Author Archives: erasingborders
He introduced Martin Luther King Jr. to the theory and practice of non violent civil disobedience.
In 1947 he organized the “Journey of Reconciliation” during which blacks and whites sat together on Greyhound buses traveling through the South. That “Journey” served as the model for the civil rights movement’s “Freedom Rides” in 1961.
He was lead organizer of the first mass protest against the Vietnam War. The march from Central Park to the United Nations on Tax Day, April 15, 1967 was at the time the largest demonstration in U.S. history.
He served as spokesperson for the mostly immigrant workers during the historic Lawrence, MS textile mill strike of 1919.
Following the gains made by the Lawrence workers, he served as the first head of the Amalgamated Textile Workers Union until 1921. In the position, he supported organizing nearly weekly strikes at mills across the U.S.
He trained union organizers as education director of the Brookwood Labor College from 1921 to 1933.
When he died in 1967, obituaries referred to him as the “American Gandhi”.
If you haven’t named who “he” is you are not alone. Few people in churches, or outside them, in the U.S. know about the contributions of Abraham Johannes Muste to the labor and peacemaking movements in the U.S. Yet Muste would be a candidate for sainthood if there were saints in Protestant Christianity. He served the Church as a clergy member in four different U.S. Protestant denominations but his call eventually led him to leadership in the labor and peace movements of his adopted country. Until his death in 1967, Muste remained a radical practitioner of the theology of the “Social Gospel”.
In the first congregation he served, he opposed U.S. entry into the First World War and, against the wishes of many in the congregation, resigned. From the crucible of the WW I era to the end of his life, he helped organize mass actions of civil disobedience in resistance to U.S. warfare and militarism. Muste was the first to declare, “There is no way to peace; peace is the way”. Another Muste saying, often attributed to others, he coined as an early protestor of the Vietnam War. During a White House vigil in a rain storm, someone asked him if he really thought he was going to change U.S. policy that way, he responded, “I’m not out here to change U.S. policies. I’m here to make sure they don’t change me.”
Like no other American Christian of the 20th Century AJ Muste lived out his faith in the nation’s public sphere. In his work and writing, he adhered to the values of the Sermon on the Mount and chapter 25 of the Gospel of Matthew. His radical pacifism grew out of his devotion to living by the roots of the Christian faith. Muste believed that as Christians we are all called to be “Saints for This Age”. While he based this conviction on the lives of the first Christians as reported in The New Testament, his passion for social change was also fired by the horrors of 20th Century militarism and by the example of radical leftists in the labor movement.
In the 1962 essay titled “Saints for This Age”, Muste wrote “It was on the Left – and here the ‘Communists of the period cannot be excluded – that one found people who were truly ‘religious’ in the sense that they were completely committed, they were betting their lives on the cause they embraced. Often they gave up ordinary comforts, security, life itself, with a burning devotion which few Christians display toward the Christ whom they profess as Lord and incarnation of God.” In the next paragraph, he contrasts the “liberal” Christians who professed the “Social Gospel” with these non-Christian radical leftists.
“The Left had the vision, the dream, of a classless and warless world, as the hackneyed phrase goes…..Here was the fellowship drawn together and drawn forward by the Judeo-Christian prophetic vision of a ‘new earth in which righteousness dwelleth’. The now generally despised Christian liberals had had this vision. The liberal Christians were never, in my opinion, wrong in cherishing the vision. Their mistake, and in a sense, their crime, was not to see that it was revolutionary in character and demanded revolutionary living and action of those who claimed to be its votaries.”
Christian faith, and the first Christians who modeled faith for AJ Muste, was profoundly counter-cultural. “I spoke of the early Christians as having ‘broken loose’. They understood that for all its size, seeming stability and power, the ‘world’, the ‘age’ in which they lived was ephemeral, weak, doomed…..They had therefore turned their backs on it, did not give it their ultimate allegiance, were not intimidated by what it could do to them, and did not seek satisfaction and security within its structure, under its standards. They were loose – not tied to ‘business as usual’.” Muste himself was not “tied to ‘business as usual’” and will serve Christianity and humanity as a “saint” for this and for ages to come.
“We represent a growing number of evangelical Christians who are unwilling to support mission events led by American evangelist Franklin Graham. We find it hard to reconcile his public and partisan statements on such issues as immigration, poverty, gun control and Israel with our understanding of the teaching and values of Jesus Christ.”
These words began a February 7 letter to The Guardian newspaper written by seventeen “evangelical Christian” pastors who oppose Franklin Graham’s upcoming tour of the U.K. The leaders serving parishes across England and Wales wrote in support of the action of eight commercial venues which recently cancelled the Graham team’s booking of their space. The Guardian reported that in justifying the cancellation, many of the venues had indicated that statements by Graham “were incompatible with their values, and that his appearance would be “divisive, could be disruptive or lead to a breach of the peace.”
Opposition to the Graham tour has come from a variety of civil society groups and jurisdictions. The newspaper referred to “protests by LGBTQ+ activists, petitions and requests from local councils”. Contributing to the ardent opposition is widespread dismay among some of the most prominent Christians in the U.K. over Graham’s outspoken support for Donald Trump’s policies. Liverpool’s Bishop Paul Bayes has said ‘If people want to support rightwing populism anywhere in the world they are free to do so. The question is how are they going to relate that to their Christian faith?”
Without naming Franklin Graham, Bishop Bayes singled out “self-styled evangelicals” in the U.S. for criticism, “Some of the things that have been said by religious leaders seem to collude with a system that marginalises the poor, a system which builds walls instead of bridges, a system which says people on the margins of society should be excluded, a system which says we’re not welcoming people any more into our country.” Bayes’ statements at the end of 2017 coincided with implied rebuke of Trump in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Christmas Day message the same year. In a remark widely interpreted as aimed at Trump, Archbishop Justin Welby denounced “populist leaders that deceive”.
Franklin Graham’s endorsement of Trump came as no surprise to those who knew of the Southern Baptist preacher’s fervent support for the War in Iraq,
blanket condemnation of the Muslim religion, and his ongoing denunciation of homosexuals. His characterization of Islam as an “evil and wicked religion” soon after the 9/11 Twin Towers attacks helped build the case for the invasion of Iraq two years later. He is a leading advocate of “conversion therapy” and has compared the conversion of individuals from ‘gay’ to ‘straight’ with the experience of conversion to the Christian faith.
For U.S. citizens in a presidential election year, the perception of U.K. Christians that Graham’s positions sow discord and division within the culture should be especially troubling. If a leader and spokesperson for “evangelical Christians” in the U.S. is deemed capable of “disturbing the peace” in U.K. communities, we are led to question what has been the high profile pastor’s effect on communities in his own country. Some of us find it disturbing that notice of the cancellations and opposition to the tour in the U.K. appeared in a British-based newspaper and in none of the leading U.S. news outlets. In contrast to non-coverage of the British Christians’ response to Graham, an Oct. 5, 2019 article in the Los Angeles Times reported on Graham lauding Trump during a tour of several U.S. cities in the midst of the House impeachment inquiry.
When the columnist covering Religion for the left-leaning Atlantic magazine in the U.S. chooses to describe Franklin Graham as representing “the best impulses of Christianity” (Emma Green in The Atlantic May 21, 2017), one has to wonder if journalists in the U.S. have opted for “kid glove” coverage of Billy Graham’s son’s public pronouncements and actions. One also has to wonder if the high profile Christian leader’s ill-informed, thoughtless positions on present day social issues make it much harder for U.S. young adults to feel they belong in a Christian community or claim the Christian faith as their own.
“There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war” declared Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King in his “Beyond Vietnam” speech of 1967. Comparing the speech’s description of the state of the poor in the U.S. and the world with Nicholas Kristof’s year end New York Times article “2019: The Best Year Ever” (The focus of our last erasing-borders blog) reveals how far this country is lagging behind in alleviating the effects of poverty and inequality. No reader of King’s speech can doubt the speaker would despair over his country’s failure in the last 52 years to take leadership in championing the “world revolution” that he called for. Instead we find evidence that the “tragic death wish” King referred to has tightened its grip on U.S. political and economic life. We have, in fact, led in taking on “the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment”.
In the Comments on Kristof’s article celebrating the advances of the world’s poor in 2019, several readers expressed dismay over conditions in the U.S. “In terms of the United States, I think of a giant ocean liner which takes several miles to turn” one reader wrote. Kristof sympathized with the reader’s view and noted, “It’s striking that life expectancy in the U.S. has now fallen for three years in a row, even as it is lengthening abroad.” Responding to another letter, Kristof wrote, “In Shannon County, South Dakota (with a mostly Native American population), the life expectancy is lower than in Bangladesh.” Another reader of the article emphasized one instance, among many, of the current U.S. administration’s opposition to joint international efforts to fight disease. ‘President Trump called for a 29% cut to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria for 2020 and his administration didn’t even show up to Global Fund preparatory funding meetings”.
The continuing tendency of the U.S. to gl
o it alone or with the support of very few “coalition” partners in its wars and policies of international politics might cause Dr. King the greatest concern were he alive today. He declared in the speech, given one year to the day before his death, “A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional.” Rather than feeding humanity’s inclinations to tribalism, suspicion and fear of “the other”, King urged, “Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.” The urgency of his call for international cooperation reaches its height in the speech’s concluding section. Turn from the national “death wish”, he pleads, for “We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation.” He pleads for love of all “mankind” on the part of us all: “History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate.”
As citizens of the U.S. begin the presidential election year of 2020 many doubt the possibility of their nation reversing its course of self destruction. Of those, many would agree with Dr. King’s diagnosis of the nation’s persistent ills in the 1967 “Beyond Vietnam” speech. But many of them would not share his vision that “America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world”, can now lead the way in this revolution of values. “There is nothing”, our nation’s prophet declared, “to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.” Certainly there are many who also have doubted the truth of the three thousand year old prophecy that “every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low” (Isa. 40)
As a person of faith in a loving Creator, as a person who has seen in my own lifetime the great vision of Isaiah become a reality in the lives of families and societies, I do believe the people of this nation can mold a new status quo and do it in the year 2020. I believe there is a presidential candidate who represents and has represented for over 40 years the kind of change the prophets Isaiah and Dr. King called for. And I believe this candidate is well on the way to creating a movement, stronger and more durable than any campaign organization, that will carry him to victory in the election and will continue to advocate and organize support for policies of peace and justice long after his victory. There is a leading candidate for U.S. President who has over a forty year career in politics fought for the “revolution of values” Dr. King spoke about. The candidate’s name is Senator Bernie Sanders.
Sen. Sanders is the only politician in the U.S. capable of leading a presidential administration committed to putting “people above profits”. He is the only candidate for president whose victory would enable pride that our democracy still can bear the dramatic change, the “peaceful revolution”, King called for years ago. With the election of Sen. Sanders as president no one loses and everyone gains a more hopeful world in 2020.
I can’t imagine a more attention-grabbing headline than one published at the end of 2019, “This is the Best Year Ever”. Tempted mightily to despair over the course of political news in the U.S. and the UK in 2019, Nicholas Kristof’s report on the progress made last year in health, education and economic development worldwide could not be ignored.
The article (published in the New York Times on December 28) was subtitled “For Humanity Overall Life Just Keeps Getting Better”. To substantiate this bold claim, Kristof introduces data reflecting progress made by the world’s poorest people in the poorest nations with these words:
“Since modern humans emerged about 200,000 years ago, 2019 was probably the year in which children were least likely to die, adults were least likely to be illiterate and people were least likely to suffer excruciating and disfiguring diseases.”
Here is a selection from the data supplied by Kristov to support his claim:
• Every single day in recent years, another 325,000 people got their first access to electricity. Each day, more than 200,000 got piped water for the first time. And some 650,000 went online for the first time, every single day.
• As recently as 1950, 27 percent of all children still died by age 15. Now that figure has dropped to about 4 percent.
• A half century ago, a majority of the world’s people had always been illiterate; now we are approaching 90 percent adult literacy.
The last statistic deserves to be highlighted because the increase in world literacy is largely due to recognition of the importance of educating women in sub Saharan Africa and other areas of the world where women have emerged from the confines of domestic life to play a much greater role in society. In recent decades women have led in organizing community projects to expand literacy education, clean water access, enhance agricultural development and other anti-poverty efforts. Education of women and women organizing new local and nation-wide community service programs have also contributed to significant declines in the birth rate in poor nations.
Dramatic evidence for the correlation of women’s education levels and the birth rate is provided by Bangladesh. Once described “by Henry Kissinger as a ‘basket case’,” Kristof notes that now “its economy grows much faster than America’s and Bangladeshi women average just 2.1 births (down from 6.9 in 1973)”. We need not go so far as South Asia for evidence that higher levels of education of women bring significant reduction in the birth rate. The “total fertility rate” (TFR) in Mexico has fallen from 5.7 births per female to 2.2 TFR in recent years. This trend of fewer children birthed with more education of the parents, regardless of vast cultural differences, counters dire predictions of global overpopulation. Again and again figures have shown that more education, and more educational opportunity for women in particular, is the most effective birth control method.
Two trends will hamper further progress by humanity according to Kristof. He states in the article’s conclusion, “Climate change remains a huge threat to our globe, as does compassion fatigue in the rich world”. I would add to those two the much greater aid funding provided poor nations by the U.S. and other developed nations for weapons purchases and security training than for economic and social development. A recent study by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) concluded, “National security concerns have continued to drive U.S. assistance policy”. Our wars in the Middle East have demanded far greater expenditures than the expenditures for foreign aid in general. A highly disputed estimate by the Pentagon in early 2018 that the U.S. would spend 45 billion that year on the Afghan war alone (the estimate did not include disability claims and payments for injuries suffered by our soldiers) compares to the 35 billion dollars foreign aid budget passed by Congress for 2018.
Optimism with humanity’s progress toward eliminating extreme poverty and its effects must be tempered then by consideration of what would be possible should foreign aid be devoted primarily to development aid and not to combat and training for war. In countries of the Middle East, do the citizens associate the U.S. with aid for economic and social progress or with the perpetuation of conflict between inhabitants of that region?
In the next post we’ll look at some readers’ responses to the Nicholas Kristof article at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/opinion/sunday/2019-best-year-poverty.html
Honest, true to oneself interpretation of life in another culture is a calling in our day and age. It is also for us Americans counter cultural. The U.S. culture has not customarily celebrated what we learn and how we grow through cross-cultural encounters. As a child in the 1950’s I was assured that the U.S. was the best country to be born in as well as the most generous, best intentioned democracy on the planet. Following our leadership in defeating the fascist armies in WW II, we had seemingly become that “city on the hill” that the pilgrim envisioned in migrating to our shore.
We now know better that such youthful exuberance can lead to hubris, a sense of entitlement vis a vis other countries, and arrogance. How do we as individuals and a nation pursue relationships of equality and mutual respect with other nations when we at some level believe we know how to fix everything and can deploy the resources to do it? How do we relate to other cultures and other nations as individuals and as a nation?
Whether we embrace cross cultural encounters or view other cultures with suspicion and fear is a vital question in all eras. But it assumes greater importance in a time when the U.K. has voted to abandon its membership in the European Common Market and the U.S. foreign policy protects its “national interests” by repudiating former agreements and treaties. Since the 2016 U.S. election, the U.S. has rejected participation in the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear agreement. We have also ceased funding of the UN Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court, and withdrawn from the Global Pact on Migration and the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
I believe we as individuals do have models to follow for mutually beneficial relationships with other cultures and nations. Consider the testimonials of U.S. citizens serving in other countries. The Global Ministries’ Division of the United Church of Christ (UCC) and the Christian Church Disciples of Christ (DOC) in the U.S. calls them “Mission Co-Workers” to emphasize how they work in a partnership of mutuality with citizens of the countries they serve in. One of the more than 100 “Mission Co Workers” now working in such a partnership has written about her life in Morocco, a majority Muslim country with very few Christians. Born in Haiti, Emmanuela L’occident wrote the following in her first year of service in North Africa:
“My biggest challenge here is to go beyond what I know of the world and grasp whatever this new country has to offer. Daily, we face some things we’ve never seen and we are sometimes prone to reject or to impose our way of thinking. Having a position of power here is a really complex dynamic where I constantly have to analyze and make sure to give my brothers and sisters, who are also my colleagues here, the opportunity to decide freely while benefiting of my input. I am forever grateful for all the things I have learned so far and how transformed I am by what I’ve seen, heard and lived.”
In a recent Opinion piece for the New York Times David Brooks urged Democrats to counter the current U.S. administration’s anti-immigrant policies and language “with the pluralist mind-set (which) acknowledges that God’s truth is radically dispersed”. In the column titled “How to Beat Trump on Immigration” (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/opinion/trump-immigration.html?searchResultPosition=2) Brooks suggests “Pluralism offers us the chance, and the civic duty, to be a daring social explorer, venturing across subcultures, sometimes having the exciting experience of being the only one of you in the room, harvesting the wisdom embedded in other people’s lifeways”. What Brooks calls the “pluralist mind-set” is beautifully described by another Global Ministries “Mission Co-Worker” living in San Cristobal de las Casas, Mexico.
Now in her twenties, Abigail Fate writes, “My coworkers thoroughly address all my concerns and go out of their way to make sure that I have fresh coffee and that I understand what I’m doing. The children we work with in markets around the city have begun to recognize me, and eagerly tell me about their lives. They listen carefully as I explain the games we’re playing, while still giggling and correcting my Spanish.” Summing up her experience to date, she writes, “I have been met with unwavering patience and kindness in every aspect of my life here. Though there are many challenges, and it’s often difficult, I can already see this city and these people becoming home. And I can’t wait to see how my story will continue to unfold.”
Abi and Emmanuela are committed to value, respect and learn from the cultural traditions and lifestyle in their new homes. Like all “Mission Co-Workers”, they find that the mutuality approach of our international Church partnerships greatly assist in meeting the challenges of life in a very different culture. As representatives of two U.S.-based Christian denominations (U.C.C. and D.O.C.) working for mutuality and equality among cultures, they would agree with Brooks that “Only people who are securely rooted in their own particularity are confident enough to enjoy the encounter with difference.”
I am convinced that in this time of unprecedented devaluation of other cultures and of our nation’s agreements with other countries, we may discover new, larger dimensions of our “particularity” as Christians, and as human beings, in a multi-cultural world. That Jesus proclaimed God’s love is universal there can be no doubt. That it has always been challenging for followers of Jesus to reflect that love in relationships with persons of other faiths and other cultures there can also be no doubt.
Today as citizens of the U.S., the nation with the largest Christian population, we need not leave the country to respond to the calling to demonstrate love and respect for persons of other faiths and cultures. In the U.S. of our time, we are offered opportunities on a daily basis to live with “a pluralist mind-set”. In our “particularity” as U.S. citizens, Christian and non-Christian, we can progress towards a more “pluralist mind set” by learning and growing through our encounters with people of other cultures. Living today in the U.S., we all can be transformed by what we’ve “seen, heard and lived” among people of other cultures.
Contrary to what we often hear and read, the U.S. problem isn’t that “too many immigrants want to come here. It’s going to be that too few might want to”. So argues Seketu Mehta, U.S. immigrant from India, in his important new book This Land Is Our Land: An Immigrant’s Manifesto . The author’s position on immigration, well supported by multiple facts and stories, is so seldom heard in the current debate as to be shocking. Although the 2016 average income of the Indian immigrant to the U.S., at $110,026 annually, far exceeds that of the average “White” resident’s income, $61,349, the anti-immigrant policies and language today have already deterred some from coming to this country. Today, Mehta points out, Canada accepts three times as many immigrants per capita than the U.S. And Mexico in recent years is seeing more of its nationals return from the U.S. than cross the border for the “promised land”.
It is the demographic statistics Mehta cites that best bolster his argument for “Why They Should Be Welcomed” as the book’s final section puts it. As the “white nationalist” emphasizes in often hysterical fashion, the U.S. white population is declining and becoming increasingly older. By contrast, 80 per cent of the immigrants to the U.S. are under age 40 while half the U.S. population, white and persons of color, are over 40. We are now familiar with the Social Security statistics indicating that in 1960 there were 5 workers for every retired and disabled person enjoying benefits compared to fewer than 3 workers in 2013 supporting the system. In 2018 Social Security paid more in benefits than it received in payments. Important to consider also is the Social Security payments of $13 billion by undocumented immigrants in 2010 while seniors and the disabled without documents received only $1 billion in benefits.
This book should help convince anyone that immigration has contributed and will support even more in the future the economic stability and health of the U.S. Stemming from their younger age and their relatively recent arrival, immigrants today make up 40 % of the home buyers in the country while representing 13 % of the U.S. population. Dramatic revivals of U.S. towns have occurred due to the welcoming of immigrant settlers. Mehta describes how 10,000 Guyanese transformed the abandoned downtown of Schenectady, New York as they restored decrepit houses “with little or no government assistance”. Most of the Guyanese immigrants, now 12 % of the entire town population, had been renting housing in the New York City borough of Queens when the Mayor of Schenectady in 2002 invited them to settle in the northern New York town. Other New York upstate urban areas have experienced similar improvements thanks to welcoming over 40,000 immigrants to their towns.
U.S. immigration policies fall far short of recognizing and supporting the vital contributions of the newly arrived workers. Restricting the flow of younger workers into the country now holds sway in our policies. Since 2000 the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled to the current total of 20,000 and the budget for “border security” has grown four times as large as two decades ago. In 2017, of the 1.1 million permanent resident permits, “green cards”, issued by the U.S. authorities, only 12 % were employment related.
Seketu Mehta’s book issues a wake up call to Europe and the U.S. that the racism and white nationalist fervor of the colonial era are proving difficult to overcome in accepting and implementing the policy changes called for now. Statistics tell us that the population growth of Europe is below the replacement rate of 2.1 babies per woman, and only 27 % of Europeans are under 25 while 60 % of Africans are in that age group. At current growth rates the population of Europe and Russia will decline from 740 million to around 700 million in 2050 while Africa’s will double to an estimated 2.4 billion persons.
Due to even more dire consequences of the climate crisis expected in the global South, the flight of migrants to Europe and North America will keep immigration issues in the forefront of our civic dialog and politics. This “Immigrant Manifesto” as the author subtitles This Land Is Our Land challenges us in the North to view the immigrant “invasion” as an opportunity to strengthen the economies and ideals of our nations. Failure to change our attitudes and policies will, this book argues convincingly, seriously undermine our economic strength and our quality of life.
In a dramatic initiative to ease Muslim-Christian tensions and violent conflict, the Pope and the Grand Imam, the highest authority in Sunni Islam, pledged last February to “work strenuously to spread the culture of tolerance and of living together in peace”. Although largely ignored by secular media, notably in the U.S., the leaders of the world’s two largest religious bodies jointly created a document stating that “faith leads a believer to see in the other a brother or sister to be supported and loved”.
Intended as a model and a guide for peacemaking and dialog in our times, the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” was signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam Sheikh Abu Tayeb in Abu Dhabi. It was the first visit ever of a Pope to the Arabian peninsula, the cradle of Islam. While Christians have led the refugee flight from Iraq, Syria and the Palestinian territories, the Pope has worked to enhance understanding and respect for Christians now living in predominantly Muslim countries. Improving relationships with Muslim leaders is a priority of Pope Francis’ papacy and can also be seen as repairing the damage done by his predecessor Pope Benedict. A 2006 speech by the former Pope was widely interpreted as characterizing Islam as a religion which condones violence.
The “Human Fraternity” document signed in February and the current Pope’s warm relationship and ongoing dialog with the Grand Imam and other Muslim leaders encourage “all who believe that God has created us to understand one another, cooperate with one another and live as brothers and sisters who love one another.” The document identifies several obstacles to creation of a culture of dialog and peace in today’s world.
Echoing Martin Luther King’s observation that our technological advance has surpassed our knowledge of how to live in peace, the document identifies the causes of conflict today as “a desensitized human conscience, a distancing from religious values and a prevailing individualism accompanied by materialistic philosophies that deify the human person and introduce worldly and material values in place of supreme and transcendental principles.” Strongly condemned are religious groups who, “have taken advantage of the power of religious sentiment in the hearts of men and women in order to make them act in a way that has nothing to do with the truth of religion. This is done for the purpose of achieving objectives that are political, economic, worldly and short-sighted.” Such “False Religion” has supported military build up leading to “signs of a ‘third world war being fought piecemeal’”.
Also contributing to the crises today the document points to increasing economic inequality, and the exploitation of women and denial of their rights. In its conclusion the document urges “research and reflection” on its contents in all places of learning “to educate new generations to bring goodness and peace to others, and to be defenders everywhere of the rights of the oppressed and of the least of our brothers and sisters”.
Unfortunately, most American media emphasized the political implications of the February meeting of the two leaders while ignoring the document’s contents. The two New York Times articles reporting on the Pope’s visit to the Arabian peninsula failed to mention the document or its contents. By contrast, the official Vatican News headline the day after the meeting celebrated “the historic declaration of peace, freedom, women’s rights”. Conservative Catholic media and commentators rued the document language characterizing the diversity of religions as “willed by God in His wisdom”. One commentator speculated that “this is not what Muslim converts (to Christianity, ed.) want to hear from their Pope”.
The lack of attention paid the document is troubling. Our secular media’s tepid response suggests we live in a world captivated by the force of armaments. Ignorance of this significant effort to bring about a world of “human fraternity” reminds of Stalin’s reputed response to the suggestion that the Pope be invited to the Tehran Conference in 1943. “And how many divisions does the Pope have?” the Russian leader was reported to have asked.
Despite the neglect of the “Human Fraternity” document, and the opposition of Catholic critics of the Pope’s embrace of “religious pluralism”, Francis and the Vatican are following through on the dialog with Muslim leaders. Meetings in August resulted in some edits of the February document and were followed by another conversation between the Grand Imam and the Pope this month in Rome. Discussion focused on the progress of the joint “Superior Committee” in efforts to achieve the objectives agreed on in February.
To read the complete document signed in February 2019 go to:
In speeches at the United Nations the last two years the President of the U.S. has defended national sovereignty and national interest as the pathway to global progress and prosperity. Choosing the forum created to foster global cooperation in the cause of world peace, economic development and human rights to extol national sovereignty highlights Trump’s heedless defiance of what makes for understanding and consensus building among nations. In a summary statement of his position, he declared in his September 2018 remarks, “We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.”
This year in another September address, the U.S. President again attacked “the ideology of globalism” in the citadel of global cooperation. After acknowledging the UN as “the world’s biggest stage” in this year’s speech Trump chastised and bullied UN agencies on several fronts. He announced the U.S. withdrawal from the UN Human rights council, withdrawal from the UN Arms Trade Treaty, withdrawal of support for he International Criminal Court, and rejection of the Global Compact on Migration. In explanation of the last action he told the UN, “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.”
U.S. opposition to the global pact on migration stems in part from the U.S. administration’s hostility to references to a human caused climate crisis as a cause of increased migration. A leaked email of a U.S official working for the UN’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) warned of U.S. cuts in funding for the agency. The US appointee stated the IOM policies and positions “must not be in conflict withcurrent [US government] political sensitivities”.
An article in The Guardian newspaper of September 11 links the warning to the rejection by UN officials of the Trump administration’s nominee to be head of the IOM. Most reports concurred that Ken Isaacs’ failure to be approved was due to his denials of human caused climate change. The Guardian noted that the U.S. has been contributing one fourth of the IOM budget.
Just this week, on November 4, the current U.S. Administration officially withdrew the wealthiest nation in the world from the Paris climate Accord. As the only developed country to give precedence to increasing fossil fuel production over reversing the ongoing climate catastrophe, the U.S. has now formally ceded its leadership role on the “world’s biggest stage”. The action is the most dramatic and decisive declaration that the U.S. considers its “national interest” the priority above the survival of coastal communities and survival of the human species.
Trump’s two speeches at the UN communicate his administration’s determination to pursue its nationalistic, “America First” ideology in its international relations. They ignore that progress in protection of the environment, in advancing world peace, international human rights and combatting world poverty all demand the consensus, compromise and understanding of other nations for which the UN was created. No nation, including the most powerful, can provide solutions to the world’s ills without cooperation and collaboration with other UN members. The bluster and aggressive unilateral actions of the U.S. in its foreign policies today are also a primary threat to world peace.
Having warned that the U.S. will not pay more than 25 per cent of the UN’s peacekeeping operations in last year’s speech, Trump boasted in this year’s speech of increased funding of the U.S. military. In an introductory segment of his remarks, he declared that the U.S. has “spent over two and a half trillion dollars since my election to completely rebuild our great military”. Such muscle flexing begs the question of whether excessive military expenditures and pride in U.S. military might have deluded foreign policy makers of this and previous U.S. administrations.
Perhaps the most revealing segment of the speech this year came at the beginning when Trump stated, “The essential divide that runs all around the world and throughout history is once again thrown into stark relief. It is the divide between those whose thirst for control deludes them into thinking they are destined to rule over others and those people and nations who want only to rule themselves.” Since the United States played such an important in the UN founding in 1946, its continual expansion of its armaments and military might suggest that our country has crossed over the divide Trump mentioned in the conviction we are “destined to rule over others”. The U.S. has deployed active troops in over 150 countries in the world and maintains bases in 38 nations today.
“If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of a warring world, or to the arsenals of nations preparing for war, then the time will come when mankind will curse the names of Los Alamos and Hiroshima. The people must unite, or they will perish.” J.Robert Oppenheimer spoke these words soon after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The chief of the Los Alamos team that produced the first nuclear weapons joined many other atomic scientists in calling for international oversight of future development of atomic weapons and atomic energy.
The scientists’ anguish over the cataclysmic potential of nuclear bombs led to the creation of the Federation of Atomic Scientists of Los Alamos. Their December 1945 newsletter editorialized, “the preservation of…secrecy on a purely national basis would represent the defeat of any adequate program of international control.”
At the same time, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by Los Alamos and Manhattan Project team members who “could not remain aloof to the consequences of their work.” Several of them also contributed essays to the best selling book of 1946 titled One World or None: A Report to the Public on the Full Meaning of the Atomic Bomb.
Oppenheimer continued to call for international control of atomic weapons in the 1960’s. At a series of lectures at Oxford in 1962 he declared, “[…] We think of this as our contribution to the making of a world which is varied and cherishes variety, which is free and cherishes freedom, and which is freely
changing to adapt to the inevitable needs of change in the twentieth century and all centuries to come, but a world which, with all its variety, freedom, and change, is without nation states armed for war and above all, a world without war.”
Albert Einstein was among the leading scientists who hoped the United Nations would provide the institutional framework for control of atomic weapons and atomic energy. He began his appeal to the Second General Assembly of the UN in 1947 lamenting: “Since the victory over the Axis powers – no appreciable progress has been made either toward the prevention of war or toward agreement in specific fields such as control of atomic energy”. Anticipating the argument that the U.S. or any other nation’s hegemony in nuclear weapons would guarantee security and peace, Einstein declared, “However, strong national armaments may be they do not create military security for any nation nor do they guarantee the maintenance of peace.”
Einstein’s appeal to the U.N. warned against the idolatry of national sovereignty as hampering progress toward international peace and security. “There can never be complete agreement on international control and the administration of atomic energy or on general disarmament until there is a modification of the traditional concept of national sovereignty…. Security is indivisible. It can be reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain everywhere, so that military security is no longer the problem of any single state.”
The hope for a world order without armed forces and weapons deployed by individual nation states soon gave way to the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The 1946 founding of the United Nations represented for Einstein and many others a departure from and repudiation of the logic of nationalism and national sovereignty. Expectations that progress in creating a world system of law and order would follow soon gave way to a new scramble to maintain control of the resources in the former colonies of Europe. It is the devotion to the defense of national sovereignty, a conception of world order most developed in the 19th Century, that drives opposition to “open borders” today.
Our “national sovereignty” is referred to as threatened by immigration to the U.S. Migrants today constitute an “invasion” of the country. Such language leads to further militarization of the 1,933 mile southern border of the U.S. Building a wall to ensure long term security ignores ample evidence that what hasn’t worked in the past won’t work in our time. The push for building a wall contributes to the hysteria surrounding immigration without contributing to the defense of the nation or clearing a path for progress in immigration reform.
Responding to increases in the number of migrants by building a wall does illuminate for us the dangers of clinging to outmoded, archaic thinking behind public policies based on defense of “national sovereignty”. Defense of our people in this nation from the potential consequences of atomic warfare, of global climate change and of mass migration from impoverished regions most affected requires the U.S. to rethink its posture and politics of “America First”. What must happen before we commit to international cooperation and control in this “one world or none”? What degree of catastrophe in the U.S. must occur before we open our minds to “open borders”?