Christian Pacifism, the Constitution, and War in Libya

The Libya situation is a classic rubber-hits-the-road situation for an evolving pacifist like myself.  On the one hand I believe strongly that the Gospel implores us to practice non-aggression, and practical experience shows that violence never begets less violence but only escalates it.  On the other hand you had peaceful protests from Libyans seeking to only secure democracy for themselves, but were met with violence from their government and it seems only right to send our military in to cripple their oppressive and aggressive government.  The world is, indeed, a complicated place.

But I can't support military action in Libya.  Not only do we have two wars of choice already being fought in the Middle East, not only is our military stretched thin, not only is our budget (and our military budget in particular) spinning out of control, not only does America tend to get bogged down in regime change messes, but I believe escalating the violence is the unethical response.

Here is a sampling of where my Christian pacifism comes from:

Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Matthew 5:38-46
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An  eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 

Doctrine and Covenants 98:16
Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children

Doctrine and Covenant 98:33-34
33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

President Kimball, The False Gods We Worship
We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.”

If we are going to take these words seriously, it means making really, really hard decisions about non-aggression.  I'm certainly glad that I have only to make personal decisions and not be in a position to effect the lives of others, but this is an opportunity for us as Christians to unite behind the idea of peace, even when it is perhaps the hardest decision to make.  We then turn our safety and aspirations over to the Lord, and put complete trust in Him to protect us and guide us as He has promised to do.

Also, there is the little issue of the war being unconstitutional.  The Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, and gives the President power as the Commander in Chief to direct wars declared by Congress.  Congress did not authorize this military engagement with Libya.  As usual, Glenn Greenwald nails it here, and I pretty much fully agree with some ultra-conservatives here.

In Which I Whine About Our Political Parties

Pres. Obama is certainly a better president that Pres. W. Bush was, and is certainly better than Sen. McCain would have been, not to mention the mediocre crop of hopefuls lining up to challenge him next year.  He's done some good things such as at least making an effort to end our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not starting any new wars (. . . yet, but we're keeping our eyes on you, Libya), making an effort to reform the health care and financial systems, and, importantly, changing the tone of discourse in the White House.  But it hasn't really been that great, overall.  Where he has tried to make some progress in areas of war and regulation reform, they have been meager and more or less disappointing.  I went over some of the failures before here.

Now we learn that Pres. Obama will not be shutting down Guantanamo Bay any time soon, like he promised, will reinstate military tribunals and not use our world-class criminal justice system, and will continue indefinite detentions without hearings.  He also fired the State Dept. spokesperson for criticizing the brutal detention of Bradley Manning, the Wikileaks leaker.  His record on civil liberties is no better than Bush's, which make me sick.

As a result of this frustration, and general political malaise, I've felt like I've been wandering a political desert for a while.  I've spent some time looking at the Green Party, which has a lot to offer, especially for someone like me with strong environmental and pacifist leanings.  I feel pretty strongly about social democracy.  When it's really time to think outside the box there is nothing like libertarian socialism.

The point is, the basic political struggle we all have is reconciling that space between what we really believe and our choices in the ballot box.  Many people, most I suspect, instead of embracing this problem do their best erase the distinction and become party loyalists, buying the party line and giving up critical thought.  I admit to falling into this trap from time to time.  This is where you find absurd contradictions like states' rights conservatives being pro-federal government when it comes to abortion and marriage laws, or anti-death penalty and anti-war liberals being extremely pro-choice.  To paraphrase John Stewart's book, America, (because I don't have it in front of me right now):  You believe in protecting the environment?  Congratulations you are also anti-gun.  You oppose gay marriage?  Great, you are also anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants.  The current political party system in America clearly doesn't add up to intellectual consistency.

Many other people simply choose to become one-issue voters, which is more dangerous than the party loyalists.  At least the party loyalists are vaguely aware of most of the issues that the candidates espouse, whereas a single-issue voter doesn't care.

So what is the correct response?  Continue to enable the bloated and intellectually dissonant existing political parties by choosing "the lesser of two evils"?  Reform from within?  Vote for the third party candidate and give the election to your ideological opposite instead of your ideological near miss?  Fight the beasts who will out-spend and out-everything you to try to create a multi-party system?  I feel like there aren't any good, practical solutions because of the power the two parties hold.

There is really no point here except to whine about how the two parties are failing us, which is a complaint as old as the nation, I presume.  But we worship in a religion that urges us to stay true to our convictions and zealously maintain and cherish our agency, and I feel like modern day American politics forces us, to some degree at least, to sacrifice both.

Utah HB477 and Government Transparency

The Utah legislature passed, and Gov. Herbert signed, HB477 which is an attempt to destroy government transparency.  It is a bill that excludes cell phones and emails from GRAMA laws, imposes extremely high fees for information requests, and requires proof by preponderance of the evidence of wrongdoing before granting requests for communications that are suspected of being illegal.

It is an absolute assault on good governance and the proposition that government is for the people, of the people, and by the people.  The public response is universal outcry, but the legislators and governor don't care because there is basically no threat that they will be voted out of office in Utah's one-party system.  So they can pass laws which hide what they do and say from the public and assault the very contract between the governing and the governed and know that no matter how upset people get, it won't translate to the ballot box.

Please read the excellent and surprisingly combative editorial by the Salt Lake Tribune, visit keeputahopen.com for information on the referendum process that is already under way to get the law repealed, and contact your state representatives and let them know how undemocratic this is.  Just when I start to get the bug to be more states' rights oriented something like this happens and I remember that I live in Utah.

Divide and Conquer, Religious Style

NYDailyNews.com

Rep. Peter King is using his position as chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security to terrorize Muslims.  He is instituting hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims based on vague accusations that ordinary Muslims and their leaders have not done enough to speak out against terrorism.  He has yet to produce, of course, any proof of any of his claims that American Muslims are becoming more radicalized and that they are not adequately assisting the police and counter-terrorism officials.

The impetus for these hearings likely has nothing to do with the radicalization of Muslims, and everything to do with politics.  By turning Americans against each other politicians can pursue the old divide and conquer technique.  Anyone who knows American Muslims knows that they are just like everyone else.  They are mostly good, hardworking, honest people who value their freedoms and abhor oppression.  They are serious about their religion and embrace their cultural and familial roots.  While most are good, some are not.  The same could be said about nearly every group of Americans, no matter how you dissect them.  You could say the same about Catholics, Mormons, atheists, middle class, lower class, New Yorkers, Utahns, blacks, whites, and on and on. It is cliche but still basically true that the things that tie us together are both more numerous and more important than the things that differentiate us.

But politicians know, and Rep. King best of all, apparently, that creating connections based on virtuous commonalities is bad politics.  So King is finding ways to divide us, and his weapon of choice is religion.  Instead of pointing to all the ways that Muslims are a valuable part of our nation, and world, he is making false allegations and fomenting fear and dividing us artificially along religious lines.  It suddenly becomes very comforting for the average white Christian to identify with Peter King and his brand of politics against the sinister "other" that is, in this case, Muslims.  Proof and logic have no place in this debate, this is about emotion.

It won't do any good to point to studies that show that Muslims are becoming less and less likely to radicalize and how helpful Muslims have been in anti-terrorism cases.  It won't do any good to point out that in America there is no guilt of identity.  It won't do any good to point out that every group has extremist wings and that we don't require every Christian, for instance, to denounce White Supremacists or else be considered anti-American and come before a McCarthyite congressional hearing.  It won't do any good to point out King's own ties to the Irish terrorist group, the IRA, and that therefore he is a hypocrite.

We can't allow our leaders to use our religion against us.  If we're concerned about freedom of religion, and we should be, then we should stand up with Muslims against this oppression.  Because Mormons could always be next.  Have you publicly denounced Warren Jeffs, the FLDS, and Mountain Meadows yet?