Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!david From: david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Jehovah's Witnesses against nuclear weapons Message-ID: <414@cvl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-May-85 17:40:26 EDT Article-I.D.: cvl.414 Posted: Thu May 9 17:40:26 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 11-May-85 08:34:31 EDT Distribution: net Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park Lines: 144 I was very glad to hear this about the Jehovah's Witnesses who are employed by Los Alamos Labs, which besides Livermore Labs in California, is primarily responsible for development of new nuclear and other weapons systems: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: cs193bah@unm-la.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Litmus test for Witnesses in L.A. Message-ID: <287@unm-la.UUCP> Date: 8 May 85 02:31:54 GMT >From the Los Alamos Monitor, Sunday, April 28th: ************************************************ The growing emphasis on nuclear and conventional weapons work at Los Alamos National Laboratory has led several members of the local Jehovah's Witnesses congregation to decide that they will eventually leave their LANL jobs, church elders said. "It has been brought to our attention that in light of what the lab is doing now it would be adverse to Scriptures if we continue to work there," said Elder Frank Diebold, a LANL engineer. However, the decision is up to each individual, and wasn't mandated by church officials, stressed Elder Lloyd Smith, also a LANL engineer. "As long as the weapons work was played down by the lab, you could go for years and not realize they were making weapons," Smith said. "Of course, we knew all along they were involved in weapons research, and we stayed away from those kind of jobs. "Now it's so prominent. We still don't do anything that has to do with weapons, but by association, we are guilty." "We are not looking for publicity...We have nothing against our fellow townspeople or our neighbors. If they work for the lab-- no matter what they do for the lab--it is their own business. We certainly don't want to condemn someone if they're making weapons." This isn't the first time such issues have been raised in Los Alamos. Last year, the Catholic Church in Los Alamos approached the same issues, but came up with different conclusions. Jehovah's Witnesses were founded in 1872, and feel their religion-- the worship of almighty god revealed in the Bible as Jehovah--is the oldest on earth. They refuse blood transfusions, and refuse to bear arms, salute the flag or participate in secular government, says a brief description in a reference book. ********************************* [Posted without comment] -- bill peter ihnp4!lanl!wkp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I remember hearing Bishop Mathiesen speak at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas, along with Fr. Brian Hehir, said to be the principal writer of the Bishops' Letter, concerning justification of warfare in this age of 'nuclear deterrence'. The Bishop said that he had lived for many years, as Bishop of his diocese, in Amarillo, Texas, where the Pantex Corporation assembles all nuclear warheads in this country. But he did not see the light, about the dangerous evil of nuclear weapons and about our employment for their creation, until some one of his flock came to him questioning the morality of his employment, as a Christian. And so, this Bishop has turned around, and has encouraged those who look to him to seek for more peaceful employment, which is consistent with their following of Christ. I also remember talking with Fr. Hehir another time, at the university where I am employed, when he was publicly expounding the second draft of the Bishops' Letter, which was somewhat weaker than the first, but also weaker than the finally accepted version. I am not satisfied with their Letter, which in my opinion, is an apology for the justification of warfare, actually an apology for Church tradition which arises with Augustine in the late fourth century when Imperial Christianity came to existence. Essentially, this Letter warns us about the obvious contradiction of nuclear warfare with the Gospel, however it tries to justify their existence by their effect of 'deterrence', appealing to the principle of right of national defense. That is, they say that it is extremely improbable that these weapons can be used in warfare in a traditionally acceptable way, especially as to satisfy principles which discriminate the innocent. Nevertheless, the last word is that the Bishops gave conditioned acceptence to the possession of these weapons, for the purpose of deterrence, even though they could not envisage their moral use -- conditioned on pursuit of disarmament in good faith by this nation's government. During our brief encounter, I pointed out three things. First, when I was told about the traditional "principles" of just warfare, about which I must first be informed, for example, the principle of proportionality of effect, which would apparently 'favor' civilians -- then I asked whether this meant that the Gospel of Christ has something to do with the ratio of body counts -- a rather perverse interpretation of the plain Gospel teaching of overcoming evil with good, of non-retal- iation against enemies. This is not the ideal of the Gospel at all; it is simply a rationalization of violence, which is utterly alien to Jesus. Then I asked where is this principle supported in the Gospel or in Paul or in the first three centuries of Christian tradition; it clearly presupposes that Jesus endorses military force for national defense. But as a matter of fact, Jesus plainly rejects the previous tradition, which might justify national warfare, saying that since the coming of Elijah, in John the Baptist, who heralds the reign of God, until his own coming, as the Messiah, as the morning star heralds the rising Sun -- even 'until ~now~ the kingdom of God has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.' And, this is still so. Jesus was not a Zealot, who wish to violently overthrow the oppressive Roman occupation of Israel, even though this would be considered 'just', as many understand this. On the contrary, I would say that violence is reactionary, enforcing resistence to change, and justification of injustice. It does blind us. Also, I remember that the name of the one who took supper with Jesus, receiving his teaching -- but who betrayed him to violence -- his name was Judas Iscariot, probably meaning 'the Sicarri'. These were a violent, nationalistic sect which fomented insurrection and terrorism against the Romans, until the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed by the Empire; this same sect is believed to have later supported the revolt led by the messianic pre- tender bar Kochba, which was disastrous. This bar Kochba, who had the support of some great religious leaders, nevertheless is said to have gone into battle saying, "I do not need the help of the Lord, but let Him not help my enemies." How much like our confidence in the nuclear weapons! The last thing I pointed out, concerning the condition of negotiation in good faith for disarmament, was that never has the total number of nuclear weapons decreased, despite the fact that only a small fraction of these existing weapons would completely destroy any enemy military capacity. The substitution and increase of weapons is not disarmament; the negotiations are to balance and secure destructiveness, hence deterrence, not to eliminate nuclear weapons. As I have said before, the 'superpowers' would indefinitely secure an unjust and incredible 'peace on Earth' with probable horror. It is like the prophet Isaiah said, "They have made a pact with Death, that it should not destroy them; but it shall fail." I am glad to hear that the Jehovah's Witnesses at Los Alamos want no part of this. David Harwood