A friend of a friend... along with 2 other friends... are on trial this week in New Zealand.
Heres a question for us to debate... Would you do something illegal, if there was a moral imperative to do so?
In April 2008, three Christian pacifists, Sam Land, Peter Murnane and Adi Leason, entered the Waihopai spy base and deflated a pressurised dome covering one of the satellite dishes.
This followed in the tradition of previous “non-violent direct actions” by the Ploughshares movement in which military planes, ships, hardware and bases were symbolically disarmed. In the last 20 years Ploughshares activists have undertaken over 120 of these actions. One of these, in 1991, involved New Zealander Moana Cole who disarmed a B52 bomber by hitting it with a hammer. She was imprisoned in the USA for a year.
This followed in the tradition of previous “non-violent direct actions” by the Ploughshares movement in which military planes, ships, hardware and bases were symbolically disarmed. In the last 20 years Ploughshares activists have undertaken over 120 of these actions. One of these, in 1991, involved New Zealander Moana Cole who disarmed a B52 bomber by hitting it with a hammer. She was imprisoned in the USA for a year.
Sam, Peter and Adi, who are practising Catholics, used sickles to deflate the dome, symbolically disarming the spy base. Their aim was to draw attention to New Zealand’s involvement in the US war in Iraq through the presence of this base in our country. While waiting to be arrested, they prayed and set up a shrine in remembrance of victims of US torture, assassination and mass murder.
The hope of the Ploughshares activists is the closing of the Waihopai spy base and the severing of military links to the United States.
* Waihopai spy base is not a weather station, as previously reported.
* Waihopai is a major secret US spy base.
Waihopai is NZ’s biggest contribution to America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
* Waihopai intercepts and records your international phone calls and e-mail.
* Waihopai is part of a five nation network of global surveillance known as “Echelon” which is implicated in the mass killings of innocent civilians.
* Waihopai does not operate in the interests of NZ or our neighbours.
* Waihopai is not effectively accountable to Parliament or the people. It is exempt from key provisions of the Privacy Act and Crimes Act
* Waihopai intercepts huge volumes of electronic data and sends it to Washington for analysis by the US military.
* Waihopai has cost the NZ taxpayer $500 million to build and operate over the last 20 years.
* Waihopai is shrouded in secrecy and key information about the base - such as who exactly is being spied on and what happens to the information - is classified
The hope of the Ploughshares activists is the closing of the Waihopai spy base and the severing of military links to the United States.
* Waihopai spy base is not a weather station, as previously reported.
* Waihopai is a major secret US spy base.
Waihopai is NZ’s biggest contribution to America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
* Waihopai intercepts and records your international phone calls and e-mail.
* Waihopai is part of a five nation network of global surveillance known as “Echelon” which is implicated in the mass killings of innocent civilians.
* Waihopai does not operate in the interests of NZ or our neighbours.
* Waihopai is not effectively accountable to Parliament or the people. It is exempt from key provisions of the Privacy Act and Crimes Act
* Waihopai intercepts huge volumes of electronic data and sends it to Washington for analysis by the US military.
* Waihopai has cost the NZ taxpayer $500 million to build and operate over the last 20 years.
* Waihopai is shrouded in secrecy and key information about the base - such as who exactly is being spied on and what happens to the information - is classified
Also read profiles of the 3 men and an interview with one of them.
10 comments:
My response is a bit complicated. It would be easier to talk this through than write about it.
First...yes, I would do something illegal if I felt there was a moral imperative to do so. For example, there is an anti-conversion law in effect in Tamil Nadu, but I would still be happy to tell somebody about what Jesus has done for them, and present the news in as persuasive way as I could, so that they might be 'converted'.
Would I sabotage a military installation? I'm not so sure.
I've begun to see that many of these issues are quite complicated, and many sided.....the war in Iraq, the Maoist problem across many parts of North and Central India, environment issues, etc. I've seen that Christians can be found on both sides of these debates, and begun to think that (regardless of what each side says, and the passion with which they feel only their view is Biblical or Christian) it is dangerous to mix Christianity with political positions, and think that only our own opinion is Biblical.
The result would be the modern equivalent of the Crusades.
I think we SHOULD have an individual position, based on our own Biblical worldview, and be willing to present and defend our position passionately, and yet, humbly acknowledge there are other viewpoints that may be valid, be willing to look at issues from a different point of view, without imagining that our own position is the only Biblical and Christian one.
I am sick, for example, of the number of emails I get, and the tone of some of them, about Obama's health-care plan, many of them talking about the Christian reasons why such a health plan should be opposed and defeated. Many of them sound downright selfish, narrow-minded and self-righteous. But the authors are convinced that is the only valid 'Christian' response to this plan.
Similarly, the Iraq war, the climate change talks, etc
Thanks for your response Pradeep.
So I hear you saying that while we may hold a position, we need to respect alternate positions too as potentially valid/biblical/moral. But since some of those positions (held by Christians) sound "downright selfish, narrow-minded and self-righteous", can we safely say that the positions themselves are not Christian?
Second, if I may take the question further... how do we decide which unjust laws should be broken, and which should we stop short of breaking? i.e. why would you break the anti-conversion law, but stop short of disarming a weapon used to kill innocents?
or another question: why is anti-conversion - straightforward for us to understand, but the environment ambiguous? Could it be that our Christian world-view (as imperfect as it is) leaves us with a hierarchy of what is moral? Where personal evangelism is considered a core value but protecting the environment / poor / victims of war ranks lower down?
Complex, isn't it?
In all fairness, I'd like to know your position. What would you do?
This is one of the things it would be much easier discussing face to face than writing back and forth.
Ha... busted!
I brought it up because it had me quite stumped.
If it were a question of non-violent resistance, I would surely do it. But in the case of these Kiwi Christians, they cut an electric fence (breaking & entering) and they burst the balloon (apparent act of violence) causing a million dollars worth of damage.
For me its easier to engage in non-violent resistance (maybe because I don't like confrontation). But then I considered Jesus making a whip and turning tables in the temple (pretty violent form of protest).
So violent protests for me are a question mark. I may do it, but the question mark will linger on.
(By the way - violent meaning against an instrument of war, not against a person).
BUT - then I began to hear my friends arguments... and they were pretty convincing. So since I was troubled by this question, I thought of asking everyone else.
Interesting dialog. I appreciate the gentleness with which both of you approach your faith! I have a lot of respect for both of you!
In the last week, I've felt outrage turn to down right grief over a talk show host telling Christians to leave their church if their church is involved in 'social justice.' He is linking that term to socialism/communism and linking it further still to Hitler.
The logic is just so distorted. And, so clearly (in my opinion) tied to his own political view. But, I have so much family who take that view. And, it is just so hard to understand it. I feel so baffled. And, struggle with not judging those whom I have felt have misjudged the way I live out my faith.
Anyway, I find this dialog encouraging!
~juliana
p.s. here's a link for what I have mentioned.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/christians-urged-to-boycott-glenn-beck/
To answer your questions....
1. Some of these positions may be Christian, but the ones holding them may do so with a wrong attitude, and Pharisaical spirit. They may be absolutely right in WHAT they say, but absolutely wrong in HOW they say it.
2. There are some issues about which the Bible is absolutely clear. There are others on which the Bible is relatively silent, and open to a number of opinions and interpretations.
Maybe some examples will be useful:
1. The war in Iraq: I have not read anything yet in the Bible that has convinced me that the only valid Christian position is pacifism. In fact, I would go so far as to say that sometimes war is necessary, and may even be a good thing. At this present moment, I do not know whether the war in Iraq can be summarily stopped, and American troops sent back home. To further put my foot in my mouth, let me also say that in times of terrorist attacks, suicide bombings, and holy wars, the freedom and safety of the majority of innocent citizens comes at a heavy price, and may include the loss of some other freedoms....like privacy, phones and emails being intercepted and recorded, stricter checks at airports, some secrecy about measures that are being used, and the like. I do not know enough, but maybe sites like Waihopai are crucial in order to prevent further attacks.
However, if you feel the Iraq war is wrong, and would like to sabotage some installation like this, I would disagree with you, but not go as far as saying you are not Christian, because the Bible is not clear enough about what the right position is.
I could discuss each of the issues we have raised....the Maoist problem, the environment, health-care plans, and so on. I have a position on each of these issues, and often passionately express my views to anybody who is willing to listen.
I am careful, however, to try not to make a religion out of this, and talk in a self-righteous way as though only my position was right.
In the end-analysis, Christianity is not a set of opinions and positions on various political and social issues of today. A 'good' Christian is not one who holds the 'Right' positions on each of these issues. As David Wilkerson wrote, "At the heart of the Gospel is Change"....a relationship with God that results in a transformed life.
Maybe, I am being too simplistic. On the other hand, think of what has resulted every time the Church tried to get involved in politics...the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of scientists, and all the follies of 'Christendom'
Thanks Pradeep & Juliana. I enjoy this discussion because I am seeking answers in my own mind, and your thoughts help me process some of these questions.
Pradeep has mainly highlighted the dangers/risks (evident from history) of a set of people believing their perspective to be the only biblical perspective and thus imposing that on others. Also there is a multiplicity of perspectives on ANY issue, depending on where you’re sitting. Plus, the bible can be used to justify most positions (even opposing ones).
Are we ready then for another set of questions… (Pradeep is thinking, NOT FAIR – why am I the only person answering?)
1. We can have positions on political issues, but then at what point do we act? Does God expect us to ACT or just have passionate opinions?
2. How political was Jesus?
My premise is that since we’ve grown up with a Christian worldview/theology that divorces the spiritual world from the physical world, it is easier for us to hold positions on political issues, but not act on it. As a result, most Christians (except for a small handful), find themselves sitting passively as Muslims are massacred in riots in my city, when the poor/tribals are displaced from their homes and impoverished, when innocent youth (?terrorists?) are picked up and tortured, etc…
I’m sure the first 2 people who passed the wounded man (on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho), had strong passionate opinions about how the man must have been wounded. But it was the man who acted… who took the risk… who stopped being apolitical… whom Jesus finally said “succeeded as a good neighbour”. I think at the end we will be judged not by our opinions o the various issues, but by what we did.
If we are passive by-standers in matters of injustice, we are complicit in it & we are just as guilty as the perpetrators. If my government executes an innocent man, it does so with the authority I as a citizen have given it. If I don’t act to stop it, is not that injustice on my head?
Also Pradeep, when you chose to break the anti-conversion law in Tamil Nadu, you ceased to be apolitical. You could have gone to jail. By your action, you took on the might of the state.
So to bring back a question from my previous post:
3. Why is it easier for us to act (break a law) on anti-conversion, than to act (whatever our position might be) on other injustices like the environment, Maoists, war, etc.?
By the way I do realize none of these questions are easy… they disturb me… I hope they disturb others too… At the end, I think it matters less that we agree, but more that we choose to honestly engage with these questions.
Was Jesus political?
Surprisingly, (I am even shocked by the realisation as I write this) He was not.
Some examples:
1. Matt 17:24-27...the issue being discussed was the temple tax. Jesus explained to Peter why it was not necessary for Him to pay the tax, but then, ("so that we do not offend them") made provisions for his own and Peter's tax.
2. Luke 20:21-26... the well-known "Render unto Caesar" statement. What a great opportunity to make a political statement. The Jews were hoping He would say there was no need to pay the tax. That would have been the popular thing to say, but would have got Him into trouble with the Romans. On the other hand, if He said they were to pay taxes, He would have got into trouble with the Jews.
And, unexpectedly, Jesus refused to take a political position.
I think this is what upset the Jews. They wanted a Messiah who would lead them to victory, a political hero they would crown King.
Instead Jesus was this un-political person, who refused to take a political position, and refused to be crowned, instead slipping through the crowd to escape.
3. Luke 13:1-5....another opportunity Jesus passed by, instead of speaking against Pilate.
I would like to differentiate between taking a political position, and taking a stand for a value...like justice.
Speaking up about injustice, and taking a stand on a number of social problems has less to do with the fact that we are Christians, and more to do with the fact that we are human beings with a sense of justice. There is no Christian response to injustice, and non-Christian response to injustice. There is only a just response and an unjust response.
Notice that the ones who are the most active in speaking up when "Muslims are massacred in riots in my city, when the poor/tribals are displaced from their homes and impoverished, when innocent youth (?terrorists?) are picked up and tortured, etc…" are non-Christians. I am not saying that is how it should be. I am merely observing a fact. Certainly Christians should be more active, and would be when they realise all that the Bible has to say about God being a just God, who acts against the oppressors, taking the side of the oppressed.
Taking sides about a political question, like the Iraq war, health-care policy, the environment, is different. There are just reasons to take a position on either side of the divide, and especially as the scenarios become more complex.
Thanks so much for this conversation. It has been helpful to read your perspectives and your questions!
I don't remember where I read this but someone, somewhere talked about how Jesus was passively resistant. Not passive-aggressive or aggressively-resistant.
My only question (for now) in response to this is the section in the gospels about Jesus driving out the money changers from the temple.
Could that be an example of aggression? Or, do we still consider that to be passive resistance?
Anger is not aggression, in itself. So, maybe this still stands.
I'm still thinking this through myself.
I think I began (and haven't moved much further) from where you are Juliana on this debate.
I've always seen Jesus as passive resistant. So we've seen him suffer the consequences of being passive resistant... the cross, et. al. That would mean that I would stand on peaceful protest marches, etc... all pretty passive stuff... the extreme would be being a human shield (standing between the aggressor & victim) and getting beat up. But no aggression. So the story of Rachel Corrie (American peace activist) really resonates with me.
But the temple trashing is the only passage that poses a problem to this assumption (that Jesus was passive resistant).
But also, Jesus frequently used harsh language to those in power (especially religious folks). He called them dirty names (aggressive language).
So thats where I was/am. But Jeph's article has made that position (passive-resistant), a little uncomfortable for me.
Post a Comment