posted
However, I think that the thread in general might benefit from some discussion about why your views on Iraq are separate from or different than other views you might have about other issues (unless, of course, they already know).
I’m not sure how to answer that. That’s a pretty open-ended question. I have views on abortion, gay rights, the environment, baseball, computer operating systems, television, movies, bias in the media, democracy, our space program (more robots, fewer humans), political correctness, race relations, American culture, the European Union, unions and business, city planning, state’s rights, the separation of church and state, education (including school choice), gun control, the death penalty, assisted suicide, and even the colorizing of old black and white movies. I should think my views on Iraq might have little connection with my views on NASA. What exactly do you mean, or what are you trying to say?
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad Nelson: [i]Well, Soja, you did post it on a public bulletin board. And you might indeed be surprised by some of my views on other subjects. But yes, on this one concerning Iraq, I am quite predictable and consistent.
posted
I received this from a priest who once directed me on a 5 day Ignatian retreat, info regarding: a protest this coming weekend in Ft. Benning, Ga., which he will be attending. Another old friend of mine, Fr. Roy Bourgeois, from my little home town, has been active in this SOA Watch for decades now. I am proud to call these men friends and feel certain God has indeed raised up many of the voices of prophetic protest we hear today, voices that sometimes even have apparently disparate views. How this could be might be a worthy consideration for this forum.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am proud to call these men friends and feel certain God has indeed raised up many of the voices of prophetic protest we hear today, voices that sometimes even have apparently disparate views. How this could be might be a worthy consideration for this forum.
Nothing wrong with being for peace. I am for peace and for whatever fair and just actions are needed to keep the peace. In my opinion that might include only talking and it might include military action. I think that distinction can be a difficult one to make and these situations are not always as simple as peace advocates might like us to think. But where I think the “Peace” movement really trips up is when they become entangled in politics. What I often see happening is not a real protest for peace, per se, but a rallying around a political idea and using the “peace” label as an attempt to elevate one’s position above the other’s. This is neither good for true peace or for politics. Thus we see, time and again, the conservative Republicans and America in general being attacked with all sorts of half-truths and fabrications, while they ally themselves, in certain cases, with either Democrats of socialists. That is being partisan, not peaceful.
Obviously this does not include all groups and all individuals but I think it represents the loudest ones.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, my friend, Brad, to many of your points.
I learned this saying from Fr. Roy Bourgeois; at least I think it was him: The voice of prophetic protest must come from a very deeply rooted spirituality . This is much like the Thomas Merton quote I posted on another thread, recently (and post every year, somewhere). Heck, let me go grab it again. It deserves a place in this thread to be sure:
quote: "What is this (contemplative prayer) in relation to action? Simply this. He (and she) who attempts to act and do things for others or for the world without this deepening of his own self-understanding, freedom, integrity, and capacity to love, will not have anything to give others. He will communicate to them nothing but the contagion of his own obsessions, his agressiveness, his egocentered ambitions, his delusions about ends and means, his doctrinaire prejudices and ideas."
Thomas Merton,"The Climate of Monastic Prayer"
In the political discourse arena, where ideas are being exchanged, when the battle between ideas turns into a battle between persons and devolves into ad hominem attacks, however explicit or implicit, one might observe two things: 1) the engagement of the ad hominem fallacy and 2) the fruits of the spirit (the WRONG spirit, that is).
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In response to my post - David Krieger's Poem and address to the European Parliament,
Brad responded : 'There are some good reasons that a smart, wise, and compassionate person might be opposed to a war with Iraq. Unfortunately this person doesn't present any of them.'
Phil responded : 'Brad, that statement made at the European Parliament just goes to show the bias and lack of perspective that I think characterizes so much of European thinking . . This is sloppy reasoning, at best . . . hard to understand why such a lack of perspective! I'm tempted to point to anti-Americanism, but that's a rather harsh judgment, I know.'
Here is the man whose smartness, wisdom, compassion and ability to present his reasons are found lacking. Here is the man whose thinking is Eurpean, who is biased and lacks the right perspective, and is possibly anti-American..
David Krieger, the founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, has served as President of the Foundation since 1982. Under his leadership the Foundation has initiated many innovative and important projects for building peace, strengthening international law and abolishing nuclear weapons. Dr. Krieger has lectured throughout the United States, Europe and Asia on issues of peace, security, international law, and the abolition of nuclear weapons.
In his early career he was an Assistant Professor at the University of Hawaii and San Francisco State University. He worked at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions on issues of international law and ocean governance, and at the Foundation for Reshaping the International Order (RIO Foundation) in the Netherlands on the effects of dual-purpose technologies on disarmament, development and the environment.
He is a graduate of Occidental College, and holds MA and Ph.D. degrees in political science from the University of Hawaii as well as a J.D. from the Santa Barbara College of Law. Dr. Krieger serves as a judge pro tem and arbitrator for the Santa Barbara Superior Court. He is a member of the American Society for International Law and the California Bar Association.
Dr. Krieger is the author of many studies of peace in the Nuclear Age. Among the books he has written or edited are Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age; Nuclear Weapons and the World Court; A Maginot Line in the Sky: International Perspectives on Ballistic Missile Defense; Disarmament and Development: The Challenge of the International Control and Management of Dual-Purpose Technologies; Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age, Ideas for Action; Waging Peace II, Vision and Hope for the 21st Century; and The Tides of Change, Peace, Pollution and Potential of the Oceans.
Dr. Krieger is Deputy Chair of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (Germany); a member of the Committee of 100 for Tibet; and a member of the International Steering Committee of the Middle Powers Initiative. He is also a founder and a member of the Global Council of Abolition 2000, a global network of over 2000 organizations and municipalities committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
He serves on the Advisory Council of Free the Children International (Toronto), Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (New York), the International Council of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Israel), the International Institute for Peace (Vienna), the Peace Resources Cooperative (Japan), the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (Sweden), and the War and Peace Foundation (New York. He also serves as a Board Member of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (New York), the Foundation for Conscious Evolution (Santa Barbara), and the Santa Barbara International Academy.
He is a recipient of the Bronze Medal of the Hungarian Engineers for Peace (1995); the Peace Award of the War and Peace Foundation (1996); the Big Canvas Award of Santa Barbara Magazine (1996); the Soka Gakkai International Peace and Culture Award (1997); the Soka University Award of Highest Honor (1997); the Soka Gakkai Hiroshima Peace Award (2000); the Peace Award of the International Journal of Humanities and Peace (2000); the Peace Educator of the Year Award of the Consortium of Peace Research, Education and Development (2001); and the Gakudo Peace Award of the Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation (2001).
posted
Are we debating credentials or ideas? He certainly has more credentials than I do but he apparently is so blinded by his own ideology that he can make a statement such as this:
We must stand up to this bully (Bush) in the name of peace, justice and international law.
Does this not sound strange in the context of Iraq and Saddam Hussein? Do you not see a lack of wisdom, balance and reason? This kind of talk is coming from a peace advocate? From that link you provided earlier, and from which I drew this comment, all I read is criticism of Bush but almost non-existent is any criticism of Saddam. Does this not seem strange from a man truly interested in peace? The effect of his kind of rhetoric, in my humble opinion, does not aid peace because it is not firmly enough grounded in objective truth.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
SJ:
These are meritorious credentials, but the entire U.S. Congress and the British Parliament, as well as other political bodies abroad, are numbered by such dignitaries with scholarly backgrounds and various human rights initiatives. Many of these folks are at the table for discussion before executive decisions are made; their wisdom is consulted, but as Brad pointed out earlier, that wisdom has to show non-violent initiatives to be realistic in the most persuasive, practical, far-reaching ways when the security of our nation is in question (and yes, that includes our interests, which are a huge part of the rest of the world's interests due to the way the U.S. is at the top, middle and bottom of the food chain, like it or not).
I would bet few at Shalom are finding the abstract(versus applied) intelligence of liberal opposition lacking. For myself, as I've read liberal opinion over the months on this issue, there simply hasn't been the kind of persuasive argument made that convinces me war with Iraq is an entirely unjust propostion. There are many serious risks for both abstaining from military action and for going to war. So far the lesser of the two evils seems to be the latter, at least as the only irresistable incentive for disarmament Hussein would buy into. The problem is that some folks won't see this unless Hussein fully disarms or is forced to do so with military action.
And it may be premature to say, but I don't think it is accidental that there has been peace on U.S. and European soil since 911, inspite of all the other terrorist activity abroad. There may very well be more here in the future (which is the global intent of radical Islam regardless of what we do), but the message to terrorist sponsoring countries is clear since then, a message I doubt could have been made convincingly through peace initiatives alone.
Did you see the PBS interview with Jimmy and Rosalind Carter? The Carter Center is involved in crucial, peace making/keeping endeavors around the globe. We need people like Carter and Kissinger making essential contributions, but they wouldn't be drawn into the really crucial discussions if they were viewed as permanent vetos of military initiative; they are, on the other hand, reasoned listeners with a wealth of experiences, both successes and failures, and for these reasons are able to bring their agendas to the table.
IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
These are meritorious credentials, but the entire U.S. Congress and the British Parliament, as well as other political bodies abroad, are numbered by such dignitaries with scholarly backgrounds and various human rights initiatives.
Quite so. Like Victor Davis Hanson, distinguished professor of arts and humanities at Fresno State.
Dr. Hanson revived the Classical Society on campus and organized the Classics Lecture Series. He has an ability to relate the ancient world to current events and societal problems while captivating his students. He is enthusiastic and holds the students’ education above all else. One student commented, "Dr. Hanson makes you want to immerse yourself in the subject and become the best student you can be." In 1991 Dr. Hanson was recognized by the American Philological Association, which awarded him its Award for Excellence in Teaching, the top award in the country for teaching in the field of classics. He also received the University Scholar of the Year Award, presented by Chapter 062, in April 1998. Nominated in February 1999, Dr. Hanson was one of the contenders for the California State University system's most prestigious award, the Wang Family Excellence Award.
Writing in the The National Review online this week, in an article entitled The End of an Era, Dr. Hanson castigates liberals for their double-standards.
E.g., So we have at last arrived at Cloudcuckooland: A hierarchal United States military is more tolerant of liberals in its ranks than liberal universities are of their critics on campus. Republicans support dangerous interventions abroad to remove dictators and free oppressed peoples, as leftist dissidents agitate for hands-off mass murderers and medieval theocrats. A democratic Israel is slandered as imperialistic and fascistic while an authoritarian Palestinian regime is given a pass for theft, murder, and torture.
And lots of other interesting points!
Which only goes to show that anyone can pull out an expert to represent any p.o.v. one wishes. The harder part in all of this is to decide where one's own views lie, and then if one so chooses to express them, to do so respectfully.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
In watching more of the PBS documentary on the presidency of Jimmy Carter, I can see more clearly not only his failures, but how his attempts to embrace the highest of moral values within the political process actually undermined his success in both domestic and foreign affairs. His cabinet members seem to view him in retrospect as someone unwilling to get blood on his hands, or engage in the inevitably ugly and subversive nature of securing global interests. Carter's high character and decency, which the public always thought genuine even when polls showed lower support than Nixon during Watergate, appears to have severely impeded executing his office. Other than bringing the hostages home safely (which he may have originally provoked by giving the Shah safe haven in the U.S.),only the Camp David Accords stand out as a truly significant achievement. His record was so poor that he couldn't run on it against Reagan, and fell back on attacking him for his "trigger happy" propensities.
There is something tragically essential about the president being willing to engage situational morality. To be effective, he must embrace both high moral values as well as sacrifice them when needed for the larger picture (a form of morality itself) where that entails even the loss or deprecation of individual life. What a horribly pragmatic position to be in. No wonder these guys age so quickly. No doubt this same ugly paradox is what other world leaders must face in managing their countries' interests.
This sort of paradox is what overwhelms simplistic approaches to global conflict resolution. And I simply do not see any example in world history where such is not the case for even a single major nation or empire, or even smaller nations attempting to forge and maintain their essential alliances.
Private moral values may simply not translate the way we want them to at these levels where survival struggle is played out in sometimes brutal ways. No one is really supposed to like it, and while keeping in view more transcendent realities anticipates new possibilities and some refinement of more humanitarian means, to get locked down into a kind of absolute religious morality in this pragmatic realm is as dangerous as purely intentional brutality.
posted
Sometimes, perhaps we are not so much sacrificing one value for another, one good thing for something perhaps better, vis a vis a proportionalistic morality ... sometimes we are merely sacrificing our sanctimonious self-image and how it may be perceived by the masses and recorded in the history books. At least that is what often drives me, in my worse moments
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
David Krieger happens to speak on behalf of the legal profession, who specialise in international law. Leaving the objections of Church leaders who ordinarily support a just war aside, the Bush administration could NOT find even a single member of the legal profession, who specialises in international law, to supply them with a loophole to support a 'self-defensive-first- strike-war'. Would the Bush administration have dreamed of waiting so long and gone through the complicated, time consuming UN procedure if there had been a straight legal basis to their initial plan?
This discussion is real because it is about real people and real life events. Talk of a God one has not seen, is an abstract, intellectual discussion in comparison. For a website that encourages and supports Christian contemplative spirituality, I find it ironic that I should have to fight so hard to put my views on non-violence across. Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama etc. are all other worldly, inefficient weaklings, who don't understand the first thing about politics. Buddha and Jesus Christ and their teachings of course appear nothing less than ludicrous on this forum!
posted
- Rather long post: something of a "position statement" stirred up by the exchanges above.
w.c., that post of yours above is just very fine, and points up the problems in attempting to translate moral ethics from the private to political sphere. This is not new, however, as we see the history of the Jews in the Old Testament revealing some of the same paradoxes: to take possession of the land to which God has led them, they must drive the inhabitants out--even kill them, at times. It's all too easy to pass this off as some kind of immature, tribal consciousness with an anthropomorphic war-God leading the charge, but then one is led to Job 38 - 41, whereafter one can only say that we don't really understand how God really works in history--through the details, for sure, but also through the large, sweeping, general movements.
One of the ways I understand history is that it is not merely a Darwinian competition for resources, but a struggle of ideas. Human beings live by ideas, not just instincts. We organize ourselves according to ideas, laws are expressions of ideas, etc. It frequently happens in our personal lives that our ideas clash with those of other individuals, and it's not always easy to find a way to co-exist because of that sometimes. Often there are fights about this--even divorces. Some ideas seem to promote healthy, harmonious relationships; others seem to detract. When we extend the analogy to conflicts between politico-economic systems, it's no small waonder that the sparks sometimes fly when they come into conflict.
I view all this as a necessary part of human history working itself out. At this time, the U.S. is the harbinger of the democratic-capitalistic system of ideas. I think Michael Novak has done a marvelous job of demonstrating the strengths of this approach and its connections with Catholic social teachings. (When the papal encyclical, Centesimus Annus, appeared in 1991, it was evident that Novak’s writings had been favorably received by Pope John Paul II. In Centesimus Annus, the Pope views the free market as the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs, explains the moral foundations of the market economy, and repudiates the idea of a third way between capitalism and socialism. . . ) Obviously, there is a shadow side to this system, as we know too well, but what I find most encouraging about our system is that it provides the means for self-correction through its free press and the existence of a moral-cultural level which is free to critique the political and economic levels.
Democratic capitalism is incompatible with other politico-economic systems, in varying degrees: e.g. communism, facism, theocracies, and even democratic socialism. Sometimes there are middle grounds where these systems can interact; sometimes not. Sometimes these other systems pose a great threat to ours; sometimes a lessor, or even minor one. It is absolutely essential that a U.S. President recognize the role he must play as leader of the democratic capitalist system of ideas. He must work to protect the freedoms which make this system work, and must also attempt to preserve the integrity of this system by discouraging monopolies, economic fraud and corruption, and anything which ultimately distorts free trade, free press, and the freedom of the moral-cultural level to critique the other levels. Obviously, there needs also be consideration for protection from nations and groups who wish to violently oppose our system and undermine its strength through terrorist tactics.
If we cannot see this big picture of history and the role entrusted at this time to the U.S. President, then it's pretty easy to lose the forest for the trees. I'm afraid that was Jimmy Carter's achilles' heal. This is not meant as a criticism of this good, moral, holy, peace-loving man, who deserves every award and accolade given him. It's to note that he failed in many ways to advance the cause of democratic capitalism, or at least to prevent its deterioration. He couldn't grasp the morality implied by the "big picture" as he'd get lost in the details of its implications. So the hostages sat in Iran for months, the U.S. began to be perceived as a wimpy nation, the U.S.S.R. felt free to invade Afghanistan and laughed when Carter's response was to boycott the Olympics, the Arab world perceived us as weak and wimpy, and all sorts of other repercussions followed. I'm not blaming Carter completely for everything that has happened since in Afghanistan, but I don't think he can totally excuse himself and his administration from this mess. To me, many of his constant criticisms of President Bush come across as hollow, tasteless, and hypocritical.
The big picture is a hard thing to grasp, and a messy one to manage. It's almost as though systems of ideas and the nations which carry them forward must be treated as individual entities. When viewed in this manner, the principles of personal morality can be applied--boundary-setting, negotiation, and ultimately, self-defense, if required. Consequences to the "system" are of first concern, and, by extension, to the individuals who inhabit that system--ours and the others. But a President must make decisions in behalf of the good of the nation/system "on the whole," and this means that there are sometimes harmful consequences to parts of the system, to others systems, and of course, to individuals. To NOT act in behalf of the good of the nation/system because of the possible or likely consequences to individuals is to fail in one's duty to care for the system--and, in the long run, to even fail to protect the individuals one is supposedly considering compassionately.
I will share here my optimistic view that through all of this, the reign of God is coming to birth in human history. . . that truth, goodness, justices, and love are advancing, and will win the day. The resurrection of Jesus guarantees this, though we don't exactly know how it will come to fruition. We may be closer to this global realization than we think; it might be centuries away. Who knows? In the meantime, there continues this competition in the realm of ideas, some of which further the reign of God more than others, I am also convinced.
I will say without hesitation that I believe democratic capitalism is more compatible with Jesus' teaching than any other politico-economic system--especially when informed by a spiritually healthy moral-cultural level. I will also say that I am glad that our system is backed by the largest, most-potent military in history, as this unquestionably helps to guarantee, in part, that it won't be over-run by enemies of freedom. Perhaps there will come a day when we won't need such militaries; I hope so. But that time is not now.
[ November 13, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a website that encourages and supports Christian contemplative spirituality, I find it ironic that I should have to fight so hard to put my views on non-violence across.
I don’t quite understand your comment of “I should have to fight so hard to put my views on non-violence across”. No one is stopping you from airing your views. Thank goodness we can all do so. That some of us have contrary views or are not yet persuaded by your views is a different matter.
Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama etc. are all other worldly, inefficient weaklings, who don't understand the first thing about politics.
Despite current cynicism towards politicians, I do not view having political skills as making anyone impure. Gandhi was heavily involved in politics. His particular “platform” was one of non-violence. The other men are/were remarkably gifted at influencing public opinion and show/showed great political skill at times.
Some of what we have been discussing has already become a moot point. The U.N. Security Council has voted 15-0 to basically back up the use of force should Saddam not allow rigorous inspections. While I think the U.N. is a flawed and terribly biased organization, the forms of the U.N. are being followed, for better or for worse. One must remember that the U.N. is not a country but an agreement between sovereign nations. That the United States should have influence over this agreement is the way it should be.
Because much of the “peace” movement tends to focus its criticism on the United States and George Bush, and hardly even mentions the name of Saddam Hussein, it lacks credibility – at least in my eyes. As a principle, non-violence should apply as much to Saddam as it does to the United States if the principle is to have any meaning at all. To have it applied unequally, particularly since Saddam is an unequivocally violent despot, is, at the very least, puzzling. Perhaps there would be protests against Saddam if they were allowed inside his country. But there is certainly no prohibition against them outside his country.
I think any effective means of spreading the message of peace and non-violence has to maintain a rigorous connection with the truth. Doing violence to the truth in the cause of non-violence is contradictory and counter-productive. Gandhi used non-violence quite effectively in India. He was able drew a stark contrast with the injustice that was being meted out by the British and thus made a huge human AND political statement. If I was thoroughly convinced of the efficacy of non-violence, then in this current situation between Iraq and the world I’m not quite sure what I’d do. Does one go to Iraq and put one’s life on the line in order to paint a contrast with Saddam? That just seems like suicide since, as a matter of course, Saddam exterminates those who oppose him. I would say that a few more deaths by his hand isn’t going to make any more of a point, isn’t going to tell us anything more about the man that we don’t already know. Outside of Iraq peaceful demonstrations can flourish, in part, because they are not prohibited. I wonder if this is just a case of all the frustration being vented at another party because that other party actually allows it.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil, that was an absolutely stunning and superb editorial. I would seriously recommend you send it off to The National Review Online.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
This discussion is real because it is about real people and real life events. Talk of a God one has not seen, is an abstract, intellectual discussion in comparison.
I don't understand your point. We shouldn't talk about God because we haven't seen God?
You also keep avoiding discussion of what it's like for "real people" to be living in Iraq facing the prospect of another 20 or more years of S. Hussein, not to mention all the real people who would be hurt by his WMD.
For a website that encourages and supports Christian contemplative spirituality, I find it ironic that I should have to fight so hard to put my views on non-violence across. Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama etc. are all other worldly, inefficient weaklings, who don't understand the first thing about politics. Buddha and Jesus Christ and their teachings of course appear nothing less than ludicrous on this forum!
I'm beginning to wonder if the proponents of non-violence can discuss anything without insulting their dialogue partners. Seriouly! This is a problem I see not only on this forum, but all around the Internet.
-------
I've read all of Tolstoy's and Thoreau's works (how many people can say that?), most of Gandhi, and copious amounts of literature on non-violence. I even wrote a novel once with characters holding different positions and interacting in different scenarios to help me understand this principle. In my life, as well, it's a first option to resolving any situation, as I believe it should be in international affairs as well. Indeed, I don't know anyone on this forum who has suggested otherwise.
Re. Gandhi and King: great leaders and prophets! But can you and all the countless people who constantly hold them up in every situation please recognize that the ONLY reason they were effective is because they were operating in systems in which the leaders held themselves accountable to their own laws? How well do you think Gandhi would have fared in Iraq? Pol Pot's Cambodia? Mao's China? How many newspapers would have reported his actions? What kind of transformation of consciousness could have happened without a free press following him around?
Your comments about Jesus and Buddha are thrown in as to suggest that some of us aren't being very faithful to the teachings of our religious leaders. I can't speak for Buddhists, who might well be total pacifists, but I can say that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Please recall that, for Catholics (and I think you consider yourself one), the Church is considered the mystical body of Christ, and so its teaching on this matter cannot be discounted as "non-Christian." That's absurd! While I respect the positions of those in peace Churches, I do wonder how they ever came to the conclusion that non-violence is an absolute value--that violence is never justified for any reason under any circumstances! That doesn't make sense to me.
Finally, you allude to this web site and its emphasis on Christian contemplative spirituality. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything except, again, there is the implication (widespread, I know) that a Christian contemplative must-needs be a total pacifist. I don't accept that, nor do I accept that love and compassion are violated when one uses violence as a last resort to oppose a greater evil according to the norms of the just war theory. I'm well within the Catholic tradition--even its contemplative tradition--in taking this position.
I find it ironic that I should have to fight so hard to put my views on non-violence across.
I think what you're really saying is I find it ironic that I should have to fight so hard for my views on non-violence to prevail. Why? Because no one has placed any obstacles to your expression of opinions. You and shanti and others are more than welcomed to engage in the dialogue. But I will insist, now, that this be done respectfully, and at the level of ideas, if possible. See my post above for why I think this is so important.
[ November 13, 2002, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. St. Romain, your position statements, hereinabove, deserve a wide audience. Your ability to charitably engage alternate positions, which are riddled with the abusive ad hominem and a host of other logical fallacies, is impressive.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
JB:
Good point about the difference between the sanctimonious image of morality and morality itself. Protecting a nation's survival interests is certainly a transfer of individual moral precepts to the collective level, and is a conscience-stricken agenda for the regrettable loss of life involved, in which every attempt is made to reduce casualties.
Phil: I concur with Brad about you post; it is excellent and should be shared beyond this forum. Please consider doing that.
Hussein has acquiesced to UN demands, not surprisingly, since it is his only way of maintaining despotic rule. I'd bet pacifists would never admit this were achieved by Bush's hard line with the UN and Iraq. It goes back to Brad's critique: Saddam's despotism isn't addressed, which would expose the weakness of a purely non-violent initiative, since there was never any room for less than vehement negotiations.
Be prepared, though, for more insipid protests from narrow-minded liberals if and when there is more terrorist activity on US or European soil, misrepresented as military force abroad provoking threats to our own survival. It is perhaps hopeless that these folks will every engage the issue for its ugly complexity and seriously look at the cultural roots of terrorism and how it is driven primarily by the need to destroy globalized western democratic influence.
When I think of Jesus and how he might respond to our current crisis, a picture of him clearing out the temple comes to mind. He used his supernatural powers to escape numerous violent encounters, protecting his disciples and probably others as well. And his not engaging the Roman Empire isn't about a pacifist view, but allowing his own life to be drawn into the flow of fallen humanity, resulting in his essential death. What he achieved is the basis for transforming institutions from the inside-out. And when he said "Blessed are the peacemakers" he obviously meant those who had the wisdom and skill to procure actual change, not simply those that beleaguer the opposition with their ideals.
quote:Hussein has acquiesced to UN demands, not surprisingly, since it is his only way of maintaining despotic rule. I'd bet pacifists would never admit this were achieved by Bush's hard line with the UN and Iraq.
George W. Bush deserves TOTAL credit for getting the U.N. to do its duty and, hopefully, see it through until the end. But you're right; he'll never be given any credit for this by some groups because he's a conservative and a Republican and therefore in legion with the devil!
---------
I appreciate the kind remarks about my essays above, but just haven't the time these days to pursue wider dissemination of that piece, which would require considerable editing for almost any publication. There really aren't many places where one can speak about democratic capitalism and its relation to the reign of God and the role of the U.S. President without getting tarred and feathered. Good thing I have a friendly relationship with the moderators of this forum.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to introduce the idea that Pacificism should not simply be dismissed as kooky or misguided, that there are different degrees or types of Pacifism. Few would find absolute pacifism philosophically tenable; the pacifist who claims that he has no duty to intervene in saving others’ affairs treads a precarious moral path. The absolute pacifist has to justify not retaliating or defending himself or others (innocents or not) in the face of aggression. This makes little sense. But it is not fair to dismiss all pacifism using this silly strawman.
There are those of us who prefer peaceful conditions to war but who accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace. Maybe those of you who hold the Catholic Just War Theory fall into this category. You, too, might be considered pacifists. However, in a sense, this is a further step away from my own conditional pacifism which rules out war or the use of force except in very exceptional circumstances. It amounts to a substantial raising of the bar for justification of violence and war.
I am against any war on Iraq that is not fully sanctioned by the United Nations and it is quite possible that, because of all the bartering that was done in catering to the special interests of the various members of the United Nations Security Council, such as what's in it for Russia or what's in it for Syria and such, even a UN sanctioned war effort may be immoral and violate the norms of my own conditional pacifism. How many of these nations were bribed for their votes or, another way of looking at it, even extorted?President Putin may be looking for US guarantees that a future Iraqi government would honour its debt to Russia of about $8billion for past purchases of weapons and other goods. Syria could use the opportunity to press for the return of the Golan Heights from Israel. President Mubarak's country receives $2bn a year in US aid. Jordan is dependent on Iraq for its entire domestic oil needs. The potential for serious arm-twisting is profoundly disturbing. This is no matter for hidden agendas.
While conditional pacifism admits that the enactment of duties cannot be considered in isolation, for they may overlap and hence require a conditional acceptance or a moral weighing, the above-listed items, which have been improperly linked to the crisis, should not be placed in the balance when such a moral weighing is done.
Nonetheless, for the conditional pacifist, the duty to uphold peace and non-violence may conflict with the duty to save or defend lives against aggression, if the latter duty is accepted. Therefore, in cases of supreme emergencies the duty to peace may be trumped by alternative ethical requirements. Are we in a supreme emergency?
In the case of conditional pacifism, each particular act, war, battle, etc., is examined from the moral perspective of what outcome is likely to produce more favorable results. Accordingly, whilst the pacifist may claim that wars generally do not produce more favorable results, in specific examples they can be acceptable. Such examples may include wars of self-defense, or wars of intervention to protect a people from genocidal campaigns. Why isn't the US in Africa where genocidal rampages have decimated peoples? How are we engaging in self-defense from Iraq? Have they threatened anyone in ten years?
I think we're probably not that far apart at all in our views. In fact, I don't know who would take issue with your proposal for a war as last-and-only-last resort, and your point about "raising the bar" for such determination is well-taken. I'm wondering why you consider that pacifism, however; it seems to me to be virtually the same position as the just-war theory.
It's difficult to imagine the U.N. being bribed and bullied into taking a stand against Iraq, however--especially nations like France, Russia and even Syria!!
But, just for the sake of discussion on a point we'll probably need to face eventually, what do you think *should* be done if it is discovered that Iraq is in violation of the terms of settlement of the 1991 Gulf War--e.g. that they *do* possess WMD, or that they don't really allow complete unfettered access to possible weapons sites?
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Noah:
You've stated your view clearly, a more flexible and reasonable one than radical pacificism at all costs under all conditions. But when you describe the use of Just War as the very last resort, I'm still left wondering how this can be assessed, since most wars fall short of this criterion before they are waged, with appropriateness left not only to the evaluation of historians but to various "spoils" which entangle all nations in such an event.
My struggle hasn't been to identify ideals, but how to even begin realistically imagining their application in the most practical of global contexts. I end up left with a kind of situational morality that leaves much to be desired on the personal level, but often best approximates the cruder realities which make this world such a volatile place. Where that basic chaos becomes violence is a quagmire region where ethics and morality are often stripped of their nobler qualities by interests that usually appear extraneous to the just cause. And so its frustrating to discuss ethical models that may be scholarly sound, or even workable on the job, in the home, etc.. but don't seem to hold up nearly as well under broader more complex contexts.
. Shalom Place
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
