| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Fifth Column | |
| American Friends of Saddam Committee | |
| 2003-10-28 | |
| By William R. Hawkins FrontPageMagazine.com Feed the oppressed, barbecue a sacred cow: The detonation of several suicide car bombs in Baghdad on the first day of Ramadan, the most holy days of the Islamic faith, provided violent and bloody examples of one way religion and politics can interact when used by radicals. It is not, however, the only way religion can be twisted to further a barbaric cause. American also has devout activists who are just as anxious to see America fail as any fedayeen. Take, for example, the American Friends Service Committee. It claims on its website to be "a practical expression of the faith of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Committed to the principles of nonviolence and justice, it seeks in its work and witness to draw on the transforming power of love, human and divine." Certainly, when one thinks of pacifism, the image of the pious Quaker comes readily to mind. Theologically, the Quakers are a fundamentalist cult on the same level as Appalachian snake-handlers, though this is couched in PC language that gives them immunity to the usual academic and media demonization of such beliefs. But based on a mailing I recently received from the AFSC, it’s clear that this creed of pacifism can no longer be accorded the moral high ground in policy debates. Love, justice and divine inspiration do no comport well with the embrace of bloody dictators or the opposing of those who would seek to transform tyranny into freedom. That could have been worded better, but let us move on. I did not even have to open the letter to get my first taste of the AFSC’s uncharitable venom. Emblazoned across the front of the envelop was the claim that America was in "a more dangerous time for peace and justice than even the McCarthy era." Ah, the Horrors of McCarthyism™; every undergrad knows them: the midnight raids on peaceful Greenwich Village communes, the thousands machine-gunned in the streets, the millions packed away in cattle-cars to the Rocky Mountain Gulag..... On the inside, the lead complaint is that the Bush Administration has on eleven occasions broken "promises" to support "serious, written down [sic], legally binding agreements" in international affairs. Only six examples are specifically mentioned, however, and only one—the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was ever actually ratified. The ABM treaty was not, however, "tossed aside." The United States used the process established in the treaty to withdraw from an agreement that was no longer useful or relevant. Archives around the world are full of such documents rendered obsolete by events and now of interest only to historians. The other agreements AFSC mentions, the Conventions on Small Arms, the conventions on Chemical and Biological weapons, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the treaty to set up the International Criminal Court, have not been ratified by the United States and thus have no "legally binding" affect on American policy. Though the AFSC proclaims on the first page that it "is not a political organization" it poses to the reader the question, "Can you trust a leadership that so casually discards the provisions that defend our peace, safety and liberty?" The question hangs in the air because no argument is presented in behalf of any of the international agreements to show how they would "defend" the United States. The history of arms control agreements provides strong evidence that they do more harm than good. Let’s not jump to conclusions here. The statement is more than reasonable if "our" refers to totalitarians, power-seekers, and violent authoritarians. The first international arms control conference was held in The Hague in 1899. It accomplished little, nor was the second Hague conference of 1907 any better. A third meeting scheduled for 1915 had to be canceled due to the outbreak of World War I. In 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, named after the U.S. Secretary of State and the French Foreign Minister, "outlawed" war. All the major powers that would fight in World War II signed this agreement, pledging to "condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy." The years between the world wars also saw the size of navies limited by treaty. The principle result of these arms control schemes was to constrain the superior industrial strength of the United States so that a much weaker Japan could build a fleet capable of obtaining regional superiority and launching aggression. Historically, the primary achievement of the peace movement has been to weaken resistance to dictatorships. In recent years, this has become a concious goal. In the 80s, Quacker/Menno-nut activists campaigned to make the West helpless against the Soviet nuclear threat. Today, their target du jour is "aerial bombing", especially cluster bombs, an effort that serves to level the playing field for totalitarian, terrorist, and narco-guerrilla forces. The progressive power of democratic capitalism is such that only by hobbling the United States in some manner can rival ideologies hope to close the gap sufficiently to pose a threat. Forging hobbles for American leadership is the apparent goal of AFSC activism. The AFSC claims in its letter that it was among the first to recognize the "worst excesses of the Third Reich" and "to confront the Nazi government." This did not, however, extend so far as to support the war effort against the Nazis. The Quackers of the time in fact did everything possible and legal, and some things that weren’t, to undermine the war effort and materially assist Nazi forces. But in the abbreviated history of the organization presented, this would seem to be the last time the AFSC recognized or confronted any evil outside the United States. As the group states in its online history, "recognizing that most conflicts have their roots in injustice, the Quaker organization has been long concerned with eliminating injustice at home in the United States." The unjustice of car bombing, execution by shredder, and state-sponsored rape seems to have escaped their notice. Though the AFSC mentions the "hysteria and mob mentality of the McCarthy era" it does not mention the Cold War or even the Korean War which gave context to that era. Medieval moonbat religious debate: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Quaker moonbat religious debate: How many fifth-columnists can hide behind the whisky-sodden ghost of Joe McCarthy? There is no mention of the "excesses" of Soviet Communism, nor the continuing threat from a North Korean regime that talks incessantly of aggressive war and nuclear weapons. The AFSC is proud of its role as "an early critic of U.S. involvement in Vietnam" and brags of its role, after the Communist victories, in rebuilding "lives and communities" in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. It fails to mention that this effort was in concert with brutal Marxist dictatorships which killed millions. And then, of course, there is Iraq, where the AFSC "did everything it could to put the brakes on the headlong rush to war." If the AFSC had been successful, would have kept the extremely violent and sadistic regime of Saddam Hussein in power. Same in World War 2, when Quaker peace-mongering helped give the Gestapo precious time to consolidate its pursuit of "justice" in Poland, Russia, France, etc. The letter ends with a prayer for "integrity" in government based on "truth, compassion and honest behavior." Love, faith and guitar recitals will stay the hand of terrorists, if we only believe. The AFSC would be well advised to apply this standard to its own behavior over the last half century. The AFSC has held the bloody hands of the worst tyrants on the planet and attempted to shelter them from true justice behind a plea for "peace" that would perpetuate their crimes and keep them in power. Conservatives often want to give some leeway to those who wrap their politics in Christian rhetoric, even when they disagree. No such consideration is due the American Friends Service Committee. The only friends it has served of late have been Satanic in the extent of their evil.
| |
| Posted by:Atomic Conspiracy |
| #28 To AC forgot the number 80 after the word sun in my e-mail adress if you want to send any message to me |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-28 8:53:16 PM |
| #27 Dammit Bastian! Is that you? Thanks for letting me borrow the cart. Sorry about the lettuce. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-10-28 8:00:14 PM |
| #26 To AC I sent an E-mail but If you do not recieve it just look up sovereign grace baptist in the World Wide Web I apolgize in advance for any incovienance |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-28 5:10:37 PM |
| #25 I wont get into whether Quakers are good christians or what not (as long as christians here dont presume to comment on the propriety of say, driving on shabbos) I will note that it is my impression that the AFSC has a considerable independence from the Society of Friends, and that while Quakers do tend to be liberal, not all share the positions of the AFSC. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-10-28 4:20:16 PM |
| #24 I haven't. I just changed brands of Oatmeal because I'm feeling petty. |
| Posted by: OminousWhatever 2003-10-28 3:36:47 PM |
| #23 AC, OW & others, PLEASE, do NOT feed the trolls! Thank you. -Analog |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2003-10-28 3:16:43 PM |
| #22 Thank you, Anonymous, and please accept my apology for the strident tone that is sometimes the norm here. Feel free to e-mail me with information on this Baptist group to which you belong. I am sorry to say that I am not familiar with it. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 2:37:30 PM |
| #21 To AC if I offended you inadvertantly I appoligize and I ask for your forgivness brother I call you brother because we seem to be of the same Flock spiritually speaking along with VAMark who I also sense the same from even if we differ slightly in doctrine and political view |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-28 2:25:26 PM |
| #20 This is a small "f" fundamentalism, Mark. By the strict definition, as used in theology, Muslim fundamentalism is no such thing either. In terms of relying on religious doctrine in defiance of objective experience, I think that Quaker beliefs share important characteristics with those of certain groups who are often characterized as fundamentalist. In their case, this doctrine is not Biblical, but it is fundamental to their belief system. Before the US entry into World War 2, Quakers were very active in the Isolationist movement, which indisputably delayed US entry into the war. Whether this was justified is debatable, but there is no doubt at all that it materially assisted the early Nazi conquests and prolonged the war. I don't know who said that COs were objectively pro-Nazi, but I am not willing to extend this to individual COs who accepted alternate service, since this service did in fact assist the war effort and contribute to the defeat of the Nazi regime. Some Quakers were jailed for refusing even alternate service on this basis and it is hard to argue with their doctrinal consistency in that respect. "What else is supposed to have happened?" Why is anything else supposed to have happened? Our system requires us to accommodate religious dissidence to a reasonable extent. I have not suggested changing that but if Quakers trumpet their opposition to Nazism, it is only fair and reasonable for me to point out that this opposition was ineffective and counter-productive, especially in comparison to the efforts they did their best to oppose. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 2:22:57 PM |
| #19 I don't care where the Quakers tand politically because, damn it, they make a hell of a good cereal. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-28 1:59:48 PM |
| #18 And to clear up cofusion I was talking about governments going after them not individuals in voicing their oppostion to them |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-28 1:46:48 PM |
| #17 Once again We are in agreement in Your statement about freedom of speach and also about your opinion of the quaker group in question however i never stated above that I am against You stating Your opinion but all opinions including mine have a tendecy to being taken out of context and used improperly so both of us should be careful of what we say and do with the empthasis on me not you |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-28 1:33:37 PM |
| #16 Quakers are not "fundamentalists". Fundamentalist has a specific theological meaning, especially when referring to a Christian sect, and Quakers don't remotely qualify. Their pacifism is bad Christian doctrine in my opinion, and just a first example of why they can't be considered fundamentalist. I wouldn't argue with "cult", though. I'd be interest in some support for the contention that the "The Quackers [sic] of the time in fact did everything possible and legal, and some things that weren’t, to undermine the war effort and materially assist Nazi forces." My understanding is that Quakers were permitted CO status but that many served as medics and in other legal alternative service. Leaving aside the debate about whether a CO was "objectively pro-Nazi", what else is supposed to have happened? |
| Posted by: VAMark 2003-10-28 1:30:09 PM |
| #15 The Spanish Inquisition started when somebody asserted that it was unlawful to question certain beliefs, as you are doing now. Criticism is not force, it is not torture, and it is not oppression. Pretending that they are is a direct attack on free speech. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 1:22:06 PM |
| #14 If You truly read My statements It cleary points out I am for freedom of speach and how is it obscene when considering the Spainish Inquisition started when people in general attacked other groups of people for being different in beliefs |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-28 1:11:30 PM |
| #13 There is no right to immunity from criticism, of belief or anything else. This kind of criticism is not "force," and it is obscene and dishonest for you to compare it to the actions of the Spanish Inquisition. If you have a problem with free speech; fine, that is your right. Just don't try to enforce it. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 1:02:39 PM |
| #12 I should have put the word Grace following Soveriegn |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-28 12:59:39 PM |
| #11 Thanks, Anonymous. I'm glad we cleared that up. Right. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-10-28 12:56:57 PM |
| #10 To AC again being forced think a certain way is being attacked on a statement of belief rather than actions of individual people however I should have said to 'try to force different beliefs' like the spainish did to the Jews and Moors To Tu3031 my beliefs are based on the majority of statements of Soveriegn and Reformed Baptists with My own personal application |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-28 12:52:02 PM |
| #9 The first international arms control conference was held in The Hague in 1899. It accomplished little, nor was the second Hague conference of 1907 any better. A third meeting scheduled for 1915 had to be canceled due to the outbreak of World War I. In 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, named after the U.S. Secretary of State and the French Foreign Minister, "outlawed" war. To quote Ann Coulter, "Anybody sense a pattern here?" |
| Posted by: Raj 2003-10-28 12:49:42 PM |
| #8 Anonymous: How is anyone being "forced to think a certain way"? |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 12:40:47 PM |
| #7 Anonymous? What the hell was that? Has Rodung defected? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-10-28 12:37:27 PM |
| #6 First to AC My statement above includes everybody in non interference in thought and beliefs i was not talking about if they broke civil law which is morally wrong however I am still against forcing people to think a certain way Next to OW I type this way in the web because it is more convinent however if you want a literate statement of mine tell me where I can send one |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-28 12:36:56 PM |
| #5 OminousWhatever - that was delicious - I hope I never piss you off, lol |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-10-28 12:25:26 PM |
| #4 Well, semi-literate Anonymous person, I don't share your religious beliefs, so I don't believe that groups that act in the public arena have some kind of immunity to criticism or opposition. Asserting that it is improper to "go after them" is an endorsement of censorship, like the idiot who suggested that I be jailed for violating the Dixie Chicks' rights when I dared to speak against them on my radio show. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-28 12:10:03 PM |
| #3 I think I am going to change brands of oatmeal as well as write run-on sentnces without any punctuation so I sound like a fifteen year old discussing pro wrestling in a chatroom because that would be lots of fun |
| Posted by: OminousWhatever 2003-10-28 11:57:54 AM |
| #2 My personal faith and most people I know believe that non support of your own government in everything when they are morally right including war is unChristian and unlawful this also pertains to the jehovah's witenesses and others besides the Quakers but that is our opinion so take it or leave it however none of us beleive in going after them considering it is their own problem to deal with exept if they deal directlly with dictatorships |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-10-28 11:48:36 AM |
| #1 the AFSC has been actively encouraging illegal immigration here in the San Diego region. Every time there's an illegal's death - either by weather exposure or trying to run a checkpoint, you can count on teh usual suspects making news appearances |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-10-28 11:31:42 AM |