Sermon for 3 September 2006, 1^st Unitarian Church of Alton, Illinois

 

PEACEMAKING

Ronald J. Glossop

 

I.  Introduction

    A. This past summer the Unitarian-Universalist Association (UUA) held its annual national General Assembly (GA) here in St. Louis.  Many members of our congregation were able to attend at least one session of this national parliament of the UUA.

    B.  UUs like to discuss important social issues.  In the past they had to propose any resolutions to be considered at the GA through their individual congregations, but there came to be so many resolutions that a different system had to be implemented.  Now the UUA Commission on Social Witness acts as a screening committee to limit the number of issues to be addressed.

    C.  This Commission on Social Witness first selects not more than 10 Study/Action Issues for Social Justice for the tentative agenda for the coming General Assembly.  The individual congregations then vote on the issues they believe should be discussed, and the Commission on Social Witness selects not more than 5 of them to be on the Final Agenda of the General Assembly.  The General Assembly then decides by majority vote which one issue is going to be discussed for the next 2 years.  The Commission on Social Witness formulates a Statement of Conscience on that issue, and the following General Assembly decides whether to adopt it as an official statement of the UUA.

    D. This summer the issue selected for discussion over the next 2 years is "Peacemaking."  Today I would like to share with you some of my thoughts on this issue.

    E.  Most of you know that I have devoted much of my life to studying this issue of war, thinking about this issue, teaching about this issue, working in various organizations focused on this issue, and even writing a textbook about it for college students.  The fourth edition of that book, CONFRONTING WAR:  AN EXAMINATION OF HUMANITY'S MOST PRESSING PROBLEM, was published five years ago.

 

II.  I would like to begin by noting that the problem confronting humanity is how to abolish war, how to prevent wars from happening.  That is a very different issue than trying to figure out what I as an individual or what we as a society should do in relation to a particular war which is already going on.

    A.  One difficulty with that word "Peacemaking" is that it subtly suggests that some kind of war is already occurring and that our only problem is to figure out how to stop that war and how to replace it with peace.  That is why a concern about "peacemaking" tends to become more widespread during wars such as World War II (especially after the use of nuclear weapons), the Vietnamese War, and the current war in Iraq.

 

III.  Fortunately, our UUA Commission on Social Witness has stated this issue in what I regard as a more adequate long-term way.  According to their formulation the issue is:

        Should the Unitarian Universalist Association reject the use of any and all kinds of violence and war to resolve disputes between peoples and nations and adopt a principle of seeking just peace through nonviolent means?

    A.  Their statement about the Background and Reasons for Studying this Issue also is praiseworthy because it places the problem of war in a long-term historical context rather than focusing on any one war at any one time.  Here is their statement:

        "As the human population has increased there has been a corresponding increase in contact between groups of people who were largely isolated from one another in the past.  This contact, coupled with differences in politics, religions, moral values, and beliefs as well as economic injustices and competition for resources, have led to countless conflicts around the world.  Humankind struggles to achieve peaceful co-existence economically, socially, politically, and spiritually. "

        1.  This statement is very insightful because it recognizes that the problem of war is a problem concerning the relation of groups to one another rather than relations between individuals.

        2.  In my view too often people thinking about the problem of war, including many of my fellow professors of philosophy, focus on the attitudes of individuals rather than on the institutions of the society.  Undoubtedly, it would be helpful if individuals would commit themselves to a life of nonviolence in their dealings with one another.  That could reduce the amount of one-on-one violence in the world.

        3.  But focusing only on the renunciation of violence by individuals is not going to help much with regard to the problem of war, because that problem results from the struggle for political power between groups of people.  Most of the violence committed in wars is not motivated by a desire of one individual to do harm to another individual as an individual.  Rather it is motivated by a desire to harm anyone who happens to be a member of the other "enemy group" even though one has nothing against that person as an individual.  The violence carried out against "the enemy" is usually a matter of following orders from the leaders of "my group."

        4.  Think about one of the most violent actions ever committed, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.  Did those individuals who dropped the bombs have any desire to kill and injure the individuals living in those cities?  They were only following orders from the group leaders in a war of one nation-state against another nation-state, a war in which the goal was to gain political power over the other group.  In fact, the more they would think about the individuals living in those cities as individuals, the less likely they would be to cooperate in the bombing.

        5.  Another positive value of this statement is that it focuses on the causes of war and violent conflict rather than the effects.  Popular culture--radio and TV, films, books, newspapers and magazines--is full of images and information about the horrible  consequences of war but contains very little discussion about what causes these wars to occur.  The statement about this issue by the UU Commission on Social Witness very wisely focuses on the causes of war and violence rather than its effects.

        6.  Finally, I like the way that this statement ends with a positive image of what is desired: "peaceful co-existence economically, socially, politically, and spiritually," not just the negative image of the elimination of violence.  The context makes it plain that we are thinking of the whole planet, not just parts of it, though it might have been better to specifically add to the statement the words "for the whole world community."

 

IV.  At the same time I find some deficiencies in this generally good statement about the Background and Reasons for Studying this Issue of violence in society.

    A.  One deficiency is that it does not mention language as one of the big issues that can generate conflict between groups.  The statement lists as possible sources of conflict "differences in politics, religions, moral values, and beliefs" but omits differences in language, which are as crucial to group identity as those other items mentioned.  Think about the ethnic wars in the former Yugoslavia or the civil war going on in Sri Lanka.  Groups fight for their culture and their cultural identity, and these depend on language.  I think that there is a tendency for English-speakers to underestimate the importance of this language issue for those whose native language is not the dominant English.

    B.  Another deficiency I see is that as a source of conflict the statement rightly mentions competition for resources but neglects to mention the equally important competition for status, the competition to be "number one" or at least to have a higher status than some other group.  Wars are generally not fought between poor groups or even poor groups against rich groups but between nation-states which are rich and powerful. Those who fight have control of resources (otherwise they would not be in a position to fight and hope to win), but they want a higher status in the world community.  Germany fought against Britain in World War I not because Germany was poor but because Britain was Numero Uno in the world, and Germany desired that status for itself.  The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States was not primarily about control of resources but about which country would be most highly regarded by other countries.

    C.  Still another deficiency in my view is the statement's focus on the causes of conflict versus directing attention to the causes of violent conflict.  Conflict is not always bad.  Conflict can be a stimulus to progress and useful change.  The problem is how to deal with conflict so that it does not become violent.

        1.  This is not a minor point.  When I tell people that an important goal in my life is to eliminate war, I often get the response, "But you just can't get rid of all conflict."  Then I say, "Who said anything about getting rid of all conflict?  Getting rid of war does not mean getting rid of all conflict; it only requires managing conflict so that it does not become large-scale violent conflict, which is what war is."

    D.  Furthermore, we humans have learned very well how to manage conflict so that it does not become large-scale violent conflict.  In my view it is another deficiency of the UUA statement that this fact of knowing how to manage conflict is not mentioned.

        1.  Some of you are undoubtedly saying to yourself, "If it is true that we know how to manage conflict so that it does not become large-scale violence, why do we still have so many wars?"

        2.  The answer is that we need to think in terms of scale and also recognize that change takes time.  We once had a Civil War within this country, but it is virtually impossible that this would happen again.  European nations have fought many wars against each other but now that the European Union is being formed, it is virtually impossible that there could be another war in Europe, for example, between France and Germany.  We know that federated democratic republics make it possible to manage conflict through judicial and political means rather than resorting to violence.  Conflicts remain, but they get settled in courts or by elections.  We call this "the rule of law", and we know that it is the right way to manage social conflict so that it does not degenerate into war.

        3.  In the Western world we have had wars of nation against nation, Protestants against Catholics, Fascists against Communists, socialists against capitalists, and so on.  But we have now created federated democratic republics to manage these conflicts so that they don't result in war, and after these institutions are created everyone realizes that such a system is much preferable to war.

        4.  Consider the fact that in this country there is a very intense, emotional, deep-rooted conflict on the issue of legal abortion, the "Pro-Lifers" versus the "Pro-Choicers."  There has even been some small-scale violence at abortion clinics.  But we all know that there is not going to be a war, that is large-scale violence, to try to resolve this conflict.  Why not?  Because we have built the judicial and political institutions to deal with this conflict nonviolently in the courts and by counting ballots in elections.  Even the Pro-Lifers are opposed to the use of violence at the abortion clinics because they know that in this new system the use of violence means the loss of votes for their cause.

        5.  So we know how to do it.  We know how to construct a system of institutions which promote the resolution of conflict by peaceful, nonviolent means.  The problem is that the system of a federal democratic republic until now is limited to some nations and some parts of the world.

        6. George Bush's idea that we need to promote the creation of democratic national governments in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Latin America is not a wrong idea.  But the means by which he is trying to implement it are wrong or too limited in three respects.

            a.  First, one cannot impose such a new system by violence, especially unilaterally, that is, without the approval of most other national governments.   But sometimes, as in the Darfur region of Sudan at present, the international community must intervene with military forces to protect people against their own dictatorial national government.

            b.  Second, one cannot promote the use of elections and then use external force to try to undermine the results of those elections, as has been done with regard to the recent elections held in Palestine and Venezuela.  Democracy means allowing the governed to determine their rulers by the majority  vote of an unthreatened, informed, electorate.

            c.  Third, and most important in the long run, one must see that this principle of the need for a federated democratic republic to promote the peaceful, nonviolent resolution of conflict must be extended to the global level.  The present United Nations should be transformed into a federated democratic republic of the world. The Bush administration is the biggest obstacle to moving in this direction.  If we had a U.S. government that wanted to create a federated democratic world republic, it could be developed within a decade or two.  The problem is that too many Americans prefer an American Empire.  The fact is that the anarchy existing at the global level is poisoning our own national democracy.  The absence of an effective democratic republic at the world level is forcing this country to rely too much on  its own temporary military superiority.

 

V. During the past eight years one of the most important developments moving us in the direction of the rule of law at the global level is the creation of the International Criminal Court, but the Bush administration has been vigorously fighting against it (even though the creation of that new world tribunal to prosecute tryrants was greatly advanced by the United States in the days of the Clinton administraton).

        1.  I gave a sermon about that International Criminal Court and its importance on May 4, 2002 when its jurisdiction first began.  It is on our church web-site.

        2.  Next month, on October 1, you will have a chance to hear another sermon which will bring you up to date on what is happening with regard to the International Criminal Court and what our national government has been doing in opposition to it.

 

VI.  Some of you may regard this sermon as too political.  Let me say in response that this problem of war is a political problem and it requires a political solution, a solution that subordinates national sovereignty to what is good for the whole planet.  On the ethical or individual level, it means subordinating individual feelings of nationalism and patriotism to feelings of humatriotism, of loyalty to the whole human family.

 

VII.  On the issue of mixing religion and politics, let me say that in my view the Republican Party has been taken over by religious zealots, Christian evangelical fundamentalists who cleverly manipulate their followers to focus only on some peripheral issues while promoting some very un-Christian ways of behaving toward the rest of the world.  It is time for religious liberals to counteract the disastrous influence of these zealots on our nation and on our world.  That means getting involved in politics, especially during the next nine weeks.  Both the Republicans and the Democrats need our help.