Friday, September 28, 2012
Drones vs. Up-Close-and-Personal Reality
This content has been moved to: "Drones vs. Up-Close-and-Personal Reality" at Scarry Thoughts.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Buddha and a Culture of Violence
Previous installment: "The Buddha Meets the Drone"
by Jack Lawlor
Although a life-long idealist, the Buddha was no stranger to cultures of violence. As a youth, his father -- a local monarch -- insisted that he train to be a warrior. But the Buddha kept his own counsel.
Years later, after the Buddha left his father's palace to become a spiritual seeker, he encountered the armies of two adjacent kingdoms massing on the banks of the Rohini River to clash over disputed water rights on the occasionally parched plains of northern India. Did the Budddha linger to side with the kingdom that was historically allied with his homeland? Did he walk away?
No, the Buddha didn't walk away from this highly charged situation. He did something rather interesting. He walked up and down the assembled ranks of both armies, and talked to the soldiers. He then essentially mediated the situation. He had asked questions of both sides about the significance of the water rights in question and the value of the lives of the young men in each army and the amount of treasure it took to assemble troops, warhorses and equipment in place on the field of battle. He then reported to each side the attitudes of the other side. It proved that neither side thought it was worth viewing the water rights as an "all or nothing" issue, and shared water rights were successfully negotiated.
The Buddha did not always succeed in such efforts, but in many instances -- including disputes within his spiritual community -- he was able successfully to sow seeds of empathy, of being able to know and see deeply into other people, not limited only to what is wrong within them but what his right, what is healthy. He did not gain these insights through the use of drone aircraft thousands of feet above the earth, but by meeting with people and spending time with them, exploring their deepest, most genuine desires and aspirations. And this often led to defusing and disarming difficult situations. Are we even capable of such empathy today, in the wake of Bush-era political leaders who made fun of empathetic people, implying they are are weak?
Were the assembled armies along the Rohini River made stronger by avoiding violent conflict? Or would they have been stronger after battling each other, contributing their blood to the Rohini? Is our nation stronger or weaker in the wake of the war in Iraq?
What compass was the Buddha following? How would his source of guidance approach the subject of drone warfare?
Next installment: "The Buddha On Love"
by Jack Lawlor
Although a life-long idealist, the Buddha was no stranger to cultures of violence. As a youth, his father -- a local monarch -- insisted that he train to be a warrior. But the Buddha kept his own counsel.
Years later, after the Buddha left his father's palace to become a spiritual seeker, he encountered the armies of two adjacent kingdoms massing on the banks of the Rohini River to clash over disputed water rights on the occasionally parched plains of northern India. Did the Budddha linger to side with the kingdom that was historically allied with his homeland? Did he walk away?
No, the Buddha didn't walk away from this highly charged situation. He did something rather interesting. He walked up and down the assembled ranks of both armies, and talked to the soldiers. He then essentially mediated the situation. He had asked questions of both sides about the significance of the water rights in question and the value of the lives of the young men in each army and the amount of treasure it took to assemble troops, warhorses and equipment in place on the field of battle. He then reported to each side the attitudes of the other side. It proved that neither side thought it was worth viewing the water rights as an "all or nothing" issue, and shared water rights were successfully negotiated.
The Buddha did not always succeed in such efforts, but in many instances -- including disputes within his spiritual community -- he was able successfully to sow seeds of empathy, of being able to know and see deeply into other people, not limited only to what is wrong within them but what his right, what is healthy. He did not gain these insights through the use of drone aircraft thousands of feet above the earth, but by meeting with people and spending time with them, exploring their deepest, most genuine desires and aspirations. And this often led to defusing and disarming difficult situations. Are we even capable of such empathy today, in the wake of Bush-era political leaders who made fun of empathetic people, implying they are are weak?
Were the assembled armies along the Rohini River made stronger by avoiding violent conflict? Or would they have been stronger after battling each other, contributing their blood to the Rohini? Is our nation stronger or weaker in the wake of the war in Iraq?
What compass was the Buddha following? How would his source of guidance approach the subject of drone warfare?
Next installment: "The Buddha On Love"
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Drones: Am I Responsible?
This content has been moved to: "Drones: Am I Responsible?" at Scarry Thoughts.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
The Buddha Meets the Drone
by Jack Lawlor
From time to time, we need to experience how what is wise and compassionate is indeed possible.
My family attended a lovely retreat with Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh in 1989 which included not only adults, but also children. As is often the case, Thay ( the Vietnamese term of endearment for "teacher" ) invited the fifteen or so children in attendance to perform a skit one evening after dinner. The children chose the unlikely topic, "The Buddha Meets the Jetsons", which actually proved to be as telling as one of the retreat's many fine Dharma talks. Why? The children at the retreat portrayed 25th century-ish Jetson adults as stressed, overburdened, rather hyper and erratic beings who often ignored what was obvious in front of them and who often were caught in misperceptions of what was actually happening, leading to error and injury.
What the children were portraying so accurately, of course, was their own 20th century parents. It was obvious that the children were very diligent and accurate in perceiving adult behavior. So was the other character in the skit: the 6th century BC time-traveling visitor to the Jetsons, Shakyamuni Buddha -- whose demeanor, depth of character, and attentiveness compared starkly to the distracted, hapless, and overwrought George Jetson. It was interesting to see the Buddha attempt to instruct the Jetson family in such ancient practices as sitting meditation and walking meditation, all based on the primal practice of awareness of the breath. The Jetsons shook, strained and complained loudly about being exposed to this form of teaching, but without question in the skit these mindfulness techniques had their intended effect. The children attending the retreat were, in essence, submitting an optimistic report to us that in the last several days they were -- despite all their previous skepticism -- beginning to see how ancient contemplative practices were having a calming, insightful effect on their parents, who were becoming more open-minded, loving and sane.
Why have we given up on what could be a favorable outcome? Is our cynicism that hard, that deep? Can't we, as Christ urged, become more child-like in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, which according to the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, "is spread before us but men do not see it"? Is there room for robot drones that attack civilians in foreign countries in such a Kingdom, such a world? How did we come to need to use drones in this way? Forty-two years ago I came upon Tolstoy's following description of a boyhood friend and the thrill of the possible, which still challenges me today:
From time to time, we need to experience how what is wise and compassionate is indeed possible.
My family attended a lovely retreat with Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh in 1989 which included not only adults, but also children. As is often the case, Thay ( the Vietnamese term of endearment for "teacher" ) invited the fifteen or so children in attendance to perform a skit one evening after dinner. The children chose the unlikely topic, "The Buddha Meets the Jetsons", which actually proved to be as telling as one of the retreat's many fine Dharma talks. Why? The children at the retreat portrayed 25th century-ish Jetson adults as stressed, overburdened, rather hyper and erratic beings who often ignored what was obvious in front of them and who often were caught in misperceptions of what was actually happening, leading to error and injury.
What the children were portraying so accurately, of course, was their own 20th century parents. It was obvious that the children were very diligent and accurate in perceiving adult behavior. So was the other character in the skit: the 6th century BC time-traveling visitor to the Jetsons, Shakyamuni Buddha -- whose demeanor, depth of character, and attentiveness compared starkly to the distracted, hapless, and overwrought George Jetson. It was interesting to see the Buddha attempt to instruct the Jetson family in such ancient practices as sitting meditation and walking meditation, all based on the primal practice of awareness of the breath. The Jetsons shook, strained and complained loudly about being exposed to this form of teaching, but without question in the skit these mindfulness techniques had their intended effect. The children attending the retreat were, in essence, submitting an optimistic report to us that in the last several days they were -- despite all their previous skepticism -- beginning to see how ancient contemplative practices were having a calming, insightful effect on their parents, who were becoming more open-minded, loving and sane.Why have we given up on what could be a favorable outcome? Is our cynicism that hard, that deep? Can't we, as Christ urged, become more child-like in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, which according to the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, "is spread before us but men do not see it"? Is there room for robot drones that attack civilians in foreign countries in such a Kingdom, such a world? How did we come to need to use drones in this way? Forty-two years ago I came upon Tolstoy's following description of a boyhood friend and the thrill of the possible, which still challenges me today:
"It goes without saying that under [his] influence I involuntarily adopted his outlook, the essence of which was a rapturous adoration of the idea of virtue, and the conviction that man's purpose lies in continual self-improvement. To reform all humanity and eradicate all human vice and unhappiness seemed plausible enough to us at the time, just as it seemed an easy and uncomplicated matter to reform ourselves, to master all virtues and be happy...
God only knows, however, just how absurd those noble dreams of youth were, or who was to blame that they were never realized...."
Leo Tolstoy, Boyhood. Childhood and Youth
Next installment: "The Buddha and a Culture of Violence"
God only knows, however, just how absurd those noble dreams of youth were, or who was to blame that they were never realized...."
Leo Tolstoy, Boyhood. Childhood and Youth
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Apostle's Creed as a Focus for Thinking About Drones
This content has been moved to: "Do You Know What You Believe? (The Apostle's Creed as a Focus for Thinking About Drones)" at Scarry Thoughts.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Call to Confession
by Susan Soric
The following Call to Confession comes from a service that Rev. Loren McGrail and I did at our home church of Wellington Avenue United Church of Christ. This Confession became the inspiration for the name of our blog Awake to Drones. I invite you to be in touch with how the use of robotic warfare is affecting you. Trust your gut instincts.
 |
| Hear My Cry |
A few months back, when our daughter was a
little over a year old, we were watching an extremely innocuous, usually very
comforting and quaint little British children’s show called Postman Pat. It was
about an ordinary and uncomplicated man named Pat who loved his job in the
village, loved his wife and son, and was truly very happy. But one episode
contained an unusual character. Postman Pat was overwhelmed with all the
packages he was delivering and wanted to find a way to get some help, so he
created a robot, which he was demonstrating for Mrs. Goggins in the post office
one day. When our little girl saw the boxy, bug-eyed, gangly can of metal
lurching and flailing, smashing windows and knocking things over; she started
to panic. Aaaah aaah! AAAAH! She cried, and of course I stopped the show very
quickly.
I have pondered that moment, taking to heart
the terror in her voice, her innocence, her lack of understanding of the world
and of human creations; and
yet for all that innocence there was something
primal, maybe even instinctual, something real and deeply human in the fear she
expressed at that lifeless, yet moving, machine. My theological mind turned
immediately to the lack of humanity in the robot: the absence of something familiar,
reassuring, comforting. Inhumanity, non-humanity. Disembodiment. Perhaps she
was expressing the lack of connection one feels to something that is not of
you.....not your kin.....But why did I not feel
that way about the robot? Yes,
I’m old and jaded, but maybe I also wasn’t tuning
in to a place within myself
that our daughter could touch immediately. What was happening in that place
deep in side me that numbed me to the horror of a lifeless imitation of
humanity?
And that brings me to our focus for today.
Robots of death. Death by
drone. Killing by remote control. Since taking
office, President Obama has been undertaking a personally-directed,
CIA-administered, high-tech assassination campaign in Western Asia
(particularly in Yemen and Pakistan), using drone technology to target what he
describes as terrorists. Some reports estimate that Obama has personally
ordered hundreds of assassinations by drone since he took office, striking out
at supposed Al Qaida targets while also killing innocent children and adults.
Technology is not always bad. It can be life-saving, but in the hands of the
powerful, it can also be an abomination.
Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich warns us
that the executive power
of the presidency is now unleashed, and our system of
justice is being radically altered. “I feel that we have had a kind of psychic
dismemberment from our foundational causes of nation,” says Kucinich. “How did
the nation, that was founded under such egalitarian principles, find itself
running a killing bureaucracy? How did that happen? How did we make that
journey? This is clearly a story of a nation that is losing its way in the
world to a mixture of fear and hubris,” Kucinich said.
I believe that fear is a natural instinct, and
sometimes we do need to protect ourselves from trauma. But our faith also
reminds us that we also must do the opposite. We must sensitize ourselves to
the fear and trauma and suffering around us so that we can be of help; so that
we can promote an end to violence and the establishment of peace.
Some of our United Churches of Christ once
used the crucifix in worship. This is one such crucifix that a suburban UCC
church was giving away at a recent
“I think,” says Kucinich, “the people of the
United States would be horrified if they actually understood how many innocent
people are being swept up in the maw of these wars. So people are just
permitted to sleep. And it’s going to be
very disturbing for the American
people when they awake from the slumber to look out upon a world where there’s
carnage everywhere that’s created by our nation without any legal process,
without any constitutional basis and without any articulated justification.”
I have been asleep. Where have you been? Is
there any justification for this kind of killing: either killing by cross or by
drone? When will we awaken and cry out about the horror of it all? And once we
reach that place of gut-felt anguish, what will we do about it?
Susan Soric
image from Patrician Sotarello and AFSC
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Joe Scarry: Confessions of Faith
Joe Scarry has written:
I will be thinking about how a confession of faith -- such as the Apostles' Creed, used in the Christian Church -- helps us think through our response to a problem like that of drone killing and drone surveillance. Since I was brought up in the Lutheran tradition, I am especially attentive to Luther's gloss on the Creed: "my Lord ... has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won [delivered] me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death ....". Can one rely on one's confession of faith to make sense of, and respond to, a situation such as the drones problem? In the light of a problem such as that of drones, is one's confession of faith further illuminated and strengthened? (Read my further thoughts about the Apostles' Creed as a focus for thinking about drones.)
Of course, the Apostles' Creed is but a single example of a confession of faith. I'm grateful to Newland Smith for reminding us that we should be thinking about the entire rich heritage of credal statements/confessions (see, for instance, the Baptismal Covenant of the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer), as well as the way they find expression in covenants on justice issues (including examples such as "Covenanting for Justice in the economy and the earth," and Kairos Palestine 2009).
And, as Rev. Loren McGrail points out, beyond formal confessional statements and covenants, it is desirable to consider scripture more broadly.
For me, some of the key questions are:
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the exercise of authority to order killings by drone?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the injury to innocent parties ("collateral damage") in drone attacks?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the way drones place people under increased surveillance?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the way people engaged in warfare are distanced from those they injure?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the responsibility of the citizens of a nation for drone attacks carried out in their name?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the proposition that violence can be pre-empted by acts of "defensive" violence?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the posture we should take to drones in their roles as new and "advanced" technology?
MORE ON THESE QUESTIONS
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the exercise of authority to order killings by drone?
There is a great deal about our modern life that supports the myth of legitimately-conferred authority. The carrying out of killings with drones provokes us to put the question under a microscope: does the authority really exist for those actions? Is it something that I can support, in light of my confession of faith?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the injury to innocent parties ("collateral damage") in drone attacks?
We are inevitably asked to accept injury to innocents as an unavoidable consequence of a goal that is considered very important. Assuming for the moment that we accept the "very important goal" ... what does a confession of faith clarify about collateral damage? (See Ending Drone Killing: The Spirit Is Moving.)
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the way drones place people under increased surveillance?
There is a tremendous range of opinion about the desirability and permissibility of the surveillance under which, more and more, we all live. Is surveillance -- or opposition thereto -- a matter of faith?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the way people engaged in warfare are distanced from those they injure?
Obtaining "distance" from where war and injury is happening seems like a desirable objective, and drones have been championed precisely because they put members of the U.S. military (and, all the more so, the rest of us) at the greatest possible distance from where the actually injury is taking place. What does a confession of faith suggest about this view? (See Drones vs. Up-Close-and-Personal Reality.)
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the responsibility of the citizens of a nation for drone attacks carried out in their name?
It is a condition of modern life that there are a few very narrow slices that any one of us is able to experience directly; most of human experience is "out there" somewhere, and we only have a very tenuous relationship to it. When drone killings are being done in our name, can we look the other way? Or do we bear responsibility? Does a confession of faith help answer these questions? (See Drones: Am I Responsible?.)
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the proposition that violence can be pre-empted by acts of "defensive" violence?
Does a confession of faith help clarify whether we can espouse absolute, unequivocal non-violence? (See: Is God Urging Us to "Risk It"?)
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the posture we should take to drones in their roles as new and "advanced" technology?
What do we need, other than an open mind, when we consider whether we approve of technology? Does our faith really have anything to say about it?
Image source: Barewalls.com
I will be thinking about how a confession of faith -- such as the Apostles' Creed, used in the Christian Church -- helps us think through our response to a problem like that of drone killing and drone surveillance. Since I was brought up in the Lutheran tradition, I am especially attentive to Luther's gloss on the Creed: "my Lord ... has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won [delivered] me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death ....". Can one rely on one's confession of faith to make sense of, and respond to, a situation such as the drones problem? In the light of a problem such as that of drones, is one's confession of faith further illuminated and strengthened? (Read my further thoughts about the Apostles' Creed as a focus for thinking about drones.)
Of course, the Apostles' Creed is but a single example of a confession of faith. I'm grateful to Newland Smith for reminding us that we should be thinking about the entire rich heritage of credal statements/confessions (see, for instance, the Baptismal Covenant of the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer), as well as the way they find expression in covenants on justice issues (including examples such as "Covenanting for Justice in the economy and the earth," and Kairos Palestine 2009).
And, as Rev. Loren McGrail points out, beyond formal confessional statements and covenants, it is desirable to consider scripture more broadly.
For me, some of the key questions are:
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the exercise of authority to order killings by drone?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the injury to innocent parties ("collateral damage") in drone attacks?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the way drones place people under increased surveillance?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the way people engaged in warfare are distanced from those they injure?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the responsibility of the citizens of a nation for drone attacks carried out in their name?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the proposition that violence can be pre-empted by acts of "defensive" violence?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the posture we should take to drones in their roles as new and "advanced" technology?
MORE ON THESE QUESTIONS
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the exercise of authority to order killings by drone?
There is a great deal about our modern life that supports the myth of legitimately-conferred authority. The carrying out of killings with drones provokes us to put the question under a microscope: does the authority really exist for those actions? Is it something that I can support, in light of my confession of faith?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the injury to innocent parties ("collateral damage") in drone attacks?
We are inevitably asked to accept injury to innocents as an unavoidable consequence of a goal that is considered very important. Assuming for the moment that we accept the "very important goal" ... what does a confession of faith clarify about collateral damage? (See Ending Drone Killing: The Spirit Is Moving.)
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the way drones place people under increased surveillance?
There is a tremendous range of opinion about the desirability and permissibility of the surveillance under which, more and more, we all live. Is surveillance -- or opposition thereto -- a matter of faith?
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the way people engaged in warfare are distanced from those they injure?
Obtaining "distance" from where war and injury is happening seems like a desirable objective, and drones have been championed precisely because they put members of the U.S. military (and, all the more so, the rest of us) at the greatest possible distance from where the actually injury is taking place. What does a confession of faith suggest about this view? (See Drones vs. Up-Close-and-Personal Reality.)
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the responsibility of the citizens of a nation for drone attacks carried out in their name?
It is a condition of modern life that there are a few very narrow slices that any one of us is able to experience directly; most of human experience is "out there" somewhere, and we only have a very tenuous relationship to it. When drone killings are being done in our name, can we look the other way? Or do we bear responsibility? Does a confession of faith help answer these questions? (See Drones: Am I Responsible?.)
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the issues surrounding the proposition that violence can be pre-empted by acts of "defensive" violence?
Does a confession of faith help clarify whether we can espouse absolute, unequivocal non-violence? (See: Is God Urging Us to "Risk It"?)
* How does a confession of faith help clarify the posture we should take to drones in their roles as new and "advanced" technology?
What do we need, other than an open mind, when we consider whether we approve of technology? Does our faith really have anything to say about it?
Image source: Barewalls.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)