Can You Be a Pacifist Without Religion? (Maybe.)

Rebecca:

Great post. You’ve touched on an area where my agnostic side and my Mennonite side clash in a fairly thorough way.

While I was still (for lack of a better word) churched, I found Mennonite pacifism relatively easy to adopt. My logic went something like this.

  • God is the God of eternity.
  • Any losses you suffer in this life are thus short-term in nature.
  • Ultimately, through faith in God, Good wins out over Evil.
  • Taking up arms, then, would have a couple of effects: It would hurt our witness — hard to convert the mind and soul of somebody you are killing — and it betrayed a lack of faith in God to win the ultimate victory.

Now? I really don’t know if there is God, or if it’s in the nature of God to win out over evil as I define and perceive it. Which leads me to wonder if it’s not the right thing now and again to pick up a gun and kill a bad guy — for the greater good.

But that withdrawal from total pacifism is kind of theoretical. In practice — and as in many other things — you can take the boy out of the church, but it’s not easy to take the church out of the buy. In practice, I’m pretty dovish.

blogger-image-1946931649 (1)

Some of that’s a result of being American, I guess, where we tend to exalt violence as a solution to many of our problems. Our popular entertainment is soaked in blood, our president wants to gut the State Department while putting even more money into a cash-rich defense department, and we no longer talk about the use of nuclear weapons as an event to be ardently avoided. Any small pacifism is an important counterweight in a society where violence seems to be the only hammer and every problem — no matter its nature — looks like a nail.

I’m also dovish because as a practical matter, war doesn’t seem to work that often. I thought we were justified, for example, going to war against the Taliban back after 9/11. But we’re still in Afghanistan. I’m not certain the country isn’t worse for it, or that we’re safer from terrorism as a result.

Really, there aren’t many wars — the ones fought in my lifetime — that didn’t seem to cause as much trouble as they mitigated. Afghanistan is a tar pit. Iraq is beset with terrorists. Libya, where we “led from behind” still ended up a mess. War rarely fixes problems and often expands the suffering that was already present.

So even though I’m not strictly pacifist these days, pacifism still informs my outlook.

Violence is easier than pacifism, because pacifism requires patience. Violence provides immediate feedback: Pull a trigger, watch a body drop. Push a button, watch the explosion. But those bodies, those explosions, aren’t necessarily solutions — though they’re often mistaken for such. Pacifism doesn’t provide that kind of immediate gratification, and never will, which is one reason it’s doomed to forever be a minority position.

In our private talk, you said you thought there was an atheist defense of pacifism. I think that’s right. If you’re an atheist and you snuff out a life — even if there’s a good reason — that’s a life forever ended: No chance to change, no chance at redemption. Even the least spiritual among us recognize an elemental difference between “alive” and “not.” There are few good reasons for erasing that distinction.

On the other hand, I can’t swear that there are no good reasons for it, either.

Back to your initial question though: Is self-defense a “sacred” right for Christians?

I keep coming back to this:

51At this, one of Jesus’ companions drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52“Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him. “For all who draw the sword will die by the sword.53Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?…

If Jesus is God, and we’re not allowed to use violence to defend God — nevermind the fact that we actually do — then what excuse do we have? It’s the Mennonite in me speaking, but gun-toting Christians confuse me.

— Joel

Is self-defense a “sacred right” for Christians?

Joel:

Did you listen to Donald Trump’s speech to the NRA in Atlanta on Friday? It was the first time since Reagan that a president addressed this powerful lobby group, and Trump was in his element, firing up the crowd’s fear of immigrants and contrasting his own strongman tactics with the Obama administration’s failure, in the right’s imagination, to support police or veterans. And, yes, he reminded the crowd that he won in November, to the surprise of the media, and, just 100 days into the worst first 100 we’ve seen in modern history, he spoke about his plan to run in 2020.

So, there was a lot to unpack, but it doesn’t take much nuanced thinking to do it: more bluster, more opportunistic promises (Trump’s inconsistencies on gun control has garnered him derision among many gun rights advocates–but not enough to make him lose their vote.), more racism, and, always, always, always, the fearmongering.  Though the Obama administration did virtually nothing–even in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings of a room of kindergartners–to address gun control, Trump said that an “eight year assault on gun rights was ending and that the government would no longer be “coming after” law-abiding gun owners. Sure, that never happened, but whatever. The point is that Americans need to be afraid! “These are horrible times for certain, obvious reasons,” Trump told the crowd, who were able to fill in those “obvious reasons” themselves (immigrants, black people).

In some ways, I feel quite sorry for Trump supporters, who must be the most afraid people in America. For the Christians among them, this is an even more pitiful state, for they’ve chosen to exchange the confidence their faith promises for fear.  That’s an act of disobedience, and the consequence is a life of constant suspicion, susceptibility to savior figures, a surrender of joy, and a failure to be spiritually prepared for suffering.

For Mennonites and other people of faiths that reject violence, one particular moment in Trump’s NRA speech reminds us that our religion is a currency, not a real consideration, in how politicians treat us. Trump promised to protect the “sacred right of self-defense for all of our citizens.”

gun

Above, a close up of “the Crusader,” a tactical rifle with Psalm 144:1 (“Blessed by the Lord, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle”) etched on one side; on the other is the Knights Templar Long Cross, a symbol of the Crusaders during their attempt to take the Holy Land from Muslim control. The gun was specifically designed with “Christian values” in mind, according to the Florida manufacturer. 

For Mennonites, the “sacred right of self-defense” is an oxymoron. We might disagree about whether we ought to engage in self-defense at all and if, so, in under which circumstances and in which ways. We might disagree about whether guns can be used for that purpose and whether a gun itself invites such violence. We can argue about whether the Constitution gives us an individual right to handgun ownership or if it reserves the use of weapons for well-regulated militias.

But what we can’t disagree on, I think, is the idea that our right to kill another person, for any reason, is a “sacred right.” We have no models of “sacred self-defense” in the teaching of Jesus, and we have the most important model–of Jesus’ death–that counters this. Unlike most white Americans, early Christians had reason to be afraid, for their lives were in constant danger. And, yet, still, they are told over and over not to live in fear but in joy. Our “sacred right” isn’t an uninformed optimism that we will always be safe; it’s that we will always be loved–and that we experience that love more fully (and share it more generously) when we surrender our fear.

What are we consenting to when we consent to sex?

Hi Joel:

I’m sharing this post, which I recently posted on my personal blog, here. It’s a tough one, fed by recent conversations with my own students (who have agreed to have their ideas shared here) in a Sociology of Sex class.

Readers should be warned that this addresses sexual violence and reproductive coercion.

***********************

By now you may have seen news coverage of stealthing, the practice of man removing  or damaging his condom without the consent of their partner during intercourse. Yale Law professor Alexandra Brodsky wrote about the phenomenon in the most recent Columbia Journal of Gender and Law (The full text is available for free here.), and CNN, CBS, and Huffington Post have been running stories on it.

Much of the conversation is about how to categorize this kind of activity so that we can better care for those who have been victims of it. One of Brodsky’s informants call is “rape-adjacent.” When the victim who believes that the condom is being used to prevent pregnancy, the act is one of reproductive abuse–sabotaging birth control.

Is it also rape?

(If you can’t wait to the end to find out my answer, it is: Yes.)

The FBI’s definition of rape, new since July 2103, is:

“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

That’s much clearer than the old definition (“carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will”), because it recognizes that people of all genders can be victimized and names specific acts. But the idea of consent–central to sexual assault prevention trainings on college campuses right now–remains unclear.  It must be verbal and “enthusiastic,” which means that it’s got to be explicit: Yes, I want to have sex. But, though we now have a law in California mandating enthusiastic consent prior to sex and enthusiastic consent is the go-to concept in teaching rape prevention on campuses, many people still don’t really understand it, and we do a lousy job of teaching it. It’s easy to get dismiss the conversation about consent by saying “Just don’t rape!” and while most people have no obligation to explain how not to rape to a potential sexual assailant, some of us (parents of teens and young adults, social workers and educators who work with teens and young adults) probably do.

condoms

Above, a display of condoms.

Having taught, at this point, about 750 students in Sociology of Sex, I can say that many students are asking great questions about what consent means. Here are some of them:

Do you have to ask for and receive consent for every part of every sex act? (“May I nibble your left ear lobe? And the right?” If not for every act, which acts? And how do you ask without sounding “like a pervert or physician?”)

We have to have consent before contact between sex organs and any part of another person’s body, but what are “sex organs”? Penises and vaginas are obvious, and the law is explicit about anal contact. We’d probably easily put rear ends and probably but not as obviously women’s breasts in there, but what about men’s nipples? These narrow definitions seem to ignore the biggest sex organ of all (skin!). Sexual pleasure isn’t limited to sex organs (Yes, I’m linking to Cosmo, but readers can fill in the blanks however they like.), and we might be losing something when we keep the focus on penetration of/by “sex organs.”

How far from those consented-for acts can you stray without having to ask for consent anew? (“If she consents to a finger, can I use a thumb? Do I need to ask her again? Is a finger close enough to a thumb not to matter? But a toe–that would be too far off, even though it’s still technically a ‘digit’?” “If I ask if we can kiss, how specific do I need to be on details? And what if I don’t know what I want until we start?”)

Are other kinds of reproductive abuse also inherently acts of sexual violence? Lying about having an IUD or other form of long-acting birth control or deliberately misusing your or destroying your partner’s oral contraceptive are forms of reproductive abuse. Because they are non-consensual, are they also forms of sexual violence? (Answer: Yes.) If a cis man ejaculates into the vagina of a cis woman who claims to be using oral contraceptives but isn’t, he’s now having sex with a body (one without contraceptives in it) that he didn’t consent to have sex with, risking consequences he didn’t agree to risk. Is that sexual assault? If it’s not criminal, is there a civil case to be made?

What rights do we have to know accurate information about the bodies we have sex with?

We lie all the time in the pursuit of sex–about our height, our weight, our income, our sexual histories, our real hair color, the length and girth of our penises. Some of us lie about our HIV status, with legal punishments for lies or nondisclosure that vary widely and are often used to punish men of color in particular. If a woman consents to sex with a man who says he’s the real life inspiration for Christian Grey or the secret love child of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed or Idris Elba’s body double and it turns out he’s not, is that rape since the penis involved is not the one the person it is attached to said it was? After all, she consented to a far more prestigious penis than the one she got. If those examples seem far fetched, what about a man who claims to be single but is really married? If I wouldn’t consent to sex with a married man, but I might to a man who is single, if a married man lies to me about this marital status, is a penetrative act now rape because I didn’t consent to sex with a married man? Or what if I consented to sex with a with a man I understand to be white (as I am) but find that he’s biracial? If he lies about his ethnicity or religion?

What deceptions constitute “rape by deception”?

And finally, what are the implications for trans people here? If a trans man presents as traditionally masculine or a trans woman as traditionally feminine, do they have to out themselves as trans prior to a sex act? Here I’m thinking specifically of the ways that trans panic has been invoked as a defense of violence against trans people. (In the “classic” version, a cis man consents to sex with a person he believes is a cis woman. When, during intercourse, he finds that she has a penis, he responds to what he sees as a breach of trust with violence, including murder.) A common thread in this defense is that the cis man “felt like he was being raped”–not because he was having sex against his will but because he didn’t consent to sex with a trans person’s body. “Trans panic” defenses have been successfully used in many cases in which a trans person–particularly trans women–have been killed. They are based on the idea that someone was lying about their body–and that lie somehow produced enough fear to warrant homicide.

In short, if we argue that all penetrative acts must be “consensual,” what information do we have to disclose to be consented to? “My penis has a funky curve in it” doesn’t seem to be a big deal. “My penis isn’t going to wear a condom” is. But how do we figure this all out?

And how do we teach this so that people can enjoy honest, great sex?

***************************

So, is stealthing rape? Yes. Like other forms of rape, it is about power and control, rooted in misogyny (whether it is aimed at women or at men who have sex with men).

NC State Legislator/Pastor Urges Straight People to Ask, “WWJWB Do?”

Joel:

I was fortunate to spend some time last week at the Lincoln Cottage, the summer home of President Lincoln during the Civil War. This “Home for Brave Ideas” sits on the grounds of the Washington D.C.’s Armed Forces Retirement Home (formerly known as the Old Soldiers Home), one of two federal retirement homes for those who put in twenty or more years of service to the US military as well as for veterans unable to work due to injuries incurred in the line of duty. I was fortunate to enjoy lunch in the Lincoln family’s dining room with Civil Rights activist Dorie Ladner and scholars and representatives from Georgetown University, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Cato Institute, who had gathered to think together about how Lincoln’s legacy is playing out at this moment, particularly in regards to an uptick in hateful political behavior.

Our discussion quickly turned to the comments that North Carolina Republican state representative Larry Pittman had made about Lincoln just the day before: that he was “the same sort [of] tyrant as Hitler.”

Why, nearly 150 years after his death, is some stupid Southern state legislator echoing the words of Lincoln’s assassin? This might seem like a silly thing. After all, the elections of 1860 and 1864 are quite far behind us, and there has been no new revelation that suggests that Lincoln’s victories in them are invalid. Pittman’s comments, just two days before the anniversary of Lincoln’s murder (and two days before the anniversary of the death of Pittman’s own son by suicide by gun), though, are part of a much longer (let’s just date it to 1828) history that continues to harm vulnerable people under the claim of “sic semper tyrannis.”

Pittman’s language is the language of the Redemption—the effort to undo Reconstruction and fortify white supremacy—and speaks to his voters (He won with 60% of the vote in 2014 and 58% of it in 2016.), who continue to read Reconstruction as tyranny. Sure, they grift the federal government, but they hate federal interference in what they see as the rightful hierarchy of people. This is why they hated the Voting Rights Act and opposed racial integration, no matter what the harm it did to whites; the spirit of their work is spiteful.  They can dress these arguments up in claims of liberty, but it’s the Klan, not the Founding Fathers, that’s their real model.

pittman.jpg

Above, Pittman’s official NC Legislature photo. Never one afraid to be stereotyped, he wears, in addition to his lapel pin from the State house, a pin that is small crown of thorns with fetal feet in the center of the crown (representing Christian opposition to abortion), a pin representing the tablets on which the 10 Commandments were inscribed (representing the political effort to mandate the presence of religion in public spaces), and a pin joining the US and Israeli flags, likely a gift from a Christian Zionist organization. His tie is festooned with images of the first flight, which occurred at Kitty Hawk, NC. 

Pittman’s comments were about his support of a state law that would ban same-sex marriage in the state, despite a Supreme Court decision that recognized the legality of marriages between same-sex couples nationwide. He’s also fought hard against both state and federal gun control laws, including those that would prevent guns from being carried in bars, and, in 2013, attempted, with the support of other NC lawmakers, to establish a state religion, again in defiance of the federal government (and the actual Constitution). All of these efforts are justified by Pittman’s reverence for state sovereignty (of course—this was the issue back in 1828 and 1864, too).

We could dismiss Pittman, a minister in a conservative Presbyterian church (Are you really surprised?), as a delusional loser, one of the Confederacy’s many Hiroo Onodas—except that he’s a winner, repeatedly, in local elections (if not in the promotion of legislation). Maybe North Carolinians will one day get tired of voting for a man who wastes so much of their time on bills that are DOA, or maybe they really do like his echoes of John Wilkes Booth’s murderous words against a president.  Given the neo-Confederate League of the South’s recent call for whites to arm themselves in a “Southern Defense Force” (content alert: this link takes you to a white supremacy website). I wouldn’t be surprised if such comments garnered him more votes.

What Thomas Jefferson Had in Common With Hillary Clinton

Rebecca:

When you get discouraged about politics — and it’s easy to do that these days — it’s always good to remind yourself that we’ve been through this (bleep) before.

I’m reading “American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon” by Stephen Prothero, an excellent overview of how Americans have viewed Christianity’s central figure — sometimes by untangling him from a religious context — and how those views of have shaped America. Early in the book, he delves into the now well-known story of how Thomas Jefferson created his own “gospel” by taking the King James Bible and cutting out all the parts referencing Jesus’ divinity and miracles, leaving only the parts that made him sound like a wise sage.

jefferson-bible-clippings
Thomas Jefferson took scissors to the Bible — in the name of a purer Christianity.

Jefferson, of course, only dabbled as a theologian — we remember him as a politician. (And we remember him as embodying some of the contradictions built into our country’s founding.) But his theological work created some political backlash:

A “Christian Federalist,” no less alarmed, viewed the prospect of Jefferson’s election as the beginning of the end of his Christian nation. “han serious and reflecting men look about them and doubt,” he wrote, “that if Jefferson is elected, and Jacobins get into authority, that those morals which protect our lives from the knife of the assassin—which guard the chastity of our wives and daughters from seduction and violence—defend our property from plunder and devastation and shield our religion from contempt and profanation, will not be trampled and exploded.” Such vituperations did not prevent Jefferson from winning the White House, but they did send Federalists into a postelection frenzy. After a rumor circulated that President Jefferson had decreed a bonfire of the biblical vanities, housewives in New England reportedly squirreled away their scriptures in wells, to prevent them from being burned by the flames of Jeffersonian free thought.”

I don’t have much to add to this at the moment. But the hysteria — the belief that one’s opponents will rob you of your right to practice religion, the baseless rumors, the assertion that violence against our women is just a hair’s breadth away — all are prominent parts of our modern discourse. It sucks. But we have survived and lived to see better days.

That’s not to say we should get complacent. But if you get discouraged, well, we Americans have been down this road before. If we persist in upholding our values, there’s reason to hope for a light at the end of the tunnel.

—Joel

Who is a Wall for?

Joel:

You ask why Donald Trump should expect Mexico to pay for his stupid expensive, environmentally dangerous, economy-thrashing, community-disrupting, land-grabbing wall. Like, not just how would Mexico pay for it, but why in the world should Mexico pay for it.

The obvious answer has to do with Sigmund Freud and Donald Trump’s very fragile ego.

But I wonder if there isn’t something else too:

When a crime is committed, we expect the perpetrator to be punished and to make restitution. They owe us what they took from us: the cost of the broken window, the value of the shoplifted lip gloss. Sometimes–as with murder–we can’t be repaid, and so some argue for the death penalty: an exchange of life for life, though we know that this is a symptom of a sick society, not a remedy for it.

A US-Mexico wall isn’t about preventing Mexicans from entering the US illegally. (And, anyway, why should Mexico pay to prevent those from Honduras or El Salvador from entering the US? What does that have to do with them?) Undocumented border crossing has been falling for a long time, without a wall or the threat of it.

A US-Mexico wall is about punishing Mexico. For what? For the “influx” (also, “swarm,” “horde,” “flood,” “epidemic,” “rash”–these metaphors are not new) of Mexican immigrants who have “taken jobs” from Americans. Sure, it makes zero sense to blame Mexico for our love of cheap migrant labor or foreign made goods, our adoration of the super-wealthy who shape the economy so that profits go so disproportionately to people whose main objective is to make more for themselves and their stockholders by allowing workers to have less, and our acquiescence to the global chase for lower-wage workers. But if you are a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, you see yourself as closer to Donald Trump than to a migrant worker, and if you aren’t rich, it’s not because of the destruction of labor unions or the end of wealth-expanding domestic policies but because undocumented immigrants are robbing you at gunpoint, saying, “Ese gringo, gimmee your job.” Americans are accustomed to growth, growth, growth, and the stagnation and decline of the last thirty-five years causes us to lash out. Mexicans are easy targets.

A US-Mexico wall is also about establishing US dominance. In general, when citizens feel that their nation is in control of immigration, they are less likely to support harsh immigration policies. When they feel that the immigration situation is out of control, they push for harsh policies, even when they are self-destructive. This isn’t about fact but about feelings–which is good for Donald Trump, who lives in a fact-free universe but is very good at tapping into the fearful feelings of his supporters.

The fact that our policy makers rely on fear, not facts, is worrisome but, again, not particularly new.

Image result for berlin wall

Above, workers building the Berlin Wall, which separated Soviet-controlled East Berlin from the western part of the city, which was under the jurisdiction of the US, Britain, and France. US presidents have generally condemned the use of walls as a way to keep people inside their home nations because such physical barriers are odious to notions of freedom. 

You gave the example of a fence you might want to build around your home. You have no grounds to ask your neighbors to pay for it because it’s your fence. You want it, so you pay for it.

That argument makes sense if you are a person who takes responsibility for his life. That is not Donald Trump. Donald Trump is deeply irresponsible–which is why he is always trying to dodge creditors, short-change employees, and play golf when he should be working.

Donald Trump sees Mexico like a neighbor with a nuisance dog; he wants his yard to be free from the holes the dog digs and the messes it makes, but he thinks that the neighbor should do something about it. That’s pretty reasonable, I think–when we are talking about dogs.

But despite the rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration, we are talking about people, and they, unlike dogs, are free to move about.

Here is the problem with the wall that should frighten Trump supporters: He thinks that a country should be able to build a wall to prevent its people from leaving. In fact, he thinks that country should be required to do so if the neighbors complain. (Or maybe just if the neighbors are the US or if the people being locked in are brown skinned.)

I have a US passport, which means that the US government isn’t stopping me from going almost anywhere in the world. We have historically derided those who refuse to allow their people free movement–from East Berlin to North Korea. Yet those who believe in FEMA-camp conspiracy theories are okay with the idea that a country should be able to literally lock its people in?

Locking people out is one thing–stupid, inefficient, economically short-sighted, fear-monger, wasteful… Locking them in is quite another. It’s the way of dictators. 

Why Should Mexico Pay for Trump’s Wall?

Hi Rebecca:

Looks like we’re on the verge of an extraordinary moment: The Republicans control the White House and both branches of government, yet the government might still shut down this weekend.

Why? Because President Trump doesn’t want to sign a spending bill that doesn’t include funding for his “big beautiful wall” on the border with Mexico. And it doesn’t look like such a bill can pass Congress at the moment. Thus: A standoff.

Some folks have pointed out Trump’s request for funding means he’s violating his campaign pledge to make Mexico pay for the wall. (Trump and his allies say those payments will come, eventually, just you wait.) And that’s fine. But nobody seems to have asked a basic question: Why should Mexico pay for Trump’s wall?

This isn’t the same as asking if Mexico will pay for the wall, which is a dubious premise on its own. No, the question is why they should.

Say you and I live next door to each other. I put up a fence to keep our properties separate. Would there be any world we can dream of in which I’d legitimately expect you to pay for my decision to defend my property?

No?

I’ve asked this question a few times and never received a satisfactory answer. Best I can tell, there’s some alpha maleism going on here — a sort of “Why are you hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!” of international relations. There’s no reason for Mexico to pay for the wall … except as a show of submission to the U.S.

And submission is what President Trump seeks, it seems to me.

Makes sense. The building of a wall is an act of fear. A ridiculous one, when you think about it. The same people who want the wall are often the ones who go on and on about the superiority of American culture. Yet this supposedly superior culture is threatened by the presence of people speaking Spanish in public places.

When bullies act out of fear, they often do it by acting extra alpha-maley — in essence, like bigger bullies.

Maybe there’s some other, good explanation. But as it stands, making Mexico pay for a while just a way of making sure that people know that we might be afraid of the outside world, but America still commands hegemonic power.

Yours in tough guyness,

Joel