Some of the Afghan soldiers I worked with at the airport
My next couple of posts will be talks I gave at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tullahoma. This talk preceded a discussion and vote by our church on a proposed Statement of Conscience (SOC) for the Unitarian Universalist Association. At the end of this post I will provide links to the proposed SOC, as well as links providing more information on the whole process.
As you read, please remember that I don’t read these word for word when I speak. Rather, this serves as an outline for me to present my talk. Therefore, it may not be as polished as my other writings, because it was not meant to be.
After the service, we had an excellent discussion, and voted by a large majority to reject this as written. Since ours is a democratic religion, policy must be approved by the churches. I’ll be interested to see how the final vote turns out for the Association.
That ends my introduction. I now present “Is War Immoral?” from our 4 Jan 09 Service. Enjoy!
--------------------
War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.
- Jimmy Carter
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
- Mahatma Gandhi
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
- John Stuart Mill
The title of this talk is “Is War Immoral?” Undoubtedly many of you already have firm opinions on this. I will share my thoughts as a prelude to discussing the proposed Statement of Conscience during our talkback. I suspect this will stir passions more than any topic we’ve discussed over the last couple of years. I’m sure we won’t all agree at the end of the day. But hopefully we will have a worthwhile discussion, causing us all to think seriously and deeply about the topic. At the end of the talkback we will vote on the SOC, as to whether it is ready to be presented at the next GA for a full vote. If we reject it as written, we may make comments and suggestions for revision. This act of participation and democracy within our association is very important, and I think the next two hours exemplify the uniqueness of our religion.
It is probably agreed by all of us that there are certainly many immoral wars, including wars our country has participated in. This probably doesn’t need much discussion. The larger issue is, “Can there be a justified war?” When looking at this issue, WWII is usually used as an example of a justified war, since the Nazis are generally regarded as some of the most evil folks to ever gain so much power. It used to be fashionable to overlook the equally vile nature of Stalin’s reign. After all, he was on our side, right? However, this reluctance passed, and now it is not a stretch to rank Stalin above Hitler in the ranks of the Evil.
It is important to note that WWII wasn’t just thrust upon us with no warning. The seeds of WWII were sewn at the end of WWI with the treaty of Versailles. Germany was driven into poverty by reparations, as well as national humiliation by being forced to take all the blame for the war, opening the way up for Adolph Hitler to come to power. Yet WWI was an utterly unnecessary war. It was apparent that all the major European powers were merely looking for an excuse to fight.
Yet tracing the roots of Nazism to its beginnings did not solve the problem of their existence in 1939. What should our nation’s response have been to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Japanese alliance with Germany? Less well know, but equally evil were the Japanese atrocities committed in China before Pearl Harbor. For instance, in 1937, The Japanese conquered the city of Nanking. After all Chinese troops were driven out, between 200,000-300,000 civilians were murdered, and over 80,000 women were raped, and then murdered through mutilation. Yet these events were not well known in the US, and even if they were, they would not have driven us to war, any more than the atrocities being committed in Africa involve us today.
When faced with such evil, we have two choices, pacifism and war. Diplomacy had already failed, and was not an option on 7 December, 1941. At this point in history, with all the blunders and mistakes that had come before, the US was faced with a choice, fight or submit to evil. Let’s take a look at Pacifism and Justifiable War.
Pacifism:
Perhaps the most famous proponent of pacifism was Mahatma Gandhi. Through his non-violent opposition to British occupation and rule of India, India eventually gained its freedom. Gandhi was consistent in his beliefs, but that doesn’t make him right. Listen to his views on WWII:
Concerning the Jews:
"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knfe," he said. "They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
Louis Fisher, Gandhi's biographer asked him: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?"
Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been heroism."
To the British:
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have which are useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.
The words speak for themselves. I disagree with his pacifism. I don’t believe it is moral to stand by while the innocent suffer at the hands of evil.
War:
It is not possible to lump every war, every act of violence, into one simple, neat, category. Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, uses a mental exercise to illustrate the differences in societies and individuals who go to war. He takes to task those who compare George Bush to Saddam Hussein, or Bin Laden, or Hitler). Imagine if a perfect weapon were developed. This weapon would only hit your target. There would be no collateral damage. What would each of these men do with such a weapon? If they could kill only those they targeted, who would they kill? As much as you may disagree with George Bush on policies, do you seriously think he would use such a weapon in the same way these other men would? I hope not. (143)
As stated in the proposed Statement of Conscience, James Luther Adams, UU theologian, urged US military action against Nazi Germany. He had lived in Germany during the early days of the Third Reich, and saw violence used as a tool of state. This was a justifiable war in his mind. I would concur.
Let me state here that those who support the concept of a justifiable war would agree with pacifists that war is a terrible thing, and never to be desired. But there are times when not fighting will lead to greater harm, greater injustice, than going to war. But more often that not, wars we have been involved in were for economic gain, expansionism, or the result of idiotic leadership determined to fight as a mater of principle.
It is certainly better to work from the earliest stages of any potential conflict trying to deal with the underlying issues, rather than looking to force early as the main tool to be used. We have been sadly remiss at times in our history in this regard. But there are times, regardless of how we arrived at the current state, where the options are severely limited. Total pacifistic submission is one option always available, and opposition, including violent opposition, is another. I think the Peacemaking Statement of Conscience does a good job of providing both the history and background of UU views on war, and providing steps we can take on all levels to work towards more effective peacemaking.
I will close with one observation on the Statement of Conscience itself, and when we return for discussion, I look forward to your imputs. The SOC opens with these two sentences:
War is abhorrent. Violence is reprehensible.
Let’s look at the some defintions:
Abhorrent - Disgusting, loathsome, or repellent
Reprehensible - Deserving rebuke or censure; blameworthy
How does this jive with lines 72-74 of the Statement of Conscience, which read thus:
If force is ever to be used, it must be in the service of ending violence of much greater magnitude. We support our military personnel who have made the decision to engage in such service.
How can we support military personnel if they are engaged in acts that are abhorrent and reprehensible? I find the two sections contradictory. This is a shame, because an otherwise thoughtful document starts off with absolute statements that don’t hold up under scrutiny. That’s my input, I look forward to yours.
----------------
Links:
Peacemaking
http://www.uua.org/socialjustice/issuesprocess/currentissues/peacemaking/index.shtml
Draft Statement of Conscience
http://www.uua.org/socialjustice/issuesprocess/currentissues/peacemaking/121606.shtml
PDF version of the Statement of Conscience with each line numbered for reference:
http://www.uua.org/documents/csw/pm_soc_0811_draft.pdf
Information on voting:
http://www.uua.org/socialjustice/issuesprocess/currentissues/56346.shtml
