The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionObama's Nobel war speech
by John Dear SJ on Dec. 15, 2009
President Obama’s speech last week in Oslo, where he received the Nobel Peace Prize, undermined the example of all the peacemakers of the ages. Standing before the world, he defended America’s military misadventures, dismissed nonviolence and endorsed the just-war theory as the way to peace.
The peacemakers Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. received particular attention. With a kind of rhetorical sleight of hand, Obama admired and scorned them at the same time, saying in effect: here are good men but, in our modern world, impractical men. With that, Obama undercut his own soaring campaign rhetoric espousing audacious hope. Hope withered on the moment. Here is yet another American president beating the drums of war in the name of peace. Nothing makes the heart sink like the notion, a very Orwellian nightmare: “the way to peace is through war.” His speech was a veritable call to despair.
I leave it to others to comb through the speech’s details. I prefer to regard matters more broadly. Namely, Obama struck me as a modern-day Constantine who, in the fourth century, pulled off the unthinkable. He beguiled the early church into renouncing the nonviolence of Jesus. And he placed in the church’s hand something more “practical”--the pagan Cicero’s justifications for war. Pure legerdemain.
Obama reminds me, moreover, of Augustine, who himself embraced Cicero’s notions and hoodwinked further with the idea that sometimes “the best way to love an enemy is to kill him.” Just as Constantine banished the nonviolent Jesus, Obama has, in effect, banished Gandhi and King. And he did it oh so subtly, like a New York pick-pocket, giving with one hand and taking back with the other. His speech has been a big hit here in Washington, where I write this.
Obama cited an excerpt from King’s Nobel acceptance speech in 1964. “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem. It merely creates new and more complicated ones.” And he paid King due respect: “As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work,” Obama said, “I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.” But then Obama branded both as ineffectual and naïve. Nonviolence, he said, could “not have halted Hitler’s armies” or convinced “al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms.” And my heart dropped when he concluded: “Instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.”
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
On both counts I disagree. King and Gandhi were not naïve. When actually put into practice, when enough of us do the hard work, nonviolence works. Hearts change and structures of injustice and war begin to unravel. From India to South Africa we have seen how nonviolent change happens.
I disagree on the second point, too, the point that says war makes for peace. The chief axiom of nonviolence says the very opposite. The ends lie within the means, just as the tree exists within the seed. How can the anguish of war -- destruction, displacement, hunger, terror, torture, martial law, summary executions, civilian casualties, oceans of grief -- how can these ever favor us with peace? The only way to peace is through peaceful and loving means.
Obama has arrogantly overstepped his bounds. If Obama is right, then St. Francis and St. Clare were wrong. If Obama is right, then Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King, Dorothy Day, and Mother Teresa were wrong. If Obama is right, then the nonviolent Jesus is wrong. And we should put his memory aside.
But no, Obama is wrong. We as Jesus’ followers need to insist on the Way of nonviolence. We need to practice and demand love for enemies. We need to renounce the just war theory. It’s inapplicable because no longer can its conditions be met, if they ever could. The fire power of modern warfare had made the theory obsolete. But even so, it is inadmissible because Jesus commanded otherwise.
I realize mine is a minority voice. Sarah Palin applauded Obama’s speech. So did Newt Gingrich. One wonders how many Catholic bishops, priests, religious and lay leaders did the same. To their minds nonviolence doesn’t work. Sometimes you must destroy a village to save it. Apply the right rhetoric and every war can be justified.
These are the notions of our times; they hang in the air. But I urge people not to believe the president’s war rhetoric. More, I urge church people to take up the work of making nonviolence more widely understood and accepted.
Ken Butigan, a teacher of nonviolence with the Franciscan group Pace e Bene (see www.paceebene.org) writes this week that Obama was able “to discredit nonviolence -- and thus buttress his argument for war -- because there is no sturdy conviction in the mind of the larger public that nonviolence is anything but limited, weak, passive, utopian and ineffective.” The zeitgeist deprives our imaginations of alternatives to war.
We need, Ken says, to “mainstream nonviolence.” That is, to launch a systematic campaign to educate. Only then will the stigma of nonviolence be lifted. “Just as we have gradually mainstreamed the rule of law, human rights, and the vision of democracy,” he says, “we have the opportunity to mainstream the power of creative nonviolence.”
Then would the world learn how nonviolent resistance, when put into practice, did indeed impede Nazis killing; how it brought down dictatorships in the Philippines, Chile and Serbia; how it led the Velvet Revolutions throughout Eastern Europe in 1989 and brought down the Soviet Union in 1991; how it informed successful movements in South Africa, Ukraine, Georgia, Indonesia, and East Timor.
Then we would all begin to become aware how people around the globe, this very day, are engaged in nonviolent movements. (See, for example, Eric Stoner’s daily Web page, www.wagingnonviolence.org.)
I agree with Ken. The world urgently needs good people to take up this ministry of teaching Gospel nonviolence. Ken’s program, “Pace e Bene,” offers an excellent course on nonviolence that can be taken over a weekend or a semester; participants can later become facilitators to bring the course to their local communities.
If we are to widen the understanding and practice of creative nonviolence, many more people will have to teach it. We need to teach nonviolence -- its history, its methodology, its spirituality, its daily practicality -- widely. It needs to be taken into our schools, our churches, our libraries, our government offices, our workplace, our media, our prisons. And this ministry needs to be equal with every other church work, if not central.
Advent reminds us that the whole point of life is God, love, compassion, and peace. Each Advent, we hear eloquent speeches that contradict the president’s. The voices of Advent espouse the wisdom of nonviolence which bears good fruit. Isaiah speaks of a world where swords will be beaten into plowshares, where the study of war falls away, where everyone lives in peace. Mary of Nazareth, in her noble Magnificat, proclaims God’s nonviolent transformation of the world. John the Baptist calls us to prepare a way for the God of peace. Angels appear, a heavenly choir, and sing during a brutal season of “peace on earth.” Thank God for these Advent voices! Our true hope lies with them.
As Christmas approaches and I prepare to leave for Gaza, I pray that we will hear their voices, heed their words, and take hope from them. Let us embrace their message and give our lives anew to the nonviolent Jesus and his way, even if we do not understand it all.
The Baptist King and the Hindu Gandhi both walked the nonviolent path of the Gospel. As for Obama, he is set to go the way of all presidents. The lives of King and Gandhi, by contrast, still bear the fruit of peace. Their words and teachings are worth following for they point us back to the methodology and life of Jesus himself.
I hope we can reject the eloquent despair offered last week by President Obama and choose instead the hopeful examples of Gandhi, King and our Advent messengers. As we prepare for Christmas, we turn from war and empire, and look to the margins, among the poor and powerless, the humble and childlike. There we will discover the meaning, presence, wisdom and power of peace.
***
John Dear’s latest book, Daniel Berrigan: Essential Writings, along with his recent autobiography, A Persistent Peace, and his collection of essays, Put Down the Sword, and Patti Normile’s John Dear On Peace, are available from www.amazon.com. For information, see: www.johndear.org.
Sometimes war is moral,
Sometimes war is moral, Father. Jesus did not preach universal pacifism, neither did any of the saints, nor has the Church. You are naive and wrong.
War is moral in the sense
War is moral in the sense that receiving the Eucharist once a year is moral. What would you say to the man who refused to receive Eucharist more than once a year, claiming that it was allowed under Catholic teaching? Wouldn't you think something was a little strange about that? This very odd type of Catholic would claim, "the Church even says it is my duty to receive the Eucharist once a year!"
The just-war theory does not claim that war is moral or good, but that war can be a necessary response in a fallen world. In fact, war, violence, and bloodshed are always material evils - they destroy the very children of God.
War is a wicked response to a wicked world, and even if some consider it necessary, it must never be considered a good. Jesus did preach universal rejection of violence and love of enemy, and never preached that war was 'moral'. It has been philosophers who have made that claim.
Actually Propag8 YOU are
Actually Propag8 YOU are wrong.
Love thy enemy sounds like universal pacifism to me, and DEO GRATIAS!
Read the saints, above all the Reverend Father John Dear SJ.
Know our Faith.
Practice Catholicism
Work for Peace.
AS Pope Paul VI said: If you want peace, work for justice.
Read Pacem in Terris.
Don't get me started.
Get to work
For peace.
This Christmas.
In the words of the Resurrected Christ:
Pax tecum.
War is never moral,
War is never moral, except:
(1) Negotiations Prior to Prevent it fail, after Genuine efforts to succed it, Justly,
(2) Is in Genuine self-defense, not phony hype.
Didn't Christ teach universal pacifism, when Appropriate? The Gospels teach of Not taking an eye for an eye, of turning the other cheek if slugged, and giving one's coat also to robber of one's money.
When did Jesus Ever teach "just War"?.
Aware of WW II Survivor John Paul II the Great's Words 3 days before he died? "War is Never Justified". And he had very personal experience.
Negotiations Prior is the Key. Genuine, objective negotiations.
Father is correct, you are wrong, "Prop 8".
Veteran? Personally experienced? I am WW II Survivor. The Bishop who baptized me in April 1941, Bishop Vilmos Apor is a Beatified Martyr, to 3 drunk Soviet Soldiers. Our Family witnessed it.
50 - 60 Million Died in WW II, about 92 % Civilians.
Hitler asked for Negotiations in 1934 to return the German Territories taken away by the improper/unjustifiable WW I Armistice.
Neither Churchill or Roosevelt responded. Hitler Decided on massive Military buildup as result.
Ditto Japan. The lack of any basic resources except coal in Japan, The denial by FDR of Steel, Fuel supplies is what led Tojo to Talk Japan elite into War.
It takes a stronger person to Negotiate Justly, than Deny talks, promote wars Thereby.
There is a difference in
There is a difference in protecting yourself and your country and going to war...the U.S. has not experienced, in the 20th or 21st centuries, a war within its geographical territory...since WWII, we U.S. citizens have not had to sacrifice a thing in order to wage war & reign terror on others...we have little to no clue what is being done in our name. We have no clue as to the economic havoc we have visited upon ourselves and upon others because of waging war. War makes money for the rich...the non-rich wage the war in person and reap death.
When will we learn...our swords must be bent into pruning hooks to help feed ourselves & others, not aimed at people just like us. We all lose in war. War has never caused peace to reign.
Amen.
Amen.
Well, personally, as one who
Well, personally, as one who DIDN'T guzzle the load of rubbish Obama was preaching before the election like a rabbit at a bowl of anti-freeze like so many others did, I'm not surprised.
Fr. John's history leaves a good bit to be desired, of course. Claiming to be a better follower of Christ than Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, which is what he's implying, certainly shows he has the virture of humility down pat. Ah yes, Constantine 'hoodwinked' the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH, something even the most hardened arch heretics couldn't do. Because, you know, there were never Christians in the Roman Army before that time or anything... And here I thought conspiracy theories were only for 911 Truthers and Birthers.
Why do people keep trying to cut off sections of the Church that don't conform to their personal ideologies? Don't people realize that we have BOTH St. Thresea AND St. Joan of Arc? We have both for a reason, and there is no conflict.
St. Joan of Arc wasn't made a
St. Joan of Arc wasn't made a saint because she killed people in war - she was made a saint because she died a martyr and because she loved God. Saints aren't perfect on earth - they are perfect in heaven.
Nonetheless, St. Augustine and St. Aquinas both taught that one could never choose to kill another person as a means of self-defense. In the modern era, the Second Vatican council and numerous papal encyclicals have called us to re-examine the Church's tradition of the just-war theory. As a former Army Ranger and West Point cadet, I can tell you this - the preparation for destroying human beings warps the souls of all who undergo such training. Mordern war, with its total disregard for human life, is simply incompatible with being a disciple of Christ. In a fallen world, a just-war is not capable of being waged. That is the great paradox. Even if philisophically accurate, the just-war theory is dead in practice. We cannot train to kill without beginning to want to kill, without beginning to hate others and ourselves. As Christ says, "all who take the sword will die by the sword".
Nate: Your thinking is quite
Nate: Your thinking is quite clear. The present Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger said that in the age of nuclear weapons there could be no such thing as a Just War. You describe in your comment the conditioning of violence on the collective conscience. It effects a decline in respect for the human family. I have investigated internal armed conflict in a few countries and war always reduces civility and capacity for solidarity in the body politic. John Dear is not naieve. He is smart and principled. So glad he shares his wisdom with the rest of us.
"St. Joan of Arc wasn't made
"St. Joan of Arc wasn't made a saint because she killed people in war - she was made a saint because she died a martyr and because she loved God."
- just one small point: she actually was not a 'martyr'.
I would not say at all that she is a saint because 'she killed people'. However, she IS a saint. She was both devout and a fierce warrior. My point is that, yes, you CAN have both. The history of the Church is filled with those like her. It is also filled with those like St. Therease! AT THE SAME TIME. What I find funny is how many of the Pax Christi group want to quietly sweep the warrior saints under the rug like an embaressing drunk uncle. A similar trick is performed by many neocon catholics I know, but in reverse, who seem to find meek saints like Benedict and st. Therease to be embaressing.
"Saints aren't perfect on earth - they are perfect in heaven."
I would agree. However, it SEEMS that what you are trying to say here is that her actions on earth, leading the army when called by heaven to do so, were morally evil. On that, I and the Church say you're wrong.
"Mordern war, with its total disregard for human life, is simply incompatible with being a disciple of Christ."
- total disregard for human life is truly incompatible. The evolution toward 'total war' is a terrible development.
"Even if philisophically accurate, the just-war theory is dead in practice."
- (It is theologically accurate, btw) In most cases I would totally agree with you.
"We cannot train to kill without beginning to want to kill, without beginning to hate others and ourselves."
- Are you also saying that all law enforcement people are warped, twisted, hate filled individuals with a thirst to spill blood? They are, BTW, taught HOW to take a life in defense of the innocent. Your statement applies to them as well.
You can claim that St. Joan must have been an individual who hated others as well as herself and had a thirst to kill (your very general statement applies to her as well), but I think, again, the Church and history disagree with you.
once again...the UN-seamless
once again...the UN-seamless garment is exposed, by mere common sense.
NO ONE says War and death penalty are ok, nor that we accept it, but it is used in defense of the innocent....yet people on this site are ok with abortion, or standing by politicians who support it (which is called being an accomplice to murder).
Since when have you seen a baby fetus with a semi-automatic or a knife? NEVER.
The only "defense" the mother seeks is her self comfort and convenience because she was irresponsible enough to open her legs, out of wedlock on top of that, or, if married, was not open to God's plan because of the overwhelmingly materialistic society she has been brainwashed into.
contraception has not only pushed for more abortions, because of their failure, but has made society, not only more immoral, but just plain dumb...
"oh, how did that happen? how can I be pregnant????" Do you know how babies are made? duh.
Again very appropriate
Again very appropriate essay.
I can't help feeling that if Jesus was not viewed as a sacrific (I thought Sacrafice meant to make, (facio=I make), sacred) How would killing Jesus in a brutal manner, make anything sacred? The execution of Jesus shows the contempt for the teachings of Jesus, teachings that Christians feel are, at best, optional.
If we see the death of Jesus as a sacrifice then we can reject the connection between what Jesus was teaching and what he was doing. What better way for a man to show that he is serious about his beliefs and teachings than to die performing them? But if Jesus was destined to be sacrificed for us then why didn't God allow him to die before he grew up and started espousing nonviolence as being God's way? Not only would Jesus' death have done the same thing in Bethleham circa 1 C.E., thousands of innocent children would not have been "sacrificed" at the hands of King Herod.
As I have said before, we don't know if Jesus was God's son. This is a tenant of faith that we have accepted from our fathers and their fathers and their fathers....
I believe Jesus' teachings are more pertinent seeing him a man and not as a sacrificial offering. Couldn't Jesus have been "sacrificed" in a more glorious manner than being treated like a criminal element that can be tortured and killed by the state?
Constantine did more harm to the church than he did good. If Jesus was not the son of God, his teachings, like King's and Gandhi's would have shown us that he was serious about his teachings, more than dying on the cross.
I hope that everyone comes to a deeper envolvement with nonviolence, for the sake of all of mankind. May God bless us all!
Peace
Don't forget that Obama
Don't forget that Obama inherited this mess from the previous administration. Can he just pull all our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't have the answer to that, but I know this was a hard decision for our President to make.
The answer to your anonymous
The answer to your anonymous question is an emphatic and immediate
YES!!
Like the Reverend Father John Dear SJ says here.
John, Again, you say it so
John,
Again, you say it so well. I had exactly the same impression. In being "practical," the President was trashing the efficacy of nonviolence. I am sure he forgot to cite how the myth that Reagan's tough policies brought down the Iron Curtain when, in fact, it was a mounting nonviolent effort among the church people who under oppression behind the Iron Curtain.
Apparently the President has never read Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer. Kinzer documents American intervention and domination of other nations from the Philippines in the late 19th century right down to Iraq today. Freedom and democracy are code words for our conquest of bananas and oil, among other valuable commodities,to ensure the American way of life--our complacent, bloated lifestyles.
The Obama bumper sticker is no longer on my car. I no loner see even a glimmer of change I can believe in. The self-proclaimed change agent is what has been changed.
We have a person in our church who prays for our troops who are working for peace and justice around the world. I cannot answer, "Lord hear our prayer" to that petition. Answering that petition makes me complicit in living the lie.
They just do not get it. I often tell folks that violence cannot produce lasting peace. I say, "I can bring an acorn here to Florida from the North Georgia Mountains but it will never become a palm tree!" I challenged a young Republican who crashed the SOA Vigil to hand out fliers supporting "our heroes" and he was was quick to tell that me dialogue will never produce peace.
I do pray for the troops and their safety because many of them have been duped by the establishment and it is their only way up and out of less than desirable living conditions. The powers and the principalities have put them in harm's way. It is now the military-multinational complex. People delude themselves into thinking that our politicians, including the President, have power--they are puppets on the strings of multinational greed.
We have to teach nonviolence from the rooftops. We have to proclaim nonviolence in season and out of season. We have to conform our lives to the life of Jesus who overcame the power of death, the ultimate threat, by nonviolent means.
Pat proclaims: 'We have a
Pat proclaims: 'We have a person in our church who prays for our troops who are working for peace and justice around the world. I cannot answer, "Lord hear our prayer" to that petition. Answering that petition makes me complicit in living the lie.'
That is something which has puzzled me mightily in the USA for a near half century, as has the sudden introduction of the military banner on noncanonical yet permanent display in the Holy Sanctuary within Roman Catholic Churches in the USA these past forty years or more, denying thusly sacred, secure sanctuary to those who have come escaping the wars that banner leads.
The abomination of the desolation in the holy place . . .
I have not seen such a nationalist display in other nations, except for the most extraordinary events.
Why here?
Why permanently, while we oppose the Pope's pleas for peace?
Thank you, John, for
Thank you, John, for continually reminding us of what we need to be doing. I find it ironic that there seemingly is no money for health care reform, but, no argument against spending billions of dollars on war. People don't seem to heed that Jesus said, "Take care of the sick" and "Put away your sword." How do Christians rationalize this in their own hearts? Makes no sense to me.
Unfortunately, those with
Unfortunately, those with the power to determine what is construed to be a “just war” also stand to handsomely profit from the waging of that war. “In war, truth is the first casualty.”
.
“The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.”
"In the councils of Government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial [-congressional*] complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
~ Dwight D. Eisenhower (U.S. President, U.S. Army General – Ret., January 1961)
*original draft wording of the speech
.
The following is worth reading for both historical and present day perspective on our socio-economic dependence on being a military nation constantly seeking excuses for war.
.
Scandal in the Pentagon, Chapter 1, (William McGaffin; Erwin Knoll), published 40 years ago
http://www.panarchy.org/statism/military.complex.html
An up-to-date and continual monetary tracking of America’s love affair with the capitalistic profits of war
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/
The Cost of War & Today's Military Industrial Complex
National Public Radio – January 2003
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=907187
Andreas, Joel, Addicted to War: Why the U.S. Can't Kick Militarism
Johnson, Chalmers, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
.
The cycle of warring mentality continues, as does the post-war residual carnage of broken lives...
“It doesn't require any particular bravery to stand on the floor of the Senate and urge our boys in Vietnam to fight harder… , it won't be U.S. Senators who die, or are physically and psychologically maimed. I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in”. ~ Sen. George McGovern (speaking of the escalation of the Vietnam War)
.
”When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die”. ~ Jean-Paul Sartre
.
Very well said!!!
Very well said!!! Excellent!!!
What would you have done?
What would you have done? What specific actions would you take to resolve our current situation?
declare "victory" and send
declare "victory" and send the troops (and "private contractors") home.
Stop the lies.
Stop the war.
Retool for peace, for health care, for education, for peaceful jobs of progress,
for saving God's creation even now, as good and faithful stewards.
Bring the troops home for Christmas.
Let the angel voices truly declare to the freezing shepherds words of peace on earth this Christmas.
that would be a start . . .
Top Republicans in 1999
Top Republicans in 1999 Determined Reublican 21st Century International Policy: Use American superior Military Power in 'foreign policy', and Conquer Iraq (Not negotiations, equity/fairness).
The Causes of All our Middle East misnomered "wars": George W Bush did Absolute Zero to Defend, Protect the USA from Bin Laden's World News/Publicized open Threat against the USA (Because of our Policies against Islamic Countries, and the only nation to Support expansionist, anti-Arab Occupations and foreign lands "Conversions" of Palestinian, even Catholic Properties By Isreal) George W did Not (1) alert Airport and Seaport Security, or even hint of danger; (2) Did not alert Airforce or Seaport or Navy Security, or (3) alert Air Traffic Contril/FAA of major Security threat, or (4) Warn, expand Air Marshall Passenger Security. Any, all of these would have Protected the USA, probably successfully.
Using the Undefended Intentionally 9/11 attacks, the Republican Non-Veteran Leadership clique of George W/Chaney/Rumsfeld (a Non-Veteran of Viet Nam, as George W/Chaney, all top Republicans except McCain were) proceeded to Lie in justifying the All Military Reponse to 9/11:
> Lies of WMD's in Iraq, even as UN Inspectors There verified there Were No WMD's there,
> False spins of Iraqi Nukes se off in Central Park, NYC (Anyone believe that one?)
Etc, etc. The entire world focused in, offered to Help turn over Terrorists, including Iran! Iraq was Zero Threat against Any Nation in 2002, and tortures, execusions by our 1980's Iraq had Stopped. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, all offered Negotations to resolve George W Bush's Known worldwide False Hype against all those nations. George W Refused Any Negotiations, relied on Lies to build false War mood.
There was Absolute Zero (NO) Reason to attack or Conquer Iraq, except Republican non-veteran leadership desire to.
Afghanistan was The El Quida/Bin Laden Leadership and Trainig site. Special Forces/Ranger type Hits, Capture of key sites was only thing needed. Afghanistan has never been conquered in history, and we won't. They will Resists our conquest, which is George W Wrongful Policy.
President Obama is using George W Bush Previous Military Staff thinking to Continue Those false Policies.
His Nobel Acceptance speech mirrored that.
How we Prevent, Avoid our Self Created War Problems is preciselly As the Church, Our Lord taught, in Morality, Justice Principles:
>> (1) Our initiating Just International Policies in Middle East, respecting native Arab populations, Their Rights, Reponsibilities (Forcing Isreal to Stop its "Settlement", Stopping/Restricting basic Supplies to Gaza which is The Cause for Arab Shelling of Isreal), and:
>> (2) Negotiating, as leaders of Iran, North Korea, Iraq Widelly publicized with them, would have Prevented all problems, Including 9/11 if we would have curtailed expansionist Isreal Prior to 9/11.
>> (3) The False Hype Statements ABOUT the leaders of those Nations were False. It was Our Responsibility, and US Media, to "Call The Falsehoods" Of George W, Chaney.
Wars are almost always Hyped up to hatred Falselly, by the purpetrators or Wars: Hitler allleged falselly tha he conquered Poland because Polish Troops Fired on German troops at the border; Tojo Similar false Charges.
Negotiating Prior would have Prevented virtually all these wars. Basic Security measures would have prevented 9/11.
Anyone notice that we use Armed forces last 60 years to "Pursue our interests" (Financial), instead of the prior "Defend Our Nation"?
DEO GRATIAS
DEO GRATIAS
How terrible did President
How terrible did President Obama speech sound. Did he really believe what he was saying. What do people in the third world who are striving to live on one meal a day--what did they think. Peace and the only way forward is by reconcilation and the way of non-violence. We need to learn from people who hunger and suffer-what to they teach us. They teach to help each other and care for the other. A long way from Obama'a view. O God, we pray to be non-violent people.
can we shout this from the
can we shout this from the rooftops this Christmas?
Please?
Yes! How will people begin
Yes! How will people begin to see through the false hope and embrace the true hope rooted in God? In this season of hope, I believe we will get there. Thanks for holding up the torch of nonviolence and calling us towards it.
First, I like to say that I
First, I like to say that I find it ironic that it is considered a rhetorical sleight of hand for OBama to praise Gandhi and MLK, and yet work against their message, and yet his speech at Notre Dame, where he talked of honoring the Catholic tradition, and yet still supports pro-choicer legislation, is an example of dialogue. War isn't the only Pro-life issue.
Second, I'd like to posit a possible objection to Father Dear's article. If someone is attacking you, one can feel morally accomplished to offer non-violent resistence. However, what if someone else is being attacked? What if someone has a gun to your daughter's head? Do you use violent force to save your daughter's life? I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just pointing out that the reason why the "just war" principle exists, is because violence is, or at least seems, to be justifiable when defending an innocent from a malicious aggressor. Christ did not resist when He Himself was threatened, however it that does not translate into strict pacifism in the political sense, especially when it is other innocents whose lives are threatened. I'm just pointing out that this is not a simple black-and-white WWJD issue.
When Jesus was arrested in
When Jesus was arrested in the garden, he told the soldiers to let his disciples go. He was the one they wanted, so to speak. That's the way he defended his disciples - through truth and sacrifice. In defending good, there are limits. We may not nuke a city to save our nation. We may not torture terrorists. We may not terrorize. There is a line that we do not cross, even when defending good. Why draw that line at torture and not at killing? Why draw that line at nuking and not at killing?
We have a duty to defend one another, but we should always use the weapons of goodness - truth and sacrifice. If someone is attacking our daughter, we should sacrifice our life to save her.
The just-war principle is under intense scrutiny by the Church. Humanity's experience with total war has revealed that no one can prepare for war - even a just-war - without becoming deformed by violence. Saint Basil and the ancient Church understood that - proscribing years of penance for soldiers who fought even in just-wars. Today, we understand that the just-war - even if a legitimate response - is a fallacious and deceptive response. "All who take the sword will die by the sword," is what our Savior taught, and we're beginning to understand how right he really was.
You have not addressed the
You have not addressed the main point however. It is easy to be self-sacrificing and pacifistic when you are the one targeted. Then, no matter what, you have the certitude of moral rectitude. However, what of the fate of Afghani women, of Kurds, of Chaldean Christians, and of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Afghanistan who are often targeted. Will we sacrifice them on the altar of pacifism. I do not claim to be in favor of the war, or of how either the Bish or the Obama administration has handled foreign policy. WHat I am merely stating is that sometimes it is impossible to sacrifice "self," and sometimes aggressors won't listen to "Peace be with you." If a man does shoot a man who is threatening the life of his daughter, has he committed the mortal sin of murder? Most would say no, because he acted to defend an innocent, and the act of killing the aggressor was an unintended consequence of his duty to protect his daughter. I am not saying this analogy is directly related to Iraq/Afghanistan, but I am saying that "pacifism" might not always be the answer to the WWJD question. Martin Luther King stated that he wanted peace to be defined, not as the absense of conflict, but as the presence of justice. Violence is a bad thing, but I think that immediately resorting to "pacifism" in all cases is irresponsible, and does a disservice to Christ because we identify his teaching with a political practice, and give up our God-given ability to think, discern, and make tough decisions, just so that we can feel good about ourselves. If I am in error, I will fully submit myself to the teachings of Christ as preserved in the magisterial pronouncements of His Church. But I am not ready to throw stones at Obama, our generals, or our fighting men and women, in the name of pacifism.
No one is attacking us. No
No one is attacking us.
No one has a gun to our daughter's head.
Yet we hold guns to the head of other peoples' daughters, worldwide.
WWJD?
Stop the lies.
Stop the war.
Tell all: "Peace be with you!"
While speaking of Gandhi and Dr. King, we now always forget our own great Roman Catholic Cesar Chavez, just as we forget the workers whose wages we steal, the workers whose rights he defended, with Bishop Donnelly.
Viva Cesar Chavez.
Viva la paz, con justicia para con los pobres de esta tierra.
Trillions for Wall Street Bailouts and for war, while Jose and Maria go hungry, unpaid, cast out, deported, imprisoned, separated, no room at the inn.
Most of my response to the
Most of my response to the post above yours also applies here. Let me just add that the United States is not the universal "bad guy," and that there are individuals in this world who are consumed by hatred and bloodlust, for the Devil is still strong in this world. Will guns stop them? Will Bible verses stop them? I don't know. I don't have the certitude or confidence in my own opinion that possesses you. And in the words of Thomas Merton: Just because I believe I am doing [God's] will, doesn't mean I actually am. All I can do is try m best to follow Christ and His Church, nd pray for peace and the safety of the men and women who are risking their lives with more courage than I possess.
I'm no moral theologian; I'm just someone who doesn't think WWJD is so simple a question to answer, and if it seems apparent for you, please don't condemn those for whom the answer seems less sure. We've all heard the same Bible quotes, but in a world where those on both sides use such quotes merely to confirm a previously held opinion, it takes a little more than merely the letter to know God's law.
Finally, I am merely looking at this issue from another perspective, and giving an opinion based on that perspectiv4e. If this is atodds with the teachings of Chist present in His Church, then I will submit to the CHurch no matter how firmly I feel about my opinion.
I faxed a letter today to the
I faxed a letter today to the President, Vice-President and both of my Senators. The contents carried the same message.
I wish I could agree with Fr.
I wish I could agree with Fr. Dear, but I cannot. He seems to advocate the Neville Chamberlain "peace at any cost" mantra that got us into WWII by emboldening Hitler, and costing millions of lives in the process. Today, we have North Korea and Iran, reneging on every promise they make while stockpiling bomb ingredients and testing long range missiles. Does anyone doubt they intend to use these weapons when they are ready? Not I.
I think there are some people, like the Muslim Fundamentalists, who confuse peaceful intent with weakness. Who stand down only in the presence of strength. You may talk about the non-violent Jesus, but I seem to remember that when pushed too far he took a knotted rope and lashed out at those who victimized the people and made a profitable sham of religion.
Martin Luther King and Gandhi died for their beliefs. They are due great honor for that sacrifice. Let us live for our beliefs by confronting the devils of our time at their earliest stages.
Amen! Well said Brother!
Amen! Well said Brother!
Jesus died for his beliefs
Jesus died for his beliefs too - that all men and women are children of God capable of redemption and forgiveness and reconciliation. "Love of one's enemies constitutes the nucleus of the Christian Revolution," according to Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus died for us while we were sinners, in order to make us into saints. John Paul the Great tells us that the 'most faithful' of Christ's disciples have loved their enemies to the point of dying for them. The heart of Christianity is the cross of forgiveness - of responding to evil with good.
We will only defeat the sinners ruling North Korea and Iran if we respond to them with truth, love, and yes, sacrifice. We may end up being nailed to a cross like Jesus. North Korea and Iran may spit on our dying bodies like the Pharisees spitting on Christ, mocking us, asking us, "Where is your Father now?"
But like Gandhi said: first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. We win because the truth is stronger than hate, because even the hardest hard is capable of being touched by our sacrifice of love.
War is despair - despair of humanity, despair of Christ's mission of mercy, despair of love.
Churchill not Chamberlain got
Churchill not Chamberlain got us into WWII.
Read Roman Catholic Deacon Dardess, and the Tent of Abraham by the Reverend Sister Joan Chittister for a clearer picture of Islam, and of our own religion, than that warmongerer Robert Spencer, who "makes a profitable sham of religion" has given you.
The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. preached hard against Vietnam in the months before his martyrdom, and for this he was silenced; for peace would he now preach hard against war, now, for agape. Gandhi was ready to give the Muslims the rule of India rather than the separation of the nation as occured, and so he was murdered, by a Hindu, for preaching all-sacrificing peace, for ahimsa.
We must not drag them like banners into our bloody warrior mud lust.
Anymore than we can so dirty the holy name of Jesus Christ for the sake of our dirty and unholy while very profitable wars.
John Dear, I agree that the
John Dear,
I agree that the Gospel message is clear but not easy. To have many options besides war to deal with agression is important. War is not an easy answer as it destroys minds and souls of warriors and the innocent civilian. War destroys creation, humans and all of nature. May Jesus who send the Spirit who always gives us hearts that are willing to sacrifice shortcuts for true Love and Peace. Elizabeth Fuhr
Thanks, John and Ken for a
Thanks, John and Ken for a lucid and deeply reflective response to the President's speech. You helped me clarify my misgivings and disgruntled unrest when I listened to Obama's speech. Continue with your good work...
Obama's speech was indeed a
Obama's speech was indeed a siren's call. It was as persuasive as is humanely possible. It convinced me, but not completely. It left me with a nagging feeling that somehow I got rooked.
John Deare's comments pulled me back from the brink. Non-violence is a radical concept in the original meaning of radical (radix=root). It is important to go back to the very foundations of peacemaking and nonviolence to avoid getting snared in his sophistry. I think Obama knows what he has done and feels compelled to do it. However, he can't and shouldn't try to have it both ways. I understand the temptation but that doesn't make it right.
THX for the article.
This is the best response
This is the best response I've seen to Obama's speech. Thank you so much for it! It should be copied and sent everywhere.
Four words redeeming
Four words redeeming President Obama from his constantinian compromise:
Hilda Solis
Sonia Sotomayor
Two more for good measure:
The eminent American Roman Catholic leader
Joe Biden
In fact are they not each Roman Catholic, one and all?
With us, as are we, all, Catholics.
Christmas Day some of us will
Christmas Day some of us will be backing up Fr. John Dear's words by vigiling silently for peace in Northern Maine. For over seven years we have participated in a weekly silent vigil with signs reading "STAND with us FOR PEACE." For some of us who vigil, John Dear is a vital inspiration. He understands the real meaning of the teachings of Jesus and the practicality of non-violence. Yes, practicality -- because violence just breeds more violence. Our Christmas card to Fr. Dear this year stated that we wished he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. He has very accurately described the negative impact Obama's Nobel speech has wrought. Thank God for people like John Dear.
Where? Northern
Where?
Northern Maine?
Bangor?
OMG!!:
Mount KATAHDIN!!
please wear your woolies and permit me to join in your prayers for peace.
(climbed Katahdin before dawn August 8 about six years ago, dragging myself off the mountain about ten o'clock at night, and it was FREEZING then!)
Dear Frere Charles: We will
Dear Frere Charles: We will be holding a silent vigil for peace in Houlton
at noon on Christmas Day. If the wind chill is twenty below or lower,
it will only be for 15 minutes -- if not we may go the whole half hour.
Come join us. Houlton is NE of Mt. Kathadin. We have been vigiling for
over 7 years near Houlton's Peace Pole in Monument Park. The Peace Pole
(given to the town of Houlton by a Japanese Prayer Society) is under the
care of the S. Aroostook Ministerial Assoc. which includes the local
Catholic Church, Baptists, other protestant denominations and us Quakers.
We are also part of Pax Christi Maine. Very ecumenical place, Houlton.
How better to celebrate the Prince of Peace than standing for peace?!
Truly delighted I stumbled
Truly delighted I stumbled upon your website, the info you are offering we have found second to none
Post new comment