Just war theory is a mode of analysis that lists criteria by which war may be considered righteous before, during, and after its execution. The criteria to consider before a war are: declared by legitimate authority, just cause, right intent, reasonable hope of success, last resort, and announcement. The criteria to consider during war are: noncombatant immunity, proportionality of damage to good that will result, and limitations on weapons and tactics. Young scholars in Christian ethics are developing criteria to consider after war, such as reparations, truth and reconciliation, and refugees.
Just war theory has a long history inside of Christianity. It is a middle way between holy war and pacifism. However, just peace theory occupies the ground between just war theory and pacifism. From the perspective of just peace theory, just war theory is only war. It presupposes war. It comes into the discourse at the moment when a conflict reaches a crisis point and the possibility of war. The conversation becomes about making the case for war using just war principles. In contrast, just peace theory presupposes peace. The discourse becomes about what the nation is doing to preserve the peace. Further, just peace theory moves beyond just war theory because just war theory is unrealistic in the face of the nature of war itself.
For example, before a war we consider just cause. In reality, the causes of war are always multiple, complex, and entangled. So underneath arguments about defense and humanitarian intervention, there often lies an economic intent. Further, once war begins, no one can ever know how successful a nation will be in executing the war. Just war during war calls for the immunity of innocents and the protection of noncombatants from being targets of violence. Realistically, innocents always die in war. Some will object that this is an argument of moral equivalency. It is. The blood and tears are equivalent; people are equivalently killed and physically and psychologically injured. An innocent ecology is equivalently wounded.
Moreover, the nature of warfare is to defeat an enemy by any means necessary, and this includes using weapons and tactics that will demoralize the enemy even if that means killing innocents. Just war theory cannot come to terms with this reality.
Just peace theory understands that peacemaking happens every day, that the only just war is the war that we prevent because there is no such thing as victory in war. War itself is a defeat of human reason, communication, truth, and respect. At the same time, just peace theory recognizes there may be times when a military force ought to deploy to protect vulnerable populations or to enforce a peace agreement.
Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School
The recent Georgia-Russia mini-war in and around South Ossetia was definitely not a religious war, but it serves as a reminder that religious identity doesn't even come in third place when issues of national identity are at issue. While the battle raged, the majority of participants -- and casualties -- were Christians on both sides.
In both countries, the Orthodox Church -- in practice, though not officially -- functions as the national church. Russia has an icon of St. George at the center of its national coat of arms; the average Russian atheist regards himself as an Orthodox atheist. Georgia prides itself on having adopted Christianity in the 4th century, six centuries before the baptism of Russia.
No matter how borderless Christianity is in theory ("neither east nor west, neither Greek nor Jew"), in practice national borders are as substantial as cathedral walls.
The Orthodox churches in Russia and Georgia, led by Patriarch Alexei in Moscow and Patriarch Ilya in Tbilisi, are no exception. It's rare for either church to stand in opposition to its government. The Russian Orthodox Church has been especially notable for being quick to bless Russia's military -- and has been all but silent in voicing criticism about Russian actions, no matter how brutal. Patriarch Ilya also has been equally silent about post-Soviet Georgia's deepening association with the United States and the U.S.-sponsored military buildup that has resulted.
Thus it has been a surprise to note the efforts made by the leaders of both churches, first to prevent the recent war and then, their efforts having failed, to speed its end.
Ilya seems to have been the one who took the first step. In April he sent a letter to Alexei in which he noted the potential "role and authority of our churches to prevent the escalation of tensions and help restore good bilateral relations."
While Alexei's response has not been made public, it is likely that he intervened with Russia's president and prime minister (he is on close terms with both Medvedev and Putin) in hopes of encouraging renewed diplomatic efforts to prevent conflict.
But when Georgia's military bombarded Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, on the night of Aug. 8, hopes to prevent war were shattered. (What lay behind Georgia's action is baffling. It was something like Connecticut opening fire on New York. The Russians had already made clear what would happen in such a case. Georgia's small army hadn't a chance against Russian forces. Was President Saakashvili imagining that America, his military sponsor, would join the battle? Had he even been encouraged to open fire? I'd love to know.)
What is remarkable in the context of the days that followed was Patriarch Alexei making a public appeal to the Russian state to declare a cease fire.
"Today blood is being shed and people being killed in South Ossetia," he said, "and my heart deeply laments over it. Orthodox Christians are among those who have raised their hands against each other. Orthodox people, called by the Lord to live in fraternity and love, confront each other."
In a sermon given in Tbilisi two days later, Patriarch Ilya said that "one thing concerns us very deeply -- that Orthodox Russians are bombing Orthodox Georgians."
Note that when Alexei made his appeal, he was definitely not acting as the Russian government's amen chorus. At the time, Russia's leaders were strongly resisting international pressure for a cease fire. It seems likely that Russia was hoping, war having begun after years of tension, to seize the moment to bring South Ossetia, bitterly at odds with Georgia for many years, into actual rather than ex officio inclusion in Russia -- a goal Russia is still pursuing, but at present without warfare with Georgia.
Will the two churches make more vigorous efforts to prevent renewed conflict? And if so, how? How willing are the two churches to prevent the cross from being used as a flag pole?
Jim Forest is the international secretary of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship (www.incommunion.org), editor of its journal In Communion, and author of Praying With Icons and The Road to Emmaus: Pilgrimage as a Way of Life.
Seven years ago this morning, airplanes were flown into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania. The next day I joined with a few others to draft the following statement. In a few weeks, more than 4,000 of America's religious leaders of all faiths had signed it and it was printed as an ad in The New York Times.
Seven years later, as we remember that day, it is appropriate to reflect on this statement and to wonder how the world would be different if its counsel had been heeded.
We "demand[ed] that those responsible for these utterly evil acts be found and brought to justice. Those culpable must not escape accountability." Yet after seven years of war in Afghanistan, we are still engaged against a resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden has still not been found. Then, 9/11 was used as a rationale to invade and occupy Iraq, a conflict that has now taken the lives of more than 4,000 American troops and countless Iraqis. Rather than "the vision of community, tolerance, compassion, justice, and the sacredness of human life, which lies at the heart of all our religious traditions," we have seen the erosion of our civil liberties, torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and indefinite detentions without trial.
Today on this anniversary, let us pause to remember those who died, to reflect on what has happened since, and once again, "Let us rededicate ourselves to global peace, human dignity, and the eradication of the injustice that breeds rage and vengeance." We offered a different way to deny the terrorists their victory, which, I believe, could still be followed. It's not too late to change our course. Please read and reflect upon the original statement.
DENY THEM THEIR VICTORY: A RELIGIOUS RESPONSE TO TERRORISM
We, American religious leaders, share the broken hearts of our fellow citizens. The worst terrorist attack in history that assaulted New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania has been felt in every American community. Each life lost was of unique and sacred value in the eyes of God, and the connections Americans feel to those lives run very deep. In the face of such a cruel catastrophe, it is a time to look to God and to each other for the strength we need and the response we will make. We must dig deep to the roots of our faith for sustenance, solace and wisdom.
First, we must find a word of consolation for the untold pain and suffering of our people. Our congregations will offer their practical and pastoral resources to bind up the wounds of the nation. We can become safe places to weep and secure places to begin rebuilding our shattered lives and communities. Our houses of worship should become public arenas for common prayer, community discussion, eventual healing, and forgiveness.
Second, we offer a word of sober restraint as our nation discerns what its response will be. We share the deep anger toward those who so callously and massively destroy innocent lives, no matter what the grievances or injustices invoked. In the name of God, we too demand that those responsible for these utterly evil acts be found and brought to justice. Those culpable must not escape accountability. But we must not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate in ways that bring on even more loss of innocent life. We pray that President Bush and members of Congress will seek the wisdom of God as they decide upon the appropriate response.
Third, we face deep and profound questions of what this attack on America will do to us as a nation. The terrorists have offered us a stark view of the world they would create, where the remedy to every human grievance and injustice is a resort to the random and cowardly violence of revenge -- even against the most innocent. Having taken thousands of our lives, attacked our national symbols, forced our political leaders to flee their chambers of governance, disrupted our work and families, and struck fear into the hearts of our children, the terrorists must feel victorious.
But we can deny them their victory by refusing to submit to a world created in their image. Terrorism inflicts not only death and destruction but also emotional oppression to further its aims. We must not allow this terror to drive us away from being the people God has called us to be. We assert the vision of community, tolerance, compassion, justice, and the sacredness of human life, which lies at the heart of all our religious traditions. America must be a safe place for all our citizens in all their diversity. It is especially important that our citizens who share national origins, ethnicity, or religion with whoever attacked us are, themselves, protected among us.
Our American illusion of invulnerability has been shattered. From now on, we will look at the world in a different way, and this attack on our life as a nation will become a test of our national character. Let us make the right choices in this crisis -- to pray, act, and unite against the bitter fruits of division, hatred and violence. Let us rededicate ourselves to global peace, human dignity, and the eradication of the injustice that breeds rage and vengeance.
As we gather in our houses of worship, let us begin a process of seeking the healing and grace of God.
Peace is a respectful, harmonious, and cooperative relationship between groups and nations. Peace is the serenity that comes from clarity, the assurance that the truth will reveal itself, even if only in part. Biblical wisdom teaches us that "there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed nor hid that shall not be known" (Luke 12:2). Violence arises from fear born of deception. Scratch a conflict and find a lie. Love rejoices in the truth and perfect love, complete, mature love casts out fear (1 Corinthians 13:6; James 4:18). This is a Christian formulation of Satyagraha, Gandhi's concept of truth/love force. For peace theory, love and truth are powerful.
Given these definitions, we can trace wars, systemic violence, and the verbal violence we perpetrate back to ourselves. All too often we divide the world into them and us. We call them evil; we call ourselves good. And, when the Other does evil acts, this becomes the justification for our own retaliatory evil. We tell ourselves it is only reasonable to prepare for war and to fight wars in the name of defense or of retributive justice. However, New Testament wisdom also teaches us to be self-reflective when locating the cause of war.
James 4:1 asks: "Where do wars and fights come from among you?" James answers: "Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You covet and cannot obtain." Finally, James informs us that we do not have because we do not ask; we do not receive because our motivations are wrong. We only want what we want for the sake of our own pleasure (James 4:2-3).
So where is the deception? The deception is the idea that pleasure comes from what we receive, from what we acquire. True pleasure comes from what we give because "it is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). When our sense of self is tied to what we own, what pleasures we acquire, when these things are absent we lose ourselves, become fearful, and fear leads to violence. This is not only true for us, but it is true for the enemy.
When violence happens, our questions ought to be: "How do my own desires figure into this conflict? What do I fear? What good can I do to overcome this evil? The objection could be made that this is a "blame the victim argument," especially if we are fighting a defensive war. Is not war justified to protect the weak? Peace theory recommends other strategies to avert such crises before they reach the point of violent conflict.
Sept. 21 is the U.N. International Day of Peace and Global Ceasefire. Let us take time that day for our own self-reflection and make peace in the wars raging inside ourselves.
Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in Religion and Society from Temple University and taught Christian Ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.
Coinciding with the visit of a dear friend who's spent the past few years working in Afghanistan for both development NGOs and (non-U.S.) government agencies, the DVD of Charlie Wilson's War recently arrived from Netflix. My friend recommends it. Also, I [heart] Philip Seymour Hoffman. And I can tolerate Tom Hanks in appropriate doses. But an op-ed by the real-life Charlie Wilson in yesterday's Washington Post makes me even more eager to watch it soon. He writes:
In a scene near the end of the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," after the mujaheddin victory over the invading Soviet military, congressional appropriators turn down my request for funds to rebuild Afghanistan's schools, roads and economy. If we had done the right thing in Afghanistan then -- following up our military support with the necessary investments in diplomacy and development assistance -- we would have better secured our own country's future, as well as peace and stability in the region. ...
[I]nstead of intensifying our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to help the Afghans meet their postwar challenges, we simply walked away -- leaving a destroyed country that lacked roads, schools, and any plan or hope for rebuilding. Into this void marched the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and we all know what happened after that.
Whenever I'm reminded of our support for the likes of the mujahadeen, Saddam Hussein's war against Iran, and Manuel Noriega in Panama, I can't help but wonder -- what future enemy are we currently arming and training? Where are we currently focusing on military aid when a more comprehensive approach is needed to create real security? (Pakistan, I'm looking in your direction ...)
Wilson issues this warning:
We simply cannot make the same mistake. The lesson here is about more than the good manners of reciprocating a favor. It takes much more to make America safe than winning on the battlefield. Had we remained engaged in Afghanistan, investing in education, health and economic development, the world would be a very different place today. The aftermath of a congressional committee's decision so long ago has turned out to be a warning that America is not immune to the problems of the very poorest countries. In today's world, any person's well-being -- whether he or she is in Kandahar, Kigali or Kansas -- is connected to the well-being of others.
We can avoid the need to spend so much on our military -- and put so many of our soldiers in harm's way -- simply by investing more in saving lives, creating stable societies and building economic opportunity.
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web editor for Sojourners.
The Bush administration's terrorism-fighting strategy has not significantly undermined al-Qaeda's capabilities, according to a major new study that argues the struggle against terrorism is better waged by law enforcement agencies than by armies.
The study by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. also contends that the administration committed a fundamental error in portraying the conflict with al-Qaeda as a "war on terrorism." The phrasefalsely suggests that there can be a battlefield solution to terrorism, and symbolically conveys warrior status on terrorists, it said.
"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors," authors Seth Jones and Martin Libicki write.
I was immediately reminded that the law enforcement approach was a position Jim Wallis took in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 -- long before the Bush administration's failures had created the political space for such concepts to be found in mainstream media. Jim wrote (emphasis added):
I’ve advocated the mobilization of the most extensive international and diplomatic pressure the world has ever seen against bin Laden and his networks of terror—focusing the world’s political will, intelligence, security, legal action, and police enforcement against terrorism. The international community must dry up the terrorists’ financial networks, isolate them politically, discredit them before an international tribunal, and expose the ugly brutality behind their terror. ...
I am increasingly convinced that the way forward may be found in the wisdom gained in the practice of conflict resolution and the energy of a faith-based commitment to peacemaking. For example, most nonviolence advocates, even pacifists, support the role of police in protecting people in their neighborhoods. Perhaps it is time to explore a theology for global police forces, including ethics for the use of internationally sanctioned enforcement—precisely as an alternative to war.
An I-told-you-so attitude is unseemly when it comes to the thousands upon thousands of lives lost in this conflict -- and not just those of U.S. forces and those killed by U.S. forces, but also those killed by continued terrorist attacks. Here's a sobering fact from the Rand study:
Addressing the U.S. campaign against al-Qaeda, the study noted successes in disrupting terrorist financing, but said the group remains a formidable foe. Al-Qaeda is "strong and competent," and has succeeded in carrying out more violent attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than in all of its previous history.
The point is not to say "I told you so," but to continue to press for a smarter and more effective response to the very real threat of terror. Now that groups with such Beltway insider credibility as Rand are on record, perhaps future administrations can pursue such strategies with new courage.
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners.
Recently, I had the unique opportunity of meeting with four Iraqi evangelicals at a conference in a country near Iraq. They were young church leaders. Despite the circumstances in their country, they were upbeat and gracious. Having never been to Iraq, nor having personally met an Iraqi, I was eager to hear their perspectives on current events. My conversations with them helped me understand to a greater degree the true complexity of war.
One of them was a church planter in a large city in Iraq. When he spoke about his people, he was enthusiastic. He talked about how Iraqis were responsive to the gospel in times of peace. But when I pointedly asked him about the war and made it clear he could be honest with me, his response was a mixture of anger and depression saying, "It has been a disaster. My church has been destroyed. Christians had more safety and security under Hussein than we do now."
Another told me that her street was called the "Street of the Dead". The corpses from surrounding areas are collected and deposited on her street. Everyday she sees them; she walks by them; she smells them in her home. One looked at me with eyes full of desperation saying, "my entire life has been a war. I hate war."
I had made it clear to my four conversational partners that they could speak their minds. I also let them know that, on the basis of my religious conviction, I had been opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless I was startled at how angry and frustrated they were about their dire situation. All four of them, two women and two men from three different regions, assured me that life had been better under Hussein. I asked them what the other Iraqis thought. They said everyone they knew, Christians included, felt the same.
Later I mentioned this to an American evangelical who quickly retorted that they sounded like the Israelites after they had been brought out of Egypt. The intent of his analogy was to parallel the Israelites' desire to return to Egypt with the Iraqis' desire for the way things were. I responded, "Then who is God in this analogy? Who is Egypt? Who is Israel?" Though he did not respond, it seemed clear to me that he equated the related decisions of our current administration to the liberating acts of God. This shows the complexity of religion in the context of war.
I assured my new Iraqi friends that I would return to the U.S. and would try to find a place for their voices. I would try to convince others to see the complexity of war and face the fact that too often we equate the decisions of our nation's administration with the will of our loving God.
In a parting discussion, I asked them what message would they like to send to their brothers and sisters in the USA; what would they like for us to do? They unanimously said the following:
1) Insist the U.S. government make security its priority,
2) Help to develop the economy of Iraq so all Christians don't have to leave the country to find a job and
3) Please no more war in the Middle East.
Whether there is ever a "just war" is a matter of debate, but there is never "just a war."
Mark L. Russell (mark@markrussell.org) is Director of Spiritual Integration at HOPE International, a network of 13 Christ-centered Microenterprise Development organizations. He has a Ph.D. in Intercultural Studies from Asbury Theological Seminary, a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a Bachelor of Science in International Business from Auburn University. Mark lives in Boise, Idaho with his wife Laurie, and their children, Noah and Anastasia.
Recently, I participated in a conference call based on a report from The Task Force For A Responsible Withdrawal From Iraq. The report argued that the United States can and should do the following: quickly withdraw American military forces from Iraq, "carefully pursue diplomatic remedies for the Iraq crisis," and "generously give to help rebuild Iraq in the long run." For the policy wonks, the report offers twenty-five proposals which are subdivided into five sections. For those desiring something more concise, there is also an executive summary.
I understood that the report would be the what, or the content of our conversation, but I also wondered: Why is yet another foreign policy discussion about Iraq important?
During the call, Congressman James McGovern, a Democrat representative from Massachusetts and influential voice in the discussion, provided a response. He stated, "people who have been consistently anti-war have a responsibility to lead the conversation on how to get out of Iraq." Although he did not direct his comments specifically to the faith community, his words nonetheless extend an urgent challenge to those who prophesy for peace.
Perhaps it is no longer enough to inquire about the coordinates of weapons of mass destruction and argue, as Steven Simon does in The Price of the Surge, that the surge reduced violence while also reducing the possibility of a "stable, unitary Iraq." Even as we emulate the prophet Jeremiah and weep for 4,000 dead American soldiers and 83,000 dead Iraqi non-combatants, Congressman McGovern reminds us that we can--and perhaps must--do more. Perhaps the prophetic task is not only to critique what went wrong, but to provide a vision of how things can go right, a vision of how we can responsibly withdraw from Iraq. Perhaps, to borrow an image from Jim Wallis, prophetic voices for peace can "change the winds" of foreign policy discussion and help create a climate for politicians to pursue sustainable peace in Iraq. Perhaps.
Andrew Wilkes is a policy and organizing intern at Sojourners. He is currently pursuing a Masters of Divinity degree at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Its been months since I´ve written anything about the current events in Colombia. But I can't let "the hug the country has been waiting for" slip by without comment.
My infant daughter Amara and I were at the deli counter when the news broke. A current ran through the grocery store causing eruptions of joy. Ingrid Betancourt, former Presidential candidate, the three U.S. contractors and 11 others kidnapped by the FARC guerrilla group were freed this afternoon.
An hour later as Amara nursed, I listened to interviews with mothers and other family members of the recently released. Ingrid, beloved symbol of the kidnapped, was held captive for more than six years. The U.S. contractors for more than four. A number of the Colombian uniformed officers released were kidnapped over 10 years ago. The visceral responses to the electrifying news of freedom doesn´t lend itself to tidy sound bites for radio interviews. The sobs and exclamations were beautifully stirring. Upon delivery to a military base, an emaciated Ingrid gingerly climbed down from the plane and fell into her mother´s embrace. She choked, "no more tears, mommy." I squeezed my little Amara tight.
The rescue is being hailed as an "impeccable military operation." According to news reports, Colombian intelligence infiltrated the FARC leadership and not a shot was fired in the rescue mission. If media sources are accurate, the Colombian military essentially tricked the guerrilla into handing over four of the highest profile kidnap victims and 11 soldiers and police. Human Rights Watch congratulated the military for carrying out the rescue without any civilian causalities or otherwise violating international humanitarian law.
By all accounts this largest and oldest guerrilla group in Latin America is weakened, and clearly the Colombian military is at a strong point. The U.S. has helped to ensure as much. These military achievements are in line with U.S. military strategists´ application of an El Salvador model in Colombia. As such, the FARC would be forced to the negotiating table. But at what cost, paid in human lives and quality of life?
Ingrid exclaimed, "this is a sign of peace!" Could it be? While this was an intelligence and not a military rescue in the traditional sense, recent events force reflection on my values and sense of the fundamental direction of history regarding military solutions. As is common, many of the jubilant declarations praising the military with religious overtones created dissonance with my beliefs, principles and politics: "Glory be to (Colombia´s military) intelligence! Glory be to the army soldiers!" ... "God blessed (this rescue operative), but not just God, Uribe blessed it! Yes, long live Colombia ! We are winning the war!"
As a Colombian army general noted, the mission could have turned out differently. At the risk of sounding like the relentless critic, the 15 hostages and the operatives who bore great risk to rescue them could all have been killed. Had the scenario played out differently the FARC may not have experienced yet another humiliating blow. Colombian President Uribe´s reelection campaign would not have this huge boost.
The threat of destructive force as an immediate strategy remains a problem. Military successes could lead to surrender and even armistice, but they should not be confused with lasting peace. As we have experienced with the paramilitary process, a settlement between the warring factions that does not provide for truth and justice, repentance and forgiveness may betray Colombia´s populace. A formal resolution that does not prioritize education, health, housing and other investments will not deliver the conditions necessary for dignified life for the majority poor. In the midst of the collective euphoria sparked by the release there are many questions. Which are the right ones to be asking?
Ambiguity and ambivalence aside, I am jubilant with those reunited with family once again. I´d hug the three U.S. military contractors myself, if I could.
It is wonderful to share good news from Colombia on the armed conflict front!
Janna Hunter-Bowman works for Mennonite Central Committee in Bogotá, Colombia, as the coordinator of the Documentation and Advocacy Program for Justapaz, the peace and justice ministry of the Colombian Mennonite Church.
The problem with using the Bible as the basis for running a society is that it would always be somebody's interpretation of the Bible, and a worst-case scenario is that it might be your interpretation, Mr. Klinghoffer.
I too have read and studied the Bible all of my life, and I just can't recognize the Bible in so much of what you have said in our "dialogue." I really work at finding common ground with people across the political spectrum on moral issues that transcend ideology and politics. But we have been unable to find much common ground in this dialogue. I still find many of the things you have said absolutely astonishing.
I still can't get over your contention that most of what the Bible says about the poor doesn't apply to America because our poor people are so well-off here. I replied that most Christian clergy and Jewish rabbis that I know would find that statement incredulous, but got no direct reply from you. In your latest post you say, in an equally unbelievable way, that wealth is the most consistent test of whether a society is righteous in God's eyes. I read the Hebrew prophets in a totally different way -- that the best test of a nation's righteousness is how it treats the poorest and most vulnerable. That is always how God judges a society. Read Isaiah, Amos, and Micah.
Then you say that war is just a "tool of statecraft." Really? The Hebrew scriptures warn against militarism -- "not trusting in horses and chariots" -- and Jesus calls we Christians to be peacemakers and love our enemies. In fact, you note in your book Christians who believe that:
Quakers, Amish, and Mennonites, among others, can point to the teachings not only of Jesus himself but of ancient and medieval sages -- Tertullian, Origen, Francis of Assisi, Menno Simons, down to a twentieth-century figure like Thomas Merton.
It's interesting that "Jesus himself" and the earliest church fathers were all opposed to war. So, what happened? You say, quite correctly, "With the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (324 C.E.), all that changed." Indeed, it did. And you then cite such esteemed theologians as Oliver Cromwell and Gen. George S. Patton. When you say in your latest post that war is merely the normal tool of statecraft, does that mean all wars? Every time a nation decides to go to war as an expression of its statecraft is justifiable? What about when one nation with Christians and Jews decides to go to war with another nation with Christians and Jews? Are both nations justified? Is there any religious critique or discrimination possible here? Let me guess: You support all the wars America has fought. I could never get you to tell me what you think about the war in Iraq.
I could go on, issue after issue, but I don't think that would be productive. We just disagree, profoundly, on what biblical imperatives suggest about society and politics. I am very glad that America has a separation of church and state and that people who would prefer a more theocratic vision of society (as I interpret you to prefer) don't get to run things they way they would like. We both have to convince our fellow citizens that what we believe is best for the common good. That's a good thing, and I welcome that debate. Thanks for this one.
Thanks for your post, David. I'm looking forward to this discussion with you.
You claim that the Bible has a conservative rather than liberal worldview. I would suggest that the Bible is neither "conservative" nor "liberal" as we understand those terms in a political context today. I have written about what I call "prophetic" politics that leads to a fourth option -- neither liberal, conservative, or libertarian. It is traditional or conservative on issues of family values, sexual integrity, and personal responsibility, while being progressive, populist, or even radical on issues like poverty and racial justice. It affirms good stewardship of the earth and its resources, supports gender equality, and is more internationally minded than nationalist -- looking first to peacemaking and conflict resolution when it comes to foreign policy questions, instead of bowing to the habit of war.
Yet in all those areas, the Bible does not prescribe specific policies on the issues facing us today. While we can use scripture as a normative vision, we must, as the National Association of Evangelicals puts it, "do detailed social, economic, historical, jurisprudential, and political analysis. Only if we deepen our Christian vision and also study our contemporary world can we engage in politics faithfully and wisely."
Let's take the issue of taxes that you raise. We cannot simply use historical texts from the Egyptian or Hebrew monarchies of 3,000 years ago as a policy prescription for the 21st-century United States. But, as a preacher, I couldn't resist looking at the texts. Genesis 47 is after a famine, when the people had lost all their land. Joseph proposes that they return to farming the land and give one-fifth to Pharaoh. Their response was "You have saved our lives! We are grateful to my lord and we shall be serfs to Pharaoh." The condition of serfdom was certainly better than starvation. In 1 Samuel 8, the point of the story is not the 10 percent rate that the king will take, but that the king will give it to his "eunuchs and courtiers" rather than benefiting the society. And in 1 Kings 12, the complaint of the Israelites is about forced labor, not taxation. In the dialogue, they ask Rehoboam to "lighten the harsh labor," to which he replied, "My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke." It wasn't taxes at issue.
But deeper than that, you say that people should be responsible for how they spend their money. The ideal of democracy is the collective will of the people speaking through their elected representatives. Our polity is certainly flawed. But I'd be willing to do a test. Let's ask the people if they'd rather have spent more than $500 billion over the last five years on jobs, education, health care, and housing, or on the war in Iraq. I'd be willing to accept the result, would you?
The problem is that our taxes are dreadfully misused, not that they exist. In the 2008 discretionary budget (excluding Social Security and Medicare), the Defense Department plus the additional spending specifically for the Iraq war is 60 percent of the budget. Every other function of the federal government receives 40 percent. The problem, David, is priorities, not taxes. In the 1 Samuel passage you cited, the first warning about a king is about his warmaking: "He will take your sons and appoint them as his charioteers and horsemen."
Let's move to a specific issue -- overcoming poverty. There are now 36.5 million people below the official poverty line ($20,614 for a family of four). In looking for the appropriate policies to deal with that problem, I apply two fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching. First, the common good -- what benefits the society as a whole, particularly the weakest and most vulnerable; and subsidiarity -- every problem should be dealt with at the lowest possible level.
There are three sectors of society that have a role in overcoming poverty to which we can apply the principle of subsidiarity. Faith-based and community organizations have a role -- local congregations and organizations, and national denominations and organizations. Government at all levels has a role -- local, state, and national. The private sector has a role -- small businesses and large national corporations, along with labor unions.
The challenge in overcoming poverty is to find the appropriate role for each level of each sector with a unified strategy. It is true that local congregations can provide mentoring and support networks for people in ways that government never could. But congregations cannot provide health insurance for 47 million people, jobs for the 8.5 million who are unemployed, and housing for the millions who have lost their homes through foreclosure. That requires efforts from government and the private sector.
Charity, as you propose in your book, is important, David. But good public policy for government and a committed private sector are also important. Wouldn't you agree?
Following is an interview with Michael Christoffersen, director of Milosevic On Trial, a documentary I watched at the Tribeca Film Festival, which demonstrates the horrors that can happen when religion becomes intermingled with empire.
What attracted you to want to follow this entire trial?
By coincidence, I did the documentary Genocide: The Judgment (1999) for BBC and SVT about a trial at the Rwanda court. I made some friends there and found out that the trial of Slobodan Milosevic was going to happen. So, while some journalists came and went, I stayed around. Eventually, I got exclusive access to the tapes and was able to secure interviews with both Milosevic's defense lawyer and the prosecution team.
Explain how you got the trust of these players, so that they would open up and talk with you.
In the beginning, nobody wanted us there. We had to convince them that we were people to be trusted. That took a while, and it wasn't until much later that we were able to get some of the interviews. It takes a lot of stubbornness and you also have to be a little naïve to some extent. It also helped that we were just a small production company. In addition, we were not affiliated with a particular group, so we were able to be seen as not having an agenda.
How did you maintain your objectivity as a filmmaker given the brutality of these crimes?
I wanted to create a historic record that reflected to a certain extent what actually happened. At the same time, film is drama. It's not just dry historic records. So, it's not a totally neutral observation but my interpretations.
Of all the footage, what was most disturbing was the scene in which the Orthodox priest blesses the Scorpions. This is followed by a montage of the brutalities committed under this elite Serbian army.
It was very disturbing. It's a well-known fact that the Serb Orthodox Church was giving their blessing to the Serbians. This proved that it was not only an ethnic war but also a religious one as well. I'm not saying the Muslims have always been innocent victims. But in this instance, the church knew about the ethnic cleansing and was giving their approval. I've had some Serbs dispute the footage, claiming that the group this priest was blessing didn't perform the shootings that followed. But it's been investigated and the Scorpions that were blessed were the ones who did those acts.
How did you obtain footage like this?
We relied on material that was used during the trial as evidence. The only time we went outside was when we interviewed some of participants.
Why do you think there was so little coverage of the trial in the United States?
Except for some Balkan journalists and my documentary crew, I seldom saw any other media covering the trial.
How did you react to the sudden death of Milosevic during the trial?
At the time, it was terrible as there was no real closure. Looking back at it, the fact that there wasn't a judgment rendered gives an opening for people to talk about the issues raised at the trial.
What are the future plans for this film?
Milosevic on Trial will be seen at the Silverdocs: AFI/Discovery Channel Documentary Festival, held June 16-23, 2008, in Washington, D.C. Also, we only used about 1 percent of the material in the documentary. So we're in the process of making an archive where people can access all of the material. We might include information about Saddam on Trial, where I served as one of the producers. For more information, log on to our Web site (www.team-productions.com).
Becky Garrison was cited by Publishers Weekly as one of "four evangelicals with fresh views," alongside Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, and Ron Sider
On May 20, The Jerusalem Post reported that "a senior member in the entourage of President Bush" said during closed meetings that Bush and Cheney "were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for." The White House denied the story, which claims that the reservations of Secretaries Rice and Gates are the remaining levies holding back the floodwaters of war. Tensions mount as Senators McCain and Obama spar over appropriate engagement with Iran.
The elephant in the room, of course, is what Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, calls "the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue nuclear weapons but morally acceptable for others to rely on them." Even if most Americans agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, we've surrendered the moral high ground with our cache of thousands of nuclear warheads, which we maintain to the tune of $16 billion annually. As Sen. Obama points out, "Iran spends one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military." What he doesn't add is that at $515 billion per year, we spend more on militarism than the rest of the world combined. And that's not including the $200 billion we will spend this year in Iraq and Afghanistan. The truth is that with the rising costs of health care, housing, gas, and food, we can't afford not to talk with Iran. After all, it's you and I who will foot the bill, along with our children and grandchildren.
Christians, however, are called to be faithful, not merely pragmatic. We must ask the hard question: What does our faith say about violence against our enemies? The prophetic book of Isaiah opens with a troubling word from God to the nation of Israel, which condemns religious charades. God is not impressed by our poignant prayers, high holy days, generous offerings, spirited worship, or sacred sacrifices. Instead, God desires righteousness, justice, and solidarity with those who suffer -- the things that make for peace. As in much of the Hebrew Testament, God addresses a nation, not mere individuals. Perhaps it is not enough, in other words, for us to do the difficult work of reconciling with our personal enemies if our nation beats the war drums. Perhaps it's our systems that God is concerned with, not simply our personal sins.
Just when it seems that God will not tolerate one more prayer from blood-covered hands, God beckons: "Come, let us reason together." Come, let us reason together. God wields power to open dialogue, rather than end it. In the United Church of Christ, we often say that "God is still speaking." And so long as God is willing to reason with us, though our sins are blood-red, then it behooves us to reason with one another.
Our scriptures do not deliver utopian heroes, families, communities, or political and religious authorities. They acknowledge the insidious nature of sin, because God's grace is most profound when it meets our broken places. Jesus' instruction to love our enemies is not simply for prosperous and peaceful times. Isaiah proclaims that precisely in the times when our "lands are desolate," God calls us to reason together. In In the Company of Strangers, theologian Parker Palmer contends that, "to let God mediate our relationships means that … one listens not with a sense of personal power … but with a sense of God's presence which alone can heal … When we allow God to be the third person in all our meetings, fear is replaced by hope."
It is our complicated task as Christians to discern what this word from God might mean in our present context when we hear of wars and rumors of war. As Christians whose faith informs our participation in public life, we are translators of biblical truth into ethical principles that can be applied to matters of public policy. God beckons us to come and "reason together." What will we choose?
President Bush's remarks, made last week in Israel, suggesting that anyone who wishes to talk with a violent enemy is the contemporary equivalent of a Hitler appeaser, are so wide of the mark, patronizing, and simply untrue that they must be challenged.
The fact that he used the emotive context of Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations as the background for these comments is an abuse of an already misused people. And implying that Sen. Obama wishes to appease terrorism is not only factually inaccurate, but morally troubling.
Why? Because this is to suggest that the only two options available to "good people" in responding to terror are to terrorise the terrorisers, or to cower in fear or denial. This has never been true. It does not become the president of the United States, a self-affirming follower of Jesus, to endorse the sport of violent revenge and the belief that there are certain people in the world who are so irredeemable that we should not talk to them. This aside, it is not politically efficient to suggest that terrorism can only be defeated by beating its proponents down.
I live in a place -- Northern Ireland -- where the government is now stewarded by two parties, both of whom could be caricatured as representing ancient warrior traditions. Their most recent manifestation, in the form of Irish Republican terrorism (the IRA) and militant Protestant fundamentalism, contributed to the horrors of my childhood, where political murder was a near-daily occurrence. After decades of terror, we did exactly what President Bush denounced last week -- we negotiated with each other and arrived at a settlement that sees former terrorist leaders share political power with those who consider themselves to be their victims. Successive U.S. administrations did not condemn this. In fact, the negotiations between terrorist leaders and constitutional democrats were chaired by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. President Bush has visited Northern Ireland to endorse the process. He has shaken the hands of former terrorist leaders. He made a video appearance at an investment conference in Belfast two weeks ago, encouraging U.S. businesses to set up shop here and to work with, among others, the current representatives of the organizations responsible for our violent conflict.
His suggestion, therefore, that anyone who wishes to sit down and talk with terrorists is automatically the moral and political equivalent of a Hitler appeaser is not only historically false (in that we know for a fact that such negotiation at least sometimes actually does produce peace), but so absurdly detached from the reality of his own administration's practices that it suggests either a malevolent and politically expedient attention-grabbing propaganda opportunity, or that President Bush simply does not know the truth about Irish politics.
I imagine I will be criticized on at least two fronts for writing this. One, that I am singling out President Bush for no reason other than my personal antipathy toward him. To that I respond with the following: I believe President Bush is a human being in need of redemption, like the rest of us. I do not share much of his politics, but I have been willing to offer praise when he has made good decisions, such as his progressive engagement with HIV/AIDs in Africa. I also believe that his predecessor made terrible errors of judgment regarding violent conflict, not least in Rwanda, and might have been likely to make similar remarks had he been in office and in Israel last week. I hope I would have had the integrity to write this article about President Clinton were he seeking to make the same dishonest political capital.
The second criticism is more nuanced -- the suggestion that the Northern Ireland conflict is not comparable to that in the Middle East. To which I can only reply that the sectarian political divisions on this island have lasted for at least 800 years, and that the violence has at times been at least as barbaric as anything done by Hamas or al Qaeda. I think the real reason that people don't consider my home conflict comparable to others is quite simply racist: They think that Northern Irish Christians are more capable of persuasion than Middle Eastern Muslims. Or, more practically, they don't want to acknowledge that the distasteful and difficult journey traveled in Ireland may have broken the path that the rest of us need to travel too.
What is even more likely, President Bush's remarks mask what might be called another inconvenient truth. When historians uncover the background story to this moment in international relations, they will discover one of two possible facts -- either that the Bush administration is already secretly negotiating with terrorists, or that they really do believe their own propaganda. British military intelligence had a secret back channel to the IRA from at least the early 1970s. Without this, alongside the contribution of politicians, business and church leaders, and other forces, there would be no peace in Ireland today. It would be unthinkable if the U.S. authorities are not already, in some sense, talking to representatives of Hamas, Iran, North Korea, Hugo Chavez, Raoul Castro, and all the other members of whatever "axis of evil" we are told is most threatening at present. For to be honest, if the Bush administration is not engaged in dialogue with such as these, President Bush is both failing to heed the lessons of the history of conflict resolution, and, more seriously, to protect the American people.
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.
My fingers have been tapping out of control for more than a month and a half now. Don't worry, though -- I am not falling to the symptoms of my own PTSD just yet. At the completion of the Winter Soldier event, all Iraq Veterans Against the War members in attendance received a copy of the movie soundtrack compiled by Body of War subject Tomas Young, a partially paralyzed veteran of the Iraq war. It is a two-disc eclectic ensemble of major artists such as Talib Kweli, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Franti, Tom Waits, Neil Young, Serj Tankian, and Tom Morello.
I nearly threw it away but instead hesitantly shoved the CD into my computer on the plane home. To my surprise, many of the lyrics are still stuck in my head, from Brendan James' therapeutic "Hero's Song" ("in the water, in the sand ... is the blood of an ancient people in whose holy war I stand") to System of a Down's fast-paced "B.Y.O.B." ("why don't princes fight the war, why do they always send the poor?").
If you are able to handle the recurrent explicit language, other notable tracks -- especially for evangelicals -- include Immortal Technique's scathing rebuke of religious bigotry in "The 4th Branch" ("The voice of racism preaching the gospel is devilish"), and Bright Eyes' inquisitive "When the President Talks to God" ("I wonder which one plays the better cop"). However, each of the 30 tracks has proven prophetic in its own right.
The deal was made even better when we were told that proceeds from sales do not line the pockets of music industry execs, but that 100% goes straight back to Iraq Veterans Against the War. Eddie Vedder worked directly with Tomas to secure artists' contributions for this inspiring soundtrack, and he convinced Sire Records to distribute it at-cost. He also provided his own forceful track, "No More," with Ben Harper (though Harper includes his own track, "Black Rain," about the lack of resources for New Orleans), and Pearl Jam contributed their live track "Masters of War."
Body of War is playing now in theaters throughout the country. The film follows Tomas from his enlistment in the Army through his deployment and subsequent activism to end the war through Iraq Veterans Against the War. Eddie Vedder teamed up with Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue, whose show on MSNBC was cancelled due to his outspoken opposition to the Bush administration's decision to unilaterally initiate a war of aggression (as defined by Article 5.1, Rome Statute, of the International Criminal Court), to produce the hard-hitting documentary of one veteran's struggle post-Iraq.
Visit the Body of War Web site to find a screening near you and get your copy of the soundtrack. You can find Body of War: Songs That Inspired an Iraq Veteran on iTunes or maybe in the CD or MP3 player of a local veteran or service member.
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and has co-founded a faith-based veterans assistance initiative called Centurion's Purse, which seeks to provide financial and spiritual relief to fellow service members in need. He blogs at courageouscoward.blogspot.com.
Five weeks ago, we began a series of posts on the cost of the war in Iraq. We have focused primarily on the human costs – the death and suffering of Americans and Iraqis after five years of war. There have been moving posts from soldiers, veterans, their parents, Iraqis, peacemakers, and theologians. We launched a statement – "A Call to Lament and Repent" – which more than 26,000 of you have now signed – and publicized it with ads in the online editions of Christianity Today, Relevant, and The Christian Century.
While that series is formally ending, the war and the suffering go on. On Easter Sunday, four U.S. soldiers were killed in Baghdad, bringing the total to 4,000. Around the country of Iraq, more than 60 people were killed in attacks. The Iraq Body Count database has now documented 90,000 civilian deaths – other estimates go into the hundreds of thousands. And this week, new fighting is raging in several Iraqi cities, causing additional casualties.
More than ever, as our statement says, "The American occupation must end, a transition to an international solution to Iraq must be found, a peaceful resolution is possible and must be pursued. Our country should end this war; not try to "win" it; and we must help the Iraqi people build a safer and more peaceful country."
While the media pundits continue to debate levels of violence, "surge" successes and failures, and the lack of political progress in Iraq, we must continue to raise the larger and deeper issue of how fundamentally wrong it was to launch a pre-emptive and primarily unilateral war against Iraq. There were far better ways to deal with the evil of Saddam Hussein and the threats of terrorism - which this war has only made worse. Repentance means a fundamental change in direction; and that is what we must now call for in U.S. foreign policy.
On Easter we celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the new life he brings. Where is Easter, that new life, for Iraq? How long will the suffering and killing go on? The need to lament, to repent, and to continue praying and acting to end this war is more important than ever.
In the Washington Post and throughout the blogosphere, debates rage about the recent spate of violence between Palestinians and Israelis, each side condemning with righteous indignation the sins of the other and proclaiming their own side's innocence. In a recent Post letters section, for example, Yaffa Klugerman wrote, "I was shocked to read [the] assertion that the murder of eight students in a Jerusalem seminary ... was reminiscent of a 1994 attack by Baruch Goldstein, a Jew who shot a group of Palestinians at prayer" (killing 29 Muslims and wounding another 150).
Another writer decried the Post's lack of balance in putting the seminary killings on page one and having no mention at all of an attack a few days later in which Israelis killed five Gazans. (A short news item in the April issue of Sojourners magazine reported on Hamas rocket attacks that sparked reprisal raids into Gaza by Israeli Defense Forces, but the magazine went to print before the killings at the seminary.)
For those seeking to justify their next round of violence, there will always be another provocation to point to; revenge and retaliation will never end anything, but merely create the rationale for the next bloody attack. And both sides can legitimately condemn acts of inhumanity committed by the other. The only way to stop the deadly spiral is to stop – to recognize that all life, on both sides of the conflict, is sacred, and that the proper, humane response to suffering inflicted even on one's enemy is mourning, not vengeance. Until then, violence will continue to beget violence, and hopes for peace in the Middle East will remain a pipe dream.
In our little circles, we've been talking a lot about the need to create new holidays and rituals of remembrance as a Church–this peculiar, set-apart people of God. The early Christians talked a lot about how they no longer celebrated the "festivals of the Caesars" or the holidays of the empire, but had new eyes through which they looked at the world (this is a major theme of our new book Jesus for President). They had a new calendar. They had new heroes and sheroes (not just kings and presidents and fallen warriors). And they had new liturgies and songs. That's what Holy Week is all about, a new holiday–Easter is our President's Day. And our Holy Week here in Philly was magnificent, a stunning celebration of the Commander-in-Chief who loved His enemies so much He died for them.
One of the highlights was Good Friday at Lockheed Martin.
My mom and pop came into town. On Good Friday my mother and I went to a worshipful vigil–walking the stations of the cross, remembering the sufferings of Jesus–held on the property of Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is one of the world's largest weapons contractors and profiteers from war, headquartered right outside Philly. So it was there that we took the cross of Jesus.
Being the 5 year anniversary of the bombing of Baghdad, I was asked to reflect on my Easter in Baghdad in 2003. So I did. With mom looking on, I shared how she had supported my trip. I recalled how she had learned to ache with Abraham, Mary, and the parents of children in Iraq, all of whom have had to watch their own kids face grave danger. At one point, mom said to me, "The children in Iraq are just as precious to God as you are. How can I tell you not to get too close to their suffering?" And every night she prayed–weeping, hurting, groaning with God for an end to that suffering. As I spoke, I looked out and saw her eyes filled with tears. (NOTE: It was my mom's first "protest," so even though she had tears in her eyes, she also had a mischievous smirk as she stood next to a clever banner that read: "Lockheed Martin…. Making a Killing!")
After some speakers, scripture, and music, we walked through the stations of the passion narrative which led us onto the base of Lockheed Martin. There a dozen folks stood, holding crosses, in prayerful vigil.... And then, one by one, they were arrested for trespassing. It was an incredible embodiment of gentle dissent and vigilant hope – that holy mischief we see in Jesus as he triumphs over the empire's cross. Not the Fourth of July or Veteran's Day or Columbus Day – but Good Friday. Passover. Easter. Pentecost. These are our most beautiful holidays. So during this season of death and resurrection, we remember the contemporary sufferings of Christ, the other baby refugees being born amid the wars and genocides of our Herods. And we remember the Gospel promise that in the end life conquers death. It may be Friday, but Sunday is coming.
Jesus came with a job to do, to complete the work to which Israel was called. This work, from the call of Abraham onwards, was to put the human race to rights, and so to put the whole creation to rights. As the gospel writers tell the story, this task was to be accomplished by Jesus bringing about the sovereign healing rule of the creator God. Jesus was addressing the question, "What might it look like if God was running this show?" And answering, "This is what it looks like: just watch." And then, "just listen." In what he did, and in the stories he told, Jesus was announcing and inaugurating what he referred to as "the kingdom of God," the long-awaited hope that the creator God would run the whole show, on earth as in heaven.
But the problem was, and is, that other people are still running the show. Other kingdoms, other power structures, have usurped the rule of the world's wise creator, and the forces of evil are exceedingly powerful and destructive. Jesus' task of inaugurating God's kingdom therefore necessarily led him to meet those forces in direct combat, to draw upon himself their full, dark fury so as to exhaust their power and make a way through to launch the creator's project of new creation despite them. That is one clue at least to the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion, though that event, planting the sign of God's kingdom in the middle of space, time, and matter, remains inexhaustible. But let's be clear. As the gospels tell the story, Jesus' death was the culmination of several different strands: a political process, a religious clash, a spiritual war, all rushing together into one terrible day, one terrible death. And in the light of that, according to Jesus himself and his first followers, everything in the world looks different, is different, must be approached differently. With Jesus' death, the power structures of the world were called to account; with his resurrection, a new life, a new power, was unleashed upon the world. And the question is: How ought this to work out? What should we be doing as a result?
If we are to think Christianly, then we must think according to the pattern of Jesus Christ. And that means that the first place we should look for God in the "War on Terror" would be in the smoldering ruins of the Twin Towers, and then in the ruins of Baghdad and Basra, the shattered homes and lives of the tens of thousands who have through no fault of their own been in the wrong place at the wrong time, as the angry superpower, like a rogue elephant teased by a little dog, has gone on the rampage stamping on everything that moves in the hope of killing the dog by killing everything within reach. The presence of God within the world at a time of war must be calibrated according to what Paul says in Romans 8, that the Spirit groans within God's people as they groan with the pain of the world. The cross of Jesus Christ is the sign and the assurance that the God who made the world still loves the world and, in that love, groans and grieves.
But God wants his rebel world to be ordered, to be under authorities and governments, because otherwise the bullies and the arrogant will always prey on the weak and the helpless; but all authorities and governments face the temptation to become bullies and arrogant themselves. The New Testament writers, like other Jews at the time, saw this writ large in the Roman empire of their day. Those with eyes to see can see it in other subsequent empires, right down to our own day.
It is the task of the followers of Jesus to remind those called to authority that the God who made the world intends to put the world to rights at last, and to call those authorities to acts of justice and mercy which will anticipate, in the present time, the future, coming, final victory of God over all evil, all violence, all arrogant abuse of power. And where the world's rulers genuinely strive for that end, the Christian church declares as the ancient Jews did with the pagan king Cyrus, that God's Spirit is at work—whether the authorities know it or not.
Insofar as the last five years have constituted a wake-up call to sleepy western Christians to think urgently about issues of global justice and governance, we can see God, I believe, in that new stirring, warning us that we have a task and that we haven't been doing it too well. In particular, we must face the deeply ambiguous question of the present power and position of America. I am not anti-American when I criticise some policies of some American leaders, any more than I am anti-British when I criticise some of the policies of my own elected leaders. To suggest otherwise is simply a cheap way of avoiding the real questions. The creator God allows societies to rise and fall, empires to grow and wane. And though things are massively more complicated than this, we could see in the rise of America as the current sole superpower some great possibilities for bringing justice and mercy, genuine freedom and prosperity, to the whole world. Empires always carry that possibility. But empires also face the temptation to use their power for their own prestige and wealth. The challenge now is to provide a critique of American empire without implying that the world should collapse into anarchy, and a fresh sense of direction for that empire without colluding with massive abuses of power.
Where then is God in the war on terror? Grieving and groaning within the pain and horror of his battered but still beautiful world. Stirring in the hearts of human beings the desire for a more credible structure of global justice and mercy. Burning into the imagination of human beings a hope that peace and reconciliation might eventually win out over suspicion and hatred, that the world may be put to rights and that we may anticipate that in the present time. The Christian gospel, revealing the mysterious God we discover in Jesus and the Spirit, offers a framework for discerning where God is at work in the midst of the dangers and opportunities that confront us. All of us in our different callings are summoned to this task; some of you, perhaps, to make it your life's work. Jesus is Lord. The Spirit is powerful. God is doing a new thing. Let's get out there and join in.
I was conscripted into the South Africa military in the late 1980s. Still in my teens, I was shipped off to do two years of "service" for my country. This included not only military training, but also indoctrination about "the enemy." I was taught about the threat of communism, of the dangers of insurgents and the evil inherent in those who wished to destroy the "freedoms" we held so dear in our land.
South Africa was a country divided. Its history is reasonably well known to the world because of all we have since achieved. But the late 1980s were dark days, at the height of the apartheid regime's attempts to retain power in the face of growing international opposition and internal chaos.
One day, at home on leave, I was reversing my car out of our home's driveway in Randburg, Johannesburg. A knock on my window startled me. A young man, slightly out of breath, motioned for me to roll down the window. Slightly nervous, I lowered it a few centimetres. He asked if I could give him a ride. To this day I don't know why I agreed, as I am not in the habit of picking up hitchhikers. But, that day, I said, "Yes. Get in."
As we drove away, he calmly told me that he had just escaped from the police cells at the nearby magistrate's court. He was a political activist and had been arrested as a member of the ANC. He wanted me to take him to a nearby township where ANC cadres were known to hideout. But, he explained calmly, if I felt otherwise, I could take him up the road and hand him over to the police again.
Not many people are confronted with these sorts of choices. Not only was I under immediate pressure: Were the police coming down the road in hot pursuit? Had they seen me? But I was also being confronted with a mindset shift. Deep down inside I had a vague understanding that apartheid was wrong and that it should be opposed. But as a teenager, what chance had I to process these thoughts, or choose to do something about it? Now, what would I do? Whose side was I on?
It's difficult to explain to someone who hasn't lived in a propaganda state how much can be hidden from the citizens by the government and selective media. And how much apathy there is in those not directly affected by the violence such a state perpetrates.
I wish I had done more to oppose apartheid. I can claim that I was young, and that apartheid was almost dead by the time I came of age. But so many young people gave their lives for justice. There are no excuses. I wish that day I had done more than I did. I drove that young man about five kilometres away, and then dropped him off on the side of a busy road where I knew he would quickly be picked up and taken to safety. I should have done more.
Maybe I should be doing more now.
This may be an overly harsh assessment, but some of what has happened in America under the current administration in the name of a "war on terror" looks and feels remarkably like the workings of that apartheid machine I grew up in. And the most concerning thing is that, just as many South Africans – white and black – were sucked into the apartheid system's mindset, so too the average American does not seem to notice it happening.
In the name of freedom, freedoms are gradually removed. The state spies on its own citizens, and explains that it does not need to explain why. In the name of peace, we declare others to be "the enemy" and wage war on them, crushing them with overwhelming superior force. Worst of all, we declare ourselves outside international agreements and norms. We can torture, because it's not really torture, and besides, the end justifies the means. We can refuse to sign international treaties, because what are others going to do about it anyway?
I hate to point it out, because the memory of that type of state is so fresh in the minds of South Africans like myself. I hate to point it out, because I would like to think that the most powerful country in the world is what it also claims to be: the most free, the most civilized and the most advanced. I hate to point it out. But I must: The so called "war on terror," most obviously evidenced by a 5-year ground war in Iraq, is nothing more or less than apartheid was proclaimed to be: a crime against humanity. It is a dark blot on our human soul.
And all it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing about it. How I wish I had done more. But, how proud I am today to be a South African – part of the story of a nation of people who collectively decided that change was possible, and who each did just a little bit to make that dream a reality.
Dr. Graeme Codrington is a researcher, author, presenter and consultant on issues of people strategy. He works internationally from bases in Johannesburg and London, and can be contacted at graeme@graemecodrington.com.
We are told the war in Iraq is a necessary part of the "War on Terror" (WOT), and its goal is to bring democracy to the Middle East. Despite this rhetoric it is blatantly clear the US is pursuing its own interests at the cost of democracy in the region. This raises the level of anger in the Muslim world more than Americans can imagine.
Nowhere are the hypocrisy and contradictions in US policy more apparent than in
Pakistan, a long time US ally, whose citizens have consistently demonstrated their commitment to democracy, most recently in their February 18th election. Despite this staunch democratic commitment, the US continues to act in ways that undermine democracy in this crucial country. The contradictions in America's Pakistan policy go back decades, at least to the late 1970s when the US worked with the Islam-touting dictator, General Zia ul-Haq and Pakistan's intelligence services to arm the groups that have naturally morphed into al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That story is well known.
Less publicized are the contradictions in current US policy. Since 9/11 we have given over $9.6 billion in aid to General Musharraf's regime (plus an additional $5.3 billion in reimbursements for Pakistan's assistance with the war in Afghanistan) – even though he unconstitutionally remained chief of the army while also serving as president, and despite the fact that in the 2002 election he whipped up Islamicist parties to generate a base of support for himself – a ploy the Pakistani people have now seen through and completely renounced in last month's election. But he is Bush's friend because he allows US planes to bomb inside Pakistan, and last November 3rd he unconstitutionally imposed a state of emergency, suspended the constitution and dismissed all the judges who were not willing to swear a new loyalty oath to the emergency order. While the press widely reported he did this to prevent the court from ruling against him remaining army chief during a second term as president, he also did it to thwart the Supreme Court's demand that he account for hundreds of people who have been "disappeared." Many of these people have likely ended up in US interrogation cells in other countries.
For the first time Pakistan's government is "disappearing" its critics. It now dares such impunity because this has been normalized by the US's use of the practice within the country. It is one of the horrible contradictions of the WOT – we fight a war 'for democracy' by undermining the global commitment to habeus corpus and fair trial rights. The other contradiction is that in that move Musharraf killed the independence of the judiciary and the free media, two other democratic practices sacrificed to this war to bring democracy. What was the US response? Some noise but no serious demand to restore the constitution, nor to reinstate the court, nor to give an accounting of the disappeared.
On December 27th former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated and Musharraf's government acted in ways that smacked of a cover-up. Again, the US's response was very muted, despite the fact that "BB" was the first democratically elected woman leader of a Muslim country, and she had a long and close association with the United States. Why the waffle? Because more than wanting democracy in the Muslim world, the US wants a free hand to run the WOT by any means it deems necessary, to serve the US interests du jour. In Pakistan's case this means not only complicity in disappearing people into the rat holes of the US's secret global interrogation system, but also the freedom to continue to conduct bombing raids on Pakistani territory – increasingly without even consulting the Pakistani government. This practice, which is to be stepped up – at least until the US election next November, will likely undercut Pakistan's newly elected government.
Muslims everywhere see through these contradictions and the hypocrisy in US policy. It fuels their anger, which in turn fuels militancy and less willingness to dialogue or compromise. Without that willingness there can be no movement in any peace process: not for Palestine/Israel; not for Iraq; not for Afghanistan.
Cris Toffolo, Ph.D, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and in the Justice and Peace Studies Program at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota.
"Speak to the earth, and it will teach you…The life of every creature and the breath of all people are in God's hand". --Job 12: 8, 10 (NCV)
Iraq has a rich biological history. The Mesopotamian marshlandswere among the most fertile areas of the globe until they were decimated by Saddam Hussein's government in an attempt to quell an uprising after the 1991 Gulf War. The latest Iraq war has destroyed the land, air and water quality even further.
According to the Iraq Development Program, more than 50% of the Iraqi population depends on natural resources for survival. Subsistence farmers, herders and grazers have lost their only known way of living while wildlife and clean drinking water disappear by the minute. A 2003 MedAct Report estimated that 40% of the water and sanitation systems in Iraq were damaged during the first 6 months of the U.S. attack, forcing people to the only remaining source of water: polluted rivers. The United Nations has managed to restore nearly 80% of the prewar infrastructure in Baghdad, but nearly 5 million people are still without access to any sanitation.
In rural areas, Iraqis depend heavily on irrigation as a means for prosperous agriculture. As irrigation pumps are destroyed and waste water can no longer be removed, we see a greater salinization (salt build-up) and desertification (drying out) of the soil. A high saline content in the soil makes growing crops more difficult, driving farmers to use chemical fertilizers on their fields. These fertilizers degrade the soil by removing natural nutrients, forcing farmers to bring in more (salt) water, starting the cycle anew.
Last year the Department of Defense began seeking environmental specialists to serve as advisors for the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) engineers. Working with local Iraqis, the PRTs have rebuilt much of the physical infrastructure that was destroyed since the 2003 invasion, but little is being done to correct the havoc that warfare has wreaked on the Iraqi environment. The World Bank estimates that it would cost upwards of $3.6 billion to jumpstart the recovery of the agricultural sector alone in Iraq.
As Christians, our obligation is two-fold: to care for God's creation, and to ensure the continued existence of the Iraqi people. We must do this through a combination of academic, legislative and humanitarian efforts, and we must begin now. It is up to Americans and Iraqis to work together to demand a change in policy and in practice.
For the people of Iraq, this is much more than just an environmental issue; it is an issue of survival.
Lindsay Hildebrant is a recent graduate of Adrian College in Adrian, MI with a degree in Environmental Studies, Philosophy and Religion. She is currently interning with the Policy and Organizing Department at Sojourners.
Holy Week this year brings with it a sobering coincidence. As the church prepares to remember Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection, the nation is marking five years of war with Iraq. In response, Sojourners has released A Call to Lament and Repent for the sin of this war – signed by Jim Wallis, a number of Red Letter Christians and Sojourners board members, and nearly 25,000 friends and supporters.
The statement begins, "this season of Lent, we are truly living 'in darkness and in the shadow of death' as we mark, on March 19, 2008, the fifth anniversary of the war with Iraq. It is a war that is being waged by our country, financed by our taxes, and fought by our sisters and brothers. As U.S. Christians, we issue a call to the American church to lament and repent of the sin of this war."
The week before the invasion of Iraq, I was locked in an e-mail debate over the war with a friend of mine from my home church in Texas. I explained to him why I was opposed to the war. He responded by saying that while he understood my opposition to the war as an Iraqi, as a Christian I should support it because it put America "on Israel's side – which is God's side – and that is the winning side."
A week after the fall of Baghdad he emailed me the following joke:
A Cowboy, an Indian, and an Arab were sitting around a table. The Cowboy was kicked back in his chair with his hat pulled down over his eyes. The Indian looked at the Arab and said, "My people used to be very great in number, but now they are very few in number. This is so very sad." Then the Arab said, "My people used to be small in number, but now we are very great in number. Why do you think this is?" Then the Cowboy sat up, tilted his hat back, looked at them both and said, "That's because we ain't played Cowboys and Arabs yet."
The man who sent it to me knew my Arab background, but even more appalling was that he had been educated in Christian schools and colleges, been active in full-time ministry, and was a lay leader in our church.
This past Palm Sunday, he and others like him probably waved palm branches in remembrance of the day Jesus entered Jerusalem before his crucifixion. What is interesting to note is that in Jesus' day, the palm branch was a sign of nationalism and military victory. By waving those palm branches, the people showed that they were expecting Jesus to rise as their military hero, overthrow their enemies and re-establish them as the top power in the world. But they failed to realize that Jesus came to overthrow a greater enemy than Rome, to redeem all of humanity and to establish a kingdom where the last would be first, the hungry would be fed, the homeless would be sheltered, the sick would be healed, the widow and orphan would be cared for, and where enemies would be forgiven ... and even invited to the table.
I think it is significant that Holy Week falls on the same week of the fifth anniversary of an unholy war. Why? For two reasons: First, because too many pastors and churches - from the run up to the war until now - have waved the flag before the Cross. In doing so, they missed the "Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven." And second, because it presents an opportunity for reflection on what the Cross accomplished for all of humanity, and for repentance for the sins that have been committed against the people of Iraq at the expense of our own ignorance and idolatry … and really bad jokes.
Rev. Omar Hamid Al-Rikabi is a campus minister at the University of Arkansas Wesley Foundation. He is the son of a Muslim father from Iraq and a Christian mother from Texas. He shares his stories on his blog at www.firstbornstories.com
Five years ago today, on March 18, the British Parliament debated whether or not to support the pending U.S. attack on Iraq. It was already clear that the Bush administration was determined to attack, and desperately needed support from the U.K. That morning, Sojourners placed an ad in five major British newspapers – The Guardian, The Independent, The London Times, The Telegraph, and The Financial Times.
The ad was signed by five American church leaders who had met with then Prime Minister Tony Blair a month earlier in London – Jim Wallis (President of Sojourners), John Bryson Chane (Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C.), Clifton Kirkpatrick (Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church USA), Melvin Talbert (Ecumenical Officer of the United Methodist Council of Bishops), and Daniel Weiss (Immediate past General Secretary of the American Baptist Churches in the USA).
Headlined, "Prime Minister Blair, it is two minutes before midnight. We need you to be a true friend to America in this critical hour," the ad began, "The world needs you to find a 'third way' between war and inaction. It is two minutes before midnight, and the world's people are desperate for an alternative to war." It outlined a six-point plan with solid options for disarming Iraq without war.
The debate in Parliament was heated, and we heard that the text of our ad had been read on the floor. Nonetheless, the final vote approved the government's motion calling for military action against Iraq. There were significant defections by Labor Party members voting against their prime minister, and several high-level resignations from the cabinet. But the U.K. was committed to supporting the U.S.-led war.
Five years later, with the American, British, and Iraqi lives that have been lost, and the hundreds of billions of dollars that has been spent, we cannot help but wonder how history might have turned out differently had that appeal been heeded.
Duane Shank is the senior policy adviser for Sojourners.
During the last four days, more than 100 Iraq Veterans Against the War combat veterans, academics, and international guests shared their experiences with the world through Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan, Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations. They offered their accounts in the hopes that they would induce a bit of accountability in the halls of Congress, and detailed the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the occupations of the few who profit, whose profession it is to ensure the longevity of this and other violent conflicts.
My own involvement was in the form of bearing witness [click here to watch the video] to the intricacies and fallibilities of the Rules of Engagement I encountered in my 14 months in combat. Many other panelists offered corroborating evidence and shared similar stories of inadequate training in the use of deadly force, and some explained the troubling, but verifiable, cases in which such restrictions were utterly ignored or outright rejected. In other panels, testifiers shared their experience with the failure of the VA system, outlined the presence of gender discrimination and racism in the military, and described corporate pillaging and war profiteering. The entire event was streamed live to the Web via IVAW's Web site and blogged live via KPFA Radio. Many news articles were written as a result, and the Department of Defense even issued a statement.
I was in the minority as a professed Christian, and I cannot blame my fellow compatriots for their occasional discomfort with the oft-misrepresented ideologies (Religious Right) of the Christian tradition. To my surprise, it was difficult to even blurt out in my own testimony that it was my faith, and not a reaction to the political, economic, or social reality of these conflicts, that inspired me to lay my weapon down. Furthermore, there was no shortage of personal courage displayed throughout the entire event: testifiers ripping off or tearing up the burdensome medals they wore, tears shed in bitter remorse and agony, and (unfortunately) failure to control one's language in frustration and angst. Our critics (whom we invited beforehand, and whom politely agreed to a rigorous code of conduct—to which they submitted faithfully and respectfully) even had some constructive, informative observations to share.
The weekend was never cast as a protest; there were no picket signs or chanting, no march or formation, and it was closed to the public (making the "Gathering of Eagles" just off campus the only actual protesters in attendance). The members and guests who gave "testimony" (a term with which we in the church are well-versed) did so only in the sense that it was an "account" of their experience.
There was one interruption, during the first panel on Friday, where an older gentleman trespassed onto the campus and shouted that people "lied and good men died." He also speculated that those testifying were betraying good men. Interestingly enough, he was NOT talking about our current commander in chief, who is not only directly responsible (according to military tradition and the UCMJ) for the 4,468 American lives lost under his watch, but also for 935 "false statements" (isn't that the same as a "lie?") his administration made in the months leading up to the invasion of a nation we ourselves armed and financed. Besides, the gospels remind us to be wary of any king of men who would reap what he does not sow, or burden his subjects with a yoke he would not carry himself.
Finally, as carefully as I chose to tread with my own faith background, the immense healing properties of confession were hard to ignore. Tears flowed and men of the highest caliber embraced unashamed and readily admitted their reliance on one another. It was an awesome experience that I will forever be proud to have been part of. These honest and humble accounts are a much-needed and too often overlooked offering that has been laid before the American people, a heavy yoke broken by the power of confession and repentance by contrite hearts.
Will America answer the call to metanoia and turn from its destructive, exploitative ways? Will we lay the idols of oil and nationalism and greed upon the altar, and seek a more firm and lasting peace with our neighbors in the global community?
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and has co-founded a faith-based veterans assistance initiative called Centurion's Purse, which seeks to provide financial and spiritual relief to fellow service members in need. He blogs at courageouscoward.blogspot.com.
Five years after bombs first exploded over Baghdad with a "shock and awe" display of staggering military might, the Iraq war continues with tragic costs and still-unseen consequences.
First, we mourn and honor the American and Iraqi dead whose lost lives are the ultimate reminder of war's cruelty. These many thousands gone are not statistics. Fathers, mothers, husbands, and sisters will never come home again. Children will grow up without parents. Grief etched on the human heart does not fade like today's headlines.
The late Pope John Paul II warned before the invasion of Iraq that "war is always a defeat for humanity." It's impossible to calculate the damage done by war to the human spirit. As faithful citizens, we continue to seek justice that is the foundation of all peace. Speaking in a triumphal tone that divided the world into good and evil, President Bush described the "war on terror" as a "crusade." We have learned again during this dark era of fear and militarism that religion used in the service of power – the uniting of cross and sword – is a betrayal of faith's prophetic spirit and call to humility.
Author James Carroll, whose Constantine's Sword documents how Christianity's rise as a religion of empire stoked the historical flames of anti-Semitism, spoke movingly last week at the Washington National Cathedral - reminding us that "No war is holy." The religious imagination should help temper the fervor of American exceptionalism. More than ever we need to reclaim spiritual humility and pray, as Abraham Lincoln once did, that we are on God's side rather than claiming endorsement from the divine.
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican and former general of the Army, warned that a growing "military-industrial complex" has grave implications for democracy if vigilance is not paid to how freedom can be trampled in the name of strength and security. Six years later, Martin Luther King Jr. preached against the war in Vietnam and said that a "nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." We need to heed these powerful words more than ever.
Along with the profound human and spiritual costs of war, we have squandered billions of dollars that could have been spent providing Americans with health care, living wages, better public schools, and services to help the most vulnerable. Just as the ambitious anti-poverty programs of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" campaign fizzled in the distant jungles of Vietnam, the Iraq war has drained limited resources from programs essential to building a culture for the common good. The gap between rich and poor has reached Depression-era standards. Our economy teeters on the brink of recession. American jobs are sent abroad as corporations seek cheap labor and minimal regulation. Meanwhile, companies like Bechtel, DynCorp, and Lockheed Martin earn record profits providing weapons and services for the war.
We have also lost a proper respect for patriotic dissent. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans who spoke out against preemptive war were told by a former Bush press secretary "to watch what they say and do." The millions who marched against the war were viewed with suspicion. Speaking for peace was subversive. The best minds of our generations were told to salute the flag and keep quiet. The late Rev. William Sloan Coffin Jr., a Christian unbowed in his will to speak truth to power, once described true patriotism as "a lover's quarrel" with your country. We must reclaim this reverence for engaged dissent.
It's easy to feel demoralized when we look back on these past five years. But the Christian faith teaches us to be undaunted bearers of a hope that refuses to yield to darkness. We look to the future strengthened by the abundant spirit of a God who comforts us in our sorrow and calls us to create the world anew.
Alexia Kelley is the executive director for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and a member of the Red Letter Christians.
It was perhaps the most practical and personal question asked during a recent meeting of Iraqi civil society leaders who had gathered to advise the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) about its future peacebuilding work in Iraq.
The young Iraqi woman who asked the question saw it as the litmus test of whether "peacebuilding" is just nice talk, or whether it holds promise in an Iraq that has fractured along ethnic and religious lines, and where thousands of families have lost loved ones as a result of the U.S.-led war.
During the buildup to war, I fasted for 40 days. Each day I sent a letter to President George W. Bush, urging him to consider alternatives to war with Iraq. In my 40th letter, I wrote: "The question is not whether the United States can 'prevail' on the battlefield in Iraq. Likely it can. The more important question is what kind of world will there be a year from now and five years from now as a result of war? Will Iraq and the Middle East be more stable?"
Five years, $500 billion, and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of human fatalities later, the situation in Iraq is fragile at best. Almost 700 Iraqis were killed in February 2008. Across the country, many Iraqis are out of work. Most still don't have basic services like regular electricity.
And contrary to President Bush's promise in 2003 that the road to peace in Jerusalem goes through Baghdad, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at a low ebb. The U.S.-led war in Iraq has contributed to the popularity of more radical groups like Hamas. Ironically, the democracies the president promised five years ago have produced leaders that the U.S. fails to recognize or fully support today.
It is true that the number of war casualties has dropped during the last six months - although the numbers are still quite high and have begun to rise again this February and March. U.S. leaders credit the military surge for the positive trend. But the Iraqi leaders who gathered to advise MCC said that casualties are down because Iraqi society has now become almost completely segregated according to ethnic group membership.
They said that a healthy future for Iraq depends not on segregating Iraqis by homogeneous groups, but by developing projects that require Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Muslims, and Christians to work together for a united Iraq.
The weakness of war as a foreign policy tool is that it undermines the very conditions necessary to create stable societies. Courageous Iraqi civil society leaders will play a critical role in pointing Iraq toward a better future. They deserve our full support.
J. Daryl Byler and spouse Cindy Byler are Mennonite Central Committee's representatives for Iran, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine. They live in Amman, Jordan.
Did it matter, now that I stood in front of his body, still connected to tubes and vents and drips, but a body that had already breathed its last?
No, it didn't really matter. I stepped to the bed and laid a hand on his still-warm forehead and prayed. I had always wondered if I would know what to say. And as I opened my mouth, I realized I didn't need to know what to say. If ever the Holy Spirit interceded for me, it was then.
"Oh God, as first you gave this life to us, so now we give him back to you. You know the secrets of our hearts and we pray that this soul may find peace with you. Amen."
The med techs and nurses began to clean the body as I went to get the kaffan, the traditional Muslim burial cloth. We can't—and don't—perform the ritual Islamic washing here in the American hospital in Afghanistan, but we do try to prepare the body as best we can for the family. In some small way, the hospital staff tries to make a difference; though they could not save this man's life, they can at least return the body with some degree of respect and dignity. It is the right thing to do. It just might also save someone else's life down the line.
Because he may or may not have been the bomb-maker. Whether he was or not, the exploding bomb killed him. And as his brother hovered nearby in the ICU, I thought about our small part in the cycle of violence that just maybe had a chance to be broken right here, this very moment.
If he was the bomb-maker, would his brother go home and say, "Even though he planned to kill them, the Americans still tried to save his life …. They operated, they bandaged, and when he died, they washed and wrapped him and prayed over him." And if he wasn't the bomb-maker, would his brother go home and say, "There are people who tried to kill my brother and there are people who tried to save my brother and they are not the same people."
I don't have any answers to that question. I don't know what the brother did when he took him home to bury him. I cannot see into the hearts of people as God does. But I pray for them. And if I am honest, I know I do it for two reasons. Jesus commanded it. And if prayer is as powerful as I believe it is, the neck I save might just be my own.
U.S. Air Force ChaplainCaptain Marianne Kehoe is an ordained elder in the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church. She is currently serving in a large U.S. military hospital in Afghanistan.
On Tuesday, President Bush spoke to the annual convention of the National Religious Broadcasters. In a speech that The New York Times described as "Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions", he declared that “The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency; it is the right decision at this point in my presidency; and it will forever be the right decision.” After five years of war, his lack of reflection and, well, characteristic hubris should no longer surprise me, but the very boldness still does.
And why is he so certain he is right? It’s all because he believes in freedom:
I believe - and I know most of you, if not all of you, believe - that every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth has been given the great gift of liberty by an almighty God. And today I want to speak about this precious gift, the importance of protecting freedom here at home, and the call to offer freedom to others who have never known it. … when confronted with the realities of the world, I have made the decision that now is the time to confront, now is the time to deal with this enemy, and now is the time to spread freedom as the great alternative to the ideology it adheres to. … we undertake this work because we believe that every human being bears the image of our maker. That's why we're doing this.
Many U.S. Christians disagree. We also see the image of God in all those who have become the collateral damage of this awful war, and in the countless American lives snuffed out or broken forever. Also on Tuesday, along with Christian leaders on our Sojourners board like Brian McLaren, Mary Nelson, Wes Granberg-Michaelson, Barbara Williams Skinner, and Ron Sider, we launched “A Call to Lament and Repent.”
Rather than celebrating the decision to go to war, we lament the suffering and violence in Iraq. We mourn the nearly 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died, the unknown numbers of both who are wounded in body and mind, and the more than 4 million Iraqis who are displaced from their homes. And we repent of our failure to fully live the teaching of Jesus to be peacemakers.
We also believe that repentance must go deeper than just being sorry – it means a commitment to a new direction. This fifth anniversary of the war is the time for U.S. Christians to rededicate ourselves to the biblical vision of a world in which nations do not attempt to resolve international problems by making unilateral preemptive wars on other nations. While we are not utopians and believe that human beings and nations will have conflicts, given the toll that war has taken in our violence torn world, we must begin to learn to resolve our inevitable conflicts by learning the arts and skills of conflict resolution and a new international approach to just peace-making.
I’m grateful that since Tuesday, nearly 20,000 of you have already joined with us. Yesterday a friend of mine wrote to me. He is a strong Christian layperson, a successful businessman, and a lifelong Republican. But he said, “I have been looking for some form of penance since I argued so strenuously with you back in 2003 that, of course, our government had definitive proof of WMD, or we would not take the enormous geopolitical risk of invading Iraq. This enterprise seemed to be exactly the penance vehicle I needed.”
In Ramah, a voice is heard, crying and weeping loudly. Rachel mourns for her children and refuses to be comforted, because they are dead. Jeremiah 31:15
Last week a spate of four deaths in our Chicago high schools was blamed on gangs and guns. Last year, the public high school killings totaled 27, and already this year 18 have been killed. As one commentator said, "It's war on our Chicago streets and in our schools." Kids held up signs saying, "Stop Killing" and "Can't you see we want to grow up?" As we approach the 5th Anniversary of the Iraq war that moved us into devastating violence, we must take stock of our failed policies in Iraq and at home. Our current approach is not working.
Dr. Carl Bell, an expert on youth violence, talked about what prevention will take. He said young people need a sense of connectness, access to medicine and counseling, self-esteem and a sense of community. They also need to be able to communicate when they need help. Mayor Daley blamed glorified gun violence on tv and used as entertainment. So many opportunities for alternatives to violence.
Just think of what could happen if we got out of Iraq and redirected that $400 million A DAY we now spend to revitalize quality public education for all, create alternative life giving work experiences, training and jobs for disaffected youth, enable universal health care. Enabling youth to complete school, find meaningful employment would staunch the one way train to prison (which also costs us $25,000 per person annually). We have the resources. Do we have the will?
Mary Nelson is president emeritus of Bethel New Life, a faith-based community development corporation on the west side of Chicago. She is also a board member of Sojourners.
A couple of weeks before the Thanksgiving holiday, I received a call from my cousin. Her father-in-law in Baghdad was dead. His death was not the result a car bomb or a kidnapping. No bullets or beheadings were involved. Instead, it was a kitchen fire. He was badly burnt up and down his legs. They took him to the hospital … but there were no doctors who could help or medicine they could give him. He was killed by a treatable infection.
"What is it about this month?" my cousin asked. Only an exact year ago her brother had been shot to death in front of his house in a Baghdad neighborhood, forcing a new widow and her children to flee to Jordan.
A few weeks later I shared this story with another Iraqi living in Amman. "This is the way it has been for a while," she said. "After the first war, with the embargo, things were slowly getting worse. No medicine. No services. We were losing hope. But we never saw this second war coming. This destroyed it all. Now, there is no hope."
Over the last five years, as I have shared my family's story in churches and chapel services, I get a very common response: "I never saw them as human beings. I never thought to pray for the Iraqi people." This disturbs me. Even more disturbing is that many of the people who confess this to me are pastors and missionaries. They champion the need for food, plumbing, and medicine in so many parts of the world, but seem to hit the breaks when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East. I have visited many congregations around the country – Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal, Non-denominational – and I see a recurring pattern: nine times out of 10 the pastor will pray for the safety and success of the troops, but does not offer one prayer for the people and needs of Iraq.
While in Amman last month, I spent time with my two little cousins who now live as orphans and refugees. A family member shared that one of the girls has recurring dreams of her dead father, and is brewing with sadness and anger over his murder. A week later I sat in a church service in the States where the text in the bulletin was James 1:27: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (NIV). The "pastoral prayer" turned toward the troops, gay marriage and abortion, but there was not one mention of the 2 million internally displaced Iraqis, 82 percent of whom are women and children under the age of 12 (according to the Iraqi Red Crescent report of January 27, 2008). What a sad irony that the same church that so adamantly supports the "right to life" also supported a war that has robbed so many children of their lives and innocence.
In reality, Iraq has been bleeding to death for more than 15 years. Beautiful people, made in the image of God, have lived with violence and destruction for too long. The church in the U.S has played a major role in supporting that destruction. I have very few positive answers for my Muslim family members when they ask about how Christians in the U.S. perceive Iraq. Once, when I told a family member of some Christians I had met who support and work for human rights in Iraq and equal rights for Palestinians, he responded, "Wow. … I didn't know there were any other Christians who believed that way."
In the first chapter of Nehemiah we find this prayer: "I confess that we have sinned against you. Yes, even my own family and I have sinned!" The key word here is "we." Nehemiah was not even alive when the people's sins, which led to exile, took place. Yet he took ownership of what the people of God had done wrong, and so led the way in confession, repentance, and ultimately, restoration.
How long before more pastors lead their congregations in confession, repentance, and prayers for the people and peace of Iraq? How long before more preachers preach that the life of an Iraqi is just as important to God as the life of a U.S. soldier? How long before we ask our congregations to see Iraqis as part of the human family, made in the very image of God, and in doing so broaden our definition of "family values?" How long before the church truly stands up to vote for a "right to life" for all children that goes beyond the unborn to include the children of those who we thought were our enemies?
I have been in worship services all over the country, and I still see too many churches that rallied for the call to war in Iraq failing to rally for the call of Christ in Iraq.
Rev. Omar Hamid Al-Rikabi is a campus minister at the University of Arkansas Wesley Foundation. He is the son of a Muslim father from Iraq and a Christian mother from Texas. He shares his stories on his blog at www.firstbornstories.com
Two brothers, Jamal* and Khalid,* were arrested randomly in a raid of their neighborhood by Iraqi Special Police Forces, the Palestinian ghetto in Baghdad. They were tortured and forced to confess on a television program to acts of terror they didn't commit. Other Palestinian refugees have been dragged out of their homes and killed.
Dalia* and Sara,* two sisters, along with other members of their family, were accused of funding the resistance and were detained in Abu Ghraib for nine months. One day their brother's dead and tortured body was brought into their room and thrown on their laps.
In Fallujah, four months after the November 2004 massive U.S. attacks in which 60 percent of the buildings were destroyed - including several schools and the main hospital - the southern half of the city was complete rubble. The Musa Abdulla* family, of 26 persons, was one of hundreds of families that had been forced to return and live in a tent next to the remains of their former home.
Hundreds of Palestinian refugees living in Iraq fled to the Syrian border because of threat to their lives. Only some were allowed to go to a refugee camp in Syria. Others were not allowed into Syria - but also not allowed back into Iraq - so have been living in tents in the no-man's land in-between.
Six-year-old Mohammed was playing on the gate in his front yard when he was shot in the head in the cross-fire of a gun-battle between U.S. Military and resistance fighters. He lost his right eye and the right side of his face is disfigured.
When the surge started, our former neighbor, Alia,* in Baghdad told our peace team, "The increase of U.S. military forces in the city only increases the hell we are living in." A month later her youngest son was injured when a bomb blasted in our former neighborhood.
As a long-time human rights worker, Hameed helped mediate between fighting groups on the streets of his city. He made several trips with a group of Shia, Sunni, and Christians into Fallujah in 2005 to develop peaceful relationships between the different ethnic groups. In 2006 he survived an assassination attempt. He knows that at any time he could be targeted again.
* Real people and situations, but names have been changed
In my last post, I illustrated my intention to participate in a collective type of confession from members of our Armed Forces. I am of course speaking of the upcoming Winter Soldier hearings in Washington, D.C., from March 13 to 16 at the National Labor College in Silver Springs, Maryland. Many readers expressed no small amount of confusion in interpreting my motivation for doing so, and for not being more clear, I apologize. Let me state unequivocally that my allegiance to Christ infinitely trumps my allegiance to our country. Upon clarifying that, I might need to express the extent to which I remain in submission to our nation.
Our government, in affirming the rights of its citizens, forfeits the claim to unconditional subordination. While I am eternally grateful for the freedom I enjoy, such gratitude must never demand that one surrender the sacrificial cross of enemy love, because the cross of our King is uncompromisingly nonviolent. In fact, if some perverse form of gratitude (fueled by what Mark Twain called 'martial dreams' and 'the holy fire of patriotism') insists that I yield blindly to the status quo, it is not appreciation at all, but coercion in disguise. We need to move away from reflex loyalty and adopt a mature, informed awareness in response to the threat of terror. First and foremost, we must know our enemies - if we even insist on having enemies at all - for they are only brothers and sisters we have failed to see as our neighbor.
To be quite forward, I am fully aware that I make oft-unwelcome allusions to WWII and Nazi Germany. This is calculated and purposeful; it serves as a response to the innumerable implications myself and countless other conscientious objectors face in stating their refusal to participate in modern combat. In fact, every GI I have counseled has had to answer questions in their CO process about how they would respond to the threat of Hitler and the Nazis. I agree that WWII makes for an effective measure of justifiable war, but we must also accurately and objectively consider how it also delegitimizes our violence (after all, don't you think Germany demanded a bit of unconditional subordination couched in patriotic fervor, and don't you think if the German army had more CO's the course of the war could have been altered dramatically?). We indeed have much to learn from that conflict, but let's not inappropriately insist that it must affirm our own preconceptions in order for such an appraisal to be valid.
From the perspectives of the Gospels, imperial Rome offers another rich context to view our current environment of terror and terrorism. Don't Rome and the U.S. both have intimate experience occupying lesser nations, ruling through the façade of a weak indigenous power structure? Just to be clear to fans of Romans 13, we must remember that Paul neither affirms the moral legitimacy of the state (only indicating that when operating in moral manner, they must be obeyed), nor lends moral authority to Rome. In fact, the same "authority" to which he was submitted later executed him! Do I detect tragic irony? Peter too states that "everyone" must be honored, whether they like to call themselves kings or not. The tax question in the synoptic Gospels ( Matt. 22, Mark 12, & Luke 20) is a thinly veiled satire of the Roman figurehead; if you look closely in the Hebrew scriptures, ALL the earth belongs to its creator ( Deut. 10:14 for example), leaving nothing owed to the emperor save love.
Despite all this, if you ask my closest friends, I remain quite pro-military. I do not believe in the abolition of the military, nor do I believe that Christianity and civil service are mutually exclusive. I respect the oath I swore and the values instilled in me in training - all of which are good and right - and in today's political atmosphere they all direct me to oppose the war of terror. One value that is absent from this list is the divine virtue of love, which is the fulfillment of God's will, and which directs me to oppose all wars. In my opposition, far from distancing myself from the duties of citizenship, I hope to bring about the end of hostilities, as the early Church did through similar intercession and prayer. David Thoreau was known to have said that a creative minority could serve the state by resisting it with the intention of improving it, and an ancient idiom reminds us that it is a nation's warriors who pray most passionately for the absence of war, since it is the battlefield that makes widows of their wives and orphans of their children. We all must discover the sense in nonviolence and realize the nonsense of violence, then we might know peace.
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and has co-founded a faith based veterans assistance initiative called Centurion's Purse, which seeks to provide financial and spiritual relief to fellow service members in need. He blogs at courageouscoward.blogspot.com.
I write these words from Iraq, where I have worked through the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) since October 2002 - before, during, and since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. CPT attempts to follow Jesus as we seek to reduce violence in conflict areas around the world. In Iraq our team has worked at this by accompanying Iraqi people in dangerous situations, "truth telling" through our reports on the abuse of detainees and other consequences of war and occupation, and training and working along side local organizations on projects of reconciliation and finding nonviolent alternatives to the problems they face. This fall and winter, we have been working in the Kurdish north - accompanying people who are sanctioned for speaking out against human rights abuses, and families displaced by violence by Turkish troops on the borders.
After five years of being in the midst of the instability and suffering of the Iraqi people - hearing their pain, fear, and increasing hopelessness as they tell us about their lives, their shattered hopes and dreams - witnessing and experiencing violence ourselves as a team; but also witnessing truely courageous people who have not lost faith and hope as they work for peace, I am led to reflect on the legacy of the war and occcupation as I write the following:
After five years of war, Iraqis live with:
Deaths of an estimated 794,000 Iraqi civilians. (John Hopkins University study)
A physically devastated society. The rebuilding of Iraq's society and infrastructure has progressed very little. There is still a lack of clean water, electricity, and fuel. Medicine or medical equipment in hospitals and health centers are grossly inadequate.
Continued economic crisis. There is still massive unemployment, poverty, and increased malnutrition. The Iraqi government is under pressure by U.S. government to pass a new oil law which could allow foreign corporations equal access to new oil fields, resulting in billions of dollars in oil revenues being taken out of the country.
Anger and despair increasing as Iraqis lose hope for a better life.
Iraqi and U.S. forces continuing violent house raids and brutal detentions of Iraqi men. Many innocent detainees are forced, through torture, to confess to acts of terror they did not commit.
Civilians living in fear due to daily explosions, gun battles, and personal attacks. Sectarian violence, exacerbated over the years by U.S. Military presence and policies as well as by Iraqi police and military forces.
Women subjected to increased violence and loss of personal rights and freedoms.
Children growing up seeing violence and killing as the norm.
A country-side polluted with radioactive depleted uranium from U.S. weaponry used in the 1991 and 2003 wars with Iraq, resulting in increased cancers and birth defects.
An elected government and ratified constitution, but with a government that most Iraqis feel doesn't really represents them and their needs. Sunni Iraqis fear the influence of Iranian government on the mostly-Shia, Iraqi central government.
The U.S. military in the process of transferring "security" to Iraqi police and military - but instead of feeling protected, Iraqis feeling terrorized by these forces which have been trained and equipped by U.S. forces that have also trained human rights abusers in Latin America.
Iraqis also being told that the only way to security is through excessive violence and giving up their civil rights.
Continuation of collective punishment. One U.S. antiterrorism strategy in Iraq is to surround and attack, often with heavy bombing, whole neighborhoods, villages and cities. After attacks, non-combative civilians killed are often labeled "terrorists," in news reports. (During the November, 2004 attacks of Fallujah, 65% of the buildings, of a city of 300,000 residents, were destroyed.)
Because of the hardship and dangers, an estimated 4 million Iraqis fleeing their homes to other countries or as displaced persons in their own country.
Instead of U.S. military presence bringing stability, perpetuating instability.
Words cannot express the anguish that the Iraqi people have experienced in these last five years because of the war. The longer occupying forces are in their country, the longer they suffer the violence and hardship of daily life. We must not continue to justify paying for and prolonging this war.
The Iraq war has cost lives. Perhaps this is such an obvious statement that many will wonder why it has been made. It has cost lives of military personnel, many thousands of civilians in the immediate theatre of war, as well as lives of insurgents. It has even cost lives away from the war zone. In 13 African countries the rise in oil prices - which may be directly attributed to the war - resulted in loss of income, more than off-setting the increases in foreign aid. Nobel Peace Prize laureate and economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates the cost of the war worldwide as $6 trillion. Such sums indicate the loss of lives through failure to invest in education, healthcare, and housing across the world. It is estimated that for $1 trillion eight million housing units could have been built, health care funded for 530 million children for a year, or 15 million school teachers trained. Had such investment been made in the breeding grounds of terrorism, many of the causes of conflict could have been addressed.
The war has cost democracy. The 2 million people who opposed the war represented a political pressure group never seen before in the UK. Suspicion was raised over the evidence for the need for war. Democracies thrive only when truth is told, however unpalatable. A loss of confidence in government is always dangerous in democracies. The war has placed real strains upon people's confidence in government.
The war has cost us our memory. While opposing the war, it has always seemed right to support men and women and their families who fight on behalf of their country. The loss of young lives - while leading to many moving services of remembrance at a local level - has led to little public recognition of the cost of laying down life for the country. Life is the only thing we really possess. Laying it down for others requires that both the cause and the end are perceived as worthy. Many are left to mourn their loved ones. Many question the cost. Many more of us simply forget and carry on with our lives.
Jesus promised blessing to peacemakers. More than one hundred references exist in respect of peacemaking in the New Testament. It is the supreme goal of the kingdom of God. It is the 'good news' of the angels at Bethlehem. It is the intention of Christ who came to make peace. The cost of the Iraq war is great. The cost of making peace is greater. It took the life of the Son of Man; and it has taken the lives of countless men and women through the ages who have opposed war and striven for peace in obedience to the gospel. No Christian is immune from this struggle. There is no cause greater or more urgent. Think peace, pray peace, act peace.
Rt. Rev. Peter Price is the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Church of England.
The sorrowful convergence of the fifth anniversary of the war and the observation of the 4000th fallen U.S. soldier in Iraq looms sadly ahead. Soon candles will be lit and vigils held, arguments will ensue as to who was right, and the meaning and value of sacrifice and the chorus of whispers, wails, and anger will be carried on wind sweeping across this country and all the gravestones of war.
The stones are silent witnesses to the failure of humans to follow the commands of the Lord of Love. The stones are places where U.S. families gather, as far as can be from the bombs and desert fears.
It is in that cold silence that my grandson and I visit his father's grave. He throws chunks of snow around the fully decorated gravesite. "My dad loves to have snowball fights" he tells me in present tense. "My dad and me always team up against my mom; she doesn't like snow." He laughs; and in this moment of transcendent playfulness I look at him with great love and will not speak of horror and lost hopes.
Head bowed, snow tears on my face, I let the chill of the day overtake me - but I do not want my grandson to see my thoughts. In spite of all my protests, I could not protect him from losing his playful, tender father. I can only hope now to be a witness to the good life lost - to all the good lives lost. I will add my voice to the wind of remembrance and faithfulness.
And I know for the rest of my life I will come to this country cemetery and visit my son who will never be older than 30. And I, like so many mothers and grandsons in this cold season, will stand amidst the stones of this country to listen in the snow for the laughter and forgiveness of our lost.
Celeste Zappala is the mother of Sgt Sherwood Baker, who was killed in action on April 26, 2004. Sherwood was killed while protecting the Iraq Survey group as they searched for the weapons of mass destruction in Baghdad. He was the first Pennsylvania National Guard solider killed in Iraq.
This week will be a full one for me and for many of us in the Washington, DC, area. Friday and Saturday, I'll be leading the Everything Must Change gathering in Vienna, Virginia, but first, I'll be part of the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq this Friday, March 7.
On Friday at midday, there will be gatherings in several locations around DC for worship. And there will be gatherings around the country too - including ones you may be just the person to organize. After these times of worship, there will be prophetic action taken by many to express our shared desire to pursue what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding rather than what makes for fear and mutual destruction.
The noon worship gathering at which I'll be speaking will be held in the historic New York Avenue Presbyterian Church. Abraham Lincoln attended this church during the Civil War. One can only imagine what he felt as he brought the pain of war before God during those hours in worship. Perhaps those hours in worship played some part in the theological and emotional depth of his second inaugural address, which you can read standing in the Lincoln Memorial.
It has been said that nobody hates war more than a veteran who has experienced it firsthand; the same could be said about parents, spouses, and children who have lost someone dear to them in war. They know the cost of war in a way the rest of us can only try to imagine. I know that there will be many veterans, fathers, mothers, and other family members among the witnesses for peace this Friday.
In recent years, I've come to feel more than ever the potential of worship to form us as agents of peace - and as witnesses for peace. When we gather for worship, we pray for peace. We sing of God's passion for reconciliation. We celebrate forgiveness and peace, not revenge and division. We preach about the Prince of Peace. We pass the peace of Christ to one another. We celebrate a holy meal which dramatically enacts peace with God and peace with one another. In our benediction, we often say, "Go in God's peace." Sadly, we are often numbed to the power of this word "peace" that flows from our lips so easily. But this Friday, I think all of us will be more aware of what a profound and revolutionary thing it is to come together in the peace of God and to be sent in the world once again as instruments of God's peace.
It is possible that as we gather in public on Friday as witnesses for peace, leaders of various nations and militant groups will be meeting in secret, hatching new plans for war. If that's the case - and it probably will be - how much more important our gathering will be. And since too many people are plotting violence in all its forms, how important it is for all people of faith to gather regularly, Sunday by Sunday or whatever day it may be, to encourage one another and stimulate one another toward love and good deeds. Perhaps this is how we should see all our gatherings for worship, fellowship, teaching, and prayer - as peace groups meeting to plot goodness and prayerfully conspire for the common good and contagious peace in our homes, neighborhoods, nations, and world.
As I look ahead on this week, I feel in a new way that peace can never be reduced to political arguments and partisan debates: peace is a spiritual practice, a holy thing, a fruit of the Holy Spirit.
If you can't be with us this Friday, I hope this simple and powerful word "peace" will be in your thoughts and prayers this week. May the peace of Christ be with us all, and may the Lord make us all instruments of peace.
If you would like to take a few minutes for a simple meditation on peace, check out this YouTube video.
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is board chair for Sojourners. He is in the middle of an eleven-city speaking tour you can learn about at deepshift.org.
In what has been described as the largest cross-border attack since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Turkish military is now into its 6th day of a ground offensive inside the Kurdish region in Iraq. Turkey says the attack is limited to Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) targets, but the ramifications go much farther.
Turkey has been fighting the PKK for more than three decades. The PKK is considered a terrorist group by Turkey, the U.S., and the European Union. The PKK claims to be a liberation group fighting for the recognition and rights of Kurds. Until recently, the fighting had been contained to the mountains along the Turkish Iraqi border - as the PKK are based deep inside caves within the mountains.
Beginning in December 2007, the Turks began a series of air attacks beyond the mountains inside Iraq. These attacks resulted in civilian deaths, injuries, and extensive property destruction. Thousands of villagers fled to surrounding towns and cities to live as internally displaced people (IDP’S), relying on the UN and the ICRC for basic provisions.
Even though flyovers by Turkish surveillance planes were a daily occurrence, some of the villagers returned home to check on their property and livestock. By day, they repaired damaged structures or fed their remaining animals. By night, they slept in caves which offered just a bit more protection.
By January 2008, more villagers were being encouraged to return home as it looked as though the threat of attacks might de-escalate. But in February, tensions heightened, and once again the ones that returned to their villages had to flee for safety. Children have been uprooted, and it is often impossible for them to continue in school as IDP’s. Although there have been no civilian casualties reported with this latest grand-scale attack, the psychological damage and the disruption of lives remains devastating.
The Iraqi Kurds have not been this close to autonomy since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They have made many strides towards independence and they believe that Turkey is not very happy about it. The Kurds feel this invasion has little to do with the PKK and more to do with pushing the development of Kurdistan backwards.
Iraqi Kurds believed that they could count on the U.S. for support and protection. With the green light given to Turkey to attack inside Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurds once again feel betrayed. They have appealed to the U.S. and the EU to back up their demands that Turkey pull out its troops immediately. They have asked for the U.S. to force Turkey to the diplomatic table to work this out peacefully. So far, their appeals have fallen on deaf ears.
The Kurdish people have survived numerous genocidal attacks over the centuries. They are strong, resilient, proud, and accomplished people - and they will not go down without a fight. The U.S. could do much do stop the bloodshed. If this fight continues to escalate, one of the few relatively stable and peaceful regions in Iraq will soon be lost.
Michele Naar-Obed, lives in Duluth, Minnesota, and is a member of the Loaves and Fishes Catholic Worker Community providing temporary housing to homeless families and individuals. She is a part time volunteer with the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), has gone to Iraq five times with CPT, and is currently in Iraqi Kurdistan. Michele blogs at: duluthcpt.net
I was in Lebanon and Syria in January and saw up close the agony of the war.
In Damascus, young Iraqi refugees have created a youth choir at the Good Shepherd Center. After singing for us, many came forward to tell us their stories. One young woman told us of fleeing with her father and disabled brother after being threatened in a town near Baghdad. The family thought it was most dangerous for the disabled child and thought that the 15-year-old daughter could act as a mother to him. Now they are worried because the mother and other children are in constant danger.
An 18-year-old spoke of coming with his mother, who has cancer. His father is still in Iraq and is working to support the mother and son in Syria. They are hoping to be able to relocate to a third country, but they have already been waiting over a year and his mother is getting sicker. He does not know what will happen to them.
The Iraqi chorus leader told us that they come together to try to learn from each others' suffering, both when they were in Iraq and now in Syria. He told us, "We smile, but inside our hearts we suffer in our own way. Jesus told us to love one another, but also we must ask what is next. What is our future? We want a solution to two problems—our having to leave AND the reason for leaving…the war. We were born free but now we do not have the freedom to make our own solutions."
It is with these words echoing in my mind and heart that I know we must respond to the needs of the refugees. We as a nation can do better than admitting fewer than 6,000 refugees in five years. We can welcome in those who have been displaced by this war.
AND we must work to end the violence in Iraq. We need to build peace through international involvement. We must end the U.S. occupation, internationalize a peacekeeping force, and have a surge of diplomacy both internally in Iraq and in the region. Only by changing our policy and tactics will these victims of the war have any freedom to make their own solutions. We must act now.
Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, is a religious leader, attorney, and poet with extensive experience in public policy and advocacy for systemic change. In Washington, she lobbies on issues of peace building and economic justice. In January, she was a member of a delegation of eight Catholic Sisters sponsored by Catholic Relief Services who traveled to Lebanon and Syria to meet with Iraqi refugees, Christian and Islamic leaders, representatives of religious and civil NGOs, U.S. diplomatic personnel, a Syrian Parliament Member, and UNHCR regional representatives.
"Now, more than ever, America needs our moral witness. We need a surge in troops in the nonviolent army of the Lord. We need a surge in conscience and a surge in activism and a surge in truth-telling for a change." (Rev. Dr. Raphael Warnock, Christian Peace Witness service at the Washington National Cathedral, 3/16/2007)
"Love your enemies" wasn't on any of the valentines I received this year, or on that heart candy so popular in elementary schools. I didn't notice "pray for those who persecute you" either.
CPWI gathers Christians because we believe in Jesus and that he has it right—humans cannot bear the cost of war. This year we join with our peace-minded sisters and brothers of other faiths, proclaiming together that we are committed to the way of peace and we stand firmly against war.
Society cannot afford war. For what we spend on just ONE DAY of the Iraq War (approximately $720 million), we could provide:
· 12,478 elementary school teachers, or · 163,525 people with health care, or · 6,482 families with homes.
Iraqis cannot afford war.In October of 2007, the average home in Baghdad had electricity only six hours a day. Most people lack clean drinking water, which is electrically pumped to residents. We are unable to count the number of Iraqis who have died because of the war; estimates vary from 81,000 to well over 1 million .
The U.S. cannot afford war. No country, especially one that seeks moral standing throughout the world, can afford to make war. As Christians, our hearts are wrenched when our sisters and brothers around the world associate the actions of the U.S. government with Christian beliefs. We at CPWI believe all torture is wrong, because we honor each human being as a child of God. We believe that violence overseas is directly related to the violence in our communities.
Please join us in Washington, D.C., on March 7! We need your help to create an authentically Christian, nonviolent witness to end war and speak the love of Jesus to our communities, our country, and our government. Next year, see if you can fit this on a Valentine: "Enemies: ya just gotta love 'em!"
March 19 will be the fifth anniversary of the war with Iraq. In this season of Lent, we are called to lament and repent for an ongoing war that is being waged by our country, financed by our taxes, and fought by our brothers and sisters. After five years, we all lament the suffering and violence in Iraq. We mourn the nearly 4,000 Americans who have lost their lives, the tens of thousands wounded in body and mind, and the unknown hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died.
Recent U.S. claims of modest security gains in certain sectors of Iraq do not justify extending the U.S occupation - especially when five years of occupation has not produced the political reconciliation necessary for real security and stability. The fragile security improvements are not sustainable without a political solution, which is simply not forthcoming. And without a clear path to political progress, we will simply see more of the same failed strategy and a scenario of American occupation in the midst of bloody sectarian warfare with absolutely no end in sight—and with a real prospect of compounding the tragedy by attacking Iran as well.
On this anniversary, we should all repent for America's actions. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel once said about the war in Vietnam: "How can I pray when I have on my conscience the awareness that I am co-responsible for the death of innocent people in Vietnam? In a free society, some are guilty, all are responsible." It is a good lesson for those of us who oppose the war – it is still funded by our tax dollars and supported by our elected leaders. That is a responsibility for which we all must repent.
But repentance means more than just being sorry. It means both admitting that the course we have been on is wrong and committing to begin walking in a new direction. Repentance has to do with transformation, and that's exactly what the American church needs to break out of its conformity to the American government's foreign policy of fear and war. We must pursue our future foreign policy in ways that are consistent with moral principles, wise political judgments, and international law - rejecting unilateral preemptive wars for multilateral cooperation. We need a new definition of our national security. There is a better way. The global church feels it, and the world is hungry for it.
Given how important the issues of Iraq, Iran, and U.S. foreign policy will be in the 2008 elections, there is no better time than now for U.S. churches to offer words and acts of repentance for their misguided and misleading support for America's mistakes. It's finally time for the American churches to find their voice for Jesus' way of peacemaking and to demonstrate—in matters of war, peace, and the critical area of conflict resolution—just who we belong to.
For the next four weeks, God's Politics will be featuring posts from a variety of voices on Iraq. We'll hear from Iraqis, U.S. veterans and parents, Christians from other countries, pastors, and peacemakers - all reflecting on the cost of the war. Together, we can dedicate ourselves to a world where war is not the answer.
In March, just prior to the fifth anniversary of the war of terror in Iraq, Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) will be shaking the dust off a decades-old heritage of accountability and oversight in combat by its participants. The independent media has already reported that the gathering will focus on war crimes and atrocities; that my brethren and I plan to focus on describing gross moral negligence and criminal contempt on the part of our commanders and other leaders. While I cannot speak for the more than 75 veterans who will share their experiences during the weekend, not every vet shares those convictions.
My brothers at arms while in Iraq were largely respectable and law-abiding, and I am honored to have served with them. Of the few outright violations of international or moral law, each instance displayed a clear lapse in their character, and were quickly corrected and dealt with judiciously. At every rare opportunity, we provided relief and assistance to Iraqis and other nationals, even other combatants. I was then, and remain to this day, relieved that vigilante justice was rarely dolled out to hostile forces. My deployment to Iraq was an experience in patience and a lesson in humility (though it should be noted that not all veterans of OIF share my optimistic hindsight).
The question, then, is why are we testifying and what do we have to say if not merely to indict higher leadership?
As I have already stated, I am not concerned with war crimes and atrocities because it is my experience that the war itself is criminal and atrocious. An atmosphere of disregard to both the rule of law and the rule of the Lord pervades our society - corroding our collective consciousness and dislocating our moral center. Furthermore, I am only minimally concerned with legality, since it is too often relative and victim to misinterpretation (everything Hitler did in Germany was legally sanctioned, horrifically reminiscent of our own national leaders' ethical dyslexia). In my six years, no unit I came in contact with was briefed on the Law of Land Warfare (Army Field Manual 27-10) or the implications of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (ratified into US Law in 1959). Despite my own unit's best efforts, we could not de-criminalize the occupation in the eyes of the oppressed (which was our mission; "to win hearts and minds"). No amount of Iraqi Dinars or "As-salaam alaykums" could undo the harm our nation had caused its neighbors.
What does compel me to testify, however, is diakonia. As a soldier, it was my duty to serve the greater good. Selfless service is one of the core Army values, as well as a core discipline of Christian practice. Upon entering both the Church and the military, I made comparable covenants of obedience and submission.
I, for one, am testifying in an effort to serve my country as well as the Church, to illuminate the injustice of this war based on my personal experience and reflection. For too long, I have let my heart harden and grow brittle, the painful emotions that could help heal me growing decrepit with neglect. Not long ago, I shared a bit of them here, but it has come time to really grapple with the demons and angels within me. My motivations for testifying are not unlike communion - where many of us take bread and drink wine (or grape juice) to remind us that Christ shared Himself with us; that we are not just to remember His sacrifice, but also to allow it to transform us. In the same way, I feel communion amongst us and within our communities must include not only the body and blood of Christ, but our own being as well. We are called to lives of interdependence, to lives of sharing and koinonia not unlike our communion with Him. It is in this light, and with this hope, that I will be testifying in March. It will difficult. It will be painful. However, I hope that this service, our testimony, may fuel the transformation of our country, our communities, and our Church. As precarious a path I am compelled to forge between patriotism and piety, I pray it may serve not only our fellow citizens, but the people of Iraq. After all, we ARE our brothers' and sisters' keepers.
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and currently resides in Camden, New Jersey, in an intentional Christian community called Camden House, where he continues to seek ways to wage peace wherever he goes. He blogs at courageouscoward.blogspot.com.
Martin Luther King's sermon at Riverside Church linked the devastating Vietnam war to the struggle over poverty. I began working that year in an under-resourced community and wore a "Bread not Bombs" sweatshirt to anti-war demonstrations. Sadly, not much has changed. The amount spent on the Iraq war (CBO estimate $9 billion a month, up to $1 trillion total), if directed elsewhere, would virtually ensure universal education, universal health care, and affordable housing.
King called for a revolution of values from racism, materialism, and militarism. Little has changed in 40 years for people in my low-income community. Racism still dominates. It is less overt now, but has expanded from divisions of black—white to Latino, Asian, Arab Muslim, and immigrants. Katrina pictures reminded us of how little progress we've made on economic disparity. Economic progress is measured by consumer spending. Environmental issues threaten our future. King ended his speech saying, " Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter—but beautiful—struggle for a new world."
My Sojourners Sweatshirt says, "HOPE is believing in spite of the evidence and watching the evidence change." Despite the evidence, I am strangely hopeful. I see young people wanting a better world, working for candidates, working in community and on environmental issues. I know generous people who share resources and skills to forge new opportunities for jobs. Economist Jeffrey Sachs (The End of Poverty) and Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus (Creating a World without Poverty) outline specific ways to change the disparities. Now let us dedicate ourselves to the long yet beautiful struggle for a new world.
Mary Nelson is president emeritus of Bethel New Life, a faith-based community development corporation on the west side of Chicago. She is also a board member of Sojourners.
Last year, my wife Jeanette and I returned to Honduras with a group from our congregation. What alarmed me was that a decade ago the MS (La Mara Salvatrucha) had a considerable presence in many of the poorest neighborhoods. Now they have a stronghold. One of my pastor friends told me, "Gabriel, people are afraid to come to church. The MS killed a woman in front of the church just the other day." The MS is going global. Recently Law & Order had an episode that featured the MS presence in New York City. The MS has chapters in California, Illinois, New Jersey, and elsewhere. Increasingly, some of our youngest and brightest are seduced into a culture of violence that is perpetuated to their children and later generations. Violence, sample one.
Last month, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated as she sought to be a voice (in spite of her shortcomings) for democracy in Pakistan. Violence and disruption ensued as many are still concerned about the future of democracy and stability in Pakistan. Violence, sample two.
Presently, tens of thousands of Kikuyus in Kenya are fleeing from ethnic violence in reaction to questions about recent elections. The Kalenjin and Kikuyus have fought before and this struggle is re-emerging in ever more violent ways. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, fighting between Congolese Tutsis and other factions, including some Rwandan Hutus, has sparked the Roman Catholic Conference of Bishops to call for an end to fighting. In Sri Lanka, the end of a truce looms large and there is a growing concern of escalating conflict. The long standing violent impasse between Palestinians and Israelis still remains unresolved. Violence, samples three to six.
The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq do not appear to be headed to an end and there is the growing question of how the countries involved will come to a place where governmental stability and peace for its citizens will emerge. Violence, samples seven and eight.
In the midst of all these examples, and so many others too high in number to mention, the question is, "How do the followers of the Prince of Peace respond to this surge of global violence?" I think that one of the contemporary challenges of the followers of Jesus is to hear the beatitude anew: "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God." While I recognize that many may disagree on how peace should be attained, few would disagree that genocide, gang violence, terrorism, and endless wars are not what Jesus expects from his disciples. Certainly, Jesus knew that humanity has a propensity to destroy those with whom they disagree. Still, the Jesus message is a call to a higher standard. Jesus in his life and ministry took the road less traveled.
Someone once asked a civil rights leader about his method of non-violence deeply influenced by Gandhi. The response: "It's how you pick up the phone." In short, we as followers of Jesus are challenged to emulate the Prince of Peace in even how we talk to on the phone or in traffic. People of every generation are calling for a revolution in culture where we do not rush to violence, but seek the way of peace. I am not saying that tyrants need not be confronted and that theories of just war theory are not valid. Neither am I saying that I too haven't sinfully yielded to the temptations of violence in thought or speech. What I am saying is, "There's too much violence in the world and regrettably, too often it is the first and only option." I pray for the day when all of God's children "will study war no more." Until then let us model peace, in as much as we are able.
Rev. Gabriel Salguero is the pastor of the Lamb’s Church of the Nazarene in New York City, a Ph.D. candidate at Union Theological Seminary, and the director of the Hispanic Leadership Program at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also a Sojourners board member.
We first published this reflection by Jim Wallis in 2002. It has since become our Christmas tradition, kind of our own Charlie Brown Christmas special, if you will. With the ongoing conflicts raging during each passing year, it remains tragically relevant.
Silent Night, by Stanley Weintraub, is the story of Christmas Eve, 1914, on the World War I battlefield in Flanders. As the German, British, and French troops facing each other were settling in for the night, a young German soldier began to sing "Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht." Others joined in. When they had finished, the British and French responded with other Christmas carols.
Eventually, the men from both sides left their trenches and met in the middle. They shook hands, exchanged gifts, and shared pictures of their families. Informal soccer games began in what had been "no-man's-land." And a joint service was held to bury the dead of both sides.
The generals, of course, were not pleased with these events. Men who have come to know each other's names and seen each other's families are much less likely to want to kill each other. War seems to require a nameless, faceless enemy.
So, following that magical night the men on both sides spent a few days simply firing aimlessly into the sky. Then the war was back in earnest and continued for three more bloody years. Yet the story of that Christmas Eve lingered - a night when the angels really did sing of peace on earth.
Folksinger John McCutcheon wrote a song about that night in Belgium, titled "Christmas in the Trenches," from the viewpoint of a young British solder. Several poignant verses are:
"The next they sang was "Stille Nacht," "Tis 'Silent Night'," says I. And in two tongues one song filled up that sky "There's someone coming towards us!" the front line sentry cried All sights were fixed on one lone figure coming from their side His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shone on that plain so bright As he bravely strode unarmed into the night.
Soon one by one on either side walked into No Man's land With neither gun nor bayonet we met there hand to hand We shared some secret brandy and we wished each other well And in a flare-lit soccer game we gave 'em hell. We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home These sons and fathers far away from families of their own Young Sanders played his squeeze box and they had a violin This curious and unlikely band of men.
Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more With sad farewells we each began to settle back to war But the question haunted every heart that lived that wondrous night "Whose family have I fixed within my sights?" 'Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung For the walls they'd kept between us to exact the work of war Had been crumbled and were gone for evermore."
My prayer for the new year is for a nation and world where people can come out of their trenches and together sing their hopes for peace. We here at Sojourners will carry on that mission, and we invite you to continue on the journey with us.
Nice piece this morning by James Carroll in TheBoston Globe. He writes about what he calls "the radical militarization of foreign affairs."
A MAN bit a dog last week. Not just any man, and not just any dog. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates decried the vast disproportion between America's annual investment in the Pentagon - something like $700 billion - and what is spent on the State Department - about $35 billion. That's less, Gates said in a speech in Kansas, than the Defense Department spends on healthcare. The total number of foreign service officers is about 6,600 - which is less, Gates said, than the number of military personnel serving on one aircraft carrier strike group. The Secretary of defense identified himself as the man biting the dog when he called for "a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security - diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development."
Carroll correctly concludes
Arguably, the single largest threat to national security is the growing gulf between desperately impoverished peoples and those who have what they need to live. What is the Pentagon budget to that? Environmental degradation is also a massive national security threat. How do aircraft carriers help with that?
Confronting the gross inequities and extreme poverty in so much of our world would do far more for both national and global security than constantly increasing military budgets. Swords will be beaten into plowshares, the prophet Micah tells us, when each person has their own vine and fig tree and no one shall make them afraid.
After more than six years of field exercises in some of the most grueling weather our country offers, I am rarely affected by even the most chilling winter rains. Months of accumulated time in the forests of North Carolina, the deserts of California, and the wetlands of Louisiana - training for war has built up in me a bit of immunity to succumbing to the shivers. However, there is one thing that pierces my calloused exterior with ease.
Tremors begin in my chest—tiny convulsions shortening my breath. They quickly spread to my upper back and neck before spreading throughout my body. Even now as I write, my fingers pause over many keys, timing the moment they may strike with relative certainty that I will not have to delete keystrokes. My breath becomes shallow and I feel warmth leave my hands and feet.
In a tab on my browser, a Washington Post article lies hidden behind my word processing program. It is a story that hits horrifically close to home. It speaks of Army Lieutenant Elizabeth Whiteside, facing court-martial—being prosecuted for attempted suicide—while rehabilitating in the Psychiatric Ward of Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same officer had served in the prison that sent Saddam to be hanged, in the Iraqi government's illusion of redemptive violence.
Days ago, another article, from AlterNet, described a recent CBS investigation that found an alarming trend in those who have served our country. I would never have believed the finding had it not been for the devastating news Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) received last Tuesday. One of our active members had taken their own life. Their spouse, another IVAW member who suffers from PTSD, had found the body the night prior.
In 2005, an average of 17 vets committed suicide every day. No, that is not a typo: 17 every day. More alarming is the response within the Armed Forces - which is disturbingly outlined in the case of 1st Lt. Whiteside, wherein a clinical diagnosis is being utterly ignored in the interest of saving face. At the same time, many of our vets' disability claims are being verifiably reduced or denied. This treatment sends one strikingly clear message to those who have served and sacrificed: you are not worth the effort. Is it any wonder why vets of all generations are more prone to homelessness and suicide than any other demographic?
The church has historically labeled suicide an unforgivable sin, as the opportunity for repentance destroys itself with the victim's final breath. However, before labeling suicide as "the coward's way out," I think we need to look at our own corporate complicity in these deaths. In our modern era, we have not learned from the ancient orthodoxy that taught warriors to remove themselves from the community for a period of reflection and healing before reentering.
Today, a soldier can move from Kirkuk to New York in a matter of hours. What does that do to their grasp of reality? When they cry out for our holistic (not superficial) support, we fumble about, feeding them gross misinterpretations of scripture such as the Just War Theory, hoping to ease their consciences with hollow justifications. When they find no solace in that, we walk away confused about why we could not "fix their problem," casting shame upon those who can find no affirmation.
I don't think a transcendently benevolent God is that insensitive. I think God feels their pain long before anyone on earth accepts the responsibility to share in Christ's saving work, which begins even before the seed of self-hatred is sown. Surely we are not so blinded by our own plank that we fail to see that if we will not share their pain, we shall share their guilt. A suicide is anything but a personal transgression; it reflects an outright failure of community. Our heart should ache for all those who have been suffocated of hope, beaten to the point of desperation by a world that offers no source of redemptive healing for the beaten and broken.
I wonder if we get so defensive because there is no room for restitution, no scapegoat upon which to place blame. We hastily label it a personal sin, as we are made impotent by the inability to cast judgment. We forget that indeed a murder has taken place, but that the stones lay in our own two hands. It is not one stone that kills a person, but many; not one sin that destroys a life, but an accumulation. The truth leaves us naked, and fig leaves held tenuously together by half-truths and moral manipulations are all that conceal us from reality.
My fingers still quiver and the quakes in my chest have not subsided. My joints ache with grief and my hands still have no warmth in them. I am sick with disgust and contempt for the systems we have in place and their utter failure in our national time of need. This frustration is sin crouching at my door, threatening to overcome me, but I can be its master. I am not incapable of overcoming anger with compassion, defeating hubris with humility. May God have mercy on me. May I rest in peace. May God enable me to be the change I wish to see, to reach those close to death's door and be Christ's heart and hands to the least among us.
May God direct us all in being the prophetic witness to our government, to help us create means of healing for those who sacrifice their mental and physical health. May the author and protector of life give us hearts of flesh and rebuke us every time we marginalize and dehumanize our brothers and sisters by casting the stones of disregard, indifference, and neglect.
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and currently resides in Camden, New Jersey, in an intentional Christian community called Camden House, where he continues to seek ways to wage peace wherever he goes. He blogs at courageouscoward.blogspot.com.
While volunteering in a legal clinic in my sophomore year of college, interviewing people applying for political asylum in the U.S., I heard a lot of people describe how they had had to leave everything behind and flee into the jungle, carrying children on their backs.
I interviewed lots of people and read the personal statements of cases already filed, and all the stories were sickeningly similar. The basic skeleton of their stories was this: one day, a group of "communist/insurgent/fill in the blank" guerillas passed by my village begging for food. A few weeks later, a military group from the national army stormed the community, accusing us of being part of a rebellion. After enduring the military's accusations/threats/rapes/beatings/murder attempts, we survivors melted into the surrounding mountains and jungles. We walked for weeks, living like fugitives in foreign countries until we finally collapsed within the border of California.
It was always the same story, the same timeline of events. The only deviations from the testimony were in those grisly details: "all the men in my village were shot in the head," or "all teens were forced to join the army," or "all the ladies and girls were violated." Once I interviewed a client who remembers soldiers kicking his pregnant mother in the abdomen. She gave birth in the jungle, three days later, to a stillborn baby. Another time a child returned from farming to find his entire community shot dead in the center of the village. Once, a man came into our clinic seeking help on his asylum case, and when he told about how he had helped the army gather up all the leaders of the village into a church and set it on fire, we turned him away.
It wasn't even until a few weeks into the volunteer work that someone told me about the United States' involvement in the massacres. The military dictators and officers that created the structures and protocols for combating "communism" in the 1980s and 1990s attended military training programs in the United States. Their armies are funded generously by our government. Some were politically supported in the world arena when they staged their coup d'etats against democratically elected administrations. I know that if the people of the United States heard even a few of the stories from people that had miraculously survived village massacres, they would be in Fort Benning every year en masse, protesting the School of Americas with us.
Anna Almendrala is the marketing and circulation assistant for Sojourners.
In the spirit of tradition and solidarity, the Sojourners interns once again traveled to the annual SOA Watch protest and vigil this past weekend to close the U.S. Army School of the Americas. Officially named the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation", the school provides combat training for Latin American soldiers at Ft. Benning in Columbus, Georgia. Graduates of the school have committed atrocities against their own people in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, and others. This year, more than 25,000 people made the trek to the gates of the SOA/WHISC to call for the complete closure of the school and an end to the repressive policies it embodies. Two busy days of uplifting music, speakers, teach-ins, and activist networking ended with a solemn mock funeral procession honoring by name the thousands of victims who died at the hands of SOA-trained military personnel. White wooden crosses inscribed with the names and ages of martyrs were placed at the heavily secured gate on the base. The atmosphere of the vigil was saturated with holy respect for those who had gone before us in the work of peace and justice. Although the school still remains open, the ongoing work of raising awareness and political pressure are complimented by this large-scale demonstration of defiance and dissent.
The majority of our group had never attended an SOA protest, and experiencing a powerful event of this size and intensity was a bonding experience for us. In our many hours in the van, we debated issues of U.S. militarism, our nation's corrupt foreign policy with regard to Latin America, and the very nature of democracy. We also spent time evaluating what it meant for us, individually and collectively, to be present at such an event. As Sojourners, we are called to do direct social justice work from a perspective of faith, even if results are difficult to see. As Christians, we stand in solidarity with fellow believers in Latin America who were and continue to be persecuted because of their beliefs in a gospel of liberation, justice, and freedom from direct violence and structural poverty. As people of faith, we stand with the rest of the world in calling for peaceful solutions and an end to the violence taught by our military institutions. As individuals, however, we vary in our own religious traditions and perspectives.
Allison Johnson is the policy and organizing assistant for Sojourners.
Here's the good news about Darfur: we know it is doable to force the regime in Khartoum to back away from its genocidal divide-and-conquer strategies. We know this because the U.S. helped do it once already: it led international pressure that forced Khartoum to a peace accord and power-sharing agreement with southern Sudan in 2005. If we want to preserve the peace in the south, stop the genocide in Darfur, and prevent Genocide Round Three from happening in Sudan's eastern Beja region, we need to remember the lessons of the last seven years.
Here's the genocidal strategy Khartoum has repeatedly employed: when rebel groups form in Sudan's provincial areas – an understandable reaction to a government that takes callous disregard for its countrymen to new depths – it arms ethnically or regionally-based militias and turns them loose to rape and kill civilian populations, forcing millions to flee their homes. It aims to create as many splinter groups as it can, in order to keep its enemies weak.
Then, when it has managed to stir up widespread violence and human rights abuses, it cynically tries to bill the whole thing as an internal ethnic conflict, hoping to pass off genocide as anarchy. But to buy this line would be to blame the spark of pre-existing ethnic tension, rather than the truckload of gasoline which the Khartoum regime systematically poured on.
They did this in southern Sudan, against Christian and animist populations, for decades. The tide began to change just before the turn of the millennium, when the New Sudan Council of Churches initiated a people-to-people peace process (focusing on traditional leaders and civilians rather than rebel commanders) which did hard, painstaking work to heal ethnic and regional divisions within southern Sudan – divisions which had prevented the region from negotiating from a position of strength. At the same time, a wide outcry from diverse groups in the U.S., including conservative Christians and human rights advocates, motivated the Bush administration to initiate a full-court diplomatic and economic press. After a range of delaying tactics, Khartoum signed onto a peace agreement in 2005.
By that time, they were already into round two of the genocidal strategy, in Darfur: this time arming the Janjaweed militias, drawn largely from groups that consider themselves Arab, against populations that consider themselves ethnically African.
Khartoum didn't think we'd care if they slaughtered Muslims. It is a good and hopeful thing that they were wrong.
But we need not just to care, but also to remember the lessons of the last seven years. So far Darfur peace efforts have consisted of sporadic, drive-by diplomacy which has allowed Khartoum to continue fanning the violence in Darfur, while putting off the international community with false promises of reform, mixed with belligerent bluster. Exhibit A is the failed 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement, which got the buy-in of only one rebel group and gave no seat at the table to civil society.
Peace talks are re-convening in December – read this excellent, concise analysis and let your government know you want us to get our diplomatic act together, now.
Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor of Sojourners.
Like Logan Laituri, I spent my Veteran's Day honoring one of my favorite Veterans – Martin of Tours. I spoke at the magnificent St. Peter's Cathedral here in Philadelphia on Sunday, and did my best to honor Martin's life and remember the millions of soldiers who have felt the collision of the cross and sword. A few thoughts from those reflections…
Martin was born during a confusing and tumultuous time in Christian history, in an age when war had become normal, routine, and habitual. And God's "blessing" was all over it. Martin was born four years after Constantine's legendary conversion which would mark the time when the renegade movement became the conquering State religion. During that century Christianity spread from 5 million to 30 million – everyone was a Christian, but no one really knew what a Christian disciple was anymore. The persecuted became the persecutors … and exchanged the cross of the martyrs for the sword of the soldiers.
And into this world, Martin was born. He was named after Mars, the god of war. His dad was a veteran, in fact a senior officer, of the Roman Army. And, like many of our kids, Martin entered the service as a young teenager to fight the crusades of the empire. And then there was an interruption.
Outside the gates of Amiens in modern-day France, Martin had a human encounter that would forever change him. He met a scantly-clothed beggar and was deeply moved with compassion. With very little to give away, he took off his military cloak and cut it in half, giving half to the beggar. Then he laid down his arms saying, "I am a Christian. I cannot fight." Later he would be taken to jail, insulted, and persecuted for deserting the army.
Over and over, the wars of nations have been interrupted by those human encounters. Centuries later, another young soldier named Francis of Assisi would lay down his weapons of war in the middle of the crusades to meet with the Muslim sultan. And that encounter would forever change him and the sultan. And now that same collision is happening in soldiers all over our empire who have laid down their weapons to take up the cross, to take up the Gospel of enemy-love and follow the Prince of Peace. Logan, Jesse, Zach, Scott, Chris, Tracey … and the list goes on and on. In fact, these former soldiers of war are building an army of conscientious objectors. We have now created a resource they have creatively named "Centurion's Purse" to help soldiers who feel the same call of Martin: "I am a Christian. I cannot fight." As a son of a Vietnam vet, I can think of no better way to celebrate Veteran's Day than by honoring them.
I am also reminded that when the prophets speak of peace, it does not begin with the nations. It begins with God's people who refuse to fight the wars of nations. It is the people of God who lead the nations to peace. It is people who refuse to kill their enemies, but choose instead to love them and to feed and clothe them. And the nations will follow. It is the people who begin to beat swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks. It is people like Martin who tear their armor in half so a beggar can keep warm.
In some senses Robert Redford is the father of modern independent filmmaking, not to mention the patron saint of Hollywood liberalism – his Sundance Film Festival has launched a couple of dozen major careers, and his concern for progressive environmental policies is well known. And United Artists used to be known for making the kind of movie that entertained and provoked at the same time – from 'In the Heat of the Night' to 'Being There' to 'Rain Man'.
After a decade or more in the doldrums, the studio has been resurrected by Tom Cruise, and the first film released under this banner is the Redford-helmed 'Lions for Lambs' – a tub-thumping intellectual thriller that pits brains against brawn as a liberal university professor, a neo-conservative senator, and a smart journalist duke it out for the prize of 'who gets to direct the war on terror' - which the film shows still to be fought by the poor.
Such a film could have been a thoughtful exploration of the nature of American liberalism post-9/11, a call to action, or an intelligent treatment of the questions of how to respond to injustice without repeating it (or overcoming evil with good, as the New Testament would have it). Yet sadly it ends up a wasted opportunity - with mostly old arguments being rehearsed once more in a film whose performances are flat and is without visual interest.
There is, however, some merit in 'Lions for Lambs'. There is a chilling moment where a missing soldier is confirmed to be alive when he fires his gun – suggesting that we live in an era where threatening the lives of others is what gives meaning to ours. There is a brief moment when two of the characters suggest that resurrecting the idea of a year's voluntary service between high school and college might be the key to developing a generation of socially engaged citizens who care more about the needs of the poor than the brand names on their shirts. And it does at least ask why it is that most of us do nothing in response to the grinding wheels of yet another empire's decline and fall except complain and go on the odd protest march. But in contending with the principalities and powers of this world, the film does not realize that there is more to be done than merely protest.
Sometimes, to be sure, we need to protest against the powers. And sometimes we need to work with the powers – for they are capable of good (such as, for instance, the fact that in some parts of the world whole cities are now adapted for the needs of people with physical disabilities, or that abandoning the death penalty has become a condition for membership of the European Union). Protesting the powers when they mediate evil, and affirming and renewing the powers when they are good are two sides of a coin. But deeper than this, and what 'Lions for Lambs' falls short of understanding, is that the prophetic incarnation of a creative alternative to economic injustice and war without end is the task of this generation. At one point Cruise's character is shown to assert, with Theodore Roosevelt, that he would choose 'righteousness' over 'peace'. The film is not smart enough to recognize that if you understand righteousness in its ancient Hebrew context as 'justice', then you don't actually have to make that choice. I don't know what level of activism Robert Redford is personally engaged in, and I welcome the fact that he did at least try to make a film about something meaningful; but 'Lions for Lambs' left me yearning for our popular culture to start asking us to actually do something instead of fiddling while the emperor burns Rome down.
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
In my post on Monday, A War Pitched with a 'Curve Ball,' I ended by saying, "And if they are found guilty of these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison -- after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven."
Several readers have correctly pointed out that the heart of the gospel is forgiveness, and judgment is ultimately up to God. You are right, and I apologize. What I meant to say was in the legal context of "If they are found guilty," deliberately lying about going to war should not be pardoned. Remember Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon before he had even been tried for anything, or George H.W. Bush pardoning the leading Iran-contra figures? I do indeed believe in God's grace and forgiveness for anyone who repents. But the crime of lying about going to war should not be politically pardoned.
Over 17,000 of you responded, and today Rep. Rosa DeLauro took to the House floor to read two prayers received from her district in Connecticut:
Loving God, inspire our leaders in Congress to release your spirit of wisdom, courage, and love and end the war, death, and suffering in Iraq. (Claire from Orange, CT)
I pray that the hearts and minds of those making decisions concerning the war in Iraq be opened to finding viable, peaceful alternatives to continuing the war. I pray that withdrawal of troops commence immediately, and continue steadily over the shortest period possible, to bring them all home. I pray that the light of God will fall upon the country of Iraq and bring about peace in that place. (Julie from Hamden, CT)
Thank you to those of you who offered your prayers. It's not too late to join the surge, as we continue to pray for peace and beseech our leaders to bring an end to the war in Iraq.
Michael Sherrard is the online organizer for Sojourners.
This year, Nov. 11 will be a particularly joyous day for this veteran. Though I will not be attending any events, I can still reasonably expect a few pats on the back or some kind words in recognition of my six years in service to our country. Thankfully, I am past the awkwardness that used to greet me as supporters approached me with their gratitude in airports or shopping malls - seeking hugs and handshakes to express their appreciation for my sacrifice. I have overcome the demons that accompanied me back from Iraq, who insisted the strangers' thanks were idolatrous and superficial. However, I do continue to pray that well-wishers offer "welcome home" in place of "thank you" - the latter often being misunderstood, as many service members do not consider the acts they have committed to be commendable. Beside merely a celebration of patriotism, Nov. 11 is also a day to remember and rejoice in peace. Armistice Day holds a place in history as the day the Allies and Germany signed a treaty in Compiègne, France, ending hostilities on the Western Front. To this day, many people still reserve a moment of silence at 11:00 a.m. to respect the 8 million who perished in WWI.
Though for Christians, the day does not end there. This Sunday the Catholic Church celebrates the feast day of St. Martin of Tours, one of the first saints not to be martyred. In fact, St. Martin was one of many to be beatified who, by today's standards, would be identified as a conscientious objector - an individual verifiably opposed to "war in any form." At one time a Roman centurion, Martin came to a "crystallization" of conscience, laying down his sword and declaring, "I am a soldier of Christ, it is not permissible for me to fight." It has been speculated that in 1918, Nov. 11 was chosen as Armistice Day in part due to St. Martin, who is especially the patron of soldiers and chaplains. It is curious to consider that this Christian soldier in fact thought it more Christlike to return to the front lines unarmed than with the sword the empire placed in his hands. David Thoreau, an inspiration to another saintly Martin, believed that a creative, nonviolent minority could serve the state by resisting it with the intention of improving it. Could this in fact be the embodiment of service to the state Paul speaks of in Romans 13? After all, he and St. Martin both were imprisoned for their beliefs…
Finally, I come to the most celebratory story behind Nov. 11 for this war-wearied veteran. Not long after my own road to Damascus conversion experience, I miraculously found a beautiful woman as crazy about Jesus as I was (and still am). An abbreviated courtship ensued, and within seven months, I had proposed. As our relationship developed, we found that our distinct beliefs matured as well. Faced with a similar crossroads regarding her own service to God and country, she too followed the path Martin helped forge so many centuries ago. Not long ago she filed for discharge as a conscientious objector, declaring herself a soldier in Christ's nonviolent army of peace.
Left to decide our date of wedded bliss, my 'better half,' my muse, settled on an otherwise nondescript day in November. This Sunday, we will share in the sacrament of matrimony - the threefold meaning of Nov. 11 is sure to be a fitting celebration of our combined attempts at patriotism, pacifism, and piety. We have high hopes and big dreams of continuing our service to fellow centurions, and with God's grace his gift to us can continue to bless others.
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and currently resides in Camden, New Jersey, in an intentional Christian community called Camden House, where he continues to seek ways to wage peace wherever he goes. He blogs at courageouscoward.blogspot.com.
Watch 60 Minutes from last night or read the story. It revealed the results of a two-year investigation into the source of the key piece of information which was used by the Bush administration as "proof" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. This was the information that Colin Powell used in his now famous February 5, 2003 testimony at the United Nations reporting an "eyewitness" account that Saddam had a "mobile bio/chemical weapons program." The source, ironically code-named "Curve Ball," was a young Iraqi defector in Germany, who claimed he was a top student employed by a so-called seed purification plant that was really a bio/chemical weapons facility, and that he saw trucks moving in and out to be armed with the weapons of mass destruction. Problem is that he wasn't, after all, a "top student," wasn't there during the time he reported, got caught stealing equipment from his next employer, and there turned out to be walls at the alleged entrances and exits where the trucks were supposed to be going in and out.
For the first time, we know his name - Rafid Ahmed Alwan. Apparently, he lied because he wanted a green card in Germany, where he now lives. Turns out the Germans told the Americans that his testimony was "unconfimed," but the CIA wanted to use it anyway. Watch the 60 Minutes interview with former senior CIA official Tyler Drumheller who was asked whether "Curve Ball's" assertion was essential to going to war with Iraq. He replied, "If they had not had 'Curve Ball,' they would have probably found something else, 'cause there was a great determination to do it." But the information "Curve Ball" provided was the "absolutely essential case" for going to war. It was crucial to CIA Director George Tenet's telling the White House that the case proving the Saddam had WMD's was "slam dunk." Powell apparently believed the CIA's information, as secretaries of state normally do, when he told the world that Saddam had a mobile bio/chemical weapons program at the same time his successor, Condoleezza Rice, was talking about "mushroom clouds." No American had interviewed "Curve Ball," nor had they visited the plant, when Powell told the world about the Iraqi WMD program. Turns out that inspectors went to see the alleged WMD facility just days later, saw the walls where the trucks were supposed to be going in and out, and discovered it was a just a seed purification plant after all. But we never heard anything about that visit, and the war started a few weeks later—a war justified on false information.
I believe that Dick Cheney is a liar; that Donald Rumsfeld is also a liar; and that George W. Bush was, and is, clueless about how to be the president of the United States. And this isn't about being partisan - I was raised in a Republican family with two Republican parents that I loved more than any two people in the world. I've heard plenty of my Republican friends and public figures call this administration an embarrassment to the best traditions of the Republican Party and an embarrassment to the democratic (small d) tradition of the United States. They have shamed our beloved nation in the world by this war and the shameful way they have fought it. Almost 4,000 young Americans are dead because of the lies of this administration, tens of thousands more wounded and maimed for life, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also dead, and 400 billion dollars wasted—because of their lies, incompetence, and corruption.
But I don't favor impeachment, as some have suggested. I would wait until after the election, when they are out of office, and then I would favor investigations of the top officials of the Bush administration on official deception, war crimes, and corruption charges. And if they are found guilty of these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison - after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven.
UPDATE: Several of you have correctly pointed out that the heart of the gospel is forgiveness, and judgement is ultimately up to God. You are right, and I apologize. What I meant to say was in the legal context of “If they are found guilty,” deliberately lying about going to war should not be pardoned. Remember Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon before he had even been tried for anything, or George H.W. Bush pardoning the leading Iran-Contra figures. I do indeed believe in God’s grace and forgiveness for anyone who repents. But the crime of lying about going to war should not be politically pardoned.
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
I am afraid, but not for the reasons our government is telling me to be afraid. I am afraid that I may wake up one morning soon to discover that our government has launched a preemptive attack on Iran. While our government is issuing national orange alerts about "them," I wonder whether we Christians should be issuing global orange alerts about our own government.
I am disgusted, concerned, appalled, and furious about the current saber-rattling of our government - so reminiscent of the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. My feelings intensify in many of our presidential candidates' forums, where each candidate seems to be in a hissing contest, declaring that he or she is the loudest hisser against terrorism - as if the only danger in the world is posed by an evil "them" and not by evil resident within us. Our Congress' bipartisan vote last month, which labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, seems to me to be handing our president a "go to war free" card, another rather frightening development.
Meanwhile, our media are becoming an echo chamber of fear: after all, fear keeps people tuned in, which means better ratings, and thus more advertising income. Fear pays - economically and politically - but sadly, we haven't reached the point yet of fearing fear itself and what it may do if it keeps accelerating.
On top of these fears, I suspect that many of my fellow Christians will, in the name of God and Jesus and Christianity and the Bible, support and justify a preemptive war on Iran before and after it happens - no matter how unprovoked, no matter how brutal, and no matter how foolish and costly, both financially and morally. Forgetting even the traditional Christian criteria for just war, and forgetting the falsified "intelligence" used to justify our last preemptive war, we Christians in the U.S., I fear, will once again be high on credulity and low on scrutiny - all too eager to believe what our government tells us to legitimize a pre-emptive attack and feed our growing fears. We Christians who cannot follow this path into another war must ask ourselves two kinds of questions:
What will we do if we wake up and find our government has attacked Iran while we were sleeping? What actions - public and private - would be appropriate?
What can we do now to decrease the possibility of that occurring? What will we wish we would have done in the weeks and months before the morning after?
In two recent posts, The Global Church and America's War, and Iraq and Christian Identity, I talked about the difference between the perceptions of U.S. Christians and our sisters and brothers around the world. I recently received a powerful e-mail from a Pastor Kuruvilla Chandy of Grace Bible Church, Lucknow, India, who describes himself as "a born again Christian" who supported the Cold War and "as a believer in prophecy, [is] in general agreement about supporting Israel." Hardly the profile of a left-wing Bush-basher. I'd like to share some of what he wrote.
President George Bush is the darling of most born again Christians in the US of A. But in India many regard him as a liability to the Christian cause. His identification as a believer and his advocacy of the war that the rest of the world regards as unjust has embarrassed Christians who are in a minority in India.
He is not just critical of Bush, but has strong words of both challenge and encouragement for believers in the U.S.:
People will never agree on whether or not Bush is an aggressor. That really depends on political views.... Christians living in America, suffering from fear aroused by 9/11 and desiring their own self-preservation and prosperity will approve of Bush's war against Iraq and look for ways to justify it even from a biblical viewpoint. It is heartening though to see that there are born again Christians, even in the U.S., who are opposed to the warmongering and see the war as something they have been unable to support precisely because of their faith in Christ. However the vast majority of Americans, especially those who describe themselves as born again Christians, are solidly in support of Bush, and even question the Christian identity and commitment of those who disapprove of Bush.
He further describes the connection between Bush's faith and Bush's war:
In effect, Bush has given Christ a bad name. As a Christian writer in India, I wrote an article arguing that Bush's war had nothing to do with his being a born again Christian, and all to do with his being the American President (Times of India April 7, Lucknow, April 21, 2003). The only problem is that somehow his aggressive American-ness has been identified with his being a Christian. But we in India cannot see the war as the work of a Christian. In this regard, I represent the view of most Christians in India.
In my article I essentially defended born again Christianity as what is practiced by Christians who are committed to Christ and take His teachings seriously. I am myself a born again Christian. I did not deny that, just because Bush had made being a born again Christian unpopular. Being a born again Christian has nothing to do with Bush. It has all to do with following Christ faithfully with a desire to make Him known. In the Indian context it was necessary to show what born again Christianity really stood for. I had to demonstrate that being a Christian did not mean approving Bush's war.
Perhaps even more sad than the damage Bush has done to the cause of Christ globally is the response of Christians in the U.S.:
I also circulated the article among Christian friends in the U.S., to share my concern as a Christian from a country where Christians are a minuscule minority. I shared it with my friends in America trying to somehow influence Christian opinion in the U.S. Suddenly I lost friends—not just Americans, even Indians settled in the U.S.
As I reflected on my loss of some of my Christian friends living in America, I sadly noted the great divide that has occurred among Evangelical Christians. I know that Evangelicalism is not White Christianity, but somehow I get the impression that the agenda of White Evangelical Christianity is being thrust on Evangelicals around the world. It would seem that if one is to be accepted as a born again Christian, then one is required to approve of the world's only born again Christian statesman. If you don't approve of Bush, you're not okay.
Most American Christians have put their faith in Bush imagining that he will ensure their safety. If anything, he has made the world more unsafe for Americans and even for those who side with Americans.
Will Christians in the U.S. hear the prophetic challenge from their global sisters and brothers? Or, like the friends Pastor Chandy has lost, will they value their political allegiances above their allegiance to Christ, and to his body in the worldwide church?
From my blogs this week, readers can rightly conclude that I believe Gen. Petraeus' claims of modest security gains in certain sectors of Iraq do not justify extending the U.S occupation, especially when four years of occupation of Iraq have not produced the political reconciliation that would be necessary for real security and stability. The fragile security improvements are not sustainable without a political solution, which is simply not forthcoming. And without a clear path to political progress, the realization that what Petraeus proposes, and President Bush will likely endorse tonight, is simply more of the same failed strategy, and a scenario of American occupation in the midst of bloody sectarian warfare with absolutely no end in sight.
And contrary to some comments on this site, I have suggested several times an alternative strategy that would have to involve serious international intervention and regional engagement to secure Iraqi security and stability -- the kind of bold, strong, and creative multilateral strategy that is completely obstructed by the ongoing unilateral American occupation. Permanent U.S. military bases and unique American claims to future oil revenues and contracts for Iraqi reconstruction are among the U.S. prerogatives that would have to be sacrificed for such international solutions to be possible -- along with a massive American financial commitment to rebuild the shattered country that our war has broken. But exercising American responsibility without U.S. control is not likely to occur on the Bush watch. So we can only look and hope for a future change of direction.
But let's turn from politics to theology and ecclesiology. The vitriol against Christian Iraq war dissenters from the handful of neocon war promoters who regularly clog the comments to this site forget both. Both the teachings of Jesus (remember, "blessed are the peacemakers" and "love your enemies") and the rigorous criteria of the "just war" from Augustine and others in the Christian tradition clearly leave believers with at least a presumption against war. And the ignominious origins and now-disputed rationales for this war in particular, along with its enormous human cost, clearly put the burden of proof on the war's supporters much more than its critics -- that is, if we are to be Christians about all this, and not just American nationalists or neoconservative apologists for American hegemony in the world.
That brings me to a second point -- about the body of Christ and our loyalty to the global Christian community. Outside the borders of the United States of America, a vast, vast majority of the world's people are steadfastly against the American war in Iraq and the foreign policies of the U.S. in general. Take out all the non-Christians from that global population sample and among the people of God the opposition remains the same. Even reduce that number to only evangelical Christians worldwide and you are still left with an overwhelming majority of born-again, Bible-believing Christians who are against American policy in Iraq and, indeed, the entire Middle East region.
Because of my work and transatlantic family ties, I travel extensively around the world, frequently talk to others who do, regularly read the international press, frequently host international Christian leaders, and often attend international Christian gatherings. Last week, I wrote on this site about my recent journey to Singapore to join 500 leaders of World Vision from 100 countries. And I will tell you that, once again, the great majority of those evangelical believers, especially from the global South, but also including Europeans, Australians, and even many Americans who work globally, are now completely opposed to the Iraq war, to U.S. policy in the region, and to the way the United States conducts its "war on terrorism." In other words, my experience convinces me that the body of Christ, internationally, is against the U.S. war in Iraq and the whole direction of current U.S. foreign policy. Many Christians I've spoken to go further and say that America's aggressive role in the world today has hurt the cause of Christ globally, especially when an American president dangerously conflates America's role with God's purposes. And if you don't know that perspective, you simply haven't had much experience with Christians outside of the United States.
So if the international body of Christ generally doesn't support America's war in Iraq, or U.S. foreign policy generally, what do some American Christians know that the rest of the global Christian community doesn't? Is the rest of the church just wrong? Do we have access to information that they don't have? (Actually, they have much more access to information and different perspectives than most Americans have, which is a big part of the problem.) What don't they understand that we do? Or, from the perspective of the Christian warriors who try to dominate the commentary section of this blog, what do they know that world Christianity has yet to learn?
Personally, to be frank, I think it is because far too many American Christians are simply Americans first and Christians second. The statement that got the most enthusiastic response in Singapore was not about politics but ecclesiology: "We are to be Christians first, and members of nations or tribes second." That simple affirmation, if ever applied, would utterly transform the relationship of American Christians to the policies of their own government.
For all the vitriolic debate about politics this week in relationship to the war in Iraq, I think the real issue is our theology and ecclesiology. Many American Christians are simply more loyal to a version of American nationalism than they are to the body of Christ. I want to suggest that the two are now in conflict, and we must decide to whom to we ultimately belong. That's the real issue.
Nearly a month ago, seven active-duty U.S. Army soldiers in Iraq wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times titled, "The War as We Saw It." Their conclusions were starkly different from those we've heard this week.
Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political, and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the ''battle space'' remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.
This morning's Times brought the news that two of the authors of the piece were killed this week. Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray and Sgt. Omar Mora, along with six other soldiers and two detainees, died in a truck accident in Baghdad.
The op-ed piece ended by saying, "We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through." Staff Sgt. Gray and Sgt. Mora have seen their mission through. Our prayers are with their families.
Duane Shank is senior policy adviser for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
It was a big day for a general on Capitol Hill yesterday, as Gen. David Petraeus made his long-awaited "progress report" to a joint House committee. But one congressman remembered the last time a general's testimony drew such public attention. It was on April 1967 that Gen. William Westmoreland made his speech to Congress about how much progress we were making in Vietnam. Later, in November 1967, the general spoke to the National Press Club saying, "With 1968, a new phase is starting ... we have reached an important point where the end begins to come into view." It was in that speech where we heard the historic phrase about the "light at the end of the tunnel." Then, January 1968 saw the Tet Offensive and the beginning of the painful end of Vietnam.
U.S. deaths in the war from 1956 to 1967 totaled 19,560. But after 1968, there were 38,633 more (including those who died from wounds after the war ended with the ignominious departure of U.S. troops in 1973). More than twice as many of the names on the black wall that is the Vietnam Veterans Memorial came after it had become clear that the war strategy had failed.
There were lots of "facts" offered up yesterday by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. While the security situation is mixed, said the general, the Bush "surge" is working and things are getting better. He recommended that the increased force levels be maintained through next spring and into the summer (give or take a brigade or two). Crocker, while admitting the political situation is "difficult" and "will take time," suggested that a unified and democratic central government in Iraq is "attainable."
Of course, independent and nonpartisan assessments of the levels of violence, the continuing sectarian conflict, and the success of the Iraqi government are quite different. According to The Washington Post, Comptroller Gen. David M. Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), painted a far bleaker picture of Iraqi progress last week, issuing a report that said the Baghdad government has failed to meet 11 of the 18 political benchmarks established by the U.S. Congress. And despite the U.S. troop surge, the report concluded that it is "unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased." In his testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Walker and the GAO labeled the Iraqi government "dysfunctional" and reported that "overall key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billon in reconstruction funds."
The Post also reported on a second independent report ordered by Congress, which called the national police "dysfunctional" and riddled with sectarianism and corruption. The 20-member commission, headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones Jr., said Iraq's security forces will not be able to fulfill its obligations for at least 12 to 18 months. The report called for a "strategic shift" in Iraq, with U.S. forces reducing their massive "footprint" in the country where we have the clear perception as "occupiers."
President Bush said the "surge" was to create "breathing space" for political reconciliation among Iraq's warring factions. And that has clearly not happened, despite the reports of mild security improvements in some areas. In fact, on Sunday's Meet the Press, Gen. Jones said the opposite was true -- that real security in Iraq was not possible without political reconciliation. And because there has been no political reconciliation because of the surge, it is so far a policy failure. Despite the surge, sectarian violence still reigns in Iraq, young Americans remain caught in the crosshairs of a civil war, and the bloody insurgency/counter-insurgency continues the kill each week.
But the general with four stars on his shoulders and a chest full of medals says we should soldier on, which is what we all knew the president had already decided to do. When was the last time you saw a general saying he was losing a war?
Where there has been real progress on security, like in Anbar province, it is because of tribal leaders (other Muslims) getting tired of the religious extremism of al Qaeda terrorists -- it is not because of the surge. In addition, because the area is virtually all Sunni, the promise of Sunni/Shiite reconciliation is low. But in the undermining of support for Islamic radicalism among other Sunni Muslims, there are clearly lessons to learn about strategy -- but more than military strategies.
Yet the Bush administration still refuses to learn any lessons from the 9/11 anniversary other than military responses and, indeed with Iraq, in a misguided and disastrous military response. Iraq was not the central theater of the "war on terrorism" until the U.S. intervention turned it into a terrorist training camp and recruiting ground for a new generation of suicide bombers.
The Iraq debacle reveals military solutions to be among the least effective in the battle against terrorism. Bin Laden's latest video reminds us that he is still out there. Does anybody really think we are safer than we were before 9/11 or that Iraq has made us more secure?
And the Bush administration has not even begun to learn the biggest lesson of 9/11 -- that unilateral strategies are the most ineffective response to the real threats of global terrorism. But the new and creative multilateral strategies we most need to undermine and defeat religious extremism and political terrorism are blocked from emerging in the kind of unipolar world that the U.S. still wants to dominate.
For example, any serious opponent of the war in Iraq knows that having so disastrously intervened, the U.S. is indeed responsible for stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq in ways that protect against the potential post-war bloodletting that the White House continually warns us about. But how we best do that is the critical question. A real argument for international involvement and multilateral solutions can be made for that very task, one that includes a primary focus on regional diplomacy to prevent more destabilization in the Middle East. But it is, in fact, the continued U.S. occupation that most obstructs the possible international interventions that could save Iraq and the region.
In the meantime, it is the human cost of the continuing war that is most painful. Every week more Americans will die, along with an untold number of Iraqis. And there is no end to the killing in sight with President Bush's intransigence and Gen. Petraeus' promises. After today's testimonies on Capitol Hill, it's clear that the next war is already being prepared -- a war with Iran. A state of permanent warfare is now the U.S. strategy for defeating terrorism, which will only make it worse.
John McCain keeps talking about "honor" and hopes the surge will help his wilting presidential campaign to surge again. But there is no honor in a war that was fought on false pretenses, that sends young Americans on hopeless missions only to die, that slaughters the innocents in even greater numbers and doesn't even bother to count the dead, and learns nothing from its mistake of relying on military solutions instead of political ones. Because George Bush now compares Iraq to Vietnam, I will too. The endless killing of my generation in Vietnam was justified by one changing rationale after another, but the last justification for continuing the killing was reduced to "bringing our boys home with their heads high." We're hearing that again now in talk about "winning" and "credibility" and "honor." Well, the Vietnam boys came home with their heads disillusioned, their bodies broken, and their hearts sickened.
We probably won't end this strategy of destruction and defeat until fathers (like me) and mothers decide that their sons and daughters won't participate in it anymore. So last night, I talked to my 9- and 4-year-old sons and told them I never want them to fight in America's misbegotten wars.
On Thursday, Sept. 6, 2007, six of us were found guilty in federal court in Albuquerque, New Mexico, by a federal judge for trying to visit the office of our senator. We will be sentenced in a few weeks.
It all started one year ago on Sept. 26, 2006. That day nine of us entered the Federal Building in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and tried to take the elevator to the third floor to the office of Sen. Pete Domenici to present him with a copy of the "Declaration of Peace," a national petition campaign aimed at stopping the U.S. war on Iraq, bringing our troops home, and pursuing nonviolent alternatives and reparations. More than 375 similar actions took place across the nation that week.
The senator's office manager came downstairs and said she would only allow three of us upstairs. After 45 minutes of waiting and negotiations all nine of us decided to go upstairs, figuring we had a right as a group of constituents to deliver our petition to the senator's office.
As we stepped onto the elevator a policeman put his foot in the door, and the next thing we knew, the power was turned off.
I couldn't sleep after watching last month's Republican presidential forum on August 5. I was especially disturbed by the intersection of two statements made by Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo. Perhaps because he is not in the top tier of Republican candidates, it was easy to consider his statements marginal and negligible, but I believe – completely apart from his presidential aspirations – that his statements should get us thinking, especially those of us who are, like Rep. Tancredo, known as evangelical Christians.
The representative said that as president he will tell Muslim extremists that if they attack the United States with nuclear weapons, he will respond by bombing Medina and Mecca.
Although the State Department has called his statement "reprehensible" and "crazy," a few days later Tancredo offered what seemed to be further justification for his statement. He explained, according to Iowapolitics.com, that a promise to destroy Muslim holy sites "is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack."
Although none of the other candidates in the forum seemed to agree with Tancredo, they all seemed eager to prove themselves most ready to keep nuclear weapons "on the table" and to present themselves as "strong on national defense," which now may turn out to mean "committed to pre-emptive war theory over just war theory."
Tancredo's threat was all the more disturbing to me in light of something he said later in the same forum when asked about his most significant mistake. He replied, "… it took me probably 30 years before I realized that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior."
Of course, this confluence of aggressive rhetoric with professions of evangelical faith is not unique to Tancredo. For example, a recent editorial by a popular and award-winning religious broadcasting personality had a similar theo-combative tone. Christiane Amanpour's recent "God's Warriors" series on CNN brought a number of other similar voices to our attention.
Democratic candidates are certainly not immune to this impulse to flex their combat credentials, evidenced by recent sparring between leading candidates. We can hope, in the midst of a heated campaign season, that responsible theologians and religious leaders will acknowledge the 800-pound gorilla in the room, and engage in a needed public conversation about faith, politics, and war. This life-and-death conversation can't be left to politicians and media pundits alone. A recent New York Times article by Mark Lilla raises some key issues to be addressed in this needed dialogue.
A few evangelical voices have spoken out strongly against this ongoing inflation in aggressive rhetoric, but in my mind, remarkably few. Some, no doubt, do not want to dignify extreme statements with a reply. A surprising number, though – readily searchable in the blogosphere – are actually saying "amen."
As I mull all this over in the middle of the night – running the bases from angst to depression to prayer and hope - I can't help but think of the oft-heard complaint regarding moderate Muslims: Why don't they stand up and speak out more vociferously against the violent rhetoric of Muslim extremists? If their religion truly is peaceful, why don't they speak up for peace more passionately? This may now become a "plank and splinter" issue (Matthew 7:3-5) for evangelical Christians – not to mention Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, mainline Protestants, and others -- raising questions like these:
At what point does the rhetoric of fellow evangelicals (or Roman Catholics, etc.) become extreme enough to elicit from evangelical leaders the kind of loud and public response we wish moderate Muslims had been giving regarding Muslim extremists? Which leaders are speaking out, and which aren't?
Does Rep. Tancredo's recent statement qualify as excessive? Why or why not? If not, what would push it over the line?
How can evangelicals in particular and Christians in general who don't agree with this kind of rhetoric respond constructively - and in ways that will be heard as widely as the original statements?
How do thoughtful Christian theologians respond to this kind of rhetoric? On what basis do they justify or reject this kind of rhetoric and the biblical interpretation used to defend it? Where and how can concerned seminary professors and other scholars speak up and be heard?
What will be the predictable effects of this kind of rhetoric on the public perception of "evangelical" and "Christian" – among younger Christians in America? Among non-Christians? Among Muslims here and around the world?
What forms of deterrence can be explored that are more in line with the life and teachings of Jesus? In other words, if we reject both Rep. Tancredo's approach and the opposite approach of passivity, what could a creative, nonviolent, responsible third way look like?
How can we learn from leaders like Dr. King and Desmond Tutu to stir people to be as passionate about active peace-making as a solution to war as others are about war-making as a solution to war?
If "holy war" rhetoric is indeed escalating in a vicious cycle among Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others, what will be the predictable outcome? How can concerned religious leaders work for a new kind of dialogue and in so doing help chart a more peaceable course for their faith communities?
How can American evangelicals, and Christians in general, escape our echo chamber and begin to listen to the wise voices and concerns of their brothers and sisters around the globe – as Ryan Rodrick Beiler's recent posting invited us to do?
These questions are worth raising, because in the election year ahead, I expect there will be a lot more of this kind of "God's warriors" rhetoric to respond to. Maybe Rep. Tancredo's proposal can serve the constructive purpose of provoking some mature and constructive reflection – some evangelical ijtihad, to borrow a theme from Irshad Manji.
I do not in any way want to vilify Rep. Tancredo. The fact is, he cares about something worth caring about: how to stop the vicious cycle of terrorism that seems to be escalating each day. Even if his proposal is as dangerous and misguided as I believe it is, the candidate is to be commended for seeking a solution to this very real danger. I hope that more and more of us will become motivated – and resourced by our faith – not simply to complain about violent solutions to the problem of violence, but instead to make better proposals, because this one, I believe, is a recipe for disaster. To continue living by the sword, according to a reputable authority, is not a sustainable long-term strategy for living at all.
In an attempt to scare off support for a military exit from Iraq, President Bush in a recent speech made the false claim that U.S. disengagement from Vietnam caused the killing fields in Cambodia. The price of American withdrawal, the president said, was paid in the agonies of millions of innocent people.
What actually happened in Cambodia was this: President Nixon spread the Vietnam War into Cambodia. He ordered the so-called "secret bombing" of Cambodia, in which U.S. B-52 bombers pounded the countryside for years. In March 1970 the U.S. supported the military overthrow of the government of Prince Norodom Sihanouk, who had tried to keep his country out of the war. In late April of that year Nixon ordered an "incursion" of U.S. troops into Cambodia, which touched off furious protests here in the U.S. (in which students were killed at Kent State and Jackson State universities).
The military coup and U.S. attacks in Cambodia resulted in widespread violence and chaos, especially in the countryside. Resistance to the military regime increased, which gave impetus to the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, who steadily built their power. By 1975 they controlled the entire country and overran the government. The Khmer Rouge emptied Phnom Penh and instituted their reign of terror by claiming that the U.S. was going to bomb.
The killing fields were the tragic result of the Nixon administration's misguided policies of military escalation. If the United States had not bombed and invaded Cambodia, and if we had let Sihanouk alone, Cambodia would not have suffered its horrible fate.
David Cortright is a board member of Sojourners/Call to Renewal. He is research fellow at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame and president of the Fourth Freedom Forum.
Last week's announcement that the Bush administration is seeking to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization is the latest drumbeat in an intensifying confrontation that could lead to war.
In an interview with The New York Times, former Iranian deputy defense minister, Alireza Akbari warned that the measure could cause instability in the region. "If they [the U.S. government] put pressure on the security apparatus of a country, they should expect a similar reaction."
As sabers continue to rattle, it's still unclear whether these latest developments will translate into a military confrontation in the near future. For more than a year now, rumors of war between the U.S. and Iran have ebbed and flowed. Officials within Vice President Dick Cheney's office have advocated for military intervention, whereas the State Department and the Secretary of Defense have made public statements favoring a diplomatic approach. Current presidential candidates have largely refused to take any option off the table to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
With war still raging in Iraq, many of us are hungry for a sign of hope that the tensions between the U.S. and Iran will not evolve into military confrontation. While it's hard to see hope in the daily headlines, an ecumenical delegation to Iran found signs that the tensions between our two nations can indeed be mediated.
Last February, 13 representatives of national religious groups and denominations, led by the Mennonite Central Committee and the American Friends Service Committee, journeyed to Iran in an effort to build bridges of understanding between our two nations. Rather than approaching Iran as the "axis of evil," they met with Muslim and Christian leaders, government officials, and Iranians from many walks of life. Through listening and sharing their own stories, they returned from Tehran with new hope for an easing of tensions between Iran and the U.S. Specifically, they call on the two countries to take the following steps:
immediately engage in direct, face-to-face talks;
cease using language that defines the other using "enemy" images; and
promote more people-to-people exchanges, including among religious leaders, members of Parliament/Congress, and civil society.
While in Iran with the ecumenical delegation, Sojourners/Call to Renewal representative Jeff Carr was struck by the dramatically different narratives Iranians and Americans told of the history between the two nations: the CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically elected leader, the installation of the shah, the 1979 revolution, the ensuing hostage crisis, and the current nuclear standoff.
Since the delegation's trip to Iran, we've received numerous requests for information about the current conflict between the U.S. and Iran from Americans who also wish to understand the roots of tension between our governments.
The first step to reconciling the tension between the U.S. and Iran is to learn one another's stories. Through the Words, Not War Study and Action Guide and the PBS program "Talking to Iran," you'll be able to learn more about the delegation's experience in Iran and the roots of the tension between the two nations. Our hope is that based on this information, you will feel led to make a public witness for the need for a diplomatic solution to the current standoff between the U.S. and Iran.
In the words of Jeff Carr, "May God help both our nations and peoples to begin the healing and reconciliation process so that we may avoid war and build that lasting peace."
In his July 20 commentary, James W. Skillen of the Center for Public
Justice struck a non-partisan note of honesty and
balance that I wish I heard more often.
He summarized the basic narrative of the Iraq War that both our
president and his party and many Democrats seem to share:
... first, America liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein; second, we returned
sovereignty to the Iraqi people; third, sectarian violence tragically
increased; and now, in the fourth phase, we are "deploying
reinforcements and launching new operations to help Iraqis bring
security to their people."
The elegant word Skillen chooses to describe this narrative is "delusional."
He counters:
U.S. forces did not liberate Iraq; they wiped out its
government, and the Bush administration then failed to exercise
American responsibility to govern the country so it could be rebuilt
and eventually governed by Iraqis themselves. We opened the floodgates
to chaos, civil war, the death or flight of tens of thousands of Iraqi
civilians, and a continuing influx of terrorists whom our 'war' was
supposed to destroy. That is not liberation.
He follows with a withering critique of both the "stay the course"
proposal of the executive branch and the quick withdrawal plans
increasingly popular in Congress. Both lines of reasoning, he says,
lay the blame for our dilemma on "the nearly powerless Iraqi
government for not climbing out fast enough from the hole we dug for
it." We may well criticize the Iraqi government for taking a long
summer vacation in the midst of its crisis, but that doesn't negate
our culpability for them being in this particular crisis in the first
place.
He chooses another elegant word to describe a nation that creates a
crisis and then blames the victims for it: "immoral."
Delusional and immoral are strong words. Whether you believe the
invasion was an ill-conceived and badly-planned mistake or you believe
that the invasion was justifiable
but the problems have been in the execution, either way, we're in a
mess. We need a way out.
A friend of mine says that we're only as sick as our reactivity. If
our reactivity to Sept. 11 played a part in getting us into this terrible
situation, we will not be well served by reacting to the status quo
with still more reactive behavior.
For those of us who supported the war, and for those of us who opposed
it but failed to stand up and speak up strongly enough, this is not a
time for reactive behavior. It's an opportunity, as Senator Obama
recently said, to be as careful in planning our next steps as we were
careless in planning our steps in the past. With more foresight and
forethought, with less blame-gaming and partisanship and more
deliberate collaboration, we can take the next steps—whatever they
will be—with more honor, intelligence, sanity, and responsibility,
and less reactivity than we have employed so far. Voices like
Skillens' can slow us down to indulge in second and third thoughts,
perhaps breaking the cycle of unwise and destructive reactivity into
which we have plunged the Iraqis and ourselves.
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) serves as board chair for Sojourners/Call to Renewal. His next book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, will be released in October.
Franz Jagerstatter, Austrian peasant and church janitor, is honored on August 9, the day he was executed in 1943 for his refusal to fight in Hitler's army. As a Roman Catholic he has been declared a "martyr of the faith" and is expected to be "beatified" this October. Franz lived the gospel that the church proclaims. He is a solitary witness of nonviolence from whom the community can learn.
Today we also remember the people of Nagasaki—victims of U.S. Weapons of Mass Destruction. We recall that city turned to ash and rubble. In Iraq, cities are also turned to radioactive rubble and ash, by the U.S. invasion and continuing occupation.
My city of Detroit is under military assault. Its resources are stripped by a war that has cost the citizens of Michigan $12 billion, and city residents $767 million in tax dollars. Why is money lacking for schools, clinics, community developments?
Moreover, the young people of our city are conscripted into the military by false promises, outright lies, and an economic draft which seems to offer no alternative living. We recall that the first soldier killed in Iraq was Marine Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, a 28-year-old undocumented immigrant who was posthumously awarded U.S. citizenship.
We offer this prayer:
To the church we say: Speak out and act against this war, from the pulpits (especially on August 1-19), from offices high and low. Read and live the gospel. Lift up nonviolence; Honor Jagerstatter; remember the victims; repent our silence.
To the Pentagon and its recruiters we say: End this war now. Obey international law. Leave our young people alone.
To the young people of our city we say: There is hope in the communities of this city. There is a future, economic and social, but we must make it ourselves. We need one another; we need you here in the struggle for life and community.
To the dead of Nagasaki we say: Forgive us even now. We commit ourselves to putting an end to these weapons.
To the people of Iraq, we say: Forgive our silence and our complicity. Forgive our submission to these leaders. We pledge to end this war. Refuse to pay for it. Refuse to fight in it.
Bill Wylie-Kellermann, a United Methodist pastor, is currently serving at St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Detroit, Mich. He is author of Seasons of Faith and Conscience (Orbis), which explores the biblical and theological bases for nonviolent resistance and "liturgical direct action," and has edited an anthology, A Keeper of the Word: Selected Writings of William Stringfellow (Eerdmans).
In August, 1945, Fr. George Zabelka, a Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Army Air Forces, was stationed on Tinian Island in the South Pacific. He served as priest and pastor for the airmen who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was discharged in l946. During the next 20 years he gradually began to realize that what he had done and believed during the war was wrong, and that the only way he could be a Christian was to be a pacifist. He was deeply influenced in this process by the civil rights movement and the works of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.
In 1972 he met Charles C. McCarthy, a theologian, lawyer, and father of 10. McCarthy, who founded the Center for the Study of Nonviolence at the University of Notre Dame, was leading a workshop on nonviolence at Zabelka's church. The two men fell into the first of several conversations about the issues raised by the workshop. Some time later, Zabelka reached the conclusion that the use of violence under any circumstances was incompatible with his understanding of the gospel of Christ. When this article appeared in Sojourners in August 1980, Fr. Zabelka was retired, gave workshops on nonviolence and assisted in diocesan work in Lansing, Michigan.—The Editors of Sojourners
Charles McCarthy: Father Zabelka, what is your relationship to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945?
Fr. Zabelka: During the summer of 1945, July, August, and September, I was assigned as Catholic chaplain to the 509th Composite Group on Tinian Island. The 509th was the atomic bomb group.
McCarthy: What were your duties in relationship to these men? Zabelka: The usual. I said mass on Sunday and during the week. Heard confessions. Talked with the boys, etc. Nothing significantly different from what any other chaplain did during the war.
McCarthy: Did you know that the 509th was preparing to drop an atomic bomb?
Zabelka: No. We knew that they were preparing to drop a bomb substantially different from and more powerful than even the "blockbusters" used over Europe, but we never called it an atomic bomb and never really knew what it was before August 6, 1945. Before that time we just referred to it as the "gimmick" bomb.
McCarthy: So since you did not know that an atomic bomb was going to be dropped you had no reason to counsel the men in private or preach in public about the morality of such a bombing?
Zabelka: Well, that is true enough; I never did speak against it, nor could I have spoken against it since I, like practically everyone else on Tinian, was ignorant of what was being prepared. And I guess I will go to my God with that as my defense. But on Judgment Day I think I am going to need to seek more mercy than justice in this matter.
This sermon was preached by Ginny Earnest at a Hiroshima-Nagasaki Memorial Service hosted by Sojourners Community on August 6, 1987. For Hiroshima-Nagasaki memorial service resources, please go to Faithful Security (National Religious Partnership on the Nuclear Weapons Danger).
Most Americans first heard about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the way our government ended the second world war. That is true whether you were alive at the time or born since 1945—we were taught and most of us believed that the choice to use the atomic bomb saved the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers—our fathers, our uncles, our husbands, our friends.
Something that happened to an unknown people, a great distance from us, a long time ago, prevented a tragedy in our own families and neighborhoods. The bombs were used as a part of military stategy by the experts who were supposed to know about such things. It was another terrible necessity in a time of war.
For many there is only the image of the mushroom cloud and the massive display of power, viewed from other cities of military planes, viewed at a safe distance.
But we know that what happened on this day, 41 years ago, was so much more than an abstract symbol of a strategic choice. We must attempt to understand the meaning of the events of those days from a different vantage point—up close and through the eyes of compassion, where it will affect us.
For many of us, commemorating the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a part of our yearly liturgical calendar and, like Good Friday, it is an evening of facing into pain, opening up old wounds, retelling a sad story because we know that it continues to hold meaning for our lives and for the world.
What is at the heart of this sad and terrible story? How do we open ourselves to listen again?
Mitsuyoshi Toge, born in Hiroshima in 1917, was a Catholic and a poet. He was in Hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped on the city on August 6, 1945, when he was 24 years old. Toge died at the age of thirty-six. His first hand experience of the bomb, his passion for peace, and his realistic insight into the event made him a leading poet in Hiroshima. This poem is from Hiroshima-Nagasaki: A Pictorial Record of the Atomic Destruction (1978).
How could I ever forget that flash of light!
In a moment, thirty thousand people ceased to be,
The cries of fifty thousand killed
At the bottom of crushing darkness;
Through yellow smoke whirling into light,
Buildings split, bridges collapsed,
Crowded trams burnt as they rolled about
Hiroshima , all full of boundless heaps of embers.
Soon after, skin dangling like rags;
With hands on breasts;
Treading upon the broken brains;
Wearing shreds of burn cloth round their loins;
There came numberless lines of the naked,
all crying.
Bodies on the parade ground, scattered like
jumbled stone images of Jizo;
Crowds in piles by the river banks,
loaded upon rafts fastened to the shore,
Turned by and by into corpses
under the scorching sun;
in the midst of flame
tossing against the evening sky,
Round about the street where mother and
brother were trapped alive under the fallen house
The fire-flood shifted on.
On beds of filth along the Armory floor,
Heaps, and God knew who they were …
Heaps of schoolgirls lying in refuse
Pot-bellied, one-eyed, with half their skin peeled
off bald.
The sun shone, and nothing moved
But the buzzing flies in the metal basins
Reeking with stagnant ordure.
How can I forget that stillness
Prevailing over the city of three hundred thousands?
Amidst that calm,
How can I forget the entreaties
Of departed wife and child
Through their orbs of eyes,
Cutting through our minds and souls?
For Hiroshima-Nagasaki memorial service resources, please go to Faithful Security (National Religious Partnership on the Nuclear Weapons Danger).
Earlier this month marked four years since President Bush issued the following brazen pronouncement about our presence in Iraq: "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." U.S. troop casualties at that time were about 200; now they stand at over 3,600, with thousands more injured and estimates of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, many of them children. And there is no end in sight.
One of the troops who knows all too well the real security situation in Baghdad is Capt. Jon Powers. As an artillery platoon leader in the Army's 1st Armored Division, and later as the Battalion Commander's Adjutant in Baghdad and Najaf, Capt. Powers led his soldiers through one of Baghdad's most volatile sectors. It was there that he saw four friends die, and it was there that he "witnessed firsthand the devastation and lost opportunities that resulted from the Bush Administration's mismanagement and lack of planning for post-invasion Iraq. He saw how his and his fellow soldiers' idealism, dedication and patriotism were dishonored by a government that sent them to war without proper equipment, training or forethought." It was also there that he saw, all too closely, the effects of this war on its most vulnerable victims—Iraqi children.
Rather than remaining paralyzed by inaction or apathy, Capt. Powers decided to do something about what he saw. He founded War Kids Relief, a non-profit dedicated "to help the children of war-torn nations recover from the disruptive effects of war and give them hope for a better future." They seek to do this through a variety of initiatives, including creating a network of safe havens with existing orphanages, launching a family program to reintegrate children into family programs, improving education and training, and empowering the children's caretakers. And they are also focusing some of their efforts here at home by "developing a curriculum on Iraqi culture and youth that will be based on the current national standards for geography to be introduced into American schools this fall."
Jesus confounded his disciples in Matthew 19 by calling for the children to be brought unto him despite the disciples' rebuke of those who brought them. Capt. Powers models this in his work with War Kids Relief, and I hope that we as a nation also model this when we draw up our budgets to help rebuild and repair what we have destroyed in Iraq. This is the sort of "bring 'em on" that we need from our highest leaders—bring on the hurting, the broken, the forgotten, the injured. We don't need pronouncements of arrogance—we need to ask for the needy and damaged to come, and then we must do what we can, responsibly and respectfully, do to make things right.
Say what we will about the justifications or lack thereof for this war, we must acknowledge that many innocent lives have been damaged and lost. Make no mistake: We have destroyed much, and it will be on our heads as a nation to repair and heal much, just as Capt. Powers does in his own small but powerful way.
It is refreshing to me that Jon is taking responsibility for the damage that our nation has done and trying to bring healing, hope, and a future to kids caught in a war they did not start. But what's more, Capt. Powers has also taken personal responsibility: "If I can go back there and I can make a positive influence on a country that I helped partially destroy, then maybe I can sort of regain the whole reason that I went."
So much in Iraq has already been tragically undone, but may we follow Capt. Powers in our efforts to make right. His example of honesty, humility, and healing action is one our administration would do well to imitate.
Ray LaMontagne’s recent album "Till the Sun Turns Black" ends with one of the most beautiful songs about peacemaking I’ve ever heard—in which he simply repeats the refrain "War is not the answer, the answer is within you" over the most delicately lilting instrumentation. It’s the kind of sentiment that could be accused of being too vague to have any practical meaning, but warm and positive enough to be popular. But there’s something about it that feels deeper than that.
It comes to mind as I sit in a cramped and crowded airport in Missouri, between cities on a trip that will take me from the Deep South to the Pacific Northwest, meeting and talking with people seeking to explore faith at the margins of institutional Christianity. I’ll be part of a conference the week after next on the topic "Dangerous Living"(www.solitonnetwork.org)—a title ambiguous enough to invite further interrogation. The organizers aim to build a temporary community of fellow travelers asking questions and sharing experiences of what it means to follow the radical Jesus in a culture that often seems to privilege consumerism above all else and seeks to avoid anything resembling physical work at all costs. We’ll talk about faith and social justice—just what does it mean in our day to hear Jesus tell the rich young ruler how hard it is to get into the kingdom of heaven? We’ll investigate faith and authority: What kind of leadership is required when so many of our public role models leave so much to be desired? We’ll immerse ourselves in faith and creativity, hoping to become more attentive to the voice of God in art, film, music, and nature. Most of all, we will wonder together what it means to be stewards of the Christian tradition that we inherit without falling into the trap of religious imperialism. In other words, how can we take responsibility for sharing our faith without imposing it on others in a way that prevents anyone taking us seriously?
These questions were not far from my thoughts this afternoon, as we sat down for a meal at one of the in-house airport restaurants. Just after my Diet Coke arrived, the gentleman next to our table took a phone call, the first few lines of which went as follows:
‘Hi there—didn’t realize you were on that side of the pond. You looking for more bombers, or just drinking Irish car bombs?’
I froze in my seat, absorbing the impact of his comedic spin on the horrific conflict around which I grew up. I thought of the people I know back home in Belfast who have lost relatives or friends to bombs, sometimes hidden under their cars, and became so incensed that my body began to shake. It turns out that "Irish car bomb" is a name for a drink mixed from Bailey’s Irish Cream, whiskey, and Guinness. As the guy kept talking, I had to seriously consider whether or not to speak to him when the call was over. Wouldn’t it be a betrayal of all the Northern Ireland troubles’ dead if I remained silent? I freely admit that in the grand scheme of things, whether or not a burger-eating business-class traveler understands the pain he may cause by invoking the name of an insensitively-christened cocktail should not be the greatest of our concerns. But at the same time, I have come to believe that it is the small moments of dehumanization that allow the larger context of destruction on our planet to occur. What the late cultural critic Benjamin DeMott in the August issue of Harpers magazine calls the obsession with "impact"—the catharsis that is present when human beings watch images of other human beings violently killed—has become one of the driving forces of our society. Jokes about Irish car bombs not only reveal the ignorance of the speaker, but reinforce the often brutal way in which we are teaching ourselves to relate to each other.
In the end, I didn’t speak to our table neighbor; I felt that it would be unfair to make him carry the responsibility for all the angst I feel about the decades of death from which my home society is emerging. But when we have lost touch with our humanity—and the humanity of others—to the extent that we are willing to sacrifice the dignity of those who have died in war for the sake of the name of a drink, then perhaps our desire for "impact" is stronger than our hopes for peace. When Ray LaMontagne sings that the answer is "within you," might he just be suggesting that we already know that the path we’re on is the way of destruction? That, for a start, we could at least commit ourselves to being careful with the words we use for fear they may re-victimize people who have already suffered far too much?
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
While Pope Benedict XVI has been criticized for some of his recent statements, here's a short speech he delivered on Sunday before the midday Angelus that is well worth reading. Noting that he is on vacation, he said, "I feel all the more intensely the impact of the sorrow of the news that comes to me about bloody altercations and episodes of violence that are occurring in so many parts of the world." The Pope went on:
War, with the mourning and destruction it brings, has always been rightly considered a calamity that contrasts with God's plan. He created everything for existence and, in particular, wants to make a family of the human race. In this moment it is not possible for me to not return to a significant date in history: August 1, 1917—almost exactly 90 years ago—my venerable predecessor, Benedict XV, published his celebrated "Nota Alle Potenze Belligeranti" (Note to the Warring Powers), asking them to put an end to the First World War (cf. ASS 9 [1917], 417-420).
As that huge conflict raged, the Pope had the courage to affirm that it was a "useless bloodbath." This expression of his left a mark on history. It was a justified remark given the concrete situation in that summer of 1917, especially on the front here in this part of northern Italy. But those words, "useless bloodbath," have a larger, prophetic application to other conflicts that have destroyed countless human lives.
He concluded his remarks:
From this place of peace here in the north of Italy, where one feels even more vitally how unacceptable the "useless bloodbaths" are, I renew the call to follow with tenacity the way of law, to firmly renounce the arms race, to reject in general the temptation to face new situations with old systems.
For those who'll accuse me of Bush-bashing, the headline was Christianity Today's. Ted Olsen has an interesting round-up of conservative bloggers, mostly criticizing recent statements by Bush about his theology of foreign policy:
And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it's hopelessly idealistic. One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It's idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom.
Olsen's accompanying commentary, including the question, "Are we all a bunch of heretics?" is worth some critical discussion. And for the Sojourners magazine prequel, read our 2003 article, "Dangerous Religion."
The bishops have responded. Thomas G. Wenski, the bishop of Orlando and chairman of the USCCB's Committee on International Policy, wrote in a letter to the members of Congress:
The Catholic Bishops of the United States share your deep concern for the dangerous and deteriorating situation in Iraq. Too many Iraqi and American lives have been lost. Too many Iraqi communities have been shattered. Too many civilians have been driven from their homes. The human and financial costs of the war are staggering. Representatives of our Conference welcome the opportunity to meet with you and other policy makers to discuss ways to pursue the goal of a "responsible transition" to bring an end to the war in Iraq.
The current situation in Iraq is unacceptable and unsustainable, as is the policy and political stalemate among decision makers in Washington. Our Conference hopes to work with the Congress and the Administration to forge bipartisan policies on ways to bring about a responsible transition and an end to the war.
After summarizing the Bishops' previous statements on the war, Bishop Wenski continued:
Our Conference is under no illusions regarding Iraq. None of the alternative courses of action are without consequences for human life and dignity. There is no path ahead that leads to an unambiguously good outcome for Iraq, our nation and the world. It was for this very reason that we raised serious moral questions regarding military intervention in Iraq in the first place. Nevertheless, our nation must have the moral courage to change course in Iraq and to break the policy and political stalemate in Washington so that we can walk a difficult path that does the most good and the least damage in human and moral terms.
This war may finally be coming to an end. And the role of the church could and should be decisive in making it so.
In the few weeks of the defense authorization debate in the Senate, Republican senators began falling like dominoes—Chuck Hagel (NE), Susan Collins (ME), Richard Lugar (IN), George Voinovich (OH), Pete Domenici (NM), Olympia Snowe (ME), and even John Warner (VA) are looking for a way out, although not all are willing to vote for a withdrawal timetable. The Republican defections are bolstered by public opinion. Columnist Robert Novak wrote about Sen. Hagel: "As the first in a succession of Republican senators to be critical of Bush's Iraq policy, Hagel feared the worst when he returned home to conservative Nebraska for Fourth of July parades. Instead, he was pleasantly surprised by cheers and calls for the troops to be brought home." And the Democrats seem to be getting stronger in their willingness to follow the public mandate against this war that gave them a congressional majority in 2006.
The most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll showed that change in public opinion. Sixty-two percent now say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, the first time that number has topped 60 percent.
U.S. casualties now exceed 3,600, with the number of those wounded or emotionally and mentally scarred almost as countless now as the stories about returning veterans not receiving the help and attention they need. The human cost of this war has been as enormous as it has been discriminatory and unjust, with almost all the burden borne by working-class families whose sons and daughters chose military service, and not by the families and children of the elites who fabricated the case for it, grossly mismanaged its prosecution, and politically force its continuance.
The financial cost is staggering—a new Congressional Research Service study reported that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now cost $12 billion per month. When that monthly price tag is compared to the $10 billion per year it would cost to educate the world's 800 million children under six years old, the contrast opens up a real debate on what truly makes for national and global security.
While the troop "surge" has failed to bring the stability and security it promised, the progress report on Iraqi political benchmarks remains completely unsatisfactory. Nobody even pretends any longer that American young men and women are not dying daily in the cross-hairs of a civil war. Meanwhile Iraq has become an unlivable country, bleeding itself to death in a tribal sectarian conflict that is modeled by its so-called political leaders and not just by its violent insurgents.
And while the president continues to talk about the threat of al Qaeda, the Los Angeles Times reported the following on the author of a new "National Intelligence Estimate on the Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," released this week: "During a briefing with reporters, the principal author of the estimate, Edward Gistaro, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, said flatly that Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist before the U.S. invasion. He also said that the group's 'overwhelming focus' remains confined to the conflict in Iraq."
As the legislative battle continues into the fall, our message must be clear. Bring all U.S. troops home safely on a timetable that begins now. They are caught in the middle of a civil war where the U.S. occupation is the problem. The solution to Iraq is political, not military. The war was wrong and it's time to do our best to right the wrong.
This brutal, ugly, and wholly unnecessary war may finally be coming to an end. And the role of the church could and should be decisive in making it so. I hear no more voices who still say this is a "just war." Many of us don't believe it ever was and that the nonviolent path of Jesus has again been vindicated. But regardless of past positions, we should all now agree that unjust wars must be ended as an obligation of faith.
We don’t need another election. We need an exorcism. It is this that leads me from vigil to vigil and I burned with it on the evening of March 16, when I participated in nonviolent civil resistance and was arrested with more than 200 others as part of the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq. I shook from it in court some three months later when I pleaded “no contest” to failing to obey a lawful order.
There were 13 disciples in court that day, each with a unique mission. Many spoke beautifully to issues of amendments, traditions, permits, and codes. I ask you, sisters and brothers, what is our message? I wonder: Should we defend ourselves in finite opportunities to testify, or ought we defend the lowliest victims of war?
I stood at the podium that day, my throat dry and my hands cold, testifying to the message of the nonviolent Jesus. I stood and prayed there—as I had in front of the White House on that bitter cold night so many of us remember—strictly to relieve the ringing in my ears: speak for the dead or join them. I could not discuss the First Amendment or the parameters of the permit. Rather, I felt commissioned by God to speak to one truth alone: The frontline in Iraq is everywhere and the children have no place to hide. When I sat down I felt, but for a moment, clean.
Eda R. Uca is a member of Jonah House, an intentional faith-based resistance community in Baltimore, Maryland. She is the author of Ana's Girls: The Essential Guide to the Underground Eating Disorder Community Online.
Many conscientious service members have been speaking out despite an often oppressive and unforgiving atmosphere. Some of us have even been persecuted and attacked while exercising our civic duty of speaking truth to power in times of moral crises. The Rev. Lennox Yearwood, an Air Force chaplain, faces accusations of working against national security. Liam Madden, fellow IVAW member and co-founder of Appeal for Redress, is defending his project against comments that are similarly repeated daily to men and women in the armed forces who are speaking out; effectively demanding that our GIs remain silent and obey our leaders blindly.
In a few months, the Vatican will beatify a fellow conscientious objector who stood for peace over prejudice, humility over arrogance. Like a growing number of servicemen and women in our modern conflict, this soldier of conscience would not bend to demands that he serve the country’s militaristic intentions. He faced accusations of cowardice and outright treason, even of threatening national security. The book In Solitary Witness, by Gordon Zahn, revealed that Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian farmer, was beheaded by the Third Reich in August 1943 after refusing to serve in the German army. The Catholic Peace Fellowship reports he will be beatified on October 26, 2007, in his home country, and provides information on how Jägerstätter and countless other Christians have chosen conscientious objection, often in the face of significant harassment from Christian and secular critics alike.
The United States is not, nor will it ever be, Nazi Germany, but Jägerstätter's witness remains relevant and powerful for our current context. As Jägerstätter's testimony attests, the question of how a pacifist would address the problem of violence as manifested by Hitler has a response: The blame does not rest solely on Hitler, but is shared by the social classes (including the German church in status confessions) that enforced strict nationalism in the pursuit of economic revival, killing its own prophets, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the process.
If every soldier obeyed God and their conscience rather than human leaders, as Jägerstätter did, the world would be spared just as much from the likes of the German war machine as we would the American military industrial complex. Franz Jägerstätter, just as Saints Maximilian of Tebessa and Martin of Tours before him, was courageous enough to stand by the conviction "Miles Christi ego sum; pugnare mihi non licet: I am a soldier of Christ; it is not permissible for me to fight."
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and currently resides in Camden, New Jersey, in an intentional Christian community called Camden House, where he continues to seek ways to wage peace wherever he goes. He blogs at courageouscoward.blogspot.com.
"I fully understand that when you watch the violence on TV every night, people are saying, 'Is it worth it, can we accomplish an objective?'" Bush told a Cleveland business group. ...
"I've seen this movie before from the liberal left in America, who share no responsibility for what happened in Cambodia when we said no," said McCain, whose campaign has lost support partly because of his advocacy of the war.
It reminded me of yesterday's post by Gareth Higgins, and the connection between violence of TV and movies and the real violence of terrorist acts and war. It was the juxtaposition of the quotes that caught my attention, for certainly a veteran like McCain understands how far from a movie is the violence of war. But why do Bush's comments on the war so often reference the "violence on TV"—as opposed to violence in Iraq? You can do your own Google search—but here are a few examples:
From the same Cleveland speech: ""They know we're kindhearted, decent people who value human life, and they understand that Americans will recoil from the violence on our TV screens."
Feb. 14, 2007: "And I can understand why people are concerned when they turn on the TV screens and see this violence. It's disturbing to people, and it's disturbing to the Iraqi people."
April 19, 2007: "Americans, rightly so, are concerned about whether or not we can succeed in Iraq. Nobody wants to be there if we can't succeed, especially me. And these—violence on our TV screens affects our frame of mind...."
June 14, 2006: "I understand how tough it is for the American people to reconcile death on their TV screens when the president's saying we're making incremental progress toward an important goal."
One possible criticism could be that Bush is trying to create some subtle distance between his policy and the reality of Iraq's violence by so often referring to it in relation to TV coverage. Is the conservative response that Bush is correctly identifying part of the problem as the media's negative coverage of Iraq's carnage? Neither of these satisfy my curiosity regarding the consistency of this mantra, so seriously, can somebody explain Bush's fixation with our TV screens?
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
The letter was sent to Bishop William S. Skylstad, president of the USCCB and Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, International Justice and Peace Committee Chair, requesting a meeting with the USCCB. The members explained:
We have taken great comfort in the prophetic words of many Catholic leaders, relied on them for inspiration during our deliberations, and welcomed them in helping shape policy. If we understand the Catholic tradition correctly, thoughtful Church leaders around the world do not believe that the war in Iraq meets the strict conditions for a just war or the high moral standards for overriding the presumption against the use of force. We agree and seek an end to this injustice.
Our concerns are rooted in both the political realm and in our faith and manifest in our efforts to enact legislation that will bring an end to this war. Pope John Paul II framed the moral question well when he said: "When, as in Iraq in these days, war threatens the fate of humanity, it is even more urgent to proclaim with a strong and decisive voice that peace is the only path for building a society which is more just and marked by solidarity. Violence and weapons can never resolve the problems of man."
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the USCCB, said the bishops were considering the letter and that they have already made repeated statements about the war. "Certainly the bishops have made no secret about their concerns over the war in Iraq," Walsh said.
As Congress begins this week to seriously debate legislative proposals to end the war, the continued voice of the church is critical. As the members of Congress concluded:
In our own education in the faith, we find the testimony of the scriptures compelling, and although we have no illusions about the complexities of our current situation in Iraq, we have come to believe that peace cannot simply exist as an ideal—our efforts must be accompanied by actions as we embrace the teachings of peace and justice.
Memorial Day has always been one of the most important holidays for my family. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, I am from what can safely be called a military family, with my father, one grandfather, and five uncles all serving in our armed forces, representing all four major branches among them. It is on this day each year that we pause to give special thanks to those who have served in our country’s military, according the highest respect to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice of their very lives to secure and protect our freedoms. Given my military family heritage, it is not surprising that I was socialized from the earliest age into an unquestioned, devout patriotism, which was never on display so proudly and publicly as on Memorial Day.
I was home for Memorial Day this year, which allowed me to rehearse many of our family rituals from my youth. My 12-hour day yesterday consisted of two Memorial Day services (with accompanying parades) in two different towns, three picnics, and visits to five cemeteries to lay flowers and pay respects. In many ways, the events of the day were as touching, sincere, and heartfelt as I remembered them. I even shed a tear at one service when the local marching band played the Marine's Hymn, which brought to mind my Marine father on this first Memorial Day without him.
However, despite recollections of cherished memories, my adult sensibilities intruded, giving me a much more discerning eye through which to observe the day’s events. The patriotic premises I uncritically absorbed in my childhood have long since evolved, tempered over the years by a healthy dose of biblically-informed skepticism of nationalism and militarism. I was reminded that the inextricable linkage of patriotism, militarism, and American Christianity in our national narrative is alive and well - a marriage that I find distressing and theologically dubious at best.
At least in small towns like those where my family lives, Memorial Day services put on display the way in which the Christian faith remains co-opted by the national and military narratives of the American people. Expectedly, both services I attended rehearsed our cherished freedoms and honored our servicemen and women for their sacrifices. But the commendations went much further than that. There were prayers to God for national blessing and undisputed claims of America being the greatest nation on earth. Imagery abounded of America as a distinctly Christian nation and the related need for us to get God back into the public square "where He belongs." It was implied throughout that God guides our national ship, and consequently, our national causes must be the very causes of God. On this day, unlike any other, we see pastors and soldiers side by side, as if there were no contradiction between the kingdoms of God and America.
What concerns me in this display of Christian patriotism is how easily we think that God is on our side and that what America does may as well be what God is doing in the world - especially regarding our military. It can perpetuate a dangerous “us vs. them” mentality, with “us” always being on God’s side of the ledger and our causes always being just, simply because it involves our troops. Also alarming is the uncritical way in which our American and Christian identities no longer seem separate, making it anathema to suggest that our patriotism might need correction (instead of unabashed support) from our biblical faith.
Like most touchy and complicated issues, nuance is often lost in our world of sound bites, fundraising, and political gain. But I’d like to try and walk the fine line as a reluctant patriot. I want to honor those men and women who have bravely and nobly served our country, for in doing so, I honor my own family. I want to be grateful for America’s successes, not taking for granted the many ways in which America truly has been a noble and even unprecedented experiment in democracy. And I want to acknowledge the freedoms we indeed enjoy, ones only longed for by many in other lands and times. But I want to stop short of worshipping America. I never want to place America where only Christ should be, and I want my allegiances to be properly ordered and never confused.
If I could have scripted yesterday’s events, I would have liked to hear more talk about peace, not war. The fact that men and women of any nation must die in combat reveals that we live in a fallen and imperfect world, one waiting to be redeemed. It reveals what we have not yet learned – not the art of war – but the art of peace. In these times of violence, I would be more comforted by images of swords beaten into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks, instead of battleships and soldiers never coming home. I would like America to honor our peacemakers as reverently as our soldiers. And if we want to invoke God, I would like to hear about God’s kingdom, the one where the lion lays down with the lamb. And we could rehearse God’s promises – not for military victory (which I don’t find in my Bible anyway) – but about how a suffering servant, who told us to turn the other cheek and offered no word in his own defense before being led to death, has somehow overcome the world. That would be my idea of a Memorial Day.
Bob Francis is the organizing and policy assistant for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
History does not tend to be kind to Christian theologians who demand war.
Peter Steinfels recently called attention to a contemporary history lesson drawn in an ongoing debate between Catholic neo-cons who have supported the Iraq war and the popes and bishops who have not (“A Catholic Debate Mounts on the Meaning of ‘Just War,’”TheNew York Times, April 14). In the April issue of First Things, George Weigel revisits his arguments for the justice and necessity of the Iraq war and refuses to admit regret. Weigel instead casts blame for the failures in Iraq in two directions: the U.S. foreign policy community who failed adequately to plan for the war’s aftermath, and the Arab Islamic political culture whose “irresponsibility, authoritarian brutality, rage and self-delusion” has caused them to refuse “the foreigner’s gift” of political freedom that we have brought them. (I’m not making that up.)
The history lesson is delivered in a commentary by the editors in Commonweal (“Bishops and Their Critics,” April 20), who remind their readers of Weigel’s original well-publicized arguments in favor of the invasion back in 2003. They focus on one key point: In the face of vociferous objections to the impending war by the pope and the U.S. bishops, Weigel argued that Catholics should defer to the president’s judgment on whether or not this war, or any war, met the just war criteria.
Weigel’s argument on this point was two-fold: 1) the president has access to privileged information, and 2) the president, by virtue of his office, exercises a “charism of political discernment” not shared by leaders of the church. The Commonweal editorial wonders whether all the mistakes that Weigel points to in his recent article undermine his claim of the special charism enjoyed by the president. Commonweal remarks that, in retrospect, the Catholic bishops’ charism in matters of war and peace looks pretty darn good compared to that of the president.
Weigel’s argument here is self-defeating. In the case of the Iraq war, the more he insists on point number one, then the more point two is proven false. If the president did indeed have access to privileged information, then he either misinterpreted that information or deliberately lied about it to make a case for the war. This conclusion seems inescapable, given what we now know about how pre-war intelligence was handled.
Regardless of the facts of this particular case, moral judgments about war, like all moral judgments, are not primarily a matter of good information. Good information is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for sound moral judgments. Sound moral judgments depend on being formed in certain virtues. Why a Christian should assume that the president of a secular nation-state would be so formed – much less enjoy a certain “charism” of moral judgment – is a mystery to me. “Charism” is a theological term denoting a gift of the Holy Spirit. To apply such a term to whomever the electoral process of a secular nation-state happens to cough up does not strike me as theologically sound or practically wise.
The fundamental issue here is of much greater importance than arguments about the justice (or lack thereof) of this particular war. Weigel would have the church effectively abdicate its moral judgment in matters of war to the leaders of the nation-state. It is hard to imagine what could do greater damage to both church and nation. If the church does not have an independent process of discernment to bring the gospel to bear on matters of war and peace, then any hope that the Prince of Peace will be heard over the din of self-interest and fear will be lost. History is already littered with the wreckage caused by Christian capitulation to reasons of state.
The showdown between Congress and the president this month around the funding for the Iraq war isn’t the first of its kind. We’ve been here before, and we need not walk blindly down rhetorical dead ends.
In 1970, well into the Vietnam War, Sen. Mark O. Hatfield, a Republican, and Sen. George McGovern, a Democrat, introduced legislation to cut off funding by a certain date in the future for U.S. combat operations in Vietnam. The invasion of Cambodia, and the widespread anti-war demonstrations that followed throughout the country, focused political attention on the McGovern-Hatfield legislation as a means to reverse President Nixon’s Vietnam policies. A mobilization of public opinion, with TV and radio ads and a focused lobbying campaign, backed this effort.
What lessons can be learned to inform our present debate?
1) Opposition must be genuinely bi-partisan. Republican senators such as Charles Goodell, Charles “Mac” Mathias, and others joined Hatfield. And powerful Democratic senators such as John Stennis and Henry Jackson were ardent supporters of President Nixon’s policies. This meant debate on the war policy did not immediately degenerate into predictable partisan rhetoric. That allowed for more focus and examination of actual policy alternatives. Judgments on war policy had more of a chance to transcend partisan allegiance than they do today. Opposition to President Bush’s Iraq policy, as well as support, has to become more principled than a simple litmus test of loyalty to either party.
2) It’s not about supporting our troops. The McGovern-Hatfield proposal established a date in the future – from nine months to a year in various versions – when congressional appropriations for U.S. combat troops in Vietnam would cease. In the meantime, it specified that all necessary support and funding for the troops be provided. No policymaker would ever propose that we stop buying bullets for soldiers that are deployed.
Today’s Iraq debate seems framed by arguments over who can best support our troops. The president and vice-president maintain that we must continue the war in order to support our troops. But that is a non-sensible rationale for a war policy. Democrats argue that we best support our troops by bringing them home. Likewise, that’s no foundation for reversing a war policy, only a consequence.
Supporting the troops is not the issue. That’s a given. The question is whether our Iraq policy is right or wrong.
President Nixon tried hard to frame those such as McGovern and Hatfield as not backing our soldiers in the field. He even argued that we must continue the Vietnam War in order to get our prisoners of war returned – as if that would not be a part of a negotiated end to the war. That’s why the protest of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, where John Kerry entered the public spotlight, was the most threatening of any opposition to Nixon’s policies. Hippies could be dismissed, but not uniformed veterans.
3) It is about the money. Sen. Hatfield’s opening arguments on the Senate floor (this was at a time when speeches in the Senate actually seemed to matter), when he and George McGovern introduced their proposal, centered on Congress’ constitutional power of the purse regarding war. A long list of distinguished constitutional scholars agreed. Those arguments are being recycled today.
The president is right to say that Congress shouldn’t “micro-manage” the strategy and tactics of war. But that’s a clever rhetorical phrase that is largely meaningless. Congress does have the clear right to establish whether and when its support of a war, through its appropriations, will come to an end. Then it is up to the president and his military commanders to manage and implement that goal.
Other means of congressional opposition are largely empty rhetoric. Granted, the power of the purse is a blunt instrument for policymaking regarding war. But it is the constitutional avenue clearly provided, through which elected representatives can balance the power of the executive with the will of the people. Members of Congress who are convinced our Iraq war policy is wrong should not pay for it after an agreed and reasonable date. Those who believe it is right should write a blank check.
4) Political pressure eventually works. The McGovern-Hatfield amendment never passed the Senate. It first received 39 votes, then 42, and then, under the less politically volatile name of Sen. Lawton Chiles, 49 votes. Had McGovern-Hatfield passed and been adopted by the House, President Nixon would have vetoed it.
But all these congressional actions created a political environment that limited Nixon’s options. He began withdrawing troops and finally negotiated an end to the war. Despite their dire predictions of outcomes, today U.S. companies are racing to catch up with other corporations heavily investing in Vietnam’s economy.
In retrospect, we see now that successful congressional action could have ended the Vietnam War sooner, saving thousands of lives and achieving the same outcome. U.S. troops will be withdrawn, at some date, from Iraq. The question is when, and how. Congress can and should use its constitutional power to influence that outcome.
Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson served as legislative assistant to Sen. Mark O. Hatfield from 1968 to 1976 and was his chief legislative strategist on Vietnam. Today he serves as general secretary of the Reformed Church in America.
I have often felt that the U.S. has been duped into making Muslims the enemy du jour. It’s clear that the business with the Shah of Iran effected a major change in U.S.-Muslim relations. Before that they were our fierce allies; we even gave weapons and training to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Then suddenly we were bitter enemies.
But I have to ask a serious question: All the antiwar advocacy I see seems to be only directed against the current war in Iraq. Why isn’t there advocacy against U.S. war-mongering in its entirety?
Let me be clear. I am not defending Republican war-mongering; I am attacking both Republican and Democratic war-mongering. I do not see any difference between what Bush is doing in Iraq/Afghanistan and what Clinton did in Bosnia/Herzegovina. We still have a military presence in Bosnia/Herzegovina and our presence there has accomplished nothing but the peace of the gun. Or what about Reagan’s efforts in Nicaragua, or Carter’s efforts with the Shah and Iran/Iraq? Or countless others?
Since most of the advocacy seems to originate with one of the parties, it always seems to only address what the opponent party is doing wrong. It never seems to address the root cause - that the U.S. thinks military action is the solution to all the world’s troubles. There’s money in war and we profit mightily from it (or at least some U.S. businesses do). From selling tanks in World War II to being the world’s largest and most stable offshore bank, the U.S. makes big money from military action.
Until the corporations that profit from our wars are called to account for it, it won’t stop. Only the places we invade will change. If the Republicans really hated what Clinton did in Bosnia/Herzegovina, as they loudly proclaimed, why didn’t they pull the troops out of there when Bush came into office? It's the same reason the Democrats will make hay with the Iraq war, but will never completely remove the U.S. military from Iraq now that we are entrenched there. Do we ever leave any place we get a military foothold?
One of the major reasons I have chosen to work abroad is because I want to be a part of finding peaceful solutions to the problems of poor nations in the hopes that the U.S. won’t someday have to invade them.
Bruce Whitfield is a retired attorney currently living and doing volunteer work in Costa Rica.
In the cacophony of words and voices swirling around the president’s veto of the Iraq bill this week, two words stood out to me – “victory” and “defeat.”
Opponents of the bill call it a timetable for defeat and urge us to push on for victory.
A question that has long been troubling me whenever I hear these words in this context is, “What would victory look like?”
I never supported this war, so to me, we hit defeat the moment the first shots rang. The idea of "victory" in a war situation is elusive to me: We are all losers. We are, all of us – Americans and Iraqis alike – worse for the wear. Yet, I keep hearing these terms bandied about, and I would really like to understand – what would victory look like to those who speak of it? I have asked war supporters this question - none can answer. I have listened to the pundits and politicians - none of them offer a vision for victory. They simply reiterate, vociferously, how we must not give in to defeat.
What would victory look like? What are our leaders waiting for? Will they know it when they see it?
After reading the headlines and hearing these calls for victory and sneers about timetables for defeat again this morning, I turned again to the Bible, following a trail through Psalms and Matthew, landing in Isaiah 59, where the unmistakable answer is clear – God’s definition of “victory” is “justice”.
Not the human construct that equates justice with revenge and retribution. But the unearthly vision that justice is connected to mercy and grace and brings about peace.
And the definition of defeat? Isaiah 59 tells us that neither victory nor justice will be found as long as “truth stumbles in the public square.”
We must not allow our leaders to hide behind powerful words like “victory” and “defeat” while truth goes stumbling by.
What would victory look like? I am afraid that our leaders do not know – they cannot find their way. “They do not know the way of peace, and there is no justice in their tracks ... Yes, truth is lacking.” (Isaiah 59:8 and 15).
As many voices, for and against, discuss the veto and its implications for victory, we need someone to be bold enough to bring a different “v” word into the conversation – “vision.” We need a vision for victory that is built on truth and leads to peace.
Susan H. Badeau is the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Children's Commission, a parent of 22 children by birth, foster care, and adoption, a life-long advocate and a Sojourners/Philadelphia volunteer.
Four years after George W. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared victory in Iraq in front of a banner that said, "Mission Accomplished," spoken word artist Steven Connell asks what has and hasn't been accomplished. Steven has teamed up with Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices and Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers) to produce a video promoting both a contest to decide what should go on that infamous banner, as well as reminding Americans about the cost of this war in soldiers' lives. Watch it:
Two events this week should cause all Christians to stop and consider the relationship between truth and war. Both the congressional hearings in the Tillman/Lynch cases and the Bill Moyers PBS special about the media and Iraq point out one of the dimensions of war: lying.
When religious people protest war, they most often protest killing and the loss of life. Indeed, Christian ethicist (and just-war theorist) Jean Bethke Elshtain makes the case that “the national identity that we assume, or yearn for, is historically inseparable from war. The nation-state, including our own, rests on mounds of bodies.” Those bodies include both soldiers and citizens – the direct result of the “nationalistic enthusiasm” that sustains war in a democracy.
But how does a democracy create a necessary climate for ordinary folks to kill or be willing to be killed? Well, it appears that they sometimes have to lie. And it isn’t just the “big” lies about cooking military intelligence for war – those lies can be much smaller.
Take the cases of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch, two soldiers whose stories were “hyped” by someone (that’s what the congressional panel is trying to determine) who apparently wanted to deflect attention away from the less-glamorous aspects of American action in Iraq (including, evidently, the Abu Ghraib torture scandal). The image of the good soldier motivates heroism, giving people a reason to kill and die. Heroes are necessary for war.
Christian ethicists, both pacifists and just-war theorists, criticize contemporary warfare because war depends on absolute loyalty to the state – and the state has a tendency to bend morality to fit its purposes to create heroes. As Stanley Hauerwas has written, “The state needs to convince its citizens that it can give them a meaningful identity because the state is the only means of achieving the common good. …To preserve themselves, all states, even democracies, must ask their citizens to die for them.”
Is that what Christians believe? That – no matter what – the state maintains the common good? The Christian tradition says "no." It teaches that the common good is grounded in God, founded on charity, lived through the church, and modeled by the saints.
War teaches a rival belief: that the common good is grounded in a political system, founded in courage, lived through citizenship, and modeled by soldiers. Indeed, in warfare, soldiers replace saints as cultural heroes – the military maintains an elaborate cult of sainthood that celebrates obedience, self-sacrifice for the state, and death in battle; its virtues resemble that of pagan antiquity more than that of the church. (For more on this argument, read Stanley Hauerwas and Charles Pinches, “Courage Exemplified,” 1993.) Anything that forwards the state serves the good. Of that, philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre says that being asked to die for a modern state is “like being asked to die for the telephone company.”
Consider this observation of Randolph Bourne from 1918, during the Great War:
“War – or at least modern war waged by a democratic republic against a powerful enemy – seems to achieve for a nation almost all that the most inflamed political idealist could desire. Citizens are no longer indifferent to their Government, but each cell of the body politic is brimming with life and activity ... in a nation at war, every citizen identifies himself with the whole, and feels immensely strengthened by that identification.”
The hyped cases of Tillman and Lynch offered some “inflamed political idealist” a perfect moment to promote the cause, to bend the truth in service to the state’s good. Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were ideal candidates for sainthood. Of all American youth, who moves us more than a star football player and the girl-next-door? They served as ultimate American archetypes, young people whose sacrifice helped us identify “with the whole,” giving others a reason to die for the state. Somewhere in the government, some very smart person knew that Tillman and Lynch were the perfect PR vehicles for war. Lies were told. Lies that could sustain the greater lie that the Iraq war is good, necessary, and just. The hyping of their stories was both cynical and immoral.
Those lies echoed through the pulpits of our nation – through television, radio, and the internet. Without a willing media (the focus of Bill Moyers’ special), the stories of Tillman and Lynch would have never been known (indeed, news stations broadcast Tillman’s funeral and a TV movie was made about Lynch). For true believers, critique is not allowed, only true doctrine permitted in the “church” of modern warfare is acceptable. The media was lied to, bought lies, broadcast lies, and proclaimed lies. Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were lied about for the dark – and probably political – purposes of sustaining nationalistic fervor.
The irony is, of course, that Mr. Tillman and Ms. Lynch are heroes. Not for their hyped-up stories, but because the lies told about them are leading, finally, to truth. Speaking for their son, the Tillman family believes that Pat was victimized by the lies. Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin (also in the military) said, “The least this country can do for [Pat] in return is to uncover who was responsible for his death, who lied and covered it up, and who instigated those lies and benefited from them.” Ms. Lynch insisted to Congress that she is not a hero (as she has insisted in many venues): “... the American people are capable of determining their own ideals for heroes, and they don’t need to be told elaborate lies.”
Thank you, Mr. Tillman and Ms. Lynch, for witnessing to truth. It is hard to believe that shards of honesty are emerging from all these lies.
Charles De Gaulle once said that politics is far too serious to be left in the hands of politicians. I agree!
The politicians in Washington are painfully divided over what should be done about the war in Iraq. The Republicans talk about “staying the course,” which our nation can ill afford. The Democrats, on the other hand, propose a “cut and run” policy, and everyone knows that this would leave a vacuum to be filled with the chaos of all-out civil war. But some of us in the religious community propose a third option, which we believe could get America out of Iraq without leaving a total mess behind. Our plan has three parts.
First, we propose that American and British troops be replaced by an international police force composed of those who better understand the Iraqi culture. Leaders in Saudi Arabia proposed such a solution almost three years ago. Americans and Brits are not only devoid of any grasp of the language and the religion of the Iraqi people, but are defined by many Muslims as a Christian army that has invaded a sacred Islamic land. Our army’s presence is perceived by many in the Muslim world as a rebirth of the medieval crusades.
Second, we propose that the United States appropriate $50 billion to rebuild the towns and cities that the invasion of Iraq has left in shambles. This would be a small price to pay, considering the $2 billion we are presently spending every week in order to keep this war going.
Third, we propose that our president go before the United Nations and ask the world to forgive America for what we have done to Iraq, and how we have set back efforts for world peace. He should point out that he is asking forgiveness on behalf of almost all Americans – because we overwhelmingly lent support to the invasion of Iraq some four years ago. He should further point out that our original intentions were good! We Americans were told that we were invading in order to remove the threat of what we thought were Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Repentance of this kind is necessary because we need to re-establish our moral standing in the world, and confessing wrongdoing is a start for doing that. It is not weakness to admit that we did wrong, especially when the whole world knows that we did. Now is the time for us to live out that verse from 2 Chronicles 7:14, which reads:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
If you are willing to support this proposal, go to www.tikkun.org/iraqpeace. You will find an expanded version of this proposal there, along with an opportunity to sign on with us. Do it now, because time is short and the days are filled with evil (Ephesians 5:16).
Philosopher George Santayana is credited with the saying, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Over on The Huffington Post this morning, there is an excellent example of the truth of that statement. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. writes: "In 1968, my father, running for president, addressed in a speech, the White House's proposal for a troop surge in Vietnam. Robert Kennedy had initially supported the U.S. intervention in Vietnam. Forty years later, as Congress and the White House debate the further escalation of yet another war that has already claimed the lives of an astounding 640,000 Iraqis, killed 3,256 U.S. soldiers and wounded another 50,000, his words should have special resonance to those of our political leaders who are still searching for the right course in Iraq."
The excerpt that follows could be delivered with only a few word changes as a speech today. It includes RFK’s reasons for concern about the escalating war in Vietnam:
“I am concerned - as I believe most Americans are concerned - that our present course will not bring victory; will not bring peace; will not stop the bloodshed; and will not advance the interests of the United States or the cause of peace in the world. I am concerned that, at the end of it all, there will only be more Americans killed; more of our treasure spilled out; and because of the bitterness and hatred on every side of this war, more hundreds of thousands of [civilians] slaughtered...”
And Bobby’s concluding charge is one for us to hear today:
“I ask you to go forth and work for new policies - work to change our direction - and thus restore our place at the point of moral leadership, in our country, in our hearts, and all around the world."
His words make me remember why he was the first politician to gain my interest, that spring when I was 17 years old.
Duane Shank is Senior Policy Adviser at Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
I was recently engaged in conversation with a friend who recounted an interesting dialog. He was being asked a number of questions about Islam. Since it was unclear where the questioner was heading, my friend asked. The response went something like this: “Well, I want to know if you take radical Islam seriously, which means you would have to favor U.S. military action in Iran.” My friend found this a shocking conclusion to draw. I must say that I find myself with my friend. Let’s explore why this is so.
First, one has to wonder how one reads the overarching biblical narrative in such a way as to support this way of thinking. The tradition has consistently held that Jesus both provides the unsurpassable revelation of God and the concrete manifestation of the life that pleases God. How does one read the Incarnation so as to allow us to think of others (even enemies!) in this way? Or, how does one respond to the call to imitate the life of Christ and conclude that “taking radical Islam seriously” requires “military action in Iran”? Some try to separate “public” and “private” life in such a way as to negate the significance of the incarnation for “public life.” It is hard to see, though, why one would think that we can so easily avoid the call to imitate Jesus.
Second, from a purely pragmatic stand point, the war in Iraq has hardly demonstrated that military action is the path one should follow in this struggle. If anything, the vast majority of studies have shown that the ability for the likes of Osama bin Laden to recruit supporters has grown as a consequence of the war. One definition of insanity is to continue to try the same techniques while expecting different results. Notwithstanding the natural human tendency to respond to perceived threats with violence, there is no reason to think there is a military solution in this case.
Third, the example of Christ coupled with the quagmire in Iraq should be compelling evidence of the imperative of peacemaking and the futility of war to make peace. However, for Christians unable to embrace pacifism, any proposal for military action must, at the very least, be based in the just war theory. Would the just war criteria be met? Well, going back to the questioner’s claim, it is hard to see how the perceived threat of radical Islam could constitute a just cause for war against Iran. This movement is hardly a problem that is resolvable by attacking Iran. Even if this were otherwise, given the resistance to talks with Iran, it is very hard to see how the criteria that war only be undertaken as a last resort has been satisfied. Finally, as suggested above, the consequences of the war in Iraq make it clear that it would be very hard to make an argument for reasonable likelihood of success. If anything, experts have pointed out that war with Iran would be an significant increase in difficulty over that faced in Iraq.
Finally, we Christians have to ask ourselves the extent to which willingness to embrace a military response to “radical Islam” is little more than a failure of confidence in the gospel. We seem far more willing to put confidence in our own cleverness and in our economic and military might than in the power of the Spirit. Is it remarkable how little we trust in the power of the gospel to transform the hearts and lives of those who are “other” to us. The point here is not that all will be converted to Christianity, but rather that the ability of truly evil men to recruit others can be substantially reduced. In fact, to put more trust in the power of the gospel than in our own cleverness would be to recognize that nothing has more potential for success than interacting with “others” in ways that imitates the life of Jesus. This is the longer term promise of the gospel, a thing we Christians have lost sight of and have become increasingly unwilling to even try.
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) is known as the "conscience of the House." He was the young civil rights leader who was beaten, nearly to death, on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on the infamous "Bloody Sunday" that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. John Lewis is a civil rights and Christian hero. As the House of Representatives began debating the war in Iraq this week, here are John’s remarks on the House floor. His voice is one we need to hear.
Mr. Lewis of Georgia: "Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep concern that on this very day 4 years ago, our Nation inaugurated a conflict, an unnecessary war, a war of choice, not a necessity.
The most comprehensive intelligence we have, the National Intelligence Estimate and the latest Pentagon report, tells us that Iraq has descended into a state of civil war. Over 3,000 Americans have died, and hundreds of thousands, some even say up to 1 million citizens of Iraq, have lost their lives in this unnecessary conflict.
And while we are telling our veterans of this war, the elderly, the poor, and the sick that there is no room in the budget for them, the American people have spent over $400 billion on a failed policy. We cannot do more of the same. Mr. Speaker, violence begets violence. It does not lead to peace.
President John F. Kennedy once said, ‘‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.’’ My greatest fear is that the young people of Iraq and of the Middle East will never forget this war. My greatest fear is they will grow up hating our children and our children’s children for what we have done. Mr. Speaker, the Bible is right. Even a great nation can reap what it sows. Nothing troubles me more than to see the young faces of these soldiers who have been led to their death.
Some are only 18, 19, 21, 22, 23. It is painful; it is so painful to watch. Sometimes I feel like crying and crying out loud at what we are doing as a nation and what this administration is doing in our name. Our children do not deserve to die as pawns in a civil war.
They do not deserve to pay with their lives for the mistakes of this administration. They never had a chance.
When I was their age, when I was 23 years old, I was leading the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, soon to speak in Washington on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, but then we were involved in a nonviolent revolution to transform the soul of America, to create a beloved community.
Forty years ago, I was there in New York City in Riverside Church when Martin Luther King, Jr., gave one of the most powerful speeches he ever made against the war in Vietnam. If he could speak today, he would say this nation needs a revolution of values that exposes the truth that war does not work. If he could speak today, he would say that war is obsolete as a tool of our foreign policy.
He would say there is nothing keeping us from changing our national priority so that the pursuit of peace can take precedence over the pursuit of war.
He would say we must remove the causes of chaos, injustice, poverty, and insecurity that are breeding grounds for terrorism. This is the way towards peace.
As a nation, can we hear the words of Gandhi, so simple, so true, that it is either nonviolence or nonexistence? Can we hear the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., saying that we must learn to live together as brothers and sisters or perish as fools?
Tonight I must make it plain and clear that as a human being, as a citizen of the world, as a citizen of America, as a member of Congress, as an individual committed to a world at peace with itself, I will not and I cannot in good conscience vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war.”
Several thousand Christians from around the country will gather at the Washington National Cathedral this evening for a Christian Peace Witness for Iraq worship service, followed by a candlelight procession to the White House. This is an excerpt from the talk I will give this evening. We’ll have the full text and coverage of the event next week.
For all of us here tonight, the war in Iraq has become a matter of faith.
By our deepest convictions about Christian standards and teaching, the war in Iraq was not just a well-intended mistake or only mismanaged. THIS WAR, FROM A CHRISTIAN POINT OF VIEW, IS MORALLY WRONG - AND WAS FROM THE VERY START. It cannot be justified with either the teachings of Jesus Christ OR the criteria of St. Augustine’s just war. It simply doesn’t pass either test and did not from its beginning. This war is not just an offense against the young Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice or to the Iraqis who have paid such a horrible price. This war is not only an offense to the poor at home and around the world who have paid the price of misdirected resources and priorities. This war is also an offense against God.
And so we are here tonight, very simply and resolutely, to begin to end the war in Iraq. But not by anger, though we are angry, and not just by politics, though it will take political courage. But by faith, because we are people of faith.
This service and procession are not just another political protest but an act of faith, an act of prayer, an act of nonviolent witness. Politics led us into this war, and politics is unlikely to save us by itself. The American people have voted against the war in Iraq but political proposals keep failing, one after the other.
I believe it will take faith to end this war. It will take prayer to end it. It will take a mobilization of the faith community to end it - to change the political climate, to change the wind. It will take a revolution of love to end it. Because this endless war in Iraq is based ultimately on fear, and Jesus says that only perfect love will cast out fear.
So tonight we say, as people of faith, as followers of Jesus, that the deep fear that has paralyzed the conscience of this nation, that has caused us to become the kind of people that we are not called to be, that has allowed us to tolerate violations of our most basic values, and that has perpetuated an endless cycle of violence and counter-violence must be exorcised as the demon it is - THIS FEAR MUST BE CAST OUT!
And to cast out that fear, we must act in faith, in prayer, in love, and in hope - so we might help to heal the fears that keep this war going. Tonight we march not in belligerence, or to attack individuals - even those leaders directly responsible for the war - or to use human suffering for partisan political purposes. Rather, we process to the White House tonight as an act of faith, believing that only faith can save us now.
There are some articles that one should not have to write. The thesis they defend should be so obvious that setting it forward should be unnecessary. However, there has been a remarkable degree of saber-rattling toward Iran over the last several months. Further, a founding document of so-called neoconservatism claimed that, "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has” (and we all know how swimmingly our project in Iraq has gone!). So, unfortunately, it does seem necessary to make and defend the obvious claim: Christian faith is inconsistent with the central tenets of neoconservatism. Let me briefly summarize why this is so.
First, perhaps the central goal of neoconservatism is the use of U.S. military force to impose a “pax Americana” around the world. If one reads, for example, the Project for the New American Century, one finds something of an outline of how this it is to be accomplished. It specifically recognizes that we Americans are not likely to buy into such an ambitious foreign policy. Thus, the document indicates that a catalyzing event, “like a new Pearl Harbor,” would be needed to empower the administration to push forward with this agenda. The terrorists' attack on Sept. 11 became that catalyzing event, and the war in Iraq was to be the initial step toward building the “pax Americana.” Even if things were not going so badly, it is hard to see how Christians could affirm this aspect of the neocon agenda.
Second, for Christians, there are really only two broad frameworks in which to assess the use of military force. Either one embraces Christian pacifism, or one embraces the Just War Theory. Since, as already noted, neoconservatism rests largely on a particular way of utilizing military force, we can see that neocons do not embrace Christian pacifism. So, for neoconservatism to be acceptable to Christian faith, its vision must conform to the Just War criteria. But does it? First, there simply is no basis in the Just War criteria for going to war in attempt to establish a “pax Americana,” nor for “regime change.” Neither of these constitutes a “just cause.” Second, there is no basis for pre-emptive war within the Just War tradition of the sort envisioned by the neo-cons (oh, if an enemy has amassed troops on the border, it hardly matters who shoots first, but we had nothing like that in Iraq nor Iran). Finally, it is likewise difficult to see how the U.S. could be considered as having “legitimate authority” for attempting to establish a “pax Americana.”
Third, while it might sound surprising, neoconservatism simply does not take the concept of human sin and evil seriously enough. It is surprising because it is often the neocons who point out that there is genuine evil in the world that must be confronted. At the end of the day, however, neoconservatives are simply too optimistic about our own goodness. In other words, too much of the neoconservative agenda rests on the belief that while “they” are bad, “we” are good. Note that the issue here is not “moral equivalence,” i.e., no one need think of “us” as bad as “them.” Rather, we only need recognize that no one should be entrusted with the sort of unilateral power implied by the neoconservative dream.
We, as followers of Jesus, should reflect on the differences between our calling to be imitators of Jesus and that to which the neocons would call us. And, most of all, we need to recognize the incommensurability of the two ways of being in the world.
Copyright (c) 2006 Beliefnet, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this site is subject to Terms
of Service and to our
Privacy Policy.
Constructed by Beliefnet.
Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School 
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
The recent Georgia-Russia mini-war in and around South Ossetia was definitely not a religious war, but it serves as a reminder that religious identity doesn't even come in third place when issues of national identity are at issue. While the battle raged, the majority of participants -- and casualties -- were Christians on both sides.
Jim Forest is the international secretary of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship (
Coinciding with the visit of a dear friend who's spent the past few years working in Afghanistan for both development NGOs and (non-U.S.) government agencies, the DVD of Charlie Wilson's War recently arrived from Netflix. My friend recommends it. Also, I [heart] Philip Seymour Hoffman. And I can tolerate Tom Hanks in appropriate doses. But an 
Andrew Wilkes is a policy and organizing intern at 
Janna Hunter-Bowman works for Mennonite Central Committee in Bogotá, Colombia, as the coordinator of the Documentation and Advocacy Program for 
Becky Garrison was cited by 
Rev. Amanda Hendler-Voss is the faith communities coordinator at Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), minister of Christian education at First Congregational United Church of Christ in Asheville, North Carolina, and recent author of 
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 
My fingers have been tapping out of control for more than a month and a half now. Don't worry, though -- I am not falling to the symptoms of 
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with 
Shane Claiborne is the author of 
Dr. N.T. Wright is a New Testament theologian and the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England. He is the author of many books, including 
Dr. Graeme Codrington is a researcher, author, presenter and consultant on issues of people strategy. He works internationally from bases in Johannesburg and London, and can be contacted at 
"Speak to the earth, and it will teach you…The life of every creature and the breath of all people are in God's hand". --Job 12: 8, 10 (NCV)
Lindsay Hildebrant is a recent graduate of Adrian College in Adrian, MI with a degree in Environmental Studies, Philosophy and Religion. She is currently interning with the Policy and Organizing Department at Sojourners.
Rev. Omar Hamid Al-Rikabi is a campus minister at the University of Arkansas Wesley Foundation. He is the son of a Muslim father from Iraq and a Christian mother from Texas. He shares his stories on his blog at 
Alexia Kelley is the executive director for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and a member of the 
J. Daryl Byler and spouse Cindy Byler are 
Mary Nelson is president emeritus of 
Two brothers, Jamal* and Khalid,* were arrested randomly in a raid of their neighborhood by Iraqi Special Police Forces, the Palestinian ghetto in Baghdad. They were tortured and forced to confess on a television program to acts of terror they didn't commit. Other Palestinian refugees have been dragged out of their homes and killed.
Peggy Gish is a fulltime worker with 
I write these words from Iraq, where I have worked through the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) since October 2002 - before, during, and since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. CPT attempts to follow Jesus as we seek to reduce violence in conflict areas around the world. In Iraq our team has worked at this by accompanying Iraqi people in dangerous situations, "truth telling" through our reports on the abuse of detainees and other consequences of war and occupation, and training and working along side local organizations on projects of reconciliation and finding nonviolent alternatives to the problems they face. This fall and winter, we have been 
The sorrowful convergence of the fifth anniversary of the war and the observation of the 4000th fallen U.S. soldier in Iraq looms sadly ahead. Soon candles will be lit and vigils held, arguments will ensue as to who was right, and the meaning and value of sacrifice and the chorus of whispers, wails, and anger will be carried on wind sweeping across this country and all the gravestones of war.
Brian McLaren (
In what has been described as the largest cross-border attack since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Turkish military is now into its 6th day of a ground offensive inside the Kurdish region in Iraq. Turkey says the attack is limited to Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) targets, but the ramifications go much farther.
Michele Naar-Obed, lives in Duluth, Minnesota, and is a member of the Loaves and Fishes Catholic Worker Community providing temporary housing to homeless families and individuals. She is a part time volunteer with the 
I was in Lebanon and Syria in January and saw up close the agony of the war.
Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, is a religious leader, attorney, and poet with extensive experience in public policy and advocacy for systemic change. In Washington, she lobbies on issues of peace building and economic justice. In January, she was a member of a delegation of eight Catholic Sisters sponsored by Catholic Relief Services who traveled to Lebanon and Syria to meet with Iraqi refugees, Christian and Islamic leaders, representatives of religious and civil NGOs, U.S. diplomatic personnel, a Syrian Parliament Member, and UNHCR regional representatives.
Rev. Gabriel Salguero is the pastor of the Lamb’s Church of the Nazarene in New York City, a Ph.D. candidate at Union Theological Seminary, and the director of the Hispanic Leadership Program at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also a Sojourners board member.
Silent Night, by Stanley Weintraub, is the story of Christmas Eve, 1914, on the World War I battlefield in Flanders. As the German, British, and French troops facing each other were settling in for the night, a young German soldier began to sing "Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht." Others joined in. When they had finished, the British and French responded with other Christmas carols.
After more than six years of field exercises in some of the most grueling weather our country offers, I am rarely affected by even the most chilling winter rains. Months of accumulated time in the forests of North Carolina, the deserts of California, and the wetlands of Louisiana - training for war has built up in me a bit of immunity to succumbing to the shivers. However, there is one thing that pierces my calloused exterior with ease. 
While volunteering in a legal clinic in my sophomore year of college, interviewing people applying for political asylum in the U.S., I heard a lot of people describe how they had had to leave everything behind and flee into the jungle, carrying children on their backs. 
Anna Almendrala is the marketing and circulation assistant for Sojourners.
In the spirit of tradition and solidarity, the 
Allison Johnson is the policy and organizing assistant for Sojourners.
Shane Claiborne is a 
In some senses Robert Redford is the father of modern independent filmmaking, not to mention the patron saint of Hollywood liberalism – his Sundance Film Festival has launched a couple of dozen major careers, and his concern for progressive environmental policies is well known. And United Artists used to be known for making the kind of movie that entertained and provoked at the same time – from 'In the Heat of the Night' to 'Being There' to 'Rain Man'.
Watch 60 Minutes
I am afraid, but not for the reasons our government is telling me to be afraid. I am afraid that I may wake up one morning soon to discover that our government has launched a preemptive attack on Iran. While our government is issuing national orange alerts about "them," I wonder whether we Christians should be issuing global orange alerts about our own government.
In two recent posts, 
From my blogs this week, readers can rightly conclude that I believe Gen. Petraeus' claims of modest security gains in certain sectors of Iraq do not justify extending the U.S occupation, especially when four years of occupation of Iraq have not produced the political reconciliation that would be necessary for real security and stability. The fragile security improvements are not sustainable without a political solution, which is simply not forthcoming. And without a clear path to political progress, the realization that what Petraeus proposes, and President Bush will likely endorse tonight, is simply more of the same failed strategy, and a scenario of American occupation in the midst of bloody sectarian warfare with absolutely no end in sight.
Nearly a month ago, seven active-duty U.S. Army soldiers in Iraq wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times titled, 
It was a big day for a general on Capitol Hill yesterday, as Gen. David Petraeus made his long-awaited "progress report" to a joint House committee. But one congressman remembered the last time a general's testimony drew such public attention. It was on April 1967 that Gen. William Westmoreland made his speech to Congress about how much progress we were making in Vietnam. Later, in November 1967, the general spoke to the National Press Club saying, "With 1968, a new phase is starting ... we have reached an important point where the end begins to come into view." It was in that speech where we heard the historic phrase about the "light at the end of the tunnel." Then, January 1968 saw the Tet Offensive and the beginning of the painful end of Vietnam.
On Thursday, Sept. 6, 2007, six of us were found guilty in federal court in Albuquerque, New Mexico, by a federal judge for trying to visit the office of our senator. We will be sentenced in a few weeks.
I couldn't sleep after watching last month's Republican presidential forum on August 5. I was especially disturbed by the intersection of two statements made by Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo. Perhaps because he is not in the top tier of Republican candidates, it was easy to consider his statements marginal and negligible, but I believe – completely apart from his presidential aspirations – that his statements should get us thinking, especially those of us who are, like Rep. Tancredo, known as evangelical Christians. 
In an attempt to scare off support for a military exit from Iraq, President Bush 
Last week's announcement that the Bush administration is seeking to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization is the latest drumbeat in an intensifying confrontation that could lead to war. 
In his 
In August, 1945, Fr. George Zabelka, a Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Army Air Forces, was stationed on Tinian Island in the South Pacific. He served as priest and pastor for the airmen who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was discharged in l946. During the next 20 years he gradually began to realize that what he had done and believed during the war was wrong, and that the only way he could be a Christian was to be a pacifist. He was deeply influenced in this process by the civil rights movement and the works of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. 
Earlier this month marked four years since President Bush issued the following brazen pronouncement about our presence in Iraq: "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. 
Ray LaMontagne’s recent album "Till the Sun Turns Black" ends with one of the most beautiful songs about peacemaking I’ve ever heard—in which he simply repeats the refrain "War is not the answer, the answer is within you" over the most delicately lilting instrumentation. It’s the kind of sentiment that could be accused of being too vague to have any practical meaning, but warm and positive enough to be popular. But there’s something about it that feels deeper than that.
For those who'll accuse me of Bush-bashing, the headline was Christianity Today's. Ted Olsen has an interesting 
In the few weeks of the defense authorization debate in the Senate, Republican senators began falling like dominoes—Chuck Hagel (NE), Susan Collins (ME), Richard Lugar (IN), George Voinovich (OH), Pete Domenici (NM), Olympia Snowe (ME), and even John Warner (VA) are looking for a way out, although not all are willing to vote for a withdrawal timetable. The 
We don’t need another election. We need an exorcism. It is this that leads me from vigil to vigil and I burned with it on the evening of March 16, when I participated in nonviolent civil resistance and was arrested with more than 200 others as part of the 
Reading about the 
History does not tend to be kind to Christian theologians who demand war.
The showdown between Congress and the president this month around the funding for the Iraq war isn’t the first of its kind. We’ve been here before, and we need not walk blindly down rhetorical dead ends.
Two events this week should cause all Christians to stop and consider the relationship between truth and war. Both the congressional hearings in the Tillman/Lynch cases and the Bill Moyers PBS special about the media and Iraq point out one of the dimensions of war: lying.
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) is known as the "conscience of the House." He was the young civil rights leader who was beaten, nearly to death, on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on the infamous "Bloody Sunday" that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. John Lewis is a civil rights and Christian hero. As the House of Representatives began debating the war in Iraq this week, here are 
