NONVIOLENCE - by Mark Kurlansky

[Daniel]

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...0679643357&z=y

Ok. I went out this evening here in NYC to pick up Mel White's new book: Religion Gone Bad. The title, I have to say, reminds my of the milk I had to throw away this afternoon when making a cup of tea. It sat too long, eating itself alive with bacteria (not meant as a swipe- I must say- only thinking about bad religion as sour milk. Who wants to drink that?). I found it and also happened upon Mark Kurlansky's book NONVIOLENCE which contains a forward by none other than the Dalai Lama.

I have yet to delve into the depths of both books, but the jacket cover of Kurlansky's offers interesting thoughts, one being how violence is used to suppress nonviolence and its practictioners (Mel White's book is being dealt with another thread I believe.)

Lastly, as I was walking downtown the few block to the bookstore, I could see the pillar of light that was streaming upward into the night from Ground Zero. From my vantage point it looked like one beam of light, but I knew it was two, one for each hole in the ground. This provoked some thought itself. We tend to see everything in dualistic terms. Perhaps, with the right angle, we can see things as One.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the book.

[Daniel]

I'm only two chapters in Kurlansky's book, so this isn't a full 'review', but the upshot has been that the book has got me thinking about nonviolence as it relates to the efforts of Soulforce and it's stand on 'Gays in the Military'. But before I can go there, a little something of the book needs telling.

Kurlansky takes pains in the first two chapters to comminicate to the reader that 1) the the word nonviolence has been used to express the idea that it is not another idea, that being violence. As such, it has become to be percieved as not being proactive. 2) Nonviolence is not pacifism. 3) The word that Gandhi invented to describe nonviolence, satyagraha, has never really caught on ('truth-force' or 'holding to the truth', is the English translation). 4) most religions, in their formative stages, eshewed violence, but with time, were co-oped by violence people who sought to govern society.

Kurlansky makes a strong case that early Christianity eshewed violence (the first century Christian writer, Ignatius, called for an abolition of warfare) and that violence became instiutionalized with the establishment of Christianity as a state religion- the very thing conservatives and fundamentalism would like to see.

I've been overly brief here, but the point worth making here is that 'classical nonviolence', as it were, is against violence of any type - period. If one follows this line of thinking to its end, one would have to question Soulforces efforts on behalf of gays serving in the military- an organization that is trained to kill people.

Now, I am aware that Gandhi himself served in an army as a support person and refused to carry arms (that is correct, is it not?) While this may be a rational to support Soulforce's actions, I have not heard of effort's being made on behalf of this kind of nuance.

My perspective therefore, is that Soulforce members should not be surprised if those who question its actions do not do so out of animus or any anti-gay motivation. They may simply know their history. And history contradicts its present policy.

If anyone here can elucidate SF's policy more clearly in a way that brings it into line with what I understand nonviolence to mean, I would like to hear of it.

[Joe Brummer]

So do you think SoulForce is out of sync with nonviolence as you are now understanding it?

I am not sure I understood what you were trying to say.

[Daniel]

Joe- I was trying to be polite and also work out my thought process in public I suppose- hence the not-very-clear-position. Yes. I think that Soulforce's policy regarding Gay's in the Military is out of step with what I understand nonviolence to be, both in terms of the teachings of Judaism (6th comandment: "Thou Shalt Not Kill'), early Christianity and the Teachings of Jesus, Buddhism and Hinduism. Even Confucianism, though it is more vague than the others mentioned, yields its army.

Asked which could be suspended in had times, he (Confucius) answered, "Dispense with the troops. The idea that military is essential to government but less essential than other functions runs throughout The Analects. (compilation of sayings by Confucius)

Kurlansky's case for early Christianity being nonviolent seems irrefutable.

The first-century Christian writer Ignatius called for an abolition of warfare. This would happen, according to him and other Christian writers, once the world embraced the teachings of Jesus Christ- to love one's enemies, to do good even to those who do evil, to respond to evil with goodness.

Origenes Adamantius, popularly known as Origen, the second-to-third-century Christian philosopher from Alexandria, clearly stated, "We Christians do not become fellow soldiers with the Emperor, even if he presses for this." Christians would be loyal to the emperor, but would not fight his wars.

He (Origen) did not condemn the military but only believed that is was forbidden for a Christian to particpate. Christianity was about the promotion of love, and early Christians believed that love and killing were incompatable.

Kurlansly's main point in the second chapter:

To those who govern, the citizen who questions the right of the state to kill is attemping to impinge on the government's ability to further the nation's interests at the expense of other, hopefully weaker, states. Thus the onoviolent activist is seem as a threat to the state.

I have never been comfortable about the idea of killing people, and I imagine there are those who might think that I am using these sources to merely buttress my own difficulty in wrapping my head around the idea. But then, I do not think anyone starts out ready to kill their neighbor, even if he lives in the next county or country. One has to be trained to do so. (Isn't that what 'unit cohesion' is all about?) That said, I am aware that even the likes of the Dalai Lama has noted that if someone comes after you, it is appropriate to defend youself. But he also notes that one's action should be to stop the person from harming or killing you, not kill them.

At the risk of being preachy, I fear that we have lost sight of the teachings of Jesus. There may be those who will want to trot out the story of the cleansing of the temple, but I would like them to reflect on the fact that no one got killed in that tale.

No one said nonviolence was easy. I guess that's what I'm coming to understand.

In sum and in light of the aforementioned: if someone can explain to me how gay Christians can rationally align themselves with an endeavor that sets out to kill people, I really want to be appraised of it.

Would gay Christians want to 'serve' but not fight? That would be something else entirely. A nuance which, as I understand it, is not part of present discourse.

[Steven E. Webster]

Is Soulforce's stance on the military contradictory?

It may be. Sometimes truth is complicated.

Had I been drafted in the Viet Nam war (I faced that threat). I might have gone to jail. I might have fled to Canada (in fact, now I wish I'd become a Canadian citizen when I was much younger). Perhaps I would have come to the consciousness of my gay identity before I was drafted and avoided the draft that way. (I began to come out at age 20.)

But, ironically, I wish we had the draft now--the real draft, not just the "back door" draft that is trapping people that have done their duty and should be retired from service. The reason I want the draft is that it might make our political leaders more responsible, and the public might not be so ready to consent to the current administration's policies if there was something more like "universal service."

I can't say I've ever been a total pacifist. I've opposed many of the wars in my lifetime. But when I thought we were preventing genocide in the Balkans, I thought that was a "good" war (I hear now that that, too, may have been a more complex issue). I wish we would stop the genocides in Africa. The fact that we don't raises questions about whether we really ever do go to war soley for the sake of truth and goodness, or whether greed for oil or something else must also play a role.

The question Soulforce is raising in pressing for an end to discrimination in the military is primarily one of "holding to the truth" that LGBT people deserve recognition as equally citizens to everyone else. Military discrimination against LGBT people is an injustice. LGBT people are asking to be equal not only in society's benefits, but in society's responsibilities too. (Same is true of the marriage issue--marriage is not just about benefits, but about responsibilities.)

It seems to me that one needs to be careful to distinguish between dishonorable policy makers, and the many honorable persons who choose to serve in the military. The claim that the anti-Viet Nam war movement disrespected military veterans was damaging to the anti-war movement (and still is). The anti-war movement should not be pitted against those who choose to serve in the military. We must keep the focus on the policy-makers.

I also really wish we could have masses of people rise up, nonviolently, to put a stop to the current administration's wrong-headed policies. I admire Colin Powell for the letter he wrote to Senator McCain opposing the administration's disrespect for the Geneva Convention. In fact, it seemed as though Powell was raising doubts about the wisdom and integrity of the whole "war on terror"---a brave thing to do. I wonder if Powell feels he was "used" when Cheney's people fed him lies to tell to the United Nations.

One of the classic theorists on nonviolence (sorry, forgot the name, but he wrote a very HUGE book)--seems to suggest that all power, even in undemocratic societies, really rests with the people. We need to teach people to stand up and "Question Authority," as the little read lapel button used to say. Resistance to bad and unjust policies need not require acts of bravery--simple non-compliance or "foot dragging" can be important forms of non-violent resistance.

Sorry, I'm just rambling on--got struck with a fever today, saw the doctor, home resting and forcing fluids. I'm in no shape to address the world's problems this evening!!

Steven Webster

[Joe Brummer]

So in simple terms, and I think I agree, it is out of line to use nonviolence as a philosophy and a tool of social change when it is being used to join an armed force.

If heart of nonviolence is to disarm, how can nonviolence be used it to arm.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

So in simple terms, and I think I agree, it is out of line to use nonviolence as a philosophy and a tool of social change when it is being used to join an armed force.

If heart of nonviolence is to disarm, how can nonviolence be used it to arm.

Your statement above says what I was endeavoring to say in an elegant and succinct manner. Thank you.

As Curly of Three Stooges was wont to say: "I resemble that remark!"

I'll be getting to the rest of the book this coming week.

[Joe Brummer]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Your statement above says what I was endeavoring to say in an elegant and succinct manner. Thank you.

As Curly of Three Stooges was wont to say: "I resemble that remark!"

I'll be getting to the rest of the book this coming week.

Daniel, Your devotion the true soul of nonviolnce inspires me.

Thank you.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I just googled the following--"Military Service"Gandhi.

This quickly uncovered the following link:

http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap93.htm

As I read this text from Gandhi, it appears that Gandhi did not completely non-co-operate with Military Service in South Africa when he felt, ". . .I was bound to help that Government to the extent of my ability when it was engaged in a war. . ." Somewhere else someone mentioned that Gandhi did some sort of military service in South African that did not happen to involve bearing arms--but here (in the text linked to above) Gandhi seems to suggest that that may only have been because he was not trained in bearing arms.

Gandhi's position on military service and war seems to be very complex, and he doesn't seem to simply reject all war and all military service. At the same time he does seem to hold to the belief that we might eventually make the principles of non-violence "work" to the extent that we could resolve international conflicts without resort to war. But we aren't quite there yet, are we?

What I'm trying to say, more succinctly, is that it is not necessarily an unconscionable betrayal of Soulforce principles to use Gandhi's methods to end discrimination in the U.S. military against LGBT service people. We can support this current project by Soulforce, and we can still work for a world in which we seek to find ways to resolve international conflict without war.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Stephen- Thank you for the link. I am not a scholar regarding Gandhi, but the link you provide suggests to me something altogether different than the conclusions you arrive at.

Being a confirmed war resister, I have never given myself training in the use of destructive weapons in spite of opportunities to take such training. It was perhaps thus that I escaped direct destruction of human life. But so long as I lived under a system of Government based on force and voluntarily partook of the many facilities and privileges it created for me, I was bound to help that Government to the extent of my ability when it was engaged in a war, unless I non-co-operated with the Government and renounced to the utmost of my capacity the privileges it offered me.

What stands out to me in this passage is Gandhi 'passed' on any kind of training that entailed the use of 'destructive weapons', which I take to mean firearms. This, in simple terms, is what I believe he is refering to when he later mentions serving in the military "to the extent of my ability." This speaks to my original point, which, to put it simply, entails service without killing.

I do not see the degree of ambiguity in the link that you provide which takes away the contradiction regarding the principles of nonviolence and current SF policy. Gandhi's words in the link provided support my orginal musings on the matter, that being of serving in the military, but only with the intention to do so nonviolently.

A non-violent man will instinctively prefer direct participation to indirect in a system which is based on violence and to which he has to belong without any choice being left to him.... I belong to a world which is partly based on violence. If I have only a choice between paying for the army of soldier to kill my neighbours or to be a soldier myself, I would, as I must, consistently with my creed, enlist as a soldier in the hope of controlling the forces of violence and even of converting my comrades.

Indeed, Gandhi's statements on one's involvement in 'war' in the same link are:

When two nations are fighting, the duty of a votary of AHIMSA is to stop the war. He who is not equal to that duty, he who has no power of resisting war, he who is not qualified to resist war, may take part in war and yet whole-heartedly try to free himself, his nation and the world from war.

and

It is... [a matter] of deep conviction [with me] that war is an unmixed evil. I would not yield to any one in my detestation of war. But conviction is one thing, correct practice is another. The very thing that one war resister may do in the interest of his mission may repel another war resister who may do the exact opposite and yet both may hold the same view about war. This contradiction arises because of the bewildering complexity of human nature. I can only, therefore, plead for mutual toleration even among professors of the same creed.

I take it, as a matter of course, that we are agreed about the 'evil' of war?

Gandhi refers to 'resisters' being in conflict with each other. Could one posit that the efforts of SF somehow fall under this heading, that being one of resistance? Perhaps. But I see this as stretching the definition very far indeed, seeing that Gandhi's embodiment of AHISMA meant serving without carrying arms. And while he notes that 'direct' participation is preferable to 'indirect' participation, the participation he talks about is one that eshews the killing of human beings.

Isn't this what nonviolence is all about in regard to matters of war and the actions of those who profess to be noviolent?

As is so often said, my problem is that I do not see how the end justifies the means, though I whole-heartedly appreciate SF's efforts regarding the governments anti-gay policy. My eye, however, is on where this ultimately is going.

To war.

And how those who use Gandhi's methods will conduct themselves in that which they stuggle for.

There is only one way I can think of that might justify a nonviolent person being involved in military matters, and that would be in a purely defensive capacity. But even this avenue is fraught with problems: the National Guard has been called up to fight to Iraq. And let's not forget, our government's current policy is one of preemption.

[Joe Brummer]

Nonviolence is personal. I would hesitate to tell anyone that they should look to Gandhi, King, White or Lewis to find the answers about nonviolence. Truly the answers as to wether or not something is in line with the spirit of nonviolence must come from your soul, your heart more than a book on the writings of Gandhi.

Nonviolence, even as Gandhi wrote is an experiment with truth. I for one cannot support any effort to arm people with anything other than nonviolence for I don't believe those weapons will bring anything but destruction. It is contradictory for me to support someone's desire to join and armed force using the philosophy of nonviolene whose soul mission is to disarm.

The soul effect of violence is to destroy, but the soul effect of nonviolence is to build. I would choose to build community and peace rather than destroy even an enemy to get peace.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Is Soulforce's stance on the military contradictory?

It may be. Sometimes truth is complicated.

First of all, let me say I'm so glad to see this discussion!!!! There are some of us on the staff who have been strongly opposed to this particular campaign. I believe it clearly is contradictory. But I recently read something my friend Jim Loney wrote that helped me feel more comfortable with the contradictions. Jim was one of the four Christian Peacemakers who was kidnapped and held captive for four months. He wrote shortly after his release:

" "I am confronted with a great paradox. I, the Christian pacifist peacemaker, am alive, am free because of the very institutions I believe are contrary to Christian teaching.

"Christ teaches us to love our enemies, do good to those who harm us, pray for those who persecute us. He calls us to accept suffering before we inflict injury. He calls us to pick up the cross and to lay down the sword.

"We will most certainly fail in this call. I did. And I'll fail again. This does not change Christ's teaching that violence itself is the tomb, violence is the dead end.

"Peace won through the barrel of a gun might be a victory, but it is not peace. Our captors have guns and they ruled over us. Our rescuers had bigger guns and ruled over our captors. We were freed, but the rule of the gun stayed.

I'm learning that there are many kinds of prisons and many kinds of tombs. Prisons of the mind, the heart, the body. Tombs of despair, fear confusion. Tombs within tombs and prisons within prisons.

"There are no easy answers. We must all find our way through a broken world, struggling with the paradox of call and failure. My captivity and rescue have helped me to catch a glimpse of how powerful the force of Resurrection is. God seeks us wherever we are, reaches for us in whatever darkness we inhabit. May we reach for each other with the same persistence. The tomb is not the final word."

Jim's very wise words of the paradox of his situation confirmed my decision to stay with Soulforce despite my opposition to the "Right To Serve" campaign. There is no such thing as an absolutely pure organization that is never going to make mistakes - of that I am sure. And as my ex-husband and one of my best friends helped me with, if I leave won't that mean that my beliefs and values won't be represented the way I would like them to be?

As Jim said, we will all fail. The greatest mistakes are those we don't learn from. And isn't it better that we don't get trapped by fear of failure? This dialogue is an absolute necessity to the struggle to maintain our commitment to nonviolence. It's not an easy place to be, but I suspect it is a necessary place to be.

Thanks for starting this dialogue! Kara

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Stephen- Thank you for the link. I am not a scholar regarding Gandhi, but the link you provide suggests to me something altogether different than the conclusions you arrive at.

Thanks, Daniel, for engaging this issue. I don't know all than answers on Gandhi either, and I don't suggest we always need to do what Gandhi would do.

I agree with you 100% on the injustice of the Iraq War. The War in Afghanistan MIGHT have been justified if it's aim was limited to bringing an international criminal to justice.

This raises the question of whether the philosophy of nonviolence can be consistent with the work of police who use violence in a more limited way than do military people.

It goes against my grain to try to justify violence in any circumstance.

But I find it fascinating that Gandhi also struggles a great deal with ambiguity on the question of military service. I thought he said that if he were absolutely opposed to the military he would have to refuse cooperation absolutely--by refusing to pay taxes and refusing to enjoy the benefits that indirectly accrue to him as a citizen in a country at war.

If we were truly to apply the principles of non-violence in the current circumstances, we would refuse taxation and all of the benefits of the oil which our unjust policy provides us. We should all probably be in jail right now trying to stop this war. The fact that we're not means we are cooperating with evil to some extent.

I don't think I or Gandhi saw any clear answer to this. The ending of war will be a long struggle--and we should commit our lives to it.

The question is still open in my mind, however, as to whether it is right for Soulforce to support the end of discrimination against LGBT people entering the military. I am also no longer satisfied to classify anyone who volunteers for military service as necessarily doing an evil thing. I don't think that is anyway to "win over our comrades" as Gandhi would say.

I really admire a United Methodist soldier who has church support to resist deployment. See this URL:

http://www.umc.org/site/c.gjJTJbMUIu...deployment.htm

So, I'm rambling, I'm inconsistent, I'm all over the map. I just don't think there is a real clear answer to the issue. But I do feel that I can support Soulforce's campaign to end military discrimination. I understand that others cannot.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

I feel like I've got more reading to do before I can post intelligently about this subject, but today was my day off. And I did nothing but those things which required little or no critical thinking!

Be that as it may, I'm beginning to sense that there are layers and layers to this subject.

I agree that one need not take Gandhi's writings in a legalistic sense. We deal with that kind of thing enough as it is, do we not? But I do think it is important to know the 'roots' of the issue so that if we do indeed deviate from the actions and thoughts of those who came before us, we understand why we are doing so. Of course, this isn't confined to matters mental. I agree with Joe who has addressed- as it were- matters of the heart. This aspect brings to mind the Buddhist concept of Metta consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metta), a meditation practice I have been working with lately (contact with a conservative on this forum prompted a renewal of purpose). You might call it the eastern version of 'praying for one's enemies'. My sense is that, whatever practice or means one uses to generate (I like this last word- it implies conscious activity) compassion or love for others, the very doing of it naturally leads to those actions which support it.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I just found this site concerning the U.S. military officer who refused deployment and is protesting the war. He will voluntarily suffer prosecution for his convictions--I hope in the spirit of satyagraha (soul force).

http://www.thankyoult.org/

I heard an interview with Lt. Watada on an NPR program yesterday.

What do you think?

Steven Webster

[Jamie McDaniel]

I think it takes courage to be a soldier.

I think it takes courage to face arrest and spend the night in jail, as Equality Rider Rebecca Solomon did last night as part of the Right to Serve campaign.

I think it takes extraordinary courage to be the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq and face all the many repercussions of that act.

One of the reasons I am not in favor of Soulforce leading the charge to enlist openly gay soldiers in the midst of the Iraq war is that I feel it puts the organization in the place of having to downplay our opposition to the Iraq war. Supporters will say that is not the case, pointing to places where it has been stated that Soulforce is against the war. But I see those times as being few in number, and carefully chosen so as not to distract from the message we want the media to grab onto, which is "here is a soldier willing to be deployed, just end DADT and you get their service."

Maybe I'm more angry at myself for my lack of protesting this war. One gathering downtown in 2003 and a sign in my yard that read "War is not the answer." (Which got spray painted to read War is the answer.)

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

If we were truly to apply the principles of non-violence in the current circumstances, we would refuse taxation and all of the benefits of the oil which our unjust policy provides us. We should all probably be in jail right now trying to stop this war. The fact that we're not means we are cooperating with evil to some extent.

That quote of Gandhi's haunts me. "It is as much my moral obligation not to cooperate with evil..." I just wrote a check for over a thousand dollars to the U.S. government for my quarterly estimated taxes. That should buy a brick for New Orleans, a biscuit for a hungry kid, and several rounds of bullets for Iraq. Cindy Sheehan said she wouldn't pay her 2004 taxes (the year her son was killed.) If I had the courage of Lt. Watada, maybe I wouldn't either, instead writing a check for the amount of my taxes to Habitat for Humanity or another worthy group. But that would mean serious jail time. Jail time like what Lt. Watada faces for refusing deployment.

Anyway, here is a quote I wanted to highlight from the interview with Lt. Watada. (Thanks for sharing that link, Steve. I didn't know about Lt. Watada.)

SO: What do you make of the growing anti-war sentiment in the country?

Watada: I don't see it manifest. Soldiers who come back from Iraq say they get the impression many people don't know a war is going on; they say even friends and family seem more involved in popular culture and American Idol. People are not interested in the hundreds of Iraqis and the dozens of Americans dying each week.

[HillWilliam]

to the discussion, might I offer another perspective.

Throughout my youth, I felt the Call and struggled to find a way to answer it. For as long as I can remember, I've felt G'd's presence beside, in and through me. When I was in high school, the pastor of my church gave me seemingly endless hours of tutoring, helping me through reconciling catechism with the Bible, correcting my rotten grasp of Greek and giving me a wonderful preparation for the Lutheran seminary.

As strong as the call was in me (and still is) to offer the peace, quiet strength and comfort I find in Jesus' teachings, getting to college wasn't going to happen. My mom, brother and I lived in a small Appalachian town where opportunities for any sort of meaningful career really didn't exist. Starting out life with a load of college debt with no clear way to repay it didn't (and still doesn't) seem like a wise way to build a foundation for a stable life.

I also knew that if I ever started working in a cotten mill, it was pretty certain I'd never make it out again. I know folks back there that fell into that trap, then eventually had what little job they did have outsourced right out from under them.

Going into the military, even though I knew I was gay, was decidedly not the most attractive choice, but at the time, it was the only choice. It was out of the holler; it was a way to find a skill that might later feed and house me; and they promised "money for college" (HAH! but that's another thread entirely). One thing that the other posters might not realize is that there are plenty of jobs in the military that don't require toting a weapon. I was lucky enough to qualify for a position in intelligence; there are plenty more.

So you can see that sometimes there might not be any other opportunity for a young person and, approached with a clear mind and clear goals, the military could possibly provide a way out of a less-than-advantageous condition. It's not one I would recommend to everyone; most certainly not. I'm only saying that while it was the only reasonable option for me at the time, these days it may be one of a limited range of options.

I'm very much for the repeal of DADT. I served alongside many gay people who served for various reasons: a way out of poverty into a skilled profession; a sense that our rights aren't free and that one should provide some form of service (military, peace corp, political activism or office) in appreciation for those rights; and that GLBT persons' service and patriotism are just as good as anyone else's.

Well, that's the way it should be. When the military says to us, "your patriotism is no good here" it's the same to me as, for instance, a restaurant saying "your business is no good here -- we only feed 'nice' people here". Gee, the color of my money isn't any different to anyone else's; why should my offering of service be unacceptable as well?

As I said just above, I served with other LGBT people in the military. We were there for various reasons, but we all had the strong feeling that we had as much a right to be there as anyone else. There weren't any uproars in our units, no wild soap-dropping shower scenes (darn!), no fuss at all -- everyone in our units were OD green-clad professionals during our shifts. Sexual orientation didn't enter into our professional lives just the same way it didn't enter into the professional life of any other soldier.

Since that part of my life (back in the Stone Age -- chuckle), I've hope to draw attention quietly to the fact that LGBT people have, do, and will always have reasons to serve. Again, there are many military occupations that don't involve going out and killing people. (I couldn't then and could not bring myself to consider it now.) It is more than possible to lead by example, choosing a profession and performing it well, demonstrating that we have as much to offer ourselves, our co-wokers and our country as anyone else.

I hope my post can bring something to the table, perhaps a notion or two that might not have yet occurred to other posters. Sometimes we have to make life choices that aren't completely comfortable in order to survive, be independent and to retain a shred of our own personal dignities. I would only ask you, just for a moment, to slip on the shoes I wore some thirty years back and see why some people may see the military as the only way out of a dead-end situation. For me, it was also a way out of the holler, to see some of the big, wide world out there. I gained a career that has fed and housed me since I left the military.

I didn't get the college education I had hoped for, nor the snazzy clerical collar. But I have been lucky enough to take my training (divinity and military) to offer witness and counsel when G'd leads a person to ask spiritual questions of me. I feel that though I'm not serving Him the way I wanted to, I am serving the way He needs. In retrospect, I'm equally satisfied, humbled and held low in the truth. I wanted a church -- He gave me the whole world.

This post is getting long, but I did want to sort-of pitch this out there to see what y'all think.

Bill

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by HillWilliam

to the discussion, might I offer another perspective.


I hope my post can bring something to the table, perhaps a notion or two that might not have yet occurred to other posters. Sometimes we have to make life choices that aren't completely comfortable in order to survive, be independent and to retain a shred of our own personal dignities. I would only ask you, just for a moment, to slip on the shoes I wore some thirty years back and see why some people may see the military as the only way out of a dead-end situation.

Dear Hill: Your post points out many things to the vast majority of us who grew up middle-class. I grew up somewhere between middle class and working class, living in the projects after my parents split. I am absolutely opposed to DADT, but I am even more opposed to the war in Iraq and the idea of encouraging people to join the armed forces as we wage this immoral war against the Iraqi people.

First of all, I want to say that it's not about judging others, that's not our job to do. It's about continuing to raise the hard issues of nonviolence. As my courageous friend, Jim Loney, says. We will all fail in this commitment to nonviolence, but we must pick ourselves up and continue on the path; focusing on our own failures rather than someone elses. But Soulforce was the organization that really helped me bring some real internalized issues of nonviolence to the forefront for me to pay attention to. So it saddens me when I see it veer from its path.

So I thank you for pointing out that for most working-class people the military is one of the few places where people can find their way out of the "ghetto," or the "hollar," or whatever their circumstances are. What I don't want to see happen is that we find our way out, on the bodies of people who are even more oppressed than we are.

I continue to be grateful for this particular discussion, because it is only in this kind of dialogue that we can find our way out of our tunnel vision into the light. One of the blessings of growing older (and older, and older ) is the comprehension that there are few if any black and white issues - most of it is varying shades of grey.

Kara

[HillWilliam]

Kara,

Thanks for the gentle acknowledment. I, too, am opposed not just to this immoral war, but to war and violence at all. I'd rather be a rock immoveable than a sword any day. I can't find a single thing in the Scriptures whereby anyone can justify making war "just in case" someone else might be unfriendly at some vague point in the future. I'm involved in a number of political forums for those rants, though

I only hoped to add that due to economic situations, some people might not have any other choice. You're so right -- the perspective of age has given me at least a little discerment in the shades of gray; nothing is absolutely cut-and-dried, where we can easily sit back and make categorical statements like "all military service leads to violence". (That's just an example from thin air -- nobody said any such thing that I see here. But the absolutism in that sentiment is just as wrong IMHO as saying that GLBT people are categorically unqualified to serve IF they want to.) I hope I'm being clear without writing a novel :-)

In NC, the once-steady industries have slowly left the state and there has been little to replace them. I do wonder if that isn't by design, since folks who are the most affluent seem to serve at a far smaller rate than everyone else does. From here, it looks like a back-door draft and I'm adamantly opposed to that as well. I also notice that those who are the most flag-waving, pro-war rarely serve. I also can't wrap my head around how people who loudly advocate violence and call it "patriotism" while sending other people's children into death or destruction. The very notion horrifies me.

The current economic and political realities put an undue burden on a lot of people, who like me, had little other choice. Just looking around, I see a lot of kids standing where I did some 30 years ago, except for the fact that in my time, Viet Nam was over and there wasn't a sign of immediate conflict. These days, I would much rather see a young woman or young man find some other way to perform patriotic service -- any other way. That's what I hope to add to the discussions.

Since your response, I got a reply from one of the organizers at the recruitment action in Greensboro yesterday, a young man whose courage and commitment to LGBT equality I truly admire. He's back in school; I live on one side of campus and work at the other, so we're going to hook up for coffee. The non-violent action of the young men and women at the recruiting station made my partner and me extremely proud of their calm and determined example. We hope our involvement with them will give them further strength and courage.

Given the current circumstances, I deeply wish they wouldn't volunteer for military service. My firm stance against the bigotry, injustice and inequality at once bids me to wish and require equal dignity and gratitude from our country for them for volunteering -- regardless of their reasons.

Bill

[Daniel]

Ok. I've been slow to get through the rest of Kurlansky's book. So far, the upshot is this: he makes the cogent argument that American history is replete with nonviolent efforts. The problem is that, before these efforts can be realized, those who use violence step into the situation, taking matters in their own hands. At that point, proponents of nonviolence are as much the enemy as the enemy (nonviolent Americans were pursecuted and even killed during the Revolutionary and Civil wars.) Of course, one sees this kind of interaction taking place in the current debate over the Iraq war. Violence has a way of crushing all dissent. One is unpatriotic if one opposes war. Of course, once violent is used, it is very hard to stop.

This didn't start with American politics. As Kurlansky takes great pains to show, the Christian church, starting with the reign of Constantine and the theology of Augustine, got things going by dreaming up the idea of a 'just war' as well as entwining Christian faith with that of the State- a situation that Christian Conservativs would like to bring about here in the good ol' US of A.