World Peace?

No phrase is more displeasing to me than “world peace.”

Hannah Smith ‘20

Of course I desire experiences of internal and external harmony for all living beings. The problem arises in the particular verbiage of the stereotypical goal of beauty pageant contestants. The Oxford English Dictionary defines peace as, “³ªFreedom from, disturbance; calm and tranquility.” The word’s connotation is almost entirely in reference to a cessation of war or violence, and is most commonly described as the opposite of war. This is where the canker gnaws, for the opposite of war is certainly not peace, but creation.

If we focus only on the light at the end of the tunnel without taking into consideration the tracks beneath our feet, we are liable to slip and fall, preventing us from reaching our destination. When confronted by a problem, one must create a solution. In order to clarify and protect the rights of its citizens, America’s founding fathers created the United States Constitution. President John F. Kennedy created the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to aid the movement towards equality for men and women of all races, creeds, and colors. The only way to end a war is through the creation of new technologies that dominate the opposition, or a compromise that satisfies all involved parties lest a larger dispute is spawned. No matter the circumstance, should not rightly-ordered creation be desired before peace? “World peace” is a vague concept because humans have never experienced it. “World creation” implies human imitation of one of God’s natures, serves as a call to action, and is easily conceptualized. It is a necessary, though often overlooked, stepping stone on the path to achieving the perfect harmony God desires for us.


Leave a Reply