On November 2, 2009, five Catholic activists — one nun, two priests, and two laypeople, all age sixty or above — cut through a series of chain link and barbed wire fences surrounding Naval Base Kitsap in Bangor, Washington, where roughly one-quarter of the United States’ nuclear warheads are reportedly stored and a fleet of eleven submarines equipped to deploy Trident nuclear weapons is stationed.
The five unfurled a banner reading “Trident: Illegal + Immoral,” poured their own blood over the site, and beat on the ground and the fences with household hammers before being apprehended and arrested. “We walk into the heart of darkness,” they wrote in a statement distributed to supporters and media, “as one step up the holy mountain where all nations can unite in peace” (read the group’s full statement here).
The five, who call themselves the Disarm Now Plowshares, were found guilty in December on four felony counts: trespass, damage to federal property, injury to federal property, and conspiracy to damage federal property. A week and a half ago in Tacoma’s federal court they received prison sentences of six to fifteen months, with an additional year of supervised release. The days surrounding their sentencing, during which supporters gathered in Tacoma for a “Festival of Hope,” highlighted the importance of legal consequences for this group of activists, and shed light on their aims.
I’m not sure that much is gained by jailing this sad little group of fanatics, but the inclusion of the word “illegal” in their banner reminds us of the game they are playing. The Trident missiles are, of course, perfectly legal. That the Disarm Now Plowshares (oh please) choose to claim that these weapons are illegal (under a distinctly dodgy interpretation of an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice) is telling. The law they are really talking about is their vision of God’s law, a law that they may think is already in force (read the account of their courtroom behavior) or should be. The rest of us will, of course, be expected to knuckle under.
So much for Thomas Jefferson
“The law they are really talking about is their vision of God’s law”: That may be putting it too simply. The religious left generally seems to harbor great hopes for international law. I don’t doubt that those hopes represent a secularized version of some theological doctrine of theirs, but that doesn’t mean they are not perfectly sincere when they cite the International Court of Justice.
A sad group of radicals indeed, and they have been up to this for a long time. Back in the 1980’s, when I was a teenager in the Puget Sound area, these kinds of protests — one lead by the Archbishop of Seattle — were pretty common. Most Catholics didn’t pay much attention, though — particularly the ones in the little town I lived in, many of whom either worked themselves or had family members who worked at the local Naval Air Station on Whidbey Island.
On the one hand, religiously motivated civil disobedience has a long history in this country, and has been responsible for many, many good things (like the civil rights movement). On the other, there is a good deal of nuttiness and lack of prudence on display in many religiously-motivated protests. The trick is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.
The problem isn’t that these folks are religious, or that they are trying to manifest a particular worldview. The problem is that they are wrong about the public policy positions that they are trying to support with their civil disobedience. In a properly Jeffersonian society, that’s the basis for disputing with them — not that they are somehow impermissibly allowing their religion to influence their actions and beliefs.
After all, even Jefferson believed quite strongly in a God who would render judgment for our deeds in this life, as his edited edition of the Gospels makes clear (he removed most of the miracles, but kept all the stuff about Jesus returning to judge the living and the dead). And he certainly was concerned about God’s judgment against the United States for slavery…
I’m willing to bet that by “illegal”, they are talking about the International Court of Justice, not God’s law. I’ve often heard the Iraq war called “illegal” by its critics on the left (buy never Libya, hmmm). By “illegal”, they meant that it was not sanctioned by the UN. They weren’t referring to the constitution (so passe!), or moral law (so intolerant!). They actually believe that international bodies have legal force and superiority over sovereign national governments.
If they had performed “civil disobedience” against Russian or Chinese missile silos, I’d admire them for their guts. These are just anti-American radicals.
@John: If they had performed “civil disobedience” against Russian or Chinese missile silos, I’d admire them for their guts. These are just anti-American radicals.
So, there’s no possibility that someone could love America AND be opposed to nukes on moral grounds? Those are mutually exclusive?
P.S. The left is all over the “Libya War is Illegal” trope, and on constitutional grounds no less, so you’re wrong about that too. A little google goes a long way.
Sean writes:
“So, there’s no possibility that someone could love America AND be opposed to nukes on moral grounds? Those are mutually exclusive?”
That sounds about right.
I think you missed the point here. If they are opposed to nukes on moral grounds, then they are opposed to all nukes, regardless of the country holding them. They just protest against U.S. nukes because it’s a low cost to them. I agree with John – if they had the courage of their convictions they would go to Russia or China (or Iran?) and protest there as well.
Also from Sean:
“P.S. The left is all over the “Libya War is Illegal” trope, and on constitutional grounds no less, so you’re wrong about that too. A little google goes a long way.”
So where are the street protests comparing Obama to Hitler?
To paraphrase a biographer of Jefferson, for these people, the difference between God and the ICJ/UN isn’t constitutional in degree.