• Home
  • Notes & Samples
  • Bookshop
  • Talks & Courses
  • Action Page.
  • Nonviolence
    • What is Nonviolence?
    • WHY DO WE USE VIOLENCE?
    • TAKING RESTORATIVE ACTION TO MAKE JUSTICE MORE JUST
    • RUDOLPH IS MORE THAN A RED NOSE.
    • Terrorism
    • Pace e Bene
    • CHOOSING TO BE NONVIOLENT
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Enjoy Parenting Teenagers
  • Building self esteem.
  • Building self confidence.
  • Definitions
  • Review Copy request

HOW TO GAIN TRUST.    By Bob Myers.

28/5/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Trust is closely related to love and, like love, we may receive trust without doing anything to earn it. And we may trust other people without them doing anything to earn our trust. However, there are few people, if any, we would trust absolutely, and there are few people, if any, who would trust us completely. Some people trust us with a little more, and we trust some others with a little more. That’s how society works.

Sometimes it’s easy to gain more trust and sometimes it’s extremely difficult, depending on the person’s previous experiences of trusting others. Some people will freely give more trust but not if they have ‘been there, done that’ and been betrayed many times. Generally speaking, a small level of trust is freely given as a test and if you want any more, you have to earn it. Some people's experience is such that they find it too threatening to trust anyone with any more than what is necessary to ‘be polite’. For that reason, patience is the first requirement for gaining the trust of anyone, because it may take a long time.

When we receive trust, we receive the power to do great harm to those who trust us and therefore we need to show we deserve their trust. The giving of trust and being worthy of the trust is the link to love; forming a spiritual bond between individuals.

So, patience is the first requirement for gaining trust. Take your time and remind yourself that trust is a gift; not a right.

Use that time to make the other person feel safe with you and from you.  Not just from physical harm but from emotional, psychological and spiritual harm. The easiest and most effective way of achieving that is by using manners. Manners help establish trust and a sense of security. Manners form the base for mutual respect, establishing a culture of equality and cooperation. Manners also lead to other useful tools such as the guidelines for resolving conflict, the guidelines for making rules people are likely to keep to, and the restorative action that does away with tools like manipulation, punishment, revenge and power struggles. All that can come from using basic manners.

Gaining trust means being worthy of trust. That means always being reliable – keep your word – be on time – be open and honest – make an effort to know the needs of people and be available to help – and be sincere in saying why you can’t help with some things. Always be willing to offer an apology when you are wrong and take responsibility for your actions.

To sum up, many people might just trust you, so there is no need to win their trust. You only have to be trustworthy and not let them down. However, if you are trying to win back trust, or win it for the first time, you first need to take it slow, especially if the person you want that trust from has been betrayed many times and finds it difficult to trust anybody.

If there is a problem to be worked out, be mindful of maintaining the dignity of other people, or maybe allow them to maintain dignity by ‘saving face’. Clearly identify what you are concerned about and why you need to share the problem with them. If there is a wrong to be righted, do it through restorative action, while being open and honest, especially about anything you did that contributed to causing the problem. 



Photo: Norlangie Park, N.T. Australia.


Click to set custom HTML
0 Comments

DOES FEMINISM HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BEING FEMALE?

12/5/2014

2 Comments

 
Picture
Some say feminism is about the fair distribution of power. Others say feminism is about the nonviolent use of power and nonviolent resistance to the abuse of power. Some say feminism is about empowering women.

There are many versions of feminism and that makes it difficult to say precisely what it is all about. However, it seems that most feminists agree that it promotes gender equality and, therefore, seeks to strengthen the status of women. That, unfortunately, doesn’t mean feminists believe all people are equal. A feminist can believe in gender equality in a very unequal social system, as long as male and female have equal opportunities, and experience equal consequences for their efforts.  

Feminism is about changing the present patriarchal system , with its emphasis on power being ‘power-over’. However, that type of feminism seems to be too narrow in its focus. Many feminists reject the patriarchal aspect of society but readily accept the structural and systemic inequality of a status system. This leaves the way open for a matriarchal system to develop, which would just change the roles of the players in the game called ‘Domination’, without solving the problem of gender inequality. Nor would it solve problems such as domestic violence, or any of the other social diseases so many studies have linked to inequality.

To be effective in achieving gender equality, feminism should seek to change the underlying assumption that power is about having power over others and the environment. Gender equality is a noble and worthwhile aim but many great feminists, male and female, have advocated that all people are equal and this obviously includes gender equality. This brand of feminism is committed to convincing people to think of power in terms of having power with other people and the environment rather than having power over other people and the environment. It seeks to apply this in the family, workplace, business, and community.

‘Power’ refers to the ability to produce an outcome.

‘Power over people’ refers to the use of power to control the actions of other people, by allowing or withholding what they need.

‘Power with people’ refers to people sharing their powers to meet the needs of all those involved.

‘Power from within’ refers to the sense of having the knowledge and skills to meet one’s own needs. This is why education is so important for achieving gender equality. Not just academic education but the whole range of life skills necessary for people, especially women, to feel confident in their ability to solve life’s problems and achieve their ambitions. In countries where men resist gender equality, the education of women is quite often banned.

‘Power from within’ also includes the power flowing from the sense of belonging; being part of - or connected to - other people, nature, the universe or God. People fortunate enough to feel the power flowing into them from strong connections to nature and the cosmos have strong self-esteem and self-confidence. They can share this inner strength with others endlessly because it is limitless and is often expressed in the ‘people power’ movements that counteract the ‘power over’ tactics others use in attempting to dominate. 



By Bob Myers.


2 Comments

TEN POINTS FOR LIVING IN THE 21st CENTURY.

4/4/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
The global problems we face in this century can only be solved through global cooperation. For those societies that claim to believe in equality, that simply means putting equality into practice. I want to share with you the ten statements that I write about, and try to practice.

Enduring peace and happiness comes from constantly exploring ways to get the balance right between personal needs, other people’s needs, and the needs of the situation. The situation could be the home; the workplace; a community; a country; nature; or the cosmos. 

From a cosmic viewpoint, equality is the true nature of human relationships. We can use that constant to guide us in building and maintaining relationships and setting up social systems, such as law, education and health.

We use the word ‘violence’ to describe actions or events that cause harm. Therefore, anything that harms the true nature of relationships – by causing inequality – could be deemed to be ‘violence’.

People who are guided by the spirit of equality respond to violence by taking nonviolent restorative action.

Being equal does not mean being the same. Differences make us individuals. Most differences, regardless of extent, do not cause harm in human relationships. Our judgement of differences can lead to harm or to enhancement of relationships.

Inequality exists when individual differences are used to judge one person as superior in some way. In an adversarial society, such as ours, superiority is gained by competition or domination, or both.     

Human equality can be established and maintained by exploring the complementary nature of individual differences to get the right balance for meeting the needs of all those involved.  

The human need to achieve and the need for stability can be met by people striving for excellence and sharing the skills and knowledge gained with anyone who wants them. In that way, the whole group can develop together to whatever level any group member can achieve.

Studies consistently show a correlation between inequality and all social ills, so the success or otherwise of the policies and actions of those in positions of responsibility can be judged by whether they reduce or increase inequality.

People in positions of responsibility who are guided by the spirit of equality seek to have power with people and things rather than seeking power over people and things.


Bob Myers.






0 Comments

My Writing Process

7/3/2014

2 Comments

 
WHAT AM I WORKING ON?

I write about human behaviour in relationships; between people, with the environment and with the cosmos. And the effect that behaviour has on the quality of each relationship. I explore the lifelong struggle between the human need for belonging (love) and the need for individuality (status or importance). That means looking at the connection between spirituality and politics. Another way of putting is that I write about the spirituality of politics in everyday life, as distinct from religion. My aim is to express my views on this in terms that appeal to both religious and nonreligious people because of the real and proper need to keep religion and politics separated.

I have to somehow make sense of the world, and my place in it, while carrying the baggage that comes with being an accidental white, male, Australian, Christian. Each label adorns a separate bag of rules, customs, expectations, values and biases that hamper clear and objective thinking.

HOW DOES MY WORK DIFFER FROM OTHERS OF ITS GENRE?

My work differs from others of its genre in that it is about my journey of awareness, coupled with the need I have to put theory into practice. Thinking about the complexity of the human condition and human behaviour is difficult enough but my background in electronics has left me with a very real need to show how theory works in everyday life. In my books, I draw examples from the family setting to illustrate my points because we all experienced some form of family life that provided us with our early training in forming relationships and solving relationship problems.

Whatever our family setting was, it was where we began accumulating the baggage we now have to deal with as we struggle to become individuals who belong in relationship with other people, the environment and the cosmos.

What I centre on in each interaction with other people reflects the stage I am at in the struggle between my two needs; to belong and to be an individual.

WHY DO I WRITE WHAT I DO?

Even in my early teens I was drawn to read nonfiction books, mainly on culture or history. Then for twenty years I alternated between those and very technical books on electronics and physics, which may explain my interest in people and my need to understand how things work. However, I seem to have always felt compelled to understand people and life because my earliest memory of school was questioning what I was being taught about religion in year two of primary school. I questioned it but I still have a passion for studying religious and nonreligious belief systems.

My belief in the equality of all people has me wanting to describe a practical spirituality without religion. In other words, how to be an individual who belongs, no matter what belief system we were born into.

HOW DOES MY WORKING PROCESS WORK?

I don’t seem to have a set working process. Maybe that’s why I sometimes have great trouble writing. I hear of people who can write great long essays in a short space of time but I usually agonise over every word. Sometimes I just sit down and write whatever comes into my head about a topic and then go over and over it until I think it's right. Sometimes I think of a heading and a few main points that I later flesh out but writing is seldom easy for me.

However, writing about human behaviour is complex and usually requires a great deal of thought. For example; trying to work out the difference between consequences and punishment, or the connection between religion and spirituality. I find that walking is the best way to help me work through these sort of complex problems and that suits me fine because I walk for an hour every morning. I refer to my walks as my meditation time. 

Bob Myers.


2 Comments

CAN CHRISTIANITY BE SAVED FROM DEATH?

29/10/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture

By now, it must be obvious to most people that the Christian Church is close to death from a disease known as irrelevancy. However, death can be avoided through changes that engage the church in the problems faced by the general community. One way is for the clergy to go against the restriction on expressing political views and show all members of the church how they, too, can express their religious views to anyone, on any political issue. The church should not be bullied into being silent about politics because submitting to this bullying is a major cause of the present irrelevancy of the church.

It’s rather strange how voters accept that it’s OK for a politician to vote on issues according to party political views, but it’s not OK for a politician to vote according to denominational religious views. It seems to be OK to put party politics above the good of the country, but it’s not OK to even express a viewpoint based on religion. As strange and unjust as this may seem, I doubt that it will change. Therefore, religious views have to be expressed in a way that is acceptable to the political scene.   

Politics is about who gets the power to make rules about how people should act towards each other, while maintaining a healthy economy. Amongst other things, religion is also about how people should act towards each other, while maintaining a healthy economy. However, there is a big difference between the two in regard to the base used for making social rules. To prepare people to speak out politically, the church needs to realise that the parliament already claims to accept the main message of Jesus as the base for making political decisions but doesn’t put it into practice. 

 A common theme in all the major religions is the principle that all people are equal and the constitution of most countries state that decision-making should be based on the equality of all people. Admittedly, that is not how the religions or countries actually operate but herein lies the great opportunity for the church to regain relevance, by reverting back to what Jesus was mainly on about; establishing the equality of all people as the base for society.   

Politicians have succeeded in getting us to believe we have a political view and a religious view and that we should keep them separate. However, if the church were to emphasise that the message of Jesus isn’t true simply because he said it; he said it because it is true. When people take that message as a truth; it becomes their belief and can be expressed as a personal political view, rather than justifying their thoughts by quoting scripture. In other words, the message can become their personal political views because their political views and their religious views are the same.

When our political views and religious views are the same - that from a cosmic point of view all people are equal - we can confidently comment on any issue in regard to politics and economics. And all the decisions we make, including the social systems we set up, should reflect that truth.

I can state what I believe to be the denominational view on an issue, or what I believe to be the party political view of an issue, but my personal view reflects both my political and religious beliefs because they are the same. If I say that my religious view is that all people are equal, but have no choice about living in a social system that perpetuates or increases inequality, I must at least attempt to reduce inequality in my own relationships. Maybe there will always be inequality but my focus should be on improving the social system so it moves in the direction of equality for all. For that reason, the only justification for being a member of a political party is to influence the party decision-making towards establishing the equality of all people.

Conclusion.

Can the church be saved from death? In its present form I don’t think it’s possible to save it. However, if it is willing to make significant changes, the church could extend its life indefinitely. The main change needed to become relevant is to lead by example, so the political and religious views of parishioners become subject to the principle that all people are equal. And since the church and the political system already agree on the truth of that base, each could hold the other accountable for putting it into practice. And the people could then hold them both accountable. Imagine the peace that would descend on the world if such a system became the norm in all countries.

For more information click here. 

By Bob Myers, an accidental Christian.



0 Comments

THE REAL BOTTOM LINE.

8/7/2013

1 Comment

 
Picture
In our world, money, or profit, is referred to as ‘the bottom line’.

A few years ago I decided to convene a meeting of four people I considered to be great role models and teachers. I invited a Hindu named Gandhi, a Muslim named Mohammad, an atheist named Einstein and a Jew named Yoshu, better known today as Jesus. Since they are all long dead, getting them together was no easy task and required a lot of imagination and careful research.

The purpose of the meeting was for these very learned men to share their ideas and opinions to determine what the real bottom line is in regard to life in general, so we have something clear to use for making laws that govern human behaviour.

 As the convenor of the meeting, I made the rather empty threat that there would be no food or drinks until they found a common thread in their teachings and agreed on a statement that was easy for people to understand. Research indicated they could do this because all four men had a deep respect for each other’s views and a genuine concern for people in general.

They got along very well and found that, apart from some very different terminology, they agreed on most things. The main sticking point was whether intelligence pre-existed matter or evolved. Anyhow, the statement they came up with was:     

“The fundamental principle to live by, in general, is a complete and utter commitment to seeking the truth to guide your every word and action and, by doing that, all laws would be based on the social truth of all people being equal.”  

However, they added a warning that although most people would agree about all people being equal, they might kill you for saying it should be the bottom line.
Bob Myers.

1 Comment

WILL MEN AND WOMEN EVER BE EQUAL?

6/6/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
People going on a journey usually know where they’re going before starting off, simply so they know which way to go. If we don’t know where we are going, how can we know when we arrive? To avoid running around aimlessly towards the equality of men and women, we first of all need to know what we mean by ‘equality.’ Otherwise, it would be like deciding to go to a city without knowing where it is.

Equality’ has many different meanings. One being that two objects are the same in every way. Obviously men and women are not the same and never will be, so if the question means, ‘Will men and women ever be the same?,’ the answer would be ‘No.’ 

Unfortunately, in the present system, many women try to be equal to men in a system designed by men to suit the interests and abilities of men. The parliamentary system and legal system reflect male thinking in that both use adversarial methods to settle disputes and make decisions and plans. A woman entering those systems has to prove herself to be at least as tough as the men in a male-oriented game. The system doesn’t change to reflect female thinking; so a woman must play like a man. In the Pygmalion stage play, Henry Higgins asks a question that sounds more like a prayer, ‘Why can’t a woman be more like a man?’ It seems that the present desire of women to be equal to men is only granting Henry’s prayer.

The best we can expect from the present system is that the decisions made will be influenced to some degree by input from women. That isn’t real equality and makes little progress towards equality. Real progress towards equality will be made when our social systems and structures change to also reflect  female thinking. I don’t know what decision making method would emerge if women were freed from submitting to the male dominated system but the adversarial system is not the only possibility. For example, Gandhi gave us the truth-seeking method that takes competition for personal power out of debating. The sole aim of truth-seeking debates is to find the most workable solution to whatever the problem is. The point I make here is that it’s just possible men and women, together, can come up with a better way than the current adversarial method.

Will men and women ever be equal? I’ve heard it said that there are no wrong questions; there are only wrong answers. This question proves this saying is false. It’s a nonsense question because men and women are already equal. The question should be, ‘Will men ever accept that men and women are equal?’ The equality of men and women is a natural truth, just like ‘Water seeks it’s own level,’ is a natural truth. Men have dominated women for centuries and came to believe male domination is natural. However, it only seems natural because the system men set up is suited to men. That is the real reason for the illusion of male superiority. 

Men can certainly do some things better than women, and it does appear to be all the important things, but again that is only because the whole system we live in is suited to what men do best. If our social, legal and parliamentary systems were set up to suit what women do best, it would appear that women are superior to men. What may answer the intent of the question is, ‘Men and women will be seen as equal when the overall system we live in, and the rules we live by, emanate from the equality of men and women.’ That is what my book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness explores.

By Bob Myers. 

0 Comments

CAN AUTHORITY AND EQUALITY CO-EXIST IN THE FAMILY? By Bob Myers.

23/4/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
Most parent/child relationship problems stem from some form of resistance to authority. In many families, power struggles commonly develop from this resistance. The following are some thoughts expressed in cold, point form but are much warmer when put into practice.

  • To base the family on equality, it is important to understand what authority is. The word ‘authority’ has several meanings, and is often confused with the word ‘power’ because we use both when talking about trying to control someone or something. Power and authority are also associated with having the right to impose conditions or make rules; and the right to dish out punishments for disobedience or non-cooperation. (Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, Ch 2)
  • Anyone who has responsibilities needs enough authority to carry out those responsibilities. Parents have many responsibilities and few privileges.
  • There are two kinds of authority. I call one ‘dominant authority’ and the other ‘legitimate authority.’ Dominant authority maintains order through the use of punishment. Legitimate authority maintains order through the power of persuasion and negotiation; this is the authority of peace-keepers seeking cooperation and collaboration.
  • Dominant authority is imposed and ultimately relies on fear to gain obedience. Legitimate authority is freely given out of trust and respect for the person and/or respect for the need for rules.
  • Dominant authority is attempting to have power over others. Legitimate authority is having power with others to get a job done.
  • Every member of a family has responsibilities and often needs the cooperation of others to meet those responsibilities.
  • Although people have different levels of responsibilities, meeting their responsibilities may be equally important to each person’s sense of well-being, as well as to the overall harmony within the family.
  • Every member of the family is entitled to equal respect and consideration, regardless of what level of responsibilities they have.

Click to set custom HTML
0 Comments

13 TIPS FOR FAMILY PEACE.

1/4/2013

1 Comment

 
Picture
From Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.
By Bob Myers.

Everything written on this website, including these tips, is based on the principle: There is no happiness without peace; no peace without justice; and no justice without equality, even in the home.  

  • Reward children just for ‘being,’ not just when they are achieving. Children deserve love and affection simply for existing. This can be shown often through hugs, affectionate play or verbal expressions of love and concern.
  • Every child has a unique identity. Some are shy, others are confident, and you cannot force a child to change her basic nature. Every child should be accepted and appreciated as they are, if only because they had no say in what attributes and disposition they inherited. Nor do they have a say in what they have learned since birth.
  • Trying to force a child to do something he is not ready to do can lead to trouble. When he is ready he may need guidance and encouragement, but will not need to be forced.
  • To encourage a positive attitude towards work, make a list of routine tasks and think about the fairness and safety reasons for those tasks, as well as the short and long term consequences (effects) when those tasks are not carried out, so you can explain it to the kids when they ask that annoying question, ‘Why?’
  • To encourage a positive attitude towards rules, do the same as you did with the tasks. Then you can explain the fairness and safety reasons for the rules.
  • If you normally make the rules, ask the kids to suggest how the rules could be improved. If they suggest something that is fairer or safer, adjust or replace the rule. This helps them to develop ownership of the rules.
  • Try not to criticize a child’s behaviour in front of others. You want the child’s behaviour to change; you don’t want to damage their self- esteem.
  • If you think of the child as being separate from her behaviour, you can strongly condemn the behaviour without condemning the child. You can be angry at the behaviour without being angry with her. The behaviour is unloved; the child is loved. The behaviour is rejected but the child is simply taught a more acceptable way of acting.
  • Give children age-appropriate choices so they get practice at making decisions. This will increase their sense of self and of their importance in the family.
  • When going shopping remember to ask your child what he likes and dislikes. This is a way of helping children develop the confidence that accompanies a sense of equality with others.
  • Parents and children have different responsibilities and different problems but the child’s problems are just as important to the child as the parent’s problems are to the parent. This sometimes causes a conflict that could get out of hand if it turns into a power struggle. If possible, solve the child’s problem first, so peace is restored, and then tackle your problem.
  • Every problem is an opportunity to spend healthy time bonding with the child and passing on knowledge and skills as you encourage the child’s efforts.
  • Teaching kids habits, rituals and routines is essential for helping them develop a sense of security, especially if you explain the safety and fairness reasons for each action. For example ‘stop, look, and think before crossing a road’ is obviously based on safety, and knowing that reason can help them to think about consequences.



Photo: Chambers Pillar, N.T. Australia.


Click to set custom HTML
1 Comment

WHY ARE PEOPLE SO VIOLENT?

9/1/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
The popular perception is that street violence is on the rise and media reports reflect the public’s rejection of random acts of violence.  To me, the wording of some reports  add to the confusion of young people at a stage of life so crucial in their search for identity and their efforts to make sense of society.  Some violence is not only acceptable but is encouraged by society. Violence is a major factor in our entertainment and many of our heroes gained their hero status through violence. Sometimes it seems that the good guys only win because they are more violent than the bad guys, so the message is that violence is Ok as long as we approve of who is the target.

What could cause kids to use violence so easily? To many adolescents, their peer group is the ‘we’ approving of the target, and that makes certain violent acts not just acceptable but necessary if it forms part of their identity. Members of the group may say things like, ‘This is what we do.’  Any statement about ‘who we are’ makes it an identity thing. But that isn’t unusual because violence plays a major part in adult identity too. It is often said that Australia forged its identity through the violence at Gallipoli, even though the difference there is the bravery involved.  

I believe the main cause of random violence is that living in an adversarial society such as we do means a big part of our identity, our sense of who we are, comes from two ways in which we compare our attributes and achievements  against those of other people.  One way is by competing with others to gain knowledge, power, expertise or wealth, so we feel somehow superior to, or more important than, others. But that often requires  incredibly hard work and dedication. Some people prefer the second way of gaining a sense of superiority or status. Domination is an easier form of competition, which usually involves the use of force or violence to ‘put others down.’

People judging themselves by using either competition or domination find that they are better than some and not as good as others. So, even those who are the best at something may be tempted to use the ‘put down’ method in other situations.  All in all, the adversarial base for an identity divides people and is a breeding ground for violence.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to the adversarial base. We also gain part of our identity by how we use our individual differences to help each other achieve and progress, rather similar to what happens in nature. Instead of comparing ourselves against each other, we share our knowledge, skills and wealth. People with this outlook gain their sense of importance to each other rather than against each other. This cooperative base  tends to unite people and, therefore, reduces the level of violence.

We may never be free of our adversarial ways but, if we are really serious about reducing violence, we need to put more effort into changing the messages we pass on to our children in our entertainment and the heroes we create for them. As individuals, we could start by deciding to adopt the attitude that, ‘there is no one in the world more important than me and no one in the world less important than me.’ That frees us from the competition-domination, status-seeking  game and  a whole new way of relating to other people opens for us to explore. This is explored in Travelling The Road of Peace and Happiness.

Bob Myers.




0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    Bob Myers owned and operated an electronics sales and service business before gaining a degree in sociology and further training in relationship counselling, conflict resolution and mediation. He worked in that field for more than thirty years, mainly with teenagers and their families. For 16 years he was the director of a non-government residential facility for teenagers. He is the author of three books on parenting as well as :
    Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.

    Bob is dedicated to nonviolence as a way of life; a founding member of Pace e Bene Australia (PeBA); and a PeBA nonviolence facilitator.

    Archives

    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012

    Categories

    All
    Adversarial
    Authority
    Centre
    Communication
    Compass
    Competition
    Conflict
    Consequence
    Cooperation
    Creation
    Culture
    Depression
    Discipline
    Domination
    Equality/inequality
    Family
    Ground/grounded
    Happiness
    Identity
    Love
    Motivation
    Nature
    Nonviolence
    Peace
    Power/politics
    Punishment
    Purpose
    Reconciliation
    Relationships
    Religion
    Responsible
    Restorative Action
    Revenge
    Social Disease
    Spiritual
    Truth
    Violence

    RSS Feed

Copyright © 2013 Bob Myers. All rights reserved. Sitemap

Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness is an ebook that helps you learn more about family peace, conflict resolution, self development, relationship building and more.
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.