Get E-Mail Updates

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech and Just Peace Theory

If all we notice in President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Lecture is a justification of war, we will miss the 21st century import of his thinking and the hope of peace he called forth. President Obama spoke of just peace, the middle ground between just war thinking and pacifism. He articulated many of the basic ideas of just peacemaking.

Within the broad categories of just peace theory -- truth, respect, security -- there are ten specific steps. They are as follows: support nonviolent direct action; take independent initiatives to reduce threats; use cooperative conflict resolution; acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice and seek repentance and forgiveness; advance democracy, human rights, and interdependence; foster just and sustainable economic development; work with emerging cooperative forces in the international system; strengthen the United Nations and international efforts for cooperation and human rights; reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade; encourage grassroots peacemaking groups (Just Peacemaking: The New Paradigm for the Ethics of Peace and War, editor Glen Stassen).

While President Obama did speak about the components of just war theory, his prescriptions for peace were in concert with just peace theory. He said that meeting the challenge of ending war "will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace."

He called for more international unity and cooperation in providing effective nonviolent sanctions against nations that violate international law, especially against those seeking nuclear weapons. He said, "Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war." In matters of humanitarian atrocities -- genocide, rape, repression -- he called for an international effort. He said, "the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression." This is a radical shift from the idea of America acting alone or nearly alone in crises. It does not sanction war.

Further, he recognized the importance of human rights. He said, "Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting." He spoke of the importance of freedom of speech, worship, elections, and assembly. He called these rights universal. He spoke in favor of diplomacy, even with repressive regimes. He said, "I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- and condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door."

The third of President Obama's imperatives for a just peace is economic security and opportunity. He said, "For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want." He showed an understanding that sustainable economic development provides for the basic needs of humanity within the context of care for the environment. Just peace includes the earth, the life upon it and within it, and the air that surrounds it.

Most importantly, President Obama dared to speak of love. He spoke of the Golden Rule, of the love that guided Gandhi, King, and others. He spoke of our common humanity and of the breath of God that breathes within us. He spoke of faith, justice, dignity, human progress, and hope. He spoke of just peace.

Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: SamHamilton

12-10-2009 @ 11:13pm

President Obama's speech gives a pretty well-reasoned justification for the use of military force or the threat thereof, unilateral if necessary, in promoting peace and justice. He said this:

"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [MLK's and Gandhi's non-violence] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

"Just peace" sounds like "just war" with some fancy baubles attached to it to distract people from the fact it's a way to justify the use of force and violence in international affairs.

I throw out these questions for discussion:

Can a Christian who is committed to non-violence be President of the United States? (I'm not asking whether he or she could be elected, but would he or she be able to effectively carry out the duties of the office? Obama appears to believe that he or she couldn't.)

Does "just peace" as expounded by President Obama include the option of using deadly force, or the threat thereof, to ensure justice and/or peace? (It sounds like it does to me.) If so, how is this reconciled with the non-violent way of Jesus?

If a government using violence or the threat thereof in international affairs to impose order is unjust, in what way is it just for a government to use violence or the threat thereof in domestic affairs to impose order? (this is a question for those who agree with the premise in the first clause)

by: ashpenaz

12-10-2009 @ 6:42pm

There is nothing in the speech which Sarah Palin or George Bush would not have said, and with more conviction.

by: BlueDeacon

12-10-2009 @ 6:51pm

Be advised that you're getting awfully close to slander here. Conservative Republicans made up their minds early on that they were not going to cooperate with Obama, so you can't blame him for not talking to them.

And BTW, when Christ comes to rule there will be one-world government.

by: Jeffrey Courter

12-11-2009 @ 12:12am

Mr. Obama actually campaigned to increase our focus on Afghanistan. He campaigned against our ongoing war in Iraq.

He has not deceived anyone; in fact, he has stayed true to his campaign statements, whether you agree with them or not.

by: BlueDeacon

12-10-2009 @ 6:52pm

Agreed. Peace means little without justice, and the injustice of al-Qaeda and the Taliban must not be countenanced.

by: squeaky

12-11-2009 @ 12:15am

You ask good questions, and I appreciate the tone. Many here seem to feel betrayed that Obama isn't keeping promises of peace--promises that he never made, I would add. Nonetheless, there is this sense that the intelligent, articulate, thoughtful president they elected couldn't possibly come to the conclusion that escalating the war is the answer to the issue of Afghanistan.

Yet, any honest discussion on pacifism should quickly lead most participants to an understanding that the issue has far more shades of grey than we might like to think. It's easy to say "give peace a chance", but what does that really look like in the face of a violent opponent, especially one who has no qualms about blowing him or herself up in a crowd of people. Sting told us we don't need to worry about nuclear war "if the Russians love their children, too." Seems logical, but what happens when one's opponent thinks it perfectly logical to sacrifice themselves or their children for larger goals?

I tend to think that the failure to find peaceful solutions is a failure of imagination. And I still think that. But, I can't pretend I know what that would look like. Seems to me the key is to turn the hearts and minds of the Taliban and Al Quaeda...but how would that work? And if I were president trying to make such weighty decisions having the classified information he has, how would I respond?

"Can a Christian who is committed to non-violence be President of the United States?" One could ask the same about whether a Christian should join the armed forces, or the police force. I would say if a Christian who is committed to non-violence wants to aspire to any of those positions, that Christian will have to be willing to compromise his or her values. And if he or she is not willing to do that, that person should find another profession.

Certainly, if I were being threatened by an intruder, although I would want to see a peaceful resolution to the issue, I also would want the police officer who responds to the call to be willing to do whatever it takes to keep that intruder from harming me or my family.

And maybe a bigger question is whether or not a nation can act as an individual. Is it reasonable to expect a nation to act like Jesus? That could be asked about a lot of issues.

by: BlueDeacon

12-10-2009 @ 6:53pm

Agreed. Peace means little without justice, and the injustice of al-Qaeda and the Taliban must not be countenanced.

by: squeaky

12-11-2009 @ 12:21am

I think if I had made a sincere effort to get my political opponents to come to the table and share their insights and perspective (and that's what I was hoping would happen, by the way), but instead, those opponents decided to make up lies about my intentions regarding healthcare, accuse me of creating "death panels" (Logan's Run, anyone?), and generally spreading misinformation among their base for political reasons, I might withdraw the offer, too.

by: jpatrickmahon

12-10-2009 @ 7:00pm

Martin Luther King, Jr. believed that the universe bends toward justice. Barack Obama believes that the universe bends toward violence (although he tried to incorporate King's thought and ride his nonviolent coattails).
All theories about just war and just peace aside, it is a question of integrity. A presidential candidate who promised to being the troops home has brought about another Bushian surge. A president who escalates a war which increases human misery receiving THE Nobel Peace Prize? So much for integrity. So much for promises. So much for change we can believe in. So much for my Obama bumper sticker!

by: xfree9

12-10-2009 @ 7:21pm

Welcome to 1984.

by: xfree9

12-10-2009 @ 7:24pm

That depends on your definition of "government." Governance, yes. Government as we know it and understand it? Probably not.

by: xfree9

12-10-2009 @ 7:25pm

Maybe there is such a rare occasion as a just reason for war. But "just war" seems as oxymoronic as "redemptive rape." I'm sorry, sending more troops to war while flying to accept a peace prize sounds like something I'd read in "1984" rather than by a supposedly Christian President who promised on the campaign trail that our troops would come home very quickly after his election.

by: JacobS

12-10-2009 @ 8:45pm

In Obama's defense, he was hawkish on Afghanistan throughout the campaign because he deemed it the "good war." I don't see any broken promises with regard to Afghanistan. Whether he's making good decisions is an entirely different story.

by: bill pence

12-16-2009 @ 2:20am

did Christ down justice from heaven to those who were killing him? did he instruct us to kill or to love those who are our enemies? is loving our enemies something that may get us killed? yes. and i think this central issue is something many christians cannot accept. i would respectfully like to hear criticisms of these ideas. thanks -bill

by: Ross Parry

12-10-2009 @ 8:47pm

If Obama had any real integrity, he ought to have refused to accept this prize in the first place.
It proves he is just another politician driven by "the great game". I suspect that just like Bush he is not his own man, and he owes it to the power behind the throne to continue the geo political agenda of the previous regime which is control of the worlds oil resources in American hands as much as possible. The US does not intervene in the genocide in other poor countries or go after their militants. They intervene when there is an economic imperative(OIL) to be controlled and exploited. EVERY presidency both democrat and republican will do so. But to admit this would be political suicide. The US public does not want to hear that their son or daughter died for the sake of OIL. So they must be told patriotic lies to keep the
war going until the oil can flow. That could be many years from now.

by: JacobS

12-10-2009 @ 9:00pm

How can sanctions be non-violent when their purpose is to inflict suffering to facilitate changes? I can't see any real difference between sanctions and a war, except sanctions insulate us from the casualties. And if sanctions don't inflict suffering, through some oil-for-food type exceptions, then how can we expect them to succeed?

by: BlueDeacon

12-11-2009 @ 2:24am

Sarah and George don't believe in peace -- only in domination.

by: BlueDeacon

12-11-2009 @ 2:29am

You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't make your statements or opinions valid. When people talk about "breaking" him, as Sen. Jim DeMint did in referring to health-care insurance reform, you should realize that some people have zero interest in bipartisanship. And do you remember when the "tea party" movement started? April! (That is, just three months after Obama was inaugurated.) They have no intention of giving him any chance whatsoever.

by: BlueDeacon

12-16-2009 @ 3:17am

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. For openers, Jesus never wielded the power of the state; indeed, it was wielded on him. However, sometimes it's necessary to do so, and "doing justice" can mean "discipline."

by: chrissummerville

12-10-2009 @ 9:29pm

I agree, unfortunately President Obama spoke more for the justification of war than for peace. It was all rhetoric, I suppose, to try to please everybody since he knew he did not deserve the prize at this time. A more humble person wouuld have said, "Thank you, but no, not at this time, if at all." Unfortunately, Mr. Wallis failed at this moment to speak as critically of Mr. Obama's politicizing as he has done of Republicans. As a follower of Christ I have chosen to be non-partisan as much as I can.

by: bill pence

12-16-2009 @ 5:39pm

expain "someteimes it's necessary to do so" in the context of Christ's message to mankind. I don't care what politicians say on the matter, my heart is with Christ and He is the one i'm trying to follow.

by: Presbyterian

12-10-2009 @ 9:49pm

I'm so proud of this President. I am disappointed in the dismissive tone of some of the posts in disagreement here. Have you read the speech? It is thoughtful and a deeply serious attempt to wrestle with hard realities. I do not agree with all of it; the President may not esteem non-violence as much as I would like, and he could be challenged to consider the ethic of Jesus as applicable to nations. But to call it simple hypocrisy or cynicism--it feels to me like such comments come from a very dualistic, right/wrong world, not the world of grey areas where I think Obama--and Niebuhr--know we have to live. Do read it again, and ponder and pray. Grace and peace...

by: NC77

12-10-2009 @ 9:57pm

I disagree. If you remember, before the August recess of Congress, Obama offered to invite anyone to the WhiteHouse to offer common sense reform solutions and to consider any reasonable solutions offered regardless of party . What he said he would do after the recess never happened and any amendments offered by Republicans were rejected out of hand by the Democrats. It is Obama not cooperating. He hasn't even participated except to make pep rally speeches and empty promises of benefits that were not in the bill at the time. And quite frankly I don't think he really cares what the bill does, just as long as something passes and he can have his "historic" moment as President.

I do agree with you though that there are both conservative and liberal Republicans.

by: NC77

12-10-2009 @ 10:02pm

But Sarah or George would never get the Nobel Peace Prize because of who they are and what they are perceived to represent. They are guilty cause the left is opposed to them, but Obama is not guilty cause he gets rationized qualifications that justify his war.

by: JoannaCW

12-10-2009 @ 10:15pm

No. But what about the injustice of the NATO-backed Afghan government, which includes a very large proportion people with war crimes in their backgrounds and continues to support narcotrafficking? Or what about the injustice of fueling civil war in someone else's country in an attempt to prevent people from that country from someday attacking us?

by: BlueDeacon

12-16-2009 @ 6:54pm

Do you have children? If you, you would know that sometimes you have to put the strap to them to make them behave. The idea is similar.

by: SamHamilton

12-11-2009 @ 2:12pm

Thanks for your response. I think we're thinking on and pondering the same issues (and the same issues the President is thinking about). It's one thing for me, in my personal life, to say "I'm going to choose the way of peace and non-violence, work for peace in my community and try to convince people that war rarely solves problems." I am a confirmed pacifist in that sense of the word. But it's very hard to take the next step and say 1) that nations should never resort to war even in the face of people who have no qualms about oppressing and killing other people and 2) that there should not only be no such thing as a defensive army or even a police force that threatens to do violence against someone who seeks to harm me or my family. Perhaps Christ does call us to do this.

As you said, there are many shades or gray.

by: SamHamilton

12-10-2009 @ 11:13pm

President Obama's speech gives a pretty well-reasoned justification for the use of military force or the threat thereof, unilateral if necessary, in promoting peace and justice. He said this:

"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [MLK's and Gandhi's non-violence] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

"Just peace" sounds like "just war" with some fancy baubles attached to it to distract people from the fact it's a way to justify the use of force and violence in international affairs.

I throw out these questions for discussion:

Can a Christian who is committed to non-violence be President of the United States? (I'm not asking whether he or she could be elected, but would he or she be able to effectively carry out the duties of the office? Obama appears to believe that he or she couldn't.)

Does "just peace" as expounded by President Obama include the option of using deadly force, or the threat thereof, to ensure justice and/or peace? (It sounds like it does to me.) If so, how is this reconciled with the non-violent way of Jesus?

If a government using violence or the threat thereof in international affairs to impose order is unjust, in what way is it just for a government to use violence or the threat thereof in domestic affairs to impose order? (this is a question for those who agree with the premise in the first clause)

by: Jeffrey Courter

12-11-2009 @ 12:12am

Mr. Obama actually campaigned to increase our focus on Afghanistan. He campaigned against our ongoing war in Iraq.

He has not deceived anyone; in fact, he has stayed true to his campaign statements, whether you agree with them or not.

by: squeaky

12-11-2009 @ 12:15am

You ask good questions, and I appreciate the tone. Many here seem to feel betrayed that Obama isn't keeping promises of peace--promises that he never made, I would add. Nonetheless, there is this sense that the intelligent, articulate, thoughtful president they elected couldn't possibly come to the conclusion that escalating the war is the answer to the issue of Afghanistan.

Yet, any honest discussion on pacifism should quickly lead most participants to an understanding that the issue has far more shades of grey than we might like to think. It's easy to say "give peace a chance", but what does that really look like in the face of a violent opponent, especially one who has no qualms about blowing him or herself up in a crowd of people. Sting told us we don't need to worry about nuclear war "if the Russians love their children, too." Seems logical, but what happens when one's opponent thinks it perfectly logical to sacrifice themselves or their children for larger goals?

I tend to think that the failure to find peaceful solutions is a failure of imagination. And I still think that. But, I can't pretend I know what that would look like. Seems to me the key is to turn the hearts and minds of the Taliban and Al Quaeda...but how would that work? And if I were president trying to make such weighty decisions having the classified information he has, how would I respond?

"Can a Christian who is committed to non-violence be President of the United States?" One could ask the same about whether a Christian should join the armed forces, or the police force. I would say if a Christian who is committed to non-violence wants to aspire to any of those positions, that Christian will have to be willing to compromise his or her values. And if he or she is not willing to do that, that person should find another profession.

Certainly, if I were being threatened by an intruder, although I would want to see a peaceful resolution to the issue, I also would want the police officer who responds to the call to be willing to do whatever it takes to keep that intruder from harming me or my family.

And maybe a bigger question is whether or not a nation can act as an individual. Is it reasonable to expect a nation to act like Jesus? That could be asked about a lot of issues.

by: squeaky

12-11-2009 @ 12:21am

I think if I had made a sincere effort to get my political opponents to come to the table and share their insights and perspective (and that's what I was hoping would happen, by the way), but instead, those opponents decided to make up lies about my intentions regarding healthcare, accuse me of creating "death panels" (Logan's Run, anyone?), and generally spreading misinformation among their base for political reasons, I might withdraw the offer, too.

by: johnchristophersunol

01-10-2010 @ 5:06am

that is great, as this is one of the purposes for me putting this online, to help others and show facts as they are put in the media outlets

by: BlueDeacon

12-11-2009 @ 2:24am

Sarah and George don't believe in peace -- only in domination.

by: BlueDeacon

12-11-2009 @ 2:29am

You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't make your statements or opinions valid. When people talk about "breaking" him, as Sen. Jim DeMint did in referring to health-care insurance reform, you should realize that some people have zero interest in bipartisanship. And do you remember when the "tea party" movement started? April! (That is, just three months after Obama was inaugurated.) They have no intention of giving him any chance whatsoever.

by: bill pence

12-16-2009 @ 5:39pm

expain "someteimes it's necessary to do so" in the context of Christ's message to mankind. I don't care what politicians say on the matter, my heart is with Christ and He is the one i'm trying to follow.

by: johnchristophersunol

01-10-2010 @ 3:06am

that is great, as this is one of the purposes for me putting this online, to help others and show facts as they are put in the media outlets

by: KK

12-11-2009 @ 6:40pm

I'm so heartened to see a reasoned and respectful discussion surrounding this topic - unlike commentary I've seen in other places over recent days/weeks!

May I submit for your consideration a blog post from earlier this week by a U.S. Soldier (Jeff Courter) who left behind a comfortable civilian life to serve in Afghanistan - and who also happens to be a devout Christian with progressive values?

The post is entitled: "If Peace is the Answer, Is War Ever a Question?" (http://bit.ly/5UyZhY) and it's featured on Jeff's blog: http://LifeLoveandTruth.com.

Many Sojo subscribers may reject his premise out-of-hand. But let me assure you as a longtime friend, Jeff's heart is pure, his conviction is deep, and he has been struggling with these issues for years - while acting to bring aid and comfort to those in need - in whatever way he can.

His commentary is worthy of our attention and consideration.

by: speechideas

12-22-2009 @ 6:01am

I was wandering on web for speech writing help and found your website; it was a relief because I have got all the information now.

by: WayneNorthey

12-17-2009 @ 1:25pm

"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [Martin Luther King's and Gandhi's non-violence] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

by: SamHamilton

12-11-2009 @ 2:12pm

Thanks for your response. I think we're thinking on and pondering the same issues (and the same issues the President is thinking about). It's one thing for me, in my personal life, to say "I'm going to choose the way of peace and non-violence, work for peace in my community and try to convince people that war rarely solves problems." I am a confirmed pacifist in that sense of the word. But it's very hard to take the next step and say 1) that nations should never resort to war even in the face of people who have no qualms about oppressing and killing other people and 2) that there should not only be no such thing as a defensive army or even a police force that threatens to do violence against someone who seeks to harm me or my family. Perhaps Christ does call us to do this.

As you said, there are many shades or gray.

by: WayneNorthey

12-17-2009 @ 1:23pm

"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [Martin Luther King's and Gandhi's non-violence] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

by: BlueDeacon

12-16-2009 @ 6:54pm

Do you have children? If you, you would know that sometimes you have to put the strap to them to make them behave. The idea is similar.

by: jose321

12-12-2009 @ 3:15am

Sam, I like your questions. My answer to "Can a Christian who is committed to non-violence be President of the United States?" is "No, he/she cannot. One cannot be President of the United States and live the Gospel of Jesus and Non-Violence."

by: jose321

12-12-2009 @ 3:18am

I agree with Blue Deacon, Obama has reached out to Republicans and continues to do so; they want to see him fail and come from "oppositional energy" to do so. Wipe your glasses and start seeing straight.

by: jose321

12-12-2009 @ 3:22am

Great point bandihead69; I felt the same way. I thought if anyone is going to speak truth to power it would be Sojourners, and instead Valerie seems quite apologetic.

by: KK

12-11-2009 @ 6:40pm

I'm so heartened to see a reasoned and respectful discussion surrounding this topic - unlike commentary I've seen in other places over recent days/weeks!

May I submit for your consideration a blog post from earlier this week by a U.S. Soldier (Jeff Courter) who left behind a comfortable civilian life to serve in Afghanistan - and who also happens to be a devout Christian with progressive values?

The post is entitled: "If Peace is the Answer, Is War Ever a Question?" (http://bit.ly/5UyZhY) and it's featured on Jeff's blog: http://LifeLoveandTruth.com.

Many Sojo subscribers may reject his premise out-of-hand. But let me assure you as a longtime friend, Jeff's heart is pure, his conviction is deep, and he has been struggling with these issues for years - while acting to bring aid and comfort to those in need - in whatever way he can.

His commentary is worthy of our attention and consideration.

by: JoannaCW

12-12-2009 @ 1:38pm

<<Sting told us we don't need to worry about nuclear war "if the Russians love their children, too." Seems logical, but what happens when one's opponent thinks it perfectly logical to sacrifice themselves or their children for larger goals? >>
Very well put. But in Afghanistan and Pakistan we are sacrificing other people's children for larger goals. And as far as I can tell Afghanistan has gone through several decades of armed conflict fueled by larger nations who point to the human rights violations of their opponents to justify their own.

I have doubts about the rightness of using deadly force even in police situations. I have no doubts about the wrongness of warmaking in any cause, because it always involves 'collateral damage'.

by: wbminn

12-13-2009 @ 5:58pm

I have to agree. Why is Obama's war a 'just war' as opposed to the previous 8 years of war?? Obama's campaign promise was to end this war not continue it, just or not.

by: jonabark

12-14-2009 @ 4:23am

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago - "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr.
King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.

How has president Obama shown that he is the least bit "influenced" by King or Gandhi? He has only used them as props and symbols for his own political ambition, an ambition that has shown no alignment with the courage or truth-telling or care for the oppressed of these men.

I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.

What a twisted resort to fear mongering. Is he really saying Pashtuns with rifles threaten the US or Pakistan? The threat posed by AlQaeda came from international criminals based in a lawlesss region of Afghanistan. There was not a single aAfghan involved. It was in no way an action of the Taliban. This is like bombing Michigan because Nichols and McVeigh came from that state to bomb the Federal Building in Oklahoma. US actions since 911 have not created a safer world. Rather, the words of Dr. King have been proven; our misdirected violence has merely created new and more complicated problems. Violence against Americans has increased and terrorism by states and non state fighters has increased. And Obama has been worse for Afghans than Bush, violent deaths of civilians have increased.

For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world.

Evil is not some force that hides in caves in Afghanistan or only visits Germany. Evil is a potential in every human most effectively unleashed by warfare. Hitler could easily have been stopped by the German people refusing to cooperate in his aggressions against fellow citizens and then Poland. We can do the same.

A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies.

Hitler's armies are not in question. We are the aggressors. The drone strikes kill mostly civilians and are a lear violation of the Geneva conventions, as is extraordinary rendition.

Negotiations cannot convince alQaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.

General McCrystal admitted publicly that there are NO Al Quaeda left in Afghanistan of any military signifigance. Al Qaeda has left the building and Obama is using the same kind of lies Bush used in Iraq.

To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Force must be appropriate. Criminals should be treated as criminals by police actions.The following quote is from the Rand Corporation, hardy a bastion of pacifism or wishful thinking.
The government's direct measures against the terrorist group, when they succeed in significantly undermining terrorists' coercive capabilities, can be a major contributor to the end of terrorism. Such measures are targeted against the terrorist organization itself, its people,its resources, and its motivations.3 A recent RAND study (Jones and Libicki, 2008) concludes that the more important measures tend to be associated with law enforcement and intelligence, often clandestine, rather than traditional military operations.

by: jose321

12-12-2009 @ 3:15am

Sam, I like your questions. My answer to "Can a Christian who is committed to non-violence be President of the United States?" is "No, he/she cannot. One cannot be President of the United States and live the Gospel of Jesus and Non-Violence."

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: markvans

12-10-2009 @ 4:19pm

His speech may have affirmed peace and love, but that makes his actions as president hypocritical.

by: markvans

12-10-2009 @ 4:19pm

His speech may have affirmed peace and love, but that makes his actions as president hypocritical.

by: myselfandi

12-10-2009 @ 4:21pm

the same obama that will not speak to republicans, cares not for anything they have suggested. told them to just get out of the way. brings in people with criminal pasts and hateful ideas. the same one running us into a debt that we will never get out of. i believe he thinks the only way to world peace is through a one world government. that controls all aspects of our lives destroyes national pride and controls the wealth of all nations. He believes that with all these controlled there would be no war fought. For their would be nothing to fight about. except maybe to be actually a free people in a free country. The reality of it is that life can be messy and will never be perfect. not even close. for their is no peace without Christ and I am sure Christ will not be the answer in a one world government. Look at any socialist country and your see religion is not welcome especially christianity.

by: myselfandi

12-10-2009 @ 4:21pm

the same obama that will not speak to republicans, cares not for anything they have suggested. told them to just get out of the way. brings in people with criminal pasts and hateful ideas. the same one running us into a debt that we will never get out of. i believe he thinks the only way to world peace is through a one world government. that controls all aspects of our lives destroyes national pride and controls the wealth of all nations. He believes that with all these controlled there would be no war fought. For their would be nothing to fight about. except maybe to be actually a free people in a free country. The reality of it is that life can be messy and will never be perfect. not even close. for their is no peace without Christ and I am sure Christ will not be the answer in a one world government. Look at any socialist country and your see religion is not welcome especially christianity.

by: JoannaCW

12-10-2009 @ 4:49pm

In some ways it seems worse to have the President speak movingly about how to bring about peace ,and then conclude that peace is promoted by violently backing a regime with a record of human rights violations against its own people. I'm struggling to understand Obama's decision, having just read *A Woman Among Warlords*, Malalai Joya's memoir of trying to organize communities, protect human rights and stand up both to the Taliban and the warlord-loaded Karzai gov't, and her plea for foreign powers to stop arming warlords and give the Afghan people some space to resolve their own conflicts.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/malalai...

by: JoannaCW

12-10-2009 @ 4:49pm

In some ways it seems worse to have the President speak movingly about how to bring about peace ,and then conclude that peace is promoted by violently backing a regime with a record of human rights violations against its own people. I'm struggling to understand Obama's decision, having just read *A Woman Among Warlords*, Malalai Joya's memoir of trying to organize communities, protect human rights and stand up both to the Taliban and the warlord-loaded Karzai gov't, and her plea for foreign powers to stop arming warlords and give the Afghan people some space to resolve their own conflicts.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/malalai...

by: Ngchen

12-10-2009 @ 5:23pm

I disagree for the reason that we need to realize that sometimes, much regrettably, only force or the credible threat of force can be used to establish peace in our fallen world. So, taking the President at his word, the Afghan escalation is designed to "turn the tide" and establish the security in the country that is needed for peace to be possible. Peace is not possible if there are sufficient numbers of people (Taliban and al Qaeda) actively trying to undermine it by waging war.

by: Ngchen

12-10-2009 @ 5:23pm

I disagree for the reason that we need to realize that sometimes, much regrettably, only force or the credible threat of force can be used to establish peace in our fallen world. So, taking the President at his word, the Afghan escalation is designed to "turn the tide" and establish the security in the country that is needed for peace to be possible. Peace is not possible if there are sufficient numbers of people (Taliban and al Qaeda) actively trying to undermine it by waging war.

by: dbgladson

12-10-2009 @ 5:46pm

As I understand it, one of the criteria for even just war theory is that the war be winnable. Few if any have gone into Afghanistan and came out victorious.
Second, of all of Stassen's criteria for just peacemaking, which have the US or the President actually used thus far? As the author points out, maybe advancing democracy, economic development and working with cooperative forces.
But where has the US or this president engaged in the other seven criteria? The rest appear to be completely off the agenda. How can a speech be considered just peacemaking when actions have not reflected nonviolent direct action, acknowledging responsibility, reducing offensive weapons, or encourage grassroots peacemaking?

by: dbgladson

12-10-2009 @ 5:46pm

As I understand it, one of the criteria for even just war theory is that the war be winnable. Few if any have gone into Afghanistan and came out victorious.
Second, of all of Stassen's criteria for just peacemaking, which have the US or the President actually used thus far? As the author points out, maybe advancing democracy, economic development and working with cooperative forces.
But where has the US or this president engaged in the other seven criteria? The rest appear to be completely off the agenda. How can a speech be considered just peacemaking when actions have not reflected nonviolent direct action, acknowledging responsibility, reducing offensive weapons, or encourage grassroots peacemaking?

by: bandihead69

12-10-2009 @ 5:51pm

Dr. Dixon, When I read the news report this morning concerning Obama's speech I immediately wondered what the folks at Sojourners would have to say about it. Surely, I thought, my bi-partisan friends would use this as an opportunity to speak truth to power EVEN when as we so desire that power to be "one of us".
Unfortunately, you have written an apologetic that betrays and exposes the same sort of bias that sickens us in the conservative media.
I voted for Obama. I desperately want him to succeed. But this speech, minus its eloquence, could have as easily come from the mouth of George W. Bush (or even Dick Cheney for that matter).
Surely you are not so blinded by wishful thinking that you cannot recall our deep history of politicians from both sides of the aisle preaching a future peace and the desire for cooperation while simultaneously launching forces that have undoubtedly murdered thousands upon thousands of innocent people?
Do you honestly believe in the validity of a stance that would proclaim an eventual peace being brought about by yet another war? This is a lie, regardless of how coolly it is delivered.

by: bandihead69

12-10-2009 @ 5:51pm

Dr. Dixon, When I read the news report this morning concerning Obama's speech I immediately wondered what the folks at Sojourners would have to say about it. Surely, I thought, my bi-partisan friends would use this as an opportunity to speak truth to power EVEN when as we so desire that power to be "one of us".
Unfortunately, you have written an apologetic that betrays and exposes the same sort of bias that sickens us in the conservative media.
I voted for Obama. I desperately want him to succeed. But this speech, minus its eloquence, could have as easily come from the mouth of George W. Bush (or even Dick Cheney for that matter).
Surely you are not so blinded by wishful thinking that you cannot recall our deep history of politicians from both sides of the aisle preaching a future peace and the desire for cooperation while simultaneously launching forces that have undoubtedly murdered thousands upon thousands of innocent people?
Do you honestly believe in the validity of a stance that would proclaim an eventual peace being brought about by yet another war? This is a lie, regardless of how coolly it is delivered.

by: BillSamuel

12-10-2009 @ 6:30pm

The speech dripped with hypocrisy. We know who the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is. We know what power has the most nuclear weapons. We know who exports the most weapons, and supplies most of the wars - often both sides. We know who is the #1 intervenor in other's business.

And we know that Obama is continuing those policies. Yet he kept pointing at others (unnamed) as threats to the world, and painted the USA mostly as a good guy in the world.

The speech was just loaded with lies and hypocrisy. And you can't just set aside his arguments for war.

It's now the Nobel War Prize

by: BillSamuel

12-10-2009 @ 6:30pm

The speech dripped with hypocrisy. We know who the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is. We know what power has the most nuclear weapons. We know who exports the most weapons, and supplies most of the wars - often both sides. We know who is the #1 intervenor in other's business.

And we know that Obama is continuing those policies. Yet he kept pointing at others (unnamed) as threats to the world, and painted the USA mostly as a good guy in the world.

The speech was just loaded with lies and hypocrisy. And you can't just set aside his arguments for war.

It's now the Nobel War Prize

by: ashpenaz

12-10-2009 @ 6:42pm

There is nothing in the speech which Sarah Palin or George Bush would not have said, and with more conviction.

by: ashpenaz

12-10-2009 @ 6:42pm

There is nothing in the speech which Sarah Palin or George Bush would not have said, and with more conviction.

by: BlueDeacon

12-10-2009 @ 6:51pm

Be advised that you're getting awfully close to slander here. Conservative Republicans made up their minds early on that they were not going to cooperate with Obama, so you can't blame him for not talking to them.

And BTW, when Christ comes to rule there will be one-world government.

by: BlueDeacon

12-10-2009 @ 6:51pm

Be advised that you're getting awfully close to slander here. Conservative Republicans made up their minds early on that they were not going to cooperate with Obama, so you can't blame him for not talking to them.

And BTW, when Christ comes to rule there will be one-world government.

by: BlueDeacon

12-10-2009 @ 6:52pm

Agreed. Peace means little without justice, and the injustice of al-Qaeda and the Taliban must not be countenanced.

by: BlueDeacon

12-10-2009 @ 6:52pm

Agreed. Peace means little without justice, and the injustice of al-Qaeda and the Taliban must not be countenanced.

by: BlueDeacon

12-10-2009 @ 6:53pm

Agreed. Peace means little without justice, and the injustice of al-Qaeda and the Taliban must not be countenanced.

by: BlueDeacon

12-10-2009 @ 6:53pm

Agreed. Peace means little without justice, and the injustice of al-Qaeda and the Taliban must not be countenanced.

by: jpatrickmahon

12-10-2009 @ 7:00pm

Martin Luther King, Jr. believed that the universe bends toward justice. Barack Obama believes that the universe bends toward violence (although he tried to incorporate King's thought and ride his nonviolent coattails).
All theories about just war and just peace aside, it is a question of integrity. A presidential candidate who promised to being the troops home has brought about another Bushian surge. A president who escalates a war which increases human misery receiving THE Nobel Peace Prize? So much for integrity. So much for promises. So much for change we can believe in. So much for my Obama bumper sticker!

by: jpatrickmahon

12-10-2009 @ 7:00pm

Martin Luther King, Jr. believed that the universe bends toward justice. Barack Obama believes that the universe bends toward violence (although he tried to incorporate King's thought and ride his nonviolent coattails).
All theories about just war and just peace aside, it is a question of integrity. A presidential candidate who promised to being the troops home has brought about another Bushian surge. A president who escalates a war which increases human misery receiving THE Nobel Peace Prize? So much for integrity. So much for promises. So much for change we can believe in. So much for my Obama bumper sticker!

by: xfree9

12-10-2009 @ 7:21pm

Welcome to 1984.

by: xfree9

12-10-2009 @ 7:21pm

Welcome to 1984.

by: xfree9

12-10-2009 @ 7:24pm

That depends on your definition of "government." Governance, yes. Government as we know it and understand it? Probably not.

by: xfree9

12-10-2009 @ 7:24pm

That depends on your definition of "government." Governance, yes. Government as we know it and understand it? Probably not.

by: xfree9

12-10-2009 @ 7:25pm

Maybe there is such a rare occasion as a just reason for war. But "just war" seems as oxymoronic as "redemptive rape." I'm sorry, sending more troops to war while flying to accept a peace prize sounds like something I'd read in "1984" rather than by a supposedly Christian President who promised on the campaign trail that our troops would come home very quickly after his election.

by: xfree9

12-10-2009 @ 7:25pm

Maybe there is such a rare occasion as a just reason for war. But "just war" seems as oxymoronic as "redemptive rape." I'm sorry, sending more troops to war while flying to accept a peace prize sounds like something I'd read in "1984" rather than by a supposedly Christian President who promised on the campaign trail that our troops would come home very quickly after his election.

by: JacobS

12-10-2009 @ 8:45pm

In Obama's defense, he was hawkish on Afghanistan throughout the campaign because he deemed it the "good war." I don't see any broken promises with regard to Afghanistan. Whether he's making good decisions is an entirely different story.

by: JacobS

12-10-2009 @ 8:45pm

In Obama's defense, he was hawkish on Afghanistan throughout the campaign because he deemed it the "good war." I don't see any broken promises with regard to Afghanistan. Whether he's making good decisions is an entirely different story.

by: Ross Parry

12-10-2009 @ 8:47pm

If Obama had any real integrity, he ought to have refused to accept this prize in the first place.
It proves he is just another politician driven by "the great game". I suspect that just like Bush he is not his own man, and he owes it to the power behind the throne to continue the geo political agenda of the previous regime which is control of the worlds oil resources in American hands as much as possible. The US does not intervene in the genocide in other poor countries or go after their militants. They intervene when there is an economic imperative(OIL) to be controlled and exploited. EVERY presidency both democrat and republican will do so. But to admit this would be political suicide. The US public does not want to hear that their son or daughter died for the sake of OIL. So they must be told patriotic lies to keep the
war going until the oil can flow. That could be many years from now.

by: Ross Parry

12-10-2009 @ 8:47pm

If Obama had any real integrity, he ought to have refused to accept this prize in the first place.
It proves he is just another politician driven by "the great game". I suspect that just like Bush he is not his own man, and he owes it to the power behind the throne to continue the geo political agenda of the previous regime which is control of the worlds oil resources in American hands as much as possible. The US does not intervene in the genocide in other poor countries or go after their militants. They intervene when there is an economic imperative(OIL) to be controlled and exploited. EVERY presidency both democrat and republican will do so. But to admit this would be political suicide. The US public does not want to hear that their son or daughter died for the sake of OIL. So they must be told patriotic lies to keep the
war going until the oil can flow. That could be many years from now.

by: JacobS

12-10-2009 @ 9:00pm

How can sanctions be non-violent when their purpose is to inflict suffering to facilitate changes? I can't see any real difference between sanctions and a war, except sanctions insulate us from the casualties. And if sanctions don't inflict suffering, through some oil-for-food type exceptions, then how can we expect them to succeed?

by: JacobS

12-10-2009 @ 9:00pm

How can sanctions be non-violent when their purpose is to inflict suffering to facilitate changes? I can't see any real difference between sanctions and a war, except sanctions insulate us from the casualties. And if sanctions don't inflict suffering, through some oil-for-food type exceptions, then how can we expect them to succeed?

by: chrissummerville

12-10-2009 @ 9:29pm

I agree, unfortunately President Obama spoke more for the justification of war than for peace. It was all rhetoric, I suppose, to try to please everybody since he knew he did not deserve the prize at this time. A more humble person wouuld have said, "Thank you, but no, not at this time, if at all." Unfortunately, Mr. Wallis failed at this moment to speak as critically of Mr. Obama's politicizing as he has done of Republicans. As a follower of Christ I have chosen to be non-partisan as much as I can.

by: chrissummerville

12-10-2009 @ 9:29pm

I agree, unfortunately President Obama spoke more for the justification of war than for peace. It was all rhetoric, I suppose, to try to please everybody since he knew he did not deserve the prize at this time. A more humble person wouuld have said, "Thank you, but no, not at this time, if at all." Unfortunately, Mr. Wallis failed at this moment to speak as critically of Mr. Obama's politicizing as he has done of Republicans. As a follower of Christ I have chosen to be non-partisan as much as I can.

by: Presbyterian

12-10-2009 @ 9:49pm

I'm so proud of this President. I am disappointed in the dismissive tone of some of the posts in disagreement here. Have you read the speech? It is thoughtful and a deeply serious attempt to wrestle with hard realities. I do not agree with all of it; the President may not esteem non-violence as much as I would like, and he could be challenged to consider the ethic of Jesus as applicable to nations. But to call it simple hypocrisy or cynicism--it feels to me like such comments come from a very dualistic, right/wrong world, not the world of grey areas where I think Obama--and Niebuhr--know we have to live. Do read it again, and ponder and pray. Grace and peace...

by: Presbyterian

12-10-2009 @ 9:49pm

I'm so proud of this President. I am disappointed in the dismissive tone of some of the posts in disagreement here. Have you read the speech? It is thoughtful and a deeply serious attempt to wrestle with hard realities. I do not agree with all of it; the President may not esteem non-violence as much as I would like, and he could be challenged to consider the ethic of Jesus as applicable to nations. But to call it simple hypocrisy or cynicism--it feels to me like such comments come from a very dualistic, right/wrong world, not the world of grey areas where I think Obama--and Niebuhr--know we have to live. Do read it again, and ponder and pray. Grace and peace...

by: NC77

12-10-2009 @ 9:57pm

I disagree. If you remember, before the August recess of Congress, Obama offered to invite anyone to the WhiteHouse to offer common sense reform solutions and to consider any reasonable solutions offered regardless of party . What he said he would do after the recess never happened and any amendments offered by Republicans were rejected out of hand by the Democrats. It is Obama not cooperating. He hasn't even participated except to make pep rally speeches and empty promises of benefits that were not in the bill at the time. And quite frankly I don't think he really cares what the bill does, just as long as something passes and he can have his "historic" moment as President.

I do agree with you though that there are both conservative and liberal Republicans.

by: NC77

12-10-2009 @ 9:57pm

I disagree. If you remember, before the August recess of Congress, Obama offered to invite anyone to the WhiteHouse to offer common sense reform solutions and to consider any reasonable solutions offered regardless of party . What he said he would do after the recess never happened and any amendments offered by Republicans were rejected out of hand by the Democrats. It is Obama not cooperating. He hasn't even participated except to make pep rally speeches and empty promises of benefits that were not in the bill at the time. And quite frankly I don't think he really cares what the bill does, just as long as something passes and he can have his "historic" moment as President.

I do agree with you though that there are both conservative and liberal Republicans.

by: NC77

12-10-2009 @ 10:02pm

But Sarah or George would never get the Nobel Peace Prize because of who they are and what they are perceived to represent. They are guilty cause the left is opposed to them, but Obama is not guilty cause he gets rationized qualifications that justify his war.

by: NC77

12-10-2009 @ 10:02pm

But Sarah or George would never get the Nobel Peace Prize because of who they are and what they are perceived to represent. They are guilty cause the left is opposed to them, but Obama is not guilty cause he gets rationized qualifications that justify his war.

by: JoannaCW

12-10-2009 @ 10:15pm

No. But what about the injustice of the NATO-backed Afghan government, which includes a very large proportion people with war crimes in their backgrounds and continues to support narcotrafficking? Or what about the injustice of fueling civil war in someone else's country in an attempt to prevent people from that country from someday attacking us?

by: JoannaCW

12-10-2009 @ 10:15pm

No. But what about the injustice of the NATO-backed Afghan government, which includes a very large proportion people with war crimes in their backgrounds and continues to support narcotrafficking? Or what about the injustice of fueling civil war in someone else's country in an attempt to prevent people from that country from someday attacking us?

by: SamHamilton

12-10-2009 @ 11:13pm

President Obama's speech gives a pretty well-reasoned justification for the use of military force or the threat thereof, unilateral if necessary, in promoting peace and justice. He said this:

"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [MLK's and Gandhi's non-violence] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

"Just peace" sounds like "just war" with some fancy baubles attached to it to distract people from the fact it's a way to justify the use of force and violence in international affairs.

I throw out these questions for discussion:

Can a Christian who is committed to non-violence be President of the United States? (I'm not asking whether he or she could be elected, but would he or she be able to effectively carry out the duties of the office? Obama appears to believe that he or she couldn't.)

Does "just peace" as expounded by President Obama include the option of using deadly force, or the threat thereof, to ensure justice and/or peace? (It sounds like it does to me.) If so, how is this reconciled with the non-violent way of Jesus?

If a government using violence or the threat thereof in international affairs to impose order is unjust, in what way is it just for a government to use violence or the threat thereof in domestic affairs to impose order? (this is a question for those who agree with the premise in the first clause)

by: SamHamilton

12-10-2009 @ 11:13pm

President Obama's speech gives a pretty well-reasoned justification for the use of military force or the threat thereof, unilateral if necessary, in promoting peace and justice. He said this:

"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [MLK's and Gandhi's non-violence] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

"Just peace" sounds like "just war" with some fancy baubles attached to it to distract people from the fact it's a way to justify the use of force and violence in international affairs.

I throw out these questions for discussion:

Can a Christian who is committed to non-violence be President of the United States? (I'm not asking whether he or she could be elected, but would he or she be able to effectively carry out the duties of the office? Obama appears to believe that he or she couldn't.)

Does "just peace" as expounded by President Obama include the option of using deadly force, or the threat thereof, to ensure justice and/or peace? (It sounds like it does to me.) If so, how is this reconciled with the non-violent way of Jesus?

If a government using violence or the threat thereof in international affairs to impose order is unjust, in what way is it just for a government to use violence or the threat thereof in domestic affairs to impose order? (this is a question for those who agree with the premise in the first clause)

by: Jeffrey Courter

12-11-2009 @ 12:12am

Mr. Obama actually campaigned to increase our focus on Afghanistan. He campaigned against our ongoing war in Iraq.

He has not deceived anyone; in fact, he has stayed true to his campaign statements, whether you agree with them or not.

by: Jeffrey Courter

12-11-2009 @ 12:12am

Mr. Obama actually campaigned to increase our focus on Afghanistan. He campaigned against our ongoing war in Iraq.

He has not deceived anyone; in fact, he has stayed true to his campaign statements, whether you agree with them or not.