Skip to comments.Peace groups will hold vigils (FReep Alert!)
Posted on 10/05/2001 10:56:53 AM PDT by ppaul
Peace groups around the nation are preparing vigils and rallies on Sunday (10/7/01) to demand legal and diplomatic alternatives to war. The American Friends Service Committee, Pax Christi USA, the War Resisters League and others have asked their members to participate in the local gatherings, including a march and rally in New York, beginning at Union Square.
"We're encouraging peace groups throughout the country to get together and formulate their own way to speak out and promote peace," said Janis Shields, spokeswoman for the American Friends, a Quaker organization.
The idea, Shields said, is "to call attention to the fact that not everyone is calling for war in these trying days." Leaders in the groups say there has been a growing demand for public expressions of sentiment in favor of peace.
"It's really spontaneous," said the Rev. Chris Ney, national coordinator at the War Resisters League, a 78-year-old organization based in New York. "I wish I could say we're organizing it. We're just providing skills that we have."
Marches and vigils have already been held in Washington, Philadelphia and western Massachusetts. Besides the rally in New York, Sunday events are planned in Chicago, Philadelphia and Bangor, Maine, among other places. Organizers say events are likely in Seattle.
Common themes include not just opposition to war, but also condemnation of the terrorist acts, a call to defend American civil liberties and a rejection of bias against Arabs, Muslims and immigrants.
The ideas are stated on the War Resisters League's Internet site, warresisters.org, which also calls for peace through "economic and social justice." That reflects a view among peace groups that the United States must work to mitigate such problems as corrupt governments and poverty in developing nations if it is to eliminate the threat of terrorism.
The peace argument differs from another stand with a long history in Christian tradition, recently articulated by Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders, that there are instances in which war may be justly waged.
In a recent interview, Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Commission in the Southern Baptist Convention, said the central principle for allowing a nation to enter into war was "just cause." Land added, "War is only permissible to resist aggression and to defend those victimized by it."
In a letter laced with references to the theory of just war, the nation's Catholic bishops wrote to President Bush two weeks ago, saying military action must be considered as one option, along with diplomatic and legal means.
But opponents of war have argued that the terrorist attacks should not be regarded as an act of war, requiring a military response, but as an international crime, demanding legal pursuit, arrest and trial of the perpetrators, as well as diplomatic and financial penalties against the aggressors and their backers.
"We believe the perpetrators should be brought to justice, but under the rule of law," said Mary Ellen McNish, general-secretary of the American Friends.
Skills? These lowlifes contribute nothing to society. Their skill? Fomenting anti-American hatred and self-loathing. Blame America first. We're the bad guys. We've never done anything but oppress the world. In reality, these so-called "peace groups" would lick the boots of oppressors. If a terrorist organization threatened to drop a nuke if we do not surrender, these un-American rabble rousers would raise the white flag immediately. Puke.
You have no idea how long I wished these freeps were on a Sunday! Now how do we go about it? First timer here! ;-)
Now do us all a favor and crawl back into your little hippy peacefreak dens and rot.
I noticed one of the groups sponsoring a "teach in" is "queers for racial equality". Interesting company they keep.
Sounds like she's reading the same script as Taliban Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef.
I've often wondered when it would be appropriate (according to these peace groups) to attack the terrorists? What kind of murderous actions have to be committed against us before we fight back? Seems to me 6000 civilian casualties is a pretty damn good reason. Also seems a lot of people criticising the US because of the harsh response to this attack, BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING YET!
Would these groups be calling for "peace and negotiation" if we get nuked and have millions of casualties? Or how about a chemical or biological attack? It could very well come to that if we sit idle and do nothing.
Sadly, I doubt it!
Great point. How's the alternative energy business coming along? Anything promising on the horizon?
Funny none of these that Robert Heinleinn called "full buck pacifists" have suggested that Osama and his crew should have pursed their supposed grievances under the "rule of law". Actually, of course, the rule of law does allow for a military response when a nation is attacked, but you might get wacked by one of these peace and love types if you pointed that out to them, certainly you'd get called names like "baby killer" or "war monger" or "fascist" and so forth. Might even get bombarded with a sack of excrement by one of these sacks of exrement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.