Rejecting a Politics of Hate, Greed, and Fear
Steve Clemens, April 4, 2004
It is no mistake that it is called “culture wars”. There is a “take no prisoners” mentality in our politics – ironic in a country that has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world! It is a war where the object is not a negotiated settlement but a push for only “unconditional surrender”. And, most unfortunately, it is a Civil War in that it pits brother against brother, family against family, region against region- yet there is very little that is civil about it.
The political dust storm about “gay marriage”: is the concept of “marriage” between traditional heterosexual marriage really threatened and under attack? Do we really need to “defend marriage”? Haven’t Hollywood “celebrities” done enough to make light of this institution without trying to place the blame on gay/lesbian couples who seek the stability and recognition of a loving, committed relationship, trying to break the stereotypical image of promiscuity so often linked to homosexuality? Is this an issue which demands we change a Constitution which is designed to protect rights rather than to limit them?
In the abortion issue: can one be opposed to the idea of ending a developing life while striving to allow women in desperate situations a choice in consultation with a medical professional? While it is admirable for people to speak up on behalf of those who can’t, isn’t it ironic that so many of the voices “speaking” on behalf of the “unborn” remain silent when those who are already born live in poverty and hopelessness? Isn’t it ironic that many of the voices shout on behalf of the “unborn” are the first to “cast a stone” when the subject is capital punishment? Is one really “pro-life” when supporting the most powerful death-machine in military might that the world has ever known?
Why do we search in other countries for “weapons of mass destruction” while we continue to build and justify our own possession and threatened use of such?
We do have much to fear. When one nation with only 5% of the world’s population wants to continue a “lifestyle” which consumes at least 25% of the world’s resources, one must wonder how long this can continue before the masses rise up and demand a change? The exporting of our “culture” through TV, movies, and music has a way of putting the consumption disparities “in your face”.
Yet does our politics – the way we choose to organize our life together as a people, as a nation - need to be polarizing and based on fear and sometimes on hate? Are the divisions created to distract us from the growing chasm between the rich and poor in our own society (not to mention between us and the rest of the world, especially those in the southern hemisphere)?
Can we take time to stop the shouting and sloganeering to really listen to each other? Can we take time to explore why we feel afraid? Why we feel alienated from each other? Can we explore what our hopes and dreams are about?
Someone handed me a “business card” yesterday which read, “Vote ABB”. In smaller letters at the bottom it read, “Anybody but Bush”. Really? Hitler?, Saddam?, Fred Phelps? I can think of hundreds I wouldn’t support but why support anyone just to avoid someone else? Why not find a candidate who calls us to a vision of who we can be rather than who we are not?
When I travel abroad, I don’t want to have to apologize for being an American. I don’t want to secretly wish my passport read “Canadian”.
The Sabbath, Jubilee, and Reflections on Work
The Sabbath, Jubilee, and Reflections on Work
Steve Clemens, March 2004
A recent call from my father shocked me. I shouldn’t have been shocked as I realized for a long time that while we share some similar values in our lives and faith, there are many ways we have chosen to part company, hopefully without judging the other’s values. Clearly the latter includes our politics yet more significantly it has also increasingly included our theology. The recent conversation centered on my “lack of a job” and my seeming acceptance of that status while Christine stepped forward to serve as the “breadwinner” for the household. I suspect that some of the discomfort my dad felt about the situation was the practical issue of how he was to respond to the questions of friends and relatives when they asked him “what is Steve doing nowadays?” In the past the answer could be given the “he is building houses with Habitat for Humanity” or “he is working with poor black families in South Georgia”.
So much of who I am has often been (for me as well) wrapped up in what “work” I did. Too often the “work” was only reflected in who signed the paycheck rather than what I thought my life was really about. Even during my 12 years working for Habitat, I frequently took time off from the workweek to participate in peace vigils or demonstrations, other activities related to my faith community or acts of justice, and even framed some of the work I was doing for Habitat so that I could include protecting the environment as a rationale for some of the donations I accepted and passed on to others. “What do you do?” was always easier to answer by saying “Habitat” as a short, polite response. Even the years at Koinonia Partners allowed the shortcut response to be “I live in an intentional Christian community in southwest Georgia.” When one doesn’t have a “job”, it is harder to come up with a shortcut answer beyond “I’m taking a Sabbatical Year”.
The decision to leave my employment took several years to make as I grew increasingly disenchanted with the direction the local affiliate took. As the emphasis grew on increasing the production number of houses, I had less and less opportunity to get to know the homebuying families or the myriad of volunteers. More and more the need was stressed to produce reports showing the increase in the value of inkind donations with large corporate donations clearly supplanting the “widow’s mite”-type of donations from individuals. It became harder to reconcile spending my time seeking donations from some of the same corporate entities that my faith and values called me to demonstrate against. My trip to Iraq plus the looming of a war gave me the impetus to take the leap and quit my job. The Biblical concept of a “sabbatical” neatly fit into the newly-created void.
Was this just another case of midlife crisis? If by midlife crisis one means re-examining what one does with who one hopes to be and trying other jobs to see if there is a better fit with ones values, it certainly could be that. I never have felt a call to a specific “vocation” other than to be a responsible “citizen” in both my politics and my faith: taking seriously what it means to be a citizen in the midst of one of the world’s great [sic] empires as well as a citizen of “the Kingdom (or reign) of God. For me, whatever “work” I do should be able to support and nurture the values I hold in both of these spheres.
It was a rabbi from Philadelphia, Arthur Waskow, who helped me remember what I’ve learned about the Sabbath. A workshop on “Free Time, Free People” at Sojourners 30th Anniversary Celebration in the summer of 2001 encouraged me to reassess my priorities and lifestyle. With much of my time and energy invested in my job at Habitat, I seemed to have less time for family, friends, and “enjoying life”. I have seldom lacked for money (due in part to a large inheritance passed on from my parents as well as a fairly frugal lifestyle also learned from my family of origin and reinforced by my 15 years at Koinonia.
When YHWH, the “breath of life” created our world, the scriptures said it was very good, creation reflected the abundance of God. In the midst of this work, the Biblical storyteller informs us that God “rested”, took a Sabbath- a time to rest, relax, reflect, and enjoy. This Sabbath principle is carried on in the Hebrew tradition as not only the 7th day but also the 7th year. After 7 sabbatical years, and addition year, a Jubilee Year follows. It is also a time to allow the land to remain fallow and “unproductive” as well as a time to restore the land to its original occupants as a mechanism of a radical economic redistribution which included forgiving debts and freeing slaves. 2003 served for me as a sabbatical year, 2004 is my time of Jubilee.
I must confess it is hard to lie fallow and remain unproductive in our society. How do you explain such to most people who have both engrained the “Protestant Work Ethic” and the spirit of Capitalism yet remain profoundly ignorant of the Biblical call to unproductiveness?
Steve Clemens, March 2004
A recent call from my father shocked me. I shouldn’t have been shocked as I realized for a long time that while we share some similar values in our lives and faith, there are many ways we have chosen to part company, hopefully without judging the other’s values. Clearly the latter includes our politics yet more significantly it has also increasingly included our theology. The recent conversation centered on my “lack of a job” and my seeming acceptance of that status while Christine stepped forward to serve as the “breadwinner” for the household. I suspect that some of the discomfort my dad felt about the situation was the practical issue of how he was to respond to the questions of friends and relatives when they asked him “what is Steve doing nowadays?” In the past the answer could be given the “he is building houses with Habitat for Humanity” or “he is working with poor black families in South Georgia”.
So much of who I am has often been (for me as well) wrapped up in what “work” I did. Too often the “work” was only reflected in who signed the paycheck rather than what I thought my life was really about. Even during my 12 years working for Habitat, I frequently took time off from the workweek to participate in peace vigils or demonstrations, other activities related to my faith community or acts of justice, and even framed some of the work I was doing for Habitat so that I could include protecting the environment as a rationale for some of the donations I accepted and passed on to others. “What do you do?” was always easier to answer by saying “Habitat” as a short, polite response. Even the years at Koinonia Partners allowed the shortcut response to be “I live in an intentional Christian community in southwest Georgia.” When one doesn’t have a “job”, it is harder to come up with a shortcut answer beyond “I’m taking a Sabbatical Year”.
The decision to leave my employment took several years to make as I grew increasingly disenchanted with the direction the local affiliate took. As the emphasis grew on increasing the production number of houses, I had less and less opportunity to get to know the homebuying families or the myriad of volunteers. More and more the need was stressed to produce reports showing the increase in the value of inkind donations with large corporate donations clearly supplanting the “widow’s mite”-type of donations from individuals. It became harder to reconcile spending my time seeking donations from some of the same corporate entities that my faith and values called me to demonstrate against. My trip to Iraq plus the looming of a war gave me the impetus to take the leap and quit my job. The Biblical concept of a “sabbatical” neatly fit into the newly-created void.
Was this just another case of midlife crisis? If by midlife crisis one means re-examining what one does with who one hopes to be and trying other jobs to see if there is a better fit with ones values, it certainly could be that. I never have felt a call to a specific “vocation” other than to be a responsible “citizen” in both my politics and my faith: taking seriously what it means to be a citizen in the midst of one of the world’s great [sic] empires as well as a citizen of “the Kingdom (or reign) of God. For me, whatever “work” I do should be able to support and nurture the values I hold in both of these spheres.
It was a rabbi from Philadelphia, Arthur Waskow, who helped me remember what I’ve learned about the Sabbath. A workshop on “Free Time, Free People” at Sojourners 30th Anniversary Celebration in the summer of 2001 encouraged me to reassess my priorities and lifestyle. With much of my time and energy invested in my job at Habitat, I seemed to have less time for family, friends, and “enjoying life”. I have seldom lacked for money (due in part to a large inheritance passed on from my parents as well as a fairly frugal lifestyle also learned from my family of origin and reinforced by my 15 years at Koinonia.
When YHWH, the “breath of life” created our world, the scriptures said it was very good, creation reflected the abundance of God. In the midst of this work, the Biblical storyteller informs us that God “rested”, took a Sabbath- a time to rest, relax, reflect, and enjoy. This Sabbath principle is carried on in the Hebrew tradition as not only the 7th day but also the 7th year. After 7 sabbatical years, and addition year, a Jubilee Year follows. It is also a time to allow the land to remain fallow and “unproductive” as well as a time to restore the land to its original occupants as a mechanism of a radical economic redistribution which included forgiving debts and freeing slaves. 2003 served for me as a sabbatical year, 2004 is my time of Jubilee.
I must confess it is hard to lie fallow and remain unproductive in our society. How do you explain such to most people who have both engrained the “Protestant Work Ethic” and the spirit of Capitalism yet remain profoundly ignorant of the Biblical call to unproductiveness?
Remembering Bob Redd
Remembering Bob Redd
By Steve Clemens 2/29/04
What would lead my wife and me to take our 3-year old toddler and our infant son to Death Row? Why did my wife go to the Goodwill store to buy bracelets to wear to the prison? What led us to drive 2 ½ hours several times a year for nearly 10 years and to do research in an Atlanta library for hours on an old murder case from the 1970’s? The answer to all the above is Bob Redd.
After attending a Fellowship of Reconciliation conference at Berea College in 1980 and being convicted by Will Campbell to follow “one of the few direct commands by Jesus in the Bible” (to visit those in prison), I sat with Murphy Davis and her infant daughter, Hannah, on the long bus ride back to Georgia. I asked Murphy how I should go about this new challenge. She told me that when she got back to Atlanta, she’d send me the name of someone on Death Row to whom I could write. The name she sent to me at my Koinonia address was Bob Redd. So I began to write and received letters in return. After a few months, I was told Bob was being moved to a newly constructed prison in Jackson where all Death Row prisoners would now be [ware]housed.
I discovered that as the result of a lawsuit, prisoners who had not received a visit from a family member over a period of time could add other non-relatives to their visiting list. Bob had written and asked if I was willing to drive up to Jackson on a Saturday to meet and visit with him. It must be said that I was more than a little nervous and apprehensive as I walked down the long corridor, climbed the stairs, emptied my pockets, and walked through the metal detector after signing in and handing over my car keys, driver’s license, and license plate number. I was even more nervous after they called Bob’s name and proceeded to lock me in a long narrow room divided with a metal screen down the center, lengthwise. I supposed Bob would be brought to the other side and we’d talk through the protective barrier. But the door was unlocked on my side and a short white man dressed in white pants and a white denim shirt entered before the door was relocked with just the two of us inside. Hopefully, this was the man who had written those friendly letters - the same man I discovered later who had brutally beaten another man to death with a tire iron!
That first visit lasted about an hour. I learned that Bob had married and had fathered five sons. Tearfully, Bob told me that they had never come to visit him at the prison. His ex-wife was also now in jail and his mother was in poor health and was rarely able to visit because of the stress the visits caused her weak heart. I discovered that the flowerily handwriting on the letters I had received was not Bob’s. Bob had never learned to read or write. (His trial records included the fact that his IQ was in the range that classified him as “mentally retarded” but that fact was never brought up in his trial by his defense lawyer.). Bob told me that the inmate in the adjoining cell read him my letters and then wrote what Bob had asked him to write in response.
After visiting with Bob over several years, he asked if I would bring my wife, Christine, with me to visit him. She came along and we saw how pleased Bob was that she had made the effort. After our son Micah was born in 1983, Bob pleaded with me to bring him as well so he could meet him. After all, Bob’s sons had never come to see him and that really hurt him. It was not an easy decision to bring one’s only child for a visit on Death Row. But we saw how much it would mean to Bob and we hesitantly decided to take a chance. On our way home after the visit, Christine and I both cried, overwhelmed at the love and joy Bob bestowed on that infant. Needless to say, when Zach was born, both boys had to travel with us on our journeys to the prison at Jackson.
The prison didn’t make visits with children very easy. We were not allowed to take any food or toys into the visiting room. Even cloth diapers couldn’t come in because of the sharp metal diaper pins so we purchased disposable diapers just for our visits. Fortunately Christine was breastfeeding the infant so food didn’t become an issue. It was Bob who asked Christine to wear bracelets when she came and told us to bring kerchiefs as well. Both were somehow allowed into the visiting room and Bob twirled and knotted the kerchiefs into a ball to play “catch” with the boys. The bracelets quickly became spinning tops or were rolled the length of the room for the boys to chase- to their, and Bob’s, delight. Bob taught us that a person capable of a drunken, murderous attack was also the same person capable of love and tenderness. It was a humbling lesson I’ll never forget.
Bob was scared on Death Row. He told me he was afraid of others on his cell block, especially the “black inmates”. [It took me several years before I found out who wrote his letters to me for him. It was Marcus, an African-American who was his “best friend”. In Bob’s mind, Marcus wasn’t a “threat”, he was just Marcus!] To cope with his fears, Bob developed a habit of swallowing metal objects – Coke cans, bed springs, needles … in order to be sent to the hospital, thus “escaping” Death Row. With his limited mental capacity, it was his way of trying to deal with the pressures of his confinement. In the winter of 1990, I received word from Marcus that Bob was once again in the hospital and it “didn’t look good.” After a few days, I was told that Bob’s infection had taken his life.
Christine and I had met Bob’s mother, Louise, several times at her trailer home. I joined her, a few family members, and a volunteer lawyer from New Jersey who had kept Bob alive over the years with appeals as we laid Bob to rest. Ironically, the State of Georgia passed legislation within six months of Bob’s death which would have spared his life: no more would the state execute prisoners who were “mentally retarded”.
Visiting Bob was a blessing to me. He challenged my stereotypes and forced me to see his humanity and dignity. My sons remember Bob as a gentle man who played with them and exuded joy at their existence. Thank you, Bob, for being Christ to me and my family. May you rest in God’s peace.
By Steve Clemens 2/29/04
What would lead my wife and me to take our 3-year old toddler and our infant son to Death Row? Why did my wife go to the Goodwill store to buy bracelets to wear to the prison? What led us to drive 2 ½ hours several times a year for nearly 10 years and to do research in an Atlanta library for hours on an old murder case from the 1970’s? The answer to all the above is Bob Redd.
After attending a Fellowship of Reconciliation conference at Berea College in 1980 and being convicted by Will Campbell to follow “one of the few direct commands by Jesus in the Bible” (to visit those in prison), I sat with Murphy Davis and her infant daughter, Hannah, on the long bus ride back to Georgia. I asked Murphy how I should go about this new challenge. She told me that when she got back to Atlanta, she’d send me the name of someone on Death Row to whom I could write. The name she sent to me at my Koinonia address was Bob Redd. So I began to write and received letters in return. After a few months, I was told Bob was being moved to a newly constructed prison in Jackson where all Death Row prisoners would now be [ware]housed.
I discovered that as the result of a lawsuit, prisoners who had not received a visit from a family member over a period of time could add other non-relatives to their visiting list. Bob had written and asked if I was willing to drive up to Jackson on a Saturday to meet and visit with him. It must be said that I was more than a little nervous and apprehensive as I walked down the long corridor, climbed the stairs, emptied my pockets, and walked through the metal detector after signing in and handing over my car keys, driver’s license, and license plate number. I was even more nervous after they called Bob’s name and proceeded to lock me in a long narrow room divided with a metal screen down the center, lengthwise. I supposed Bob would be brought to the other side and we’d talk through the protective barrier. But the door was unlocked on my side and a short white man dressed in white pants and a white denim shirt entered before the door was relocked with just the two of us inside. Hopefully, this was the man who had written those friendly letters - the same man I discovered later who had brutally beaten another man to death with a tire iron!
That first visit lasted about an hour. I learned that Bob had married and had fathered five sons. Tearfully, Bob told me that they had never come to visit him at the prison. His ex-wife was also now in jail and his mother was in poor health and was rarely able to visit because of the stress the visits caused her weak heart. I discovered that the flowerily handwriting on the letters I had received was not Bob’s. Bob had never learned to read or write. (His trial records included the fact that his IQ was in the range that classified him as “mentally retarded” but that fact was never brought up in his trial by his defense lawyer.). Bob told me that the inmate in the adjoining cell read him my letters and then wrote what Bob had asked him to write in response.
After visiting with Bob over several years, he asked if I would bring my wife, Christine, with me to visit him. She came along and we saw how pleased Bob was that she had made the effort. After our son Micah was born in 1983, Bob pleaded with me to bring him as well so he could meet him. After all, Bob’s sons had never come to see him and that really hurt him. It was not an easy decision to bring one’s only child for a visit on Death Row. But we saw how much it would mean to Bob and we hesitantly decided to take a chance. On our way home after the visit, Christine and I both cried, overwhelmed at the love and joy Bob bestowed on that infant. Needless to say, when Zach was born, both boys had to travel with us on our journeys to the prison at Jackson.
The prison didn’t make visits with children very easy. We were not allowed to take any food or toys into the visiting room. Even cloth diapers couldn’t come in because of the sharp metal diaper pins so we purchased disposable diapers just for our visits. Fortunately Christine was breastfeeding the infant so food didn’t become an issue. It was Bob who asked Christine to wear bracelets when she came and told us to bring kerchiefs as well. Both were somehow allowed into the visiting room and Bob twirled and knotted the kerchiefs into a ball to play “catch” with the boys. The bracelets quickly became spinning tops or were rolled the length of the room for the boys to chase- to their, and Bob’s, delight. Bob taught us that a person capable of a drunken, murderous attack was also the same person capable of love and tenderness. It was a humbling lesson I’ll never forget.
Bob was scared on Death Row. He told me he was afraid of others on his cell block, especially the “black inmates”. [It took me several years before I found out who wrote his letters to me for him. It was Marcus, an African-American who was his “best friend”. In Bob’s mind, Marcus wasn’t a “threat”, he was just Marcus!] To cope with his fears, Bob developed a habit of swallowing metal objects – Coke cans, bed springs, needles … in order to be sent to the hospital, thus “escaping” Death Row. With his limited mental capacity, it was his way of trying to deal with the pressures of his confinement. In the winter of 1990, I received word from Marcus that Bob was once again in the hospital and it “didn’t look good.” After a few days, I was told that Bob’s infection had taken his life.
Christine and I had met Bob’s mother, Louise, several times at her trailer home. I joined her, a few family members, and a volunteer lawyer from New Jersey who had kept Bob alive over the years with appeals as we laid Bob to rest. Ironically, the State of Georgia passed legislation within six months of Bob’s death which would have spared his life: no more would the state execute prisoners who were “mentally retarded”.
Visiting Bob was a blessing to me. He challenged my stereotypes and forced me to see his humanity and dignity. My sons remember Bob as a gentle man who played with them and exuded joy at their existence. Thank you, Bob, for being Christ to me and my family. May you rest in God’s peace.
Conscientious Objection and Jury Duty.
Conscientious Objection and Jury Duty
By Steve Clemens 2/29/04
When I registered for the military draft in 1968, the US war on the people of Vietnam was approaching its most brutal phase. Although my college (Wheaton College) had mandated that all male students be enrolled in ROTC, it wasn’t until I stared over the barrel of my rifle on the target range that I realized the target I was aiming at was not as it appeared: the circular target in front of me morphed in my mind to the figure of the “Viet Cong”. My father’s voice echoed in the back of my mind, “Never point your gun at anything you don’t intend to kill.” Setting the gun down, I knew that Jesus’ call to “love my enemies” required me to register as a conscientious objector.
In the 1980’s, I received a summons to report for jury duty in Sumter County, GA. This was somewhat surprising as the practice for many years in that county was to automatically disqualify members of the Koinonia community from serving as jurors. The judicial officials routinely decided that Koinonia folk weren’t the kind of people they wanted to decide the fate of those accused of violating the law. Having experienced city and county jails and federal prison as a result of nonviolent witness against the Vietnam War and our manufacture of nuclear weapons, I knew first-hand that our penal system was racist and dehumanizing. I had experienced that the “corrections” system not only did not “correct”, it was a dysfunctional place that had created more embittered alumni once someone graduated from those concertina-wired warehouses we call jail or prison.
Recalling my Mennonite-Anabaptist heritage as well as the history of the Early Church, I was skeptical of participating in a system which could condemn others to a place I knew to be alienating and inhumane. I decided that my desire to follow the way of Jesus had led me to be a “conscientious objector” to jury duty. When I was included in the jury pool for my first potential trial, the Judge asked if there was anyone who could not serve in an impartial manner. I raised my hand and stood in the midst of 40 or so other potential jurors. “Unless I am given assurance that a jail or prison sentence will not be considered as a result of this case, I will not find the defendant guilty. I have served time in our prison system and have found it to be profoundly dehumanizing and as a Christian I cannot agree to convict anyone to jail until or unless the systems of jails and prisons are changed and prisoners are treated in a way that respects their humanity,” I stated.
Needless to say, I was not chosen for that jury. I assumed that the prosecutor would excuse me from service for the balance of the week but he did not want to let me “off the hook”. So, I was able to confess my convictions before my fellow citizens twice more that week. Hopefully my testimony to the call of Christ did not fall on hard soil. Hopefully some of the other potential jurors were able to reflect on our responsibility to withdraw consent from this wicked system.
I have not been called again to serve on a jury but I have continued to find myself hauled before judges and juries and into jail because of my desire to follow the call of Jesus to be a peacemaker. Relating to new-found friends “inside” has been easier knowing that I’ve refused to send others there.
By Steve Clemens 2/29/04
When I registered for the military draft in 1968, the US war on the people of Vietnam was approaching its most brutal phase. Although my college (Wheaton College) had mandated that all male students be enrolled in ROTC, it wasn’t until I stared over the barrel of my rifle on the target range that I realized the target I was aiming at was not as it appeared: the circular target in front of me morphed in my mind to the figure of the “Viet Cong”. My father’s voice echoed in the back of my mind, “Never point your gun at anything you don’t intend to kill.” Setting the gun down, I knew that Jesus’ call to “love my enemies” required me to register as a conscientious objector.
In the 1980’s, I received a summons to report for jury duty in Sumter County, GA. This was somewhat surprising as the practice for many years in that county was to automatically disqualify members of the Koinonia community from serving as jurors. The judicial officials routinely decided that Koinonia folk weren’t the kind of people they wanted to decide the fate of those accused of violating the law. Having experienced city and county jails and federal prison as a result of nonviolent witness against the Vietnam War and our manufacture of nuclear weapons, I knew first-hand that our penal system was racist and dehumanizing. I had experienced that the “corrections” system not only did not “correct”, it was a dysfunctional place that had created more embittered alumni once someone graduated from those concertina-wired warehouses we call jail or prison.
Recalling my Mennonite-Anabaptist heritage as well as the history of the Early Church, I was skeptical of participating in a system which could condemn others to a place I knew to be alienating and inhumane. I decided that my desire to follow the way of Jesus had led me to be a “conscientious objector” to jury duty. When I was included in the jury pool for my first potential trial, the Judge asked if there was anyone who could not serve in an impartial manner. I raised my hand and stood in the midst of 40 or so other potential jurors. “Unless I am given assurance that a jail or prison sentence will not be considered as a result of this case, I will not find the defendant guilty. I have served time in our prison system and have found it to be profoundly dehumanizing and as a Christian I cannot agree to convict anyone to jail until or unless the systems of jails and prisons are changed and prisoners are treated in a way that respects their humanity,” I stated.
Needless to say, I was not chosen for that jury. I assumed that the prosecutor would excuse me from service for the balance of the week but he did not want to let me “off the hook”. So, I was able to confess my convictions before my fellow citizens twice more that week. Hopefully my testimony to the call of Christ did not fall on hard soil. Hopefully some of the other potential jurors were able to reflect on our responsibility to withdraw consent from this wicked system.
I have not been called again to serve on a jury but I have continued to find myself hauled before judges and juries and into jail because of my desire to follow the call of Jesus to be a peacemaker. Relating to new-found friends “inside” has been easier knowing that I’ve refused to send others there.
Alliant 28, Not Guilty!
Alliant 28, Not Guilty! By Steve Clemens. Oct. 18, 2003 On Friday, October 17, 2003, a six-person jury of citizens from Hennepin County, MN declared that International Law can trump the local private property/no trespass law. At the height of the recent war against Iraq, on April 2, 2003, 28 Minnesotans “crossed the line”, entering the world headquarters property of Alliant TechSystems Corporation in Edina, MN with the express purpose of conducting a “citizens weapons inspection”. The letter they carried demanded that they have access to the books and records of Alliant TechSystems Corporation (ATK) to see if they had completed any studies on the medical and environmental effects of the depleted uranium munitions they produce. The defendants contended that there is significant evidence that the depleted uranium penetrator munitions they produce containing U-238, a radioactive substance with a half-life of 4 ½ billion years, is a prime suspect in escalating rates of cancers and birth defects among residents of southern Iraq and US troops who served in the first Gulf War. Using provisions from the US Constitution and International Humanitarian Law, the defendants successfully argued that the “manufacture, sale, stockpiling, as well as the use of weapons containing this radioactive waste (depleted uranium) is illegal. The US Constitution declares that International Treaties signed by the government become “the supreme law of the land.” The Hague and Geneva Conventions and its protocols and subsequent treaties are clear that weapons which cannot discriminate between civilian and military or combatants are prohibited from not only use but also from manufacture and sale. The Nuremberg Tribunals were the vehicle victorious Allied countries used to judge and punish German military, political, and corporate leaders for war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity after WWII. The Nuremberg Principles were incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations, a treaty which in now “supreme law” in the US when it ratified it. The 7th Principle declares that “complicity with a Crime Against Humanity or a War Crime” is a crime under International Law. Because of the increasing evidence mounting about the indiscriminate nature of this weapon, the defendants argued they were compelled to act. All 19 of the remaining defendants (9 original defendants pled “guilty” because they were unable to devote a week out of their work/school schedules to a jury trial) testified on Thursday, clearly moving the jury as well as fellow defendants. Steve Clemens introduced the provisions from International Law and he and 3 other defendants told accounts of what they had seen first-hand in visits to Iraq since the 1991 war. Dr. Gene Ott testified about some of the medical consequences he suspects are the results of exposure to the use of these radioactive weapons. The most moving testimony came from a first-time activist. Wendi Nauheimer had never been in a demonstration before. One week before this witness against ATK took place, she told Marv Davidov, the long-time peace and justice activist, “They [ATK] killed my brother, Patrick”. Wendi testified that her brother, a US Marine for 11 years, returned from the desert area of Iraq and Kuwait after “clean-up” of the area where depleted uranium weapons were used with sores on his body. He developed an aggressive form of leukemia and died in 1995, leaving a widow and two young children. Before he died, he told his family, “Something happened to me in that desert”. Wendi believes her brother’s death is at least partially due to the exposure to radiation he received from the waste left by depleted uranium penetrator munitions manufactured by ATK and sold to the Army and Air Force and used in that war. Another defendant, Katy Gray Brown testified that her brother-in-law is fighting cancers she believes were caused by the radioactive nature of the shrapnel which lodged near his spine during the first Gulf War. The defendants included 6 Roman Catholic nuns who testified how our nations spending on the military has deprived many needy people in our inner cities. Sister Char Madigan pled with the jury to join her in working to move from “money-wealth to commonwealth”. She said that ATK cannot hide what it is doing for profit behind “private property” laws but must be exposed and held accountable like the tobacco companies and Enron. Jane Evershed, a local poet and artist told of being arrested for protesting apartheid in South Africa. Today, that evil system is gone and she believes that some day soon, so will the evilness of depleted uranium weapons be evident to the majority and we will rid ourselves of it as well. Phil Steger, Director of the Friends For a NonViolent World handled the difficult task of the opening and closing arguments, winning praise from the prosecutor. Because all of the defendants were there without an attorney by their choice, Phil’s eloquence was all the more appreciated by the other defendants since this was his first trial. Although most defendants were motivated by their Christian faith, Kathleen Ruona, a proclaimed atheist, spoke movingly of “species arrogance” in that the deadly radiation released by these illegal weapons threaten not only humans but other plant and animal life as well. Marv Davidov, a Jewish activist thundered like one of the Hebrew prophets of old as he decried the racism of our society and then told of his 30+ year campaign to stop the production of landmines, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium weapons made by Honeywell Corporation and now by the spin-off of that company into ATK. Because of the large and frequent demonstrations against the weapons they were making, Honeywell divested itself of that division. Marv and “Alliant Action”, as well as the newly-created “Philip Berrigan Depleted Uranium Coalition”, will continue to work to convert ATK from its present production of “swords” into “plowshares” which can better all humankind. Weekly vigils, begun in 1995, will continue by the entrance to ATK. Come join us!
My Trial Testimony - ATK Trial 2003
Steve Clemens testimony for Alliant Trial 2003 - October 2003
I am a husband and the father of 2 young men, ages 17 and 20. I have been married 25 years and my wife is in the back of the courtroom today. I have worked for Habitat for Humanity here in the Twin Cities (a non-profit that builds homes with volunteers for low-income families) for 12 years. I recently came back from HFH trip to Egypt/Jordan, building homes as a gesture of peacemaking and reconciliation between Christians and Muslims. I am a member of the Community of St. Martin, an ecumenical Christian worshipping community committed to peace and justice. Each year members take a vow of nonviolence. My faith and religious beliefs are central to who I am.
As a freshman student at Wheaton College in 1968, I turned 18 and was forced to wrestle with the question of the morality of war as I was faced with the military draft. After prayerful study, soul-searching, and discussion with others, I chose to register as Conscientious Objector, a person opposed to participation in all wars.
In my senior year of college in 1971, as part of an International semester abroad, I took an International law course in The Hague, Netherlands, the place where much of the international rules concerning behavior in warfare were originally developed. We also visited Geneva where the most current rules concerning warfare have been discussed and adopted. We had a discussion about Nuremburg Tribunals and their role in Int’l Law. The Nuremberg Tribunal was the trial of the Nazi leaders for War Crimes. Not only political and military leaders were tried but also some corporate leaders.
I was able to visit the concentration camp at Dachau to see the realities of “crimes against humanity”.
My interest in International Law led me to read a book written by a Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, Telford Taylor entitled Nuremberg and Vietnam. Reading that book helped me understand that even our own country must follow the Laws of War.
I spent a year with Mennonite voluntary service in Washington, DC. in 1975. While there, my interest in nuclear and radioactive weapons was sparked by Philip Berrigan and Liz Macalister in 1975. I participated in a Bible and Book Study with them on the Biblical Prophets and our need to speak out.
Throughout the years since then, I have participated in numerous nonviolent witness actions against war and particularly against weapons which do not discriminate against non-combatants.
I moved to MN in 1990 and by 1995 or so, I became familiar with Alliant TechSystems and the weapons they made. Protests started with landmines, continued with cluster bombs, now Depleted Uranium munitions are a primary focus.
In my studies about International Law, I learned:
International Law is binding on us per the US Constitution where Article VI states that “all treaties made under the authority of the US shall be the SUPREME law of the land” and judges are bound thereby. (Exhibit 119)
The US was a party to the Hague Treaty, the Geneva Conventions and its subsequent protocols, and was a main prosecutor of the Nuremberg Tribunals. As a signatory to the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Tribunal rulings have the effect of International Customary Law. Int’l law is clear that weapons which are “indiscriminate” are banned. (Exhibit #149, 150, 151, 152). [I “walked through” some of the provisions against these weapons from 3 treaties and the Nuremberg Tribunal.]
International Law is developed not only through treaties but is “found” through the Customs of Nations (Customary Law) and the writings of scholars. I have read scholarly articles about indiscriminate weapons and the relevance of International Humanitarian Law. Articles by R.J. Aurajo on landmines and Karen Parker on DU have led me to believe that treaties naming specific weapons to be banned are not needed since the broad provisions of the Hague and Geneva Treaties already have made them illegal. Karen Parker, an attorney who specializes in Human Rights has addressed UN Committees which are discussing Depleted Uranium weapons. I believe she is correct when she asserts that DU fails 4 tests for legal weapons. (Quote article*). She and other experts on International Law led the UN Commission on Human Rights to pass a resolution banning the use of DU weapons, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, cluster bombs and other similar weapons in 1996.
I had a moral, practical, legal, and personal responsibility to cross the line at ATK:
• Moral: as a follower of Jesus, I am called to love my enemy, not bomb them. I felt the need to put my faith, beliefs and “prayers for peace” into action.
• Practical: politically, silence in the face of evil implies consent. What is done in my name, by my country, cannot go unchallenged. I have voted, written letters to elected officials, marched in the streets, and prayerfully vigiled. “Putting my body on the line” was a way to continue to act on my convictions.
• Legal: The Nuremberg Tribunals require us to take a stand. International Humanitarian Law and Common Law are clear that weapons which are indiscriminate are illegal and cannot be manufactured, sold, stockpiled, or used. The fact that there presently does not exist an active enforcement mechanism does not relieve us of moral and legal responsibility under the Nuremberg Principles. Principle #7 of it states: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law. (Exhibit 111).
• Personal: I traveled to Iraq this past December, just before the latest war. After seeing children I believe were victims of illegal weapons used in the first Gulf War when I visited the Children’s Hospital in Basrah, I traveled to an area nicknamed “The Highway of Death”. (Exhibit 114) This tank I am standing in front of had steel armor that was 2 ½” thick. I saw on the side of the tank a hole bored through that steel armor that appeared to me to be caused by projectile that completely penetrated the armor. I believe this tank was destroyed by a depleted uranium penetrator. I have read numerous accounts of how this weapon works and I learned that when fired from a gun or artillery, the DU actually burns in the air and according to the military “cuts through steel armor like a hot knife through butter”. As it burns, it also “aerosolizes” and 20-70% of the radioactive material is converted to minute particles of dust which can be swallowed, breathed in, or enter the body through any cuts or scratches. Others will testify further about this weapon. After viewing the destroyed tanks and civilian vehicles I gathered the 5 Iraqis who traveled with us and told them how sorry I was that my nation had used DU weapons in the past war. I told them that although I spoke out and demonstrated against that war, I still asked for their forgiveness for what was done “in my name”. As we cried and embraced, I gave them my solemn word that when I returned to America I would take action to prevent these weapons from being used again.
When I went to ATK that Wednesday morning last April, I was aware of a letter other demonstrators carried re: citizen’s weapons inspection and I support that letter.(Other defendants will talk about that letter- the same letter that Lisa Amman tried to give to Officer Larson when she was arrested.) I carried a sign (hold it up) with me. (Exhibit 117). I also carried a letter addressed to Alliant personnel when I “crossed the line.” My letter reads, in part: (read letter). I mailed the letter to Alliant after the Edina Police told me they refused to take it as soon as I was released from the Edina jail. (Exhibit 118) When I was told by the Edina Police Officers who approached me that I had to leave or I would be arrested, I told them I was there pursuant to International Law and the State Constitution and had a claim of right to be there. It is my belief that a provision in the State Constitution also, like International Law, gives us a right to be protesting on ATK’s property. (exhibit 110). (Read it).
I believe that the cluster bombs and DU weapons used against the Iraqi people were made by ATK and are illegal under International Humanitarian Law. I believe the Nuremberg Principles requires us with knowledge of these illegal weapons to take action ourselves. I believe the state constitution of MN gives us the right to express our conscience in this matter. I believe I had a claim of right to enter Alliant Tech property.
I have committed civil disobedience in the past (like ML King, Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, and Mary Lou Hamer). However, this time I believe I did not violate the law because I believe I had a Claim of Right under both the provisions of International Law as well as the State Constitution’s provisions of freedom of conscience.
I am both proud and humbled to be a co-defendant with such a group of conscientious citizens who not only love the principles on which our country was founded, but also strive to love all the citizens of our planet.
Exhibit 110: State of MN Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 16 on Freedom of Conscience
Exhibit 111: Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nurnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal.
Exhibit 114: Photo of Steve standing in front of destroyed Iraqi tank south of Basrah
Exhibit 117: Sign reading “ATK cluster bomb and DU weapons are illegal under Int’l Law”
Exhibit 118: Letter written 4/2/03 by Steve to Alliant re: why I was there that day.
Exhibit 119: Article 6 of the US Constitution (relevance of International traties)
Exhibit 149:Protocol 1 of Geneva Convention, Part III, Art. 35, 36; Part IV Art.48, and 51.
Exhibit 150: CCW (Certain Conventional Weapons) Convention
Exhibit 151:Agreement for Establishment of an Int’l Military Tribunal for War Crimes in Europe.
Exhibit 152: Hague Convention (1907), Section !!, Chapter 1, Art. 22, 23
* Campaign Against Depleted Uranium, Statement by Karen Parker at Int’l. Conference, Manchester, UK 11/4-500
I am a husband and the father of 2 young men, ages 17 and 20. I have been married 25 years and my wife is in the back of the courtroom today. I have worked for Habitat for Humanity here in the Twin Cities (a non-profit that builds homes with volunteers for low-income families) for 12 years. I recently came back from HFH trip to Egypt/Jordan, building homes as a gesture of peacemaking and reconciliation between Christians and Muslims. I am a member of the Community of St. Martin, an ecumenical Christian worshipping community committed to peace and justice. Each year members take a vow of nonviolence. My faith and religious beliefs are central to who I am.
As a freshman student at Wheaton College in 1968, I turned 18 and was forced to wrestle with the question of the morality of war as I was faced with the military draft. After prayerful study, soul-searching, and discussion with others, I chose to register as Conscientious Objector, a person opposed to participation in all wars.
In my senior year of college in 1971, as part of an International semester abroad, I took an International law course in The Hague, Netherlands, the place where much of the international rules concerning behavior in warfare were originally developed. We also visited Geneva where the most current rules concerning warfare have been discussed and adopted. We had a discussion about Nuremburg Tribunals and their role in Int’l Law. The Nuremberg Tribunal was the trial of the Nazi leaders for War Crimes. Not only political and military leaders were tried but also some corporate leaders.
I was able to visit the concentration camp at Dachau to see the realities of “crimes against humanity”.
My interest in International Law led me to read a book written by a Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, Telford Taylor entitled Nuremberg and Vietnam. Reading that book helped me understand that even our own country must follow the Laws of War.
I spent a year with Mennonite voluntary service in Washington, DC. in 1975. While there, my interest in nuclear and radioactive weapons was sparked by Philip Berrigan and Liz Macalister in 1975. I participated in a Bible and Book Study with them on the Biblical Prophets and our need to speak out.
Throughout the years since then, I have participated in numerous nonviolent witness actions against war and particularly against weapons which do not discriminate against non-combatants.
I moved to MN in 1990 and by 1995 or so, I became familiar with Alliant TechSystems and the weapons they made. Protests started with landmines, continued with cluster bombs, now Depleted Uranium munitions are a primary focus.
In my studies about International Law, I learned:
International Law is binding on us per the US Constitution where Article VI states that “all treaties made under the authority of the US shall be the SUPREME law of the land” and judges are bound thereby. (Exhibit 119)
The US was a party to the Hague Treaty, the Geneva Conventions and its subsequent protocols, and was a main prosecutor of the Nuremberg Tribunals. As a signatory to the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Tribunal rulings have the effect of International Customary Law. Int’l law is clear that weapons which are “indiscriminate” are banned. (Exhibit #149, 150, 151, 152). [I “walked through” some of the provisions against these weapons from 3 treaties and the Nuremberg Tribunal.]
International Law is developed not only through treaties but is “found” through the Customs of Nations (Customary Law) and the writings of scholars. I have read scholarly articles about indiscriminate weapons and the relevance of International Humanitarian Law. Articles by R.J. Aurajo on landmines and Karen Parker on DU have led me to believe that treaties naming specific weapons to be banned are not needed since the broad provisions of the Hague and Geneva Treaties already have made them illegal. Karen Parker, an attorney who specializes in Human Rights has addressed UN Committees which are discussing Depleted Uranium weapons. I believe she is correct when she asserts that DU fails 4 tests for legal weapons. (Quote article*). She and other experts on International Law led the UN Commission on Human Rights to pass a resolution banning the use of DU weapons, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, cluster bombs and other similar weapons in 1996.
I had a moral, practical, legal, and personal responsibility to cross the line at ATK:
• Moral: as a follower of Jesus, I am called to love my enemy, not bomb them. I felt the need to put my faith, beliefs and “prayers for peace” into action.
• Practical: politically, silence in the face of evil implies consent. What is done in my name, by my country, cannot go unchallenged. I have voted, written letters to elected officials, marched in the streets, and prayerfully vigiled. “Putting my body on the line” was a way to continue to act on my convictions.
• Legal: The Nuremberg Tribunals require us to take a stand. International Humanitarian Law and Common Law are clear that weapons which are indiscriminate are illegal and cannot be manufactured, sold, stockpiled, or used. The fact that there presently does not exist an active enforcement mechanism does not relieve us of moral and legal responsibility under the Nuremberg Principles. Principle #7 of it states: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law. (Exhibit 111).
• Personal: I traveled to Iraq this past December, just before the latest war. After seeing children I believe were victims of illegal weapons used in the first Gulf War when I visited the Children’s Hospital in Basrah, I traveled to an area nicknamed “The Highway of Death”. (Exhibit 114) This tank I am standing in front of had steel armor that was 2 ½” thick. I saw on the side of the tank a hole bored through that steel armor that appeared to me to be caused by projectile that completely penetrated the armor. I believe this tank was destroyed by a depleted uranium penetrator. I have read numerous accounts of how this weapon works and I learned that when fired from a gun or artillery, the DU actually burns in the air and according to the military “cuts through steel armor like a hot knife through butter”. As it burns, it also “aerosolizes” and 20-70% of the radioactive material is converted to minute particles of dust which can be swallowed, breathed in, or enter the body through any cuts or scratches. Others will testify further about this weapon. After viewing the destroyed tanks and civilian vehicles I gathered the 5 Iraqis who traveled with us and told them how sorry I was that my nation had used DU weapons in the past war. I told them that although I spoke out and demonstrated against that war, I still asked for their forgiveness for what was done “in my name”. As we cried and embraced, I gave them my solemn word that when I returned to America I would take action to prevent these weapons from being used again.
When I went to ATK that Wednesday morning last April, I was aware of a letter other demonstrators carried re: citizen’s weapons inspection and I support that letter.(Other defendants will talk about that letter- the same letter that Lisa Amman tried to give to Officer Larson when she was arrested.) I carried a sign (hold it up) with me. (Exhibit 117). I also carried a letter addressed to Alliant personnel when I “crossed the line.” My letter reads, in part: (read letter). I mailed the letter to Alliant after the Edina Police told me they refused to take it as soon as I was released from the Edina jail. (Exhibit 118) When I was told by the Edina Police Officers who approached me that I had to leave or I would be arrested, I told them I was there pursuant to International Law and the State Constitution and had a claim of right to be there. It is my belief that a provision in the State Constitution also, like International Law, gives us a right to be protesting on ATK’s property. (exhibit 110). (Read it).
I believe that the cluster bombs and DU weapons used against the Iraqi people were made by ATK and are illegal under International Humanitarian Law. I believe the Nuremberg Principles requires us with knowledge of these illegal weapons to take action ourselves. I believe the state constitution of MN gives us the right to express our conscience in this matter. I believe I had a claim of right to enter Alliant Tech property.
I have committed civil disobedience in the past (like ML King, Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, and Mary Lou Hamer). However, this time I believe I did not violate the law because I believe I had a Claim of Right under both the provisions of International Law as well as the State Constitution’s provisions of freedom of conscience.
I am both proud and humbled to be a co-defendant with such a group of conscientious citizens who not only love the principles on which our country was founded, but also strive to love all the citizens of our planet.
Exhibit 110: State of MN Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 16 on Freedom of Conscience
Exhibit 111: Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nurnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal.
Exhibit 114: Photo of Steve standing in front of destroyed Iraqi tank south of Basrah
Exhibit 117: Sign reading “ATK cluster bomb and DU weapons are illegal under Int’l Law”
Exhibit 118: Letter written 4/2/03 by Steve to Alliant re: why I was there that day.
Exhibit 119: Article 6 of the US Constitution (relevance of International traties)
Exhibit 149:Protocol 1 of Geneva Convention, Part III, Art. 35, 36; Part IV Art.48, and 51.
Exhibit 150: CCW (Certain Conventional Weapons) Convention
Exhibit 151:Agreement for Establishment of an Int’l Military Tribunal for War Crimes in Europe.
Exhibit 152: Hague Convention (1907), Section !!, Chapter 1, Art. 22, 23
* Campaign Against Depleted Uranium, Statement by Karen Parker at Int’l. Conference, Manchester, UK 11/4-500
Shared Word on John 12:20-33
Shared Word CSM April 6, 2003 (During Combat Phase of Iraq War)
Text: John 12: 20-33
“Whoever loves his own life will lose it. Whoever hates his own life in this world will keep it for life eternal.”
I suspect in not a few churches in the US this morning, this passage was used to praise the sacrifice of US troops now engaged in the war against Iraq.
What does it mean to “Support our Troops” during a time of war? I want to share two excerpts about this question. The first is from an op-ed piece in a Texas newspaper from David Wiggins, an honors graduate of West Point and a former Captain in the US Army who resigned his commission and left the Army as a Conscientious Objector during the first Gulf War while he was on the front lines:
Considering the common practice of talking about "supporting the troops" in times of hostilities, I want to let the troops know how I feel.
With all due respect, I want them to know that if they participate in this conflict, they are not serving me, and I don't support them. Speaking for myself, I feel those who participate will be damaging my reputation as an American, and further endangering me and my children by creating hatred that will someday be returned to us -- perhaps someday soon. Our troops' actions will not lead to a safer world, but a more dangerous world of pre-emption and unilateral decisions to commit mayhem. I don't support that.
This talk of "supporting the troops" is just another method our government uses to manipulate and control us. I don't support the troops, but I certainly fear for the lives of the troops. I would support the troops staying home. I regret that our so-called leaders have involved the troops in such a foolish, misguided undertaking. I would support the troops disobeying orders. I feel sorry for the troops' families. I would support the troops if they realized that the best way to defend their families would be to stay alive and healthy and resist this war.
The only people the troops are possibly serving are those who agree with this act of military aggression. Perhaps they are not even serving them if the troops end up suffering retribution for their actions.
I feel for the troops and the difficult decisions they must make. I hope this note frees them of any sense of obligation to serve me and helps them make a conscientious decision that they will be proud to accept complete responsibility for making.
Our troops' actions will not lead to a safer world, but a more dangerous world of pre-emption and unilateral decisions to commit mayhem. I don't support that.
I also want to share a passage from the end of Mark Twain’s, The War Prayer .
The setting is a church service where the congregation has just heard a prayer to “Bless the troops”-
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory -- must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
I suspect that many of us who hoist signs saying “Support our Troops- Bring them Home” are not calling for victory first.
But … are we willing to join Dietrich Bonhoeffer in “praying for the defeat of our nation”?
Two American professors coaxed Bonhoeffer into returning to the US from Germany in the late 1930’s to a teaching position in NYC. As soon as the boat docked Bonhoeffer knew he had made a mistake. He knew that Germany would shortly be at war, knew that the devastation of his native land would be indescribable. He was convinced he would have no credibility in assisting with its recovery and restoration unless he himself endured the devastation first-hand. He was in the US only four weeks.
By this time he was forbidden to speak anywhere in the Reich. The General Secretary of The World Council of Churches, asked him, "What do you pray for in these days?" "If you want to know the truth", replied Bonhoeffer, "I pray for the defeat of my nation." Listen to what Bonhoeffer wrote on the eve of World War II:
"Sitting here in Dr.[William Sloane] Coffin's garden I have had time to think and pray about my situation and that of my nation and to have God's will for me clarified. I have come to the conclusion that I have made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period of our national history with the Christian people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share in the trials of this time with my people. My brethren in the Confessing Synod wanted me to go. They may have been right in urging me to do so; but I was wrong in going. Such a decision each man must make for himself. Christians in Germany will have to face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive, or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose, but I cannot make that choice in security."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer returned to Germany shortly before the war started. He led an underground seminary as part of “the Confessing Church” before he was arrested and jailed by the Nazis. In a book of his collected writings from his jail, entitled Ethics, Bonhoeffer wrote this before he was hanged, naked, from a piano wire in 1945:
I am guilty of cowardly silence at a time when I ought to have spoken. I am guilty of hypocrisy and untruthfulness in the face of force. I have been lacking in compassion and I have denied the poorest of my brethren.... We, the church, must confess that we have not proclaimed often or clearly enough our message of the one God who has revealed Himself for all times in Jesus Christ and who will tolerate no other gods beside Himself. She must confess her timidity, her evasiveness, her dangerous concessions. She has often been untrue to her office of guardianship and to her office of comfort. She was silent when she should have cried out because the blood of the innocent was crying aloud to heaven. She has failed to speak the right word in the right way at the right time. She has not resisted to the uttermost the apostasy of faith, and she has brought upon herself the guilt of the godlessness of the masses.... The church must confess that she has witnessed the lawless application of brutal force, the physical and spiritual suffering of countless innocent people, oppression, hatred, and murder, and that she has not raised her voice on behalf of the victims and has not found ways to hasten to their aid. She is guilty of the deaths of the weakest and most defenseless brothers of Jesus Christ.... The church must confess that she has desired security, peace and quiet, possessions and honor, to which she has no right.... She has not borne witness to the truth of God.... By her own silence she has rendered herself guilty because of her unwillingness to suffer for what she knows to be right.
Our own President George W. Bush said this last year when speaking to the German Bundestag:
One of the greatest Germans of the 20th century was Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer. -- who left the security of America to stand against Nazi rule. In a dark hour, he gave witness to the Gospel of life, and paid the cost of his discipleship, being put to death only days before his [concentration] camp was liberated.
"I believe," said Bonhoeffer, "that God can and wants to create good out of everything, even evil."
Oh, the irony of Caesar or Pilate or Herod Agrippa praising the Christ-figure! But, of course, we know how hands will be washed and it will be said “we’re just following the will of the masses!” And it is true- Americans want to continue to enjoy cheap oil and economic and military dominance. Our leaders often do reflect the shadow-side of our lifestyles and our desire to live in comfort.
Praying for the defeat of one’s country becomes very troublesome for me, however, when I realize the severe costs of an empire in the throes of defeat. The lethal firepower of a wounded, but not yet disarmed, giant will be deadly for those in its wake. If only the US could go the route of the former Soviet Union whose demise was relatively blood-free. I want this war to be over for the sake of the Iraqi people. But for the empire to be defeated, it almost must be prolonged. Any notion of the US “winning” the war in Iraq will continue to feed the monster we have allowed to be created. It only re-enforces the theology of “might makes right” and that we are the new “God’s chosen people.” If we win this war, we will continue to spend the lives of our youth on more fields of battle – not to mention the costs to those who might stand in the way of our greed, avarice, and our lust for power and control.
The pain and anguish expressed by the mother of a dead Marine in front of Alliant Tech this past Wednesday brought tears to many of our eyes. Patrick, who was poisoned by depleted uranium in the Iraqi desert in 1991 died an excruciating death in 1995. His death is multiplied by thousands more to come until that radioactive mess is cleaned up. But right now we are adding to those deposits with more of the radioactive detritus. And, according to reports this week, throwing in cluster bombs for good measure.
I’m not willing to write off the sacrificing of the Iraqi people and the US troops in a prolonged war in hopes that it might eventually bring a defeat to the US Empire. The example of the one we call “Lord” must be instructive even though Jesus found himself on the other side of the Empire of his day. His example of nonviolent resistance to “the domination system” must be applied both within and without the Empire.
Are we willing to “lose our lives”, to “take up our cross”, like Jesus, like Bonhoeffer, like Gandhi, Dr. King, Dorothy Day, Franz Jaeggestetter, Andre Trocme, Rosa Parks, Phillip Berrigan, Benigno Aquino, Corrie Ten Boom, Oscar Romero, and countless others? Are we willing to invest our lives, to spend them, in the promise of our Lord that such an investment will be honored by our Creator in the end?
I am aware of the irony that this call may sound disturbingly similar to the call that Osama bin Laden has issued to his disciples. I’m not promising 72 virgins or a ticket to Paradise in exchange for martyrdom. Although both Jesus and Osama agree that there is something worth dying for, Jesus tells us there is nothing worth killing for.
How do we stand in the way of the Empire in an attempt to protect the lives it wishes to consume? Or are we so busy trying to “save our own lives” do we “love our lives” so much that we can’t face this question?
Thank you for the witness of the Christian Peacemaker Teams and the Iraq Peace Team this week. Thank you for the budding of The Nonviolent Peace Force. Thank you for the Cloud of Witnesses that have preceded us.
Let us pray.
God, you have given us Jesus as a teacher, a friend, and a model. Please help us as we struggle within the Empire to find ways to follow him. Grant us wisdom, grant us courage, for the facing of this hour, for the living of these days. Amen.
Song: “God of Grace and God of Glory”.
Text: John 12: 20-33
“Whoever loves his own life will lose it. Whoever hates his own life in this world will keep it for life eternal.”
I suspect in not a few churches in the US this morning, this passage was used to praise the sacrifice of US troops now engaged in the war against Iraq.
What does it mean to “Support our Troops” during a time of war? I want to share two excerpts about this question. The first is from an op-ed piece in a Texas newspaper from David Wiggins, an honors graduate of West Point and a former Captain in the US Army who resigned his commission and left the Army as a Conscientious Objector during the first Gulf War while he was on the front lines:
Considering the common practice of talking about "supporting the troops" in times of hostilities, I want to let the troops know how I feel.
With all due respect, I want them to know that if they participate in this conflict, they are not serving me, and I don't support them. Speaking for myself, I feel those who participate will be damaging my reputation as an American, and further endangering me and my children by creating hatred that will someday be returned to us -- perhaps someday soon. Our troops' actions will not lead to a safer world, but a more dangerous world of pre-emption and unilateral decisions to commit mayhem. I don't support that.
This talk of "supporting the troops" is just another method our government uses to manipulate and control us. I don't support the troops, but I certainly fear for the lives of the troops. I would support the troops staying home. I regret that our so-called leaders have involved the troops in such a foolish, misguided undertaking. I would support the troops disobeying orders. I feel sorry for the troops' families. I would support the troops if they realized that the best way to defend their families would be to stay alive and healthy and resist this war.
The only people the troops are possibly serving are those who agree with this act of military aggression. Perhaps they are not even serving them if the troops end up suffering retribution for their actions.
I feel for the troops and the difficult decisions they must make. I hope this note frees them of any sense of obligation to serve me and helps them make a conscientious decision that they will be proud to accept complete responsibility for making.
Our troops' actions will not lead to a safer world, but a more dangerous world of pre-emption and unilateral decisions to commit mayhem. I don't support that.
I also want to share a passage from the end of Mark Twain’s, The War Prayer .
The setting is a church service where the congregation has just heard a prayer to “Bless the troops”-
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory -- must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
I suspect that many of us who hoist signs saying “Support our Troops- Bring them Home” are not calling for victory first.
But … are we willing to join Dietrich Bonhoeffer in “praying for the defeat of our nation”?
Two American professors coaxed Bonhoeffer into returning to the US from Germany in the late 1930’s to a teaching position in NYC. As soon as the boat docked Bonhoeffer knew he had made a mistake. He knew that Germany would shortly be at war, knew that the devastation of his native land would be indescribable. He was convinced he would have no credibility in assisting with its recovery and restoration unless he himself endured the devastation first-hand. He was in the US only four weeks.
By this time he was forbidden to speak anywhere in the Reich. The General Secretary of The World Council of Churches, asked him, "What do you pray for in these days?" "If you want to know the truth", replied Bonhoeffer, "I pray for the defeat of my nation." Listen to what Bonhoeffer wrote on the eve of World War II:
"Sitting here in Dr.[William Sloane] Coffin's garden I have had time to think and pray about my situation and that of my nation and to have God's will for me clarified. I have come to the conclusion that I have made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period of our national history with the Christian people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share in the trials of this time with my people. My brethren in the Confessing Synod wanted me to go. They may have been right in urging me to do so; but I was wrong in going. Such a decision each man must make for himself. Christians in Germany will have to face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive, or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose, but I cannot make that choice in security."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer returned to Germany shortly before the war started. He led an underground seminary as part of “the Confessing Church” before he was arrested and jailed by the Nazis. In a book of his collected writings from his jail, entitled Ethics, Bonhoeffer wrote this before he was hanged, naked, from a piano wire in 1945:
I am guilty of cowardly silence at a time when I ought to have spoken. I am guilty of hypocrisy and untruthfulness in the face of force. I have been lacking in compassion and I have denied the poorest of my brethren.... We, the church, must confess that we have not proclaimed often or clearly enough our message of the one God who has revealed Himself for all times in Jesus Christ and who will tolerate no other gods beside Himself. She must confess her timidity, her evasiveness, her dangerous concessions. She has often been untrue to her office of guardianship and to her office of comfort. She was silent when she should have cried out because the blood of the innocent was crying aloud to heaven. She has failed to speak the right word in the right way at the right time. She has not resisted to the uttermost the apostasy of faith, and she has brought upon herself the guilt of the godlessness of the masses.... The church must confess that she has witnessed the lawless application of brutal force, the physical and spiritual suffering of countless innocent people, oppression, hatred, and murder, and that she has not raised her voice on behalf of the victims and has not found ways to hasten to their aid. She is guilty of the deaths of the weakest and most defenseless brothers of Jesus Christ.... The church must confess that she has desired security, peace and quiet, possessions and honor, to which she has no right.... She has not borne witness to the truth of God.... By her own silence she has rendered herself guilty because of her unwillingness to suffer for what she knows to be right.
Our own President George W. Bush said this last year when speaking to the German Bundestag:
One of the greatest Germans of the 20th century was Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer. -- who left the security of America to stand against Nazi rule. In a dark hour, he gave witness to the Gospel of life, and paid the cost of his discipleship, being put to death only days before his [concentration] camp was liberated.
"I believe," said Bonhoeffer, "that God can and wants to create good out of everything, even evil."
Oh, the irony of Caesar or Pilate or Herod Agrippa praising the Christ-figure! But, of course, we know how hands will be washed and it will be said “we’re just following the will of the masses!” And it is true- Americans want to continue to enjoy cheap oil and economic and military dominance. Our leaders often do reflect the shadow-side of our lifestyles and our desire to live in comfort.
Praying for the defeat of one’s country becomes very troublesome for me, however, when I realize the severe costs of an empire in the throes of defeat. The lethal firepower of a wounded, but not yet disarmed, giant will be deadly for those in its wake. If only the US could go the route of the former Soviet Union whose demise was relatively blood-free. I want this war to be over for the sake of the Iraqi people. But for the empire to be defeated, it almost must be prolonged. Any notion of the US “winning” the war in Iraq will continue to feed the monster we have allowed to be created. It only re-enforces the theology of “might makes right” and that we are the new “God’s chosen people.” If we win this war, we will continue to spend the lives of our youth on more fields of battle – not to mention the costs to those who might stand in the way of our greed, avarice, and our lust for power and control.
The pain and anguish expressed by the mother of a dead Marine in front of Alliant Tech this past Wednesday brought tears to many of our eyes. Patrick, who was poisoned by depleted uranium in the Iraqi desert in 1991 died an excruciating death in 1995. His death is multiplied by thousands more to come until that radioactive mess is cleaned up. But right now we are adding to those deposits with more of the radioactive detritus. And, according to reports this week, throwing in cluster bombs for good measure.
I’m not willing to write off the sacrificing of the Iraqi people and the US troops in a prolonged war in hopes that it might eventually bring a defeat to the US Empire. The example of the one we call “Lord” must be instructive even though Jesus found himself on the other side of the Empire of his day. His example of nonviolent resistance to “the domination system” must be applied both within and without the Empire.
Are we willing to “lose our lives”, to “take up our cross”, like Jesus, like Bonhoeffer, like Gandhi, Dr. King, Dorothy Day, Franz Jaeggestetter, Andre Trocme, Rosa Parks, Phillip Berrigan, Benigno Aquino, Corrie Ten Boom, Oscar Romero, and countless others? Are we willing to invest our lives, to spend them, in the promise of our Lord that such an investment will be honored by our Creator in the end?
I am aware of the irony that this call may sound disturbingly similar to the call that Osama bin Laden has issued to his disciples. I’m not promising 72 virgins or a ticket to Paradise in exchange for martyrdom. Although both Jesus and Osama agree that there is something worth dying for, Jesus tells us there is nothing worth killing for.
How do we stand in the way of the Empire in an attempt to protect the lives it wishes to consume? Or are we so busy trying to “save our own lives” do we “love our lives” so much that we can’t face this question?
Thank you for the witness of the Christian Peacemaker Teams and the Iraq Peace Team this week. Thank you for the budding of The Nonviolent Peace Force. Thank you for the Cloud of Witnesses that have preceded us.
Let us pray.
God, you have given us Jesus as a teacher, a friend, and a model. Please help us as we struggle within the Empire to find ways to follow him. Grant us wisdom, grant us courage, for the facing of this hour, for the living of these days. Amen.
Song: “God of Grace and God of Glory”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)