Bri, Yum-Yum, and Ko-Ko
The semester draws quickly to a close, and I am about to finish my first year at Vanderbilt Divinity School. It has been illuminating in many ways, and I have made a few good friends. I have really enjoyed my classes, Ancient Goddesses and War and Religion. In fact, at the end of this post, you will find a sermon I wrote as one of my assignments. What have I learned? In a nutshell, I see ever more clearly how ancient religions borrowed from each other, ideas flow from one society to another, and despite fundamentalist claims, neither Judaism nor Christianity were unique and free from outside influence. This is not to mock either religion, but those who practice either need to be honest with themselves; much of what they believe is simply a part of the evolution of religious thought and practice. I also learned that all the monotheistic scriptures are filled with passages to justify war, and there is nothing peaceful about Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. Read my sermon below if you want to learn more. Although I was very interested in learning more about pacifism and non-violent resistance, our class spent way too much time looking at scriptures to explain these ideas (very difficult to do, I might add, without ignoring many other passages). We did not spend any time studying Gandhi. What a waste. Vanderbilt is too Christian for me, yet I don’t really have other alternatives, so I plan to keep going.
Jancy holding Molly
We have four new Pomeranians we are fostering. All of them came from a breeder going out of business. The three females were pregnant when I brought them home, though Bri has delivered three puppies since. Ko-Ko is the only one available right now. He is 5 years old, neutered, vaccinated, and very sweet and gentle. Bri is 3, Yum-Yum is 1.5, and Molly is 6.5 years old. One male puppy will be available for adoption June 1st. So if you know anyone who wants to adopt Poms, send them my way.
Bri with her puppies
And now my Sermon on War and Peacemaking:
Unitarian Universalists have struggled with our approach to peacemaking and warfare since our earliest days, back when Unitarians and Universalists were separate denominations. Even today, within most congregations, you can usually find ardent pacifists and military members. There is no single consensus on how we as an association should view warfare. Even our draft Statement of Conscience, which will be voted on at General Assembly this summer, states, “For Unitarian Universalists, the exercise of individual conscience is holy work. Conscientious discernment leads us to engage in the creation of peace in different ways. We affirm a range of individual choices, including military service and conscientious objection (whether to all wars or particular wars), as fully compatible with Unitarian Universalism. For those among us who make a formal commitment to military service, we will honor their commitment, welcome them home, and offer pastoral support. For those among us who make a formal commitment as conscientious objectors, we will offer documented certification, honor their commitment, and offer pastoral support.”
Some may find this an unsatisfactory compromise, perhaps even waffling. Yet I believe this statement reflects our reality. Are there times when we should resort to violence? Is there never a time to defend ourselves? Can killing another human being be an acceptable option in our lives? Some have come to firm, unshakable convictions on this point, others are still pondering this in deep, soul-searching fashion. And as much as I’d love to stand here today and give you answers, I can’t. As it is with your personal search for truth and meaning, so it is with this topic. As the Statement of Conscience says, “The exercise of individual conscience is holy work.” These are not pretty words devoid of practical application; they represent the work we must all be doing daily.
I’m going to read three quotes representing three views of warfare. As I read these, see if any of them represent your beliefs. Do any resonate within you?
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
Jimmy Carter
----
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
-----
As you know, I’ve been taking a class at Vanderbilt called “War and Religion in the Age of Terrorism.” In this class we looked at holy war, justifiable war, pacifism, and aspects of peace building. We spent significant time looking at both the Bible and the Qur’an and what these scriptures taught about war. I learned that some very famous Church fathers, like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, did find warfare acceptable under certain circumstances. But more interestingly, they also approved of killing heretics, at least as a last resort. Since every one of us here qualify as heretics, isn’t it interesting that the big names in just war theory would also advocate your death, assuming you would not repent and/or shut up about your beliefs? Needless to say, their words did not carry much weight with me. If someone thinks you should be executed, what they believe about warfare seems pretty irrelevant.
Both the Bible and the Qur’an are full of passages about warfare, allegedly ordained by God. There is no getting around it. It is actually harder to build a case for pacifism or non-violent resistance from these scriptures than it is to build a case for justifiable war. Christians who look to Jesus for guidance on a pacifistic path have to ignore large chunks of the Old Testament, and Muslims who oppose violence have an even harder time, as their Prophet fought in battle many times. Violence is integral to both religions. Those who choose the path of peace, in my opinion, are those who are evolving a newer, more humane version of their respective religions, and more power to them. But they do have to deal with all the violent baggage of their traditions.
As a heretic, one who thinks for himself, I am not bound by scripture, nor do I need to wrestle with problem passages or the violent history of my religion. Thankfully neither the Unitarians nor the Universalists made a habit of fighting holy wars. They never spread their beliefs by the sword, and they never murdered those who thought differently. And while not all Unitarian Universalists are pacifists or non-violent resistors, it does make a certain amount of sense that those views find a home in our congregations. We have a history of being the oppressed, as the Unitarians were in Transylvania and Poland during the times of the Reformation. Michael Servetus, for denying the Trinity, was executed with the approval of John Calvin in Geneva, Switzerland. We know what it is to be hunted and killed. We know how violence has been misused.
For these reasons, we have led the way in social activism. We fought for the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, equal rights for minorities, and now fight for the rights of the GLBT community. It seems a natural fit for our association that many would also oppose our involvements in war. But this is not the only view held by Unitarian Universalists. When I was still in the Air Force, I had more than a few UUs ask me how I reconciled my participation in the military with being a UU. I always responded thus:
“Very few people, even in UU circles, would really advocate complete disarmament. Given that most people want a military, at least for defensive measures, who would you rather have serving in the military, thugs or people of conscience?”
These words usually made sense to whomever I was speaking to, and then they could understand where I was coming from. And while this is sound logic in my mind, there is a darker side to this. Those serving in the military don’t get to pick and choose the wars they fight in. I was opposed to the Iraq war personally, but I would have gone if I was sent. In that sense, I would have sold a bit of my soul, fighting in a war I thought was immoral. My justification would have been that I didn’t have all the facts, and I had to trust my leaders to make the right decisions. With the benefit of hindsight, I know now that my leaders could not be trusted. This is of course my opinion and mine alone. But it does lead to a bigger and more important question. Considering the ramifications of war, considering our actions in the past, can we trust our leaders to fight only “justifiable wars?” It seems not.
It is probably agreed by all of us that most wars, including wars our country has participated in, are fought for immoral purposes. 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.
But 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 the major European powers were merely looking for an excuse to fight.
Regardless of the evils of the Nazi regime, we may have remained neutral if not for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Japanese alliance with Germany. Prior to this attack, the Japanese committed atrocities in China that did not provoke us to war. For instance, in 1937 the Japanese conquered the city of Nanking. After all Chinese troops were driven out, between 200,000 and 300,000 civilians were murdered, and over 80,000 women were raped and then murdered through mutilation. Yet these did not drive us to war, any more than the atrocities being committed in Africa involve us today. Only the attack on our homeland finally provoked us to fight.
When faced with such an attack, we had two choices, pacifism and war. Diplomacy had already failed, and was not an option after 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. Yet all this might have been avoided, if wiser actions had been taken many years earlier.
As often happens, earlier bad decisions had painted us into a corner. It would have been impossible for our leaders not to have gone to war after being attacked (nor do I suggest they should have done otherwise). If they had tried, they would have been voted out of office. It would be hard to make a case not to fight, unless one was a true pacifist. So for all practical purposes, war was inevitable at that point. But the focus of our thoughts today should not be on whether this war was justified, but on whether it could have been prevented. We will never know for sure, but a more humane treatment by the victors of World War I towards Germany may have averted World War II altogether. Perhaps a non-imperialistic US foreign policy in the Pacific could have prevented war in that region.
As our world becomes increasingly dangerous and incredibly lethal weapons become more common, what we need to ask ourselves is, “What can we do to prevent the next war?” Rather than debate the finer points of when a war is justifiable (and most people fighting wars think they are indeed justified, and a great many think God is on their side), we should be focusing on ways of preventing the next conflict. Additionally, each of you individually will need to decide, if you are ever faced with the choice, whether you will use violence against another. Hopefully, you will never have to make that choice. It is not pleasant to contemplate, and none of us really knows how we will react when the time comes. Theory doesn’t always hold up when reality hits.
What we can do, how we can prepare, is to study peacemaking, non-violent communication, and diplomacy. What we can do is seek justice when we see injustice. We can hold our leaders accountable when they take us down the path to war. We don’t need to assume the United States is always in the right, and the other side is always evil. Nothing is ever that simple. Study both sides of an issue. Learn to listen to the opposition, rather than vilify them. Always consider the possibility that you, or your views, are the problem. Be open to learning; be open to changing.
Regardless of your views on warfare, I think it safe to say that most people agree that pursuing peace is a noble and worthwhile goal. Most would also agree that the less violence is used, the better. Our proposed Statement of Conscience is clear; each of us must ultimately decide for ourselves. With that understanding, our congregations must welcome people with differing views, providing a setting where these tough issues may be discussed and even debated openly, without fear of condemnation or criticism. The exercise of the individual conscience is indeed holy work. Let us all treat it as such.
