Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Is nothing sacred? Playing politics with nuclear arms reduction
Faith communities have been nearly unanimous for decades about the moral imperative to reduce the nuclear weapons arsenals of the world, and the threat they represent to world peace and even the future of life on earth. Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Protestants from Southern Baptists to the United Church of Christ and the historic peace churches have all made pronouncements about the immorality of these weapons of mass destruction. And now, when the United States has a chance to ratify the new START treaty that President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed in April, a treaty that would require the U.S. and Russia to reduce their nuclear weapons deployment, conservatives are starting to play political games to delay or even deter ratification.
Nuclearism is not just a political issue, it is a profoundly moral issue. Cardinal Joseph Bernardin expressed this well at the 1983 Notre Dame Commencement. "Because the nuclear issue is not simply a political but also a profoundly moral and religious question, the Church must be a participant in protecting the world and its people from the specter of nuclear destruction."
Unfortunately, however, real concerns political conservatives might have about inspection or compliance details seem less the issue than posturing in time for the November mid-term elections. Conservative opposition, for example, is being driven by a political advocacy group, Heritage Action for America, an affiliate of the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. The group reportedly has started a petition drive and may run politically driven ads during the election season. It is also lobbying in the Senate.
Conservatives are apparently willing to weaken the hand of the President in negotiating crucial aspects of our national security in order to have an issue to use in an election season. When it comes to the future life of the world, however, that is completely unacceptable. Nuclear arms reduction should be an issue free of partisanship.
The politics of "no" is making it difficult for Republicans in Congress to stand against the divisive rhetoric and simply vote for what is right to do for our national security. If ratification of this important new START treaty is delayed, this weakens our foreign policy in continuing to improve relations with Russia, and pursuing the crucial work of securing nuclear material to prevent terrorists from acquiring radioactive materials to make a "dirty bomb," or even, God forbid, a nuclear weapon.
At funerals, pastors such as myself will talk about the "peace that passes all understanding." This kind of political gamesmanship, however, is the "politics that passes all understanding." It's a kind of funeral game, playing profane politics with the ultimate threat to our national security. It is immoral to hold world peace hostage for the sake of short-term political ends. This is playing politics with the potential nuclear weapons have to maim or even destroy God's creation. It isn't right.
Instead, nuclear arms reduction should be seen as a sacred obligation to protect the planet and its people. The United States Senate should ratify the START treaty immediately. Those who have legitimate concerns should be heard, but not for the sake of simply delaying or denying ratification. No funeral games, just moral leadership please.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
| July 24, 2010; 11:55 AM ET Save & Share:
Previous: Rick Warren's vision | Next: Shirley Sherrod: Racial healing and God's amazing grace
Posted by: SameOldTiredThinking | July 24, 2010 5:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"posturing for the mid-terms"?
Who the Hell are you to be so snide about the motivations of others?
You think maybe there's some left-wing posturing going on too?
Fortunately there are people willing to protect the sort of Pollyannas who wrote this article.
Since this is WaPo the authors are probably "Journolists".
Posted by: standard_guy | July 24, 2010 11:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
When conservative Cold Warriors like George Schultz and Henry Kissinger do an about-face on the value of holding stockpiles of nuclear weapons as they did in their Wall Street Journal op-ed last year, it's time for thoughtful conservatives and hawkish Democrats to re-examine their own positions.
Holding on to outdated policies and profoundly expensive weapons systems in the name of "national security" hold no water in a time of terrorism where greater threats of the theft of nuclear weapon's making information or small parcels of uranium are far greater than international competition between super powers.
It's time for on-going change of hearts and minds while further scaling back on nuclear weapons stockpiles.
Posted by: tpwebb3 | July 26, 2010 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Whenever people like Obama get into power, millions of innocent people die. It happened in WWII, it happened after Vietnam and it is going to happen again.
Freedom isn't free and it's never cheap. And life is tough. And being a weakling works no better for a nation that it does in a schoolyard.
Peace through strength is the only way to have peace.
And if you find that you have become so spoiled and/or naive that you think America is neither worth defending nor in need of defense, would you please move elsewhere or at least not vote. (The Greeks became complacent and decided that their liberty was neither worth defending nor in need of defense, and the Romans took the opportunity to invade and enslave them. Too late the Greeks realized that they had had something worth dying for.)
Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV. (American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you."