|
|
|
Friends Peace Testimony in Times of Terrorism by Robert Griswold Now available as a pamphlet for $4 (two or more for $3 each), postage included. Please send check made out to "Friends Bulletin" to 3223 Danaha St, Torrance CA 90505. What faces peacemakers Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center Friends Journal published an article by Scott Simon, a National Public Radio journalist who used to attend Quaker meeting occasionally, was sympathetic to many Quaker beliefs, and had spoken at Quaker gatherings such as Friends General Conference’s annual session. In this and subsequent articles and talks Simon raised doubts about the relevance of the Friends’ peace testimony in the face of terrorism.1 This article and the responses which followed have shown that Friends are not of one mind or of one heart on our "ancient" testimony. Indeed, our peace testimony has even been spoken of as a continuum ranging from total pacifism to something very akin to the idea of "justified war."2 In every great crisis we seem to have to discover anew that our commitment to this testimony does not rise to the pure unity we have allowed ourselves to imagine during times when we can avoid putting that testimony to the test. The present crisis is marked by the words "war on terrorism." This essay is written to help Friends to think and feel clearly about this crisis and their testimony in the hope that this can lead us to meaningful witness. The new war and crisis is somewhat different than past wars. This is not a war in the sense that the Civil War or WWII was war. In those times, "war" meant armies facing off. To understand the present "war," it is important to place it in the correct category. That category is the one that contains the "war on crime" and the "war on drugs." The items in this category all reflect a modern American leadership style that exploits the first of citizens. In the first step of this style leaders gain political capital by appointing themselves to champion a crusade against something seen as a general evil infecting the world. In the second step these leaders show that their leadership is valiant by spending vast human and financial resources attacking this problem (usually this means attacking the people thought to be bad as a means of eradicating the evil). 3 These leaders lead this charge even though they have no understanding of the source of the problem and hence, no way of knowing whether their actions make the situation better or worse. This is the Don Quixote model of leadership. In this context, it should not surprise us that our President is leading us on a charge against an "Axis of Evil." or that he is unable to articulate any concrete goals or a timeline for this war. The "war on terrorism" represents the zenith of this leadership style—war as perpetual quest. Only if Friends understand that war-making has become a permanent style of leadership will they be able to appreciate what is now demanded of those who would be peacemakers. Protesting at times of military engagements will not be a sufficient witness. The challenge that faces us can only be met by a lived peace testimony that is also perpetual.In the meantime, this war has little meaning in the daily routines of the majority of citizens (including Quakers) who go about their lives feeling only minor and occasional personal impact (for example, security screening at airports). Friends will not be able to make a substantial witness for peace in this new war if we do not labor to come to a profound understanding of what is going on and come to stand on the true ground of our faith. Without this effort we will be trapped in the general mystification and we will lack the power to show more than a weak and divided face to the world. The world will not be impressed with a weak witness. It is a time to be passionately serious. The ideology of terrorism/counter-terrorism To strengthen our witness we must overcome the mystification caused by the lies of terrorists and counter-terrorists. We can best begin by defining terms. I think the US Army definition of terrorism is a fair one. They say terrorism is "…the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature…through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear." 4 Counter-terrorism is action taken against terrorists but is not different than terrorism. Counter-terrorism consists of violent and intimidating actions taken against those defined as terrorists or their supporters—actions designed to destroy them or get them to cease resisting the goals of the counter-terrorists. These actions employ lethal methods to instill fear and dread in persons or groups identified as having embraced terrorism as a means of achieving their political goals. Moving on to "war on terrorism," this is counter-terrorism raised to the level where the armed forces of a country are mobilized to attack and kill or make prisoners of those who have been labeled terrorists or their supporters. Sometimes this attack is in response to a direct attack by terrorists. Sometimes, as in the long-planned war by the US against Iraq, it is in response to a perceived threat to the attacking country’s hegemony.5It should be clear from this review that terrorism, counter-terrorism and war on terrorism are really not such different things. The unifying thread that runs through all of these terms is reliance on violence and intimidation to achieve their goals. Thus, counter-terrorism is not different from terrorism but is only a subcategory under terrorism. Likewise, a war on terrorism turns out to be a subcategory of counter-terrorism. We need to face the implications of the above review and fully appreciate the power of the ideology at work here. In terms of actions toward others, there is no meaningful difference between a terrorist and a counter-terrorist or those involved in a war on terrorism. All are committed to violence and intimidation in dealing with those defined as evil enemies. It should be apparent that this ideology has seduced those of every professed religion into actions of violence and intimidation. Being a nominal follower of Islam, Judaism or Christianity has no bearing on the basic ideology being embraced by terrorists or counter-terrorists. Each of these religions has been and continues to be employed as a tool of the terrorist/counter-terrorist ideology. Terrorists and counter-terrorists justify their violent actions using arguments that seem, at least superficially, plausible. The first point is a point of order: both sides blame the other for starting the conflict. This kind of argument is very appealing because both sides can point to violent and injurious acts committed by the other while ignoring their own provocative or hurtful actions. There is usually no possible hope of reaching an agreement on who was hurt first. Another justification for violence is the claim of victimhood. Both sides proclaim that they have received unjust treatment at the hands of the other, which of course, they have. Eventually they come to adore the sense of moral superiority that comes with being a victim. They bask in whatever sympathy they can garner from others for their victim status. Both sides cry for ‘justice’ (a word they use but has no meaning for them apart from retribution). They need their victimhood to cloak the brutal and murderous acts they intend to commit. Ignorance is also put to good use here. If I avoid knowing what my side might have done to give offense, then the causes for the other party’s action can be kept from limiting my reactive counter-terrorist attack. The third argument used by counter-terrorists to assert their moral superiority is that their intention is solely violence toward terrorists and not toward innocent parties in the conflict. This intention is never realized. There is but one meaningful measure of the value of intention and that is the value placed on it by those who are innocent victims and survivors of violence. When one terrorist is killed and thirteen innocent others as well (many women and children) by Israeli counter-terrorist action, the value of that intention is up to the survivors. When American forces bomb an Afghan wedding party the value of the fact that the perpetrators of the action did not intend harm to those people is for the survivors to judge. Good intentions work primarily as sunglasses for counter-terrorists to dim the glare of their inhumane actions. The paving on the road to hell is not there to absolve from responsibility but to make the trip easier. So the first mystification to overcome is the one that would have us believe that terrorism and counter-terrorism are opposites and hence we need to choose sides between them. Because the behavior of all parties in these conflicts follows the same approach to the perceived enemy, it can be seen that the terrorist and the counter-terrorist belong to the same ideological fraternity and support the same program for the resolution of conflicts between people. The ultimate core belief of both is in identifying a group of people as evil and an enemy and in resolving conflict with those people through violence and intimidation. In the rest of this essay I will use mostly the terms counter-terrorist and counter-terrorism because this is how all of those involved in these conflicts think of themselves. In doing so I am including the terrorist, the counter-terrorist and those engaged in a war on terrorism. The second lie and mystification The second lie that the followers of violence and intimidation use to mystify us is the one that states that their ideology works: that is, that conflicts are resolved by following their ideology. This second lie usually comes in three forms. A) The lie that those defined as evil can be fully destroyed by violence. B) The lie that those who are evil can be permanently subjugated by violence. C) The lie that war brings peace. These lies are a critical core piece of the counter-terrorist ideology. The expressed hope of each side in counter-terrorist conflicts is the same. That hope is for "peace." Of course what they mean by this is the lasting dominance of their "way of life" 6 through the extermination or permanent subjugation of the other side by violent and intimidating means. This hope is nourished by a belief that the side they represent has the superior (or only true) religious faith; that they are the "chosen people"; that they are racially superior to those around them; or that their wealth, material or military possessions prove their superiority. Whichever of these devices is selected for the purpose, the result is always to idealize "us" and demonize "them." Hopes like these are clearly based in the vices of the ego—pride, arrogance, selfishness, hate and lust for power.History has shown that extermination of enemies is much more difficult than counter-terrorists think. In fact, it is not possible to recall a successful historical instance. Did the Nazis exterminate the Jews? They tried. Did the Christians exterminate the Saracens? They probably killed fewer Saracens than they lost themselves in the process of getting to the ‘Holy Land.’ Have the Hutus exterminated the Tutsis? No. Did the Turks successfully annihilate the Armenians so that now they have nothing to fear from them? No. Honestly answering these questions proves that the extermination of enemies is a nightmare fantasy that can only be given credence by those who have surrendered to an ideological delusion. Genocide is not only to be renounced because it is a heinous moral crime. It is also incredibly stupid because it does not work. And it leaves a lingering moral stink on the descendents of those who attempt it. It’s a smell that should be familiar to all Americans who are not Native Americans. What about the permanent subjugation of those being subjected to attack? Unfortunately for those who commit to the counter-terrorist ideology of violence and intimidation, history doesn’t offer much hope to those on the ‘winning’ side for this second goal to work out well either. Oliver Cromwell subdued the Irish 350 years ago. Since then no lives have been lost in conflicts between the British and the Irish, right? The Israelis ‘won’ the 1967 war, and have been living safely since, right? The northern states in the US ‘defeated’ the southern states in the Civil War and from then on there was no further subjugation of African-Americans in those states, right? The US won the so-called ‘Gulf War’ just a few years ago and now there is no problem in that area, right? Those who imagine an end to this list deceive themselves. Of course history books are often written by the ‘winners’ to celebrate their ‘victory.’ But, those books tend to be written as though nothing much happens after the violence comes to a temporary halt. When a longer view is taken, history reveals that subjugation is never a final resolution of conflict. The unfailing product of subjugation is a bitter pool of hereditary resentment. The claimed successes of counter-terrorism turn out to be chimerical. The temporary cessation of armed conflict is not peace; it is only an illusion of peace. 7The third lie and mystification Counter-terrorist leaders always pose as dedicated defenders of their people and the culture of their country with no other motivation. They keep the threat and vileness of their enemy at the forefront of the public view. Behind this screen, other things are going on. If counter-terrorism doesn’t work, why then do leaders of nations as well as leaders of insurgent groups cling so tightly to the methods of intimidation and violence? There is a principle in psychotherapy that should be part of the understanding of the persistence of the counter-terrorist system. In psychotherapy, when a seemingly irrational behavior persists in a group, the question has to be raised: who in the group benefits from this craziness? Until this point is clarified, no real understanding can be had. This means it is necessary that we identify the benefits accruing to counter-terrorist leaders. We have to be able to confront the fact that the leaders of terrorist actions and wars on terrorism have more at stake in promoting their ideology than mere self-protection or service to the security of the community from which they come. Keeping the populace focused on an outside threat enables counter-terrorist leaders to do two things that are greatly in their self-interest. First, this allows leaders to hide their incompetence to manage or unwillingness to address the legitimate needs of those they are leading. Second, these leaders can use the threat as a cover to persecute and weaken those in opposition and to reward those on whom they rely for support. In other words, a violent attack is not simply a crisis (and it may even be solicited 8 ). An attack is an opportunity for counter-terrorist leaders to expand the boundaries of their control and influence well beyond anything known to these leaders when lacking this excuse. As the conflict escalates (or is made to appear to escalate), the leaders of counter-terrorist actions even become emboldened to undertake or condone extralegal acts that would normally be viewed as reprehensible by their community. Examples of this range from the recent arrest, detention and isolation of aliens (and citizens) in the US to the brutal torture and execution of opponents or suspected opponents in Argentina a few years past.Counter-terrorists are greatly invested in having their constituents believe they are being led on the only realistic, hopeful and courageous course of action. They trust that by using the fear instilled in their constituents they can keep leadership and power in their hands. Their agenda includes using this power to restructure their own society in ways that make dissent less possible. 9 They are confident they can rule as long as their compatriots stay afraid. What the counter-terrorists fear is that those they are leading will find a way that does not depend on violence and intimidation.10 They marshal their forces to declare war (or jihad). Anyone objecting is labeled a traitor, a collaborator, or a terrorist.It’s not merely that counter-terrorists know of no other way; they are afraid that another method will be found because a nonviolent approach will weaken their hold on power by requiring them to have a rational agenda that benefits more than a small segment of their constituents. They are constantly concerned that their constituents will discover the ways in which these leaders are personally profiting, politically and financially from conducting a war or a jihad. They may proclaim that their interest lies in protecting democracy, but they will attack anyone who challenges their ideology. Nothing threatens the established order and control of counter-terrorists more than peace (or even periods of time without active conflict). Peace is a major problem for counter-terrorist leaders. Without a war or a jihad they would have the problem of providing clear evidence that their leadership is of benefit to their constituents. Turning to war vastly reduces that problem. War is a way of mesmerizing people to keep them from concern with the lack of justice and fairness within their own society. Counter-terrorists have a powerful need for enemies. A war on terrorism thrives because it is a means to maintain political power. The fact that this reality is usually kept covered with a camouflage net of expressions of desire for peace and the pious hope that the enemy will renounce his evil ways does not mean that this motivation isn’t present. Rather it means that the leaders of counter-terrorist groups or governments are desperate to keep this motivation hidden from their constituents. Nor does the fact that counter-terrorist leaders honestly deny this motivation detract from the reality of its presence. As the benefit of increased personal power expands the egos of counter-terrorists; the delusion of their ideology easily becomes a self-delusion. Men who beat their wives and children may also believe that they are doing it for the good of those they are beating. That doesn’t make it so. A summary of mysteries and delusions The proponents of counter-terrorism clearly suffer from delusions. They think they are following a different ideology than their enemy. They aren’t. They think that they can achieve their goals through the ideology that guides them. They can’t. They believe that they are not motivated by a base desire for power. They are. History shows where these delusions have led. They have not led to peace. There have only been wars and the maneuvering for position that will enable the next war. What has been called peace has been merely the temporary cessation of armed conflict until various factions build up their resources again. Persuading us that these brief intervals between the more violent episodes is peace is part of what the counter-terrorist delusional system needs to maintain itself. It is part of what Friends need to get out of their minds to be true to their peace testimony. This delusion makes it possible to promote the lie that war produces peace. George Orwell’s "doublespeak" is alive and well. The delusional system of the counter-terrorist is a closed delusional system. There is no cure for the delusions of counter-terrorism within that system. The response of Friends has been and must be outside of that system. Common misunderstandings of the Friends peace testimony To understand the Friends peace testimony it is useful to first look at ways it is misunderstood. There are three frequent and persistent misunderstandings that can come into play here and these misunderstanding are not only found among those who are not Friends. The first of these is the notion that tradition (based on our Quaker heritage as followers of Jesus’ teachings) demands that we seek a peaceful approach to conflict. In other words, we must be pacifists to remain true to what our founders and scripture revealed to be right. While we do honor those who have made this tradition, this is not the foundation on which our testimony rests. The second misunderstanding is that our testimony comes from a reaction to the horrors of war and a consequent commitment to avoid it. In other words, our revulsion at war and violence makes us determined to deny them and assert a hope for some other world where such things as war and violence and suffering don’t happen. The third misunderstanding rests on the impression that Friends have considered the matter thoughtfully and decided on the basis of that thinking that the moral thing to do is to avoid doing anything violent or intimidating to anyone. In other words, we believe that reason and practicality is on our side in choosing to be a peaceful people and that war and terrorism are bad ideas (which they are). These three are all misunderstandings because they each assume an authority for personal action that Friends do not hold to be sound. George Fox would say these approaches to a peaceful life were all "notional," based on mere human ideas rather than upon the Spirit within and beyond us. There are reasons that the peace testimony of Friends is not based on such notions. What others have said or done in the past may be inspirational but fail as an authority to guide our behavior. Fox looks at this the way courts of today look at hearsay evidence —it won’t do. As Fox would say, "What can you say?" (meaning, "What do you own out of your personal experience?"). The emotional reaction of fear and repugnance also fails as a ground for a life of peace. These reactions are the product of our egos and will fail when the ego suffers. Finally, reasoning fails as a ground for peacemaking. Beliefs are thoughts that are formed by the mind and Friends have never trusted thinking by itself. Thus, the Friends peace testimony is in this sense not at all about pacifism or being a pacifist.Pacifism is an "ism," an ideal, an ideology, and a belief system —a creed if you will. To say Friends are suspicious of creeds would be an understatement. Beliefs come out of the head and the reasoning of the head is not the source of the Friends peace testimony. Ideologies are constructed of the reasoning of the ego. They may have a coating of dialectical argument, but they are rooted in our fears and lusts and cannot rise above them. As Walter Wink has said, "Every mind is a ‘contaminated mind,’ a mind constructed of a network of suppositions and assumptions."11 And these suppositions and assumptions are easily changed when the next supposition comes along. Thinking about being nonviolent is never sufficient preparation for the work of peacemaking. What Fox has called "the veiled mind, which darkens any pure discernment"12 is something that will never lead us to our peace testimony.Nonviolence embraced as an idea is simply another ideology to be trapped and used by the ego. Those who think to oppose the counter-terrorist ideology by adopting a pacifist counter-ideology are as susceptible to ego delusions as are people in the ideology being opposed. George Fox called this kind of thing "running out into notions." The ideology of violence and intimidation is too strong to be opposed by a ‘peaceful’ ideology. Friends who would oppose the counter-terrorist ideology must realize that they are opposing a deeply held belief defended with all the force of a fearful and threatened ego. The only counter to that belief must be a deeper spiritual experience and knowledge. As an ideology, pacifism may be an obstacle Friends need to overcome on the way to their peace testimony. The question isn’t, "what do you think about peace?" but rather, "what do you know about peace that you are manifesting in your life?" Peace from within The Friends peace testimony is based on the Truth discovered within. This Truth is that beneath the fears and lusts and notions of our lives is a reality that can be trusted as the authority by which we can live and want to live. This is a sacred reality that we have called the Light Within, Christ Within, the "still, small voice," or God. (The reality is important; the name is not.) Invariably this Light shows us that we have been living a life guided by a false authority, our ego. The light shows us a new guide and, by that experience, shows us that there is a divine place in others that can be answered. Friends come to their peace testimony only after a change inside requires them to follow a new authority. If the resistance of Friends to violence is merely based on a ‘peaceful’ ideology, that resistance will turn bitter and hateful when those following the counter-terrorist ideology don’t quickly change their ways. The only resistance to the counter-terrorist ideology that can hope to change things must be one that begins with a change in the hearts of those who are part of the resistance. This change of heart will necessarily involve a great deal of painful self-examination. We cannot become peacemakers until we have made peace with the suffering we have caused ourselves and others guided by the false authority of our ego. And we have to make peace with the suffering that we will have to endure facing a violent world. Violence toward others must be renounced in the soul and the heart before nonviolence can be considered in the mind. Only when we have the security of divine love working in our lives can we be free to let go of violence and anger. The Friends peace testimony is based on the knowledge that grows out of a spiritual discipline. It is a spiritual discipline that manifests itself in nonviolence and respect and caring toward all people (even those in the throes of a violent and delusional ideology). Without the convincement that lets us out of our condition 13 of bondage to the ego, we will be "resounding gongs and clanging cymbals"14 without the power of love. There can be no effective action directed toward ending violence unless that action is taken by people who have let go of the violence we all carry inside.Only a spiritual discipline can make a meaningful witness for peace possible. The silent worship of Friends is a discipline that can serve this purpose if we use it to let go of the ego’s authority and open ourselves to what is there when the ego lets go. 15 This is the Light Within and the knowledge of this Light frees us for taking a path of peace. As George Fox observed:Those fit for peacemaking are those who have experienced this "divine source of life" where terrorists hold no terror. For Friends this means moving into and staying with the Light within. The fact is that all of us, living in a society that embraces violence and intimidation as the means to resolve conflicts, have absorbed that ideology into our egos whether we think we have or not. The peace testimony of Friends is based in a personal experience of Divine Love. This experience makes us aware that our basic condition prior to this experience was no different than that of the counter-terrorist. When we are touched by Divine Love we learn that we have been afraid to not be afraid. Are you afraid to let go of your fear? Being afraid to let go of fear as a motivation is exactly the condition of the counter-terrorist. To have fear as your base motivation is to be unable to love. The peacemaker breaks the cycle of counter-terrorist violence by making a place where it is safe to love and not be afraid of loving. Only when we have come to the place where we are guided by love rather than the fear and anger inside us are we fit to be peacemakers. Resistance and practice Only a spiritual conversion and discipline can make us fit to resist the violent forces within and without. And for spiritual discipline we need a spiritual community. Friends must come to understand that they stand in need of this discipline and this community as much as anyone else. Once we have experienced divine love we can begin the path, but we still have to practice to know more. As Friends, we must not hide from ourselves the extent to which the isolating forces of our culture have worked on our own monthly meeting communities. Are we, as Issac Pennington said, "…heaps of living coals warming each other"? We had better be if we mean to do peacemaking. We Friends cannot practice peace in the world until we have learned to practice peace in our meetings. And the "separate peace" indicated by the 20% attendance at our meetings for business will not serve for this crisis. Peacemaking needs the practice that comes from living in covenant with other Friends. If we cannot stand the stresses of threshing through meeting for business, we should question our preparedness for answering that of God in those who may be even more unpleasant than our fellow Quakers. We learn to serve others in the world by serving other Friends in our meetings. To walk the peace testimony rather than just talk it takes practice. The discipline —the self-discipline—needed to practice the peace testimony is learned at home.Peacemaking means developing a way of living that is outside the mainstream of the culture that supports violence and terror. Fox recognized this in his distinction between those who he said were "in the Life" and those who were not. Living a new way, based on loving and caring for those around us, is something we have to work at (even after we have been cleared for membership). Friends (and I include myself) need to develop ways of cutting loose from those distractions and dependencies that keep people isolated from each other and unaware of the needs of those around us. Peacemakers must develop models of living and relating to each other that can be an example to those still trapped in the delusional system. One of the things I have noted about early Friends is that they did not march or demonstrate in loud protest. They were confrontational only in the sense that their lives manifested something different. Friends of today may need to take heed of this fact. Maybe the reason our society isn’t upset with us is that our lives don’t appear to manifest much that is different. If our lives manifest peace, I have no doubt that we will be a sufficient threat to those who have embraced violence. They will find us. We won’t have to join protest march es. Our lives will demonstrate that we do not share the delusion of our leaders. There will be plenty of opportunity to demonstrate the nonviolent spiritual basis of resistance because those under the delusion will not easily admit the possibility of living from a different basis than their own ideology. They will use the methods of that ideology against us.Peacemaking will, without a doubt, involve suffering. Suffering is not an argument either for or against peacemaking. Suffering is the consequence of a world lost in the delusion of violence. This delusion surrounds us so we are not given the choice of suffering or not suffering. Those who think to choose nonviolence in hope of escaping pain are certain to be disappointed. Faith in nonviolence does not protect from violence any more than faith in violence protects from violence (though those of those of the second faith believe violence does protect, as witnessed by Scott Simon). Our choice is either to accept the endless, meaningless and hopeless suffering brought on by the counter-terrorist delusion, or to find the meaningful, world-changing life that comes from living in the Light within. The faith of Friends protects us from becoming a contributor to the cycle of counter-terrorist violence by freeing us from the violence and fear we have inside. The victorious power of nonviolent resistance lies in its knowledge that within the counter-terrorist is an awareness of the deeper truth embodied in the faith of the nonviolent resister. This is what Fox was talking about when he urged Friends to "answer that of God in everyone." In the heart of the counter-terrorist is something that is waiting to be answered. The peacemaker says hello to that. This inward awareness can be answered because it instinctively responds to the caring and love of the peacemaker. This is what gives spiritual nonviolence the strength to respond with love. The fact that the nonviolent resister’s faith may be a faith unto death does not diminish its merits. The cure for the delusion of the counter-terrorist is found in the lived spiritual reality that we are all creatures capable of love and caring and deserving of respect. This is what the Light makes manifest to us if we hold ourselves in it. Love and caring are the reality of what human relations are about and Friends can overcome the counter-terrorist delusion by making that reality manifest in the world. Notes 1 Scott Simon, "Reflections on the Events of September Eleventh," Friends Journal, December 2001. He also published a follow-up article in May, 2003, arguing that improved conditions in Afghanistan and elsewhere made war not only justifiable, but morally necessary.2 Note the book reviews by Chuck Fager in Quaker Theology, Vol. 4, #1, spring 2002.3 It should be clear in this context why those with political ambition in this country choose to start by being prosecuting attorneys where they can demonstrate that they are "tough on crime."4 See "US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction," (TRADOC Pamphlet Nos. 525-537), 1984.5 In Dick Cheney’s speech of August 26, 2002 he justified a military attack on Iraq in part by saying that if Hussein had nuclear weapons he would "…take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies." This statement makes clear that the real threat to the USA in that region is the threat to its hegemony. The assumption of USA hegemony is so certain on Cheney’s part that he fails to notice that those energy supplies are largely within Iraq and belong to Iraq. Elisabeth Bumiller and James Dao, The New York Times, August 27, 2002.6 "Way of life" is an extreme abstraction designed to cover many desires. These may include the desire to have one’s religious beliefs imposed on everyone, the desire to have a political or social system be dominant, or to enforce the hegemony of a particular nation-state. It can also cover a desire to maintain material advantages that others do not have. Extreme abstractions are usually chosen to hide our base motivations from ourselves as well as others. Citizens should suspect that their basest instincts are being exploited when a leader justifies an action using the purpose of "preserving our way of life."7 Friends who imagine that there have been times of peace in the past 50 years need to read Gore Vidal’s, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Thunder’s Mouth Press, New York, 2002.8 The manipulation of the entry of the US into WWII is a good example. The faked Gulf of Tonkin incident is another. There are many others.9 Note that the current Bush administration is intent on using the "Homeland Security Bill" as a means of undermining the rights of governmental employees to a due process for termination. This would insure that these employees would follow the leaders without objection or would find themselves unemployed. This is a powerful means of curtailing dissent. Note also that those in the counter-terrorist ideology are so afraid that even the possibility of dissent frightens them.10 And they have cause to be worried. Recall the impact of the "mothers of the disappeared" who appeared in the plaza in Buenos Aires.11 Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers, Fortress Press, 1992, p. 54.12 George Fox, Epistle 15, from the translation by Rex Ambler, Truth of the Heart, Quaker Books, 2001, p. 23.13 For a fuller discussion see my article "Condition", Quaker Theology, Vol. 4, #1, spring 2002.14 First Corinthians, 13-1.15 Epistle 109, Ambler, Op.cit., p. 25. |