Nob(el) Peace
From the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize lecture given by Rae McGrath on behalf of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.
“Freedom is so often the justification for war. But where is the sense in fighting for the freedom of a people employing a weapon which will deny those same people, in peacetime, freedom to live without fear, freedom to farm their land, freedom to merely walk in safety from place to place — deny them the freedom to let their children play without being torn apart by a landmine? That is no freedom.”
I think its really important to realize that it is next to impossible to justify war on the basis of granting freedom. Not just on the basis of the horrific consequences of landmine use, but because war, on any front, is denying freedom to someone, enemy as well as civilian bystanders. I think more recently, limiting the use of cluster bombs has become the new but similar issue (Human Rights Watch, Cluster Bomb Ban in US).
It is no moral excuse to wring your hands and cry, “but I never knew” — if you never asked to know.
Really enjoying reading through the Nobel Peace Prize lectures. Fascinating stuff.
is the limiting of another’s freedom, by definition, an immoral act? i would certainly think not; ever day freedoms are taken away, as well as given away, for a greater purpose. our lives as american citizens highlight the unique nature of this dichotomy when we give some freedoms up for the greater, more desire “inalienable rights.”
this is not such a simple, cut and dry issue. believers ought to pursue justice for the oppressed and needy, to great extents. we are called to give our lives for this cause, even.
yet, when does opposition to an oppressive government turn from non-violent to violent? is there any such redemptive response? what of german citizens unwilling to sit back and observe countless jewish deaths? was there coup ‘de tat an immoral act?
i would argue that violent rebellion towards a divinely establish government in authority over my own citizenship. that being said, the line between pursuing social justice one way and another can get obnoxiously blurry.
carl henry
May 26, 2009 at 10:21 am
Is the limiting of freedom an immoral act? I think that may be answerable only in knowing “for what purpose?” and “how?” Answers to both can radically change the answer.
For one, I don’t know that I like the idea of “this dichotomy when we give some freedoms up for the greater, more desire ‘inalienable rights.’” If they are truly inalienable, should they not be, by default, and without the limitation of other freedoms, already in our possession?
And if we seek freedom for others, as in your example with the holocaust, should it not be the prerogative of the owners of the right to life, be willing to lay it down if they are seeking that right for those who do not have it? Emphasis being on those who already have those rights. I believe that there should be no power but the people themselves to take up or lay down these “inalienable” rights. Especially not the government. But in this case, this also means you are responsible not to take that right from others, even those who are taking it from others.
That’s idealism though. That’s not really how it works. But I continue to go back and forth about whether or not, we as Christ-followers, we should be idealists or pragmatists.
Also, for my own clarity, could you restate “i would argue that violent rebellion towards a divinely establish government in authority over my own citizenship.” I’m not sure I understand.
Thank you all the same. Very thought provoking questions/statement.
plukevdh
May 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm