Dear Editor,

It was very interesting to read a thought-provoking article published by Stephen Notman on May 16, 2015 tilted “Two beliefs and Two sides of the same coin”.

It was of interest to me because some aspects of what he wrote is the subject of a book that I have nearly completed and down to the editing stage. He talks about the history and legacy of savagery resulting from enforcing beliefs whether they are under the pretext of religion or secularism.

He projected a naturalist view of life and existence, which of course we all, in our different ways, try to assert as though we each understand it as the golden means.

First, let me say I can understand how his hypothesis is developed based on historical evidence that depicts violence and a righteous justification to dominate as a basic feature of mankind’s historical record, secular or religious.

I would like to add another variable which, if included, may help provide hope that we are not haplessly bound or predestined to annihilate each other under the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest.

Should we adhere to the Darwinian logic then whoever has the might, will impose their belief on those without might, as being a fait accompli. Invariably all belief comes with a set of presumed entitlements or rights.

I was told many years ago as a youth that there are no such things as rights except those rights that you can protect and defend for yourself.

Prior to that intervention of thought I always felt that rights were inherent, they were automatic as though somehow everyone knew and would simply afford the free flow of these manifest rights.

Along those lines, attributed to Thomas Jefferson, comes the saying “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”, which is to say that our deemed rights and liberties that we seek need to be protected if to be enjoyed.

So, simply, I would like to add to the discussion that we are each at the very least entitled if not entrusted to defend ourselves from the tyranny of another who seeks to impose their agendas or beliefs and that such defence may provide the sole justification of war. To fight in defence of freedom is a noble act and not an act of debauchery like that of a crusader.

I think in some ways the American foreign policy which gave itself, under the Bush administration, the right to extend what they deemed as their self-defence inside the borders of other countries on the basis of being pre-emptive ie “get them before they get us”, is a bit disingenuous. What Stephen Notman’s article triggers is deserving of a full debate on what should be considered as beneficial activism or even proper propagation of any idea or thought and the attitudes for how the human family need to mutually coexist and be tolerant of thought in a pluralist world.

We have the examples of the crusades, the cold war and its offspring, the current ISIS and on some level our basic self disagrees with all of those approaches, but nevertheless we are not empowered to stop or change those patterns of behaviour, or are we?

I think we are but it will take tremendous collective effort and some personal sacrifice and lots of education.

Khalid Wasi