Unextraordinary 'Rendition' Raises Profound Questions (by Gareth Higgins)
I narrowly missed being attacked with an axe last night on my way out of a cinema showing the disturbing film Rendition, about the practice, begun in the Clinton era, of the U.S. sending terrorism suspects to countries that allow torture as an interrogation technique. I managed to escape unharmed - mostly due to the fact that the axe was made of plastic and being wielded by a child who couldn't have been more than six years old, but whose parents had decided to fit him with a grim reaper mask for their trip to the mall. Given that I'd just been confronted with a fictionalization of the realities of rendition - which has its roots at least ostensibly in responding to violence - I was not in the mood to see the kid's Hallowe'en costume as innocuous. Our children are raised – like our forebears and ourselves – on the notion that violence is good, and that it can even be fun. At the very least, our culture does not nurture sufficient challenge to the idea that violence works. It was bleakly ironic that one of the characters in Rendition says that war is "the only way to freedom." He's an Islamic militant, but these words also find easy echo in the mouths of those who rattle sabers on behalf of Western interests in the Middle East.
Rendition is not a great film by any stretch. Its characters are mostly uncomplicated - Reese Witherspoon, for example, rarely seems more than mildly inconvenienced by the fact that her husband is being tortured in North Africa. But it would be a shame if the weaknesses of the film drowned out the wider questions it raises about the absurdity of the practice of rendition, and, wider still, the contemporary values that appear to endorse the use of horrific violence in response to perceived threat.
We know that torture does not produce results proportionate to its method. Indeed, it can simply pour fuel on the fire of ethnic conflict - never mind the fact that franchising it out to a second party because it doesn't fit our value system is morally nonsensical. Theodore Roszak may have spoken the prophecy of the age when he wrote that "people try nonviolence for a week, and when it does not work, they go back to violence, which hasn't worked for centuries." It is obviously a key task of this generation to tell a better story than the one that narrates the current dominant paranoid paradigm - wherein, as I wrote here a few weeks ago, the only way out presented is the arrogance through which everybody tries to destroy everybody else. This idea - that being right (or being perceived to be strong) is more important than doing good - is not true, in spite of its political appeal (or effectiveness as an evangelistic tool). But what alternative story can we tell that prioritises nonviolence over its opposite? In other words, what will a reformation of our culture's values regarding violence actually require of us?
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Rendition is a loser film; on a scale of 1 to 10 it is -6. This review/commentary has the kindest words I have heard about it.
It is a received article of faith in the United States that torture doesn't work to extract the truth from witnesses because a witness will say anything to get the torture to stop or avoid it altogether. If that is true, why do it? the argument goes.
I wonder if it is really true. It seems to me that interrogators from the mother quizzing the child about how the glass got broken to the application of mechanical or electical devices to inflict excruciating pain or terror are all part of a continuum of the application of physical or mental discomfort to extract the truth.
The application of physical or mental discomfort will get either truth or lies regardless of the level of discomfort. To avoid the mental discomfort, the child who broke the glass may lie and deny doing it no matter how kind the mother may be. Criminals lie all the time about cellmates "confessions" to get out of jail. Employees lie to cover up mistakes at work because of mental pressure - the fear of losing a promotion.
Law enforcement officers routinely put mental pressure on witnesses.
Perhaps torture does work after all? This is a much more difficult issue when you think about it. At this juncture it appears to me that we abhor torture because it is beneath the dignity of the country - not because it doesn't work.
Posted by: jsens | November 1, 2007 6:32 PM
Sorry, but violence does work sometimes. Here are a few examples:
1. American Revolutionaries freed us from the iron grip of the British.
2. The Civil War ended slavery.
3. WWI stopped the German plan to take over western Europe.
4. WWII stopped German and Japanese efforts to conquer in Europe and Asia. The Nazis (what a bunch!) were kicked out and had to either leave or go in hiding.
5. American military action is Bosnia brought about a peace, tentative though it may be.
6. Violence is often necessary to subdue criminals and other antisocial types.
7. As we know from the movies, the U.S. Cavalry saved a lot of settlers from being massacred by Indians.
Posted by: jsens | November 1, 2007 6:44 PM
jsens - Have you seen the movie? If so, tell us why it is a -6. You didn't describe why it was so bad.
Posted by: Eric | November 1, 2007 6:52 PM
While I have to believe that torture does work at times (why else would interrogators continue to employ it if it continually lead to bad information?), that doesn't make it morally acceptable.
Posted by: Eric | November 1, 2007 6:54 PM
It comes as little surprise that our society, in general, believes that violence is an acceptable way of solving problems. But it should shock us that many within the Christian church feel this way as well. Why is this?
I've had Christians adamantly try to explain away Scriptures that deal with peace. "Thou shalt not kill." "Blessed are the peacemakers." "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
What is their explanation? They say that "Thou shalt not kill" refers only to premeditated murder, not war. The "peace" Jesus refers to is inward peace as a result of salvation, not peace between people. And "love your enemies" does not refer to nations or groups of people, but to individuals only.
Why must we make all of these conditions on Scripture? Is it possible that God would want peace between people, that he wouldn't want killing of any sort, and that he really meant for us to love those who hate us and persecute us and threaten us? Why is that so unbelievable?
Posted by: pe | November 1, 2007 7:41 PM
"Sorry, but violence does work"
You've been watching too many Arnold and Stallone movies on DVD.
1. American Revolutionaries freed us from the iron grip of the British.
Yes, the iron grip of the most advanced and civil democracy then existing in the world. The British then ended slavery in countries they controlled, but that didn't apply to America, which had "freed" itself, sorta. if you were a European, English-speaking white person of the male sex who owned property. (Kind of like eating your colonialist cake but saying you don't have it, too, mostly so you don't have to share it with your more remote fellow imperialists?)
2. The Civil War ended slavery.
A war that had the largest loss of life in human history to that point (500,000) resulted in no change for the debased condition of African-Americans in the South for another century, until non-violent resistance made the first real changes. Lynchings, KKK, Jim Crow, no voting or office-holding, no property rights, apartheid.
3. WWI stopped the German plan to take over western Europe.
That's why within a few short years, the conditions caused by WW I resulted in Germany taking over all of western Europe. Not only that, but it resulted in collapse of Russia, directly causing the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union to threaten the west, and the rise of Stalin.
4. WWII stopped German and Japanese efforts to conquer in Europe and Asia. The Nazis (what a bunch!) were kicked out and had to either leave or go in hiding.
Instead, the Soviet Union took over much of Europe and a threat of nuclear annihilation hung over us all, and over-reactions caused civil liberties losses in the US with fascists like McCarthy causing fear and loathing.
We proved that a civilized nation was willing to kill entire civilian populations by dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on cities for test purposes on a country which no longer had a navy or air force and threatened no one any more.
In Asia, the aftermath of the war caused China to become completely unstabilized and for communism to take over both China and many other Asian countries, leading to many more millions of deaths and several undeclared wars which deprecated the constitutional controls on America conducting wars.
5. American military action in
Bosnia brought about a peace, tentative though it may be.
And the conflicts there were stoked and pent up from the previous above unresolved conflicts. And set a precedent for pre-emptive war in the future, which we've now fulfilled, again to no benefit to our own condition or others - in fact, just the opposite.
6. Violence is often necessary to subdue criminals and other antisocial types.
Much less than you might think. Sometimes responding provocatively with armed might intensifies the violence, instead of putting it out.
Not every black in a doorway pulling out his wallet needs to be subdued in a hail of 41 bullets.
America believes in violence, and it suffer from epidemics of violence from your house, to the White House.
7. As we know from the movies, the U.S. Cavalry saved a lot of settlers from being massacred by Indians.
The movies! Glad you get all you know from there, now we know the state of your mind firmly rooted in unreality and convenient and entertaining myths. I suppose from the point of us Indians, we just didn't use enough violence back against the U.S. Calvary, which engaged in genocide, to allow us to declare ourselves the "good guys" defending our homeland from invaders who really needed that "liebensraum" that the homelands in Europe couldn't supply.
IN REALITY, VIOLENCE ONLY BEGETS MORE VIOLENCE AND ANY "PEACE" AFTER EXHAUSTION FROM WAR JUST GIVES BREATHING SPACE UNTIL THE NEXT REVENGE CYCLE CAN TAKE PLACE.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2007 7:43 PM
"Power comes out of the barrel of a gun."
- Chinese Communist Dictator Mao-Tse Tung, along with assorted conservative Christian sympathizers.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 1, 2007 8:05 PM
Power comes out of the barrel of a gun."
- Chinese Communist Dictator Mao-Tse Tung, along with assorted conservative Christian sympathizers.
Posted by: N.M. Rod |
At least you did not link them to Nazis . Always next blog though , Your a nasty fellow sometimes .
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
JFK
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 2, 2007 1:24 AM
Mick
WWII (perhaps the last justified war)also led to the current situation in the Middle East. Our Imperialist method of carving out countries that did not exist before and thereby separating people groups from each other and grouping disparate peoples together certainly can be seen as problematic now. All of this was done with the idea of maintaining the colonialist pre-war hedgemony of Western Europeans, another factor which worked in our favor but hurt others. War doesn't work because even the most justified examples result in wrongs and only the winners feel good about it. When are we going to give peace a chance? It takes time and may be frustrating to our nationalist egos but to continue to do what obviously does not work is not the answer. In the end, no matter how we justify it, war is the way we force people to do what we want, that cannot be a Christian principle.
Nationalistic prideful and boastful statements like the one you quote just "sound" good my brother.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 2, 2007 8:21 AM
"The struggle to consolidate the socialist system, the struggle to decide whether socialism or capitalism will prevail, will still take a long historical period. But we should all realise that the new system of socialism will unquestionably be consolidated. We can assuredly build a socialist state with modern industry, modern agriculture, and modern science and culture." - Chinese Communist Dictator Mao-Tse Tung, along with assorted liberal Christian sympathizers.
Posted by: Ross | November 2, 2007 10:57 AM
Liberal, conservative - when will you see that wrangling about establishing political ideologies with guns is futile? Truly there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to urges for dominance.
"...bear any burden, support any ally..." and yet the western nations turned over much of "liberated" Europe to Stalin's oppression without any resistance.
All is vanity and self-centeredness.
Seems to me we are all nasty, if you can bear to peel back the layers of the onion of your own dark soul.
Posted by: N.M Rod | November 2, 2007 12:47 PM
"War doesn't work because even the most justified examples result in wrongs and only the winners feel good about it. "
War is always the lesser of two evils . In preaching against war , you support one evil .
But you never talk to stopping that . Or even if you are inclined to .
The sound good quote is an example of a method used to prevent war , people don't attack you because your too strong . I understand history , and I understand the effects of war . Thank God not First hand . Quotes from above show common sense and realizing one the the effects of liberty is peace
. Defending Freedom spreads peace .
Yoor devotion to your own predicatable independent thought has led you to the conclussion every person who defends this country or salutes the flag has falled victim to oversteppeed nationalism . I suggest my brother you have fallen to your idealogy that uses Howard Zinn and like minded individuals as your flag , and you no longer can have an intellectual exchange with any other viewpoint without considering it seconary to yours in knowledge of this nation and Christian understanding . You have become what you say you detest . Your flag has changed shape , but you salute and wave it without concern for who it offends . Or a realistic and honest historical perspective .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 2, 2007 1:07 PM
People are informed by their "common sense" to defend endless war.
Yet, "common sense," the natural man's way of seeing things, was no help in perceiving the underlying reality of the physical world described best by quantum physics. It's counterintuitive though true.
At one time, Galileo and Copernicus were persecuted for discovering the truths about a heliocentric solar systen that everyone "knew" were wrong since the time of Ptolemy - especially church hierarchy.
Times have changed. War has always been waged to take what belongs to someone else, a mass version of Cain murdering Abel. Sin. Yet to leaders, war seemed acceptable since they could take the chance that others would die, but not them, and they weighed that ratio carefully. Now, the means of war's consequences exceed vastly its purported positive ends. Civilians are now the overwhelming casualties of any war. The firepower has grown to become the technology of destroying whole worlds. The time has come to think along a new paradigm as revolutionary to practical morality as that of quantum physics was to practical physics. We now need uncommon sense about violence and war.
For Christians, we are almost there, if only we can remove the familiar spirits, the family idols - the anti-christ "War Jesus" from where we live, and listen to the Holy Spirit, who will illuminate and lead us into the truth that Jesus taught us: "Love your enemy."
If not now, when? If not you, then who?
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 2, 2007 2:21 PM
"Or a realistic and honest historical perspective."
Mick
Mick, my friend, is it really an honest historical perspective that causes someone to support war? If so, How so?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 2, 2007 2:32 PM
N.M. Rod - There are very few Christians who see war as a good thing or something desirable. And even fewer Christians see it as an opportunity to "take what belongs to someone else."
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf said something along the lines of "I'm anti-war, every soldier is anti-war, but that doesn't mean there aren't things worth fighting for." This is probably where a lot of Christians come down. You can argue this isn't compatible with Biblical teaching, but it's not the motivation you impute in your posts above.
I don't agree with Mick that war "is always the lesser of two evils". It's not. It's a great evil and should be avoided whenever possible, but it's not the worst evil. We should work for peace, but as your recognized "we are all nasty" so there at least has to be the threat of force against those who let their nasty side out.
Posted by: Eric | November 2, 2007 3:09 PM
N.M. Rod, I really liked the way you dissected jsens list of the accomplishments of violence. My head is spinning from his point #7.
"7. As we know from the movies, the U.S. Cavalry saved a lot of settlers from being massacred by Indians."
This rather clearly demonstrates the limited thought processes some people are working with. Maybe us "American Indians" should have made more movies eh? Yeah... that's the ticket!!
Posted by: Scott Starr | November 2, 2007 3:42 PM
Here are some rather apt quotes on the subject:
You can no more "win" a war than you can win an earthquake. The whole enterprise is about survival, damage control and recovery.
It is useless to attack men who could not be controlled even if conquered, while failure would leave us in an even worse position...
~Thucydides
- About the quote: Thucydides was a Athenian historian, born in the 5th century, BC. Here, he is quoting the Athenian general Nikias on the proposed invasion of Sicily during the Peloponnesian War.
The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions.
~Robert Lynd
It would be easier to subjugate the entire universe through force than the minds of a single village.
~Voltaire
The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.
~Albert Camus
In any war, the first casualty is common sense, and the second is free and open discussion.
~James Reston
About the quote: American Journalist (1909-1995), best known for his work with the NY Times.
What an immense mass of evil must result...from allowing men to assume the right of anticipating what may happen.
~Leo Tolstoy
May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
~Albert Einstein
The voice of protest...is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum...is bidding all men...obey in silence the tyrannous word of command.
~Charles Eliot Norton
The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated.
~William Ellery Channing
Let not your zeal to share your principles entice you beyond your borders.
~Marquis de Sade
The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory.
~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin
Today the real test of power is not capacity to make war but capacity to prevent it.
~Anne O'Hare McCormick
Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood.
~Mahatma Gandhi
The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
~Martin Luther King, Jr.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so...
~Robert A. Heinlein
An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot.
~Thomas Paine
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
~George Washington
I am not blaming those who are resolved to rule, only those who show an even greater readiness to submit.
~Thucydides
After every ''victory'' you have more enemies.
~Jeanette Winterson
Violence as a way of gaining power...is being camouflaged under the guise of tradition, national honor [and] national security...
~Alfred Adler
Non-violence is not inaction. It is not discussion. It is not for the timid or weak... Non-violence is hard work.
~Cesar Chavez
The dangerous patriot...drifts into chauvinism and exhibits blind enthusiasm for military actions.
~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps
Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.
~Senator Robert M. La Follette
Peace is constructed, not fought for.
~Brent Davis
It is always easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them.
~Alfred Adler
All nations want peace, but they want a peace that suits them.
~Admiral Sir John Fisher
Imperialism is an institution under which one nation asserts the right to seize the land or at least to control the government or resources of another people.
~John T. Flynn
Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.
~A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.
~Noam Chomsky
The terrorist is the one with the small bomb.
~Brendan Behan
We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom.
~Stephen Vincent Benét
Peace demands the most heroic labor and the most difficult sacrifice. It demands greater heroism than war.
~Thomas Merton
If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace.
~John Lennon
[War] might be avoidable were more emphasis placed on the training to social interest, less on the attainment of egotistical grandeur.
~Lydia Sicher
Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely.
~Senator Robert M. La Follette
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
~Voltaire
The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government.
~Martin Luther King, Jr.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.
~George Orwell
Then of course there is the sermon on the mount as delivered by Christ....
Posted by: Scott Starr | November 2, 2007 3:57 PM
Eric, everybody lets their nasty side out.
In war, once it starts, everyone fights on the same side, that of death and destruction.
Another problem is that as far as information goes, people's access to it is highly manipulated so that their reactions will be just what's desired.
Believing in a fantasy doesn't change the reality.
The mistake for a Christian is continuing to see humanity as made up of distinct "us" vs. "them," "good" vs. "evil."
With the Fall, man was separated from God, alienated from his Creator. He was also alienated from others - who were of his own immediate flesh and blood - and from himself.
When we are restored to God, onlyn then to we have the power to love others and ourselves as we ought to.
Too many of us have bought into the old natural thinking since the alienation of all from all since the Fall, and effectively aborted our spiritual rebirth, blocking the work of the Holy Spirit and making us ineffective in truly changing relationships and reconciling.
We absolutely have to stop avoiding Matthew 5, 6 and 7 because they go against our naturalistic, "common" sense and the intuition of the "old man."
Christianity is a failure until we do, and history proves it.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 2, 2007 4:12 PM
Of course torture is effective. If Khalid Shaikh Muhammed had been asked, he would have confessed to being in charge of the Black Hole of Calcutta.
Posted by: dongisselbeck | November 2, 2007 7:32 PM
I love the Theodore Roszak Quote "people try nonviolence for a week, and when it does not work, they go back to violence, which hasn't worked for centuries."
I recommend John Crossan's truly great and thought provoking book, God & Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now, recently published on the topic of Empire, Civilization, and the nonviolent message of Jesus. Crossan is a leading scholar of the historical Jesus, but this is a beautiful and compact answer to the question " How is it possible to be a faithful Christian in an empire facilitated by a violent Christian Bible?"
He supports the centrality of non-violence to Jesus message and rejects The final apocalyptic book of the NT as fundamentally un-Christian and false to Jesus teachings.
I recently took up the topic of torture for an occasional column I write for a local paper . Though it seems impossible , sometimes Christians forget how relevant this topic is in light of the fact that Jesus was tortured to death in a classic exercise of violent Imperial suppression of any perceived threat to their imposed social order. I will post it in case someone is interested.
Another relevant book, specifically on extraordinary rendition is Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program, by Stephen Grey. He searched legally required flight plans, did many interviews, and comes up with a well documented picture of a large and terrifyingly secret program of masssive abduction and torture without due process. He documents the private airlines involved and the actual flight plans.
Posted by: jonabark | November 2, 2007 9:44 PM
I really think that the practice of Extraordinary rendition is worse than morally nonsensical, though it is certainly that. It is a a violent and criminal action, and is really the de-facto establishment of the cruelest kind ofpolice state unaccountable to democratic process.
The only mandate for US government action is the US constitution. According to the constitution arrest requires that a criminal charge be made, legal representation be available, and a trial by jury follow . The constitution also prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and clearly outlines what are legal methods of interrogation. There is no constitutional basis for abducting someone outside the country except in a war declared by congress. To operate outside the constitution is to operate outside the law.
The current practice of "extraordinary rendition" along with its euphemistic name was started by Bill Clinton. We need to make these issues part of the Presidential campaign for all parties and candidates.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 2, 2007 10:16 PM
Oops! the post was mine. As for Mick. The Bush admistration is operating in unaccountable secrecy, defying the rule of law, arresting without due process, torturing instead of using humane legal investigative methods which have worked for centuries, Killing thousands of noncombatant citizens in a country that never attacked or threatened them, handing out licenses to kill to mercenaries, spying without warrants, confiscating private financial information from American citizens without due process. They are a threat to liberty, not defenders of it.
Liberty is established not by war but by justice; it does not come from Imperial armies, or from any flag or abstraction, but from the love of God.
Posted by: jonabark | November 2, 2007 10:48 PM
To those who have asked why torture is used if it does not work: it may, at times. The fact - given by FBI interrogators and a victim of torture and US Senator, John McCain - is that it is no more effective, and in many situations LESS effective, than conventional techniques. It is used because there is a tendency to view it, because it IS torture, as the "toughest" means and therefore the best, fastest, and most effective, however incorrect this is.
The use of rendition is barbaric and should be condemned by anyone with a shred of a conscience; how any Christian can support it is beyond me. Setting aside the arrogance of "we're too good to do this, let's get other people - who we routinely condemn for torture - to do our dirty work for us," the methods used by countries where people are sent are absolutely and unquestionably brutal, degrading, and inhumane. And then there's the fact that you don't always get the right person - Maher Arar, a Canadian, was sent to Syria to be tortured despite having done NOTHING, on the basis of faulty information. And besides the torture itself, sending citizens of other nations abroad to be tortured without consulting those nations displays utter contempt for those nations.
Posted by: Katherine Wall | November 3, 2007 2:39 AM
I never thought it would come to this, but it may actually be that leadership has sunk to a moral level no better than my own.
The only positive development is that this puts any of us on an equal footing to evaluate the actions of our putative betters, and to find them, at long last, as fallible and wanting as ourselves.
This is an opportunity for humility and its byproduct - the dawning of true understanding, becoming able to admit faults and the consequent ability to call for a reversal of course in keeping with moral imperatives.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 3, 2007 2:52 AM
"Power comes out of the barrel of a gun." - Chinese Communist Dictator Mao-Tse Tung, along with assorted conservative Christian sympathizers.
Posted by: N.M. Rod
When I read that I laughed so hard! Thank you for that post. It is very provocative but certainly not nasty. I wish I had a bumper sticker with that on there.
Speaking of bumper stickers, I used to see one that was pretty good:
"When Jesus said to love our enemies, he didn't meant that we should kill them."
"War is always the lesser of two evils . In preaching against war , you support one evil .
But you never talk to stopping that . Or even if you are inclined to."
Apart from being a very poorly drafted phrase (because you seem to imply that war should always be used to stop evil), you completly mischaracterize the position of many of the opponents of war. Nonviolent resistance can be a very effective tool as an alternative to war. Many pacifists have been very active in resisting evil. Example= India.
"I suggest my brother you have fallen to your idealogy that uses Howard Zinn and like minded individuals as your flag , and you no longer can have an intellectual exchange with any other viewpoint without considering it seconary to yours in knowledge of this nation and Christian understanding . You have become what you say you detest . Your flag has changed shape , but you salute and wave it without concern for who it offends . Or a realistic and honest historical perspective." Mick Sheldon
I give you a "10" on a scale of 1 to 10 for rant. I give you "0" on the scale of 1 to 10 for meaningful substance.Thanks for the reminder of Howard Zinn, though. I think I'll go to Barnes and Noble and pick up one of his books today.
Posted by: JamesMartin | November 3, 2007 5:39 AM
"Many pacifists have been very active in resisting evil. Example= India."
Yes , that was a great example . But use those same methods and use them in 1933 Germany . Sorry your dead and everything you believe in . You can work with a person who has a conscience , India was dealing with Great Britain . You can embarrass them into listening , Hitler you would just make it easier for him . You can not use pacifism with idealogical nut case or a regime based on one .
I respect a true pacifists . Have not met any here yet . In fact respect is a shallow word in regards to their beliefs , it takes great courgage to be one . The ones here such as yourself have to belittle other views or mock their ability with the English Language .
They need to demonize the country or views that oppose their own views . Pacifists don't do this , not real ones . Pacifists are so because of their Faith , in fact a true pacifist holds to their beliefs when the vast majority see it differently and their views are seen as some as even helping terrorism . But they hold firm , and would never belittle their attackers , that is part of their belief of using love instead of hate . You remind me of a person who says they love Jesus and unless you agree with you , you will shove it down their throat and belittle you in public doing so . And your a pacifist . LOL
I have a Howard Zinn Book ,The People's History of the United States .
A bit of info for you , Zinn lives in the same upper middle class neigborhood as Chomsky .
Power to the people .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 3, 2007 1:48 PM
Mick, my friend, is it really an honest historical perspective that causes someone to support war? If so, How so?
Are you a stranger here . I have stated repeatedly I am against this war . The anom I replied named the American Civil War , World War 2 and a host of strawman points for other wars that did not reflect the issues involved in the wars he spoke to . Its hard to know
if your the same person , but when we are speaking about the cougage to stand up to war , which REAL pacifist do , I would expect to see a name behind the replies please .
Because I have not reached your conclussions show exactly that , we share a different perspectives .
This war is not "all" the fault of Bush , yes he shares the blame and responsibility for our involvement . But you see I also blame the minds of the cultish terrorists in Iraq and in the world today .
The innocent women , children and citizens in Iraq need our prayers and support . There are also terrorists in Iraq that have caused this problem , and I find it strange the left never comments to these thugs . They rather have Bush be the evil immoral promoter of death . No , incompetent maybe , but not the evil that the left here portrays .
Looks like we have no one stepping forward but candidates that have no chance of winning for withdrawing our troops .
Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2007 2:09 PM
Liberty is established not by war but by justice; it does not come from Imperial armies, or from any flag or abstraction, but from the love of God.
Posted by: jonabark |
Jonabark ,
I share your view this is war is wrong for America. I do not share "all" your perceptions of George Bush the evil one .
Also I do find it quite interesting that I am the only one who who is against this war without the need to state something about how waving the flag has some kind of bearing on the subject . But I would not mind supporting a
protest for this war , waving the flag with great pride and Love in my heart .
I do happen to think this is a great country .
Sorry if that offends you , at one time it might have given us common ground . Obviously our faiths do not either .
Love In Christ , Mick
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 3, 2007 2:15 PM
Then of course there is the sermon on the mount as delivered by Christ....
Posted by: Scott Starr
Here are some other good ones Scott ,
Albert Camus:
[I]n such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners.
Alfred Tennyson:
Till the war-drum throbb`d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl`d; In the parliament of man; the Federation of the world.
Annie Dillard:
"One of the main reasons that it is so easy to march men off to war," says Ernest Becker, is that "each of them feels sorry for the man next to him who will die."
Aristotle:
We make war that we may live in peace.
Barbara Kingsolver:
There's a graveyard in northern France where all the dead boys from D-Day are buried. The white crosses reach from one horizon to the other. I remember looking it over and thinking it was a forest of graves. But the rows were like this, dizzying, diagonal, perfectly straight, so after all it wasn't a forest but an orchard of graves. Nothing to do with nature, unless you count human nature.
Benjamin Franklin:
There never was a good war or a bad peace.
Blaise Pascal:
Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarrelled with him?
Croesus:
In peace the sons bury their fathers, but in war the fathers bury their sons.
David Friedman:
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
Dorothy Thompson:
They have not wanted Peace at all; they have wanted to be spared war -- as though the absence of war was the same as peace.
Dwight D. Eisenhower:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. [1953]
Dwight Eisenhower:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
April 16, 1953
Ecclesiastes:
For everything there is a season,
And a time for every matter under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away;
A time to tear, and a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate,
A time for war, and a time for peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
Eleanor Roosevelt:
When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war.
General Douglas MacArthur:
I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a method of settling international disputes.
George Bernard Shaw:
Peace is not only better than war, but infinitely more arduous.
George Washington:
There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy.
George Washington:
I do not mean to exclude altogether the idea of patriotism. I know it exists, and I know it has done much in the present contest. But I will venture to assert, that a great and lasting war can never be supported on this principle alone. It must be aided by a prospect of interest, or some reward.
Georges Clemenceau:
War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.
Gertrude Stein:
A nice war is a war where everybody who is heroic is a hero, and everybody more or less is a hero in a nice war. Now this war is not at all a nice war.
1943
Harry Emerson Fosdick:
I hate war for its consequences, for the lies it lives on and propagates, for the undying hatreds it arouses, for the dictatorships it puts in the place of democracies, and for the starvation that stalks after it. I hate war, and never again will I sanction or support another.
Hermann Goering:
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. quote verified at snopes.com
Howard Nemerov:
Religion and science both profess peace (and the sincerity of the professors is not being doubted), but each always turns out to have a dominant part in any war that is going or contemplated.
Howard Thurman:
During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable, even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism.
James Russell Lowell:
We kind o' thought Christ went agin war an' pillage.
Jeanette Rankin:
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
John Adams:
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.
John F. Kennedy:
The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men.
John F. Kennedy:
It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.
John F. Kennedy:
Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer be of concern to great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by winds and waters and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike. Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.
John Stuart Mill:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
Martha Gelhorn:
War is a malignant disease, an idiocy, a prison, and the pain it
causes is beyond telling or meaning; but war was our condition
and our history, the place we had to live in.
Omar N. Bradley:
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.
Patrick Henry:
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! March 23, 1775
R. Buckminster Fuller:
Either war is obsolete or men are.
Ralph Bunche:
There are no warlike people, just warlike leaders.
Ralph Waldo Emerson:
The real and lasting victories are those of peace, and not of war.
Robert E. Lee:
It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.
Ronald Reagan:
History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.
Simone Weil:
A self-respecting nation is ready for anything, including war, except for a renunciation of its option to make war.
Spinoza:
Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice.
Theodore Roosevelt:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)
Thomas Jefferson:
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
Thomas Paine:
If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.
Will Rogers:
You can't say civilization don't advance -- for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 3, 2007 2:40 PM
First of all, there's a difference between pacifism and non-violent resistance to evil.
As for Nazi occupation, Denmark's bureaucracy practiced non-violent resistance and unlike all the other occupied nations, saved almost all of its Jews.
It seems in our own country and in most others, too often people simply obey superiors because that's what they're taught that patriotism and loyalty are all about - my country, right or wrong. Under such circumstances, non-violent resistance to evil isn't as efficacious because no one wants to inconvenience himself or risk anything to do what is morally right.
The soldier who revealed the abuses at Abu Ghraib has had to be given a new identity, because so many average patriotic folks in his hometown threatened to kill him for calling his own side to account no matter what the evil done.
Loving your country in a certain kind of way is nothing more than communal and corporate ego-stroking of a sort, slef-flattery that would obviously be remiss and sinfully self-centered if practiced by an individual alone.
Respecting government that in its proper role serves the interests of all people rather than the few who manage to wield power, or loving the land and its beauties as given by God has no negative bellicose or antagonistic substance, but it has to be said that patriotism so often becomes synonymous with bristling aggressive and intolerant militarism and urges for supremacy over others through exercise of force and a supposed "divine right" somehow given to one nation to subdue all others. We have to admit we often see that here and elsewhere. There is no basis, however, for believing Americans to have the innate superiority over other human beings to express their love of nation as a belief in the right to dominate others. This is simply the national character weakness that turned a blind eye to slavery, despite high-sounding invocations of freedom from slavery from England, which was hardly the same thing at all, to compare the conditions of black slaves with merchants who didn't want to pay a fraction of a per cent in tax. It's the same character flaw that is fully prepared to exploit workers from Latin American countries for their cheap labor and yet no civil rights. The same character flaw revealed that to this day romanticizes the Manifest Destiny era of genocide of the Indian peoples and their conquest, all for living space for Europeans.
Given that we now know without any doubt that all wars have been fought to the financial benefit of at least some of the very wealthy and privileged, shouldn't we be sickened by how the flag is immediately wrapped around these cynical financial ventures in order to suppress questioning and generate hatred and intolerance for anyone wanting to stop a moment and evaluate what is really going on and the best way to proceed with the best possible outcome for everyone?
Posted by: N.M Rod | November 3, 2007 6:16 PM
"You remind me of a person who says they love Jesus and unless you agree with you , you will shove it down their throat and belittle you in public doing so . And your a pacifist . LOL" Mick Sheldon
Gee, Mick. So sorry. I see so much of that in you and I wouldn't want to be that way. Please accept my apologies.
Posted by: JamesMartin | November 3, 2007 8:42 PM
Gee, Mick. So sorry.
Posted by: JamesMartin
No worries , apology accepted .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 4, 2007 2:43 AM
shouldn't we be sickened by how the flag is immediately wrapped around these cynical financial ventures in order to suppress questioning and generate hatred and intolerance for anyone wanting to stop a moment and evaluate what is really going on and the best way to proceed with the best possible outcome for everyone?
Posted by: N.M Rod
Of course , but just as sickened by those who wrap themselves around race , political parties, gay rights , etc , and those who feel they need to use the Bible as proof of their superior ability to understand the Teachings Of Christ then show the opposing view point based in spitual immaturity or worse . .
Janes Martin for instance proving his point of non violence , chose to mock a person for their dylexia . Would Christ do that ?
Does not a believer only have Grace and God to thank for their ability to know a spirtual truth , indeed why would you mock another for not knowing it ? Should we be thanking God for the gift of knowledge and discernment or should we be ridiculing another believer for a condition from birth ?
What God is be served here ? Are you so quick to undermine another believers view and state he is using the Flag instead of his own ability to promote a view he feels is correct ? You making only the flag in this arguement leaves out the many types of "flags" opposing views you tend agree with in their ranks .
Or are you unaware of the use, an example is unless you believe in my position you hold no value in the words of Christ . If I had a nickel for everytime a lefty implied that , no one would need to raise taxes , we would have enough for the poor .
Of course using the Flag as a method to stop debate is wrong . And you are right , I believe it was used in Iraq . But many use the hatred of this country and only see oppression from America , even you have argued from that point before . Some here view People who believe on an issue a certain way are good Christians , those who believe another are people who only think about ONLY two issues and are uninformed .
In other words , perhaps in a different format your words would have more meaning , but considering all the stuff pushed around here and denigrated as Godless thought , immoral . your example of people worshipping the flag gets a little lost , like I said , I would not mind waving it at an anti War Rally myself . To me it represents freedom , and the choice to decide for yourself . I do not believe this war is wrong because of any great understanding of the Scriptures above that of another man , but I believe I have used the wisdom and understanding the lord has gifted me with to come to that conclussion .
If the war ended next week with Iraq a free nation , with elections I would be happy , and happy I was wrong . I often wonder what some people who share my anti war views would say .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 4, 2007 3:32 AM
Strike that last para from my previous post. It was just another example of Mick's charitable statements to his fellow blog participants. I did not respond to it.
Posted by: JamesMartin | November 4, 2007 7:06 AM
"But many use the hatred of this country and only see oppression from America, even you have argued from that point before."
This is just a combination of demonizing, playing the victim and
then justifying a need to take offense.
How can you hate a country? What is a country? A government, a whole people, a geographic location?
Is everyone in that country alike in their attitudes, their behaviors, their sense of justice, their service?
Isn't there a lot of choosing just who you consider your neighbor when you think this way?
I recall a man I knew who professed love for country, great patriotism, but then he lived behind the walls of one of the most secure gated communities I've ever seen, because he was so fearful of what he thought of as the awful people outside - he had edited down very much his concept of "country" to a tiny minority and he certainly didn't love those outside - who were just as much as he part of the country.
It would be nice to think that love of country extends to everyone in it - a local version of Jesus' command to "love your enemy," even domestic ones - both saints and sinners, philanthropists and prison inmates,
volunteers and criminals - but it really doesn't. It's too often either love of being governed, that bugaboo of historical human nature, or domination, partisanship or militarism.
Blind hatred of whole peoples - nations, as it were - is racism.
In Jesus' analogy, racism is already genocide in the minds of those entertaining it. Scapegoating is wrong, too.
It's just another form of blaming the other instead of seeing your own culpability to assign America in particular blame for humanity's problems. Like everyone else in the world, leaders and governed here are both part of the solution as well as the problem.
However, it is possible for the leaders of any nation to commit great sins and even sometimes for a majority of the country's inhabitants to approve of it. We don't have to look very far around the globe or in history to see this problem, and it's not limited to one particular ethnic group.
When the 41st president bragged before a huge assembly, after the first Gulf War, "The United States of America - the greatest nation the world has ever known" and there was a sustained roar of approval from the crowd, I, a Republican supporter, had a dreadful sense of misgiving that this was not the appropriate response before God to give for victory, that it was hubris inviting divine approbation. Never had a leader been so popular - yet this same leader went down to ignominious electoral defeat soon after against an opponent who I had no illusions about, unlike the voters who elected him.
At one time, soon after his election, the 43rd president said, "The United States should be a great but humble nation." That was a God-honoring statement, but actions speak louder than even the best of words.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 4, 2007 11:48 AM
N.M. Rod said
Isn't there a lot of choosing just who you consider your neighbor when you think this way?
Noam Chomsky lives in a white upper class neigborhood . I understand the point , but the love of country has nothing to do with it . Love of country could also mean you love the ideals it stands for , if you believe it stands for freedom , opportunity , an ability to live safe and a place to bring up your families , it does just the opoosite of what you say . Just like Christianity , it can do all the things you are saying . Look as the Muslim Faith , its been hijacked by many to do just what nationalism can do .
You
Blind hatred of whole peoples - nations, as it were - is racism.
In Jesus' analogy, racism is already genocide in the minds of those entertaining it. Scapegoating is wrong, too
Me
Again you are using strawman links to what love of country can do . The folks who support your view can may be racists , scapegoat others , Conservative Christians for instance .A person who loves America because they believe it promotes opportunity and freedom ? Some peoploe with this belief will stand up to those who use nationalism as for the reason you say also . Your stereotyping . Or am I on the sauce again ? I think we are agreeing , just you seem limited to nationalism and have a very distinct inability to see how people who agree on your ideas at times also use a demon similiar to blind patriotism .
People who advocate allowing murderers to attack another country , yet when they are called on it by another person , even in a safe place as a blog are unable to turn the other cheek and name call . I find that quite strange you don't see it . But you expect the opinion of following the Sermon On the Mount to be used in that instance of stopping terrorists and not physically stopping them , when the advocates of no war themselves are more then willing to not pay any attention to the Sermon itself with their insults and their spirtual superiority .
You
"Like everyone else in the world, leaders and governed here are both part of the solution as well as the problem."
Me
Well of course , and we can do better .
You
"When the 41st president bragged before a huge assembly, after the first Gulf War, "The United States of America - the greatest nation the world has ever known" and there was a sustained roar of approval from the crowd, I, a Republican supporter, had a dreadful sense of misgiving that this was not the appropriate response before God to give for victory, that it was hubris inviting divine approbation"
Me
I missed the speech , I was just glad we got out of there with as few casualities as we had and Kuwait was a free nation again . Or at least free to be subjected to their own rule .
You
yet this same leader went down to ignominious electoral defeat soon after against an opponent who I had no illusions about, unlike the voters who elected him.
Me
Well he raised taxes and I think the left played on that pretty good , we were in a mild recession , and Ross Perrot . Clinton won without 50 percent . But you got to admit , he did not do as bad as of job as so many thought . Except his underworld life and dealings . Those pardons will forever be held over his head by historians .
You
At one time, soon after his election, the 43rd president said, "The United States should be a great but humble nation." That was a God-honoring statement, but actions speak louder than even the best of words
Yeah I am looking forward to him leaving . Not to Hillary coming in . Tired of Bush and Clintons in the office . But they are only human , pray for them is the best and least we can do .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 4, 2007 1:20 PM
"Janes Martin for instance proving his point of non violence , chose to mock a person for their dylexia . Would Christ do that ?" Mick Sheldon
Shame on you, Mick. You lied. I never mocked you or anybody else for their dylexia.
Posted by: James Martin | November 4, 2007 5:00 PM
I never mocked you or anybody else for their dylexia.
Oh Jimmy , that was just another poory crafted phrase of mine , so sorry .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 4, 2007 9:52 PM
I don't agree with Mick that war "is always the lesser of two evils". It's not. It's a great evil and should be avoided whenever possible,
Eric , How so ? Hitler killing millions , using the people in the countries he conquered to work in his war machine factories . To me the lesser evil was stopping Hitler progress further .
War as you said is a evil , but which evil was the lesser , stopping Hitler or letting him go on ?
I don't see the black and white of your position . I do not enjoy guns , don't own one , don't want to . I could never see using one , but if say a person held a weapon to the head of another would it be wrong to stop that person if the only way was by force ? The concept that Love works is based on the concept that you are not dealing with a pyschopath .
Would Jesus Christ say allow the nut case to murder your son ? I don't believe He would , and your job as aparent would be to protect Him .
If the Lord told me not to do anything , I Pray I would follow his direction , but to say from what we know of th Scriptures that we should allow mass murderers to kill innocent women and children , to take freedom away from communities , regions and countries , I don't believe so .
In any case , I wonder how many people who claim to be pacifist would allow someone to injure a member of their family while they stood by ?
So is this pacifism really about the love of God or is it about the self love and puffed up theology wizzards we see here ?
Power comes out of the barrel of a gun."
- Chinese Communist Dictator Mao-Tse Tung, along with assorted conservative Christian sympathizers.
Why is this kind of belief promoted ? To show spirtual maturity that it takes to understand such an issue ? To make one believe their stand is sooooo much more religious ? Or is it to show the evil of war . The taking of life , the precious gift from our Heavenly Father .
This becomes the real issue , are you willing to allow others you love to "loose" their freedom and life because of your Faith of this view point , that war or the call to arms is always anti Christian . Because unless you are willing to allow your own baby boy or daughter to be mrdered without lifting a finger , the only thing you are really sayin is you are aginsy war till the people who are being killed matter to you .
From the comments here , I would say that is more likely the case .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 4, 2007 10:43 PM
I recall a man I knew who professed love for country, great patriotism, but then he lived behind the walls of one of the most secure gated communities I've ever seen, because he was so fearful of what he thought of as the awful people outside - he had edited down very much his concept of "country" to a tiny minority and he certainly didn't love those outside - who were just as much as he part of the country
DID HE THINK OF THEM LIKE THIS ?
Chinese Communist Dictator Mao-Tse Tung, along with assorted conservative Christian sympathizers.
Posted by: meandme | November 5, 2007 1:37 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?