david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (05/10/85)
I was very glad to hear this about the Jehovah's Witnesses who are employed by Los Alamos Labs, which besides Livermore Labs in California, is primarily responsible for development of new nuclear and other weapons systems: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: cs193bah@unm-la.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Litmus test for Witnesses in L.A. Message-ID: <287@unm-la.UUCP> Date: 8 May 85 02:31:54 GMT >From the Los Alamos Monitor, Sunday, April 28th: ************************************************ The growing emphasis on nuclear and conventional weapons work at Los Alamos National Laboratory has led several members of the local Jehovah's Witnesses congregation to decide that they will eventually leave their LANL jobs, church elders said. "It has been brought to our attention that in light of what the lab is doing now it would be adverse to Scriptures if we continue to work there," said Elder Frank Diebold, a LANL engineer. However, the decision is up to each individual, and wasn't mandated by church officials, stressed Elder Lloyd Smith, also a LANL engineer. "As long as the weapons work was played down by the lab, you could go for years and not realize they were making weapons," Smith said. "Of course, we knew all along they were involved in weapons research, and we stayed away from those kind of jobs. "Now it's so prominent. We still don't do anything that has to do with weapons, but by association, we are guilty." "We are not looking for publicity...We have nothing against our fellow townspeople or our neighbors. If they work for the lab-- no matter what they do for the lab--it is their own business. We certainly don't want to condemn someone if they're making weapons." This isn't the first time such issues have been raised in Los Alamos. Last year, the Catholic Church in Los Alamos approached the same issues, but came up with different conclusions. Jehovah's Witnesses were founded in 1872, and feel their religion-- the worship of almighty god revealed in the Bible as Jehovah--is the oldest on earth. They refuse blood transfusions, and refuse to bear arms, salute the flag or participate in secular government, says a brief description in a reference book. ********************************* [Posted without comment] -- bill peter ihnp4!lanl!wkp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I remember hearing Bishop Mathiesen speak at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas, along with Fr. Brian Hehir, said to be the principal writer of the Bishops' Letter, concerning justification of warfare in this age of 'nuclear deterrence'. The Bishop said that he had lived for many years, as Bishop of his diocese, in Amarillo, Texas, where the Pantex Corporation assembles all nuclear warheads in this country. But he did not see the light, about the dangerous evil of nuclear weapons and about our employment for their creation, until some one of his flock came to him questioning the morality of his employment, as a Christian. And so, this Bishop has turned around, and has encouraged those who look to him to seek for more peaceful employment, which is consistent with their following of Christ. I also remember talking with Fr. Hehir another time, at the university where I am employed, when he was publicly expounding the second draft of the Bishops' Letter, which was somewhat weaker than the first, but also weaker than the finally accepted version. I am not satisfied with their Letter, which in my opinion, is an apology for the justification of warfare, actually an apology for Church tradition which arises with Augustine in the late fourth century when Imperial Christianity came to existence. Essentially, this Letter warns us about the obvious contradiction of nuclear warfare with the Gospel, however it tries to justify their existence by their effect of 'deterrence', appealing to the principle of right of national defense. That is, they say that it is extremely improbable that these weapons can be used in warfare in a traditionally acceptable way, especially as to satisfy principles which discriminate the innocent. Nevertheless, the last word is that the Bishops gave conditioned acceptence to the possession of these weapons, for the purpose of deterrence, even though they could not envisage their moral use -- conditioned on pursuit of disarmament in good faith by this nation's government. During our brief encounter, I pointed out three things. First, when I was told about the traditional "principles" of just warfare, about which I must first be informed, for example, the principle of proportionality of effect, which would apparently 'favor' civilians -- then I asked whether this meant that the Gospel of Christ has something to do with the ratio of body counts -- a rather perverse interpretation of the plain Gospel teaching of overcoming evil with good, of non-retal- iation against enemies. This is not the ideal of the Gospel at all; it is simply a rationalization of violence, which is utterly alien to Jesus. Then I asked where is this principle supported in the Gospel or in Paul or in the first three centuries of Christian tradition; it clearly presupposes that Jesus endorses military force for national defense. But as a matter of fact, Jesus plainly rejects the previous tradition, which might justify national warfare, saying that since the coming of Elijah, in John the Baptist, who heralds the reign of God, until his own coming, as the Messiah, as the morning star heralds the rising Sun -- even 'until ~now~ the kingdom of God has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.' And, this is still so. Jesus was not a Zealot, who wish to violently overthrow the oppressive Roman occupation of Israel, even though this would be considered 'just', as many understand this. On the contrary, I would say that violence is reactionary, enforcing resistence to change, and justification of injustice. It does blind us. Also, I remember that the name of the one who took supper with Jesus, receiving his teaching -- but who betrayed him to violence -- his name was Judas Iscariot, probably meaning 'the Sicarri'. These were a violent, nationalistic sect which fomented insurrection and terrorism against the Romans, until the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed by the Empire; this same sect is believed to have later supported the revolt led by the messianic pre- tender bar Kochba, which was disastrous. This bar Kochba, who had the support of some great religious leaders, nevertheless is said to have gone into battle saying, "I do not need the help of the Lord, but let Him not help my enemies." How much like our confidence in the nuclear weapons! The last thing I pointed out, concerning the condition of negotiation in good faith for disarmament, was that never has the total number of nuclear weapons decreased, despite the fact that only a small fraction of these existing weapons would completely destroy any enemy military capacity. The substitution and increase of weapons is not disarmament; the negotiations are to balance and secure destructiveness, hence deterrence, not to eliminate nuclear weapons. As I have said before, the 'superpowers' would indefinitely secure an unjust and incredible 'peace on Earth' with probable horror. It is like the prophet Isaiah said, "They have made a pact with Death, that it should not destroy them; but it shall fail." I am glad to hear that the Jehovah's Witnesses at Los Alamos want no part of this. David Harwood
savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) (05/15/85)
< line-eater food >
David Harwood writes about the Jehovah's Witnesses who leave their
jobs at Los Alamos for religious reasons, about the US Catholic Bishop's
letter on nuclear weapons and on what (I think) he believes the morally
correct policy of a Christian government should be with regards to war.
I am attempting (in partial ignorance) to respond to his posting.
...the Just War [I think]
> tradition which arises with Augustine in the late fourth century when
> Imperial Christianity came to existence. Essentially, this Letter warns
> us about the obvious contradiction of nuclear warfare with the Gospel,
> however it tries to justify their existence by their effect of 'deterrence',
> appealing to the principle of right of national defense. That is,
> they say that it is extremely improbable that these weapons can be used
> in warfare in a traditionally acceptable way, especially as to satisfy
> principles which discriminate the innocent. Nevertheless, the last word
> is that the Bishops gave conditioned acceptence to the possession of
> these weapons, for the purpose of deterrence, even though they could not
> envisage their moral use -- conditioned on pursuit of disarmament in
> good faith by this nation's government.
As stated here, that position is probably the most moral one, I think.
> First, when I was told about the traditional "principles" of just warfare,
> about which I must first be informed, for example, the principle of
> proportionality of effect, which would apparently 'favor' civilians --
> then I asked whether this meant that the Gospel of Christ has something
> to do with the ratio of body counts -- a rather perverse interpretation
> of the plain Gospel teaching of overcoming evil with good, of non-retal-
> iation against enemies. This is not the ideal of the Gospel at all; it
> is simply a rationalization of violence, which is utterly alien to Jesus.
The Gospel of Christ has nothing to do with "body counts",
unless it has something to do with counting the bodies that will
result from one course of action and those that will result from
another course of actions. I interpret the teaching of overcoming
evil with good to be a course of action to be followed in a
Christian's personal life rather than a course of action to be
followed by governments. For instance, let us suppose that you
are the President of the U.S. Then, some other country (everyone
will assume that I am talking USSR, so for the sake of concreteness,
let's just say that the other country is the USSR) tells you that
in 48 hours, they are sending a delegation over that you are to
put in charge of the US. The delegation will be followed by
groups of armed forces to all the major cities to insure order.
Following that, all persons who have committed "economic crimes"
will be tried and executed...Failure to comply will cause a war
between the two nations, killing thousands, maybe millions of
people (mostly soldiers, but they are people too, right?). Knowing
the history of this government, you know that many people will die,
both Christian and non-christian. At this point, what becomes of
your "turning the other cheek"? Other people are killed! YOU, a
Christian, have now been put in a situation where YOU will basically
decide which people will die (It will either be a large number of
soldiers or a large number of civilians--in either case there will
be both christians and non-christians among the dead). I submit to
you that this is a much different moral issue than the one where a
mugger "asks" you for your wallet (and you, following JC, give him
the keys to your Ferrari--oops, VW--as well). What should the
Christian response be to Jews being killed by Hitler, to Cambodian
citizens being killed by Pot Pol, to Vietnamese citizens being killed
by the North Vietnamese (after the war, mind you), to Ukrainians,
Lithuanians, etc. being killed by Stalin, to Chinese being killed
by Mao, and to Argentine "disappeared" killed by the military there,
and so on...??? Send missionaries and Bibles?? That's like sending
missionaries and Bibles to Ethiopia and parts similar--you might
help some people deal with the religious aspects of the tragedy--but
you DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM!!
----------------------------------- v Just war principle I assume.
> Then I asked where is this principle supported in the Gospel
> or in Paul or in the first three centuries of Christian tradition;
> it clearly presupposes that Jesus endorses military force for national
> defense. But as a matter of fact, Jesus plainly rejects the previous
> tradition, which might justify national warfare, saying that since the
> coming of Elijah, in John the Baptist, who heralds the reign of God,
> until his own coming, as the Messiah, as the morning star heralds the
> rising Sun -- even 'until ~now~ the kingdom of God has suffered violence,
> and the violent take it by force.'
The origins of a principle should not tarnish it if it is a good
one, and the Just War principle deals with the sort of problem that I
have raised above. It recognizes that governments need to operate by
different rules in this imperfect world than Christian individuals do.
It then attempts to state what the moral duties of a government are
with regards to war. Actually, the origins of the "Just war" principle,
if they go back to Constantine, are probably pretty honorable. Cons-
tantine (the Roman emperor who converted to Christianity and ended the
persecution of christians in Europe) knew that he would need to be
prepared to use force to retain his position. He also knew that as
emperor, he could use his position for the good of a lot of people,
(both in this world, and, by his example, in the next), or he could
step down, and allow someone else to take over, which might mean going
back to a despot that would lead men from God and hurt them economically.
At that point, it seems to me, the Just War theory filled the bill.
> Jesus was not a Zealot, who wish to violently overthrow the
> oppressive Roman occupation of Israel, even though this would be
> considered 'just', as many understand this.
Correct, but then Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world, is it?
How far can we extend the analogy from the actions of God's Kingdom
to the correct actions of a particular kingdom of man?? Not very
far when a kingdom of man is limited, and God is unlimited!!
> The last thing I pointed out, concerning the condition of
> negotiation in good faith for disarmament, was that never has the total
> number of nuclear weapons decreased, despite the fact that only a small
> fraction of these existing weapons would completely destroy any enemy
> military capacity. The substitution and increase of weapons is not
> disarmament; the negotiations are to balance and secure destructiveness,
> hence deterrence, not to eliminate nuclear weapons. As I have said before,
> the 'superpowers' would indefinitely secure an unjust and incredible
> 'peace on Earth' with probable horror.
> It is like the prophet Isaiah said, "They have made a pact with
> Death, that it should not destroy them; but it shall fail."
> I am glad to hear that the Jehovah's Witnesses at Los Alamos
> want no part of this.
> David Harwood
The trouble is not with having enough weapons to destroy any enemy
capacity, but with having enough to prevent the enemy from doing that
very thing to the U.S. A first strike is where one side blows up the
capacity of the other side before the other side does anything to the
first side. All the "extra" is to "ensure" survival from a first strike!
Now, arguments can be made about the necessity of the extra, and the
"sureness" of the survival, etc. but those are questions to be answered
with military reasoning, not religious/moral arguments. Please, no
jokes about "military intelligence", the best military reasoning may
conclude that all of the nukes ARE NOT necessary, but they will be
based on arguments that show that the nukes cannot serve their military
purpose. I tend to doubt it though. For instance, here is a military
argument: the MX missile is a dud. Without an esoteric basing scheme
(read expensive) that would require the enemy to fire thousands of
warheads to ensure that all MXs are destroyed, the MX missiles are
basically sitting ducks. As sitting ducks, they fail in their purpose
of posing a credible threat of a counter attack in case the U.S. is
attacked.... I don't intend to argue the validity of this military
argument since this is the wrong group for it, I just wanted to make
the difference between a moral and a military argument plain.
I personally am searching for some answers to the question of how
pacifistic are Christians supposed to be. I will not condemn those
who take the "pure" pacifism route, but I feel that for me, that would
be a cop out, "I'll just protest every act of violence I hear about,
and allow any violence that anyone attempts to commit." That position
would take a great deal of courage if the violence were directed at me,
but I wouldn't have to think...but if I go with something like the just
war principle, I have to think, and I may also need a large share of
courage and fortitude to carry out what I believe is right. I guess
that each person will have to decide for him/her-self and then live with
that decision. I would appreciate postings/mail which point out holes
in my moral position on this matter (note that this is intended to be
about religious and moral issues, not political or military ones).
Sorry about the length.
There's more than one way to be savage.
Lowell Savage (uw-beaver!ssc-vax!savage)