Do You Fear Christian Theocracy In America?

"Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane" by Sebastiano Conca 1746, Pinacoteca, Vatican

 

Today is the day when we as Christians think of Christ our Lord, the fast approaching night of his betrayal, and The Passion that follows. Today is the day when our friends the Jews celebrate Passover, and are deep in prayer until sundown. David Bernstein @ The Volokh Conspiracy is running his first Passover Seder and introducing The Passover Bag.

Patrick O’Hannigan, one of my favorite bloggers and a dear friend, has written an excellent essay making a playful rendition of the idea of a Christian Theocracy in America, and how it might affect our every day life. I have always respected Patrick’s opinion and admired his vast Theological knowledge and his amazing ability to explore that knowledge in an ever thought provoking dialogue:

"[...] Some people fear George W. Bush not because his policies keep them up at night, but because the Christianity he brings without guile or apology to an under-dressed public square marks him as the chief scout for what they imagine is a theocracy coming soon to the United States. Anyone trying to confront this fear must come at it on two fronts, the personal and the political. [...]

George W. Bush has been refreshingly blunt about naming evil when he sees it, but he joins past presidents in standing foursquare for religious freedom, and his penchant for “reading people’s hearts” (as he said he’d done with erstwhile Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers) suggests that his administration’s policies are informed more by liberal pabulum than by rigid orthodoxy, even of the so-called “compassionate conservative” variety. Moreover, the president belongs to a Christian denomination that stresses personal rather than communal aspects of worship. Apart from these uniquely Bushian checks on megalomania, the idea of an American Christian theocracy must also be dismissed for political reasons, because American Christians are a fractious bunch. We can and do find common ground on many issues, but we might also thank the Founders for having spared us the drudgery of parliamentary forms that put a premium on coalition-building.

Were America to renounce secular mores in favor of some kind of constitutional theocracy, we Christians would have more work to do than linking hands to sing “what a friend we have in Jesus.” And a sizable number of us would warn anyone who cared to listen about the arrogance of trying to build the kingdom of heaven on earth. In other words, if hippies gave therapy a jump start by growing old enough to sell out to “the Man” and feel guilty about it, wait’ll you see what happens when people who belong to Christ realize that Uncle Sam demands more of their time.[...]

Is it any wonder that “godly government” ranks as one of those areas where, as Robert Browning famously put it, “a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” All that said, it’s fun to speculate about what an American Christian theocracy might act like, in the extremely unlikely event that it ever came to pass.

My guesses:

• Supreme Court jurisprudence takes the hit that everyone saw coming when Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are overturned. Despite the wailing that ensues in militantly pro-abortion organizations, however, long-deserved comeuppance for those decisions does not make abortion illegal. Indeed, a theocratic government minding its Constitutional manners simply removes federal support for abortion and returns the question to the states. This would be a good thing and a wrong righted, because state legislators had their collective pockets picked by a thieving majority of Supreme Court justices back in 1973.
• A Christian theocracy would presumably put the kibosh on any talk of “gay marriage” being a Constitutional right under the “equal protection” clause, basing its argument on the nature of marriage, and an originalist interpretation of the First Amendment’s “establishment” clause that has ACLU lawyers investing in over-the-counter remedies for teeth grinding.
• Death penalty cases would be more likely to be overturned on appeal than they currently are, even though Christians come down on both sides of the death penalty issue.
• Grants awarded by the National Endowment for the Arts and similar federal bodies would receive more scrutiny than they do now.
• Teachers’ union objections to vouchers for public schools would meet greater resistance from a newly-courageous, albeit only marginally less craven, U.S. Senate.[...]

Beyond those issues, it’s tough to guess what an American Christian theocracy might do in terms of federal policy. One Jewish friend raised the Catholic objection to artificial contraception, but that’s not a view held by all Christian denominations, so even a theocratic government is unlikely to pursue litigation against manufacturers of contraceptive pills. A smart Christian theocracy would likewise steer clear of mandating the study of Intelligent Design alongside neo-Darwinian macro-evolution, if only because ID advocates rightly point out that theirs is an argument from observation rather than from Christian dogma. No Christian theocracy in America would risk a return to Prohibition, because too many Christians drink. For every storefront church serving grape juice to the faithful on occasional Sundays, there’s a Catholic parish only too happy to point out that Jesus’ first public miracle was changing water into wine (some exegetes claim it was enough wine to keep the whole village of Cana in its cups for three days).[...]

What’s ironic about this whole thought experiment is that it’s occasioned by the fears of people who probably look at life through the secular humanist lens that so many progressives claim as their own, mouthing platitudes about religious “superstition” while forgetting that everything from Soviet gulags to Cambodian killing fields to Nazi death camps was justified in the name of secular humanism.

Essayist J.A. Gray once examined a few of the fallacies associated with this kind of thinking. On reading a long statement of belief mailed to him by New York’s Council for Secular Humanism, Gray, a Christian, raised several piquant objections to it. The humanist declaration of belief in joy “rather than guilt or sin” struck him as particularly muddle-headed:

When [joy, guilt, and sin] are used as counters merely, as in this Humanist slogan, one discovers nothing – except that the Humanists seem to be as incurious about their chosen Good Words as about their selected Bad Words. One also wonders if being a faithful Humanist means suppressing one’s full, ragged humanity. Feeling guilty? Feeling sinful? We Humanists don’t believe in that, so please feel something else.[...]

But that doesn’t mean we Christians are working for or toward a theocracy. Any such government would harm the church more than it helped her. Again comes the under-remarked libertarian strain in Christianity—that cracked reflection of freedom in Christ—to point excitedly to the chasm between God and government, even in self-consciously godly government. As a gospel song performed by Allison Krauss and Union Station puts it, “I’d rather have Jesus than silver or gold; I’d rather have Jesus than riches untold.”

People who fear Christianity don’t seem to understand that. Most realize that government doesn’t need divine sanction to go around smiting people. What they forget—sometimes with good reason—is that even suspect formulations like “Mere Christianity” serve to check the smiting impulse, not least because Christian faith is based on a Savior who told Peter to stop his desperate swordplay in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:52), and nicknamed an impetuous pair of apostles “sons of thunder” when they wanted to call a first-century air strike down on a recalcitrant Samaritan town (Lk 9:51-56).

Varsity cheerleading captains will be writing mash notes to astronomy club secretaries before a “fundamentalist American Christian theocracy” comes calling, but working knowledge of probability, history, theology, and human nature isn’t as widespread as it should be, which is another reason why we who claim citizenship in Heaven always have something to pray for here on Earth."

Check out Patrick's latest essay in the American Spectator on "Why I won't stop going to church".

Comments

[Kent Budge]

"Evidently, the writer never saw the Nazi uniform buttons that had the phrase 'Gott Mit Uns' ("God is with us") engraved on them."

As usual, there's more complexity and ambiguity behind the sound bite than the biter will admit.

Regular German soldiers of World War II, serving in the Wehrmacht, did indeed wear buttons inscribed with "Gott Mit Uns," as they had since the time of Frederick the Great. The Nazis added a swastika to the button, without removing the traditional inscription, producing a most unfortunate juxtaposition.

However, the Waffen-SS, which (unlike the Wehrmacht) consisted entirely of fanatical Nazis, rejected the use of "Gott Mit Uns" on their uniforms, replacing it with "Meine Ehre heißt Treue".

So, yes, it is unfortunately true that the majority of German soldiers who swarmed across Europe during the Second World War continued to carry the "Gott Mit Uns" that was long a part of their tradition. But the minority of German soldiers who were fanatical Nazis, and wished it known on the battlefield, replaced the slogan with one that made no reference to Deity.

This is not to excuse those Germans who were not literally Nazis for any complicity in the crimes of the Nazi regime. It is simply to point out that the Nazis did not originate the "Gott Mit Uns" slogan; and, where long tradition did not require it, they eliminated it. Its use on Wehrmacht uniforms is therefore hardly evidence that the Nazis were religious.

The question of whether Nazism was atheistic is an interesting one that we are unlikely to settle here. I am inclined to say "yes", but recognize that this is yet another complex question. Fascism as developed in Italy was explicitly atheistic, but the German version was not entirely comparable and definitely had mystic -- though not necessarily religious -- elements to it.

[Darrell]

Repeat after me..."I reject the Left. And all its works. And all its empty promises."

Happy Easter!

[Ghost Dansing]

One thing that is almost always casually missed by those "christians" who have a problem with the notion of "Church-State" separation...there trully are those heretical denominations that are looking for a "christian" theocratic arrangement that imposes singular dogmatic beliefs from a governmental podium...is that Secular Liberal Democracy IS the Christian solution for government, and a crowning achievement derived from the Christianization of Europe, the enlightenment and the advent of Liberalism.

[GrenfellHunt]

1. A theocracy by definition is rule by the priests/clerics. No Christian group in the US of any significance is suggesting such a thing. Many American Muslims are.
2. Most European states have an established church (England, Spain, etc), yet none are theocracies. No Christian group in the US of any significance has even gone so far as to propose creating an established church.
3. The closest any group has come to #1 or #2 is the Texas Republican party platform of a few years back that wanted the US to declare itself a Christian nation--something that can actually be found in at least one US Supreme Court opinion. Even if such a proposal were accepted, the US would still not be a theocracy, and would still be vastly more dedicated to separation of church and state than most of Euorpe. Yet the very bad idea of declaring the US a Christian nation has no meaningful support outside of the Texas GOP.
4. Summary: nobody is pushing theocracy in the US except some Muslims. The fears and phobias of some liberals about "Christian theocracy" say much more about the anti-religious bigotry of many cultural elites than about the realities of American politics

[igout]

I have spent most of my life around people who fret over this subject. They're smart, cultivated; they go to neat places, do fun things. They know the good restaurants, go to concerts and gallery openings, and, like me, prefer foreign movies. Many are animal lovers and care about the environment, which is good. They tend to be warm and companionable people, witty and wonderful conversationalists, and I'm always happy to spend an evening with them.

However as lovely as these people are, when it comes time to defend the freedoms they carry on so about, they cave. Cave to the idiot-followers of a 7th century pederast and robber. To take one ridiculous but so significant example, look at the Mohammed (peebuh) cartoons. Oh, these good and tolerant people about huffed and puffed about respect, and understanding other peoples’ beliefs and cultures, but we all know the truth. They’re cowards. I have nothing to say to them beyond what Samuel Adams said of such folk 200 years ago:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

Meanwhile, I look around and see only two groups with the guts to smack down the Islamopaths. The Israelis and the dwellers in Jeezusland USA. American theocracy? I’m not very religious myself, but count me in. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

[Francis W. Porretto]

What's particularly ironic about the whole "Christian theocracy" bit is the readiness of anti-theists to assault Christians through the mechanisms of law and institutional policy, simply because they have Christian views of certain subjects. Since a "-cracy" of any sort must, to be valid, use actual coercive power to get its way -- the nature of a State, don't y'know -- that would put the anti-theists in the "-cracy" and us Christians quite definitely outside it.

Explains a lot, when you ponder it: By breaking through their barriers of fear and derision, George W. Bush, one of the most thoroughly decent men ever to hold the presidency, has delivered a double blow to the anti-theists' presumptions. No wonder they hate him.

[Darrell]

Just another lie in a long line by the Left. Ask them to offer any proof and you'll get a mention of Bush using the word "God" in a public speech, or meeting with a Christian minister. Scary stuff! I'll ask Terri Schiavo about the "power" of the Christian theocracy in the US.

And the Nagasaki a-bomb(plutonium fission bomb) was detonated at a height of 1800 feet(550 meters), to affect maximum destruction. Not to detract from Father Zabelka's "story," mind you...I'm sure it was headed "right for" Urakami Cathedral! Which he "saw"... I "saw" 2 million Allied casualties being avoided. Maybe the good father should have been interested in what happened at the Franciscan Friary in Nagasaki established by St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe. Or Fr. Hubert Schiffer in Hiroshima.

[Kenny Pierce]

You know, Alexandra, I composed a comment on poor ol' well-meaning, weak-minded Fr. Zabecki, but there were two problems with it:

1. The pacifist thing was a blatant attempt to hijack your thread, which is not about pacifism, and I don't want to aid and abet hijackers.

2. I have a major charity problem when I run up against stupid people, and Fr. Zabecki is one of those unfortunate persons to whom was granted a room-temperature IQ, and my comment was quite uncharitable.

So let's just say that Christian pacifists try very hard to pretend that Romans 13 (especially vv. 4-6) doesn't exist, and leave it at that.

As far as the looming threat of Christian theocracy: people who use the term with reference to the United States are either being deliberately silly, or else have absolutely no idea what a real theocracy looks like -- despite the fact that history and even the modern-day world are replete with examples. "Theocracy" is very rapidly becoming a word like "fascism" or "racism" -- that is, a pure emotion-word with no real meaning, a word that is used to inhibit thought, not to enable it. "Theocrat" now largely means, in American discourse, "person who engages in politics and who openly believes in God and whose politics are anywhere to the right of Molly Ivins, and whom I would rather intimidate than understand." That is to say, it has become a term of abuse, tossed sloppily about by the intellectually indolent.

Man, I'm in a crappy mood tonight. I should just shut up and try again later...

[Stefan]

In regards to the piece by Father Zabelka, it is easy to understand his painful memories and his feeling of guilt in “blessing” the A-bomb Pilots. It was an action of awesome proportions and should not be taken lightly even today. I can fully understand that someone who has been through war could turn against it forever after. His position deserves to be respected and sympathized with but I do not agree with it. I agree with Patrick when he notes that police officers would be unable to defend us, parents couldn’t protect their children etc. unless there was some just use of violent means. There would be no self-defense…ever. The Just War doctrine of the Catholic Church (although arguably in need of a serious contemplation on modern sources of violence) is not just a simple rationalization in order to rubber stamp warfare. That is a pathetic reading of a very powerful, thoughtful, and often difficult application of Christian morality to the tragedy of human violence and aggression. That does not mean that in a Just war there are not, or were not, terrible sins committed even by the Allies, for example. War is a great evil, there is no doubt; it is the complete and total collapse and failure of civil discourse in the extreme and should never be engaged lightly or dealt with in a flip manner. Do we know for a fact that the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima was justified? No, only God knows what he thought of it.

It is just to defend the defenseless, to free the oppressed, to protect the innocent, and to defend your family. A soldier should enjoy the camaraderie of his brothers in arms, be proud of his service and his willingness to sacrifice his life for another’s, enjoy the skills and knowledge of his training, grow and learn from discipline and hard work, but they should NEVER enjoy or revel in killing (if there are called on to do it). It is training that one hopes will never be needed. The Polish underground in WWII had a rule for assassins (those that carried out operations against Nazi officers etc.). They were only allowed to make two (I believe was the number) kills and then were never allowed to assassinate again and were required to go to confession and seek penance. This is a very wise understanding that humans must be very careful, even when acting on behalf of justice and freedom, because the heart can be easily corrupted.

As to the take over of America by the… *gasp* …“Religious Right”……Bah!! I have yet to get an answer (and I have asked many, many people who have asserted this) as to how this “take over” is occurring. Please cite one example of Christianity taking over the government……anyone…any policy….any law? The best a friend of mine could come up with was optional School Vouchers!! aHAHAhahahha!!! That proves Christians must be on the verge of complete domination if you ask me!!!!!

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

I'm the guy who wrote the essays to which Alexandra so graciously linked, and as usual I'm impressed with the quality of thought in the comments boxes here. Two people got my attention negatively, however: Stephen A. Prince mistook this space for a confessional and then sent a parade of straw men marching through it, and Norm Bernstein figures that because he got suckered by Nazi iconography, I should be, too. Wrong on both counts.

"Militarized Christianity?" I never used the phrase, though I'm happy to claim membership in that theological construct known as "the church militant." And before condemning apparent hypocrisy in the chaplains' corps, we might all profit from meditating not only on Christ's passion, but also on the examples of Roman centurions --i.e., professional soldiers-- in the gospel. Of one, Jesus says that he's never seen such faith. Another correctly interprets the tearing of the temple veil after the crucifixtion to mean that Jesus was the son of God. Neither soldier is told that he can't be a disciple of Christ without changing careers. I'm just sayin,' is all.

Similarly, Mr. Bernstein's citation of the inscription on Nazi uniform brass is irrelevant to the political structure of the "Third Reich" and the aims of National Socialism, which hated Christians nearly as much as it hated Jews. A dictatorship that appropriates some religious language for its own uses while simultaneously machine-gunning rabbis, priests, ministers, etc. is not the same as a theocracy. Dietrich Boenhoffer, Edith Stein, Maximilian Kolbe, and other such heroes could have set Mr. Bernstein straight on that score.

[David Foster]

Back to the "theocracy" issue: I think there is often a tendency for people to view those closer to them--people they actually know or feel like they know--as the "enemy", to a greater extent than people they *don't* know who are actually more of a threat. There are certainly companies in which the rivalry between departments far exceeds the rivalry toward any competitor. I think we may be seeing something of the same sort here.

[Crusader.NoRegrets]

I can't imagine a situation in which Christ himself would have forbidden the Western Allies from going to the defence of Poland and Russia in the last War. I do not believe Christ meant to say we cannot defend the societies and order in which we live. Aren't these things placed there by God?

For me "Love thine enemies" commands me to hold no grudges in warfare, to exact no revenge, to treat the enemy as I'd wish to be treated were I to be defeated/captured by him. There is such a thing as civilised warfare, (see Rwanda for an example of the uncivilised kind). War is hell, but this world always was imperfect, and so frought with war, disease, and corruption.

Early Christians I suspect sought very much to distance themselves from movements such as the Zealots, and non-violence was prescribed in those circumstances, as they wished to show they were no military threat to the Roman Imperial order. But to dogmatically insist that no Christian society has the right to self-defence is absurd.

"All who take the sword shall perish by the sword" are words intended for people like Mr Hitler, and Stalin, and the president of Iran, at least it seems so when compared with other sayings. Certainly they speak to Peter's reflexive attack on the servant.

[Norm Bernstein]

"...while forgetting that everything from Soviet gulags to Cambodian killing fields to Nazi death camps was justified in the name of secular humanism."

Evidently, the writer never saw the Nazi uniform buttons that had the phrase 'Gott Mit Uns' ("God is with us") engraved on them.

[Patrick]

Sorry all, I hit post instead of preview. Please forgive the typos.

[jeff stiles]

Amen Valerie, Mr. Prince's message would serve a much better purpose if it were delivered to Tehran.

But back on topic. I don't think Americans have any reason to fear our country ever becoming a theocracy. Besides the fact live in an increasingly secular society that seeks to remove even the mention of God from the public theater, evangelical Christians would not care themselves to see an intertwining of the government with our personal faith.

[Patrick]

Stephen,

Alright, we know what the good Father felt. What is your point?

My heartburn here is with the "Militarized Christianity is a lie." So according to the good Father and I assume youself, since you posted this, is that no Military member can call himself/herself a Christian.

It is an impassioned condemnation of all violence. So, I guess then, that none of our police officers can be Christians either?

Please don't just post someone's speech up here, tell me what you think on this, and we can talk. I do not claim to be a great Christian, however I do not find my military service precludes me from being a Christian.

The good Father should do a little reading from Islam before he says "all" religions. Or maybe just a few of the actually abhorrent ones with no redeeming values, like Thugees? That is why you should avoid using words like "all". And if "all" people want people want peace, who starts the war and violence? Labrador retrievers?

His points also sets up strawmen and breaks them down.

"It is a lie to say that the spirit that moves the trigger of a flamethrower is the Holy Spirit. It is a lie to say that learning to kill is learning to be Christ-like. It is a lie to say that learning to drive a bayonet into the heart of another is motivated from having put on the mind of Christ."

I have never heard this perspective ever espoused, and I am an Infantryman. Yes, I am an Episcopalian, however, we are a small community in the military and I frequently find myself in Catholic services. I have never heard anything like the above statement in my ~21 years of military service at a Protestant, Catholic, or Episcopalian service.

[Valerie Alexander]

Father,

Go tell it to the Iranians.

[Stephen A Prince]

Father George Zabelka, a Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Air Force, served as a priest for the airmen who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and gave them his blessing. Over the next twenty years, he gradually came to believe that he had been terribly wrong, that he had denied the very foundations of his faith by lending moral and religious support to the bombing. Zabelka, who died in 1992, gave this speech on the 40th anniversary of the bombings.

The destruction of civilians in war was always forbidden by the Church, and if a soldier came to me and asked if he could put a bullet through a child's head, I would have told him, absolutely not. That would be mortally sinful. But in 1945 Tinian Island was the largest airfield in the world. Three planes a minute could take off from it around the clock. Many of these planes went to Japan with the express purpose of killing not one child or one civilian but of slaughtering hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of children and civilians – and I said nothing.

As a Catholic chaplain I watched as the Boxcar, piloted by a good Irish Catholic pilot, dropped the bomb on Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki, the center of Catholicism in Japan.

I never preached a single sermon against killing civilians to the men who were doing it. I was brainwashed! It never entered my mind to protest publicly the consequences of these massive air raids. I was told it was necessary – told openly by the military and told implicitly by my Church's leadership. (To the best of my knowledge no American cardinals or bishops were opposing these mass air raids. Silence in such matters is a stamp of approval.)

I worked with Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Civil Rights struggle in Flint, Michigan. His example and his words of nonviolent action, choosing love instead of hate, truth instead of lies, and nonviolence instead of violence stirred me deeply. This brought me face to face with pacifism – active nonviolent resistance to evil. I recall his words after he was jailed in Montgomery, and this blew my mind. He said, "Blood may flow in the streets of Montgomery before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood that flows, and not that of the white man. We must not harm a single hair on the head of our white brothers."

I struggled. I argued. But yes, there it was in the Sermon on the Mount, very clear: "Love your enemies. Return good for evil." I went through a crisis of faith. Either accept what Christ said, as unpassable and silly as it may seem, or deny him completely.

For the last 1700 years the Church has not only been making war respectable: it has been inducing people to believe it is an honorable profession, an honorable Christian profession. This is not true. We have been brainwashed. This is a lie.

War is now, always has been, and always will be bad, bad news. I was there. I saw real war. Those who have seen real war will bear me out. I assure you, it is not of Christ. It is not Christ's way. There is no way to conduct real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. There is no way to train people for real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus.

The morality of the balance of terrorism is a morality that Christ never taught. The ethics of mass butchery cannot be found in the teachings of Jesus. In Just War ethics, Jesus Christ, who is supposed to be all in the Christian life, is irrelevant. He might as well never have existed. In Just War ethics, no appeal is made to him or his teaching, because no appeal can be made to him or his teaching, for neither he nor his teaching gives standards for Christians to follow in order to determine what level of slaughter is acceptable.

So the world is watching today. Ethical hairsplitting over the morality of various types of instruments and structures of mass slaughter is not what the world needs from the Church, although it is what the world has come to expect from the followers of Christ. What the world needs is a grouping of Christians that will stand up and pay up with Jesus Christ. What the world needs is Christians who, in language that the simplest soul could understand, will proclaim: the follower of Christ cannot participate in mass slaughter. He or she must love as Christ loved, live as Christ lived, and, if necessary, die as Christ died, loving ones enemies.

For the 300 years immediately following Jesus' resurrection, the Church universally saw Christ and his teaching as nonviolent. Remember that the Church taught this ethic in the face of at least three serious attempts by the state to liquidate her. It was subject to horrendous and ongoing torture and death. If ever there was an occasion for justified retaliation and defensive slaughter, whether in form of a just war or a just revolution, this was it. The economic and political elite of the Roman state and their military had turned the citizens of the state against Christians and were embarked on a murderous public policy of exterminating the Christian community.

Yet the Church, in the face of the heinous crimes committed against her members, insisted without reservation that when Christ disarmed Peter he disarmed all Christians.

Christians continued to believe that Christ was, to use the words of an ancient liturgy, their fortress, their refuge, and their strength, and that if Christ was all they needed for security and defense, then Christ was all they should have. Indeed, this was a new security ethic. Christians understood that if they would only follow Christ and his teaching, they couldn't fail. When opportunities were given for Christians to appease the state by joining the fighting Roman army, these opportunities were rejected, because the early Church saw a complete and an obvious incompatibility between loving as Christ loved and killing. It was Christ, not Mars, who gave security and peace.

Today the world is on the brink of ruin because the Church refuses to be the Church, because we Christians have been deceiving ourselves and the non-Christian world about the truth of Christ. There is no way to follow Christ, to love as Christ loved, and simultaneously to kill other people. It is a lie to say that the spirit that moves the trigger of a flamethrower is the Holy Spirit. It is a lie to say that learning to kill is learning to be Christ-like. It is a lie to say that learning to drive a bayonet into the heart of another is motivated from having put on the mind of Christ. Militarized Christianity is a lie. It is radically out of conformity with the teaching, life, and spirit of Jesus.

Now, brothers and sisters, on the anniversary of this terrible atrocity carried out by Christians, I must be the first to say that I made a terrible mistake. I was had by the father of lies. I participated in the big ecumenical lie of the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches. I wore the uniform. I was part of the system. When I said Mass over there I put on those beautiful vestments over my uniform. (When Father Dave Becker left the Trident submarine base in 1982 and resigned as Catholic chaplain there, he said, "Every time I went to Mass in my uniform and put the vestments on over my uniform, I couldn't help but think of the words of Christ applying to me: Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.")

As an Air Force chaplain I painted a machine gun in the loving hands of the nonviolent Jesus, and then handed this perverse picture to the world as truth. I sang "Praise the Lord" and passed the ammunition. As Catholic chaplain for the 509th Composite Group, I was the final channel that communicated this fraudulent image of Christ to the crews of the Enola Gay and the Boxcar.

All I can say today is that I was wrong. Christ would not be the instrument to unleash such horror on his people. Therefore no follower of Christ can legitimately unleash the horror of war on God's people. Excuses and self-justifying explanations are without merit. All I can say is: I was wrong! But, if this is all I can say, this I must do, feeble as it is. For to do otherwise would be to bypass the first and absolutely essential step in the process of repentance and reconciliation: admission of error, admission of guilt.

There is no way to conduct real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus.

I was there, and I was wrong. Yes, war is Hell, and Christ did not come to justify the creation of Hell on earth by his disciples. The justification of war may be compatible with some religions and philosophies, but it is not compatible with the nonviolent teaching of Jesus. I was wrong. And to those of whatever nationality or religion who have been hurt because I fell under the influence of the father of lies, I say with my whole heart and soul I am sorry. I beg forgiveness.

I asked forgiveness from the Hibakushas (the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombings) in Japan last year, in a pilgrimage that I made with a group from Tokyo to Hiroshima. I fell on my face there at the peace shrine after offering flowers, and I prayed for forgiveness – for myself, for my country, for my Church. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This year in Toronto, I again asked forgiveness from the Hibakushas present. I asked forgiveness, and they asked forgiveness for Pearl Harbor and some of the horrible deeds of the Japanese military, and there were some, and I knew of them. We embraced. We cried. Tears flowed. That is the first step of reconciliation – admission of guilt and forgiveness. Pray to God that others will find this way to peace.

All religions have taught brotherhood. All people want peace. It is only the governments and war departments that promote war and slaughter. So today again I call upon people to make their voices heard. We can no longer just leave this to our leaders, both political and religious. They will move when we make them move. They represent us. Let us tell them that they must think and act for the safety and security of all the people in our world, not just for the safety and security of one country. All countries are interdependent. We all need one another. It is no longer possible for individual countries to think only of themselves. We can all live together as brothers and sisters or we are doomed to die together as fools in a world holocaust.

Each one of us becomes responsible for the crime of war by cooperating in its preparation and in its execution. This includes the military. This includes the making of weapons. And it includes paying for the weapons. There's no question about that. We've got to realize we all become responsible. Silence, doing nothing, can be one of the greatest sins.

The bombing of Nagasaki means even more to me than the bombing of Hiroshima. By August 9, 1945, we knew what that bomb would do, but we still dropped it. We knew that agonies and sufferings would ensue, and we also knew – at least our leaders knew – that it was not necessary. The Japanese were already defeated. They were already suing for peace. But we insisted on unconditional surrender, and this is even against the Just War theory. Once the enemy is defeated, once the enemy is not able to hurt you, you must make peace.

Militarized Christianity is a lie. It is radically out of conformity with the teaching, life, and spirit of Jesus.

As a Catholic chaplain I watched as the Boxcar, piloted by a good Irish Catholic pilot, dropped the bomb on Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki, the center of Catholicism in Japan. I knew that St. Francis Xavier, centuries before, had brought the Catholic faith to Japan. I knew that schools, churches, and religious orders were annihilated. And yet I said nothing.

Thank God that I'm able to stand here today and speak out against war, all war. The prophets of the Old Testament spoke out against all false gods of gold, silver, and metal. Today we are worshipping the gods of metal, the bomb. We are putting our trust in physical power, militarism, and nationalism. The bomb, not God, is our security and our strength. The prophets of the Old Testament said simply: Do not put your trust in chariots and weapons, but put your trust in God. Their message was simple, and so is mine.

We must all become prophets. I really mean that. We must all do something for peace. We must stop this insanity of worshipping the gods of metal. We must take a stand against evil and idolatry. This is our destiny at the most critical time of human history. But it's also the greatest opportunity ever offered to any group of people in the history of our world – to save our world from complete annihilation.

August 17, 2005

[Peakah]

Great essays! Unfortunately people like these find nothing but absolute fear in the presence of anything Christian...

Hope you have a great Easter Holiday. Keep up the great work Alexandra!

[http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/]

Ah yes, the problem of Secular Fundamentalists and Other Simple People of Faith.