by Joseph E. Lowery and Jonathan Merritt
We don't look alike. We don't talk alike. We don't vote alike. And, separated in age by more than six decades, we certainly don't walk alike! Then why are we joining together now?
Because nuclear weapons are an indiscriminate threat that transcends identity politics, and because, as Georgians, we have a surprisingly important role to play in reducing that threat. When considering this danger, as Christians of conviction, we echo Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s saying: "We must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools."
There are over 20,000 nuclear weapons in existence worldwide that threaten the lives of our children and the children of our global neighbors. On average, each one has 30 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb.
Russia and the United States hold 95 percent of the global total, and we need to continue the process initiated by President Ronald Reagan of verifiable, bilateral reductions in our stockpiles. But how can this happen?
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is currently considering the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) -- a treaty that will make a practical and immediate difference in reducing the nuclear danger. The treaty, signed by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier this year, is conservative but important: It reduces deployed strategic nuclear weapons on both sides to 1,550, and deployed delivery vehicles to 800 -- a cut of about one-third from current, bloated, Cold War levels.
Perhaps most importantly, it will re-establish on-the-ground verification measures that have built trust for nearly two decades. For the 270-plus days since the last START agreement expired on Dec. 5, 2009, both sides have been without that critical intelligence. Unless the U.S. Senate acts soon, we stand to lose the latter half of Reagan's "trust but verify" maxim.
For these reasons, New START has an extraordinary level of bipartisan support from national security experts at a more than 10-to-1 ratio. Our national military leadership, including the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the uniformed commanders of our nuclear arsenals and missile defense programs, are unanimously and urgently supportive of the treaty. Policy experts and respected security advisers representing the past seven administrations have all endorsed New START, including former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell.
Moreover, as Georgians, we can play an important role. Sen. Johnny Isakson is positioned to make a crucial difference with the committee's scheduled vote on New START Thursday. He is currently undeclared. But Isakson -- like us -- is a person of faith, which is why we are appealing to him to begin applying those faith principles to this issue.
New START has attracted significant support from faith communities, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the World Evangelical Alliance, the National Council of Churches and the Two Futures Project, among other groups. It is even consistent with existing resolutions of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, which support "mutually verifiable" steps toward disarmament. And, perhaps most significant for Sen. Isakson -- a lifelong and committed Methodist -- is the fervent support for New START from the United Methodist bishops.
Unfortunately, we live in partisan times heightened by this election season. But it is precisely times like these in which Christian statesmen are called to rise above the fray and do what is right. Faith-filled public servants like Isakson must still exhibit the same independent, informed, and compassionate qualities that first vaulted them into higher office.
We do not minimize or ignore the dangers of the world we live in. Indeed, it is the very nature of those dangers that make New START mandatory. We again return to the words of Dr. King: "If modern man continues to flirt unhesitatingly with war, he will transform his earthly habitat into an inferno such as even the mind of Dante could not imagine."
For those called to seek the kingdom of God before all other things, the quest for peace is never optional. While this treaty will not end the nuclear danger, let alone end war, it is a step in the right direction -- and a measure deserving the support of all who wear Christ's gentle yoke.
The Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, was the successor to Martin Luther King Jr. as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Jonathan Merritt is a faith and culture writer, author of Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan for Our Planet, and a Southern Baptist minister in Duluth.
_______
What do you think? Are nuclear weapons a faith issue?
_______
Order a copy of my new book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet
Mike said:
The claim that START is a "measure deserving the support of all who wear Christ's gentle yoke" by those who are "called to seek the kingdom of God before all other things" is rather heavey handed. Sounds a bit like wedding faith with partisan politics (didn't the Christian Right get criticized for that?)
Trying to re-package this issue to the religious masses as a "faith" matter and putting on all this flowery religious rhetoric dumbs down a complex issue. As usual, the devil is in the details, and this treaty has signficiant flaws while doing very little to protect anyone from nuclear war. I'd hope all Christians consult the language of the treaty and John McCain's letter to the Committee on Foreign Relations and not just Paul's letter to the Corinthians.
The greatest threat from nuclear weapons today is not a war with Russia, but a rogue state or a terrorist getting their hands on one, so disarming ourselves completely (which I think we both know is the goal here) in order to eradicate all nuclear weapons anywhere is a nice dream, but that's all it is. The cold realities of the world demand a seemingly contradictory strategy that the US deter nuclear war by owning (at least some) nuclear weapons.
That beng said, the treaty's stated goal of reducing the number of some nuclear weapons is fine (because we don't need 1000's to deter others from attacking and the less nuclear weapons owned by anyone means less chance they will fall into the wrong hands) provided the treaty doesn't have other baggage. But it does.
Based on what I've read, it does not limit tactical nuclear weapons, which permits the Russians to retain many, and it limits launchers which will require the U.S. to reduce its capabilities but let Russia increase theirs. There are also serious questions about START impeding the US ability to have a missile defense shield. How did that get slipped in there?
Posted: September 16, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
Mike,
Your comment about the Religious Right is clearly misapplied. There is a VAST difference between an individual Christian claiming that other individual Christians should support certain policies for the common good and a mass movement to organize the church institutionally to support a partisan agenda. Let's make sure we're using sophisticated analysis when criticizing broadly.
Furthermore, your reservations regarding START and a defense shield are unfounded. There is a reason that this treaty has some of the broadest bi-partisan support we've seen in sometime. There is a reason that Christian bodies representing most confessing believers support it. There is a reason that a majority of national security experts, secretaries of state, and the joint chiefs support it. No political policy is perfect, but this one is worthy.
Jm
Posted: September 16, 2010
Tyler said:
I think that all who wear Christ's yoke should support peacemaking -- especially when it comes to our most deadly weapons. So the translation between theological conviction and policy here depends on one question: does New START make America and the world a more secure place?
And the answer is yes. This is why New START has the unequivocal support of the US military leadership, including Secretary Bob Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, as well as a breathtakingly bipartisan list of senior security leaders from the past seven presidential administrations.
Vague allegations that New START would restrain missile defense abilities are totally spurious. The general in charge of American missile defenses testified that New START actually "reduces" constraints on missile defenses from the last START. Likewise allegations about inadequate funding for defense: George W Bush's director of the national nuclear security administration, Linton Brooks, said he "would have killed" for the budget put forward by the Obama administration.
Further, to say that this is a bad treaty because it doesn't address tactical nuclear weapons is like complaining it doesn't protect us from rabid dogs. It's the "STRATEGIC ARMS reduction treaty." And until we made progress on this, any agreement about tactical weapons -- which is absolutely a worthy goal -- would have been impossible. And, PS, the student of geopolitics can see how success with this Treaty, means on-the-ground intel about Russian forces, which means on-the-ground intel about the most likely sources for terrorist acquisition of nuclear material. So it substantially improves our resources to combat nuclear terrorism.
In an effort to be fair-minded, we can sometimes give undue credence to both sides of an issue. But there's no real debate about the security merits of New START. To say that there is is to say that our top national security officials, both civilian and military, are ignorant or in dereliction of duty. Why would they stand for a Treaty that would make the nation they've sworn to serve weaker?
Don't be persuaded by "weasel words" like "...but some say New START will WEAKEN America." Look at the list of who stands behind this Treaty. And if you still oppose it, you should ask yourself what it is you know that they don't.
For more info including statements and testimony from the more than 20 hearings on New START, visit http://tnstart.org
Posted: September 16, 2010
Mike said:
"There is a VAST difference between an individual Christian claiming that other individual Christians should support certain policies for the common good and a mass movement to organize the church institutionally to support a partisan agenda. Let's make sure we're using sophisticated analysis when criticizing broadly."
(Thanks for tip on that "sophisticated" stuff.)
So, to you "the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the World Evangelical Alliance, the National Council of Churches" are -individuals- but Moral Majority and Christian Coalition, aren't??? And I'm sure the latter thought their agenda was for the "common good" too, so that distinction doesn't really hold much water.
Telling me that everyone else supports it (and they don't) isn't very helpful. John McCain will probably end up supporting a revised version, but he's no slouch and he has serious issues with it worth considering.
But perhaps I was wrong to cite some facts in having reservations about START. For some, supporting this policy is a matter of Christian faith , so as to them I suppose there is no room for disagreement.
Posted: September 20, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
Mike,
Your original statement was that my personal claim sounded a bit like the religious right. Your second statement is about a referenced claim made by specific denominations. These are two separate statements. So actually, I return again to your initial statement. MY PERSONAL CLAIM that Christian individuals should support that is VASTLY different than an institutional movement like that of the religious right. We can argue whether or not a statement by the US Council of Catholic Bishops is similar to the religious right, but that is not what you said.
And I would actually argue that organizations like the Moral Majority were not pursuing the common good, but rather the Christian good.
Jm
Posted: September 20, 2010
Justin said:
"The greatest threat from nuclear weapons today is ... a rogue state or a terrorist getting their hands on one, so disarming ourselves completely (which I think we both know is the goal here) in order to eradicate all nuclear weapons anywhere is a nice dream, but that's all it is. The cold realities of the world demand a seemingly contradictory strategy that the US deter nuclear war by owning (at least some) nuclear weapons."
I think the assumption that the goal is to get rid of all our nuclear weapons is false and I can't speak for the host, but I do not agree that is the goal here. The goal is a reduction in arms and to minimize the risk of something going wrong.
Secondly, a rogue state in the conventional sense, North Korea, already has one. Technically, Pakistan, India and Israel are rogue states as well since they are not part of the NPT but have an arsenal of nukes. Those 4 rogue states have nuclear weapons and have not used them to date because of deterrence, so you may be correct in that the presence of nuclear weapons is a necessary deterrent.
Your second example of terrorists getting a nuclear weapon is ironic because there is no deterrent. The greater the number of nuclear arms in the world, the greater the chance that your scenario plays out. Only instead of what happens with a rogue state, a stateless, terrorist group does not have any reason to follow the logic of MAD and there is no deterrent. Nuclear weapons are useless to deter terrorists and their presence only increases the chance of a terrorist getting one. The U.S. has lost many nukes that the public knows about and there are about 100 lost nukes in the world. Keeping arsenals of thousands of nukes on the move only increases the chance that somewhere, sometime, something will go dreadfully wrong.
Posted: September 21, 2010