- New Film Resource About Soldiers Who ‘Disobey’…

… or obey a higher calling, that is.

Ian Slattery, the Associate Producer of this film, got in touch with us about how to connect his film and our peace week. It sounds like some interesting stuff:

“Hi SEW folks!

I’m contacting you about our documentary film, SOLDIERS OF CONSCIENCE, and your Peace Week. Here’s a link to our 2-minute trailer: http://www.socfilm.com

We’re local – based in North Berkeley – and would love to share some info about our film with folks gathered at your events. For instance, we have two upcoming screenings of the film at the Mill Valley Film Festival. In addition, we’re always seeking to build relationships with faith leaders of all denominations in order to make the film available as a useful resource for religious communities across the country.

Many thanks for the work you are doing – and for considering this request!”

- Funny (and Scary) Videos on the State of Bush’s Union

If you like Harry Potter and progressive politics, this memorial to Karl Rove’s stint running our country is for you:

For those who like blogs and don’t like Bush: (Be warned that this includes some expletives)

The facial tics and jumbled verbiage of this actor are uncannily realistic. The truth of it is scary.

- Some of the Binds of Military Chaplaincy

The following is a segment from a final term paper written in May 2007 by Matthew Harris-Gloyer for a pastoral care course at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California under the instruction of Professor Archie Smith, Jr.A full copy of the paper in its entirety may be obtained by emailing the author at radical23dream@yahoo.com with “Military Chaplaincy” in the subject line.

II. Binds and Critiques of Military Chaplaincy

Before we begin this section, I would like to state that self-reflection is of great importance in endeavors such as these. As it was said in class, “When we do not reflect, we do colonization.” (Dr. Archie Smith in the class “Angels Fear” from class notes, Berkeley, CA: Pacific School of Religion; 2/12/07). Considering the binds may be one way in which we are to reflect. And, there are binds abounding as I think about ministry to soldiers. One bind is that I am not a soldier. Am I able to properly minister to people whom I do not know? John Wood (Pacific School of Religion D.Min student in the 1980’s) does not think that people outside of the military world are able to help soldiers due to the “language of acronyms” spoken by military people, classified materials not open to civilians, and other difficulties. (John R. Wood, “Spirituality and Wholeness in Light of the Early Stone and Campbell Movements with Implications for Ministry within the United States Air Force Chaplain Program;” D.Min research project (Berkeley, CA: Pacific School of Religion; 1986), p.78-79.) I agree with Wood insofar that to know those whom one is ministering is important, because much of ministry is built on relationships and relationships are very much built upon a common language, experience, etcetera. However, I disagree that a person must be in the military in order to minister to soldiers. Another way of stating this may be a question from class regarding the winged figure: “Do I need to be a bronze figure to give pastoral care to the bronze figure?” (Anonymous classmate during class discussion “Angels Fear.” Berkeley, CA: Pacific School of Religion; 5 February 2007) If this were the case then female pastoral care givers would be unable to give care to male care seekers and vice versa. There is certainly an important aspect to knowing those to whom one is giving care, but it is not necessary for a care giver to be exactly like the care seeker.

 

Another bind that I find of significance is regarding the role of the military chaplain. To whom is the chaplain accountable? Wood describes the situation of American military chaplains as serving two masters; the Church and the Army. (Wood, p.80.) Chaplains are an institutionalized part of the Army. They wear the same uniforms as soldiers, have rank, go through some similar trainings, and go to the battlefield with their units. This creates a situation where the chaplain has a vested interest in the welfare of the soldiers to whom he or she is assigned. This is natural and a part of forming relationships, which is an aspect of ministry. However, at what point does this intimate relationship begin to inhibit the chaplain’s ability to perform his pastoral duties? This is a question for any pastor, but it seems particularly acute for military chaplains, because of the greater potential for evil that is characteristic of war and those who fight them. For example, I wonder if a chaplain will be able to question the institution that pays her salary or challenge the soldier who has committed an atrocity. Another question may be “Is a soldier/chaplain able to give adequate spiritual care to a conscientious objector or other who is questioning war?” These are questions that were being asked in the 1960’s and 70’s during the conflict in Vietnam. The American Civil Liberties Union put out a report in 1973 entitled “The Abuses of the Military Chaplaincy” where it is documented that many chaplains were inadequately serving conscientious objectors and the report asserted that some chaplains were attempting to dissuade soldiers from questioning the war. The report also concluded that there was conflict of role within the military chaplaincy and that many chaplains tended to favor the position of the military and those soldiers deemed “patriotic.” (Randolph N. Jonakait, “The Abuses of the Military Chaplaincy” (New York: American Civil Liberties Union; 1973), p.53-60.2 Jonakait, p.43.) However, another study was done by Clarence Abercrombie a few years after the ACLU report that found that a large majority (73.6%) of military chaplains thought that “legitimation [of Army positions] was an improper role and they wanted no part of it.” (Clarence L. Abercrombie III, “The Military Chaplain” (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1977), p.89.) We have come to understand this era of American history as highly turbulent and these divergent reports reflect that turbulence. Nevertheless, what we are able to glean from these reports is that there was confusion and conflict about the role of the military chaplain and to whom they are accountable. Some chaplains have no difficulty (or, at least make no mention of them in their writings) with the dual role to the Church and Army. For example, it was reported in a recent Newsweek article that Army chaplain Roger Benimoff wrote in his journal during the current war in Iraq, “My call to ministry and the meaningfulness of serving in the Army brings fullness of breath in my life.” (Eve Conant, Faith Under Fire in Newsweek of 7 May 2007, p.28.) Chaplain Benimoff began as a soldier in the Army and then later became a chaplain. It seems clear from the Newsweek article that Benimoff cares for and is concerned about the spiritual well being of the soldiers in his unit. And, I wonder if he is so committed to the Army that he neglects the prophetic piece of Christian ministry.

Sharon Thornton writes that the cross of Christ is political. (Sharon G. Thornton, Broken yet Beloved, St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press; 2002.) Thornton’s perspective is that pastoral care providers are called by faith to minister to the needs of the individuals and communities to which they are serving. According to Thornton this ministering will inevitably spill over into the political. I wonder what this perspective might mean if we were to apply it to the military chaplaincy. It might mean that military chaplains would have to become advocates for better health care at Veterans’ hospitals. It could also mean that chaplains might call their congressional representation to secure more and better armor for soldiers.

Thornton’s perspective could also lead some chaplains to seek to advocate for more soldiers to land in
Iraq and to pursue a scorched earth policy or to use nuclear weapons against the Taliban in
Afghanistan. I suspect that Thornton would not appreciate such a use of her theological interpretation of the cross as political. Yet, this illustrates the difficulty of a political understanding of the cross; the politics change with the people whom are being cared for.

- Reflection on Memorial Day

Written Monday 28 May 2007

Berkeley, CA

Memorial Day.
It is a sunny, moderately tempured day with a slight breeze in the East Bay, and here I am sitting in front of a computer screen typing away my depression hoping that perhaps this act of public bloging will get out the negativity before I go be social at somebody’s house where there will be merry-making. Sometimes I don’t even realize that I am cranky…you know how you sometimes push feelings to the back of your mind or just make yourself feel numb so that you don’t have to think about what it is that is really upsetting you? Well, I get that from time to time.
Memorial Day.
This whole weekend I have been listening to NPR and there have numerous programs about this day in the life of our civic religion. And, it is a religious event…we remember people who have died for a particluar reason and we do rituals with flags and music and processions and parades and get-togethers and what-have-you. It happens every year since just after the Civil War. That’s when this first started. NPR told me so. NPR also said that it used to be called something else, like Decoration Day or something. I wonder if the name will change again someday. I wonder what the new name will/could be? If the name changes, will the event change?
Memorial Day.
What are we memorializing when we celebrate and participate in this day? To whom do we give memory? For what, pray tell, do we give remembrance on this day that we consecrate (make holy) the deaths of millions of soldiers since 1861. Did you know that over 650,000 soldiers died in the Civil War? I can scarcely imagine such a figure. And that was out of a total population of just a few millions, much much less than the total population of the U.S. today.
Memorial Day.
Such sadness. On this day, it seems to me that I instinctively desire to be away from people, because I am not excited, nor glad, nor jubilant for those who have “given their lives for this country.” I am sad that those people died. I am sad for all the people who have died in war, in violence. The sadness is overwhelming and sometimes I feel it so terribly that I want nothing to happen…just nothingness. …. …. Then I remember the people in this life that I am about to visit. There will be hamburgers (and veggie burgers) and chips. And beer! Beer makes everything better. Right? Maybe not.
Memorial Day.
What’s it mean to you?

- Occupation, Empire, Free Trade and Immigration

by Noel Andersen

The more I become involved in activism I realize how important it is to apply theory to praxis with deep analysis of the socio-political history and context in the process of raising our awareness and consciousness to see the inter-connected nature of global hegemonic systems, to which this essay attempts to draw on the relationship between the Occupation and Immigration.

Perhaps the most talked about social issue, next to the failure of Bush’s Iraq Occupation, is the subject of immigration and it is a current contentious and divisive nature within the US.

Throughout history colonization is always connected to emigration..The nature of colonization is based in crossing borders and using military or economic force to subdue the local people, use their natural resources and set up economic production that will profit the colonizer. This is historically done with the Christian justification of converting a “heathen” people or the enlightenment view of “civilizing” the “barbarian,” a rhetoric tied to the trans-Atlantic slave trade, genocide of Native Americans and today is at the roots of global racism as seen in the US government’s discourse on “liberating” Iraq.

The Monroe Doctrine of the 1820s made it very clear that Europe was to not interfere with Latin America because it was the US’s “own back yard” as Theodore Roosevelt put at the turn of the Century. There is an amazing track record of US backed military support and coups of right wing dictatorships that support free trade and US investment, so many that’s its impossible to go through all. To list just a few, massive death squad to kill Indigenous in Guatemala and El Salvador, the coup supporting the Pinochet tyranny, financial support of the Contras in Honduras fighting against the legally elected Sandinistas of Nicaraga and the list goes on. All of this and many more unjust interventions have been responsible for the innocent deaths of thousands (http://www.zompist.com/latam.html).

Most recently the neo-liberal economic influences in Mexico and Central America through NAFTA and CAFTA serve the imposition of trans-national coporations that bring industrialization and urbanization to traditionally agrarian societies. This leads to further emigration as poverty increases from suffering of local traditional economy’s inability to compete on a global-corporate level. Therefore US capital and economic interest is encouraged to cross borders, but people and labor are not allowed as they meet a militarized border and an “illegal” citizenship status upon entry.

Perhaps the only thing that saves Latin America from further military interventions, especially as South American governments move left, is how tied up the US is in the Iraqi Occupation. Without surprise, the history of US military and economic interest in the Middle East is not without similarities to that of Latin America

In 1919, Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations sent down a mandate to create colonial borders in the Middle East, creating political strife that continues to be seen is the region. The Cold War era brought competition for super-power control over the oil supply. In Iran, the US supported a Shah coup against Mossadeq who was intending to nationalize the oil supply and then provided funding for the Shah’s army build up. From 1980-88 the US backed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in their war against Iran after the post-revolutionary Islamist government took power there was fear of their control in the region.

“The primary interest, and that’s true throughout the Middle East, even in Saudi Arabia, the major energy producer, has always been control, not access, and not profit…. a stupendous source of strategic power which made the Middle East the most strategically important area of the world. They also added that its one of the greatest material prizes in world history…. Exxon-Mobile posted its profits for 2006 which are the highest of any corporation in US history” (Noam Chomsky www.zmag.org).

Throughout history, war , colonization and occupation have been ways not only to control investment and resources for power. Many large corporations make profit from US arms trade, and “ reconstruction” or “development” projects as they expand into countries who subscribe to a “free market.” Halliburton’s prime contracts with the Pentagod jumped from $483 million in 2002 to $3.9 billion in 2003. Lockhead Martin’s contract at 21.9 billion is greater than the entire federal government’s largest single welfare program (TANF) (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?). The Bechtel Corporation whose known for its failed privatization projects creating famine in Bolivia was also given oil pipeline projects in the Middle East during the Reagan Administration. In 2003 the multi-billionaire Riley Bechtel was sworn in Bush’s Export Council to advise how to create markets for American companies overseas (http://www.corpwatch.org/).

Colonization, occupation and war profiteering are inter-twined with the same neo-liberal corporate expansion and military intervention that is at the root of emigration and greater inequity in the Global South. The same governments that support war and hegemony also work to create policies that increasingly discriminate against immigrants. Structures of power invade other countries, but freedom of people’s movement to the US is regulated, to the point that the Bush Administration and much of Congress wants to institute a modern day “Bracero”or “guest-worker” program to supply a cheap labor source without citizenship options.

As communities of faith, we need to historicize and bring consciousness to our interactions with immigrant communities and think strategically about how to actively advocate for human rights and justice for resident immigrants.

- War Tax Resistance Resources

Information from Ryan Baum

National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee - http://www.nwtrcc.org

The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee (NWTRCC) is a coalition of groups from across the U.S., formed in 1982 to provide information and support to people involved in or considering some form of war tax resistance. NWTRCC’s goal is to maintain and build a national movement of conscientious objectors to military taxes by supporting, coordinating and publicizing the war tax resistance actions of groups and individuals.

Northern California War Tax Resistance - http://www.nowartax.org

NCWTR provides information and support for conscientious war tax resisters in Northern California, primarily the San Francisco Bay Area. They operate the People’s Life Fund (an alternative fund for resisted taxes), offer informational workshops, provide individual counseling, do public outreach and hold demonstrations.

War Resisters’ League menu on war tax resistance -

http://www.warresisters.org/wtr_menu.htm

Poet Sharon Olds Declines Invitation by Laura Bush

Laura Bush
First Lady, The White House

Dear Mrs. Bush,

I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the breakfast at the White House.

In one way, it’s a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents–all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers.

And the concept of a community of readers and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of creative writing in the graduate school of a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of settings: a women’s prison, several New York City public high schools, an oncology ward for children.

Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challenged, has been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting friendships between young MFA candidates and their students–long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor, courage and wisdom, become our teachers.

When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost nonmoving spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and essentialness of writing.

When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit–and the importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person’s unique story and song.

So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books and meet some of the citizens of Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish to invade another culture and another country–with the resultant loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants in their home terrain–did not come out of our democracy but was instead a decision made “at the top” and forced on the people by distorted language, and by untruths. I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism–the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.

I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear witness–as an American who loves her country and its principles and its writing–against this undeclared and devastating war.

But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.

What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent of permitting “extraordinary rendition”: flying people to other countries where they will be tortured for us.

So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.

Sincerely,

SHARON OLDS

Does Anyone Have An Alternative to President Bush’s Iraq Plan? Yes!

Posted from the website of U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who represents Marin and Sonoma Counties in the U.S. House of Representatives. One of the most common charges leveled against those who oppose this war, and now oppose the “surge,” is that they don’t propose any alternatives. Here’s one to read, print out, and send to the President. Representative Woolsey’s Op-Ed It was Will Rogers who advised: “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Yet the Bush administration is grabbing for every shovel it can find. Faced with his own spectacular failure in Iraq, with violence that his own CIA director termed “satanic, President Bush has chosen to escalate the very policy that catalyzed the slaughter and mayhem in the first place. The White House finds itself in a hole and, incomprehensibly, has decided to keep digging. It’s long past time that we climb out of the hole. Today in the House of Representatives, I am introducing the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act, a comprehensive legislative proposal to quickly end the occupation of Iraq. It is a broad measure, capturing ideas from military and diplomatic experts and including provisions offered in previous legislative proposals. Specifically, the bill would, among other things: – Withdraw all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months from the date of enactment. – Accelerate, during the six-month transition, training of a permanent Iraqi police force. – Prohibit the continued funding, except for the redeployment of troops currently in Iraq, of combat troops to Iraq. – Prohibit any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. (Despite official denials, bases are under construction, including one that includes a miniature golf course and a Pizza Hut). – Authorize, if requested by the Iraqi government, U.S. support for an international stabilization force, which would stay no longer than two years. – Prohibit U.S. participation in any long-term Iraqi oil production sharing agreements before the enactment by the Iraqi government of new regulations governing the industry. – Authorize an array of non-military assistance in Iraq, including reconstruction of a public-health system; destruction of land mines, recovery of ancient relics; and distribution of compensatory damages for civilian casualties. – Honor the sacrifice of our servicemen and women by providing full funding for every health-care treatment, and benefit that they are entitled to under current law. To be sure, peace and freedom will not bust out spontaneously the moment the last American soldier leaves Iraqi soil. Professor William Polk, co-author with former U.S. Sen. George McGovern of “Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now” (Simon & Schuster, 2006), notes that such an assumption would be as na�ve as the neoconservative pre-war fantasy that our soldiers would be met by bouquet-tossing Iraqis weeping with gratitude. But U.S. withdrawal, in addition to removing our own soldiers from harm’s way, will remove the insurgency’s very raison d’etre and put Iraq on track toward national healing and reconciliation. President Bush, however, has chosen escalation over withdrawal, a choice that is tragically misguided and, with virtually no political support, ultimately unsustainable. No less of a militarist than Oliver North has concluded that “sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets.” The president ignored the advice of the Iraq Study Group, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the soon-to-be-replaced Gens. George W. Casey Jr. and John P. Abizaid (despite the president’s repeated insistence that he takes his cues from “commanders on the ground”). This staggering act of presidential arrogance flies in the face of public opinion and reveals nothing but contempt for the electoral verdict delivered by the American voters in November. That’s why today I am proposing my own plan to bring our troops home, and restore Iraqi sovereignty. Because of the election and its mandate, the president can no longer expect carte blanche from the House and Senate. As a co-equal branch of government with constitutional war powers, we in the Congress are within our rights to challenge and even forestall both the overall Bush policy and the new deployment of more than 21,500 troops. That the 109th Congress chose not to exercise such authority will not — and should not — restrain the 110th.