The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe mayors' call to abolish nuclear weapons
by John Dear SJ on Aug. 09, 2011
Nothing is harder than working for peace in a time of war. This month, as we remember the 66th anniversaries of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9, I take heart in the thousands of people who stand in peace vigils, speak out against war and go to prison for peace -- from Los Alamos to the Pentagon.
I think of my friend Fr. Steve Kelly, a Jesuit priest, sitting in solitary confinement in a federal prison next to the Seattle, Wash., airport. The government has put him in "the shoe," (that is, "the Special Handling Unit," the SHU) because he refuses to cooperate with various prison injustices.
He will be isolated for nearly two more years, alone in his cell, all because of his plowshares disarmament action at the nearby Trident nuclear weapons submarine base. The media, the church and the world ignore him, but the God of peace doesn't.
Meanwhile our friend Fr. Bill "Bix" Bichsel, whom I wrote about recently, is out of prison. He tells me he's feeling fine, and ready for more. He will probably go back to prison this fall when he is sentenced for last year's protest at the Oak Ridge, Tenn., nuclear weapons plant.
Our friend Dominican Sr. Jackie Hudson, however, passed away on Wednesday. A judge allowed her release from prison last month after she became seriously ill and was refused treatment by prison authorities. She was one of the most steadfast peace activists I have ever known.
She had spent much time in prison for two plowshares actions. Last year, she joined one of our peace vigils at Los Alamos. We remember her by continuing to work for disarmament. (See: www.jonahhouse.org, www.gzcenter.org and www.disarmnowplowshares.wordpress.com)
With the world in such turmoil, it's hard to find signs of hope, but they are there if you scratch the surface.
Certainly the recent speech by the Vatican Ambassador to the United Nations, Archbishop Chullikatt, was an astonishing breakthrough. I think it's the best thing said by any church leader in years. (I urge everyone to read NCR's fine coverage and the full text of his speech.) Last week, he invited me to meet with him at the U.N. and to join a U.N. consultation group on disarmament that he is forming. I readily agreed.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Another sign comes from the Air Force itself. After recent revelations, the Air Force has announced it will end its infamous "nuclear ethics" program for new recruits.
Dubbed the "Jesus Loves Nukes" workshop, for decades they used biblical passages to teach Air Forces cadets that God blesses our nuclear weapons and wants us to use them against "enemies." It twisted the book of Revelation, for example, to present Jesus as a "mighty warrior" who wants us to vaporize anyone who threatens the U.S.A.
Along with this blasphemy, the Air Force cited as its main source for "moral authority" none other than Wernher von Braun, a leading Nazi scientist responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews. (See recent posts at: www.truthout.org) At least that propaganda has stopped.
Still another hopeful sign came earlier this summer from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Thanks to the relentless work of behind-the-scenes peace activists, the mayors issued a strong statement in support of "Mayors for Peace," an international organization based in Hiroshima, Japan, with 4,892 members in 151 countries, including 175 U.S. mayors, who advocate the abolition of nuclear weapons (see: www.mayorsforpeace.org). My friend Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire has nominated this outstanding organization for the Nobel Peace Prize.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors, a national association of cities with populations over 30,000 (see: www.usmayors.org), adopted a resolution calling on President Obama to work with the leaders of the other nuclear weapon states to implement the United Nations Secretary-General's five point plan to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.
It also called on Congress to terminate funding for the modernization of the nuclear weapons complex and nuclear weapons systems, to slash spending on nuclear weapons well below Cold War levels, and to redirect those funds to meet the urgent needs of our cities.
At their June conference, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon praised the mayors for their support and was given standing ovations at the beginning and conclusion of his speech. "The road to peace and progress runs through the world's cities and towns," the Secretary-General told them.
I called Jackie Cabasso, North American coordinator of Mayors for Peace and executive director for the Western States Legal Foundation, to ask her thoughts about this breakthrough. Jackie is one of the most dedicated anti-nuclear activists in the nation.
"At a time when there seems to be general amnesia about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the reality of the continued U.S. reliance on the threat to use nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of its national security policy," she told me, "the mayors of America have understood the dangers and had the courage to call on the president and the Congress to fundamentally change course on nuclear weapons policy and to free up the billions and billions of dollars that are being poured into insuring that nuclear weapons are with us forever, to reclaim those funds and direct them to where they are really needed -- to America's cities and real human security."
As we remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we join with the Conference of Mayors and the United Nations in a prayer and call for nuclear disarmament. I offer here below the full text of the June 20, 2011, resolution by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. May it inspire all of us to spend our lives, like Sr. Jackie Hudson, in pursuit of nuclear disarmament as we walk the road to peace.
***
[Editor's Note: John Dear's column will resume September 6.]
Next year, John Dear will undertake a national book tour for his forthcoming book, Lazarus Come Forth!, which portrays Jesus as the God of life calling humanity (in the symbol of the dead Lazarus) out of the tombs of the culture of war and death. To host John for an evening talk and book-signing at your church, send an email through www.johndear.org. John's latest book, Daniel Berrigan: Essential Writings (Orbis), and other recent books are available from www.amazon.com. To contribute to Catholic Relief Services' "Fr. John Dear Haiti Fund," go to: http://donate.crs.org/goto/fatherjohn. For further information, or to schedule a lecture or retreat, visit: www.johndear.org.
| We can send you an e-mail alert every time an On the Road to Peace column is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add On the Road to Peace to your list. |
***
Resolution of the U.S. Mayors Conference, June 20, 2011:
CALLING ON THE PRESIDENT TO WORK WITH LEADERS OF OTHER NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES FOR ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS BY 2020 AND CALLING ON CONGRESS TO CUT FUNDING FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND TO REDIRECT THOSE FUNDS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF CITIES
WHEREAS, more than two decades after the end of the Cold War, nearly 23,000 nuclear weapons, over 95% of them in the arsenals of the United States and Russia, continue to pose an intolerable threat to cities and people everywhere;
WHEREAS, recent studies have shown that a nuclear war involving no more than 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs—about 0.3% of the global nuclear arsenal—could have catastrophic, long-lasting effects on the global climate leading to a drop in average surface temperatures, reduction of the ozone layer, a shortened agricultural growing season resulting in a global famine of unprecedented proportions;
WHEREAS, the 2010 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review did not lead to substantial changes in the U.S. nuclear force structure, only marginally reduced the role of nuclear weapons in national security policy, explicitly rejected reducing the high-alert status of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and Submarine Launch Ballistic Missiles, and retained the capability to deploy U.S. nuclear weapons on tactical fighter-bombers and heavy bombers, including at NATO bases in Europe, while proceeding with a modification of the bombs carried on those planes;
WHEREAS, a plan submitted to Congress by President Barack Obama projects investments of well over $185 billion by 2020 to maintain and modernize U.S. nuclear weapons systems, including construction of three new nuclear warhead production facilities and an array of new delivery systems;
WHEREAS, although the U.S. stockpile contains one-fifth as many warheads as it used to, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request is the largest ever for maintenance and modernization of nuclear warheads, and after accounting for inflation, the $7.63 billion request is 21 percent more than President Ronald Reagan's largest nuclear weapons budget;
WHEREAS, reflecting President Obama's commitment to modernize all three legs of the strategic triad of nuclear weapons delivery systems, the FY 2012 budget request also includes $197 million for research and development on a new Air Force long-range nuclear bomber, $2.6 million to study a future Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, and $1.07 billion to develop a new replacement ballistic missile submarine slated to be in operation through 2080, all of which will lead to far greater expenditures if production follows;
WHEREAS, with the economic downturn forcing mayors and cities to make deep cuts in critical public services, and with more than 100 metropolitan areas projected to have double-digit unemployment by the end of this year, the budget deal worked out between the Administration and Congress contains a 16.2 percent reduction in Community Development Block Grant formula funding – a $647 million cut for the current year, eliminates Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, and includes huge reductions to other domestic programs of importance to mayors and cities, the size of which have not been seen in recent times;
WHEREAS, Mayors for Peace membership has grown to over 4,700 cities in 150 countries and regions, including half of the world's capital cities, with more than 170 U.S. members;
WHEREAS, the United States Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted resolutions in 2004, 2006 and each year since, expressing its strong support for Mayors for Peace, its demand for negotiations for the global elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020, and its Cities Are Not Targets campaign;
WHEREAS, Mayors for Peace has been endorsed by national mayoral associations in Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa;
WHEREAS, the final document of the 3rd Congress of United Cities and Local Governments, adopted in Mexico City November 20, 2010 expresses "our support for the call of the Mayors for Peace Campaign for a world free of nuclear weapons by 2020 through a new international Convention";
WHEREAS, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in Hiroshima for the 65th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on August 6, 2010 expressed his strong support for the Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign for the global abolition of nuclear weapons by 2020, declaring, "The 2020 vision is a perfect vision"; and the United Nations, on March 24, 2011 recognized the importance of Mayors for Peace by inaugurating a permanent installation at its New York headquarters exhibiting more than 1 million signatures on the Mayors for Peace Cities Are Not Targets petition;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors reaffirms its call on President Obama to work with the leaders of the other nuclear weapon states to implement the United Nations Secretary-General's Five Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament forthwith, so that a Nuclear Weapons Convention or a related framework of mutually reinforcing legal instruments can be agreed upon and implemented by the year 2020, as urged by Mayors for Peace; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. Congress to terminate funding for modernization of the nuclear weapons complex and nuclear weapons systems, to slash spending on nuclear weapons programs well below Cold War levels, and to redirect those funds to meet the urgent needs of cities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors, in its contacts with national associations of local authorities of the other nuclear weapon states, calls upon them to also press their governments to enter into negotiations for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world and to sharply curtail expenditures on nuclear arms; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors expresses its continuing support for Mayors for Peace, pledges to assist in recruiting new U.S. members in order to help reach the goal of 5,000 member cities by the August 6, 2011 Hiroshima anniversary, at which time Mayors for Peace will represent one billion people; and, as since 2005, supports USCM representation at the international Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign Executive Committee and General Meetings later this year; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors agrees to take up this matter at its 80th Annual Meeting in June 2012, and that mayors shall remain engaged in this matter until our cities and citizens, and cities and citizens throughout the world, are no longer under the threat of nuclear annihilation and catastrophic climate change.
(See: www.usmayors.org)
This about knocked me out,
This about knocked me out, Father Dear. I work to find more treatment for the chronically mentally ill, who are so often put in prison, and then to know of how many US dollars are WASTED by our government, for imprisoning peace activists. The money wasted with the imprisonment of protestors, and the money wasted on imprisoning the mentally ill, could be so much better served36gfb by building and funding good treatment facilities for the chronically mentally ill, and let the peace activists do their mission of trying to make this world a better, safer and more peaceful place. God bless and keep you all. Bobbie
Mayors don't influence
Mayors don't influence foreign policy, and these particular mayors are obviously trying to carve out some room in federal budgets for themselves. If we're going to eradicate nuclear weapons, we need to stop rallying the powerless and find ways to actually affect foreign policies. Japan is generally considered to be a "de facto nuclear state" because it has the ability to produce nuclear weapons within one year. In other words, Japan is like many other nations in that it will defend itself with nuclear weapons if that is seen as necessary. The question for all nations that disarm is verifiability: how do we know that Pakistan, or North Korea, or Israel won't retain weapons and use them against the rest of us?
As long as the enemies of
As long as the enemies of this nation, and the enemies of Western Civilization in general, have or pursue nuclear weapons, I for one believe that our leaders have a moral obligation to insure that our weapons are sufficient deterrents to nuclear aggression by our enemies. It is reckless in the extreme for this nation is even contemplate unilateral nuclear disarmament and I am very pleased that, among all his many failings, President Obama at least seems to understand this basic truth and is not being swayed by the Utopian blather being spouted by the Left.
I look forward to the day when nuclear weapons are no longer necessary to protect our citizens. I look forward to the day when our national defense is such that no attack, from foreign or domestic enemies, will be able to penetrate that defense and every man, woman and child in this nation will be able to rest secure in the knowledge that our nation is strong and protected, and this protection is guaranteed without the need for a nuclear deterrent.
Meanwhile, our mayors and elected leaders have far more pressing matters to deal with as our economy is in a downward spiral and our credit rating reduced to AA+. I am concerned that the mayors seem to be so happy to waste valuable time and resources on trivialities.
"We must learn to live
"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."
-The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nuclear weapons provide no security, but less, no defense, but offense, no deterrence but the certainty they will be used, by fools.
Only in learning to live together as brothers and sisters do we find our common defense, our security and safety, our Peace and our joy.
Really, nuclear weapons
Really, nuclear weapons provide "no security, but less...no deterrence but the certainty they will be used"? Really?
Excepting September 11, 2001, the work of terrorists not enemy nation-states (though Afghanistan provided certain protections and finances to the terrorists), the United States has not been victim to an enemy attack since Pearl Harbor in December 1941. This despite a Cold War and the determined actions of our enemies. Pretty secure to me.
Since the use of atomic bombs to end the Second World War in 1945, no nuclear device has been used on any nation by any other nation, despite some close calls during the Cold War.
Historical facts trump hysterical claims every time, Mr. Scanlon.
what causality to you provide
what causality to you provide demonstrating nuclear weapons brought us peace?
In claiming so you directly and arrogantly dissent from the dogma of our American Roman Catholic Bishops as clearly and explicitly stated in The Challenge of Peace, and from innumerable Vatican declarations. As on you so proudly poses as orthodox here while dismissing the rest of us, your proud dissent in order to promote nuclear war appears in the least unseemly, in the most a grave sin, as stated by our bishops, and I pray for your salvation from this error.
Perhaps the community of civilized nations are too humane, too ethical, too moral, too wise, to use nuclear weapons as this community, of which we choose not to be a member, also eschews the death penalty, which we so proudly use so frequently, again, despite clear statements from the Vatican upon this pro-life issue.
Do you also support the application of the death penalty as well as the indiscriminate, disproportional, immoral horror of nuclear weapons, their development, production, placement and usage, all specifically condemned by our Church?
I support the death penalty
I support the death penalty only in extreme cases, as permitted by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2267). I believe that only in rare and extremely exceptional cases should the State resort to the use of the death penalty. However, I do not, nor does the Church, categorically maintain that the death penalty is always and in every circumstance morally wrong.
As you are well aware, nuclear weapons fall under the category of prudential judgment in Church teaching. The Church has not categorically stated that the use of nuclear weapons is always a moral evil, but neither has she stated that they are necessarily legitimate. Indeed, the use of such weapons may render an otherwise just war unjust.
I am not a fan of nuclear weapons and I do look forward to the day when they are not necessary any longer. However, I do not advocate unilateral disarmament as that will lead inexorably to far greater moral evil, namely invasion and attack on the US homeland.
As to causality, we have nuclear weapons and so did the Soviets. Had we not, it is very likely that when the Soviet East German government, following World War II, closed all access to West Berlin in an attempt to force the West to surrender West Berlin, there would have been all-out war. The possibility of full-scale war between NATO and Warsaw Pact powers hung over the planet for most of the 20th century. That no such war ever took place was due in part to the presence of nuclear deterrents on both sides and the belief in mutually assured destruction should war break out. That is a pretty clear indication that the presence of nuclear arms prevented war.
As you know, The Challenge of Peace is not a part of the Universal Magisterium, but is rather an application of same. As you are also no doubt aware, the American Bishops cannot establish a dogma. As you are also aware, I am sure, the Roman Catholic Church has never, at any time, declared all war to be immoral in every circumstance, nor has the Church Universal ever universally declared the stockpiling of nuclear weapons to be immoral and sinful.
even your boy wojo declared
even your boy wojo declared he can no longer see any reason for implementing a death sentence.
the rest, well, good luck with all of that and Saint Peter too. Argue it with him at the gates.
You split hairs as they fall most conveniently for your prejudice and your love of war, not of God.
I shall continue to pray for you.
BTW, how is Braxton doing now?
Yes, Blessed John Paul II did
Yes, Blessed John Paul II did indeed say that. And, I agree with it, as you would know had you bothered to read my earlier post. Nonetheless, though he said he could no longer see any reason for implementing the death penalty, he did not issue a universal ban on the death penalty.
The rest, you may call splitting hairs, but the Church knows it as theological nuance. Absolute pacificism has never been a teaching of the Church, not in 2000 years. You cannot find that teaching in the Universal Magisterium, the writings of the doctors of the Church, the Catechism, nor in any decree from a Sovereign Pontiff or ecumenical council. It is an invention of jodo, your good friend Father Dear, and his followers, and you are trying to pass it off as if it is a defined dogma of the faith. It amuses me that folks like you are so absolute on issues of prudence and judgment, and the exact opposite on issues that are defined and definitive.
If you are against war, that's fine. I myself am against war, except in extreme circumstances of national interest and security (I oppose the Libyan mission, the unannounced invasion of Pakistan, and, though I supported the Iraqi conflict initially, I have come to oppose it as well). I am fully in conformity with established Church teaching on this subject and am more than willing to stake my eternal soul on the Church's teaching. I have far more faith in the wisdom of Mother Church than I do in the wisdom of someone like Father Dear.
Thank you for the prayers, I am grateful for them. Be assured of my prayers for you as well.
And, His Excellency, BISHOP Braxton is doing just fine, as far as I can tell. Thanks for the interest.
Cliont shares: "Nonetheless,
Cliont shares: "Nonetheless, though he said he could no longer see any reason for implementing the death penalty, he did not issue a universal ban on the death penalty."
So, he was too busy emitting a universal ban on womenpriests to bother with such minor pro-life issues as openly condemning the death penalty? You leave my poor head spinning, Clint, admitting here that he said there is no moral reason left for executing a death sentence, and then saying he did not "ban" it. What power did even wojo, in all his great arrogance, have to "ban" W. Bush and R. Perry's overwhelming and eager executions of hundreds of death sentences? Superior firepower?
From his bully pulpit he forbid death penalties. We ignore this at our peril.
From Evangelium Vitae: "the
From Evangelium Vitae: "the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2266-2267): "The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.'"
The point is that, even though the circumstances in which capital punishment is used "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent", the Church does not go so far as to say that the use of capital punishment is always, in every circumstance, a moral evil. Indeed, the Church holds out the rare possibility that capital punishment may be the only appropriate punishment in a certain situation.
The use of capital punishment, just like the just war, is a matter for prudential judgment. Catholics are called to form their consciences, to pray and to consult the Church, her teachings and writings and her ministers, and then to make an informed decision on the matter.
Clint splits hair again: "I
Clint splits hair again: "I have far more faith in the wisdom of Mother Church than I do in the wisdom of someone like Father Dear."
Our very Reverend Father John Dear SJ faithfully and fully and courageously preaches the true Wisdom of Our Holy Mother Church, and with far greater accuracy and insight and heart than anyone writing now, including you or I.
And I thank God for this.
I regret his column does not come more frequently.
Did you notice in this one his election to a select church committee?
What, you did not get the call?
Neither did I . . .
And yet he preaches a
And yet he preaches a doctrine of absolute and total pacifism, a doctrine that is contrary to the Church's own teaching.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2263-2265):
"The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. 'The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.' (St. Thomas Aquinas)
"Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
"'If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.' (St. Thomas Aquinas)
"Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility."
THAT is the teaching of the Church. Far from pacifism, the Church teaches that self-defense is acceptable, and that legitimate defense can be a grave duty when one is responsible for the lives of others.
CWG, Do you not recall that
CWG,
Do you not recall that our nation was attacked successfully eight times by our very own DOE agents. They literally carried the fixins' for suitcase sized nukes into America!!!
You, the pope and especially Repubs(Cons, Neocons, Theocons) all have put your eggs into the basket of false security. It is both a chimera(Reagan crazy executive Star Wars) and an ephemera. But keep thinking otherwise, even as you ratchet up aggression and hostility. It just won't help.
And above all, your kind of mindset defies the Laws of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Well, as far as our enemies
Well, as far as our enemies having or seeking nuclear weapons, I honestly don't think we need to be that concerned. Russia, with the most nukes of other nations, is no real threat to us, provided we stop trying to use NATO to choke them off. To be honest, Russia, militarily, couldn't organize a sock hop on a Sunday afternoon. Besides, their main interest is eastern and western Europe. To exert their power there, they don't need a nuke, they just need to threaten to shut off gas access in the winter.
As for China, again, they are an overblown threat. Neocons love to trot them out as some huge, juggernaut of evil. But they are not. They are playing the same economic shell game we are, but it will be even worse for them as the gap between the rich and poor there makes the gap here look like everybody's middle class! They have numerous, VERY SERIOUS social and economic problems they are not addressing, or rather, the ideology of the Party leadership PREVENTS them from addressing. If things keep going as they are, China will implode, very badly. We should all pray that they avert that, as it would be truly terrible. Add to that the fact that if China decides to shift forces against a major power, India is just waiting for a chance to smash in and reclaim lands they maintain China took from them.
Something all these other major countries understand as well: If America falls, so do they. We are all too connected.
The rogue terrorist groups that everyone is really talking about won't use a missile. They'll just float it in on a barge or shipping container. If they do that, what exactly are we going to do? Who do you nuke? Simply put, you can't.
If you have read my posts before, you know that I decry war, am against the wars we are in now, against expanding American militarism and against the idea that we should be policing the world, but at the same time, no, I am NOT an absolutist pacifist. I accept the Church's teaching in accords with Just War.
That being said, I accept the teaching put out by our bishops that nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of. Weapons that are that indiscriminate, whose use is mainly for the destruction of vast territory, not to mention vaporizing men, women and children in addition to any valid combatants, can't be used morally.
Most gratefully pete now
Most gratefully pete now writes: "If you have read my posts before, you know that I decry war, am against the wars we are in now, against expanding American militarism and against the idea that we should be policing the world, but at the same time, no, I am NOT an absolutist pacifist. I accept the Church's teaching in accords with Just War. That being said, I accept the teaching put out by our bishops that nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of. Weapons that are that indiscriminate, whose use is mainly for the destruction of vast territory, not to mention vaporizing men, women and children in addition to any valid combatants, can't be used morally."
as was your recent clarification that absolute pacifism is necessary and normative for our Faith and attaining the Reign of God.
No, I never said, nor did I
No, I never said, nor did I imply that absolute pacifism is necessary to reach Heaven. Saying that would be twisting and doing violence to the teaching of the Church.
The Church does not now, nor has She EVER taught that absolute pacifism is necessary. It is not.
I am not an absolute pacifist. I fully accept the Church's teaching about Just War.
which condemns everything we
which condemns everything we now do.
there is no discrimination in drones
there is no proportionality in nuclear weapons
there is no just nor moral excuse for Iraq, Afghan, Libya, Colombia, Palestine, nor any place else we currently invade upon earth.
Just a quick note on warefare
Just a quick note on warefare and geography/history:
Warefare:
- Drones discriminate because they are under human control - humans pick the targets. Get your technology and military tactics straight - to say otherwise is callied lying (a 10 commandment no-no).
- Nuclear weapons are used proportionately under the US doctrine of "launch after attack" - meaning an opposing power has nuked us first. Attacking in kind is quintesentially and definitively proportional. Targeting policy directs weapons to military and industrial targets, not cities per see (despite likely collateral damage which is inevidable in war). Nuclear accuracy has improved (very low CEP) and nuclear yields (at least by the USA) are "dialable" - meaning the explosion is selected to minimize collateral damage to otherwise innocent civilians. These are signs of maturity in the hopeful non-use of such weapons while maintaining a deterrent to their use.
Geography:
- The USA has not attacked Palestine - ever. Israel defends itself (have you been reading the recent news of over 100 rockets from "Palestine" in contradvention of international law?) from rocket attacks coming from "Palestine" (i.e., by the so called peaceful Arabs who publically swear to wiping out Jews worldwide, not just in Israel). Palestine was the Roman (hmmm - notice how things seem to always be Roman when it comes to problems with Jews) name given to Israel after the Roman Empire destroyed the Jewish Homeland during ITS illegal occupation of Israel in the 1st century CE. All Israel is doing is correcting a "historical error" (i.e., losing that war). Arabs in 1948, after UN support for the resurrection of the Jewish state, were called on to live peacefully with Israel and the Jewish people - they refused then, and still do. 63 years is a long time to ignore that call in some people's minds. (Source: From Time Immemorial, Joan Peters)
warefare? so, anyway, how
warefare?
so, anyway, how many wedding parties have we knocked out in the afghan and Iraq? How many shepherd boys?
Discrimination is not an issue for our military and its high tech toys.
And nuclear weapnos are by their very nature not discriminate, nor proportional, and thus their spurious alleged deterrent power, despite your contortions to push them.
Our Church repeatedly and without hesitation consistently condemns their development, production, possession and use.
Interesting take on Palestine, too. Good luck with all of that . . .
A note about China. China
A note about China. China has been steadily and seriously been investing in its militry beyond its read need for over a decade. They have one of the few growing economies, are awash in cash (thanks to US consumers of their cheap goods) and have been industrializing on a scale unheard of in US history since the 19th and early 20 century in the US.
Add to that they just floated their first full deck air craft carrier, plan to buy 2 more outright, have twice the number of attack submarines as the US with plans to build 30 more, 2 years ago it shot a satellite out of orbit from a ground based ASAT weapon, the largest land army in the world and a huge land based air force that just tested its first stealth aircraft - the so called imagined threat is no longer imaginary, but emerging. Then add its nuclear technology support for North Korea, Pakistan and Iran just to aggrevate world peace with those "stable" regimes and you see a world player who is not above playing brinkmanship with peace. Lets not pin fear on American neocons...the Chinese are doing that well enough on their own.
gosh, Mr. Hoffman, and why
gosh, Mr. Hoffman, and why not add beating up our Georgetown players on the basketball court?
Regarding your statement:
Regarding your statement: yes, very true. HOWEVER:
When it comes to China's economy, analysts main source of information on China's 'spectactular economy', as I've heard it called, is.... the Chinese government. Independent analysts have been watching China for years and estimate that, yes, there is a lot of 'growth', but most of it is totally artificial. China is going to be in the same boat we are, as they are starting to play the same game.
You mention their military mainly. True, they have a growing, modernizing military. SO DOES INDIA, one of their main, perceived enemies.
"Lets not pin fear on American neocons."
- I do so because the neocons fall into the same error of judging primarily military strength. They usually ignore the coming demographic catastrophe that China is visiting upon itself, the fact that their economic model is far from sound, and they maintain the silly notion that the countless millions of Chinese who live in bone-crushing poverty will simply accept their fate forever to live as food providers for the comparatively uber rich in the cities. Historically speaking, no country in the history of the world has been able to ignore those factors for long. China is no exception.
Thank you, John. Thank you
Thank you, John. Thank you to all who have sat and are sitting in jail for protesting war and nuclear weapons.
"Nothing is harder than
"Nothing is harder than working for peace in a time of war."
great bumper sticker, for very true
I remember the Nicaraguan composer Luis Godoy's album "Loving in Time of War"
It is all that we can do, to heal this madness.
Love thy enemy.
Is that still Church dogma?
John provides us with much
John provides us with much information to substantiate the need for a rapid move from nuclear armaments. Thanks you, John, for your courage and wisdom that rise from your deep faith in the God of Peace.
Re the Mayors' letter, Thank
Re the Mayors' letter, Thank you.
Thank you for writing as you did. I wish all of
our Canadian polititicans - federal, provincial
and municipal would read this piece.
Can we change the world - yes by one person at
a time. Will this be quick enough to change
the present reality
I trust that is coming.
Regards.
Hmmm...all sounds good...too
Hmmm...all sounds good...too good. First problem: the savings prjected here in comparison to programs already in place and those yet to hit us is small - so while the dollars could be re-allocated to peaceful, helpful and more productive purposes, the real savings is small. The odd truth is nuclear weapons are comparatively cheaper than huge conventional weapons and support structures to achieve the equal deterrent effects. Second, it seems to me that the reasons for having such weapons should be dealt with before such weapons are eliminated. Third, as has been mentioned, unilateralism merely invites abuse and possible attack.
Other nations have good reason to maintain such weapons as deterrents, even if superpowers do not need such large stockpiles: India, Pakistan and even Israel. What real detterents exist besides these? And if you do not think there is a threat, what is the price of such naive notions and to whom? The only practical way to reduce reliance on such weapons is to have regional military assistance alliances that have teeth (ex. NATO) - but even those are reluctantly and often ineffectively employed under UN control or ill conceived limited responses that convince none of the combatants.
Consider the analogy - why do mayors maintain police forces with overwhelming firepower, police vans, SWAT teams, etc.? Why not do away with those if you believe in the functional and pervasive goodness of people? Well no, because that leads to a breakdown in order. It is cost prohibitive to deal with a chaotic society. So to the international order.
Time will come as nations evolve, and mechanism develop to control such weapons, reduce the number of weapons - and more importantly the need to even consider their use in offense or self-defense postures. Remove the hatred, fear based in real threats and the purpose of these or other weapons evaporates on its own.
AL claims: "Consider the
AL claims: "Consider the analogy - why do mayors maintain police forces with overwhelming firepower, police vans, SWAT teams, etc.? Why not do away with those if you believe in the functional and pervasive goodness of people? Well no, because that leads to a breakdown in order."
What studies have you that demonstrates this, for you, sequence of inevitable events?
Stop tazing me and invading my home and just maybe we will enjoy a more orderly life, you know?
"What studies have you that
"What studies have you that demonstrates this, for you, sequence of inevitable events?"
- It's called human experience. Look at the riots in London when the looters were not confronted and stopped. In areas where locals came out to defends their property, the damage was much less. If evil men committing evil deeds are not confronted, they simply go on doing evil deeds. The Unibomber stopped injuring and murdering people after he was arrested by authorities. Had he not been arrested, he would have continued sending bombs to people he wished to kill and wrecked more havoc. How do we know this? He said so himself.
That being said, I am actually against the militarization of our police forces. Blurring the line between law enforcement and the military, which is what is happening, is NOT good for the freedom of our country. (I don't know if it's the same down in Mexico or not.)
We didn't always have SWAT teams or tactical response units. Why? We didn't need them. True, advances in technology do also require upgrades in the ability of law enforcement, witness the infamous North Hollywood shootout where officers responding to gunmen who were using illegal automatic weapons smuggled in from Mexico and robbing a local bank were unable to stop the robbers for some times, as they had superior weapons and heavy armor.
But a lot of it is also a response to a social decay that needs to be addressed differently. I doubt the root issues will be resolved, however, as special interests groups have too much to gain from making sure things stay as they are.
so what would Jesus do?
so what would Jesus do?
Enforce a false, unjust and temporal peace through the terror of superior firepower, or feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the illegal alien, house the homeless, heal the sick?
You cannot fund the first while claiming to love Jesus . . .
Post new comment