BAE Systems: Censoring the voices of the people

The site of the latest BAE Systems protest - with many more to come

Why is it that a company like BAE Systems would not want a couple of Gandhi & Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes pasted around their Facebook page?

Why is it that a company like BAE Systems would censor any views which they disagree with, no matter how politely they are put? 

Why is it that a company like BAE Systems who claims to be fighting the 'war on terror' would, in the most undemocratic fashion, silence the voices of the people?

Maybe it's because BAE Systems are one of the largest, if not the largest arms producer in the world. They sell weapons to over 100 countries including Israel. They are a threat to national security. They are a threat to human security. They are a waste of, what essentially is tax payer's money.

You don't need to do much research to find out about the instances of bribery and corruption within their ranks. BAE Systems have been caught breaching arms control regulations which aim to prevent weapons falling into the wrong hands.

Don't let BAE Systems fool you. They are not a civilian transport organisation. They are primarily involved in the arms trade. 

They're not on a particular side of global conflicts. They are on every side of global conflicts. 

They are in it for the money. If the wars stop, their profits go down. It's in their interest for people to keep blowing each other up.

I plan on posting more about BAE Systems. Fortunately here they cannot censor what I say, although I'm sure they will try. I hope to have a video from a recent protest outside their offices in Melbourne posted shortly.

Maybe it is time for us to stand up against this organisation. Post your city below - there is probably a BAE Systems office near you. Organise a protest, a blockade, a letter handout. Do something. Change the world.

The uninvited neighbour: A Christian response to modern refugee issues

I would like to thank Jessie Taylor & Gordon Preece for helping me to think about this issue in a clearer manner.

Refugees on Nauru during the 'Pacific Solution' era

Biblical teaching suggests that Christians have a special duty to love those who are foreigners and refugees (Deuteronomy 10:19). How should this teaching be understood and applied by Christian citizens in Australia's current political context?  

Introduction

This article seeks to examine if and to what extent the normative elements of the Christian texts are relevant to the context of the current debate surrounding uninvited asylum seekers in Australia. I begin by providing a brief outline of the current political situation. Then, I explore the relationship between the biblical narrative, Christian principles of justice, and the politics of asylum. Finally I will consider the normative implications of applying Christian principles of justice within the Australian political context and what issues this may raise.

The Australian context

Many Australians will remember the famous words of John Howard in 2001 when he declared ‘we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.’[1] Thus began, or at least brought to the surface, a nation’s fear of so-called ‘illegals’, ‘queue-jumpers’, ‘aliens’, or the all-inclusive term ‘boat people’. In August of that same year, a small fishing boat called ‘Palapa I’ was discovered by MV Tampa as it carried 433 asylum seekers who were ‘mostly Hazaras escaping the Taliban.’ MV Tampa, the Norwegian fishing vessel proceeded to take the asylum seekers to Christmas Island, However, the SAS forcefully gained control of the vessel. On September 11, 2001, the Federal court ruled that ‘the government was obliged to bring the asylum seekers ashore and assess their claims.[2] Later, that decision was reversed and the refugees recued by MV Tampa were taken to Nauru. The ‘Tampa affair’ presented Howard with the perfect opportunity to reassure Australians that the government was in control of the nation’s borders.[3]

The offshore processing of the refugees discovered by MV Tampa in the Indian Ocean marked the beginnings of the ‘Pacific Solution’, which would a decade later be reinvented by the Gillard-Labour government in response to political turmoil over an apparent ‘influx’ of ‘boat people’. This costly endeavour of sending those who ask for our help to offshore detention centres has been praised for its effectiveness, or more precisely, its ability to ‘stop the boats’. The slogan ‘stop the boats’ has been embraced by both major Australian political parties.[4] Digging beneath the surface of such a slogan reveals the troubling normative issues in deterring asylum seekers through what is effectively indefinite imprisonment (or more diplomatically, detention). The costs associated with offshore processing are not just financial but also moral, psychological, and spiritual. I believe the Christian metaphysical underpinning that can operate from a non-consequentialist basis has something unique to offer the ethical discourse on this matter.

A biblical narrative

The narrative of the biblical texts are crucial for developing a holistic understanding of what a biblical response to this seemingly complex issue could look like. Rev. Dr. Gordon Preece emphasises that ‘we are all boat people,’ and that like us, ‘the Israelites needed repeated reminding that they were originally refugees.’[5] William Cavanaugh goes further in suggesting that the church itself is ‘already constituted by refugees,’ not merely originally, but is continually a body of refugees.[6]

The Old testament provides countless images of refugee stories. The Hebrew word ‘ger’ appears 92 times in the text. The word is translated to mean ‘stranger’ (Gen15:13, 23:4), ‘sojourner’ (Exod 2:22, 1 Chron 29:15), ‘alien’ (Exod 12:19, 2 Chron 2:17), or ‘foreigner’ (1 Chron 22:2).[7] Nearly all appearances of this word are accompanied by normative commands. Examples of these normative commands can be found when God orders no preferential treatment for the native-born over the alien (Lev 24:16, Num 9:14), when God orders the Israelites to love the foreigners (Deut 10:19), and when God commands the Israelites to leave enough food ‘for the foreigners, orphans, and widows (Deut 24:20).[8] Rather than top down charity which reinforces existing power relations, there is a strong emphasis on empathetic solidarity in the biblical text.[9]

Furthermore, Jesus is presented as a refugee who is fleeing a despotic dictator who gave orders ‘to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under.’[10] As a refugee King, Jesus recapitulated the normative themes explored in relation to refugees in the Old Testament texts. In Matthew 25, for example, Jesus tells his followers that we must view actions which are to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society as our duties as people who claim to love God.[11] It is in this crucial passage where Jesus explicitly states that there is no difference between an act of commission and an act of omission. Not doing something good, in Jesus’ ethical framework, is doing something bad. In other words, ignorance is not bliss.

Christians are far from united on the specific issue of ‘boat people’, perhaps even more so than other modern political and ethical issues that the churches are tackling. Tony Abbott, the leader of the federal Liberal party, when responding to a question about ‘why his attitude to asylum seekers was unchristian’ responded by suggesting: ‘I don’t think it’s a very Christian thing to come in by the back door rather than the front door.’[12] But as Preece points out, there have been plenty of Christian Refugees at Maribynong, Woomera, and Curtin detention centres.[13] Others, such as the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, have endorsed the Houston and Aristotle reports, effectively supporting the reintroduction of the ‘Pacific Solution’ even though Jensen opposed offshore processing a decade earlier, arguing that ‘illegal’ actions of asylum seekers were caused by necessity.[14]

Normative issues

The consequences of a policy of deterrence can be severe and the policy can cost lives. On the other hand, the consequences of having no deterrence mechanism in place could also cost lives. In a normative sense, all I have suggested thus far is that we should be nice to refugees, which I presume is fairly uncontroversial. The next section seeks to establish which moral theory is most compatible with a biblical response to this issue.

The justifications given in support of coercive deterrence mechanisms in regards to those seeking asylum are largely utilitarian. The utilitarian perspective suggests that the means can be compromised in order to achieve the desired ends. This means that a utilitarian would find it acceptable to strive towards an ideal through non-ideal means. This is the first and most obvious clash between Christianity and utilitarianism. If Jesus wanted us to ‘love our neighbours’ or ‘love our enemies’ only when it was effective, then the command itself is ruled invalid by a greater command of ‘do what is most effective’. Martin Luther King, Jr. noticed this contradiction between Christian thought and utilitarianism, contending, ‘ultimately you can’t reach good ends through evil means, because the means represent the seed and the end represents the tree.’[15] Elsewhere he suggests that ‘the means represent the ideal in making and the end in process ... So as you seek justice as an end, you use just methods to get there.’[16] Paul writes in Romans that the people who think the Christians are teaching ‘let’s do evil so that good will come from it’ will be justly condemned.[17] Sending asylum seekers to detention centres in third world countries is the most explicit example of doing evil, in the hope that good will eventuate.

The second problem associated with the utilitarian justification for sending asylum seekers to places like Nauru is that it treats the individual asylum seekers who are sent to Nauru as mere means rather than ends in themselves.[18] This is a separate problem from the first issue raised which is specifically about the inconsistency of the means. The second problem differentiates the common asylum seeker from the common criminal. The common criminal has her liberty denied firstly for her own sake (rehabilitation, inability to reoffend), and the secondly, as a means to deter other people from committing that same crime.[19] For example, I would agree to live in a society where if I murdered someone I would then be incarcerated. Even if I am not rational at the time I murder someone, I can say now that it would be in my best interests to be separated from society for a time and to receive compulsory counselling and behavioural training so that I can be rehabilitated. Whereas, the common asylum seeker differs from the common criminal in that the asylum seeker has committed no moral or legal wrong, does not need rehabilitation, and imprisonment, (particularly in places like Nauru) and imprisonment is not in the asylum seekers’ interests. Imprisoning people who have committed no crime in order to deter other people from asking for our help treats the imprisoned people as a means rather than an end and strips them of their personhood and equality under God.

It is important to remark, that even if the utilitarian framework is accepted, one still needs to consider whether the empirical data shows that coercive deterrence leads to the maximisation of welfare. In a similar way, a utilitarian would only support torture in circumstances where welfare is maximised (eg., torturing one person to save the lives of two others). Authors such as Andy Lamey point out that Australia’s deterrence system causes asylum seekers to suffer from high stress levels and an increased risk of committing suicide.[20] He also points out that it gives them a status lower than criminals which is detrimental to their identity.[21] This shows that even from a utilitarian perspective (which does not generally synthesise with biblical teaching) it is difficult to justify ‘stopping the boats’.

A common objection to applying biblical principles to national security policies is the radical and demanding outcomes they infer. Unfortunately Christian thinkers such as Preece and Ralston have done very little to address the objection which asks: ‘at what point ought we turn people away?’ Preece inaccurately suggests that ‘even the most bleeding hearted, naive liberal is not saying ‘let everyone in’.’[22] Perhaps most liberals are not arguing this approach, but some of them are, and they should be considered. Still, it is unclear as to when Preece thinks we should begin to refuse asylum seekers protection and what means we should use to keep uninvited asylum seekers out of Australia. Ralston suggests that it is not necessary for the church to ‘advocate for a complete open-door policy to refugees,’ pointing out that the break-even point may arise if resettling refugees has a negative outcome for the ‘existing marginalised populations.’[23]

One suggestion would be that our obligations begin at the point where we have to sacrifice something significant, but they should not exceed the point where our self-care diminishes. In regards to where our obligations begin, we should take seriously Carens’s claim that ‘we have an obligation to open our borders more fully than we do now,’ and especially more fully to those who are in need.[24] Carens suggests that ‘open immigration would change the character of the community, but it would not leave the community without character.’[25] We must avoid holding on to our ideals of a static hegemonic culture when displaced people require our assistance. In regards to the upper constraints of our obligations, we should not require of ourselves more than God has called us to. God has called all believers to love their neighbour as themselves, which requires a basic level of self-love and self-care as a means to fulfil his work on earth.

Conclusion

In terms of acting upon our obligations as Christians to care for the refugee, I will briefly note one model which Ralston believes is compatible with a Christian understanding of justice. Ralston suggests that one of the most effective ways of communicating God’s ‘love and presence’ is through living with refugees, as exemplified by the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS). He believes that the church is lacking in genuine encounters with refugees, and I am not inclined to disagree with him. This same model is being replicated through the ‘First Home Project’ in Perth, Australia. The Christian call is, however, not limited to one particular model (which some may find too demanding in their current context). Political activism and financial donations, or offerings of skills training and language development are all ways that Christians can live out the community and compassion they have been called to.

In conclusion, the Christian narrative and principles of justice encourage Christians to treat asylum seekers as humans who hold inalienable rights. This essay has shown the incompatibility of utilitarianism and the Christian ethical framework. First, coercive deterrence mechanisms severely compromise the commands which have been given to us in regards to how we ought to treat our neighbours. Second, people should not be treated as mere means due to their mode of transport and their legal status. Therefore, the Christian cannot endorse a policy which seeks to coercively use one lot of people purely as a means to deter others from asking for our assistance.

Works Cited

ABC. “Seek and Ye Shall Submit (Transcript).” Q&A, September 10, 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3581623.htm.

Biblos.com. “Online Parallel Bible”, 2011. http://bible.cc/.

Burnside, Julian. “Australians Don’t Fully Understand What Is Being Done in Their Name.” The Age, August 26, 2011. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/australians-dont-fully-understand-what-is-being-done-in-their-name-20110825-1jcbn.html#ixzz28TZW5Dm7.

Carens, Joseph H. “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” The Review of Politics 49, no. 2 (April 1, 1987): 251–273.

Cavanaugh, William T. “Migrant, Tourist, Pilgrim, Monk: Mobility and Identity in a Global Age.” Theological Studies 69, no. 2 (June 2008): 340–356.

Clarke, Sarah. “Liberals Accused of Trying to Rewrite History.” Lateline. ABC, November 21, 2001. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2001/s422692.htm.

Jensen, Peter. “Interview with Amy Butler on Australia’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers and Refugees”, 2001. http://sydneyanglicans.net/seniorclergy/archbishop_jensen/48a.

Kant, Immanuel. “The Categorical Imperative.” In Ethics, edited by Peter Singer, 274–279. Oxford University Press, USA, 1994.

King, Martin Luther. “A Christmas Sermon on Peace” (n.d.).

———. Methodist Student Leadership Conference Address. September 10, 2011. American Rhetoric, 1964.

Lamey, Andy. Frontier justice : the global refugee crisis and what to do about it. Canada: Doubleday Canada, 2011.

Maccullum, Mungo. “‘Stop the Boats’ Has Become Bipartisan Policy.” ABC, July 2, 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4105116.html.

Mares, Peter. Borderline : Australia’s Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press, 2001.

Preece, Gordon. “We Are All Boat People: An Exposition of a Biblical View.” In Refugees : justice or compassion?, edited by Hilary D Regan, Andrew Hamilton, Mark Raper, and Australian Theological Forum. Hindmarsh, S. Aust.: Australian Theological Forum, 2002.

Ralston, Joshua. “Toward a political theology of refugee resettlement.” Theological Studies 73, no. 2 (June 2012): 363+.

“Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers”, n.d. http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/report.

The Australian. “Abbott Slams Boatpeople as un-Christian”, n.d. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/abbott-slams-boatpeople-as-un-christian/story-fn9hm1gu-1226422034305.

---

[1] Clarke, “Liberals Accused of Trying to Rewrite History.”

[2] Burnside, “Australians Don’t Fully Understand What Is Being Done in Their Name.”

[3] Mares, Borderline : Australia’s Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers.

[4] Maccullum, “‘Stop the Boats’ Has Become Bipartisan Policy.”

[5] Preece, Gordon, “We Are All Boat People: An Exposition of a Biblical View,” 73. I must thank Gordon for the time he has spent with me discussing these issues.

[6] Ralston, “Toward a political theology of refugee resettlement,” 373.

[7] Strong’s Hebrew: 1616 in Biblos.com, “Online Parallel Bible”, see: http://concordances.org/hebrew/strongs_1616.htm.

[8] Strong’s Hebrew: 1616 in ibid., see: http://concordances.org/hebrew/strongs_1616.htm.

[9] Cavanaugh, “Migrant, Tourist, Pilgrim, Monk,” 352.

[10] Biblos.com, “Online Parallel Bible”, Matt 2:16.

[11] Ibid., Matt 25.

[12] The Australian, “Abbott Slams Boatpeople as un-Christian.”

[13] Preece, Gordon, “We Are All Boat People: An Exposition of a Biblical View,” 82.

[14] Jensen, “Interview with Amy Butler on Australia’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers and Refugees”; ABC, “Seek and Ye Shall Submit (Transcript)”; “Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers.”

[15] King, “A Christmas Sermon on Peace.”

[16] King, Methodist Student Leadership Conference Address.

[17] Biblos.com, “Online Parallel Bible”, Romans 3:8 and 6:1.

[18] Kant, “The Categorical Imperative,” 279. Kant suggest that “every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will.”

[19] At least, this is how one would expect the legal system to function.

[20] Lamey, Frontier justice, 118.

[21] Ibid., 129.

[22] Preece, Gordon, “We Are All Boat People: An Exposition of a Biblical View,” 70.

[23] Ralston, “Toward a political theology of refugee resettlement,” 386.

[24] Carens, “Aliens and Citizens,” 270.

[25] Ibid., 271.

Conversations with Carl O'Sullivan about Nonviolence, Christianity, Tolstoy, and more!

I am ecstatic to be releasing the first episode of the first I Am Instrumental podcast series entitled Peace Podcasts.


The first episode in the 'I Am Instrumental: Peace Podcasts' series is with a good friend of mind, Carl O'Sullivan. Carl works for Caritas Australia as the Program Officer for the Australian Indigenous Program. Hear Carl talk about the intersection of his faith and nonviolence, and how we can live nonviolently in a violent world.

America's foreign policy and Christian values

A protester questions whether Bush's policies reflect 'Christian values' http://goo.gl/tVFiF

Preface: There is no way to do justice to a topic like this in 2000 words. Absolutely no way. Maybe 200,000 words. I have chosen to write critically as this is a university assignment. However, I do still hold to my conclusion - that the exegesis of Christian values which Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jim Wallis support, is closer to the law of Christ as it is written in the Gospels. I would love to hear your feedback, as always!

Critically discuss the relationship between America's foreign policy and the concept of 'Christian values'.

The Judeo-Christian narrative has historically been at the heart of the American story. The United States of America has often considered themselves to be a ‘redeemer nation’, a ‘city on a hill’, a ‘righteous empire’, and the ‘last hope.’[1] All of these terms have deeply religious connotations. This narrative which the USA so strongly feels a part of has helped raise leaders who view the world in ‘moralistic, highly dualistic, and frequently apocalyptical ways.’[2] Leaders of the Christian tradition from across the political spectrum, from Martin Luther King, Jr. to George W. Bush have all incorporated a Judeo-Christian narrative into their respective political ideologies.[3] What is of concern in this paper is how leaders and believers who claim to follow the same religion and teachings can reach radically different conclusions on how to respond to issues of international justice, especially those that are specifically related to America’s foreign policy. In this essay I will explore a selection of the diverse political ideologies held by Christians in America and consider how, if at all, they relate to the Christian narrative.

In recent years, a vast amount of research has taken place in regard to the influence that a person’s religious identity has on their political ideology. A great deal of this research separates Christian groups into Catholic and Protestant, Progressive and Conservative, Fundamental and Liberal, and the list goes on. Unfortunately some of the literature is quite circular in its approach and does not fully recognise the dynamic nature of religious identity. For example, an ‘evangelical’ may gain this label because they are politically conservative, and furthermore, a political conservative who is a Christian will sometimes be described as an ‘evangelical’. Naturally, all that one can derive from this logic is that ‘a’ is equal to ‘a’, and we arrive at no greater truth. For the purposes of this essay I will use the terms as the literature on the subject uses them, but with full recognition that all that is observable about particular political religious identities are patterns and trends, rather than categorical absolutes.

Christianity in the USA does have particular patterns and trends among its believers and leaders; there is a deep connection between religious identity and political ideologies. Such a deep connection between religion and politics in a quasi-secular democracy gives America a unique standing amongst world democracies. Lienesch suggests that the ‘Conservative Christian’ American citizen feels it to be her duty to ‘save other nations from religious backwardness and political corruption.’[4] While the view that America has a special role ‘to carry its values to other lands’ is widely held amongst her citizens, it appears that this view is held most strongly amongst those of the Christian tradition.[5] However, amongst the diverse Christian groups in America, there is a massive gulf between thoughts on what a special role entails and in particular, whether a special relationship gives America the privilege to use force to propagate its agenda.

Pat Robertson is a massively influential televangelist who sought nomination from the Republican party for President. Pilgrim argues that this indicated a ‘revamped relationship between the Christian Right and mainstream politics.’[6] In a speech two years prior to his 1988 presidential bid, Robertson described conservatism as ‘greater than the sum of the many rights we protect and defend.’[7] In 1996, a Pew Centre report found that nearly 47% of Republican voters identified themselves as ‘born again or evangelical Christians.’ The report suggests that Republican voters were most likely to be enterprisers, moralists, or libertarians who were predominately white, pro-business, anti-government, anti-social welfare and militaristic. The only strong divide between them was that the libertarians (which made up the smaller group of the three) were more likely to be tolerant and ‘very low on religious faith.’[8] Robertson sought to defend the ‘moralist’ version of evangelical Christianity.

In terms of foreign policy, Robertson is a committed Zionist, believing that ‘the technological marvels of Israeli industry, the military prowess, the bounty of Israeli agriculture, the fruits and flowers and abundance of the land are a testimony to God's watchful care over this new nation and the genius of this people.’^[9] He gives uncritical support for Israel, linking the sovereignty of the state in with the Judeo-Christian narrative. Robertson, in a 2004 speech quoted the biblical prophet Ezekiel who wrote ‘for I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all countries and bring you back into your own land.’[10] However, it is not clear whether this is a geographical land or a spiritual land. Moreover, the prophet Ezekiel also writes that ‘since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you’ and ‘you rely on your sword ... should you then possess the land?’[11] Whether or not believers of the Judeo-Christian narrative must support Israel as the chosen nation is debatable, however, it seems to be excruciatingly obvious that the narrative cannot be synthesised with support for oppressive and expansionist governments. Sacred texts which prophesy the beating of swords into ploughshares have been twisted into the most dangerous of political weapons.[12]

George W. Bush is slightly more nuanced than Pat Robertson in regards to issues like the Israel and Palestine conflict. In a 2002 speech Bush suggested that he may be in support of a two state solution to the conflict, however, the conditions under which he would support such a solution are unrealistic and unfair. In essence, a ‘Bush solution’ to the Israeli-Palestine conflict would permit Israel to act as a sovereign state with military power yet it would not afford Palestine the same privileges. In his speech on the conflict he reaffirmed his deeply held conviction that you are either ‘with us or against us’, reinforcing a highly dualistic view of the world which sees only good or evil, and no shades of grey.

Bush’s view of America as a ‘redeemer nation’ is far less nuanced than his support for Israel. In a 2004 electoral campaign speech, Bush passionately stated ‘I have a clear vision to win the war on terror, and to extend peace and freedom throughout the world’, pitting himself against torture, violence, and weapons of mass destruction.[13] However, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the America’s military spending accounted for 47 per cent of the world total in 2004.[14] It is clear from these figures that there is a strongly held view, particularly among ‘Christian conservatives’ who Bush claims to represent, that ideals can be spread in a less than ideal manner; that fire can put out fire.

Author, theologian, and CEO of Sojourners Jim Wallis provides a radically different understanding of the relationship between Christianity and politics in comparison to Pat Robertson and George W. Bush. In the synopsis for God’s Politics he questions: ‘in America why do moral values and a belief in God seem to make people pro-war, pro-rich and pro-republican?’[15] He maintains that ‘God is personal, but never private’, and wonders ‘where would America be if the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had kept his faith to himself?’[16] Like Robertson and Bush, Wallis believes that faith-based political views should not be excluded from the public square, however, Wallis qualifies this by suggesting that faith-based political views that are brought into the public square must be ‘better for the common good.’[17]

Unlike Robertson and Bush, Wallis believes that there should be a ‘clear timetable’ for a genuine two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Recalling his visit to Israel and Palestine, he describes the Israeli settlements as ‘aggressive forays into Palestinian territory by people who believe that God has given them all the land.’[18] Wallis acknowledges that there has been violence from Palestinians against the Israeli settlements, describing some of the violence as ‘terrorism’ which ‘can never be morally justified.’ However, he also contends that the violence from the Israeli side of the conflict ‘must also be called terrorism’ as the Israelis react ‘in massive, disproportionate retaliation’ to Palestinian violence.[19]

Wallis publically moved against the narrow evangelical stereotype in a letter co-authored by over forty American evangelical Christians in 2002 which stated ‘Mr. President, the American evangelical community is not a monolithic bloc in full and firm support of present Israeli policy.’[20] This further confuses the relationship between the evangelical Christian community and conservative, right wing, and violent foreign policies. Throughout his work, Jim Wallis makes a strong case for active nonviolence which is part pragmatic and part theological. His pragmatism is akin to that of Stephen Zunes who through his extensive research on nonviolent movements found that ‘armed resistance often backfires by legitimating the state’s use of repressive tactics’, and that there is ‘an increasing realisation that the benefits of waging an armed insurrection may not be worth the costs’ by proponents of human rights and social change.[21] Theologically, Wallis’ views are similar to that of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s which will be explored in the next section.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of the most prominent Christian leaders of his time. King is best known for his involvement with the American civil rights movement. He embraced the biblical narrative throughout his campaigning claiming that ‘if we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong ... If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer that never came down to Earth.’[22] While King was known for his nonviolent leadership in the domestic realm through the civil rights movement, often his leadership on foreign policy matters went unnoticed. King only became vocal about nonviolence in the international sphere later in his career, most notably after being challenged about his beliefs by Malcolm X in Message to Grassroots. In the 1963 speech Malcolm X exclaimed, ‘if violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad.’[23] This led King to adopt an approach to nonviolence which would be consistent in the domestic and international sphere.

It was just a few years after Message to Grassroots when King publically expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War in a sermon at Riverside Church in New York City describing the war as ‘madness.’[24] He went on to say ‘we can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the alter of retaliation.’[25] Unfortunately King’s view on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been twisted and de-contextualised, as one writer described, the ‘quotes’ that are spread by Zionists are a ‘hoax.’ However it is clear that while he would ‘no doubt roundly condemn Palestinian violence against innocent civilians, he would also condemn the state of Israel.’[26] King’s view of Christian values and how they relate to foreign policy are radically different from the views of Robertson and Bush.

The problem is not whether America’s foreign policy aligns with ‘Christian values’, but rather, whose ‘Christian values’ the policies are aligned with. Unfortunately throughout recent history many leaders in the United States of America have seen the world in a similar way to George W. Bush and Pat Robertson: black and white; good and evil. It seems as though those Christian leaders with a black and white world view have had the louder voice and greater say over America’s foreign policy. This is peculiar in one sense, since there are a considerable number of people from diverse faith backgrounds, including evangelical Christianity, who actively disagreed with the war in Iraq, who protested against torture, and who desire nonviolent conflict transformation as an alternative to violence.[27] However, it is the case that the media will continually give greater attention to people on political and religious extremes, and ignore the countless people of faith and no faith who, in less attention-seeking ways, strive to create a more peaceful planet.

In conclusion, ‘Christian values’ provide a problem for American foreign policy, but they may also provide a solution. In 2006 Barack Obama described Jesus’ Sermon On The Mount as ‘so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defence Department would survive its application.’[28] Perhaps it is this kind of applied literal interpretation of the Christian ethic that is needed for America’s foreign policy to truly reflect ‘Christian values’. There will inevitably be broad interpretations of the comprehensive doctrine of Christianity which will provide challenges for democracy. These challenges are worth confronting rather than ignoring.

Bibliography

Burke, Daniel. “Obama Uses Sermon on the Mount to Elevate Speeches.” Christianity Today, 2009. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/aprilweb-only/116-51.0.html.

Bush, George W. “Defending the War.” Presidential Rhetoric, 2004. http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/campaign/speeches/bush_july9.html.

———. “September 11 Anniversary Address.” Presidential Rhetoric, 2002. http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/09.11.02.html.

“Fraud Fit for a King: Israel, Zionism, and the Misuse of MLK.” The Electronic Intifada, n.d. http://electronicintifada.net/content/fraud-fit-king-israel-zionism-and-misuse-mlk/4373.

Lienesch, Michael. Redeeming America : Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right. Chapel Hill [u.a.]: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Martin Luther King, Jr. I’ve Been to the Mountaintop. August 27, 2011. American Rhetoric, 1968.

———. “Address to First Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) Mass Meeting, at Holt Street Baptist Church.” A Call to Conscience: The Landmark Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., 1955. http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/speeches/MIA_mass_meeting_at_holt_street.html.

———. “Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence”, 1967. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm.

Pew Research Center. Energized Democrats Backing Clinton. Washington: Pew Research Center, 1995. http://www.people-press.org/1995/11/14/about-the-typology/.

Pilgrim, David. “Pat Robertson and the Oval Office.” Journal of American Studies 22, no. 2 (1988): 258–262.

Robertson, Pat. “Conservatism Will Triumph.” The Official Site of Pat Robertson, 1986. http://www.patrobertson.com/speeches/ConservatismWillTriumph.asp.

———. “Pat Robertson Receives Zionist Award.” The Official Site of Pat Robertson, 1986. http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/ZionistAward.asp.

———. “Why Evangelical Christians Support Israel.” The Official Site of Pat Robertson, 2004. http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/IsraelLauder.asp.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “Military Expenditure.” Yearbook, 2005. http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2005/08.

Sullivan, Julie. “From Protesting Abortion Clinics to Protesting the War.” Christianity Today, 2007. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/marchweb-only/111-52.0.html.

Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics : Why the American Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. Oxford: Lion, 2006.

X, Malcolm. “Message to Grassroots.” Teaching American History, 1963. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1145.

Zondervan Publishing House. The Holy Bible : New International Version Containing the Old Testament and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010.

Zunes, Stephen. “Nonviolent Action and Human Rights.” PS: Political Science and Politics 33, no. 2 (June 1, 2000): 181–187.

---

[1] Lienesch, Redeeming America, 196.

[2] Ibid., 195–196.

[3] See for examples: Martin Luther King, I’ve Been to the Mountaintop; Bush, “September 11 Anniversary Address.”

[4] Lienesch, Redeeming America, 195.

[5] Ibid., 196.

[6] Pilgrim, “Pat Robertson and the Oval Office,” 258.

[7] Robertson, “Conservatism Will Triumph.”

[8] Pew Research Center, Energized Democrats Backing Clinton.

[9] Robertson, “Why Evangelical Christians Support Israel”; Robertson, “Pat Robertson Receives Zionist Award.”

[10] Robertson, “Why Evangelical Christians Support Israel”; Translation quoted: Zondervan Publishing House, The Holy Bible, v.  Ez 36:24.

[11] Zondervan Publishing House, The Holy Bible, v. Ez 35:5; 33:26; see also Ez 22:13; Ez 22:6; and Ez 18.

[12] See ibid., v. Isaiah 2:4.

[13] Bush, “Defending the War.”

[14] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “Military Expenditure.”

[15] Wallis, God’s Politics, 386.

[16] Ibid., 31, 57.

[17] Ibid., 71.

[18] Ibid., 173.

[19] Ibid., 175.

[20] Ibid., 186.

[21] Zunes, “Nonviolent Action and Human Rights,” 183–184.

[22] Martin Luther King, “Address to First Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) Mass Meeting, at Holt Street Baptist Church.”

[23] X, “Message to Grassroots.”

[24] Martin Luther King, “Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence.”

[25] Ibid.

[26] “Fraud Fit for a King.”

[27] Sullivan, “From Protesting Abortion Clinics to Protesting the War.”

[28] Burke, “Obama Uses Sermon on the Mount to Elevate Speeches.”