Tag: peace

Interesting article from rabble.ca:

Evangelical Sabre-rattling won’t lead to peace

This article comments on the allegiance of some Christian leaders, including Billy and Franklin Graham, with American military might. While I do respect Billy Graham, I have often asked myself whether his chummy relationship with the White House was positive or negative. This article raises this same concern. And, it also highlights the troublesome violent messages of Billy’s son Franklin in his recent comments pertaining to Afghanistan and 9/11.

The article challenges us to look deep within ourselves and ask if war is the correct answer to conflict, or if we should try to rise above it and offer peaceful alternatives to violence instead. The following excerpt is, to me, the most powerful piece from this article:

Franklin Graham, brandishing a tone not heard from his father, called Islam “a very evil and wicked religion” and, in the wake of 9/11, said the U.S. should drop nuclear weapons on Afghanistan. He has backed down somewhat from the former statement but refuses to retract the latter. Rather than countering increased division in the world with calls for understanding and unity, he is digging the trenches deeper.

To be clear about what Rev. Graham suggested for Afghanistan, picture in your mind the apocalyptic images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — disfigured people and a lifeless smoldering moonscape.

Is that what the religious imagination has to offer the world?

Compare that with the Amish of Nickel Mines, Penn. When faced with senseless violence, they did not respond with righteous vengeance but reached out to the family of the man who killed their children, setting up trust funds for his kids. Confronted by unthinkable violence, they responded with unthinkable forgiveness and compassion. For them, faith meant replacing the human impulse for fear and retaliation with something kinder and gentler.

I have yet to see the same compassionate, loving and gentle side to Franklin that I see in his father. I hope that this will emerge from Franklin as he fills the void left by Billy. Yet, I can’t help but feel alarmed at the influence that Franklin will have as he inherits the large and far reaching audience that his father developed through his years of dedication to spreading God’s word.

One can only hope that a voice of peace emerges in Christian circles with the same kind of influence as Billy Graham to help fill this void and to help replace the more hardcore and intolerant messages being preached by his son.

One can only hope…

Todd Dow

You’ve gotta be kidding me… I read a commentary piece from David Warren the other day, in which Warren tried to explain the “right way” of winning in Iraq. Warren likened the war in Iraq to fighting the Nazis in WWII. I’m confused that people still think that this is a simple fight delineated on political lines, rather than ideological ones.

And it’s more than just Warren that sees the current Middle East conflict in such a division of black and white. The NATO mission in Afghanistan and the US war in Iraq are charging ahead with their missions to “colonize” the Middle East, in spite of the vigorous opposition from the local militants.

The obvious problem here is that for the locals, political boundaries don’t seem to matter. In fact, the lines appear to be blurred along cultural and religious boundaries instead. Warren and other traditional military strategists appear, at least to me (an ignorant non-combatant), to be fighting a traditional war against a non-traditional enemy. And what’s worse, I don’t feel confident that current military strategies, at least the way they are conveyed through the media, are showing much of an understanding of this non-traditional enemy either.

The NATO mission in Afghanistan seems to understand this dynamic, as their current offensive, dubbed Operation Baaz Tsuka is attempting to peacefully convince the enemy to reconsider their plans. Dealing with Afghanistan’s tribal problems is long overdue and no easy, peaceful solutions currently exist, but it’s good to see that NATO is attempting to curb the damage being inflicted by the Taliban through less confrontational military means (as much as possible).

The US in Iraq, on the other hand, faces a much more severe challenge. It has been documented time and again that the US led mission in Iraq has been shown to “‘not be in conformity with the [UN] Charter’ and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law.” It’s no wonder the Middle East is hostile towards the US, considering the arrogance and bullying attitude that the US has been showing towards the Iraq situation.

According to the BBC, “many of the insurgent attacks attributed to foreign jihadis have a sectarian element in that they have targeted Shias with the aim of provoking wider violence between Iraq’s religious communities.”

A recent article in the December 2006 issue of Christianity Today further outlines the sectarian conflict playing out in the Middle East. The article, entitled “Garlic, Dracula and Al Qaeda”, outlines the problem of religious extremism which is currently fueling this international conflict between the East and the West. I don’t mean to diminish the complexities of global politics, but it is quite clear that without extremism, it would be possible to have rational religious discourse without the fear of offending people and sparking riots, protests and worldwide violence (Remember the Muhammad cartoon fiasco of earlier this year? Or, how about the fatwa against Salman Rushdie).

Religious extremism is attempting to subvert our individual freedoms through violent censorship and intimidation. This abuse is so abhorrent that it is difficult, if not impossible, to rationally defend the faith for which these individuals are fighting. I think it would be fair to say that if the only method of coercion available to religious extremists is violence, then that side has already lost the argument. Violence is a failure of an individual to rationally articulate reasons to support one’s opinions. Thus, it is shamefully obvious that those on the side of fanaticism are fighting a self-defeating battle with themselves when violently imposing their views on others.

Although I don’t explicitly support the current military efforts going on in the Middle East, I have to say that I am at least a little impressed with the ideological recognition and strategic adaptations that the NATO led forces are applying to the Afghanistan mission. At the very least, it’ll prove to be a better template of striving for peace than the hammer that the US is applying to Iraq.

Unfortunately, this still leaves plenty of global hostility towards the West that currently exists in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. I think that it is important to peacefully right past wrongs, offer forgiveness on both sides and work towards lasting rational dialogue and relationship building. This requires all sides to be more understanding and respectful of one another.

And for goodness sake, let’s hope that the US administration will soon learn to be a little more respectful of human rights and freedoms when attempting to impose their values on people in other lands.

Todd Dow

It’s a tough question… could you forgive someone who did you wrong?

A story in today’s news caught my eye:
Forgive Iraqi captors, former hostages plead.
Three former hostages urge forgiveness for Iraqi captors.
Spare Iraqi kidnappers, Loney pleads.

James Loney, Harmeet Singh Sooden and Norman Kember, three members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams, were taken hostage in 2005 and were freed 117 days later in March 2006. The three spoke at a press conference on Friday, arguing that although their alleged captors were wrong in their actions, they do not deserve the death penalty if convicted.

Loney was quoted as saying, “We have no desire to punish them. Punishment can never restore what was taken from us. What our captors did was wrong. They caused us, our families and friends great suffering. Yet we bear no malice towards them and have no wish for retribution.”

Loney was further quoted as saying, “By this commitment to forgiveness, we hope to plant a seed that one day will bear the fruits of healing and reconciliation for us, our captors…and most of all, Iraq”.

Difficult stuff… what would you do? How would you react? I, for one, would have a difficult time forgiving someone for such an offensive deed. I would like to think that I would be able to have mercy and to forgive, but that’s easy to say from the comfort of my peaceful life. And, I think it would be even more challenging had this happened to one of my close friends or family members. But again, my sheltered life prevents me from understanding the anger, pain and frustration that must accompany such a difficult ordeal.

That being said, I think that Loney, Sooden and Kember’s gentle voices speak to an ideal that comes with much reflection and a great deal of commitment to furthering peaceful dialogue with a group that, rightly or wrongly, feels that they are defending their freedom. I know that this won’t sit well with many who have suffered at the hands of Islamic violence, but there is some value in at least considering a peaceful response. Without forgiveness, there can be no peace. On either side. But, with justification for anger on both sides, forgiveness is difficult to achieve.

I don’t want to trivialize this situation, but consider the basic ways in which conflict is resolved. Consider two children fighting on the playground at school. I don’t know about your experiences, but for me, a solution that I’ve seen applied time and again is to have both children apologize for their contributions to the fight, to shake hands and agree not to continue fighting, and then to encourage healing and friendship between the two kids.

Why can’t these same principles be applied on the larger world scale? Is the violence any more complicated? Not really… one side has done the other wrong. The justifications might be more complex, but does it make the actions any more correct? When is it right to kill? Especially in the name of peace? There are some serious contradictions to any argument that uses “killing” and “peace” in the same solution. And I’m not alone in that thinking.

I’ll leave the door open to further discussion on this one… I’ve said enough for one day. But I’ll revisit this again soon.

What are your thoughts? Could you forgive? Do you think forgiveness is a virtue? Or, do you think that forgiveness a weakness?

Todd Dow