Who Gets to Decide

More than once I've bristled at the term, "Radical Islam," especially when applied to folk like ISIS.  I've also grieved when I read or hear a statement that begins "Christians believe..." and goes on to include something I most definitely do not believe.  More than once my response has been... "that person is not a Christian," which is likely the same thing they would say about me.

In every religion with which I'm familiar, there is a degree of heterogeneity that includes folk at one point of the spectrum excluding folk at other points on the spectrum as not being real representatives of that tradition.  I have read Orthodox Jews say that Reformed Jews are not really Jewish.  I know Muslims who would say that the members of ISIS are not really Muslims and of course, those same members of ISIS routinely kill folk who call themselves Muslims but who do not measure up to their definitions.  Just the other day I had lunch with a very conservative Christian woman who flatly said that her family as not "Christian" - some of whom are central members of a church I know intimately.  Then there are those outside of the various religious traditions who often point to the very worst as examples... those who look at Islam and only see ISIS, at The Family Research Council as the spokespeople for Christianity... you get the picture.

Once I had a discussion with a hyper-conservative Calvinist.  At the end of our talk, she remarked, "We worship a different Jesus."  She was right.  It doesn't seem unreasonable then that the same title doesn't fit both of us.

So, who gets to decide?  And using what criteria?  Or is a decision even possible?

I would say, yes, a decision is possible and necessary.  We live in a world where information travels virtually instantly and every faith tradition finds itself out there, being judged in the marketplace of ideas and actions.  It is all too easy for folk to point at one element or another and generalize when that element may or may not fairly represent a religious tradition.  The label "Christian" is important to me and the way that label is read by others is then also important to me.

So... first, does the individual or group fit into the general trajectory of the tradition?  Every religious tradition changes through history, some more than others, but all change.  I would argue that in my tradition, we become more able to understand God's yearnings for humanity and move ever so slowly closer to God's "will."  While questions related to the founder like "what would Jesus do?" or "What would Mohamed do?" might be helpful, we must realize that we always see those founders through the lens of our current experience and even our theological stance.  The Jesus I see would be clearly different than the one Jonathan Edwards saw or the one that Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council sees.  Still, I believe we can look at the broad sweep of a tradition to see what direction it is moving and I would argue judge that something that spins off wildly from that trajectory doesn't fit the definition.  In spite of calling themselves "Christian," those in the Christian Identity Movement simply are not.    In spite of the word "Islam" being in the title of ISIS, they are not.

I would also argue that a group or person who claims to be trying to go back to the original intent is likely falling outside of the definition.  You can't go back... and indeed, God does not go backwards.  If the individual or group argues that everyone else has gone astray for the past decades or centuries... that is simply hubris.

Second, look at that trajectory again and ask how the tradition's understanding of who God is has moved... if the individual or group seems to be advocating a "God" outside of that tradition's trajectory, then clearly they are not one of them.

Finally, where did they come from?  If they pop up out of nowhere, they don't meet the definition.

The hard question of course is whether God can work outside of the tradition.  Of course.  God is God and can do whatever God wants... but those radical changes begin something new.  Christianity has Jewish roots, but it is not Judaism.  Islam has roots in Judaism and Christianity... but it is neither.  You get the point.

So, for today, I have no difficulty at all saying that ISIS is not Islam.  I'm a little more shy in my own tradition but if you asked me privately I'd tell you what I think about whether or not Westboro Baptist is really a Christian church.

What would your criteria be?  Or do you think it is not a worthy effort?

Iran deal... what's at stake?

I have to say that I'm more than  little puzzled at the strong reactions against the proposed deal with Iran.  It significantly attenuates Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon.  It opens the doors for inspections wider than they have ever been.  It strengthens the pro-western factions in their government.  It offers relief to the crushing burden of sanctions, borne largely by the least able.It strengthens the strongest enemy of the radical Sunni groups like ISIS. 

What are the arguments for the downsides?  It does allow for an infusion of cash to Iran and will cause a shift in power in the region, but that looks to happen regardless of whether the agreement is embraced by the US.  It has been argued that more sanctions might get us a better deal... but the European community has said that they will not observe sanctions any longer so this will happen regardless of what the US does.   Iran is not trustworthy.  Again, nothing changes there.  At least with the agreement there are inspections.  In addition, it calls for the dismantling of a significant percentage of their centrifuges which would push out the time frame needed to procure enough material to make a bomb from as little as 2 months (currently) to a year or more.  Finally, if Iran broke the agreement, that would catalyze the world community against them. 

Significant leaders in Israel are frightened by the agreement but other significant leaders have spoken in favor.  An important observation here is that Iran, while not being trustworthy has also shown itself to not be crazy.  In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, they have not taken steps that would threaten their future as a nation.  Israel on the other hand is crazy.  They have shown repeatedly that they will do whatever is necessary to defend themselves and that they would not hesitate to use matching force and more.  If Iran was to produce a nuclear weapon and use it against Israel, it is abundantly clear that Israel would respond with their significantly larger nuclear array and Iran would be completely annihilated.  Without the continued focus of the world on Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons, it is precisely the Israel capacities that push them to develop these weapons.  Many military leaders in Israel believe that this deal does indeed serve to make Israel more secure, not less, and will serve to stop Iran's program to develop these weapons.

So short of diplomacy, what is the option another than another war costing trillions of dollars and 100's of thousands of lives?  We have seen the long term results of wars in the Middle East and they are not positive.  Given the strong points of the deal vs. the single option of war, why would anyone argue against it?

The cynic in me sees only one reason - oil.  If sanctions are lifted and there is no war, Iran will likely flood the world market with oil, driving down the cost - they need the money.  Fracking and enhanced drilling techniques will become too expensive to be practical and profits will drop significantly for the oil companies.  From what I can see, the only ones who benefit from this agreement failing are the oil companies and the end result is once again seeing young men and women dying to preserve the profits of multinationals.

Bernie & Black Lives Matter

Let me begin with five statements...

1. I'm white.  I grew up a recipient of white privilege and continue to benefit from a system that gives preference to my race (and gender).

2. I am an ally.  I grew up in the 60's in an integrated section of the city of Pittsburgh.  Since my childhood I have been aware of the different way that my black friends and acquaintances lived and the struggles they faced - struggles that I did not face.  I watched as they tried to navigate a system set up to disenfranchise them at every step while I waltzed through without a thought.  I have been an ally - sometimes better than others - throughout my life and I think I understand the issues as well as any white man can.  I know that not all white progressives are as sensitive to those issues as they need to be.

3. Through my life I have seen issues of race change.  Some of those changes have been for the better, others have not.  Despite the fact that we have a black president, we have a long way to go before the system of racism is dismantled.  Ignoring the problems or conflating them with other problems does not help.  Black Lives Matter is an important cause and a slogan that I embrace. 

4. I have no right to speak for black folk.  Heck, I have no right to speak for other white folk.  Still, as a white person who has benefited from racism,  I have a responsibility to speak out on issues of race.

5. I've been deeply troubled and saddened about the discussions following the Black Lives Matter protest at the Bernie Sanders rally in Seattle.  For all of the reasons above, I've hesitated to say anything and yet feel compelled to do so.

I've read black commentators say that they have been attacked by white progressives after that protest, that without the protest, Bernie would not have taken the stand he took one day after the protest, and that as a result, they would not vote for Bernie.

Perhaps it is not my place to formulate strategy for the Black Lives Matter folk...   I would argue that while black folk and other folk of color are clearly the victims of racism, that change will come much more quickly if significant numbers of white folk are entirely on board.  Make no mistake, slow change means more dead black folk.  If saving lives is the goal, then flailing around in frustration may not be the wisest strategy.  Keeping the issue visible and building coalitions are good strategies.  This protest achieved one end... but may have been counter-productive for the other.

It is a central question - whether Bernie would have made the strong statement he made about Black Lives Matter without the protest.  Perhaps he was taking the issue too lightly and was conflating it with some of the other societal problems he was addressing.  Maybe his platform didn't address the urgency felt by many black folk who see a system that does not value their lives as highly as those of white folk.  Still, I think a serious sit down might have enlightened him and moved the issue forward without angering and possibly disenfranchising folk who arrived to hear Bernie speak about other important issues that are serious issues for black folk as well as white ones. 

Of all of the candidates currently running, I believe that Bernie Sanders is the one who would most advance the issues that are important to black folk, including moving us forward in dismantling a system that has been in place far too long.  Strengthening the coalition that could get him elected would be a smart strategic move on behalf of those for whom the Black Lives Matter campaign is their primary concern.

What is done is done...  In any case, I'm glad that Bernie has embraced the cause in a more direct way and I hope that is a significant step in building that coalition.  I'm glad that Hillary has met in private with some of the leaders of the movement and hopefully she too will make a strong statement.  And we've heard from the Donald... as expected, he has dismissed the issue and likely solidified the position of black folk in the Democratic column.   I hope the Sanders campaign moves forward to find more people of color for leadership in their campaign and becomes more sensitive to the specific issues faced by people of color.   I hope the Black Lives Matter folk continue to build alliances and coalitions.

70 years

It is said that Gandhi was once asked, "Is there anything for which you would kill?"  The story says that his answer was, "No. There is nothing for which I would kill.  There is much for which I would die."  When killing is allowed has always been a sticky question.  For many cultures, killing someone who is part of the ingroup is not allowed, but someone who is an outsider is allowed.  We give police officers permission to use deadly force under very specific circumstances.  And finally, even the military are allowed to kill only under certain circumstances and there are long traditions of writing "rules of engagement" and moral frameworks for warfare.

All of the data indicates that the earliest followers of Jesus were pacifists and would have identified with Gandhi's answer.  The stories of the martyrs include many instances where individuals willingly gave their lives and watched as family members gave theirs without returning violence for violence.  After Constantine it became clear to those in power that pacifism was no longer an option.  They believed that empires required armies and the threat of death so the theologians went to work to build a schema that would allow for the possibilities of state sponsored violence and would define under what circumstances killing was allowed or even required.  They came up with the "Just War Theory."

Augustine was the first theologian to propose a just war framework and set the tone for the discussion from then on.  His framework was

Principles of Just-War Theory

1. Last Resort

A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. The use of force can only be used as a last resort.

2. Legitimate Authority

A just war is waged by a legitimate authority. A war cannot be waged by individuals or groups that do not constitute the legitimate government.

3. Just Cause

A just war needs to be in response to a wrong suffered. Self-defense against an attack always constitutes a just war; however, the war needs to be fought with the objective to correct the inflicted wound.

4. Probability of Success

In order for a war to be just, there must be a rational possibility of success. A nation cannot enter into a war with a hopeless cause.

5. Right Intention

The pirmary objective of a just war is to re-establish peace. In particular, the peace after the war should excede the peace that would have succeeded without the use of force. The aim of the use of force must be justice.

6. Proportionality

The violence in a just war must be proportional to the casualties suffered. The nations involved in the war must avoid disproportionate military action and only use the amount of force absolutely necessary.

7. Civilian Casualties

The use of force must distinguish between the militia and civilians. Innocent citizens must never be the target of war; soldiers should always avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are only justified when they are unavoidable victims of a military attack on a strategic target. 

Other expressions of the Just War Theory also included a proscription against destruction of property, specifically the burning of structures.

Certainly that framework has formed the basis of moral justification of military violence since and the argument makes sense even if some of the criteria, especially #2, may seem a bit dated.  I would argue though that there has never been a war that met those criteria.  That is not the point of today's post.

Seventy years ago, the US dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima followed a few days later by the second on Nagasaki.  The argument goes that Japan was planning to execute all prisoners of war and that a ground war in Japan would have cost many more lives that the conservative estimate of 135,000 (mostly civilian) deaths from the dropping of those two bombs.  

If we begin with virtually any iteration of the Just War Theory, the bombings were simply immoral.  The number of civilian deaths and the complete destruction of two cities is simply not acceptable according to any Just War theory.  To equate the deaths of civilians to that of military is never allowed.  Even if those civilian deaths did save the lives of Allied military forces, it is still immoral according to Augustine's argument.  That a second bomb was dropped was even more repugnant.

My local paper had an editorial today arguing that the bombings were both necessary and good.  That the writer felt that argument needs to be made is telling.  It also feeds the continued growth of nuclear weaponry as the argument states that there are times when the use of such horrible weapons is justifiable.  The lesson we must learn from the bombing of those two cities is that the use of weapons of mass destruction is simply immoral under any circumstances and the world must work in concert to rid ourselves completely of all nuclear weapons.