THE WORK WE ARE APPOINTED TO DO
November 17, 2002
The Reverend Anne Felton Hines
I have an uncle who was a member of Congress for about 18 years. He served the lone Democratic district in San Diego, and had planned to serve one more term before retiring when the election of Ronald Reagan to the Presidency swept him out of office. He and my aunt settled down in San Diego, and he's written a weekly column for the San Diego Union ever since.
So a couple of weeks ago I called him and asked if he'd written anything recently about the possibility of a United States attack on Iraq, and if so, would he send it to me? I said I was going to be preaching on the subject Nov. 17th. His reply was, "What's taken you so long?"
I imagine some of you have been wondering the same thing. It's not that I haven't been concerned about what the Bush Administration has been threatening to do for the past several months; it's certainly not that I haven't had lots to say about it! But you and I don't really know each other very well yet. We haven't had the chance to develop a level of trust that is usually required when approaching controversial subjects.
Nevertheless, the issue of an impending war with Iraq is too important to ignore. I have been experiencing such frustration and anguish in the past several weeks, as President Bush, along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, have continued to issue warnings to Saddam Hussein, and Congress has given in to their arguments. And while the United Nations, in the Resolution passed last week calling for renewed inspections, did not endorse military action, there is no doubt in my mind that the Bush Administration sees it as another sign of encouragement for them.
In addition to my own frustration and fear compelling me to speak out, I received a statement issued by the presidents of all nine Seminaries at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, which includes our own Starr King School for the Ministry. This letter urged "religious leaders…to use our voice and influence to make local religious communities places of prayers for peace and lively discussions of the right course for this country to take." They made it clear, as have many other religious leaders, that they do not feel that a war with Iraq is morally or legally justified.
And so, with the encouragement of the Committee on Ministry, as well as my own conscience, I have decided to share with you some of my concerns about a United States attack on Iraq, and trust that we can begin an open and tender dialogue about it.
Perhaps I should first admit that I have not particularly trusted our current President, or his top advisors, for a long time. I won't go into all the reasons why now, but I became most uneasy after 9/11, when he began talking about wanting Osama bin Laden "dead or alive;" it just sounded as if he was playing "cowboys and Indians." Ever since then, his speeches have become more and more belligerent, issuing statements like, "We will hunt you down," and in a speech at Iowa Western Community College, "It's Us versus Them." And of course, he's had no qualms about naming specific persons and countries as "evil" - a concept with which even the most scholarly theologians continue to wrestle!
The foundation of the Administration's argument for waging war on Iraq is that Saddam Hussein has been building up a large cache of "weapons of mass destruction," and is preparing to attack us and/or our allies at any moment. But in fact, a CIA report last year stated that all evidence of Iraq's weapons buildup is circumstantial and not new. And a recent study conducted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, found that while Iraq retains the scientific expertise to make a nuclear bomb, it lacks the necessary material to do that.
According to the Middle East Research and Information Project, questions do still remain about chemical and biological weapons. But in the 1990s, U.N. inspectors destroyed thousands of prohibited chemical warheads and millions of liters of chemical agents. And Iraq insists that whatever chemical agents it used during the Gulf War have all been destroyed since then. But Britain and the United States have ignored Iraq's claims, referring instead to these weapons as "missing" or "unaccounted for." Still, Scott Ritter, former U.N. Weapons Inspector, has insisted that Iraq presents "absolutely nothing" of a military threat.
In a recent article on the subject, former President Jimmy Carter points out that not only is there no current danger to the United States from Baghdad, but in the face of intense monitoring and overwhelming American military superiority, any aggressive move by Hussein would be suicidal.
On the other hand, Carter points out that if Hussein does have weapons, nuclear or biological, he'd certainly use them against Israel and other U.S. allies in retaliation for any attack we'd make on his country. Do we really want to take that risk?
I am concerned that we are willing to take actions that will cause more harm to innocent people than has already been caused, and will once again call into question our humanitarianism? The United States is already viewed by people around the world as a bully, who, because we have more wealth and power than any other nation in the world, feels we can simply do whatever we want.
After President Bush claimed that "America is a friend of the people of Iraq," James Jennings, president of Conscience International, said, "Try telling that to a taxi driver I met whose four-year-old child shook uncontrollably for three days following Clinton's 1998 bombing. Try telling it to the hundreds of mothers I have seen crying over their dying babies in Iraqi hospitals, and to the hundreds of thousands of parents who have actually lost their infant children due to the cruel U.S. blockade, euphemistically called 'sanctions.' Are the Iraqi people supposed to rejoice now that a new war is being forced upon them by their so-called 'friends?'"
The Christian Science Monitor sizes up the "friendship factor" this way: "Many (Iraqis) say they have nothing against Americans, and then bluntly state that they hate the U.S. government."
9/11 proved that such hatred no longer remains passive. We have become more vulnerable than ever before, and every time our government takes an action that fuels the hatred of us, that vulnerability increases dramatically. We can be sure that an attack on Iraq would result in retaliation on us by terrorists sympathetic with that country. Do we want to risk that, for ourselves and for our children?
Even if war with Iraq were not to put innocent people in this country at risk, it will certainly put innocent Iraqis at risk. There is no way that bombs will only fall on military targets; we saw that in Afghanistan, and we saw it during the first Persian Gulf war. Is going to war worth the loss of so many innocent lives?
I am concerned about the financial cost to America if we engage in war with Iraq. Our economy is already in terrible shape, with urgently-needed social programs being curtailed because both state and federal budgets are running deficits. The cost of war will be billions of dollars, not only for the war itself, but for all that will need to be done after the war ends. How can we justify putting our own country - our own children -- at such a financial risk in order to rid the world of Saddam Hussein? I have to question the morality of that.
And what makes us think we'll be successful in overthrowing Hussein? We've failed to meet our goals thus far in the "war on terrorism": Osama bin Laden is still running free, and frightening us with videotaped threats; we know that another huge terrorist attack may occur at any time, but seem no closer to preventing it; and despite Bush's claim that we've arrested "hundreds of terrorists," I don't think any of them have been tried and found guilty yet - they're simply a bunch of suspects locked up awaiting trial! So why in the world do we think we'd have more success in Iraq?!
Given all these concerns (and I've only voiced a few), I have to wonder if there are other reasons for attacking Iraq besides "protecting the world against Saddam Hussein." I have to wonder if some critics are right: That President Bush is simply trying to distract us from the poor economy here at home; or the fact that we're not winning the War on Terrorism, and; as one colleague wrote, that some of his friends have committed "the worst corporate malfeasance the United States has ever known." We certainly hear little of those concerns these days.
Or is it, as so many of the protest signs suggest, an excuse to have free access once again to oil? Since 2/3 of the world's petroleum reserves are found in the Persian Gulf, obviously, a new U.S.-allied Iraqi government would benefit us greatly, and cannot be overlooked as at least a secondary goal of a war with Iraq.
If it is true - and I stress the "if" here -- that we're not being told by our government the real reasons for attacking Iraq, but only a fabrication to build support for action that most Americans might not support if they knew the real reasons, then what we are witnessing may be (and I stress the "may" here) one of the more sinister and immoral actions by our government that we've seen in a long time. And the fact that Congress is agreeing to it is frightening.
It is because of the lack of clear evidence of imminent threat from Iraq, and the cost to innocent human life, that such a war does not appear to meet the criteria either of international law, or of religious guidelines. But given the very real threats by the United States toward Iraq, it's possible that Iraq would be within their legal and religious right to attack us! I pray that they don't.
But I am frightened these days. I am frightened that our government is taking us down an extremely dangerous path, and that there seems to be no way to stop it. I am frightened that belligerent rhetoric is being thrown around, by both our leaders and the leaders of Iraq, rather than rational dialogue that could lead to peace. And while I certainly do not trust Saddam Hussein, I am frightened by the reality that no matter what he says, the Bush administration calls him a liar. We have put him, and the people of Iraq, in a no-win situation, and this makes war almost unavoidable.
As a minister, I must stand on the side of Peace. I stand there because of my interpretation of our sixth Unitarian Universalist Principle: "…the goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all." I believe that Principle calls all of us to support war only when there is powerful evidence that it's the only way to achieve "peace, liberty and justice for all."
And I stand on the side of Peace because the roots of my faith also teach peace and justice. When Jesus supposedly said, "Blessed are the Peacemakers," I believe he was calling us to do all we can to create peace between people, and between nations. I stand for Peace knowing that the leaders of almost every major religion are also standing there with me, especially against this impending war with Iraq.
And so I turn to them when fear seems to paralyze me. Leaders such as Jim Winkler of the United Methodist Church, who wrote:
I ask United Methodists to oppose this reckless measure and urge the President to immediately pursue other means to resolve the threat posed by Iraq. Our Church categorically opposes interventions by more powerful nations against weaker ones. If we, as United Methodists, are to take seriously the words of Jesus to become peacemakers and seek justice and peace with one another, we must speak out now.
I turn to leaders such as Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who wrote in a letter to President Bush that an American invasion of Iraq would not meet the criteria for a "just war," and urged him to "step back from the brink of war." The entire Conference has come out against the war - far earlier than they did with the Vietnam War.
I turn to religious leaders such as the presidents of the nine seminaries in the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, and their powerful two-page statement against going to war.
And of course, I turn to the president of our own Unitarian Universalist Association, William Sinkford, who has joined clergy of many other faiths in urging President Bush and Congress not to invade Iraq.
But it is not only religious leaders who are speaking out of their faith against this war. Many Unitarian Universalist laypeople went to Washington, D.C. recently for the massive rally protesting war with Iraq; and a number of UU congregations have issued statements against the war. In some instances, they've been similar to the letter you were all invited to sign here a couple of weeks ago, where individuals took the stand but not the entire congregation; in other instances, the Board of Trustees of a congregation voted to speak out against the war; and in still other instances, the entire congregation has voted to protest our country's invasion of Iraq.
All of this gives me hope and courage, and helps raise me out of apathy or paralysis.
So what might Emerson UU Church do? Our Emerson Social Action Alliance had quite a lengthy conversation about last Monday night, and unanimously passed a resolution against the war. Some members will visit vigils in either Van Nuys, which are held every Friday morning in front of the courthouse, or in Thousand Oaks, held every Saturday morning; the ones in Thousand Oaks were originally organized by the UU Fellowship there. And we talked of organizing our own vigils locally, in collaboration with other peacemakers in the West Valley.
But I am not assuming that everyone in this congregation has made up their mind on the issue of Iraq - or if you have, that your position necessarily matches mine. It would be a rare day to have every person in a UU congregation agree on anything! And so I hope you will join me after the service, back here in the Sanctuary, for a time of reflection and discussion of today's sermon. And of course, I welcome your comments, whether in agreement or not, privately as well. We have much to learn from one another.
And while I might like to see this church, as a body, become a witness against war, I would never want us to do that without many conversations about it first. Neither I, nor the Social Action Alliance, nor the Unitarian Universalist Association, can speak for each of you; only you can do that.
But I also hope we won't remain complacent. This is an important time for our country, and the voice of liberal religion must be at the table - not only in Washington, D.C., but in California, and even in Canoga Park. As we sang a little while ago, "Earth has heard too long of battle," and we must be there to help welcome "the angel Peace."
Universalist minister Olympia Brown said long ago:
We can never make the world safe by fighting. Every nation must learn that the people of all nations are children of God, and must share the wealth of the world.
You may say this is impracticable…,can never be accomplished, but it is the work we are appointed to do.
May we enter into this work together, with faith and courage and love.
Amen.
© 2002 Anne Felton Hines. All rights reserved.
