Hostages and executions
Today we are waiting to see what happens to the four Christian Peacemaker Teams workers who were taken hostage in Iraq. Their captors said they would kill them yesterday if thousands of Iraqis were not release from prison. There has been no word since the deadline passed. An outpouring of support from Muslim clerics and many others around the world for these peace activists is wonderful to see. Their good work in Iraq and other places is well known. Still, we wait.
At the same time we are waiting to see whether Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will allow the death sentence on Stanley “Tookie” Williams to be carried out. His is the last word. There has been an outpouring of support for clemency in this case. Questions linger about the propriety of this conviction for crimes Williams still denies committing, and his good anti-gang work from death row has caught the attention of many.
These cases are completely different in one way, but in others they are the same. An elected government is deciding whether to execute Williams, while a self-appointed militia is deciding the fate of the peacemakers in Iraq. Each has the power to execute, however that power was gained, and in both cases the choice is both arbitrary and political. The persons wielding the power of life and death will put a lot of thought into how their choice will affect themselves and those close to them. If the governor decides to let the sentence be carried out and riots erupt, how will that affect his political future? If he decides to commute the sentence and his conservative base deserts him, what happens then? In Iraq the hostage takers need to weigh how difficult it will be to survive if they carry out the execution. Will they be hunted down by all factions? Would they be better off bowing to the clear will of Sunni and Shia leaders and accepting that these peacemakers deserve to live?
The choice in either case is political, not about law. Is it any wonder that many in the world have trouble telling the difference between the actions of Islamist extremists and the American government? Both kill many innocent people in the name of their cause in an effort to serve their interests. Both execute wrongdoers. Both claim high moral values. Both claim to be in the right. Both believe the other to be in league with Satan.
Jesus suggested that we not try to take the splinter out of another’s eye until we have removed the log from our own. Scottish poet Robert Burns put it this way: “Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.” The more energy we put into seeing ourselves as others see us, the better able we will be to make the changes in our own behavior that encourage others to make changes as well.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Redemption
Execution ends the chance for redemptionVictims cannot heal
By Duane Ruth-HeffelbowerNovember 29, 2005
The upcoming execution date for Stanley “Tookie” Williams, a founder of the Crips street gang, has generated a lot of commentary on the subject of killing people. Some think killing people is appropriate in certain circumstances, like war and the death penalty. Others think killing is never appropriate. Both sides bolster their arguments with clippings from their sacred texts, whatever those may be. The one thing killing does is prevent redemption in this life. So the question really is “will we permit redemption?”
Most of us have experienced redemption in daily life. We do something bad that hurts another person, confess to them, make amends and then set about rebuilding trust by behaving better. The world’s religions frame the theology of this process differently, but the behavior looks the same no matter how one understands what goes on internally or spiritually. It is a universal human process that benefits everyone involved. Should we allow something like this, or should we forever prevent it by killing the wrongdoer?
Judging only by the news reports, the families of William’s victims don’t think he has gone through the steps of redemption to their satisfaction. He has done some good and useful things that have endeared him to some, but has not confessed or made amends to them. Should we prevent him from doing those things by killing him?
Those who study victims to better learn how to meet their needs recognize that victims follow unique yet predictable patterns in their healing process. The timetable can be different and the steps rearranged, but those who heal well have some things in common. One of the most helpful things in the healing process is for the offender to go through the steps of redemption. The victim has to be ready and the offender has to be sincere, but when those things come together it is beautiful to watch. Pennsylvania has an official program to make this process possible for murderers and the families of their victims, and Californians are working to make it possible here.
Should we allow victims to seek healing in this way, or should we prevent it by killing the offender? That is really the question when we discuss the death penalty. Would it be better to work at offering victims and offenders another option?
Three of the world’s great religions honor a murderer, Moses. He fled to escape justice, and some would say he found redemption. How would the world be different if the Egyptians had caught him as he fled? The issue is complex, but death ends the discussion and closes off all other possibilities.
Also available at
http://fresno.edu/scholarsspeak/duane_ruth-heffelbower/11-29-2005.php
By Duane Ruth-HeffelbowerNovember 29, 2005
The upcoming execution date for Stanley “Tookie” Williams, a founder of the Crips street gang, has generated a lot of commentary on the subject of killing people. Some think killing people is appropriate in certain circumstances, like war and the death penalty. Others think killing is never appropriate. Both sides bolster their arguments with clippings from their sacred texts, whatever those may be. The one thing killing does is prevent redemption in this life. So the question really is “will we permit redemption?”
Most of us have experienced redemption in daily life. We do something bad that hurts another person, confess to them, make amends and then set about rebuilding trust by behaving better. The world’s religions frame the theology of this process differently, but the behavior looks the same no matter how one understands what goes on internally or spiritually. It is a universal human process that benefits everyone involved. Should we allow something like this, or should we forever prevent it by killing the wrongdoer?
Judging only by the news reports, the families of William’s victims don’t think he has gone through the steps of redemption to their satisfaction. He has done some good and useful things that have endeared him to some, but has not confessed or made amends to them. Should we prevent him from doing those things by killing him?
Those who study victims to better learn how to meet their needs recognize that victims follow unique yet predictable patterns in their healing process. The timetable can be different and the steps rearranged, but those who heal well have some things in common. One of the most helpful things in the healing process is for the offender to go through the steps of redemption. The victim has to be ready and the offender has to be sincere, but when those things come together it is beautiful to watch. Pennsylvania has an official program to make this process possible for murderers and the families of their victims, and Californians are working to make it possible here.
Should we allow victims to seek healing in this way, or should we prevent it by killing the offender? That is really the question when we discuss the death penalty. Would it be better to work at offering victims and offenders another option?
Three of the world’s great religions honor a murderer, Moses. He fled to escape justice, and some would say he found redemption. How would the world be different if the Egyptians had caught him as he fled? The issue is complex, but death ends the discussion and closes off all other possibilities.
Also available at
http://fresno.edu/scholarsspeak/duane_ruth-heffelbower/11-29-2005.php
Duane Ruth-Heffelbower
Duane Ruth-Heffelbower
There are several groups that send unarmed civilians into harm’s way to promote peace. Four members of one of those organizations, Christian Peacemaker Teams, have just been abducted in Iraq. Their captors threaten to kill them if a list of demands is not met. The organization is devoted to “getting in the way” between groups that are killing each other.
Not everyone knows that I was the recording secretary at the organizational meeting of Christian Peacemaker Teams over 20 years ago, having heard Ron Sider’s Mennonite World Conference speech at Strasbourg in 1984 that gave impetus to the creation of CPT. His premise was that Christians who oppose war should be willing to endure the same risks as soldiers if their witness is to be meaningful.
In those days the kidnapping and killing of Americans was unthinkable, and gave great power to accompaniment by CPT and other pacifist organizations. I also had the privilege of participating in the creation of the Nonviolent Peace Force, which is facing the same problem. The days when Americans could roam the world with impunity are gone, thanks in large part to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing Americans is no longer taboo, and has become a way to reach the world stage.
Those of us Americans who insert ourselves into difficult situations around the world need to know that we are wonderful targets of opportunity for those who want to speak to the world. Capturing and killing us is the currency necessary to be legitimate on the world stage. How does that change our behavior? What used to be righteous is now downright dangerous. When we decide to intervene in a situation we have to first decide whether the cause is one for which we want to die, and we have to be ready to accept an unpleasant death. This is a change.
I have been in the way of violent people a number of times, and each time my naïveté and status as an American have kept me safe. Those who wanted to kill me were deterred by the image of a carrier battle group steaming into their waters with thousands of Marines and hundreds of aircraft ready to make them pay for their arrogance. Americans have no idea how powerful they have been because of this self-censoring by opponents of America who feared our power. Killing an American was a dangerous, self-destructive act, until recently. I have walked fearlessly on five continents, largely due to the aura of power even a pacifist American exudes.
That time is past. Now Americans are a ticket to the world news business. If there is no American victim a story is downplayed. If you have an American hostage, all satellites beam your story around the world. Being American is no longer a shield, but has become a bull’s-eye for those who want to be heard. The premise upon which accompaniment organizations are based has changed. Now it is unsafe to stand by an American, rather than recent days when to stand by an American was to be safe. The world has changed, and our response must change. The day when an American could wander the globe with impunity are past. How does a Christian behave in this new world? How do organizations that bank on the former way of doing things shift?
There are several groups that send unarmed civilians into harm’s way to promote peace. Four members of one of those organizations, Christian Peacemaker Teams, have just been abducted in Iraq. Their captors threaten to kill them if a list of demands is not met. The organization is devoted to “getting in the way” between groups that are killing each other.
Not everyone knows that I was the recording secretary at the organizational meeting of Christian Peacemaker Teams over 20 years ago, having heard Ron Sider’s Mennonite World Conference speech at Strasbourg in 1984 that gave impetus to the creation of CPT. His premise was that Christians who oppose war should be willing to endure the same risks as soldiers if their witness is to be meaningful.
In those days the kidnapping and killing of Americans was unthinkable, and gave great power to accompaniment by CPT and other pacifist organizations. I also had the privilege of participating in the creation of the Nonviolent Peace Force, which is facing the same problem. The days when Americans could roam the world with impunity are gone, thanks in large part to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing Americans is no longer taboo, and has become a way to reach the world stage.
Those of us Americans who insert ourselves into difficult situations around the world need to know that we are wonderful targets of opportunity for those who want to speak to the world. Capturing and killing us is the currency necessary to be legitimate on the world stage. How does that change our behavior? What used to be righteous is now downright dangerous. When we decide to intervene in a situation we have to first decide whether the cause is one for which we want to die, and we have to be ready to accept an unpleasant death. This is a change.
I have been in the way of violent people a number of times, and each time my naïveté and status as an American have kept me safe. Those who wanted to kill me were deterred by the image of a carrier battle group steaming into their waters with thousands of Marines and hundreds of aircraft ready to make them pay for their arrogance. Americans have no idea how powerful they have been because of this self-censoring by opponents of America who feared our power. Killing an American was a dangerous, self-destructive act, until recently. I have walked fearlessly on five continents, largely due to the aura of power even a pacifist American exudes.
That time is past. Now Americans are a ticket to the world news business. If there is no American victim a story is downplayed. If you have an American hostage, all satellites beam your story around the world. Being American is no longer a shield, but has become a bull’s-eye for those who want to be heard. The premise upon which accompaniment organizations are based has changed. Now it is unsafe to stand by an American, rather than recent days when to stand by an American was to be safe. The world has changed, and our response must change. The day when an American could wander the globe with impunity are past. How does a Christian behave in this new world? How do organizations that bank on the former way of doing things shift?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
