Should UUs become pacifists?

[applewuud]

Is anyone having talks in their church about the "eighth principle" proposal? At the last General Assembly, a Study Action Issue was passed. Over the next three years, we're supposed to be talking about whether Unitarian Universalism should take a formal position that all human conflicts should be resolved non-violently, banning support for war and militarism.

The exact phrasing of such a principle deserves a lot of thought. But I haven't seen much about it where I am, even among the social activists. I fear that in two years, all of a sudden we'll have a big contentious debate as an "eighth principle" comes up for a binding vote. So perhaps on this forum we could have a discussion.

Historically UUs have been supporters of "just war" theory (the idea that sometimes war is justified, in self-defense or to overturn oppression). The main example of this was Unitarian/abolitionist support for the Union in the Civil War. In recent decades, though, we've been more Quaker-like in our opposition to war.

It would be a huge statement for UUs to become a legally pacifist church. There's a lot of sentiment in favor of it. But there's a lot of support for pro-liberation movements that resort to violence when deemed necessary, e.g. against the Nazis in WWII, or in favor of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

Reinhold Niehbur wrote a lot about this topic. He had been a pacifist when he started his ministry, then when he saw how police violence was used to break strikers in Detroit, he began to see total nonviolence as letting evil get the upper hand. The nonviolence of Gandhi and Martin Luther King works under the assumption that a society has some sense of shame, some willingness to look at itself. What if a society is out of control?

There will be sessions about this at the GA in Portland in June. Anyone going?

 

[applewuud]

The link to the "Peacemaking" statement drafted by the Commission on Social Witness is: http://www.uua.org/csw/CSAI_06-10_P.pdf

 

[Stairs In My House]

I think my problem with "non-violence" is that it's not always very clear what's violence and what isn't. Does the violence in a violent uprising start with the first rock that's thrown, or does it start with the institutionalized oppression, inequity, or poverty that brought someone to that point?

I think I worry that taking a position in opposition to violence sounds good in theory but in practice will result in opposing some kinds of violence while tacitly supporting other, less obvious kinds of violence.

 

[applewuud]

I think I worry that taking a position in opposition to violence sounds good in theory but in practice will result in opposing some kinds of violence while tacitly supporting other, less obvious kinds of violence.

I agree, and that is the heart of the matter. But one idea behind the "Peacemaking" SAI discussion is that things are so complicated in terms of effects and consequences of violence, that we should just say "stop", like the Mennonites and Quakers. We don't know exactly how to make a just and fair world, but we know that violence never leads to it.

The questions in the initiative should be explored in depth--they're good questions. Why isn't this getting more attention? Is it just a small cell of pacifists that got a measure through the General Assembly, and the rest of the Association is killing it by ignoring it?

 

[Stairs In My House]

We don't know exactly how to make a just and fair world, but we know that violence never leads to it.

Who's "we"? I don't know that and I'm not sure I even believe it. I guess that means I'm opposed.

 

[lilithu]

The exact phrasing of such a principle deserves a lot of thought. But I haven't seen much about it where I am, even among the social activists. I fear that in two years, all of a sudden we'll have a big contentious debate as an "eighth principle" comes up for a binding vote. So perhaps on this forum we could have a discussion.

There is a lot of discussion about it where I am, tho I have not heard of it being refered to as pacifism = "the 8th principle." (That's a bit inflammatory.) The CSAI/SOC process is, afterall, unrelated to the current review of our seven principles.

I highly, highly, highly doubt - in fact, I can almost guarantee - that it will not be the case that three years from now, all of the sudden we will be voting on whether or not be to pacifist. For one thing, the point of changing the social witness process from two to four years is to give congregations enough time for the current CSAI to sink in and be discussed. And second, I know that the people involved are not naive enough to think that we can get UUs to agree to either side of the traditional dichotomy of such a complex issue. It's time to move beyond the "just war" versus "pacifism" argument. That's so 20th century.

 

[des]

It's time to move beyond the "just war" versus "pacifism" argument. That's so 20th century.

I'm wondering if it is even possible to do a "just war" anymore. Are there potential situations. Would genocide count there? For instance, if some country would go in a drop a bunch of bombs in Darfur and stop the genocide would that be morally defensable. (This was basically the argument in Bosnia. Perhaps we should ask Jamala.)


Was Afganistan defensible in some sense? I have very mixed views on that one.

I guess I am not exactly a pacifist, otoh, I can't think of too many situations in the 21st C where it is too much the just war thing anymore.


--des

 

[applewuud]

Who's "we"? I don't know that and I'm not sure I even believe it. I guess that means I'm opposed.

The "we" would be the UUA, in this proposal. I don't "know" that either, but there's a lot of empirical (from behavioral sciences) and historical evidence to demonstrate how violence as a means of social or political control causes more problems than it cures. I'm not a pacifist myself at the moment but I'm intrigued by the clarity of some of their propositions.

The materials about the "Peacemaking" SAI encourage us to explore this question in depth and see if it's justifiable to move in that direction. One advocate of an "8th principle" made an interesting point: UU's relationship to pacifism now is like the Unitarians' relationship to abolitionists before the Civil War, i.e., we're sympathetic, some of our leaders are way in front on the issue, but we don't want to "go too far". William Ellery Channing wound up losing his pulpit over slavery when he finally came out for emancipation, after years of being a "moderate".

There is a lot of discussion about it where I am, tho I have not heard of it being refered to as pacifism = "the 8th principle." (That's a bit inflammatory.) The CSAI/SOC process is, afterall, unrelated to the current review of our seven principles.

The SAI is explicit in calling the question of whether the UUA should adopt a principle of peacemaking somehow. In St. Louis, that was the clear intent of many discussions I heard, although when you read the text it's a bit obscure. It certainly would be a major, major deal to get an "8th principle" passed. But then, what good are SAIs if they don't get us arguing a bit?