Nonviolence
International Justice and War (or Why Every Country Should Invade the United States)
11/05/07 10:41 Categories: Politics
I have a hard time with the Iraq war. I know that many people do. The cost alone scares me. The claims that we are making those folks lives better, or saving them from an evil regime seem preposterous. Reports that Hussein had offered to leave the country into exile are scary. These things seem to iterate the United States’ supremacist view of itself as the holy protector of the world. We consider our way the best way, the only way (we do allow countries with a parliamentary system to be our friends too). This sort of pride is alarming and cannot be easily fixed. In a minor plug, I feel like Obama would be the best next leader of our country, with a proper amount of humility and compassion for others to counter our current trend.
My real point here, though, is this fellow and the international actions against him:
.
Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran, and a fairly foolish man. He hates the Jewish people, as many conservative Muslims do, and he is currently trying to get nuclear power, and probably nukes, for his country. The International community is doing everything possible to stop him. It is interesting that the international community consists of countries who all have nukes, and who all can very easily wipe out ahmadinejad’s country without a second thought. The United States have about 7500 active nuclear weapons - ranged all over the world on subs, in the United States, and in a few select bases overseas.
Moreover, we have recently attacked a country on the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction. I do not support Ahmadinejad’s ideology, but the injustice of his situation is interesting. My solution is not to enable him to get nukes. My suggestion is that we get rid of more of ours, both as a sign of good will to all of life and also as a means of reducing our inherent threat to countries without nukes. Lastly, in order to gain respect on the world stage and close attention from the United States and other economic superpowers like the EU and China, a country needs to get nukes or move in that direction. We would be completely ignoring Iran right now if not for the nuclear situation.
However, to contradict myself, I am not sure what gives us, the United States, the right to nuclear technology and knowledge and not others. It seems that part of the inalienable rights that we give to ourselves (or claim to give to ourselves) we deny to others. It is also interesting that in the midst of global warming, etc., we should probably be helping others attain the cleaner resource of nuclear power. (On the subject of its disposal, I continue to suggest sending it to the sun, where ‘nuclear waste’ is constantly being generated and destroyed. There is about 148,000,000 kg of nuclear waste on earth.)
So, what is my point? That our hypocrisy is reaching new and disturbing levels. Instead of setting the example, both internationally and for the common good, we are attempting to mandate actiions by others and rely upon our ever weakening economy.
|
Nonviolence
I am reading an excellent book by Mark Kurlansky entitled Nonviolence. Kurlansky writes, “The first clue… on the subject of nonviolence, is that there is no word for it…. while every major language has a word for violence, there is no word to express the idea of nonviolence except that it is not another idea, it is not violence.” There is, essentially, no ideological embodiment of nonviolence in language. Even the idea of peace is not the same as nonviolence, but it can suffice for this example. Imagine a world where instead of having war, we had ‘nonpeace’.Kurlansky is quick to point out that nonviolence is not the same as pacifism, which is associated with being passive. Nonviolence is a political means to an end, just as violence is, but it refuses to dehumanize others. Essentially, it tries to take seriously every great religions’ teaching of love your neighbor. If you do love your neighbor you will not invade, you will not wage war, you will not steal or cheat. The reason that we do invade, steal, bomb, kill is because we love ourselves more than our neighbors.The counter argument is an argument of justice. If you truly wish to love your neighbor then you must reveal the consequences of their actions. Thus when Iraq invaded Kuwait, we were loving not only Kuwait but showing Iraq tough love by invading. This is identified as the myth of redemptive violence: that performing a violent action can bring about nonviolent results.It is interesting that the first Christians never used the symbol of the cross, the symbol of violence against Jesus. They used the fish. That was their understanding of what Christianity was: following a fisherman, which often meant going to a cross. Now we follow the Christ of the cross, with few of us (in the West) ever going to one ourselves.
More on Nonviolence
A few quotes from Kurlansky’s book:
“The early Christians are the earliest known group that renounced warfare in all its forms and rejected all its institutions.”
“For 284 years… Christians remained an antiwar cult. Christian writers emphasized the incompatibility of warfare with Christian teachings.”
“Active practitioners of nonviolence are always seen as a threat, a direct menace, to the state.”
“…once the state embraces a religion, the nature of that religions changes radically. It loses its nonviolent component and becomes a force for war rather than peace. The state must make war, because without war it would have to drop its power politics and renege on its mission to seek advantage over other nations, enhancing itself at the expense of others. And so a religions that is in the service of a state is a religion that not only accepts war, but prays for victory. From Constantine to the Crusaders to the contemporary American Christian right, people who call themselves Christians have betrayed the teachings of Jesus while using His name in the pursuit of political power.”
Peace
01/14/08 16:10 Categories: Theology
Sometimes we think that peace is a state where there is no disagreement. Reality is necessarily far from such ideas. If peace is the disappearance of disagreement, then it is a reality that will never ever be possible. Peace is neither a lack of discussion. Not only is disagreement a reality, but for real peace then the conversations which highlight the root of the conflict must be engaged upon.
So what is peace when there is deep, even never ending, disagreement? I suppose peace then must be rooted in respect. That respect can be rooted in a great many things, but hopefully humanizing the other is enough. That is, refusing to dehumanize those who we disagree with is one of the main routes to peace. Instead of allowing ourselves to see those that we disagree with as foolish, irrational, or idiotic, we realize that there are aspects of our own thought processes that are foolish, irrational, and even sometimes idiotic.
I suppose the second necessity to peace is humility: the humility to admit that we do not have truth locked up in our own little box. Others have glimpsed truth, and are even living it out as well as they can. Thus the seeming ridiculous statement must be understood: even Hitler did not understand himself as evil. He thought that his goal was noble, pure and desirable.Is there a possibility of peace with the likes of Hitler? There seem to be two options: (1) hurt him before he hurts us; (2) allow him to hurt us. This is never a light and easy decision: the effects of both are disastrous. If we engage with (1), then we are forced to dehumanize the Hitlers of the world, which is exactly the evil which they are engaging in. This quickly leads to a discussion of whether the means justifies the ends. Does killing lead to peace? It seems that it only can when that killing is an annihilation of the other, otherwise there is some offspring of the violence, some relative or friend who has a vengeance to seek. Annihilation or nothing seems to be the only answer.
I suppose what really needs to be thought about is (1) how could Germany change so quickly? It seems that most people realized quickly, or maybe they always knew it, that the Aryan pursuit was very wrong. (2)What is it that allows humans to do so much wrong to others, particularly when commanded by someone ‘higher up’? (3) How do we, as peacemakers, re-teach humanity, or maybe just call attention to the humanity of the ‘other’ (the one being killed, i.e., the Jews)? What methods/actions have done that in the past? Most often the most effective actions seem to be real nonviolent resistance. When I allow you to do wrong to me, then I have been as fully human as I can: No one has greater love than this, to give up their life for a friend. That may be recognizing everyone else as my friend and refusing to kill, but to be killed instead in their place.
Do the means justify the ends?
I am surprised by how often this simple idea comes to bear. Do the means justify the ends? Does the result justify how we get to it? I suppose this concept is most easily broken up into its three main linguistic groups: the subject, verb and direct object.
The Ends
It is fascinating how those who would vehemently deny this ideology are tempted by it when the ends are so productive and positive. When the end enables solving world hunger, when it reduces violence by preventative means (phone tapping), or other such positives. Sometimes the ends are so attractive, that the means become irrelevant. In evaluating the means, should we take into account the ends? There is necessity in teleological thinking, particularly in terms of moral development, but for any goal minded individual. If the ends of decisions are not considered, then the means are completely unimportant. The ends are, ultimately, the goal. (Although the means are exceedingly important, they must be secondary otherwise no direction, progress or organized movement could be achieved. Even BASE communities, house churches, and the most organic organizations have a mission.) So, the question then is not “Do the means justify the ends?”, but “What sorts of means are acceptable for the ends that we have in mind?”
The Means
We most often think of means in terms of direct actions that conclude in results. I want to suggest the means as more intimately connected with the character of the individual or organization which is pursuing some sort of telos. The ends and the means are so tightly connected together that they cannot be taken apart to evaluate separately. The means dictate the sorts of ends that are possible to achieve. Peace cannot be achieved with a sword. Love cannot be attained by coercion. The sorts of means we engage directly defines the sorts of ends that result.
The Justification
This idea of the entwined nature of means and ends leads to a reinterpretation of justification. Justification is not solely focused on the result, but on the way to achieve that result. This is part of the ideas of being vs. becoming. The becoming is the end: who we are becoming is intensely important, but who we are now (our being) defines in part who we become. (I leave here only a mention of the supernatural, though at the moment I am unsure how God works in these ways.) So, if one wants to become a virtuous person, or if a community wants to engage in peace and reconciliation, or if a nation desires economic justice and international cooperation, how they are acting in the present defines how those teleological goals will or can come into being.
Sacrifices of War
05/27/08 14:44 Categories: Theology
“The greatest sacrifice of war is not the sacrifice of life, great as such a sacrifice may be, but rather the sacrifice of our unwillingness to kill. That sacrifice, that is, the sacrifice of our unwillingness to kill, is why war is at once so morally compelling and morally perverse.”
- Stanley Hauerwas, “Sacrificing the Sacrifices of War”, CTR, Spring 2007, pp 77-96
- Stanley Hauerwas, “Sacrificing the Sacrifices of War”, CTR, Spring 2007, pp 77-96