|
Peacemakers Speak Out
By Bob Davidson, Canton
Men and women of faith [Davida Foy Crabtree, conference minister for the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ; Robert Evans, director of Plowshares Institute in Simsbury and a Presbyterian pastor; Lowell Fewster, executive minister of the American Baptist Churches of Connecticut; and Andrew Smith, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut], in their article "Time for Peacemakers to Speak Out," which appeared in the Hartford Courant on March 5, made clear their position against a war with Iraq. They quote from the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who advocated moving "beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history."
I hope these writers will, therefore, tolerate dissent. They state that in addition to the four authors of their article, eleven other religious leaders in Connecticut endorsed their position. No offense, but just what does that prove? How many may disagree? I hope the authors of this article are not presumptuous enough to believe they speak for all people of faith.
They refer to "a rush to military invasion." It has been over a year since the Bush administration first decided to hold Iraq accountable to do what it was demanded to do by the UN for twelve years. Approval to do that was authorized by Congress and by UN Resolution 1441. Any reasonable review would not conclude that to be a rush to war, but rather a measured response. Every alternative has been tried over twelve years—resolutions, inspections, diplomacy and embargoes—and none have worked.
The religious leaders place the blame for the suffering of Iraqi children on the "U.S.-led sanctions program." Actually, the suffering is the result of Iraq's refusal to respond to the demands for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. This refusal resulted in the UN, not just the U.S., imposing the embargo. Saddam Hussein alone is responsible for the death of 60,000 Iraqi babies every year by his refusal to fully cooperate with the UN for twelve years. He has diverted to his own personal use the money for food and medical supplies Iraq was allowed in exchange for oil. This is the immorality church leaders should address.
Finally, the authors, as they should, take the high ground. They quote scripture, saying that peacemakers "shall be called the children of God." I ask, what is peace? Is it only the absence of war? Do the citizens in Israel, North and South Korea, Iraq and Palestine live in peace? Will the world know true peace while terrorists and evil dictators exist?
The authors, as they should, are concerned that war is immoral. The problem remains: which of two evils is the least moral? In Iraq, children are tortured before their parents, while we debate the morality of ending these practices. The choice is not between moral or immoral. History has taught that the result of procrastination in stopping tyrants has been costly in human lives—and that was immoral.
I suggest the authors consider the choice that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a clergyman like them, made when he was faced with the evil dictator of Germany. Choosing "peace" would have saved his life, but would never had brought peace to him. He is a prime example of what Rev. King meant when he referred to "mandates of conscience and the reading of history."
|
|
