Pacifism and Dissent in Times of War

drafthistory.html

History 111 - Dr. Gayle Olson-Raymer

Pacifism and Dissent in Times of War

In 1917, George Cohan wrote a propaganda tune, Johnny Get Your Gun, to encourage young American men to enlist in the U.S. army. Remember, this was not a popular war - it was a war that Woodrow Wilson had to "sell" to the American people. This song was one of many efforts to counter the anti-war efforts of some Americans.

As we begin our discussion of pacifism and anti-war efforts in the U.S., keep this potent propaganda in mind so that you can better understand the difficulties encountered by anti-war activists.

---

Discussion Goals: Pacifism and Dissent in Times of War

1. To define relevant terms related to the anti-war movement.
2. To illustrate the historical evolution of anti-war and anti-draft dissent, as well as official and public responses to such actions.
3. To examine the various ways the U.S. government has tried to stop anti-war dissent during various crises.

---

Goal #1: To define relevant terms related to the anti-war movement.

• draft (conscription):  mandatory military enlistment.
• dissent:  to differ in thought or opinion, refuse to conform, or accept an established way of thinking or behaving.
• civil disobedience:  to refuse to comply with certain civil laws, usually as a matter of moral conviction and by means of non violent, passive resistance.
• pacifism:  to oppose military ideals, war, or military preparedness and instead, support the idea that all  civil and international disputes can be settled by arbitration.

In general, those who use dissent, civil disobedience, or pacifism to question U.S. involvement in war or conscription have done so for:

• Individual personal moral, religious, and ethical reasons designed to keep them out of war or a draft, and/or
• collective societal, political, and/or ideological reasons designed to create a movement to keep the nation from entering a war, to encourage a national exit from a war, and/or to change wartime and conscription policies.
  

---

Goal #2: To illustrate the historical evolution of anti-war and anti-draft dissent, as well as official and public responses to such actions

Ever since war began to be waged by Euro-Americans when they came to North America, people have either voluntarily or involuntarily served in the military. The role of the military in our society historically and contemporarily is to protect our nation's territory, protect our freedom as citizens, and provide an example of strength in the international community.

Throughout our history, very few people have questioned the need for military protection – but some have questioned two aspects of military service:

• whether or not we should be involved in warfare, and
• whether those people who join the military should do so voluntarily or involuntarily through conscription. 

Consequently, we have a long history of both anti-war and anti-draft activity.

Timeline of Anti-War and Anti-Draft Activity and Government Response

First Era, 1607-1783: Colonial, then state militias – volunteer and conscripted – served short-term military needs at the national level. From the earliest Euro-American colonial period, settlers refused to fight with the Indians or expropriate their land or to be drafted by the King’s army during times of war.  The vast majority were Quakers and conscientious objectors.  The purpose of their pacifism was to make a personal religious statement for peace and to set apersonal example of pacifism and commitment to God.  They primarily sought personal exemptions from involvement in the war and thereby refused to cooperate with the draft law.

• 1607 - 1775   Each colony formed militias from all adult male citizens, largely to fight Indians as well as to fight any battle in which England is involved.

  • Resistance:  From the first colonial settlement, some settlers refused to fight the Indians, take Indian land, or be conscripted by the King’s army during times of war.  Most were pacifists – primarily Quakers and Conscientious Objectors (COs) - who were personally, philosophically, and morally opposed to war and who sought a personal exemption from involvement in the war by refusing to cooperate with the draft laws.
  • Response: In general, official and public response was tolerant.  In a few instances, pacifists were punished like Richard Keene who in Maryland in 1658 was fined and ”abused by the sheriff” for “refusing to be trained as a soldier.”  The sheriff “drew his cutlass and therewith made a pass at the breast of Richard, and struck him on the shoulders, saying, ‘You dog, I could find it in my heart to split your brains.’”
• 1673  Rhode Island passed the earliest CO exemption in the colonies, making conscientious objection one of the colony’s fundamental liberties.  The law excused COs from active military duty and from any type of punishment for reasons of conscience that made COs not want to “train, arm, rally to fight, to kill.”  Pennsylvania passed a similar law.
• 1775 - 1783  The Revolutionary War. A regular volunteer army was raised by offering enlisted men cash bonuses and promises of free western land after the war is over.  When this system did not attract enough soldiers, General Washington called on state militias – all of which were made up of poorly-trained citizens who often needed to return home to tend to their farms. President Washington tried to register all men for service, but Congress refused to pass such legislation, as it continued to do under Presidents Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

  • Resistance: About one-third of all colonists refused to join the war against the King; about 100,000 of these fled to Canada and England. 
  • Response: Eight colonies recognized CO status grounds for exemption from military duty.  The Continental Congress passed a law in 1775 exempting COs from military duty.When the Constitution was written, no law was passed dealing with exemptions from the draft since the Founders believed that the individual states would continue to honor CO status.
• 1846   Mexican-American War was the first war in U.S. history to be fought solely with volunteers.  All previous wars relied upon soldiers who had been conscripted from state militias and who had volunteered for national service.

  • Resistance: An actual movement began to evolve, encouraged in large part by Henry David Thoreau’s “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” – the goal of which was to encourage persons who were morally opposed to the war to collectively use passive, nonviolent action to protest the war and hopefully force concessions from the government.   Several different groups resisted this unpopular war:  anti-slavery advocates who saw war as a means to extend southern slave territory; racists who did not want to extend American territory where Americans might be forced to mingle with inferior people of nonwhite races; and deserters who numbered approximately 9,207.

Second Era, 1862-1917: First wartime conscription was enacted at the national level to meet the national emergency of the Civil War. During this era, a few small movements arose of people who were against being drafted to fight in a war that was not of their choosing.

• 1861 - 1865   Civil War. Confederate and Union armies initially called for volunteers. Both sides eventually adoped the first draft laws in the United States. 
  • The South, in April 1862, passed a law requiring military service of all white men between 18 and 35 years of age.  The law permitted substitute soldiers to be hired.  The age limit was later extended to include men between 17-50. 
  • The North, in March 1863, required draft registration of all able-bodied men between 20-45 years of age.  The law allowed two ways to avoid the draft: a man could pay the government $300 or he could pay another man $300 to serve in his place. If a drafted man could not do either thing, then had to join the army or risk being shot as a deserter.
  • Because both the north and the south allowed for substitutions, the draft and war casualties fell disproportionately on the poor.
    • Resistance: Coal miners in Pennsylvania rioted and attacked officials who tried to force them to enlist in the draft. Soldiers were sent to Pennsylvania to put down the riots. Farmers in Ohio who refused to be drafted attacked soldiers who were sent to arrest them. The worst anti-war riots were the New York City Draft Riots of July 1863 that involved an angry mob interrupting the selection of registrants’ names, burned the homes of abolitionists and conscription offices, looted businesses, and tortured and killed blacks, as well as those who refused to join the protest.  About 1000 people died and 10,000 businesses and homes are destroyed.
    • Response: Lincoln personally pardoned the vast majority of draft resisters and in February 1864, Congress amended the draft law to include a CO exemption based upon religious belief.  The South soon followed.

Third Era, 1917-1940: First mandatory all-male registration was required for conscription in times of WWI national emergency. The vast majority of dissenters were personally and philosophically opposed to war, as well as morally and politically opposed to war.  The purpose of their pacifism was to create a social force for civil disobedience based upon the belief in the power of individuals and the ability of individual action to inspire others to follow.  They primarily sought to disobey the law by refusing to participate within a system in order to frustrate its ability to function.

• 1917   World War I. Congress passed the Selective Services Act requiring all men between 20 and 30 years (changed to 18- 45 years in 1918) of age to register for military duty, prohibiting personal substitution, and allowing religious COs to choose noncombatant service within the military.  For the first time in U.S. history, COs are placed under military authority before they obtain religious exemptions.  About 10 million registered, approximately 2.8 million were drafted, and about a million enlisted. 
  • Resistance: Several anti-draft demonstrations occurred, but primary opposition was expressed through criticism and evasion: at least 2 million men never registered; 12% (338,000 men) of those drafted failed to report when called or deserted after arrival at training camp; and 64,000 men sought CO status.  Of these COs, 20,900 were drafted into the military, 4,000 refused to participate in any military role, and 450 went to prison. Of those, 17 were sentenced to death, 142 to life in prison, and 73 to 20 years in prison.  All had their sentences commuted after the war.
  • Response:  For the first time in history, the federal government sees anti-war dissent as a threat to the very structure of the American way of life. The federal government employs three effective avenues to quell such  “un-American” dissent:
    • the passage of Congressional Acts designed to prohibit and punish “disloyalty’;
    • the creation of governmental agencies to enforce the acts, assemble information on those suspected of disloyalty, and arrest and punish offenders;
    • the use of the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the government’s actions.

Some individuals also responded with vigilante-style violence aimed at those who opposed World War I.

• In Collinsville, Illinois in 1918 a young man of German descent who was registered as an enemy alien and had Socialist leanings, was wrapped in an American flag and lynched by a mob. During a trial of the mob leaders, their defense attorneys called the act a "patriotic murder." After 25 minutes of deliberation, the local jury acquitted them.
• At Rutgers University, a group of students demanded that an antiwar Socialist, Samuel Chovenson, speak at their Liberty Loan rally. Upon refusal, Chovenson was stripped, tarred and feathered, and paraded through New Brunswick.
• In Berkeley, California, a mob attacked a group of religious pacifists, burned down their place of worship, and dunked them in their baptismal tank. The authorities arrested and jailed the pacifists.
• Professor J. M. Cattell, a psychologist teaching at Columbia University, was fired for his antiwar views.

Anti-war propaganda songs also became popular, especially those using the appeal of "the voice of motherhood, "such as Don't Take My Darling Boy Away. The message came through loud and clear in the title of I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be a Soldier(subtitled A Mothers Plea for Peace, respectfully dedicated to every Mother- everywhere). The lyrics preached to mothers worldwide that if they united in the cause, they could put an end to the fighting and save the lives of millions of young soldiers. For instance, "There'd be no war today If mothers all would say, 'I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier'." The cover of the sheet music portrays exploding shells bursting around an old gray-haired woman protecting her son.

Fourth Era, 1940-1948: First peacetime conscription and lottery system was established at the national level.  Most opposition to war came from Conscientious Objectors, all of whom were personally, philosophically, and politically opposed to war.

• 1940-1945   World War II.  Congress passed the nation's first peacetime draft with the Selective Training and Services Act of 1940 that required all males between 21 and 35 to register for the draft for one year of service restricted to the Western Hemisphere and U.S. territories, and established the nation's first national lottery. As the war progressed, the draft age was lowered to 18 years of age and men are called to service not by lottery number, but by age – with the oldest going first.
• In 1941, Congress voted to keep the one-year draftees in the Army beyond their term.  After Pearl Harbor in December, Congress extended the draft to men between 18 and 38 years of age (and briefly to 45) for the war’s duration and gave the president the power to send draftees anywhere in the world.  Approximately 10 million men were drafted and nearly 6 million enlisted.

  • Resistance: Opposition was largely from COs and various other evaders.
  • Response:  The Justice Department investigated 373,000 alleged evaders and obtained convictions of 16,000.  Some 72,000 registrants applied for CO status, 25,000 of whom entered the army as noncombatants, 12,000 entered civilian work camps, 20,000 had their claims rejected, and 6,000 were imprisoned (most of whom were Jehovah’s Witnesses.) 
• 1947   President Truman recommended that Congress allow the 1940 Selective Service and Training Act to expire and that the level of required military forces be maintained through volunteer enlistment.
• 1948  Congress amended the Selective Training and Services Act and declared that "religious training and belief" was to be defined as "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not including] essentially political,  sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."

Fifth Era, 1848-1973: Peacetime and wartime conscription was enacted to fill vacancies in the armed forces that could not be filled by volunteers. Most dissenters were both anti-war and anti-draft and were personally, philosophically, and politically opposed to war.  Opposition mounted during the Vietnam War with rising draft calls and casualty rates.  By the late 1960s, a strong anti-war coalition existed of students, pacifists, clergy, civil rights and feminist activists, and various other groups who regularly engaged in civil disobedience demonstrations and sit-ins at induction centers, as well as illegal activities such as break-ins at local draft boards and draft-card burnings.

• 1950-1953  Korean War. Congress enacted a draft for all men between 18-1/2 and 35 years of age for average terms of 2 years.  Men who served in World War II were exempted. Approximately 1.5 million men were drafted and another 1.3 million volunteered.

  • Resistance:  Opposition was largely from COs and various evaders. 
  • Response:  Some 80,000 alleged draft evasion cases were investigated.  The percentage of inductees exempted as COs was nearly 1.5 %.
• 1951 Congress passed the Universal Military Training and Service Act requiring males between 18 and 26 years of age to register.
• 1964-1975   Vietnam War.  After President Johnson committed ground troops to Vietnam in March 1965, draft calls soared from 100,000 in 1964 to 400,000 in 1966.  By 1968, 543,000 U.S. troops were in Vietnam; 40,000 Americans had died and another 250,000 had been wounded.  Draftees were a small minority of the military (16%), but by 1969, they were 88% of the infantry riflemen who accounted for more than half of the army's battle deaths.  Because of student and other deferments, both the draft and casualties fell disproportionately upon working-class youths.   African-Americans, 11% of the U.S. population, accounted for 16% of the army casualties by 1967 and 15% for the entire war.
• 1965   In U.S. v. Seeger, the U.S. Supreme Court broadened the definition of COs to include religious beliefs outside of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim traditions.
• 1969   President Nixon instituted an annual draft lottery  and began the "19-year-old draft" - if a young man was not drafted by 19, he was exempt from future military service except in the event of war or national emergency.  This allowed deferrals for hardship cases, certain occupations, COs, clergymen, and high school and college students.
• 1970  In U.S. v. Welsh, the U.S. Supreme Court added sincerely held ethical and moral beliefs to the definition of allowable grounds for CO status.
• 1971   Congress extended the draft for two more years, eliminated student deferments, and voted a massive ($2.4 billion) pay increase for the lower ranks in the hopes of achieving an All-Volunteer Force (AVF) by mid-1973.
• 1972  President Nixon cut draft calls to 50,000 and stopped forcing draftees to go to Vietnam.
• 1973 On January 27th, a cease-fire was announced.

  • Resistance:  Opposition mounted with rising draft calls and casualty rates.  By the late 1960s, a strong anti-war coalition of students, pacifists, clergy, civil rights and feminist activists, and various other groups regularly engaged in demonstrations, draft-card burnings, sit-ins at induction centers, and break-ins at local draft boards.  Between 1965-1975, about 570,000 young men illegally evaded the draft: 360,000 were never caught; between  30,000-50,000 fled to Canada, Britain, and Sweden; 198,000 had their cases dismissed; 22,500 were indicted; 8,800 are convicted; and 4,000 went to prison. CO exemptions in relation to actual inductions grew from 8% in 1967 to 43% in 1971 and 131% by 1972.  Between 1965 and 1970, 170,000 registrants were classified as COs.

Sixth Era, 1973 to the present: Conscription ended and the All Volunteer Army was established.Notable anti-war efforts did not surface until a year after the War in Iraq began.  Most endeavors came from enlisted men and women who had served their time, but who did not accept Stop Loss and who did not wish to be sent back to Iraq.

• 1975   President Ford suspended compulsory draft registration.
• 1980  President Carter resumed compulsory draft registration with the Selective Service System in reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
• 1981  President Reagan extended compulsory draft registration in 1982 and prosecuted some of those who refused to register.  (Estimated number of refusals between 1980-1984 = 500,000.)
• 1991  Gulf War.  In "Operation Desert Storm," approximately 540,000 American volunteer troops joined over half a million allied troops under United Nations authority with the purpose of ending Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
• 2001-the present.   Afghanistan.  In  October, 2001,  "Operating Enduring Freedom" began.
• 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act includes a provision under Section 9528 that required all high schools to provide military recruiters with student contact information.

• 2003  "Operation Iraqi Freedom."   In March, hundreds of thousands of U.S. volunteers soldiers engaged in the war in Iraq, followed by peace-keeping efforts. The Bush administration predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam Hussein, restore order, and install a new government.

• Resistance:  Iraq Veterans Against the War formed less than a year after “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”  Lawsuits began from military personnel who refused to either enter into or return to active service in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
• Responses:
  • Universal National Service Act of 2003 (House Resolution 163 and Senate Bill 89) was introduced declaring that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen - including women - and every other person residing in the United States between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity  in the Office of Homeland Security that promotes national defense. Both bills were defeated in 2004.
  • U.S. Army adopted the Stop Loss policy for all troops headed to Iraq and Afghanistan, calling it a way to promote continuity within deployed units and to avoid bringing new soldiers in to fill gaps left in units by those who would otherwise have gone home when their enlistments ran out. If a soldier's unit was still in Iraq or Afghanistan, that soldier could not leave even when his or her enlistment time ran out. Additionally, the National Guard and Reserve Draft passed a similar policy and the Individual Ready Reserve was reactivated so that people who had already served in the military for four years of active duty could be reactivated. 
  • National Guard/Reserve Draft.  Many Guard members and Reservists who volunteered to stay in their state to help out with civil disasters and do one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer of duty were activated and deployed to Iraq.
  • Individual Ready Reserve.  The IRR was reactivated so that people who had already served in the military for four years of active duty were reactivated. 
• 2004  The costs of the war were estimated at about $144.4 billion (see the article on "Lost Opportunity Costs").
• 2007 By December, the estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed by military intervention was between 77,333 and 84, 250 (see Iraq Body Count)
• 2010 By February, the estimated cost for both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars was $963 billion - $708 billion for Iraq and $255 billion for Afghanistan. Thenumber of soldiers who died in Iraq totaled 4,696 - 4,378 Americans, 179 British, and 139 "other." The number of soldiers who died in Afghanistan totaled 1,657 - 1,000 Americans, 264 British, and 393 "other."By February, Iraqi civilians killed by military intervention was between 95, 415 and 104,103. To get a better understanding of the full costs of the war - and to your own community - see the National Priorities Project.
  • The Costs of War Project registered enormous human, economic, social and political costs of war for Americans, Afghanis, and others involved in the two wars.
• 2012 By the end of the year, the estimated cost for both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars was over $1,304,540,500,000 - over $801 billion for Iraq and over $503 billion for Afghanistan. The number of soldiers who had died in Iraq by 2012 totaled 4,803 - 4,485 Americans, 179 British, and 139 "other." The number of soldiers who died in Afghanistan by totaled 3,240 - 2,174 Americans, 438 British, and 637 "other." The official number of wounded American soldiers from the war in Iraq was 33,186 and the official number of those wounded in Afghanistan is about 15,500.
  • By the middle of the year, more U.S. soliders had died by committing suicide than had died on the battlefield. In the first 155 days of 2012, 154 active duty troops committed suicide - 50 percent more than the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 2012. Almost half of these were soldiers who had served since 9/11.
• 2013 By March, the estimated cost for both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars was over $1,429,619,000,000 - over $811 billion for Iraq and over $618 billion for Afghanistan The number of soldiers who had died in Afghanistan through February 2013 was 2178 Americans, 440 British, 640 "other - for a total of 3,258. Estimated Afghani civilian deaths was about 15,000.

For more information see the GI Rights Hotline at http://girightshotline.org/ and the following:

• John Whiteclay Chambers II, To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America (1987)
• George Q. Flynn, Conscription and American Culture, 1940-1973 (1973)
• Stephen M. Kohn, Jailed for Peace: The History of American Draft Law Violations,
  1658-1985 (1986)
• Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, "The American Militia and the Origin of Conscription: A
  Reassessment," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Fall 2001):29-77

---

Goal #3: To examine the various ways the U.S. government has tried to stop anti-war dissent during various crises.

Un-American” Dangerous Dissenters before, during, and after WWI: As we just learned, for the first time in history, the federal government responded to dissent during WWI - dissent that was perceived to threaten the very structure of the American way of life. Its initial response was to target at least four groups of Americans were perceived to be dangerous dissenters:

• “Hyphenated” Americans such as German-Americans who may not wish to fight German soldiers and Irish-Americans who may not wish to fight anyone at war with the British.
• Supporters of Socialism and/or the Socialist Russian Revolution which included some hyphenated Americans, eastern European immigrants, as well as American-born liberals and socialists.
• Draft resistors, pacifists, or Conscientious Objectors.
• Labor unions - individual members and leaders.

All four groups were generally lumped into a single negative category - "Un-American" in thought as well as deed. Their thoughts were believed to be anti-war and anti-American; and their deeds were considered to fall short of the contemporary demand that everyone be "100% American."

Federal actions used to stop “un-American” dissent and the anti-war movement, 1917 - 1920.The federal government used three effective avenues to quell such "un-American" dissent:

1. Passing Congressional Acts designed to prohibit and punish “disloyalty’.

• Selective Service Act 1917 - Unlike previous draft laws during war times, the new act places thousands of COs under military authority before they obtained religious exemptions.  Thus, all COs who registered immediately fell under military authority and became subject to military justice. In the first year of the war, over 8,000 indictments come down under the Selective Services Act – 450 COs are found guilty at court martial hearings.
• The Espionage Act of 1917 outlaws statements “obstructing the war effort” and “aiding the enemy; forbids “false statements” designed to “obstruct” enlistment into the armed services and conspiracies designed to cause “disloyalty” or “insubordination”; and bans from the mails materials considered to be treasonable. Those found guilty are subject to heavy fines and imprisonment of up to twenty years.
• The Sedition Act of 1918 prohibits the utterance or publication of anything “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive” about the U.S. government, emphasizing that any disloyal opinion and demeaning references to the government or the flag could be punished by a 21-year prison sentence. More than 2000 people are prosecuted under the Espionage and Sedition Acts and thousands of others are intimidated into silence.
• More than 2000 people were prosecuted under the Espionage and Sedition Acts and thousands of others were intimidated into silence.

2.  Creating federal agencies to enforce the Congressional acts, assemble information on those suspected of disloyalty, and arrest and punish offenders.

• Soon after declaring war, President Wilson appoints a journalist, George Creel, to head up a new agency - The Committee on Public Information (CPI).  The CPI employed many of the nations most talented writers to shape the public’s opinion of and support for the war; to create anti-German propaganda and films; to speak at schools and churches; and to encourage citizens to spy on their neighbors and report any suspicious activities to the authorities.
• The Department of Justice creates the American Protective League which organized 12,000 local units across the nation.  Its members, primarily business and professional men, spy on draft dodgers, gather gossip about those suspected of disloyalty, and check up on people who failed to buy Liberty Bonds.
• The Department of Justice creates a General Intelligence Division (GID), the predecessor of the FBI, to assemble information on all suspected “un-Americans.”  In November 1919, GID officials descend on Russian meeting places in eleven cities and seize hundreds of members of the Union of Russian Workers, 650 in New York City alone.  One month later, 249 aliens are deported from the United States and sent to Russia, via Finland.
• The Department of Justice uses federal officials and local police forces to conduct the most overt terrorist tactics against political dissents to date: the Palmer Raids of January 1920.  In 33 cities, over 4,000 aliens and suspected members of the two communist parties are seized at homes, in their officers, at meetings, and in pool rooms by federal officers without search warrants.  All seized are jailed and denied council.  About 600 are eventually deported.  While all were scheduled for deportation, in the wake of the controversy surrounding the raids, the remainder of those seized are eventually were released.

3.  Using the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the government’s actions.

• When the Espionage Act is challenged in court, the Supreme Court unanimously decides inSchenck v. U.S. (1919) that the draft was constitutional and that the First Amendment could be restricted in time of war.  In what came to be the famous words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “Free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic.”  Further, if words “are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantial evils that Congress has a right to prevent,” free speech could be limited.
• The Sedition Act is constitutionally upheld by Supreme Court in Abrams v. U.S. (1919)

The press was equally as intolerant of pacifists, as illustrated in the Washington Post editorial of April 1, 1917.

"Large advertisements are appearing in the metropolitan newspapers, skillfully written for the purpose of stirring up class hatred and suspicion and thus dissuading Americans from enlisting in the war that is coming... At this time, when the United States is on the verge of war, the Washington Post believes that the advertisements in question are an abuse of the right of free speech. It does not presume to judge other newspapers which print these advertisements, but for itself, it will not print them... An effort to prevent the voluntary enlistment of American citizens for the defense of their country is treasonable in time of war.  It is sedition at any time.  'The hope of impunity is a strong incitement to sedition,' said Hamilton.  The pacifists will not long enjoy impunity.  If they are wise they will cease their agitation before they are legally classified as public enemies and punished accordingly."

Source:  Quoted in Jim R. McClellan, Changing Interpretations of America’s Past, Volume II (p. 201)

__________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusions
Pacifism and Dissent in Times of War

1. Anti-war and anti-draft dissent in America, as well as official and public responses to such dissent, has played a long role in U.S. history.  Indeed, the growth of dissent, has been evolutionary - moving from personal religious statements during the colonial period, to collective political and ideological actions during the 19th Century, a melding of the two earlier strategies with the outbreak of World War I and beyond.
2. The growth of governmental intervention with anti-war and anti-draft dissenters has been evolutionary.  Not until World War I when dissent was perceived as a threat to the status quo did the government move from tolerance to oppression. 
3. In contrast to the federal government, the public reaction to dissent has been constant.  From the beginning of our history, Americans have rarely tolerated people who deviate from the status quo - people who refused to fight American Indians; who refused to fight King George for independence; who balked at fighting in the Civil War to free the slaves; who refused to fight for political, economic, and ideological convictions during WWI; and who fled to Canada rather than fight the war in Vietnam.
4. With the outbreak of World War I and the refusal of some Americans to enlist in the war effort, the federal government legalized political repression against anti-war and anti-draft dissenters.  Such repression was responsible for two major consequences. 

   • First, political repression allowed the federal government to institutionalize laws that were designed to destroy popular dissident organizations and imprison their leaders.
   • Second, political repression provided the ideological and legal underpinnings of the Red Scare and of future governmental intrusions into the political and religious activities of millions of Americans throughout the 20th Century.
5. Since World War I, the federal government has continued to deploy the legislative, executive, and judicial branches in the legalized battle against anti-war and anti-draft dissenters.

.

Is Marilynne Robinson a Quaker? | Quaker Universalist Voice

Is Marilynne Robinson a Quaker? | Quaker Universalist Voice

Is Marilynne Robinson a Quaker?

On her new book, "The Givenness of Things" (2015)

by Larry Spears

PUBLISHED

Sunday, 21 Feb 2016

TOPICS

Religion and culture Review Marilynne Robinson

Marilynne Robinson is the author of Gilead: A Novel (2004), which was awarded the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and the 2012 National Humanities Medal. She recently held an extended interview with President Obama for The New York Review of Books (11/5/2015).

Marilynne Robinson is a Quaker Universalist. The universalism is clear. The Quaker part is projection by me, about someone just short of convincement who does not yet know the name Quaker. Marilynne is a “USQ” (Unaware Silent Quaker).

The evidence is in her new book of essays, The Givenness of Things: Essays (1915). She values silence for augmenting awareness of our constant connection with God. She values Quaker theology (but not knowing it). She focuses on humans as a species with value and uniqueness. She warns of our human dark side, which is currently encouraged through daily doses of reductionist neuroscience, cynicism, cultural pessimism, and the dismissal of Christian theology. She emphasizes the relation of faith and practice.

She sees the debates by mismatched science and religion as a wrong-headed love story about human exceptionalism. In reality, science and religion work side-by-side, marveling at certainties from both sources despite the gentle cloud over all of us that prevents us from fully grasping our situation.

This relation of the metaphysical reflections of Christian theology and current scientific physics is also a shared recognition of strangeness. Robinson affirms her experience that our human thinking should not be formed by primitive and discredited ideas, whether scientific or religious. With that modification, we can look to our tradition and our experience, personal and community, for authority for conforming our mental commitments and practice.

For Robinson, humans are special (“brilliant”), compared with other species. She has no time for purported impartiality among species because humans are special and unique. It is not a case of humanism or self-congratulation, but a dose of pride to perceive that human exceptionalism is a reality. She argues that, unlike all other species, humans have history of which we are currently conscious.

For Robinson, all of us function within an indelible theological view of the world. We live on the basis of a shared theology. Robinson talks aggressively in the theological terms of the western tradition of Christianity. This may be off-putting for some, but vigorous language is not a weakness. It only requires patient reading by Quaker universalists as part of the commitment to public discourse that avoids the default of contempt for other people.

Robinson sees a growing cultural pessimism that depresses the level of aspiration and sense of the possible within our global culture. This somber panic, a kind of collective dream-state, is inspired by the delusion of a mortal threat, resulting in bitter hostility toward many, or most, other people.

By contrast, Robinson argues that we need the self-discipline of a steady optimism in a gracious, respectful, and hopeful public culture and conversation together. We have good grounds for optimism. It is the potential for good, the presumptive claim of respect, and the singular interest and values in agile souls that we need.

This is an example of good writing, as her 2005 Pulitzer Prize recognition indicates. It is a very effective description of elements of the universal Quaker message. We are all part of the whole. Everyone belongs. The Source is common to us all. We can all be benefit with her contributions.

Marilynne Robinson may not know she is a Quaker Universalist, but we can see it.

Do you have a contrasting or clarifying view of Marilynne Robinson as reflected in her writings?

Marilynne Robinson’s ‘The Givenness of Things’ - The New York Times

Marilynne Robinson’s ‘The Givenness of Things’ - The New York Times

The Givenness of Things: Essays Hardcover – October 27, 2015

by Marilynne Robinson (Author)



Product Details

Hardcover: 304 pages

Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; First Edition edition (October 27, 2015)

---

Editorial Reviews

Review

One of Time's Top 10 Nonfiction Books of 2015



"A sense of wonder pervades the powerful essays in The Givenness of Things . . . Robinson's heroic lamentation is magnificent . . . Robinson's insistence, throughout these essays, that we recognize the limitations of our knowledge is timely and important." ―Karen Armstrong, The New York Times Book Review



“These are beautiful essays . . . beautiful in thought and beautiful in expression.” ―Bill Marvel, Dallas Morning News



“The Givenness of Things is so rich that I'm tempted to quote it to death.” ―Michael Robbins, The Chicago Tribune



“Over the course of 17 provocative essays, Robinson, a ‘self-declared Calvinist from northern Idaho,’ brings both her formidable intellect and powers of plain speaking to deliver a clarion call against the culture of fear that she believes is eating away at American society.” ―Yvonne Zipp, The Christian Science Monitor



“Marilynne Robinson displays the same passionate concern with matters of faith that suffuses her majestic trilogy of linked novels.” ―Wendy Smith, The Boston Globe



"Robinson’s handiwork is capacious and serious, but also mysterious and wondrous; like the night sky, it deserves our attention." ―Casey N. Cep, The New Republic



"A new book of essays by Robinson is a major American literary event." ―Jeff Simon, The Buffalo News



“Robinson's genius is for making indistinguishable the highest ends of faith and fiction . . . The beauty of Robinson's prose suggests an author continually threading with spun platinum the world's finest needle.” ―Michelle Orange, Bookforum



“These bravely and brilliantly argued, gorgeously composed, slyly witty, profoundly caring essays lead us into the richest dimensions of consciousness and conscience, theology and mystery, responsibility and reverence.” ―Donna Seaman, Booklist



“The prose is as finely wrought as in any of Robinson’s novels . . . any reader not tone-deaf will be enchanted by her grave, urgent music.” ―George Scialabba, Bookforum



"Eloquent, persuasive, and rigorously clear, this collection reveals one of America's finest minds working at peak form, capturing essential ideas with all 'the authority beautiful language and beautiful thought can give them." ―Publishers Weekly



About the Author

Marilynne Robinson is the author of the novels Lila, Home, Gilead (winner of the Pulitzer Prize), and Housekeeping, and four books of nonfiction: When I Was a Child I Read Books, Mother Country, The Death of Adam, and Absence of Mind. She teaches at the University of Iowa Writers' Workshop.

---

Top Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 starsBrilliant and Heartwarming

By Wilson on October 30, 2015

Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase

In full disclosure I was already a huge Robinson fan. I read her first novel, Housekeeping, six times and would have read it twenty had Gilead and Lila not intervened. I've given the paperback editions as sort of shibboleths to prospective friends and I traveled a hundred miles in a Michigan winter to hear her lecture. I also share the author's keen interests in Cosmology and Theology, along with her respect for the Transcendentalists, especially Thoreau. But Robinson is not writing only for her fans. Anyone who has ever sensed "another reality ...beyond the grasp of our comprehension yet wholly immanent in all of being, powerful in every sense of the word, invisible to our sight, silent to our hearing, foolish to our wisdom, yet somehow steadfast, allowing us our days and years" will find much to ponder in these essays.

----

5.0 out of 5 stars

a unique book

By Mark bennett on October 27, 2015

Format: Hardcover

This is a really unique book. Marilynne Robinson is a contender for the last American intellectual. She manages in this book to produce 17 interesting, well thought out and occasionally provocative essays. She speaks against the growing American polarization, the "fear" culture and for the place of the humanities and religion in life. She also manages the extremely difficult matter of being critical but positive. As well, she tries to reconcile science into her worldview and offers analysis as far afield as the American Civil War and Marx. Being all over the map is part of what makes it all so interesting.



Its far from the case that I agree with her on every point she makes. But the points she makes are always interesting and somewhat original. To an extent, its not even what she says. Its how she thinks and how she manages to break through a great deal of intellectual stagnation in the modern United States. This book will not be for everyone. Especially for those who don't like to read things they might disagree with.

----

5.0 out of 5 stars

Deep dive

By robert johnston on November 20, 2015

Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase

Robinson has delivered her share of superb, attention grabbing philosophical works engaging man and mind and soul. Her topical range, grasp and elucidation of post-modernist, deconstructionism's stunning technical success.



She writes that we live in the best time to be alive in human history but can't quite understand why an unease and unhappiness still lingers in ourselves. There is a reasoned 'more' at the core of these Robinson essays



As for my reading experience, I'm happier for having explored an intellectual elucidation from among our words and speculations just beyond linguistic expression.



This is a chapter at a sitting read. Robinson's economy of words delivers profoundly more mind fodder to be consumed. Each chapter essay demands a break for introspection before plunging forward. That's a 5-star read.

----

5.0 out of 5 starsEssays of passion, precision, and life-changing insight.

By Len Vander Zee on November 6, 2015

Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase

If you are waiting for someone to profoundly define life today in North America from a Christian perspective, get this book right now. Robinson writes with amazing theological depth, rich historical knowledge, and passionate intelligence on many of the perplexities of our age: scientific reductionism, gun-toting fear, the vagaries of the contemporary church, and the miracle of the human soul; and threaded through it all, the grace of God. And she knows and loves Calvin better than any neo-Calvinist I can think of. Read it and you will be enlightened.

-----

4.0 out of 5 starsProvides stimulating insight into the themes of Robinson's fiction

By Amazon Customer on December 8, 2015

Format: Hardcover

The New York Review of Books recently published parts one and two of an extended conversation in September 2015 in Iowa between President Obama and Marilynne Robinson, winner of the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Critics Circle Award for GILEAD. Readers of that fascinating exchange whose familiarity with Robinson doesn't extend beyond a relatively small body of fiction --- which includes that novel and others like HOME and LILA --- learned that she's a close observer of America's culture and politics and someone whose life and writing are informed by a deep engagement with Christianity.



Those aspects of Robinson's thinking are explored in the 17 essays that compose THE GIVENNESS OF THINGS. This searching, at times daunting, collection exposes a great and restless mind grappling mightily (but with humility) with some of the most challenging aspects of human existence.



In its best moments, Robinson's book offers a passionate defense of her liberal Christian, humanistic worldview against both scientific materialism and capitalism's worship of the market. As to the former, Robinson is especially dismissive of the increasing dominance of neuroscience for the way it "greatly overreaches the implications of its evidence and is tendentious" (a favorite Robinson adjective). At the same time, she's no science denier. On the contrary, she's eager to give the theories of modern physics and cosmology their due in an effort to describe (if not explain) a complicated universe.



A "self-declared Calvinist from northern Idaho," Robinson leaves no doubt of her place on the political spectrum. In the essay "Awakening" (like all but one of the pieces, its one-word title is not especially informative of its content), she decries the brand of Christianity that "has brought a harshness, a bitterness, a crudeness and a high-handedness into the public sphere that are only to be compared to the politics, or the collapse of politics, in the period before the Civil War." She offers a withering condemnation of the way that opposition to gun control or support for privatizing prisons have somehow been defined as "Christian" points of view:



"I never feel more Christian," she writes, "than I do when I hear of some new scheme for depriving and humiliating the poor, and feel the shock of religious dread at these blatant contraventions of what I, as a Christian, take to be the will of God. And yes, I can quote chapter and verse."



That disdain is matched only by her critique of an economic system that disparages the liberal arts in service of the single-minded goal of "making our children into maximally efficient workers." Instead, she argues, with no little vehemence, that "If we are to be competent citizens of a powerful democracy, we must encourage the study of the aptly named humanities."



Especially noteworthy in the current climate of free-floating dread engendered by events like the attacks in Paris is Robinson's resounding condemnation, in the appropriately titled essay "Fear," of the "marked and oddly general fearfulness of our culture at present," something she describes as "not a Christian habit of mind." With persistent rumors of terrorist plots and enhanced security measures at public gatherings, it's easy enough to identify with what she calls the "so entrenched habit with us to live in a state of alarmed anticipation, gearing up for things that do not happen."



This collection is less political, less personal and, regrettably, frequently less accessible than Robinson's 2012 book of essays, WHEN I WAS A CHILD I READ BOOKS. As she reveals in her Acknowledgements, these pieces originally were delivered as lectures at institutions that included the First Presbyterian Church of New York City and the School of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh. That provenance perhaps explains the opacity of essays that focus on the identity of Jesus ("Son of Adam, Son of Man") or the Gospel of Mark ("Limitation"), and whose arguments will prove elusive, if not impenetrable, to readers not already steeped in Christian theology or without a deep interest in the topic.



But Robinson, who wrote her doctoral thesis on Shakespeare, can be a delightful and informative historian and critic when dealing with challenging literary material. In the essay "Grace," she explores that concept in the dramas of “Hamlet” and “Antony and Cleopatra,” noting along the way that "the Puritans were not puritanical. Nor were they anti-intellectual or obscurantist." "Servanthood" reveals the somewhat surprising interplay between theology and art in Shakespeare's time, noting that "much of the literature and poetry of the English Renaissance was the work of people who were Puritans and Calvinists."



Among contemporary authors who have achieved significant levels of both commercial success and critical recognition, Marilynne Robinson stands alone in her unabashed religiosity and the depth of her scholarly engagement. THE GIVENNESS OF THINGS provides stimulating insight into the persistent themes of her fiction and shines a light on what it means to her to be a devout Christian in the modern world.



Reviewed by Harvey Freedenberg

------

Marilynne Robinson’s ‘The Givenness of Things’

By KAREN ARMSTRONG

NYT, DEC. 7, 2015

A sense of wonder pervades the powerful essays in “The Givenness of Things,” Marilynne Robinson’s new collection. “Existence is remarkable, actually incredible,” Robinson exclaims; even materiality is “profoundly amazing, uncanny.” Yet unlike physics, which has a strong sense of the “givenness” Robinson refers to in her title, neo-Darwinian positivism rejects anything — the self, the soul or God — that cannot be explained empirically. Robinson defines the “given” as something “that presents itself, reveals itself, always partially and circumstantially, accessible to only tentative apprehension, which means that it is always newly meaningful.” Calvin insisted that divine wisdom was one such “given,” perceived only “within radical limits.” Robinson does not say so, but here Calvin was deeply in tune with the great sages of the past, who all maintained that the transcendence we call God, Brahman, Nirvana or Dao must always ultimately elude us.

Calvin has had so profound an influence on Robinson’s religious heritage that when she reads him it seems “like the awakening of submerged memory.” Perhaps one reason for this is that the Protestant Reformation gave sacred sanction to ideals that were becoming essential to the new commercial economy in 16th-century Europe: independence, a strong work ethic, innovation and the enfranchisement of the lower classes. It had never been possible to implement these fully in premodern agrarian civilization, but their value would become self-evident in the modern West.

Yet Calvinism has declined in America, Robinson argues, and seems to have lost all sense of the “given.” A falsely confident omniscience has instead become widespread in the Age of Information, and not only in the United States. Once we forget that our knowledge of anything can only be partial, we can, like the positivists, become arrogantly disdainful of anyone who does not share our views. In American religion, Robinson believes, moral rigor has become an obligation “to turn and judge that great sinful world the redeemed have left behind,” and self-righteous Christians can be “outrageously forgiving of one another and themselves, and very cruel in their denunciation of anyone else.” Christianity has become a mere marker of identity, even a sign of electoral eligibility, and Calvin’s cosmic Christ has degenerated into an “imaginary friend” in a faith that focuses solely on “personal salvation” and “accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.”

Christianity in her view has thus become the opposite of itself, and Christians seem preoccupied with “sins” Jesus never mentioned. For the prophets the great sin was always social injustice, but too many American Christians seem comfortable in a world in which 1 percent of the population controls 40 percent of the wealth, and are not perturbed to hear the Gospels cited to legitimize for-profit prisons or to sanctify the use of guns. Jesus said, “Blessed are you who are poor,” but we now hear talk of the “unworthy poor” and of schemes that will humiliate and dispossess them.

Robinson’s heroic lamentation is magnificent. Yet for me something crucial was missing: There is no sustained discussion of America’s relationship with other nations. Robinson admits that the United States often seems like “a blundering giant, invading countries of which we know nothing,” but there is no particular meditation on foreign policy or the Iraq war and its tragic aftermath. Robinson recalls Lincoln telling Americans during the Civil War that they must love their enemies because God loves them, but she does not wonder what that great president would have said about Guantánamo Bay or Abu Ghraib. Similarly, she mentions Martin Luther King and notes with sorrow that America unfairly privileges the values of those who are white, but we hear nothing specific about the current plight of ¬African-Americans.



In Britain, we still see ourselves as Shakespeare’s “sceptred isle,” but in the interdependent global economy no nation is an island. Like Robinson, I am in my early 70s, and in this last phase of my life I too find myself reflecting painfully on the failings of my country, especially on its colonial behavior, which has contributed to so many of our current problems. Actions always have consequences. Every night on the news we see traumatized migrants from the Middle East and Africa literally dying to get into Europe. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Europeans invaded and exploited these regions for their own benefit; now, in a karmic reversal, their peoples are invading us. Yet we talk only of how to keep them out.

Robinson’s insistence, throughout these essays, that we recognize the limitations of our knowledge is timely and important. She is acutely aware that the “us and them” mentality, so prevalent in modern political discourse, is dangerous, false and unsustainable, and that it is essential that we cultivate “a respectful awareness of lives lived otherwise.” Yet sometimes she herself pulls back from the “given,” as when she wonders, with some trepidation, if those who do not know Christ can enjoy the ultimate good promised to the Christian. She concludes, tentatively, that because they participate in God’s world, they must somehow be included in God’s providence. This solution may have been acceptable in Calvin’s time. But after studying the profundity and richness of world religions for over 20 years, I can no longer believe that any one faith has a monopoly on truth or wisdom.

Robinson rarely mentions other religious traditions specifically; when she does, however, she is seldom complimentary. She seems to have inherited from Calvin an anti-Catholic bias — her discussion of the Huguenot tragedy, for example, is one-¬sided and fails to take into account the recent scholarship clarifying that in this complex struggle there was bigotry on both sides and that it is impossible to divide 16th-¬century France into neat communities of Catholics and Protestants. She is extremely (and in my view inappropriately) scathing about ancient Near Eastern mythology. Yet she approvingly cites William James’s warning that “we should never assume that our knowledge of anything is more than partial.” This must — surely? — mean that no tradition can have the last word on the ineffable. Protestant Christianity had admirable, indeed indispensable insights, but like any ideology, its vision too was partial. John Locke, who, after Calvin, is Robinson’s favorite theologian, suggested that the liberal state could tolerate neither Catholics nor Muslims, claimed that Native Americans had no property rights to their land, and showed some robust support for the institution of slavery.



In the West, we often speak of “the Reformation” as if it were a unique event. Robinson is not only convinced of this but seems to regard the Protestant Reformation as God’s last word to humanity, something that cannot be bettered. Yet almost every single one of what we now call the “great world religions” began as a reformation of existing spirituality during a period of social, political or economic transformation, when old pieties no longer sufficed. This is true of the myriad religions of the Indian subcontinent (including Buddhism and Jainism), the Chinese traditions, Rabbinic Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Over the centuries, all of these faiths continued to re-form themselves during times of disturbance and change. Perhaps in the global village that we have created, it is time for another reformation that will help us to achieve and to act upon the apparently difficult recognition that we share the planet with equals.

THE GIVENNESS OF THINGS

Essays

By Marilynne Robinson

292 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $26.

Karen Armstrong’s “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence” has recently been published in paperback.

A version of this review appears in print on December 13, 2015, on page BR20 of the Sunday Book Review with the headline: The Spirit of Our Times.

Adventures in Listening by Herb Walters

Adventures in Listening by Herb Walters

Quaker Universalist Fellowship  Adventures in Listening by Herb Walters ADVENTURES IN LISTENING I want to speak just briefly on the whole idea of universalism, since that’s what has brought us all together and I’d like to share a little bit about my own background. I was raised Catholic, and I’m now a Quaker – a member of the Celo Friends Meeting, which is part of Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting. I am also a practicing Buddhist, and I have had some experience in Native American religious tradition. This past summer, I had the pleasure of experiencing Hinduism in Indonesia. So when someone says, “What religion are you?” I give a different answer each time. The fact is, it really doesn’t matter what you call yourself. What I have found is that words are easy to come by, and I’ve heard many things said in the name of religion. What really matters is what people do with their lives. How they live out their faith and what they do with what they believe and what impact they have on the world and on their neighbors. That is the essence, I think, of religion. That is what we’re going to be talking about this evening, too, in the area of listening. I think listening is one of the most powerful forms of living our religion that I know of, and I’ve been fortunate to explore it in many ways. I grew up in a military family. I think that’s one of the reasons I do the work I do and one of the reasons I started the Listening Project. My father was a veteran of World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. He was in Vietnam at a time I was protesting the war. He just died a year ago from cancer. A doctor told us that my Dad’s cancer could have been caused by the Agent Orange he was exposed to in Vietnam. My father and I went through quite a reconciliation process before he died. Even before that, I had realized that he was probably one of the main inspirations for my involvement in peace work. His life was a life of service and my life has been devoted to service. I understand how my father felt – that by serving in the military he was serving humanity and the cause of peace. That’s difficult for some people to see, but I think that’s the essence of what the Listening Project is about. Many times in social change movements, activists help polarize the situation. We create enemy images, just as anyone else does. They are the bad guys, we are the good guys. Or they are the people who don’t understand, and we are the people who do understand. So when we approach people in this way, they feel defensive and the potential for change actually decreases. We don’t really listen to people who disagree with us – listen to their fears and concerns – so they become even more polarized against us. Too many peace groups are largely isolated and seen as “outsiders” or fringe groups in their own communities. That was one of my primary reasons for starting the Listening Projects. I saw people in the peace movement going out to preach, to convert, to change people and tell them what was the right way, but very little true communication was happening. As you know, the minute you’re preached to, you become defensive, because the people preaching to you seem not to really care about who you are or what you believe. All they care about is changing you. So the Listening Project was an attempt to break through the isolation and barriers that separate people into the good vs. the bad; liberal vs. conservative; hawks vs. doves. The Listening Project is an attempt, through deep listening and non-violence, to get down to the basic human values that really connect us all. These are the same values that connected my father and myself. Deep down in us all there is a desire for peace, for goodness and for justice. For each person those feelings come out in different ways and in some cases they get covered up, distorted or hidden by painful human experiences, by fear, insecurity or lack of knowledge. As children, we’ve all learned ideas from adults that we later found to be negative or problematic. My father grew up as a poor farm boy. He had no other opportunity to change his life than to join the military. The military became his way of understanding world issues. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with him that made him go into the military and want to use those kinds of solutions. It could have been me. Any of us could have ended up in the military instead of at a Quaker gathering about peace. Our first Listening Project actually related to this issue of peace activists and people in the military. It was in 1986 in St. Mary’s, which is a small town in south Georgia. Someone asked me if I would speak about working down South. I am a Southerner. Yes it is difficult to work for social change in the South. Southern people are very friendly, good people, but people are less open to progressive, new ideas in the South. The Moral Majority, the Religious Right, the Klan – they’re still alive in the South. St. Mary’s is a small town where the Navy base has been expanded to be the East Coast home port for the Trident nuclear submarines. One Trident submarine has four times the firepower used in World War II. Activists from outside of St. Mary’s had been coming into the community to do prayer vigils, protest walks, civil disobedience, and all the rest. It was the traditional Vietnam era approach to dealing with peace issues. The result was that the protesters were pretty much seen as outside agitators, or they were just ignored. They had virtually no support from the people in the St. Mary’s community. So when we got involved, we asked Trident activists to go to the homes of people in the community and not preach to them but listen to them and hear what they had to say. The Listening Project involves listening at a very deep level so that one builds a relationship of trust and respect between oneself and the person doing the speaking. We try to be non-judgmental and not react to things the other person may say. The other person must be allowed to start from where she or he needs to start. As this trust is built, people open up and begin to reconnect with their basic yearning for goodness and peace. What normally prevents that opening up from happening is a polarization process. People aren’t able to overcome their fears. When we tell them that what they think is all wrong, they feel that they have to defend themselves. So while we’re sitting there telling them what all the right answers are, they’re figuring out a way to say, “Yeah, but this is what I believe.” They defend their viewpoint. At St. Mary’s we listened, and we asked questions that got people to begin really thinking about what it meant to be living in a community where the Trident submarine was. We asked questions related to how they felt about the base, and ultimately asked questions about how they felt about the risk their children were experiencing living in a world dominated by nuclear weapons. We asked them questions that got them to go deeper into their feelings. What we found is that indeed people really did care. Now, these are Southern people whom most people would call rednecks. Many people would write them off, saying they're never going to be of any help. But many of them are really vulnerable, caring people who have been disempowered, so that their own values and feelings have been covered over by fear and defensiveness. Some may outwardly support nuclear weapons and the arms race, but through this process of listening to them, we gave them the opportunity to really go deeply into their feelings, their fears, hopes and ideas. We didn’t judge them at all and we found that many were able to actually change some of their ideas and beliefs. They were able to express their concerns and, for the first time, say that they were afraid. People told us they didn’t like what was happening, that they wanted things to change. It was powerful. Remember, this was in 1986 when fear of the Soviet Union was still very strong. Many peace activists went out fully expecting to have doors slammed in their faces, because that’s normally how they think the public relates to them. But instead, the main problem they experienced was that people didn’t want them to leave their homes. People rarely have the experience of being listened to, having someone say: “We care about what you think. We care about what you feel. What you have to say is important.” This was a wonderful experience for most of the people we interviewed in St. Mary’s and elsewhere. Most activists ended up spending about half an hour or more with each person they listened to. We used a list of ten or twelve survey questions and then listeners asked additional clarifying questions that enabled people to go deeper into exploring their thoughts and feelings. St. Mary’s was an important project because it enabled some positive relationships to happen where before there was only suspicion, apathy or mistrust. In that sense, listening is a profound social change experience. It’s also a profound spiritual experience, because when you listen in this way, what you’re willing to do is let go of who you are and not be so attached to your own ego. You open yourself fully to other people and allow their essence to come into you. Then it’s a process of empathizing with the other person. One of the things we tell listeners is that if you disagree with 90 percent of what a person says, start off by focusing on the 10 percent you can agree with or at least relate to. What are our commonalities? Those people in St. Mary’s all care about democracy; they all care about their children. Many of them start off saying, “We want to build nuclear weapons.” But the fact is, the reason they want to build more nuclear weapons is that they have families and are concerned about their safety and protecting them from the Russian menace. They have people they love – the same reason we’re working in the peace movement, but it comes out in different ways. By listening to people, we gave them the opportunity to begin to examine some of their own ideas and thoughts and look closer at them and to see how some of them weren’t really reflecting their deeper human values. We’d talk to someone and they’d say, “We need to build more nuclear weapons,” and we listened and let them get out their anger and their frustration and their fears. We’d ask them clarifying questions and they’d end up by saying, “We need to have more negotiations, we need to stop this arms race.” The listening has proven itself to be very powerful for social change. We don’t change people by clobbering them over the head. We change people through an active process of love. That’s what the Listening Project is about. A more recent Listening Project was in Keysville, Georgia, a small rural community of 400. In Keysville, we again had a situation where there was a great degree of polarization. Keysville is a poor community with a majority African-American population. At one point, some of the black population realized that they weren’t incorporated as a town, and therefore they had no tax base for meeting human needs. There were people without water, and there was no sewage system or fire department. People were without the basic services that most towns have. So a group of African-American residents decided they wanted to organize and get chartered as a town so they could elect public officials and raise money to provide clean drinking water and other services. It seemed like a simple matter. But there were white residents in the community who came out strongly opposed to developing a town government in Keysville. The opposition was so strong that it took two or three years for the African-Americans to finally succeed in getting their town incorporated so they could have an elected town government. In the process, the press came into Keysville and began to talk about how Keysville was a prime example of racism in the 1980’s. Keysville became a national issue. The story was on national networks and people were coming in and talking about Keysville. It became a very difficult situation. When a local government was finally elected, it consisted of all African-Americans. No whites would even run. Whites would not support nor be involved with this government in any way. There was a completely polarized community with an African-American government, but no support from the white community. So we organized a Listening Project. We worked closely with the city council, the mayor and the Keysville Concerned Citizens (all African-Americans) in setting up what the goals of the project were – what they wanted to achieve with the project. Together we developed a survey with questions that would open people up. We brought in white people from outside and formed bi-racial teams, so that there were both blacks and whites conducting the survey. We went door-to-door to the homes of white residents, and we listened to them. Rather than talking to them about how they’d been a problem, we asked them questions such as, “What would you do to improve things here in Keysville, if you were on the City Council?” So, rather than just assuming they were a problem, what we did was ask them questions that put them in the role of being a solution. That’s just one of the methods we use. We also asked how they felt about various projects that the city government had already undertaken. We found that they didn’t even know some of those projects were done by the city government. When they learned what had been happening, some whites began to develop more appreciation for the city government. We also found that one of the primary reasons for white opposition was a fear of taxes. Part of the problem was racism. There were people who just didn’t want black government. We also found that there was a lot of confusion, a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of hurt. Some whites had been hurt by the fact that the press had come in and called them racist, even though they hadn’t been a part of the opposition to change. It was a complex situation, and outsiders coming in and saying it was all racism had not helped. The Listening Project was able to begin a process of healing in the community. I think white residents felt positive because they were being listened to and were able to talk about their concerns. I think the African-American residents felt good about some of the positive attitudes they got from white residents. After the project was completed, several white residents came out publicly, for the first time, in support of the town government. Several of them began working for the first time with the African-American officials. A bi-racial human relations council was formed even though some people were afraid to join it. There’s still plenty of work that needs to be done in Keysville. Our project wasn’t a big thing in comparison to the tremendous struggles and victories of the Keysville Concerned Citizens, but at least we began the process of healing and reconciliation. That was important, because all the work that this local government was trying to do was simply being held back by racial divisions. Basically what the Listening Project is about, is taking the concept of listening and applying it in the area of social change. It’s hard to communicate to some people how important listening can be, and how valuable and powerful a tool for change it can be. People tend to think of listening as too soft – not strong enough really to change things. People say: “We want change now! We don’t want to just listen; we want action!” I’m not knocking demonstration and civil disobedience as means of achieving change. I think they are valuable forms of action. But I do believe they are overused and abused methods of working for social change. There is also great strength in gentleness and great transforming power in reconciling with our opponents rather than just defeating them. We’ve had several opportunities to do Listening Projects internationally. The most recent was in Palau. When I first heard from the Catholic Commission on Justice and Development in Palau, they said there was an issue that had completely divided the whole country. Palau is a group of islands in the Pacific near the Philippines. The issue was the Compact of Free Association which had to do with the degree of independence Palau would have from the United States. It also involved the fact that they are a nuclear-free zone and the United States wanted a relationship with them that would give the United States government access to land for military bases and nuclear weapons. The Compact was a very complex issue, and it had completely polarized the country into those for and against it. The Catholic Commission wanted a Listening Project to help them break through the polarization. When I arrived in Palau, I was informed that the Commission had decided not to do a Listening Project on the Compact because it was too explosive. They had decided that it would be better to focus on development issues and talk about the Compact indirectly. The Compact had divided families. There had been a bombing and there had been a house burned down. It was thought that the matter should not be addressed directly. I respected their decision – but at the same time I felt they would be passing up an opportunity to use the Listening Project on this important issue. So I talked to them more about the Listening Project. They finally decided to focus on development but to have several questions focus directly on the Compact. What happened is what often happens. The Palauan activists’ images and stereotypes of people – how they thought people would react to the issues  – were not accurate. Many thought that people were so divided on the Compact that they could not even talk about it. They thought there would be angry responses if the issue were raised. In fact, because we came as listeners, people were eager to talk about the Compact. We designed a questionnaire that asked people if they wanted to learn more about the Compact from unbiased sources. Virtually every single person said yes. They were actually very hungry for information. They wanted to know more and they wanted information from someone not promoting one side or another. So through listening, the Commission was able to work on this issue in a way that responded to people’s needs. They were also able to identify other key development issues and find new people interested in working on those issues. Activists have lots of stereotypes of the general public. One is that many people are apathetic. We have found through Listening Projects that most people really do care, but they also feel powerless to change things. They feel overwhelmed, powerless and confused about what to do. So they shut down and sometimes take on attitudes and beliefs that protect them from their confusion and pain. Quick easy answers such as, “Build a stronger military” or “Those blacks are causing all the problems” can take hold in this fertile ground. But underneath it all, within each of us, there’s still a person who cares and who believes in peace and equality. Many people don’t turn toward joining a social change group because they too have negative stereotypes – of the activists. Listening Projects can help reduce stereotyping and prejudices coming from people on both sides of an issue. In a Listening Project we focus on our common humanity rather than our differences and prejudices. We build trust with people so they can wrestle with their beliefs and ideas and get in contact with their positive human values. It doesn’t always work but it’s remarkable how often it does work. I was interested in the sharing we did earlier in the day on listening – in the context of different spiritual traditions. The woman who spoke about her Christian beliefs, and the co-creation speaker and others were all excellent. I was thinking that each had much to offer us. I thought about the symbol from Christianity of the death and the resurrection of Jesus, and I related that, at one point, to listening. When you really listen, what you’re doing is actually going through that death and resurrection process. What happens when we are truly listening is that we need to let go of ourselves fully, let our egos die. This enables us to be completely open to the moment and to what’s happening to that person who is across from us. You let your own ego die and you become fully open to the light that’s in that other person. You are being open to mystery and the beauty of life and the potential of that other person. In that sense, listening can be a deep spiritual process that’s like a resurrection. A resurrection into the blessing of each moment. Listening is a way of empowering people. It’s a way of saying to people, “What you think, what you feel and what you believe really counts and is important, and you can make a difference.” In Palau most of the people with whom we talked said they wanted more information and they wanted to get involved. In Southern communities and areas that are probably some of the most conservative areas in the country, we’ve gone in using a Listening Project and a large percentage of the people have said: “We do care. We want to get involved.” We’ve used projects to talk about social problems and military spending and we’ve found that people have never had the opportunity before to really explore their feelings and explore what they think and what might make a positive difference. One very important aspect of a Listening Project is that the group conducting the project is committed to following up with people who express an interest in getting involved. Listening Project participants are committed to acting on some of the input and ideas that come from people. So even after the active act of listening has concluded, a process of empowerment continues. To end these comments, I’d like to say that listening is both a spiritual and a social change process. It is a process of opening to the potential and the goodness of other people. It’s a process of understanding the basic differences that separate us and the common human values that connect us. Thus we can appreciate and care about other people. We can learn to love, not because we think we should be loving, but because we experience empathy – the ability to truly understand the other person. Understanding and listening are the seeds and water of compassion. That’s something that we as Friends can strive for in all areas of our lives. I am very grateful for the opportunities I have to use listening in my work and I am continually challenged by my need to incorporate listening into my personal life. Dialog This talk was concluded with an opportunity for the audience to ask questions. These and the answers follow. Q: How can I get more information and get involved with something like this? I’ve never heard of it before. Herb: There are Newsletters available and will send further information to people here tonight. Unfortunately, the Listening Project is pretty complex. It’s not something that happens easily. It involves quite a period of training and orientation. Thus we’re not able to do a lot of projects, but we are working in many different communities. Probably the next one that will happen will be down in North Carolina around environmental issues. We are also beginning to be able to offer projects outside the Southeast. So the main way to get involved is to stay in touch and find out when projects are happening and then come, take part in one, or find a need in your own community and request a project there. We’re trying to train trainers as well, but it’s a slow process. Q: How do you move into the community? By invitation or sponsorship by a group that’s in the community? Herb: It’s only by working with a group already in the community. Sometimes we’re just asked to come. Sometimes when we set a situation, we let the people involved know what we can do to help. Next we have to go through the process of helping them understand how the Listening Project can help them and their situation. Q: Would you mind saying how you got involved- – how that worked in Keysville? Herb: Keysville is close to where I grew up. I met with residents there to explain how we could work together. The mayor of Keysville is a wonderful woman who was very open and interested. Q: Before you can listen, you have to have thought through what is a suitable question and how you can ask it in a suitable way? Herb: Right. The questions happen in two ways. One way is by our working out, in advance, about a dozen survey questions that provide a structured way of entering into the listening. The first questions are always easy opening questions: “How long have you lived here in this community?” for example. In St. Mary’s, one of the first questions was: “What are the positive effects of the Kings Bay naval base here?” And then, “What are the negative effects?” The second way builds on the initial questions. Our program enables our trainees to ask both clarifying questions as well as others which draw out people. As this is done we find these people expressing more and going deeper into their thoughts and feelings. So it’s a combination of questions you already have plus using questioning and communication skills learned in the training. Q: Short of going down to North Carolina, how can one get some training? Do you have any printed material on this, or does there have to be a class? How do you work that? Herb: I have printed material, but, as you know, this can be used in all areas of life and it’s really basic. It’s active listening that people understand from counseling and psychology. The Listening Project has taken that whole approach and tried to break it down, tried to put it in terms that were easier to understand, so that a common person could understand how to use them. Then we built a structured way of using them for political outreach and organizing. That’s where it gets a bit complex. Q: Do you have any plans to try to have other kinds of outreach? Because so few people can go down and get into a project. Herb: Well, there are going to be projects in other parts of the country. We’ve just received some money to help us expand staff. One of the problems is that we’re a small, grass roots organization. To date I’ve been the only field staff person. But we train new trainers wherever we go. Thus we encourage growth, but it’s a slow process. It’s frustrating, because as you know there are a lot of people who say, as you do, that they’d like to get involved. I can’t give a quick, easy way for people to get involved other than to say if you can’t come to where our project is, it’s possible there will be one up in this area within the next year. We could use a staff of twenty and then we could work all over the place. But now we don’t have that kind of financial ability. Let me close by sharing our address and phone number so that anyone who is interested in this work can get in touch with us. It is: Rural Southern Voice for Peace  –  Listening Project, 1898 Hannah Branch Road, BurnsviIle, NC, 28714. Phone (704) 675-5933.