or religion, or disability, or sexual orientation, and those who deny others dignity are subject to public reproach.  An explosion of social media has given ordinary people more ways to express themselves, and has raised people’s expectations for those of us in power.  Indeed, our international order has been so successful that we take it as a given that great powers no longer fight world wars; that the end of the Cold War lifted the shadow of nuclear Armageddon; that the battlefields of Europe have been replaced by peaceful union; that China and India remain on a path of remarkable growth.
I say all this not to whitewash the challenges we face, or to suggest complacency.  Rather, I believe that we need to acknowledge these achievements in order to summon the confidence to carry this progress forward and to make sure that we do not abandon those very things that have delivered this progress.
In order to move forward, though, we do have to acknowledge that the existing path to global integration requires a course correction.  As too often, those trumpeting the benefits of globalization have ignored inequality within and among nations; have ignored the enduring appeal of ethnic and sectarian identities; have left international institutions ill-equipped, underfunded, under-resourced, in order to handle transnational challenges.
And as these real problems have been neglected, alternative visions of the world have pressed forward both in the wealthiest countries and in the poorest:  Religious fundamentalism; the politics of ethnicity, or tribe, or sect; aggressive nationalism; a crude populism -- sometimes from the far left, but more often from the far right -- which seeks to restore what they believe was a better, simpler age free of outside contamination.
We cannot dismiss these visions.  They are powerful.  They reflect dissatisfaction among too many of our citizens.  I do not believe those visions can deliver security or prosperity over the long term, but I do believe that these visions fail to recognize, at a very basic level, our common humanity.  Moreover, I believe that the acceleration of travel and technology and telecommunications -- together with a global economy that depends on a global supply chain -- makes it self-defeating ultimately for those who seek to reverse this progress.  Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself.
So the answer cannot be a simple rejection of global integration.  Instead, we must work together to make sure the benefits of such integration are broadly shared, and that the disruptions -- economic, political, and cultural -- that are caused by integration are squarely addressed.  This is not the place for a detailed policy blueprint, but let me offer in broad strokes those areas where I believe we must do better together.
It starts with making the global economy work better for all people and not just for those at the top.  While open markets, capitalism have raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress and technology has also weakened the position of workers and their ability to secure a decent wage.  In advanced economies like my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared.  Often, those who benefit most from globalization have used their political power to further undermine the position of workers.
In developing countries, labor organizations have often been suppressed, and the growth of the middle class has been held back by corruption and underinvestment.  Mercantilist policies pursued by governments with export-driven models threaten to undermine the consensus that underpins global trade.  And meanwhile, global capital is too often unaccountable -- nearly $8 trillion stashed away in tax havens, a shadow banking system that grows beyond the reach of effective oversight.
A world in which one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99 percent will never be stable.  I understand that the gaps between rich and poor are not new, but just as the child in a slum today can see the skyscraper nearby, technology now allows any person with a smartphone to see how the most privileged among us live and the contrast between their own lives and others.  Expectations rise, then, faster than governments can deliver, and a pervasive sense of injustice undermine people’s faith in the system.
So how do we fix this imbalance?  We cannot unwind integration any more than we can stuff technology back into a box.  Nor can we look to failed models of the past.  If we start resorting to trade wars, market distorting subsidies, beggar thy neighbor policies, an overreliance on natural resources instead of innovation -- these approaches will make us poorer, collectively, and they are more like to lead to conflict.  And the stark contrast between, say, the success of the Republic of Korea and the wasteland of North Korea shows that central, planned control of the economy is a dead end.
But I do believe there’s another path -- one that fuels growth and innovation, and offers the clearest route to individual opportunity and national success.  It does not require succumbing to a soulless capitalism that benefits only the few, but rather recognizes that economies are more successful when we close the gap between rich and poor, and growth is broadly based. And that means respecting the rights of workers so they can organize into independent unions and earn a living wage.  It means investing in our people -- their skills, their education, their capacity to take an idea and turn it into a business.  It means strengthening the safety net that protects our people from hardship and allows them to take more risks -- to look for a new job, or start a new venture.
These are the policies that I’ve pursued here in the United States, and with clear results.  American businesses have created now 15 million new jobs.  After the recession, the top one percent of Americans were capturing more than 90 percent of income growth.  But today, that's down to about half.  Last year, poverty in this country fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years.  And with further investment in infrastructure and early childhood education and basic research, I’m confident that such progress will continue.
So just as I’ve pursued these measures here at home, so has the United States worked with many nations to curb the excesses of capitalism -- not to punish wealth, but to prevent repeated crises that can destroy it.  That’s why we’ve worked with other nations to create higher and clearer standards for banking and taxation -- because a society that asks less of oligarchs than ordinary citizens will rot from within.  That’s why we’ve pushed for transparency and cooperation in rooting out corruption, and tracking illicit dollars, because markets create more jobs when they're fueled by hard work, and not the capacity to extort a bribe.  That’s why we’ve worked to reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so that the benefits are more broadly shared.
And just as we benefit by combatting inequality within our countries, I believe advanced economies still need to do more to close the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe.  This is difficult politically.  It's difficult to spend on foreign assistance.  But I do not believe this is charity.  For the small fraction of what we spent at war in Iraq we could support institutions so that fragile states don’t collapse in the first place, and invest in emerging economies that become markets for our goods.  It's not just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do.
And that’s why we need to follow through on our efforts to combat climate change.  If we don't act boldly, the bill that could come due will be mass migrations, and cities submerged and nations displaced, and food supplies decimated, and conflicts born of despair.  The Paris Agreement gives us a framework to act, but only if we scale up our ambition.  And there must be a sense of urgency about bringing the agreement into force, and helping poorer countries leapfrog destructive forms of energy.
So, for the wealthiest countries, a Green Climate Fund should only be the beginning.  We need to invest in research and provide market incentives to develop new technologies, and then make these technologies accessible and affordable for poorer countries.  And only then can we continue lifting all people up from poverty without condemning our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair.
So we need new models for the global marketplace, models that are inclusive and sustainable.  And in the same way, we need models of governance that are inclusive and accountable to ordinary people.
I recognize not every country in this hall is going to follow the same model of governance.  I do not think that America can -- or should -- impose our system of government on other countries.  But there appears to be growing contest between authoritarianism and liberalism right now.  And I want everybody to understand, I am not neutral in that contest.  I believe in a liberal political order -- an order built not just through elections and representative government, but also through respect for human rights and civil society, and independent judiciaries and the rule of law.
I know that some countries, which now recognize the power of free markets, still reject the model of free societies.  And perhaps those of us who have been promoting democracy feel somewhat discouraged since the end of the Cold War, because we've learned that liberal democracy will not just wash across the globe in a single wave.  It turns out building accountable institutions is hard work -- the work of generations.  The gains are often fragile.  Sometimes we take one step forward and then two steps back.  In countries held together by borders drawn by colonial powers, with ethnic enclaves and tribal divisions, politics and elections can sometimes appear to be a zero-sum game.  And so, given the difficulty in forging true democracy in the face of these pressures, it’s no surprise that some argue the future favors the strongman, a top-down model, rather than strong, democratic institutions.
But I believe this thinking is wrong.  I believe the road of true democracy remains the better path.  I believe that in the 21st century, economies can only grow to a certain point until they need to open up -- because entrepreneurs need to access information in order to invent; young people need a global education in order to thrive; independent media needs to check the abuses of power.  Without this evolution, ultimately expectations of people will not be met; suppression and stagnation will set in.  And history shows that strongmen are then left with two paths -- permanent crackdown, which sparks strife at home, or scapegoating enemies abroad, which can lead to war.
Now, I will admit, my belief that governments serve the individual, and not the other way around, is shaped by America’s story.  Our nation began with a promise of freedom that applied only to the few.  But because of our democratic Constitution, because of our Bill of Rights, because of our ideals, ordinary people were able to organize, and march, and protest, and ultimately, those ideals won out -- opened doors for women and minorities and workers in ways that made our economy more productive and turned our diversity into a strength; that gave innovators the chance to transform every area of human endeavor; that made it possible for someone like me to be elected President of the United States.
So, yes, my views are shaped by the specific experiences of America, but I do not think this story is unique to America.  Look at the transformation that's taken place in countries as different as Japan and Chile, Indonesia, Botswana.  The countries that have succeeded are ones in which people feel they have a stake.
In Europe, the progress of those countries in the former Soviet bloc that embraced democracy stand in clear contrast to those that did not.  After all, the people of Ukraine did not take to the streets because of some plot imposed from abroad.  They took to the streets because their leadership was for sale and they had no recourse.  They demanded change because they saw life get better for people in the Baltics and in Poland, societies that were more liberal, and democratic, and open than their own.
So those of us who believe in democracy, we need to speak out forcefully, because both the facts and history, I believe, are on our side.  That doesn’t mean democracies are without flaws.  It does mean that the cure for what ails our democracies is greater engagement by our citizens -- not less.
Yes, in America, there is too much money in politics; too much entrenched partisanship; too little participation by citizens, in part because of a patchwork of laws that makes it harder to vote.  In Europe, a well-intentioned Brussels often became too isolated from the normal push and pull of national politics.  Too often, in capitals, decision-makers have forgotten that democracy needs to be driven by civic engagement from the bottom up, not governance by experts from the top down.  And so these are real problems, and as leaders of democratic governments make the case for democracy abroad, we better strive harder to set a better example at home.
Moreover, every country will organize its government informed by centuries of history, and the circumstances of geography, and the deeply held beliefs of its people.  So I recognize a traditional society may value unity and cohesion more than a diverse country like my own, which was founded upon what, at the time, was a radical idea -- the idea of the liberty of individual human beings endowed with certain God-given rights.  But that does not mean that ordinary people in Asia, or Africa, or the Middle East somehow prefer arbitrary rule that denies them a voice in the decisions that can shape their lives.  I believe that spirit is universal.  And if any of you doubt the universality of that desire, listen to the voices of young people everywhere who call out for freedom, and dignity, and the opportunity to control their own lives. 
This leads me to the third thing we need to do:  We must reject any forms of fundamentalism, or racism, or a belief in ethnic superiority that makes our traditional identities irreconcilable with modernity.  Instead we need to embrace the tolerance that results from respect of all human beings.
It’s a truism that global integration has led to a collision of cultures; trade, migration, the Internet, all these things can challenge and unsettle our most cherished identities.  We see liberal societies express opposition when women choose to cover themselves.  We see protests responding to Western newspaper cartoons that caricature the Prophet Muhammad.  In a world that left the age of empire behind, we see Russia attempting to recover lost glory through force.  Asian powers debate competing claims of history.  And in Europe and the United States, you see people wrestle with concerns about immigration and changing demographics, and suggesting that somehow people who look different are corrupting the character of our countries.
Now, there’s no easy answer for resolving all these social forces, and we must respect the meaning that people draw from their own traditions -- from their religion, from their ethnicity, from their sense of nationhood.  But I do not believe progress is possible if our desire to preserve our identities gives way to an impulse to dehumanize or dominate another group. If our religion leads us to persecute those of another faith, if we jail or beat people who are gay, if our traditions lead us to prevent girls from going to school, if we discriminate on the basis of race or tribe or ethnicity, then the fragile bonds of civilization will fray.  The world is too small, we are too packed together, for us to be able to resort to those old ways of thinking.
We see this mindset in too many parts of the Middle East.  There, so much of the collapse in order has been fueled because leaders sought legitimacy not because of policies or programs but by resorting to persecuting political opposition, or demonizing other religious sects, by narrowing the public space to the mosque, where in too many places perversions of a great faith were tolerated.  These forces built up for years, and are now at work helping to fuel both Syria’s tragic civil war and the mindless, medieval menace of ISIL.
The mindset of sectarianism, and extremism, and bloodletting, and retribution that has been taking place will not be quickly reversed.  And if we are honest, we understand that no external power is going to be able to force different religious communities or ethnic communities to co-exist for long.  But I do believe we have to be honest about the nature of these conflicts, and our international community must continue to work with those who seek to build rather than to destroy.
And there is a military component to that.  It means being united and relentless in destroying networks like ISIL, which show no respect for human life.  But it also means that in a place like Syria, where there’s no ultimate military victory to be won, we’re going to have to pursue the hard work of diplomacy that aims to stop the violence, and deliver aid to those in need, and support those who pursue a political settlement and can see those who are not like themselves as worthy of dignity and respect.
Across the region’s conflicts, we have to insist that all parties recognize a common humanity and that nations end proxy wars that fuel disorder.  Because until basic questions are answered about how communities co-exist, the embers of extremism will continue to burn, countless human beings will suffer -- most of all in that region -- but extremism will continue to be exported overseas.  And the world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies.
And what is true in the Middle East is true for all of us.  Surely, religious traditions can be honored and upheld while teaching young people science and math, rather than intolerance. Surely, we can sustain our unique traditions while giving women their full and rightful role in the politics and economics of a nation.  Surely, we can rally our nations to solidarity while recognizing equal treatment for all communities -- whether it’s a religious minority in Myanmar, or an ethnic minority in Burundi, or a racial minority right here in the United States.  And surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land.  We all have to do better as leaders in tamping down, rather than encouraging, a notion of identity that leads us to diminish others.
And this leads me to the fourth and final thing we need to do, and that is sustain our commitment to international cooperation rooted in the rights and responsibilities of nations.
As President of the United States, I know that for most of human history, power has not been unipolar.  The end of the Cold War may have led too many to forget this truth.  I’ve noticed as President that at times, both America’s adversaries and some of our allies believe that all problems were either caused by Washington or could be solved by Washington -- and perhaps too many in Washington believed that as well.  (Laughter.)  But I believe America has been a rare superpower in human history insofar as it has been willing to think beyond narrow self-interest; that while we’ve made our share of mistakes over these last 25 years -- and I’ve acknowledged some -- we have strived, sometimes at great sacrifice, to align better our actions with our ideals.  And as a consequence, I believe we have been a force for good.
We have secured allies.  We’ve acted to protect the vulnerable.  We supported human rights and welcomed scrutiny of our own actions.  We’ve bound our power to international laws and institutions.  When we've made mistakes, we've tried to acknowledge them.  We have worked to roll back poverty and hunger and disease beyond our borders, not just within our borders.
I'm proud of that.  But I also know that we can't do this alone.  And I believe that if we're to meet the challenges of this century, we are all going to have to do more to build up international capacity.  We cannot escape the prospect of nuclear war unless we all commit to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and pursuing a world without them.
When Iran agrees to accept constraints on its nuclear program that enhances global security and enhances Iran's ability to work with other nations.  On the other hand, when North Korea tests a bomb that endangers all of us.  And any country that breaks this basic bargain must face consequences.  And those nations with these weapons, like the United States, have a unique responsibility to pursue the path of reducing our stockpiles, and reaffirming basic norms like the commitment to never test them again.
We can't combat a disease like Zika that recognizes no borders -- mosquitos don't respect walls -- unless we make permanent the same urgency that we brought to bear against Ebola -- by strengthening our own systems of public health, by investing in cures and rolling back the root causes of disease, and helping poorer countries develop a public health infrastructure. 
We can only eliminate extreme poverty if the sustainable development goals that we have set are more than words on paper. Human ingenuity now gives us the capacity to feed the hungry and give all of our children -- including our girls -- the education that is the foundation for opportunity in our world.  But we have to put our money where our mouths are. 
And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding -- to replace the ravages of war with cooperation -- if powerful nations like my own accept constraints.  Sometimes I'm criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions.  But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action -- not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term -- enhances our security.  And I think that's not just true for us.
If Russia continues to interfere in the affairs of its neighbors, it may be popular at home, it may fuel nationalist fervor for a time, but over time it is also going to diminish its stature and make its borders less secure.  In the South China Sea, a peaceful resolution of disputes offered by law will mean far greater stability than the militarization of a few rocks and reefs.
We are all stakeholders in this international system, and it calls upon all of us to invest in the success of institutions to which we belong.  And the good news is, is that many nations have shown what kind of progress is possible when we make those commitments.  Consider what we’ve accomplished here over the past few years.
Together, we mobilized some 50,000 additional troops for U.N. peacekeeping, making them nimble, better equipped, better prepared to deal with emergencies.  Together, we established an Open Government Partnership so that, increasingly, transparency empowers more and more people around the globe.  And together, now, we have to open our hearts and do more to help refugees who are desperate for a home.
We should all welcome the pledges of increased assistance that have been made at this General Assembly gathering.  I'll be discussing that more this afternoon.  But we have to follow through, even when the politics are hard.  Because in the eyes of innocent men and women and children who, through no fault of their own, have had to flee everything that they know, everything that they love, we have to have the empathy to see ourselves.  We have to imagine what it would be like for our family, for our children, if the unspeakable happened to us.  And we should all understand that, ultimately, our world will be more secure if we are prepared to help those in need and the nations who are carrying the largest burden with respect to accommodating these refugees.
There are a lot of nations right now that are doing the right thing.  But many nations -- particularly those blessed with wealth and the benefits of geography -- that can do more to offer a hand, even if they also insist that refugees who come to our countries have to do more to adapt to the customs and conventions of the communities that are now providing them a home.
Let me conclude by saying that I recognize history tells a different story than the one that I've talked about here today.  There's a much darker and more cynical view of history that we can adopt.  Human beings are too often motivated by greed and by power.  Big countries for most of history have pushed smaller ones around.  Tribes and ethnic groups and nation states have very often found it most convenient to define themselves by what they hate and not just those ideas that bind them together.
Time and again, human beings have believed that they finally arrived at a period of enlightenment only to repeat, then, cycles of conflict and suffering.  Perhaps that's our fate.  We have to remember that the choices of individual human beings led to repeated world war.  But we also have to remember that the choices of individual human beings created a United Nations, so that a war like that would never happen again.  Each of us as leaders, each nation can choose to reject those who appeal to our worst impulses and embrace those who appeal to our best.  For we have shown that we can choose a better history.
Sitting in a prison cell, a young Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote that, “Human progress never rolls on the wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God.”  And during the course of these eight years, as I've traveled to many of your nations, I have seen that spirit in our young people, who are more educated and more tolerant, and more inclusive and more diverse, and more creative than our generation; who are more empathetic and compassionate towards their fellow human beings than previous generations.  And, yes, some of that comes with the idealism of youth.  But it also comes with young people’s access to information about other peoples and places -- an understanding unique in human history that their future is bound with the fates of other human beings on the other side of the world.
I think of the thousands of health care workers from around the world who volunteered to fight Ebola.  I remember the young entrepreneurs I met who are now starting new businesses in Cuba, the parliamentarians who used to be just a few years ago political prisoners in Myanmar.  I think of the girls who have braved taunts or violence just to go to school in Afghanistan, and the university students who started programs online to reject the extremism of organizations like ISIL.  I draw strength from the young Americans -- entrepreneurs, activists, soldiers, new citizens -- who are remaking our nation once again, who are unconstrained by old habits and old conventions, and unencumbered by what is, but are instead ready to seize what ought to be.
My own family is a made up of the flesh and blood and traditions and cultures and faiths from a lot of different parts of the world -- just as America has been built by immigrants from every shore.  And in my own life, in this country, and as President, I have learned that our identities do not have to be defined by putting someone else down, but can be enhanced by lifting somebody else up.  They don’t have to be defined in opposition to others, but rather by a belief in liberty and equality and justice and fairness.
And the embrace of these principles as universal doesn't weaken my particular pride, my particular love for America -- it strengthens it.  My belief that these ideals apply everywhere doesn’t lessen my commitment to help those who look like me, or pray as I do, or pledge allegiance to my flag.  But my faith in those principles does force me to expand my moral imagination and to recognize that I can best serve my own people, I can best look after my own daughters, by making sure that my actions seek what is right for all people and all children, and your daughters and your sons.
This is what I believe:  that all of us can be co-workers with God.  And our leadership, and our governments, and this United Nations should reflect this irreducible truth.
Thank you very much.  (Applause.)
END
11:17 A.M. EDT

The New York Times: You Break It, You Own It

You Break It, You Own It

 Thomas L. Friedman JUNE 29, 2016

Never forget, after the destruction of World War II, the E.U. project “emerged as a force for peace, prosperity, democracy and freedom in the world,” noted Eric Beinhocker, the executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford. “This is one of humankind’s great achievements. Rather than let it be destroyed we must use the shock of the Brexit vote to reimagine, reform, and rebuild a new Europe.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/opinion/you-break-it-you-own-it.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthomas-l-friedman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection

President Obama’s Speech In Hiroshima

 


Seventy-one years ago, on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.
Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner.
Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.
It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood used these tools not just for hunting but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.
The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.
In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die. Men, women, children, no different than us. Shot, beaten, marched, bombed, jailed, starved, gassed to death. There are many sites around the world that chronicle this war, memorials that tell stories of courage and heroism, graves and empty camps that echo of unspeakable depravity.
Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction. How the very spark that marks us as a species, our thoughts, our imagination, our language, our toolmaking, our ability to set ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our will — those very things also give us the capacity for unmatched destruction.
How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.
Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill.
Nations arise telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats. But those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.
Science allows us to communicate across the seas and fly above the clouds, to cure disease and understand the cosmos, but those same discoveries can be turned into ever more efficient killing machines.
The wars of the modern age teach us this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth. Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.
That is why we come to this place. We stand here in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war and the wars that came before and the wars that would follow.
Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.
Some day, the voices of the hibakusha will no longer be with us to bear witness. But the memory of the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, must never fade. That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change.
And since that fateful day, we have made choices that give us hope. The United States and Japan have forged not only an alliance but a friendship that has won far more for our people than we could ever claim through war. The nations of Europe built a union that replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce and democracy. Oppressed people and nations won liberation. An international community established institutions and treaties that work to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll back and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons.
Still, every act of aggression between nations, every act of terror and corruption and cruelty and oppression that we see around the world shows our work is never done. We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil, so nations and the alliances that we form must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.
We may not realize this goal in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations and secure deadly materials from fanatics.
And yet that is not enough. For we see around the world today how even the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible scale. We must change our mind-set about war itself. To prevent conflict through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun. To see our growing interdependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent competition. To define our nations not by our capacity to destroy but by what we build. And perhaps, above all, we must reimagine our connection to one another as members of one human race.
For this, too, is what makes our species unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose. We can tell our children a different story, one that describes a common humanity, one that makes war less likely and cruelty less easily accepted.
We see these stories in the hibakusha. The woman who forgave a pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb because she recognized that what she really hated was war itself. The man who sought out families of Americans killed here because he believed their loss was equal to his own.
My own nation’s story began with simple words: All men are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Realizing that ideal has never been easy, even within our own borders, even among our own citizens. But staying true to that story is worth the effort. It is an ideal to be strived for, an ideal that extends across continents and across oceans. The irreducible worth of every person, the insistence that every life is precious, the radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family — that is the story that we all must tell.
That is why we come to Hiroshima. So that we might think of people we love. The first smile from our children in the morning. The gentle touch from a spouse over the kitchen table. The comforting embrace of a parent. We can think of those things and know that those same precious moments took place here, 71 years ago.
Those who died, they are like us. Ordinary people understand this, I think. They do not want more war. They would rather that the wonders of science be focused on improving life and not eliminating it. When the choices made by nations, when the choices made by leaders, reflect this simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima is done.
The world was forever changed here, but today the children of this city will go through their day in peace. What a precious thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then extending to every child. That is a future we can choose, a future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening.

Is the Universe a Simulation?

2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation? 

Is the Universe a Simulation? By EDWARD FRENKEL in New York Times, Sunday Review

Are we prepared to take the “red pill,” as Neo did in “The Matrix,” to see the truth behind the illusion — to see “how deep the rabbit hole goes”? Perhaps not yet. The jury is still out on the simulation hypothesis. But even if it proves too far-fetched, the possibility of the Platonic nature of mathematical ideas remains — and may hold the key to understanding our own reality.

Abdu’l-Bahá, from Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá   Grieve thou not over the troubles and hardships of this nether world, nor be thou glad in times of ease and comfort, for both shall pass away. This present life is even as a swelling wave, or a mirage, or drifting shadows. Could ever a distorted image on the desert serve as refreshing waters? No, by the Lord of Lords! Never can reality and the mere semblance of reality be one, and wide is the difference between fancy and fact, between truth and the phantom thereof.

Know thou that the Kingdom is the real world, and this nether place is only its shadow stretching out. A shadow hath no life of its own; its existence is only a fantasy, and nothing more; it is but images reflected in water, and seeming as pictures to the eye.

Rely upon God. Trust in Him. Praise Him, and call Him continually to mind. He verily turneth trouble into ease, and sorrow into solace, and toil into utter peace. He verily hath dominion over all things.