Fight for the right to party...

I've been thinking about Roe v Wade a lot lately....and other hot button issues that continually widen the divide between liberals and conservatives. I have realized lately that (and I don't think these are new thoughts...just one that newly occurred to me and I can be a little behind in these things so forgive me if this is obvious) the whole problem is simply people's choice to prioritize different rights. Or maybe more accurately, it's this weird balance between wanting to protect something (fetuses, the environment, children from guns) verses wanting to sustain certain RIGHTS that are perceived as vitally important (with the helpful and riot-inducing addition of a little slippery slope propaganda...like if we can't have abortions, we won't be allowed to use birth control soon and then they'll tell us we can't have sex...or if I can't own a semi-automatic sub machine gun and take it to the mall with me, I soon won't be allowed to have a snub nosed revolver at the shooting range and next they'll come an dconfiscate all of my kitchen knives...

The right of a woman to make choices about her body. The right to pioneer amazing scientific breakthroughs that could save lives. The right to have a gun in your bedside drawer. For each side, obviously, hence the sides, it's different...what they want to protect and what they want the right to do. Conservatives want to protect unborn children. Liberals want to protect the environment. Conservatives want the right to worship as they choose even if it's offensive to some people and even if it makes people of other faiths feel marginalized. Liberals want the right to pretty much any sexual lifestyle they desire even if it MIGHT be wrong or offensive. Conservatives want to protect people's rights to make money despites its negative effects on a community. Liberals want the right to end a life if it is inconveniencing their body. Liberals want to protect children from weapons. Conservatives want the right to defend themselves and their children with weapons. Liberals want media uncensored. Conservatives want to shield their children and themselves from certain types of nakedness and violence and profanity.

How do these values come about? It can't simply be religion because, biblically speaking, all of these issues are of concern to God. Christians are instructed by the bible to protect children (from everything from disturbing images to gunfire) the environment, our minds.

I don't see God spending a lot of time telling us to defend our own rights though. And that's what we seem to spend so much of our time doing.

"Be a voice for the voiceless," He says. "Show kindness to orphans and widows," He says. "Feed my sheep" He says. "Put others before you," He says. "Honor others above yourself," He says. "Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel," He says.

And of course, there is always the issue of unity. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis maintains that we, as believers, should never appear divided in front of non-believers. I wonder if he would have maintained his position if he had been around to experience the American Religious Right...oh alright, some of those extreme lefties are way out of line too. In this rare instance, I disagree with the late Mr. Lewis although I certainly do see his point. There are quite a lot of Christians I do not want to be associated with.

Wait, is that me, focusing on my RIGHT to seperate myself from what I perceive as insensitive, self-centered and pious? Am I putting my RIGHT above what might be for the good of the people? It's all so complicated and tiresome, I usually get somewhere around here in my thinking and then just kind of stop and opt to go and eat some yogurt or something.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: a regretful account

This week is the 60th "anniversary" of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I taught about this in my current events classes to the 4th through 6th graders. They know nothing of this. They know nothing of World War II. Ah, how to explain Hitler, the Nazis, Pearl Harbor and Fat Man and Little Boy all in one fell swoop and keep my opinions to myself while trying to nudge them more toward thinking and less toward unquestioning digestion...I don't know if I did a good job or not, but I've been thinking about the topic a lot lately given the NPR coverage.

My good friend Holly sent me this moving and tragic piece from http://dailydig.bruderhof.org

Father George Zabelka, a Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Air Force, served as a priest for the airmen who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and gave them his blessing. Days later he counseled an airman who had flown a low-level reconnaissance flight over the city of Nagasaki shortly after the detonation of “Fat Man.” The man described how thousands of scorched, twisted bodies writhed on the ground in the final throes of death, while those still on their feet wandered aimlessly in shock—flesh seared, melted, and falling off. The crewman’s description raised a stifled cry from the depths of Zabelka’s soul: “My God, what have we done?” Over the next twenty years, he gradually came to believe that he had been terribly wrong, that he had denied the very foundations of his faith by lending moral and religious support to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Zabelka died in 1992, but his message, in this speech given on the 40th anniversary of the bombings, must never be forgotten.

The destruction of civilians in war was always forbidden by the church, and if a soldier came to me and asked if he could put a bullet through a child’s head, I would have told him, absolutely not. That would be mortally sinful. But in 1945 Tinian Island was the largest airfield in the world. Three planes a minute could take off from it around the clock. Many of these planes went to Japan with the express purpose of killing not one child or one civilian but of slaughtering hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of children and civilians—and I said nothing.

I never preached a single sermon against killing civilians to the men who were doing it. I was brainwashed! It never entered my mind to protest publicly the consequences of these massive air raids. I was told it was necessary—told openly by the military and told implicitly by my church’s leadership. (To the best of my knowledge no American cardinals or bishops were opposing these mass air raids. Silence in such matters is a stamp of approval.)

< Tombstones of unknown A-bomb victims crowd a hillside at Mitaki Temple, northwest of Hiroshima.

I worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. during the Civil Rights struggle in Flint, Michigan. His example and his words of nonviolent action, choosing love instead of hate, truth instead of lies, and nonviolence instead of violence stirred me deeply. This brought me face to face with pacifism—active nonviolent resistance to evil. I recall his words after he was jailed in Montgomery, and this blew my mind. He said, “Blood may flow in the streets of Montgomery before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood that flows, and not that of the white man. We must not harm a single hair on the head of our white brothers.”

I struggled. I argued. But yes, there it was in the Sermon on the Mount, very clear: “Love your enemies. Return good for evil.” I went through a crisis of faith. Either accept what Christ said, as unpassable and silly as it may seem, or deny him completely.

For the last 1700 years the church has not only been making war respectable: it has been inducing people to believe it is an honorable profession, an honorable Christian profession. This is not true. We have been brainwashed. This is a lie.

War is now, always has been, and always will be bad, bad news. I was there. I saw real war. Those who have seen real war will bear me out. I assure you, it is not of Christ. It is not Christ’s way. There is no way to conduct real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. There is no way to train people for real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus.

< Stopped when the A-bomb hit Hiroshima on the morning of August 6, 1945, this watch belonged to Kengo Futagawa, a 59-year-old who was crossing a bridge 1600 meters from the hypocenter. Horribly burned, Futagawa jumped into the river for relief, and later made his way home, but died on August 22, 1945.

The morality of the balance of terrorism is a morality that Christ never taught. The ethics of mass butchery cannot be found in the teachings of Jesus. In Just War ethics, Jesus Christ, who is supposed to be all in the Christian life, is irrelevant. He might as well never have existed. In Just War ethics, no appeal is made to him or his teaching, because no appeal can be made to him or his teaching, for neither he nor his teaching gives standards for Christians to follow in order to determine what level of slaughter is acceptable.

So the world is watching today. Ethical hairsplitting over the morality of various types of instruments and structures of mass slaughter is not what the world needs from the church, although it is what the world has come to expect from the followers of Christ. What the world needs is a grouping of Christians that will stand up and pay up with Jesus Christ. What the world needs is Christians who, in language that the simplest soul could understand, will proclaim: the follower of Christ cannot participate in mass slaughter. He or she must love as Christ loved, live as Christ lived and, if necessary, die as Christ died, loving ones enemies.

For the 300 years immediately following Jesus’ resurrection, the church universally saw Christ and his teaching as nonviolent. Remember that the church taught this ethic in the face of at least three serious attempts by the state to liquidate her. It was subject to horrendous and ongoing torture and death. If ever there was an occasion for justified retaliation and defensive slaughter, whether in form of a just war or a just revolution, this was it. The economic and political elite of the Roman state and their military had turned the citizens of the state against Christians and were embarked on a murderous public policy of exterminating the Christian community.

Yet the church, in the face of the heinous crimes committed against her members, insisted without reservation that when Christ disarmed Peter he disarmed all Christians. Christians continued to believe that Christ was, to use the words of an ancient liturgy, their fortress, their refuge, and their strength, and that if Christ was all they needed for security and defense, then Christ was all they should have. Indeed, this was a new security ethic. Christians understood that if they would only follow Christ and his teaching, they couldn’t fail. When opportunities were given for Christians to appease the state by joining the fighting Roman army, these opportunities were rejected, because the early church saw a complete and an obvious incompatibility between loving as Christ loved and killing. It was Christ, not Mars, who gave security and peace.

Today the world is on the brink of ruin because the church refuses to be the church, because we Christians have been deceiving ourselves and the non-Christian world about the truth of Christ. There is no way to follow Christ, to love as Christ loved, and simultaneously to kill other people. It is a lie to say that the spirit that moves the trigger of a flamethrower is the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. It is a lie to say that learning to kill is learning to be Christ-like. It is a lie to say that learning to drive a bayonet into the heart of another is motivated from having put on the mind of Christ. Militarized Christianity is a lie. It is radically out of conformity with the teaching, life, and spirit of Jesus.

Now, brothers and sisters, on the anniversary of this terrible atrocity carried out by Christians, I must be the first to say that I made a terrible mistake. I was had by the father of lies. I participated in the big ecumenical lie of the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches. I wore the uniform. I was part of the system. When I said Mass over there I put on those beautiful vestments over my uniform. (When Father Dave Becker left the Trident submarine base in 1982 and resigned as Catholic chaplain there, he said, “Every time I went to Mass in my uniform and put the vestments on over my uniform, I couldn’t help but think of the words of Christ applying to me: Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.”)

As an Air Force chaplain I painted a machine gun in the loving hands of the nonviolent Jesus, and then handed this perverse picture to the world as truth. I sang “Praise the Lord” and passed the ammunition. As Catholic chaplain for the 509th Composite Group, I was the final channel that communicated this fraudulent image of Christ to the crews of the Enola Gay and the Boxcar.

All I can say today is that I was wrong. Christ would not be the instrument to unleash such horror on his people. Therefore no follower of Christ can legitimately unleash the horror of war on God’s people. Excuses and self-justifying explanations are without merit. All I can say is: I was wrong! But, if this is all I can say, this I must do, feeble as it is. For to do otherwise would be to bypass the first and absolutely essential step in the process of repentance and reconciliation: admission of error, admission of guilt. I was there and I was wrong.