The Highest Form of Hope

Nancy William Congdon, 1954

With all the news from the Middle East - the conflict, the rationales, the political maneuvering - I've been thinking a lot about what it means to be a pacifist. What is it about war; waging violence for whatever cause; that makes it intolerable? So in view of this, I have taken the opposite side and formulated an argument for war.

An Argument for War

War is not a light topic, and it should remain the last resort of any government's foreign or internal policy. It is something that no rational government would enter into on a whim. It is a costly and complicated course of action that is fraught with moral pitfalls, However, the fact remains that conflict is the most effective vehicle of social and political change.

Looking back on history, it is clear that not all wars were justifiable. Clearly today we can better understand what can be deemed a justifiable war. When core values, human rights, beliefs or a way of life are in jeopardy, then war can be justified. War has brought about such ideas as democracy and freedom. These ideas exist far longer than the lives of those given for them. Ideas are in this sense, more important than human life.

This being said, the most clearly justifiable wars are waged in the defense of the innocent. If civilians are being killed by a dictatorial government then the world community must share a responsibility to these civilians. However, it would be imprudent for the world to get involved in all conflicts involving civillians; governments need to gauge which conflicts they should get involved in when it comes to defending the human rights foreign civilians - they must ask if such actions may be politically prudent. A government's commitment to the protection of foreigners must never clash with the wants and needs of the population at home. The sacrifice of soldiers must never be taken lightly and must always be used in the best interests of one country.

The concept of peacekeeping becomes problematic in light of a government's responsibitty to its citizens. Sacrificing men and women for peace in foreign nations rather than conserving this sacred sacrifice for more serious conflicts that involve the self-defense of ones country is not likely to be tolerated by the population at home. The most important responsibility a government has is to defend the human rights of its citizens. This could mean defending our right to economic stability or our right to security. In this sense one could say that our citizens and military personale are more important than civilians of foreign nations. Certainly sacrifices can be justified as long as it serves the best interests of the country, because it is in service to those who have elected the governments. To serve anyone else could be deemed selfish and short sighted.

Maintaining peace among the nations is a complicated and costly venture. It is a venture that could jeopardize a nation's very own national security. Certainly peace is not always worth the cost. When maintaining peace involves a compromise of beliefs or way of life, it is not worth the risk.


An argument for war must always come to the same conclusion: That certain people are inherantly more deserving of life, resources, and security than another group of people. For this reason, I find there is no other option than to define myself as a pacifist.

Labels: church

Paul and I just returned home after three weeks of holidays. It was wonderful; we boated, fished (I'd like to brag that I caught 2 fish to Paul's 0), swam and tried to keep cool. If you want to see pictures check out Paul's blog if you haven't already.
Some other ways I've passed the time is by doing some summer reading. After four years of reading textbooks, I was happy to put my U of S library card to some good use. Here are some of my recommends...

In my opinion there is nothing better than a good southern novel. So after failing miserably with The Sound and the Fury (If anyone has some tips for me on reading Faulkner please let me know!), I started reading The Violent Shall Bear it Away by Flannery O'Connor. It's quite a grotesque tale, but full of much truth. I have only ever read short stories from O'Connor before, but my limited observation is that she is a master of hyperbole, exageration, and irony. Then I read Beloved which was my fiction hit of the summer. Incredably rich and full of redemption, I was surprised how uplifting the story was even thought the plot was so full of tragedy. I really found the psychology of the post-slavery period incredably interesting. Every character is so multi-facetted. I plan to read more Toni Morrison in the future.
A close second to a good southern novel is a good Irish novel. I am finishing up Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, a biography of Joyce's alter-ego, Stephen Dedalus. The book traces a series of spiritual and psychological awakenings that lead Dedalus to reject the Catholic church. Definately a great read.
As for non-fiction the best of the summer has been Ethics by Bonhoeffer, and Intruding upon the Timeless by Gregory Wolfe. A couple other interesting reads were Why the Rest Hate the West and John Berger's Ways of Seeing. I had read and seen (its also a BBC documentry series) snippets of Ways of Seeing seeing before but never in its entirety. I was surprised how influential Bergers thoughts are, though some are growing out of date. He has a wonderful feminist critique of European art history and also on images in advertizing. John Berger has a great talent for summing it all up. Here are some of my favorite quotes:
"The human imagination... has great difficulty in living strictly within the confines of a materialist practice or philosophy. It dreams, like a dog in its basket, of hares in the open."
"Unlike any other visual image, a photograph is not a rendering, an imitation or an interpretation of its subject, but actually a trace of it. No painting or drawing, however naturalist, belongs to its subject in the way that a photograph does."
Some other summer diversions... playing cars, going for walks and looking at boats with Sasha. It's been a good vacation.

Labels: family

"Will this cover my sweat equity?"

I am ever increasing.
I am now eight months pregnant and I feel enormous. I can't get up from the couch without help. I live off freezies and cookies. I can only sleep on my left side with the aid of many pillows. My brain and my lungs are only working at half capacity.

It's a magical experience.

And now Stephen Harper has chosen to honor the effort and toil that goes into full time motherhood with one hundred dollars a month - it is his child care plan.

So I've rolled off the couch in order to rant on this issue.

All parents with children of preschool age now get $100.00 a month per child designated for child care costs or to aid parents who choose to stay at home. This was his answer to a nationalized day care program initiated by the Liberals (stolen from the NDP) before Martin lost the election.
What Harper failed to mention is that he would also be CUTTING the child tax benefit and that the promised 100 dollars a month would become TAXABLE income. Child care costs can be claimed as deductions, but this promise money will be taxed? How strange! So I basically get about 20 bucks more a month in "tax breaks" for parents - in two cheques instead of one (I wonder how much it costs to print these extra cheques).
I've heard the argument that the Conservative's plan values the role of the stay at home parent more than the Liberal's plan for a nationalized day care. I beg to differ. What Harper has done is somehow managed to tax stay at home parents under the guise of a tax cut. Harper obviously values the role of the taxpayer more than the role of stay at home parents.

Labels: politics

William Congdon Nativita

I recently read Gregory Wolfe's Intruding upon the Timeless: Meditations on Art, Faith, and Mystery (not just because the subtitle rhymes with my blog title). I'm a little giddy because I've been looking for some writing on this perspective for a long time. Wolfe is the editor of the magazine Image which showcases Christian and Jewish artists. The book is basically a collection of editorial essays - and it's really quite good. Granted, not the best book I've ever read but I'm just so happy to finally read some very thoughtful words on the interaction between art and culture.
An artist himself, Wolfe draws attention to some of the tensions between Christian artists and the church. Particularly in the evangelical realm, churches have adopted pop culture emblems in place of thoughtful art. Even more disturbing is the marketing of "Christian Art" offering cheap knock-offs of the latest fad where the consumer can be comforted by knowing that the artist was "saved". At the same time, the mainline Protestant and Catholic churches have similarly lost their way. The effects of liberalism has led many to reject the rich Judeo-Christian art tradition in place of exalted individualism.
Wolfe elevates redemptive and thoughtful art to a whole new level. Art explores the mystery of who God is and who we are. He alludes to the Biblical theme of silence and speech - that the very name of God could not be spoken - the name, too powerful and mysterious, is unsayable. Art is a probe into this silence that cannot be summed up in words. But it is not thoughtless or unreasonable. By contrast, art bridges the false gap between reason and imagination.

"St. Thomas called art "reason in making." This is a very cold and very beautiful definition. and if it is unpopular today, this is because reason has lost ground among us. As grace and nature have been separated, so imagination and reason have been separated, and this always means an end to art. The artist uses his reason to discover an answering reason in everything he sees. For him, to be reasonable is to find, in the object, in the situation, in the sequence, the spirit which makes it itself. This is not an easy or simple thing to do. It is to intrude upon the timeless, and that is only done by the violence of a single minded respect for the truth." - Flannery O'Connor

Labels: art