In 1970, the Christian Science board of directors issued a statement saying that it was not a pacifist church in the same sense as Quakers and Mennonites, but that it was deeply committed to the "establishment of peace on Earth and to unceasing search for pacific methods of settling national differences."
They noted that Eddy wrote that "war is in itself evil, barbarous, devilish," but in related passages noted that war may sometimes be the lesser of two evils and that armaments may be necessary for the prevention of war and the preservation of peace.
Shays said that as he has matured and experienced life, his views have shifted.
But it's a double clever move. Becuase he's not moving from non-pacifist to pacifist (that would be too transparent). He's moving from pacifist to non-pacifist. Voters would interpret such a shift as indicating inside of him now a willingness to support the war.
But he's doing the precise opposite -- pulling support. So it seems as if, the way he puts it, he's "matured". He now embraces a Weltanschauung which could include a justifiable war. By saying that, he's setting up voters to trust his new judgment that Bush policy toward Iraq is increasingly unjustifiable.
As a religious person (but not a Christian Scientist), I know it's impossible that anyone can support the invasion of Iraq in good conscience. Conscience tells us -- indeed I believe God tells us -- that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a large-scale act of evil. I'll debate it till the cows come home with anyone who wishes to take me up on it. Especially Mr. Faith himself, Georgie Falwell Bush, should he care to ask my opinion. (But then again, I'd have a couple other things to say to Bush first. But you all know that I think this should be a family blog.) Would the great men of religious conscience have invaded Iraq? Ghandi? The Dalai Lama? The Pope made it very clear, too, that the invasion was an act against God.
What Shays is saying, essentially, is that a) I was a pacifist, b) I've ceased being a pacifist, but c) I'm now in a crisis about whether I'm a pacifist or not -- presumably prompted by his continuing travels to Iraq and the failure and moral outrage of the war he sees there. He can now turn in any direction he chooses, and he'll be less likely to be considered ungenuine -- because criticizing people's religious beliefs is still a taboo in the U.S.
His view on war shifted after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990. Initially, he felt that as a conscientious objector he could not support war. Republican colleagues told him that if he couldn't faithfully represent his constituents then he should resign.
"I sorted it out," he said.
No surprise here. Peter Urban may intentionally, irresponsibly, and inaccurately implying it, but if the story is true the way that Urban is telling it, Shays sold out his faith to the Republican caucus.
Shays said he believes strongly that the Iraq war is a noble mission and that winning it is "the only way we are going to turn around this world."
Wrong. Your "mature" conscience did not point to invading Iraq. Your lack of conscience did. |
MLN is powered by