Ground Zero Sum

An Old Old Story: Ground Zero Sum by An Old Old Story

[soundcloud link; via An Old Old Story; HT: Experimental Theology]

Good Ideas, Good Books



[via Dwindling in Unbelief, in this post]

Thank-you God, for sneaking ever so quietly into this world. Keep being patient with us. {full post}

[via Tim Sean Youmans]

Pretend heroes can be powerful desensitizers.

[via Bene Diction Blogs On]

Conscientious Objectors During World War II

[via Levellers]

“Thou shalt not kill”: thinking about Christian pacifism

[via ThinkChristian.NET]

"Supporting the Troops"

I have long maintained that peace groups, including faith-based peace groups and pacifist churches, need to work with military veterans, especially those involved in military-related peace groups. Many of these military and veterans-related groups are NOT committed to nonviolence as a way of life (although some are–Veterans for Peace is composed of military veterans converted to nonviolence). Most follow some form of Just War Theory and/or celebrate military culture in a way that makes many traditional peace churches and pacifist Christians squirm. Tough. Get over it and get to know these folk as real human beings.

Look, the simple fact is that very few nations (Finland and Costa Rico are exceptions) are doing without standing militaries in the near future. The U.S. has a national culture that celebrates an independance achieved by a military revolution. Our national narrative (somewhat inaccurately) celebrates our military as the defenders of all our cherished freedoms. We honor military service as among the most patriotic and selfless ways of service. None of this is going to change overnight. So, if peace groups want to make a serious impact on foreign policy then, above all, they must not seem contemptuous of the military. Rightwing militarist policies win over more peaceful, or even more realistic, policies time and again by the simple tactic of making peace groups look and sound “anti-soldier.” They constantly paint opposition to militaristic foreign policy as failure to “support the troops.”

[via Levellers]

Abortion, Murder and Pacifism

[via Hopeful Daniel]

...and just to add an illustration...

Cherish Inappropriately, or Honour Inadequately?

There's something very meaningful about the anniversary of Martin Luther King's death falling in Lent. Maybe it's because I've been studying the topic of eucharist as a Meal of Reconciliation, or maybe it's the whole pursuing a cause that you know may end in your death thing, but it just struck me this year as... apt.

I find it difficult to talk about MLK without sounding cheesy. I wrote about Nora[sic] Parks on October 25th, last year, and I'm afraid that I came across like a little star-struck school-kid. I guess it's difficult to speak about something of true meaning without sounding like an unreflective fanatic. And, ironically, that does a real disservice to those people and events that inspire us. It's as tasteless as saying, "Martin Luther King? Yeah, he was cool."

So, that's the difficulty we face: to cherish inappropriately, or honour inadequately? To risk saying too much and being left with empty words, or saying nothing and being left with empty air.

[via Leaving Munster]

War Without, War Within...

In the aftermath of 9/11, Ehren Watada decided to join the U.S. Army specifically to be part of the effort to defend the nation in the "war against terrorism." Already a college graduate with a bright future, Watada was not part of the "poverty draft," but saw himself as a volunteer in a noble cause. Convinced by the Bush administration's case against Iraq, he joined specifically wanting to be deployed in Iraq. But, during officer training school, Watada learned Just War Theory and how it is (supposedly) embedded in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, specifically in the difference between lawful orders, which must be followed, and unlawful orders, which must be refused. Watada also continued to follow the news and was astonished when no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq and, point by point, the Bush administration's case for the invasion (ius ad bellum, "justifications for the war" in JWT terms which must reach the level of a causus belli, a just reason for the war) fell apart.

By the time Watada's unit was to be ordered to Iraq, he came to the conclusion that the war was illegal under both U.S. and international law. Therefore, any order to deploy to Iraq was illegal and any orders he would give as an officer in that deployment would be illegal. So Watada refused to be deployed with his unit. Note carefully: He was not claiming to have become a conscientious objector. One can apply for CO status in the U.S. military (I did over 20 years ago when I became converted to gospel nonviolence), although it is harder to win that status during war time. But Watada had not embraced pacifism and had no objection to military service as such. He volunteered to be sent to Afghanistan (which still seemed justified in his view), instead.

He was charged with several counts of missing troop movements, refusing to follow orders, and conduct unbecoming an officer....

Naturally, a jury could decide that someone like Watada was wrong in application, but if judges rule that one may not even bring up the question of an order's legality, then what is the point of the distinction between lawful and unlawful orders? Deeply embedded in Just War Theory is the concept that unjust wars may not be fought and unjust actions in war must be refused. Is this a "live option" in the U.S. context? If not, can U.S. Christians who hold to JWT join the U.S. military? A "blank check" to the nation agreeing to fight any wars it wants to fight is ruled out by JWT, but is the U.S. effectively asking its citizens in uniform for such a blank check? If so, if adherence to JWT norms is impossible in the U.S. context, can U.S. Christians give it any support? Should they then re-investigate the claims of Christian pacifism?

[via Levellers]

Five Questions Your Pacifist Friends Are Tired of Answering

[via Burnside Writers Collective, HT: Eric at The Wittenburg Door's Chat Closet]

MLK, Vietnam, and Iraq

[via Ponderings on a Faith Journey]

The Hidden King

It is entirely fitting that we in the U.S.A. have a national holiday on the birthday of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), nonviolent warrior for justice and peace. Nevertheless, the WAY we celebrate Dr. King's legacy is usually disappointing: a day off from work for many, coupled with 30-second sound-bites of the 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech at the March on Washington--not even the whole speech and no context. Politicians congratulating themselves that "we have overcome" racism even while we are busy re-segregating our schools because housing patterns remain segregated (de facto, though no longer de jure) and busing is now taboo, and even while the race gap in wages is huge, and African-American and Latino children are now routinely fast-tracked from kindergarten to prison.

Our children have a distorted view of the Freedom Movement, believing that one day Rosa Parks sat down in a 'white' seat on a Montgomery Bus, the next day King gave the I Have a Dream Speech in D. C. and "poof"--segregation disappeared. The numerous campaigns and the struggles of thousands of ordinary people are thus masked. And Dr. King's increasingly radical economic views (calling himself a democratic socialist and working on a Poor People's Campaign that would unite all races to end poverty) and ever stronger opposition to the Vietnam War (which lost him the support of President Lyndon Baines Johnson and even many other civil rights leaders who thought he had no business speaking out on foreign policy), are also hidden.

The tragedy of this is that it is precisely the radical King of 1965-1968 whom we need to remember and look to for guidance today. This was the King who pointed out the connections between government-sponsored violence and the violence of city streets, and who saw the connections between the money spent on war and the money unavailable for economic justice here. This was the King who had to be silenced.

[via Levellers, emphasis mine]

We are free to choose life. We do not value life, as some pro-lifers say, because of innocence.

[via Levellers, HT: Jesus Politics]

Nonviolent 9/11

This day not only marks the five year anniversary of 9|11, it also marks 100 years to the day that Mahatma Gandhi launched the modern nonviolent resistance movement. Completely ironic, isn't it? It makes me wonder where in the world we would be without the shining model Mahatma left for us. Certainly the Civil Rights movement here in the US would have taken on a very different flavor if Dr. Martin Luther King had not emulated Gandhi's movement for nonviolence. But still, I can't help but believe we've made such small strides following in their footsteps. Where are the Gandhis and Dr. Kings of our time? ....

The first lesson [my grandfather] taught me was to understand anger, and being able to channel anger into positive action. He said that anger is like electricity. It is just as useful and just as powerful, if we use it intelligently. It can be just as deadly and destructive, if we abuse it. Just as we channel electricity, bring it into our lives and use it for the good of Humanity, we must learn to channel anger in the same way. We can use that energy for the good of Humanity, rather than abuse it.
~ Arun Gandhi

[via Visual_Voice.NET, HT: Streak's Blog]