Positive, Negative, or True?

I received a couple of requests lately asking me to avoid “negative” news or reminding me that I committed to do that. Could we spend a moment please on the matter?

With all respect, I don’t recall giving a commitment not to post “negative” news. I understand that some people may have interpreted recent events as if I did.

I do recall saying that I would stop regular posting of “daily” news because I was feeling overwhelmed by the size of the task.

I also recall giving a second commitment not to post news that is probably disinformational or seeks to instil fear.

But I’m fairly sure that I would not agree to post only “positive” news and here I probably depart from many people.

I say I would probably not have agreed to that because, in my view, what is “negative” and what is “positive” seems to depend a great deal on where you sit. A video on coalition soldiers indiscriminately killing Iraqi civilians or raping and murdering Iraqi women, or a photo of what depleted-uranium dust does to civilians and babies in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps soon Libya may seem “negative” to us in North America.

But the posting of those items will be decidedly “positive” events to people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya who stand to suffer. Or to people here concerned with stopping persecution – especially our own. These people may express great relief and jubilation that we are facing up to what we are doing abroad.

I know a lot of us say that we’re interested in the “positive” and not the “negative.” But I’m not as much interested in them as I am in the truth.

Think about it for a second. Jesus did not say that the positive will set you free. He said that the truth would set you free. And if you think more about it,  you can see why this would be.

The Divine created life so that God could meet God. God is the Truth so we could say that Truth meets Truth. He/She/It designed life so that truth would be freeing and the absolute Truth would be absolutely freeing.  That the truth would set us free was designed into life.

Staying with the “positive” seems to me to risk us missing the truth. The positive is only part of the total picture.

I predict that people who determine to look only at the positive and not at the negative may become mired in difficulties of perspective. They may spend forever determining what is positive and what negative and revising their estimations from moment to moment.  Moreover they may find themselves, I also predict, in conflict with others who don’t share the same criteria of positive and negative.

So I what drives me is a desire to know the truth.

If innocent Iraqis are being killed by our soldiers, I want to know that. If women are being raped, I want to know that. If babies are being born deformed because we’re using one of the most toxic and poisonous substances on Earth as a weapon (depleted uranium), I want to know that too.

Don’t forget that depleted uranium is indiscriminate. It can get on the clothing of our troops too. It can be passed in semen. If you have a loved one in the armed services overseas, you too are at risk.  If you are at risk, would you not want me to say so? And would that not be a very positive thing? Can you see that yesterday, you may have considered that negative which today you consider positive?

I’m interested in the truth whether to this person it seems negative or to that person, positive. The truth is the prize and how people regard it is another question.  As Gandhi said when questioned about being seen as negative: “The truth is the truth.” Compromise the truth and you risk missing it.

So I regret that some readers may be offended by some articles. And I hear you that you’d like me to stay with the positive. But I suggest that that isn’t altogether wise. I will avoid the disinformational and fear-filled. But I won’t agree to risk missing the truth.

Print Friendly