Category Archives: violence
Carlin, Control, and Conscription
Edit: I had already published this post, but after looking a bit around the theoblogosphere, it finds some friends in Ben’s, Halden’s, and Michael’s posts for the 4th of July.
Conscription is an interesting term. I’ve made theological turns before that employ words like coercive and co-opting. There are also other important words like commodifing and control. But I’ve since begun to think of loyalty and support — in monetary terms, as well as the rest of our lifestyle — in terms of conscription. And George Carlin does a decent job of identifying and explaining to a certain degree, this concept of conscription:
Carlin on the Draft and Choice
Carlin on Control and the American Dream
Carlin makes a great point on choice. Choice in the country doesn’t really exist; it is an illusion of choice. Well, we could choose, but the choice for a Christian then is to choose to die, after all, this society is rather eager to kill. If we do not choose to die, we are conscripted from birth into a society that says this on bumper stickers:
Right. So Archbishop Romero said stop the killing and was shot. He wrote to our President to stop selling arms to the oppressive government, and Carter, Carter the evangelical President, responded with sending more arms and labeling the Archbishop a subversive. Do not tell me that such intention in the bumper sticker doesn’t exist. I think with such a statement, it is easy to see where the church should be — on the business end of a rifle. We ought not be conscripted, or at least we ought to fight it.
On Complicity and Engagement
Some may find the pictures below disturbing. The intent is not to disturb or shock for the purposes of sickening the reader into numbness. They primarily function to point towards our complicity.
Union is holding a conference on empire, “Empire: Resistance and Reimagination.” But they are far from alone. Empire studies seems all the rage right now. The sole purpose of some theologians is to engage complicity. And not to be left out, some fellow bloggers have focused on complicity in one form or another lately as well. Talk of complicity seems to be in the air. However, complicity goes deeper than a mere theological fad. One could argue that the constant question of complicity thoroughly permeates theology, if theology is being rightly done.
And so, how do we do Seminary, or more general, how are we Christians to live in a country of power? Power to abuse, that is. Importantly, there is little room in the Jesus story for those who kill. In the narrative, we’re the centurion at the foot of the cross. Covered in blood that is not our own, how do we read the bible with stained hands? To complicate reading, and indeed living as well, we do not exist apart from our context. We (or at least I) live in a milieu that is called American society. It is important to note, that in such a society, discourse is fundamentally violent, voyeuristic, and governed by Hollywood/TV.
To say that pop-culture’s imagination is violent is an understatement. We have a culture that relishes imaginative situations, which demand the good hero resort to gladiatorial violence and Machiavellian means.1 The beauty is in the blood that flies.2 “Through the safe distance of the media, we become death-watchers, voyeurs of what has become culturally obscene.”3 This warped view of aesthetics is based on a milieu of voyeuristic entertainment: “Entertainment is the supra-ideology of all discourse on television. No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that it is there for our amusement and pleasure.”4 Comedian, and social critic, Jon Stewart made this same point when he visited the political show “Crossfire.”5 Even the “news shows” that make space for pundit “discussion” are primarily oriented towards entertainment. What is more, Stewart went on to lament, such entertainment is violent, as indicated by the name of the show and the argumentative action of the participants.
However, television is not simply voyeurism for a few; rather, it functions as a nation-wide, visual bacchanal of violence that forms society’s identity. “Television is our culture’s principal mode of knowing itself. Therefore—and this is the critical point—how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged.”6 Quite simply, the visual storytelling of Hollywood, imaginative and adrenaline-filled, defines culture’s categories and the primary category is the unquestioned use of violence and Machiavellian means.
And, so, again, how do we read our Bibles, construct a theology, and live our faith in such a context?
Well. First we have to acknowledge what we look like. We (or at least I do, as a complicit person) look like this:
and this
and this
and this
However, merely acknowledging our hands drenched in blood that is not our own (perhaps stemming from a theology that seeks or cares not about other’s blood) will not do. I am attempting to raise the issue in a way that breaks with our common method of discourse. We must engage complicity, rather than passively take it in like the hermeneutics of Hollywood would like us to do.
So, what should our method be? It can’t be violent or voyeuristic or subject to commercials. It must be loving, dialogical, and free. But what does that look like and how do we maintain that method of discourse?
_____________
1. The television show “24” is one of many examples.
2. An example is the movie 300.
3. Anthony Kelly, Eschatology and Hope (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2006), 97.
4. Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), 87.
5. CNN’s “Crossfire,” October 15, 2004. A rough transcript may be obtained here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html.
6. Postman, 92.
I took the pictures above from a performance by a friend of mine for the Empire conference here at Union.
The Destruction of the Church by America
Fundamentally, the myths of innocence, nature, God, chosen, and millennial are stories that alter our identity in favor of a white washed America. It is true we are exceptional – we are exceptionally bad. We have a tragic past, as I have displayed, and a tragic future, as we maintain an innocence of our past. “The American national mythos is messianic; it seeks to tell a story of freedom spread through self-sacrifice, not victories won through the spread of terror. To sustain the myth, Americans need to rewrite history just as surely as did Stalin to sustain his own version of communist orthodoxy.”1 It is incredibly telling that to confront the myths of America, Robert Hughes spoke of the prophetic, Black experience. The implication is, that the American myths are categorically racist; the American hagiographic myths hide the evil past, present injustice and the future of malevolent violence. There is very little in the myths that pushes America forward in a moral way.2 Instead the myths make it possible for America to turn a blind eye to violence, to injustice, to torture and insomuch that Christians take in these myths, they take in the blindness as well. The simulacra of American messianism subverts the real Jesus, and therefore, it unsettles and divides the body of Christ.
_______________
1. Lee Griffith, The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 38.
2. Richard T. Hughes, Myths America Lives By, (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 63.
The War Prayer
I recently came across this video, an animated depiction of Mark Twain’s “The War Prayer.” This text and video more than adequately describe the theological tensions of war, violence and constantinianism. It also calls into question the basic assumptions of holy war, righteous causes, justified anger and national innocence. Give it a watch and spread it around. Its a great illustration of the complexity inherent to one’s call for violence, which is the first necessary step for talking about war – whether one is pro or con.
The War Prayer Part 1
The War Prayer Part 2
Cone on Moyers
Prof. James H. Cone is on Bill Moyers’ Journal tonight at nine. Woo hoo. From looking at the website, I expect it to be about the man, his work in Black theology, and not so surprisingly to those of us at Union, discussion on R. Niebuhr. Give it a watch on the screen or the net – its always interesting to see the person at work behind the theology.
Edit:
Here is the video of the Cone interview by Moyers. While it does touch some on Cone himself, Black theology, and R. Niebuhr, the interview is largely a platform for Black theology to have a voice, specifically on the subject of lynching and the cross. Give it a look.
On the State and the Market by Muslims and Christians
I am taking a number of classes this semester: “Justice and the World Order”, “Luke”, an Aristotle class up at Fordham, and lastly, a “Christian-Muslim Dialogue” class. In the Christian-Muslim dialogue class, taught by Prof. Knitter, one of the books we are reading is titled Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism and edited by Omid Safi. While I read the first two chapters of the book, I was struck with how much one learns about not only the other religions, but also one’s own religion within religious dialogue. A deeper understanding is gained inside such learning, but there are also challenges raised within the new horizon to that we must respond.
I also did not anticipate that I would see such similar lenses between I and a Muslim scholar. I was not sure what to expect really, but the theological and epistemological parallels are too close to ignore. Thus, from the knowledge gained from two chapters in the readings, this post seeks to find the teleological path of right response and unicity to the chaos currently reigning in Muslim culture.
The first chapter by Khaled Abou El Fadl on the chaos within the Muslim communities, particularly in the Arab world with the nationalized eradication of social space, seems analogous with William Cavanaugh’s theopolitical interpretation of the nation-state. Cavanaugh asserts that the jealousness of the state obliterates alternative social space, through the individualizing social contract and its use of coercive powers, for the state seeks to assert power over its citizens and justify its raison d’etat.1
The second chapter by Farid Esack seems to agree with Eugene McCarraher’s theoeconomic readings. McCarraher states:
The corporation parodies the ecclesia, and the trinkets of the market ape the delights of the heavenly city. The enchantments of capitalism pervert our longing for a sacramental way of being in the world. A fat, greasy, hoarding slob in ancient Babylonian lore, Mammon appears, in capitalists modernity, in a counterfeit angelic rainment.2
Esack similarly asserts, “This fundamentalism of the Market seeks to convert all other cultures in its image, utilizing them for consolidating the system.”3 And Esack continues: “The Market is thus being openly presented as the only way with the assertion that outside its pale there is no salvation for the world, only the hell-fire of destruction, or the limbo of ‘primitivism.’”4
Theologically these Muslim scholars are making the same turns that some Christian theologians and historians are and this reveals at least two important points. First, as Christians and Muslims we can both have a similar understanding of western power, which results in a condemnation of the powers as they currently exist.5 This leads to the second point which is more of a question: while the Muslims struggle against the encroachment and overt attempt to control by western imperialism, are we as Christians working prophetically against the chaos causing state and market that attempts to influence us or are we co-opted to justify the religion of the state and the market?
It seems to me that in order to help the Muslims in their profound chaos, for which we as westerners are culpable, our radical, prophetic spirit must be encouraged. Our only option is to side with those confused and on the receiving end of American violence. As both religious communities suffering from the divisive actions by the state, Christians and Muslims must join in some ways to truly combat market and state fundamentalism.
As Christians and Muslims we both stand in condemnation of the chaos and violence bringers, and in this case, the bringers are the state, the market and those who are co-opted into the systems of repression by the powers and their status quo. There can be no flourishing for Islam if relationships are continually broken because of bombs from planes obliterating the people and soldiers poisoning alternative social space. The moving forward of progressive Islam or an Islamic reformation (or whatever), much less the healing of the communities in general, cannot happen easily to say the least without the cessation of chaos inflicted by the nation-state and violence supplied by the west. Reformations have their own chaos, but it is not the same chaos broken relationships. We cannot afford to let the state and the market go on inflicting unnecessary chaos, for both the good of western Christianity, Muslim societies and life in general.
_____________
1. See Cavanaugh’s works Theopolitical Imagination and Torture and Eucharist.
2. “The Enchantments of Mammon: Notes Toward a Theological History of Capitalism” in Modern Theology, July 2005, pg. 433.
3. Progressive Muslims, 90.
4. Ibid., 91.
5. Interestingly it is the Muslim progressives that criticize the liberals of maintaining the nationalized status quo, but we in the west do not maintain a distinction as such up front, although the dichotomy between liberal and liberation may be a parallel distinction.
M*A*S*H, War and Theology
I really like M*A*S*H. In fact, I think its some of the best (if not some of the only) war commentary on TV. It can be repetitive at times and sometimes too silly, but it is also often intelligent, witty and profound. Aside from the war commentary, the diverse characters grow throughout their time on the show and truly do take on a life-like quality that is rare in general, much less in current TV shows.
Recently a friend of mine told me he thought M*A*S*H to be stupid, silly him, but it also came up in a comment on the Niebuhr post on military chaplaincy. With the consistent inclusion of the chaplain (and therefore Christianity) and questioning the ethics of war, M*A*S*H provides a particularly fertile ground for theological discussion on all sorts of things war.
And so here is a list of episodes of some of my favorites to A. prove that M*A*S*H is not stupid, but instead thoughtful and B. supply a curriculum/syllabus, if you will, of some episodes that may provoke theological thought. This list is not intended to be a best of (though it does include some of my favorites) or is it meant as an introduction for someone looking for an overall idea of what the show is normally like, simply this list attempts to supply a beginning for those seeking a theological interaction with war and violence in M*A*S*H. Lastly, the episode summaries are shamelessly copied from Wikipedia.
1. Season 2, Episode 24 “A Smattering of Intelligence”
Two different American intelligence agents arrive at the camp and both appear to be trying to thwart each other and score federal funding for their rival espionage organizations. Hawkeye and Trapper John decide to have some fun by tricking both spies into going after Frank Burns.
2. Season 3, Episode 5 “O.R.”
A series of short sub-plots all focusing around drama in the operating room after a major assault. An Ethiopian soldier is featured.
3. Season 4, Episode 24 “The Interview”
A stateside television correspondent interviews M*A*S*H personnel about their experiences and thoughts. (in Black and White)
4. Season 5, Episode 13 “Hawk’s Nightmare”
Hawkeye’s sanity is wearing thin. He experiences constant nightmares and bouts of sleepwalking, so Dr. Sidney Freedman arrives to help Hawkeye deal with his problems.
5. Season 7, Episode 15 “Dear Sis”
December 1951: Father Mulcahy sends his sister a Christmas letter bemoaning his feelings of uselessness and his desperate desire to provide more comfort for the troops. Mulcahy has run-ins with two problem patients; one who won’t take anesthetic and nearly chokes Mulcahy, and an hysteric who punches Mulcahy.
6. Season 9, Episode 14 “Oh, How We Danced”
B.J. is upset as his wedding anniversary is coming up while he is thousands of miles away, so the camp gets a home movie shipped in from his wife. The camp also takes care of an injured Korean child and Major Winchester grudgingly performs a hygiene inspection on a front-line unit.
7. Season 9, Episode 17 “Bless You, Hawkeye”
Hawkeye has a serious sneezing problem that appears to be psychological in nature, so Dr. Sidney Freedman arrives to find out what has him sneezing around the clock.
8. Season 9, Episode 18 “Blood Brothers”
A G.I. dying of leukemia cares less for his own health than for the health of his critically wounded comrade. Father Mulcahy must prepare for an inspection from a particularly strict Cardinal.
9. Season 10, Episode 14 “A Holy Mess”
An AWOL soldier requests sanctuary during one of Father Mulcahy’s services, leading to a huge legal dispute and potentially ruining plans for a special breakfast in the mess tent-turned-chapel.
10. Season 11, Episode 16 “Goodbye, Farewell and Amen”
July 27, 1953 The armistice is signed, ending the war, and the hospital staff must come to terms with the effects the war had on their lives. The finale ran for 2 1/2 hours. (I wouldn’t watch this one until I’ve literally gone through most of the available episodes, it is just too good to skip to the end and rob it of its punch.)
The Great Philosopher on War and Violence
I can think of no greater philosopher in our age than the great Bill Waterson through Calvin and Hobbes. Forget Foucault, Derrida, Sarte, Russell, Whitehead, or Wittgenstein, for they kneel before the wit and brilliance of child speak. Well, perhaps I am praising too highly, but I’d like to think not. Anyways, this is really an introduction to two Calvin comics that I was made aware of today. Good stuff I tell you.
On Griffith and Terror
In Review, The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God
The book sustains a well-made argument for nearly 300 pages, ranging from socio-political and historical analysis,1 scriptural interpretation,2 theological conclusions3 and practically proposed solutions.4 While Myths America Lives By was simply written and seemingly half-positive of the American Myths, The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God rips away the entirety of the innocence façade. Through the use of diverse voices Griffith throws no soft punches and deconstructs any sense of righteous innocence and justified anger. For example:
Meanwhile, the shelling of Muslim neighborhoods by the New Jersey did not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. While there were doubtless members of militia groups residing in these neighborhoods, the bombs could not set them apart from the children or the grandparents or the other women and men who were clearly noncombatants. If the defining feature of terrorism is the civilian identity of those who are targeted, then the “terrorists” in Beirut were not those who bombed military barracks but those who lobbed car-sized bombs into city neighborhoods.5
I do not mean to overload on quotes, but reading through this book was like a solid meal with great quotes, particularly in comparison to Hughes’ appetizer book. This is a work of solid scholarship in my mind and speaks the well-supported conclusions without fear:
When we follow the trail and trace the violence back, we do not find God. We find a mad confluence of godlets. We find principalities and power, imperial nation states and barely organized guerilla fronts, all self-exalted, all petty, and all appealing to as much inhumanity as humans can muster. It is called Liberation and martyrdom. it is called defense and justice. Call it what you will. It is Terrorism.6
Any book that says the following would put itself in good stead with me, “In nations in which the majority of believers are Christian, the church must bear the responsibility for the ease with which the name of God has been co-opted into the service of carnage.”7 And so The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God was simply one of my favorite reads of the summer: well argued, excellent conclusions, good quotes and best of all, very helpful for my own purposes.
For My Research, The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God
The first new concept of importance that greeted me was quite surprising. According to Griffith there is a “lack of definitional agreement [on what a terrorist and terrorism is] among terrorism experts.”8 For a brief second I was surprised and then it occurred to me that terrorist or terrorism is a label, it is propoganda, and so the common use of the term is perspective based. Using the term “terrorist” is name-calling rather than saying a terrorist is someone who inflicts terror as a weapon. And with this use in mind, then the definition by Edmund Burke of a terrorist, “those who are lacking sufficient awe for Father State,” fits perfectly.9
Using “terrorist” as a negative label, instead of neutral and applicable to all, is what Griffith calls demonizing. Demonizing is virtually mandatory for visiting violence on a perceived enemy; the enemy must look bad to justify war, otherwise there is generally no need for violence. Demonizing also creates problems for solving conflict with anything other than violence. In the current political climate, talking to a demon legitimizes the demon and seems to make those talking to the demon as weak “and if the demons will not change their ways (and how could demons be anything other than demonic?), then warfare is foreordained as the only possible form of engagement.”10 With rational dialogue between opposing forces seen as soft and ineffectual, then in the eyes of the world, diplomatic conversation a weak option at best. This is scary. Debate over military intervention is no longer confined to coercive force as necessary with those who just cannot be reasoned with; instead military intervention is the first and last option because dialogue cannot happen.
Demonizing continues to make the situation worse on a life style scale. Dealing with demons, or the fear of the demonic striking at anytime, anywhere, “one can never be too prepared or too strong. This also means that one should never allow oneself to feel secure.”11 The fear of a Russian nuclear attack during America in the 1950s comes to mind, as does this “War on Terror.” The fear of the demonic and perceived the need for military buildup is nothing new and in the eyes of the frightened, this system is strangely comforting: “the nation is innocent and glorious, there is a great and unprovoked evil that desires to do the nation harm, but worry not, our technological advances in military will save us all. The nation will protect you, your money and give you peace.”
This narrative provided by the one’s own nation-state is terribly deceptive, but the theologian to best continue the argument is with William Cavanaugh later. Still, Griffith does touch briefly on the deceptive story that the nation-state tells. Griffith recognizes the illusionary salvific nature of the tale: “it seeks to tell a story of freedom spread through self-sacrifice, not victories won through the spread of terror. To sustain the myth, Americans need to rewrite history just as surely as did Stalin to sustain his own version of communist orthodoxy.”12 The implications of such a story does not stop with rewriting history, but it is also liturgically/eschatologically competitive and Griffith touches on this as well when he notes the Reagan idea of a bright dawn occurring in America during the 80s.13
_____
1. “Woven into the very fabric of U.S. origins, terrorism emerged in two forms: (a) in the violent confrontations between cultures on the frontier, and (b) in violent confrontations between the growing consciousness of rural interest and the power elites of the cities.” Griffith, 145.
2. “These are the two sides of the prophetic mission: to announce judgment on the present order and to weep at the consequences the judgment portends. This biblical pattern is so pronounced that it seems fair to suggest that if either side of the mission is lacking, then the word that is being offered is not prophetic.” Griffith, 119.
3. “Violence is a form of proselytism which preaches that there is no God. The preachments of violence are more effective than televangelists, more zealous in winning converts than those who sell religion door to door.” Griffith, 68.
4. “In order to witness to the defeat of terror, churches and other faith communities must also be zones that are free from terror. Rather than peddling fears and threats of damnation, the church is called to witness to the one and only sufficient antidote to terror – the resurrection of Jesus.” Griffith, 251. Also see 268-270.
5. Griffith, 5.
6. Griffith, 6.
7. Griffith, xii.
8. Griffith, 7.
9. Griffith, 12.
10. Griffith, 86.
11. Griffith, 84.
12. Griffith, 38.
13. Griffith, 143.
A Couple of Theological Turns that can Lead to Pacifism
This is for Halden’s Pacifism Series.
I do not want to repeat what others have said in the series, so I do not plan to make an argument for my pacifism, rather, I want to mention a couple of the deciding factors the led to my shift and will also provide a critical reader more concepts to investigate. My pacifism grew out of two movements in my life – one that seems as clear as lightening and the other born out of a slower theological growth.
First, my social location. I was born into conservative Protestantism (which was sometimes evangelical, sometimes fundamentalist and even at times Pentecostal…ish), the Republican party and a family that was more than just a little pro military. One grandfather came back from Korea with sniper pins (or something to that effect), and more in the other family were in World War 2 with stories of sacrifice and danger. To bring the situation more up to date, I have been in discussions where family has said coercive, militaristic force is mandatory for keeping the peace, even on one’s own citizens; that anything goes to maintain the status quo and the perception of safety. None of this I suspect is new to anyone in America, or anywhere for that matter, but it seems socially locating one’s self is necessary for this autobiographical statement. Lastly, I suppose I am a “free church” pacifist which some might find weird in light of what I will soon say.
The first shift I can see clearly in my mind. It was a sunny day in Portland, Oregon at my undergrad school and just past noon. I was sitting on the beat up, orange couch, alone in the shade of my room and reading a small book I had somehow came across – The Wisdom of Tolstoy. There is a specific instance in the book that Tolstoy chronicles a Rabbi stating, something to the effect of, “There is a lot in your New Testament about nonviolence, but you don’t listen.” It was this statement in combination with Tolstoy’s message on the Sermon on the Mount that struck my mind dumb for the next half hour. It was here I realized that taking the text seriously very well might mean non-violence and non-violence is possible. Sure friends of mine were reading Hauerwas and Yoder, but that did not have the effect on me that other people felt, well, not by then it hadn’t. For me, it was Tolstoy. Call him the gateway drug to pacifism.
However, I do not think Tolstoy would have had the effect he did without a simultaneous rising of communal ecclesiology in my theology. I suppose it wasn’t a full on community ecclesiology then, more like an inchoate communality, but I had just written a paper on individualism and community in the church, arguing for the dumping of a mechanistic, individualistic anthropology in favor of the communal, organic body of Christ. As time has progressed and my ecclesiology found root within Christological/Eschatological Kingdom theology, so my pacifism strengthened. By identifying far more within the body of Christ – an extension of the kingdom here but not yet here – than any nation-state, my politics have taken a different turn in thought (which is partly why I hope to do a PhD in the subject of political theology – a response by myself to evils in the world is mandatory, but how ought the church engage?). Also, William Cavanaugh has been very helpful here; through re-examining history, his writings helped me, who was blind to the intrinsic coercive nature of the nation-state, to see where peace and coercion really lay.
It seems as one’s ecclesiology strengthens, particularly when it focuses on relationships, pacifism becomes the option. Doing violence to another human being just doesn’t exist, for it is the church who takes in the hurting and criticizes the powerful. The economy of God functions radically different and that is our first allegiance. America is cool and all, but despite what it might think, it isn’t God or the church.
Quotes from Ratner and Ray
Guantánamo: What the World Should Know is basically a 93 page interview (with 60 some pages in the appendix of documents that were alluded to during the interview) with Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as the interviewee and Ellen Ray, President of the Institute for Media Analysis, as the interviewer. This book is most helpful insomuch that it reaches beyond five minute political arguments on an entertainment… er I mean “news show.” While the text certainly comes from a specific point of view (one I happen to agree with), it does give a text that talks about most topics and therefore a holisitic view of one side – in short, this is a good interview in terms of topics addressed. Also, the text is copiously littered with facts and dissenting voices that are rarely addressed, but are very much in need of voicing, especially if one claims to think critically about the world one relates too.
For example, by November 2001, the police and the FBI had already arrested and detained, by some estimates, up to three thousand Muslim and Arab noncitizens in the United States. These people were not even suspected of terrorism; they were merely non-U.S. citizens who had allegedly violated some immigration procedure. Many of these people effectively disappeared in U.S. jails; a number were beaten and ultimately deported. – 7
[I am struck by the similarities between Pinochet’s torturous reign and this Bush administration, particularly when it comes to treating “detainees.” We even “disappear” people. Hopefully we’re not dumping their bodies into the ocean, but I can’t imagine that we are treating anyone well, particularly the ones we simply make disappear.]
Villagers and warlords, including members of the Northern Alliance, started turning over their enemies or anyone they didn’t like, or finally, anyone they could pick up. Among those who have been released are taxi drivers and even a shepherd in his nineties. – 9
The key point here is that everyone picked up in a war is protected by the Geneva Conventions. No one is outside the law. No one can be treated arbitrarily at the discretion of his captors. – 11
Not only torture but other forms of abuse are prohibited by the Convention Against Torture: cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (conduct that is severe, but not so severe as to amount to torture) is also prohibited. A stress position, for example, such as forced standing for a number of hours might not be torture but is still prohibited. – 30
So classifying these people as threats to the United States has nothing to do with how you must treat them. They still have to be treated humanely, and humane treatment does not include torture. In addition, torture committed by U.S. soldiers or private contractors acting under U.S. authority is a violation of federal law, punishable by the death penalty if the death of a prisoner results from the torture. Another federal statute criminalizes any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions – including torture, willful killing, inhuman treatment, and causing great suffering to those in custody – as a war crime. Furthermore, a special statute criminalizes such conduct if carried out by so-called private contractors working with the U.S. military. – 32
Quotes from Lee Griffith
A week or so back I read through The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God by Lee Griffith. I highly recommend the book for anyone thinking about violence, theology and the state or pacifism. The following quotes from the book are only a few of the many insightful points that Griffith over the course of the book. So go get the book and read it.
In nations in which the majority of believers are Christian, the church must bear the responsibility for the ease with which the name of God has been co-opted into the service of carnage. – xii
Meanwhile, the shelling of Muslim neighborhoods by the New Jersey did not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. While there were doubtless members of militia groups residing in these neighborhoods, the bombs could not set them apart from the children or the grandparents or the other women and men who were clearly noncombatants. If the defining feature of terrorism is the civilian identity of those who are targeted, then the “terrorists” in Beirut were not those who bombed military barracks but those who lobbed car-sized bombs into city neighborhoods. – 5
While the source of the dreams is unclear, in Lebanon, the violence can be traced to its sources. When we follow the trail and trace the violence back, we do not find God. We find a mad confluence of godlets. We find principalities and power, imperial nation states and barely organized guerilla fronts, all self-exalted, all petty, and all appealing to as much inhumanity as humans can muster. It is called Liberation and martyrdom. it is called defense and justice. Call it what you will. It is Terrorism. – 6
Nonetheless, the lack of definitional agreement [on what a terrorist and terrorism is] among terrorism experts is pronounced. – 7
…it was Edmund Burke who bequeathed us the definition of “terrorists” as those who are lacking sufficient awe for Father State. Terrorists see the wounds of the state and, rather than exercising caution, they practice subversion. Terrorists approach the state without piety or trembling. – 12
The crux of the extent to which Christians should fulfill their responsibilities as provisional citizens of various localities came with two defining issues: whether Christians could honor the divinity of the emperor, and whether Christians could wield weapons of war. “No” was the resounding answer on both counts during the first three centuries of church history, with very few exceptions to prove the rule. – 24
The American national mythos is messianic; it seeks to tell a story of freedom spread through self-sacrifice, not victories won through the spread of terror. To sustain the myth, Americans need to rewrite history just as surely as did Stalin to sustain his own version of communist orthodoxy. – 38
While technological developments foster claims (albeit false claims) that ours is an age of greater intimacy in the form of a “shrinking globe,” a “world wide web,” and a “global community,” there is no technological drive towards greater intimacy between combatants where all hell breaks loose in the global neighborhood. – 51
Violence is a form of proselytism which preaches that there is no God. The preachments of violence are more effective than televangelists, more zealous in winning converts than those who sell religion door to door. – 68
When doing battle with the demonic, one can never be too prepared or too strong. This also means that one should never allow oneself to feel secure. – 84
If one may not speak with the demons (for to do so would risk contaminating oneself and conferring legitimacy on evil) and if the demons will not change their ways (and how could demons be anything other than demonic?), then warfare is foreordained as the only possible form of engagement. – 86
These are the two sides of the prophetic mission: to announce judgment on the present order and to weep at the consequences the judgment portends. This biblical pattern is so pronounced that it seems fair to suggest that if either side of the mission is lacking, then the word that is being offered is not prophetic. – 119
Religiously oriented, this perennial (if not tedious) sense of new beginnings has become a prerequisite for involvement in U.S. politics. The Reagan campaign of 1984 gave best expression to the theme, simple but pregnant: “It’s morning in America.” – 143
Woven into the very fabric of U.S. origins, terrorism emerged in two forms: (a) in the violent confrontations between cultures on the frontier, and (b) in violent confrontations between the growing consciousness of rural interest and the power elites of the cities. – 145
Revelation is more a book about terror defeated rather than terror inflicted, which is why worship and liturgy are such a central feature of the book. – 205
Rather that being a time of hot persecution, it was a time when the Empire experienced relative calm, when wealth abounded, when the terror of the powerful seemed like no terror – in short, a time like ours. And so, John depicted the Empire not only as a “Beast” with fangs bared in preparation for violence, but also as a “Whore” who seduced victims onto the path of imperial Rome with no need for violent persecutions. – 206
And so in the name of making no concessions to terrorism, governments make the greatest concession of all, meeting terror with terror. – 221
In order to witness to the defeat of terror, churches and other faith communities must also be zones that are free from terror. Rather than peddling fears and threats of damnation, the church is called to witness to the one and only sufficient antidote to terror – the resurrection of Jesus. – 251
To the point of tedium, “God bless America” was the slogan proclaimed by every car wash and burger joint across the country. I saw not a single sign on a commercial enterprise beseeching god to watch over the people of Afghanistan. – 276
Witnessing Against Torture
Today I went to a vigil/mock funeral procession and march against Guantánamo put on by groups such as the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, The Metro New York Religious Campaign Against Torture, Amnesty International and Witness Against Torture (stemming from the Catholic Worker).
We ended at the entrance to the building where Senator Clinton’s office is located, which is very near the office of the other New York senator. We called for: the increased pressure to close Guantánamo; the return of habeas corpus and the end to indefinite detention; the end of torture (no matter how the administration attempts to define it, what they are doing is torture), the end to secret prisons and disappearances; that all detainees be tried quickly, and that all the government officials involved be tried; and most importantly, that the flow of money that funds this torture abuse should be cut. The list was long, as the acts of the government in regards to torture is long.
This was also not an action limited to New York City, but instead it was a nation-wide action and even an international action, as it was the International Day in Support of Victims and Survivors of Torture. Please be mindful of what is going on and please join in the call to end torture.
You can view some of the pictures here.
flying.farther 