Amidst the uproar over the dinner which a number of religious groups - the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Council on American-Islamic Relations among them - held with the Iranian President (dubbed by some protesters as the “feast with the beast”), it’s important to remember that other Christian denominations were deeply troubled by the event.
Mark D. Tooley reports:
Notably absent from the interfaith evening with Ahmadinejad was the National Council of Churches (NCC), whose chief, Michael Kinnamon instead released a statement to be read at an earlier anti-Ahmadinejad rally. “President Ahmadinejad’s hateful language, denying the Holocaust and apparently calling for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map,’ must be persistently and forcefully denounced by all who value peace,” the ecumenical official declared. “If President Ahmadinejad has so little regard for the verifiable facts of history and the legitimacy of a state created by UN decision, it is hard to believe he means it when he insists that Iran’s nuclear program is only intended for peaceful purposes.”
Also remarkable was a statement specifically against the dinner with Ahmadinejad by the president of the very liberal United Church of Christ (UCC), a routine partner in such interfaith political events. “I fear the occasion can and will be used by President Ahmadinejad to claim legitimacy and support for himself by an association with respected United States religious leaders,” said the Rev. John Thomas. “I respect the sponsoring organizations’ intent for dialogue, but fear that the more likely outcome is sowing confusion and disappointment among our own members and, in particular, the American Jewish community.”
The NCC and UCC leadership have been sensitized to contacts with Ahmadinejad, thanks mostly to warnings from U.S. Jewish groups. The other denominations that sent representatives to the Iftar dinner included the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), all of which, along with the UCC, have recently rejected anti-Israel divestment initiatives, thanks partly to appeals from American Jews.
Greetings;
Thanks for your comments about the dinner with Ahmadinejad. You mentioned that not everyone was breaking bread with Ahmadinejad. Of course not. If “everyone” was, there would be no controversy, and therefore the event would not be newsworthy. However those, other than the Iranian president, who did speak at the dinner made it a point to address, in his presence, the things Ahmadinejad has said that are of concern to those who opposed the dinner. If there had been no dinner that would not have been possible. In light of those who spoke, which included a Jewish rabbi, and what they said, there is no way Ahmadinejad could claim that the event signifies support for him and his statements. It’s significantly better for Americans to be talking and dining with Ahmadinejad then waring with him on the battlefield. Contemporary warfare primarily kills innnocent civilians, and there is no way that waging war on Iran is an improvement over dialogue and breaking bread together. I’m sure the same people would be happy to dine and dialogue with George W. Bush, who with his illigetimate Iraqi War, has the blood of tens of thousands of innocent civilians on his hands, which places him in the same class as Ahmadinejad as far as respecting the lives, rights, and freedoms of other peoples is concerned. At least Ahmadinejad has the courage to sit with and listen to those who disagree with him.
Sincerely;
Leonard Nolt
http://www.leonardnolt.blogspot.com
“It’s significantly better for Americans to be talking and dining with Ahmadinejad then waring with him on the battlefield. Contemporary warfare primarily kills innnocent civilians, and there is no way that waging war on Iran is an improvement over dialogue and breaking bread together. I’m sure the same people would be happy to dine and dialogue with George W. Bush, who with his illigetimate Iraqi War, has the blood of tens of thousands of innocent civilians on his hands, which places him in the same class as Ahmadinejad as far as respecting the lives, rights, and freedoms of other peoples is concerned. At least Ahmadinejad has the courage to sit with and listen to those who disagree with him.” Leonard Nolt
I find Mr. Nolt’s comments disturbingly naïve.
I’ll address the last point first.
Comparing the Iranian leader Ahamdinejad to President George W Bush is like comparing Stalin to Truman. Both leaders waged war in which civilians died. Yet what sane man would say that the behavior of the tyrant Stalin responsible for the death of millions of Soviets is similar to that of Truman who waged a defensive war along with Stalin against two of the most brutal regimes in history Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
I used this example because it is morally complex. Neither leader was innocent of shedding blood of civilians. Both leaders fought defensive wars but here the comparison ends. Stalin used the just wars against Germany and Japan as an excuse to spread his own empire while Truman was trying to stop the threat of Soviet Imperial domination.
It isn’t just contemporary war that claims civilian casualties all modern wars going waged in the 20th century also killed inordinate numbers of civilians. More civilians died in the Second World War than in all the wars since then.
If one had adopted the attitude of Mr. Nolt and those of the mostly Christian peace loving folk who broke with Ahmadinejad, in the 1930’s peace would not have come to Europe. Rather, Germany and Japan and Maybe Stalin would have divided the world between them. The Jews of course would have become an extinct people.
Now, Mr. Nolte and his mostly Christian brothers and sisters may say that Ahmadinejad is not Stalin or Hitler or General Hideki Tojo. Yet they would wrong. Hitler wasn’t Hitler in 1935 nor Stalin Stalin in the late 20’s when he began amassing power. This is to say there was very little one could have pointed to in order to justify a claim that these leaders were very dangerous; merely some comments attacking their enemies and expressing a wish to exterminate them.
Yet, it is because there is already a history of people in power doing evil deeds that they have announced in advance that we need to treat Ahmadinejad’s claims as deeds that his regime intends to implement. Each event in history sets a precedent that we ignore our own peril.
Now, a few comments about Ahmadinejad and his regime: this is regime that not only has called for the destruction of Israel it has also staked a claim to dominance in the region against the neighboring Arab States. In addition his regime has incarcerated and executed people who oppose it, including labor union members, women who would not abide their strict interpretation of Shariah law as well as children for various offences. It is a tyrannical theocracy bent on conquest and domination through the use of proxy armies like that of Hezbollah and Hamas.
Now, lets talk about George W. Bush. The action he took against Saddam Hussein was necessary and it would have been taken if not by him by some other President, albeit more intelligently and with more care. It was the result of inconclusive nature of the first gulf war.
To suggest that Bush and Ahmadinejad are alike (actually by the tone of his remarks which I find despicable Mr. Nolt has made it seem as if Bush was far worse) because of all the civilians who were killed as a result of the Iraq war is to forget the number of Iraqi civilians who had died at the hand of Saddam. It is claimed that Shiites and Sunnis didn’t kill each other while Saddam was in power and this claim is true. However, it is conveniently forgotten that that was because Saddam had a monopoly on killing members of both religious sects.
These claims remind me of the excuse allied countries used not to bomb the gas chambers in which millions of Jews were being murdered: “it would have killed innocent civilians.” This is a grim and antisemitic joke.
The claim that “contemporary warfare primarily kills innnocent civilians” is merely an excuse and a dangerous one not to confront aggressor bent on murder and conquest. This attitude gives aggressors a green light to plot and execute their evil deeds. Does Hezbollah care about the death of innocent civilians, only when they can use it as propaganda in order to gain the sympathy of gullible “peace loving folk” in Europe and in the US. Of course, Hezbollah and their masters are not above to hypocritically exploit the latent antisemitism that guides some of the views of these “peace loving folk.”
Finally, even if the claims that “that waging war on Iran” is not ”an improvement over dialogue” and peace, their notion of peace is incoherent. The unspoken assumption of most “peace groups” is that peace is a means as well as an end. Peace is an end and not a means. The dialogue that they had is only a simulacrum of peace (a piece of theater) and not peace itself.
You may feel comfortable that through such dialogues peace “is at hand,” However, to those for whom “peace” isn’t just a theatrical show and who would suffer the consequences of a nuclear Iran such theater is as threatening as Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust or his call to wipe Israel off the map.
Hi Shriber (and others):
I just read your response to my comment a couple days ago and will now respond to you. Thank you for your comments. It’s good to hear them even though we disagree.
You write that you find my comments “disturbingly naive.” From the tone and nature of your comments it seems to me that they reflect a strong addiction to using violence to solve problems with people who do not agree with you. The essence of my comments is that as long as we’re talking to and eating with each other, we’re less likely to be shooting at each other. You seem to think it would be better to be shooting at each other. Is that reasonable, responsible, or sensible?
Keep in mind that military violence has exactly the same kind of effect on human bodies and human relationships as any other kind of violence you can name: street violence, gang violence, drug violence, criminal violence, domestic violence, and sexual violence. If one is wrong they’re all wrong.
The US currently is involved in two losing wars; Iraq and Afghanistan. What good would there be to start a third?
I agree that there is some moral complexity to these issues and the examples you sited. However in the case of Stalin vs Truman, just as in Bush vs Ahamdinejad, all four men, in order to achieve their political and military goals, were/are willing to sacrifice the lives of children and deny them the right they have to live and grow up in their home towns and neighborhoods, free from foreign attack.
We know that Saddam was killing Iraqis. But the people we killed in Iraq are just as dead as the ones he killed! You can’t be suggesting that it’s better for them to have been killed by Americans, can you? A dead person has no freedom of press, speech, or religion, no choices on election day and no democracy. War kills people, and killing people destroys freedoms.
The dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an example of totally barbaric behavior that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Both Eisenhower and McArthur said that the use of nuclear weapons had nothing to do with ending the war. Those bombs were dropped, not to end the war, but because the war was about to end and then the US would have no excuse to use them. One of the dangers of using violence to try to solve a problem is that a “little” violence often escalates into much more bloodshed than we ever expected.
You seem to believe that violence was necessary to stop the Nazis and the Japanese. There are peaceful ways of resolving conflict between nations and non-violent methods of resisting invasion and attacks from people like Hitler and Stalin. I suggest you read “The Politics of Non-Violent Action” by Gene Sharp which contains dozens of historically proven peaceful way of resisting dictators. Keep in mind that no dictator, including Hitler, ever became poweful by himself. He had to have a lot of help from others who refused to say “no” to him. That’s one reason why I’m saying “no” to George W. Bush’s violence against Iraq. The sooner we oppose a leader’s acts of violence against another country, the more lives will be saved.
The US went to war against Great Britain to gain our independance, but other large British colonies such as Canada and India gained their freedom from the same empire by relatively peaceful means. The Revolutionay War was a choice we made, not the only possible path to freedom. The same is true of the World Wars of the past century. War is a choice, and when we choose war we are choosing to destroy children and families and that’s destroying freedoms.
I’m all for confronting aggressors “bent on murder and conquest,” and that’s why I vigorously oppose Bush’s violence against Iraq and his proposed violence against Iran. It’s only about oil, and has nothing to do with protecting freedom and defending the US, or any other country. Concern about innocent civilians being killed is not an excuse. It’s responsible citizenship, as well as moral living.
People who oppose Israeli violence and question the wisdom of the actions that took place during wars in the past century and today are not necessarily antisemitic. I vigorously oppose all violence against Jews, but I also oppose all Israeli violence against Palestinians. The website “Jewish Voice For Peace” http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org and “If Americans Knew” at http://www.ifamericansknew.org also speak out against Israeli violence. The latter includes the following statistics: Since Sept. 29, 2000, 123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis; Israelis have suffered 1,062 fatalities and 8,3431 injuries while the Palestinians have suffered 4,876 fatalities and 33,034 injuries, and 18,147 Palestinian homes have been destroyed by Israelis since 1967, while no Israeli homes have been dstroyed by Palestinians. It’s not antisemitic to oppose this kind of violence by the Isralelis against Palestinians.
I’m not suggesting that a meal with Ahmadinejad means that peace “is at hand.” It may take decades of eating and talking together to achieve peace. Dunnigan and Martel in their book “How to Stop a War, ” write that more than half of the wars fought never resolve the issues that caused the war. Why select an action that has a greater chance of failing than being successful? Choosing war as a way of resolving our dfferences with other countries is choosing to fail. War is a failure of communcation, tolerance, understanding, diplomacy, and patience. War is a failure to protect children, families, healthy neighborhoods, and productive societies. War is a failure because it rarely ever accomplishes anything worthwhile. War fails to protect the environment. The earth and the human race can no longer afford war. It’s time to find a better way and talking to as well as eating with the enemy is much better, It’s also a path toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Thanks again for your comments.
Sincerely,
Leonard Nolt
http://www.leonardnolt.blogspot.com