(left) Urakami Cathedral cross, Nagasaki, on display at Wilmington College's Hiroshima-Nagasaki Memorial Collection until 2019 (my photo); (right) graphic from Wilmington College's Peace Resource Center (source).
Last week's post considered some of the political and spiritual difficulties World War II posed for Quaker colleges in the USA. Among the specifics of that story was the welcome that those colleges extended to a group of Japanese American students whose families had been forced into relocation camps by the notorious Executive Order 9066.
Thanks to an article posted today on the Web site of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "The political implications of Hiroshima’s scarred 'maidens'," by Alex Wellerstein, I've been thinking about other Quaker involvements with Japanese and Japanese Americans—and the nuclear bombings—originating in that war.
First in chronological order were American Quakers who had special ties to Japan before the war, and who became advocates for the incarcerated Japanese and Japanese American families in wartime. The case I knew best was Herbert Nicholson, whose nephew Ed Nicholson used to tell us stories about his uncle.
(Ed died in 2018, and his wife of 63 years, Chris Nicholson, just died this past July 29. Aside from many other ties between the Nicholsons and Judy and me, they were great encouragers of our service in Russia.)
Another Quaker advocate for incarcerated Japanese people and their families was Floyd Schmoe of University Friends Meeting in Seattle. After the war ended, he expressed his concern for war-torn Japan and the consequences of the atomic weapons by beginning a project called Houses for Hiroshima. Of all the people mentioned in these stories, Floyd was the only one I met personally, thanks to my work with Friends World Committee in the 1980's.
The "Hiroshima 'maidens'" story mentioned above, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, also had a Quaker connection. During the young women's stay in the USA for plastic surgery, they were accommodated by Quaker families, and spent time at Pendle Hill in Wallingford, Pennsylvania. More details in this Wikipedia article.
Those years—the 1950's—were a peak time for hydrogen bomb testing in the Pacific Ocean, which led to a series of protests against those tests, the weapons being tested, and the radioactive pollution resulting from the tests. Barbara Reynolds and her husband Earle were among those who sailed into the test zones in protest. She later established the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Memorial Collection at Wilmington College in Ohio, USA, part of the college's Peace Resource Center. Judy and I got to know and appreciate the work of this center during the years we lived in Wilmington.
One of the remarkable exhibits in the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Memorial Collection was a charred cross from the ruins of the Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki. In 2019, as described in this Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists post, the director of the Peace Resource Center, Tanya Maus, accompanied the cross on its journey home to Nagasaki.
There is a gap in this very brief summary: the experiences of Japanese Quakers themselves during the war. The only Japanese Quaker meeting I've personally attended, the one in Osaka, was founded after the war. I have family ties to Japan—my mother was born and raised in Kobe—but, sadly, those ties don't connect with Quakers. My mother, having survived the war and eventually moving to Germany and then the USA, never spoke to me about her war years. Her primary political concern in my childhood years was the threat of Communism.
I'd love to have more examples of connections among these themes—Quakers, Japan and Japanese people, and World War II. Please share additions and corrections.
God bless the memory of those who risked everything for peace and justice in those brutal years.
I mentioned our own short visit to Hiroshima here.
This article by Friends House Moscow staff member Sergei Grushko originally appeared on the Web site quakers.ru. Translated and reposted here by permission.
"I feel bound to recommend that policy which will enable us to do positive good rather than merely to refrain from evil."
— John Nason, wartime president of Swarthmore College.
Soldiers and students sit on the steps of Swarthmore's Parrish Hall. Source.
World War II presented a severe challenge for American colleges. But perhaps no group faced a more difficult dilemma than the institutions of higher education founded by Quakers. How could they reconcile a centuries-old witness to peace with the need to survive? Different colleges came up with different answers. And this experience gives rise to reflections on how the Quaker commitment to peace was maintained in the face of total militarization and war hysteria.
With the United States' entry into the war in December 1941, male students began leaving campuses en masse—some students enrolled in military service voluntarily, while others were conscripted. Private colleges, already struggling with funding—Quaker colleges among them—found themselves facing threats of closure.
The numbers speak for themselves. By the spring of 1943, only 296 students remained at Earlham College (the Quaker college in Indiana)—97 boys and 199 girls. The college had lost nearly 48% of its male students. By October of that year, the total enrollment had dropped to 267, of whom only 64 were men. At Swarthmore College (Pennsylvania), during the same period, only 527 students were enrolled (down from 700 in 1940), 143 of whom were boys. The decline in male enrollment was catastrophic.
The school administrations were faced with the question of how to preserve their educational institutions. The U.S. government offered higher education a solution: participation in the V-12 program for training junior officers for the Navy, which would provide the colleges with a steady supply of military students as well as government funding. For Quaker colleges, this response was dangerously tempting.
The Quaker witness to peace was one of the cornerstones of the identity of these educational institutions. Swarthmore's founders believed that "the disposition to introduce military drill into the course of instruction in our public schools … is especially objectionable to Friends." The college's co-founder, Benjamin Hallowell, had himself been a conscientious objector.
However, by the 1940s, the Quaker identity of some colleges had weakened significantly. Swarthmore had officially given up its affiliation with the Society of Friends as early as 1909*, and by the start of the war, Quakers constituted a small minority among the student body. The number of actual conscientious objectors in the 1940s was minimal.
* For retired faculty to receive payments from the pension fund organized by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, colleges had to comply with its rules. The fund in its early years did not provide pensions to faculty from institutions "controlled or owned by religious organizations." This was primarily why Swarthmore had to end its formal Quaker affiliation.
Swarthmore President John Nason, himself a Quaker, chose a path that could be called ministry through presence. He reasoned that if the college didn't embrace the military, it might not survive as an institution. And if it disappeared, who would train the future peacekeepers, scientists, and doctors who would restore peace after the war? "I feel bound to recommend that policy which will enable us to do positive good rather than merely to refrain from evil," Nason declared.
Nason didn't see this as a contradiction to Quaker values. He sought to find new expression for these values in the changed circumstances. He ensured that the military presence on campus didn't turn the college into a barracks. And he succeeded. By the end of 1943, Swarthmore had 297 naval officers, 234 female students, and 155 civilian men enrolled. In addition, 49 Chinese naval officers arrived to study English. Each of them, in addition to military disciplines, took a full academic course. It was during these years that Swarthmore took two important steps toward social justice. It admitted its first African-American students, Dorothea Kopczynski and Gloria Clement. And it accepted Japanese-American students, who had been interned in camps by the government. Nason personally chaired the National Japanese American Student Relocation Council. The college used the military presence to protect its existence while remaining a place that valued human dignity.
Earlham College took a different path. In 1942, its president, William Dennis, declared to Indiana Yearly Meeting, "A Quaker college as such should not participate directly in the war effort…." And he remained true to his word. Military personnel were not allowed on campus. But the search for ways to collaborate with the government continued. Dennis proposed establishing a military police training unit on campus. He envisioned the military police not as an offensive force, but as a structure for maintaining order. However, the board of trustees rejected this proposal, deeming it incompatible with Quaker principles. This episode illustrates how even within a single Quaker community, there can be different understandings of the line between unacceptable compromise and acceptable service.
The failure to establish a military police unit strengthened the resolve of Earlham’s president to pursue an alternative direction. The college joined the Civilian Public Service (CPS) program, an alternative for conscientious objectors. It was a conscious choice: to help the country not with weapons, but with knowledge that would be useful after the war. But even here, difficulties arose. The program was underfunded, Congress reduced support, and by 1943, it effectively ceased to exist. Dennis turned to alumni, to Quakers, to those who believed in the college's mission. He asked for help. The response was overwhelming. A Free Will Fund campaign raised over $10,000—three times more than any similar campaign before it. Alumni wrote: "I was so grateful that Earlham College had remained true to Quaker principles in not taking a military unit onto the campus, that it was my intention as soon as possible to respond with a contribution to the Free Will Fund." "I am so proud of Earlham for the stand she has taken." The college also admitted 12 students of Japanese descent.
Representatives of seven Quaker educational institutions—including Haverford, Guilford, Friends University, William Penn, and Wilmington—met in September 1942 and decided to organize an alternative Civilian Public Service Reserve Force program to train conscientious objectors rather than soldiers. This initiative, proposed by historic peace churches (Quakers, Mennonites, and the Church of the Brethren ), would allow pacifist students to continue their education instead of being sent to Civilian Social Service camps. However, the government limited the program's total quota to 260 places for all participating colleges, of which Quaker colleges received only 100–120.
In the postwar years, the schools that had made their varying decisions continued to reflect on their choices. At Swarthmore, the debate continued. In 1950, prominent alumnus Thomas McCabe declared, "I was never more proud of Swarthmore than in the early days of the war when this Quaker institution, in spite of its traditional stand against war, offered all of its facilities voluntarily to our Government in time of need." William Richards (Class of 1948), who was imprisoned from 1942 to 1946 for resisting the draft, strongly disagreed: "A Quaker college has no place in aiding a war. Swarthmore should have taken a stand for peace and not sold its birthright for a mess of pottage." This debate reflects the deep tension between different understandings of the Quaker peace witness: from strict abstention from any participation in military action to active service to peace, even if it requires compromise.
Today, Swarthmore, Earlham, Haverford, and other Quaker colleges are proud of their Quaker heritage and are considered Quaker in spirit, although Quakers constitute a small minority of their student bodies. Their experience during World War II demonstrates that Quaker identity is not monolithic—it can be expressed differently in different institutional and historical contexts. The ability to remain faithful to the witness of peace, regardless of how it is practiced, is a characteristic feature of the Quaker tradition, allowing it to remain vibrant in diverse contexts. Fidelity to principle does not require uniformity.
Sergei Grushko lists these resources he consulted in writing his article:
LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES IN THE TUMULTUOUS 1940S: INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY AND THE CHALLENGES OF WAR AND PEACE. A Dissertation in Higher Education by Jordan R. Humphrey etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/2963 (the most significant resource);
For some additional interesting information concerning the internment of Japanese Americans and Quaker advocacy and hospitality for Japanese Americans during the displacement camp era, see
A more recent case of U.S. Quaker colleges vs conscription: the Solomon Amendment (1982) prohibiting federal financial aid to nonregistering students.
Looking for summer reading? Kristin Du Mez has some suggestions.
Jemar Tisby on The Pastor No One Can Correct. "Douglas Wilson can hold paedocommunion, dominionism, household voting, and his long apologetic for the Confederacy, because he answers to almost no one."
Jeremy Morris on a certain leader's "magical thinking." (By the way, I wrote a post about Russia, Ukraine, and avos' three and a half years ago.)
Ursula K. Le Guin's house here in Portland, Oregon, is added to the National Register of Historic Places. (Should also be on some intergalactic registry....)
Three Danish bluesmen cover "Dust My Broom": H.P. Lange, Troels Jensen, Hugo Rasmussen.
We talk about democracy and Christianity—and we try out a new firebomb. We talk about peace and we move thousands more men and weapons into Vietnam. This country has gone mad. But I will not go mad with it. I will not pay for organized murder.
In my last post on the tax covenant ("Idealism and reality") I expressed some of the disillusionment that results when our taxes and federal budgets are misspent and misdirected. When should we consider the covenant broken (held together only by government coercion) and what should we do in response?
There is one specific controversy around U.S. federal income tax and expenditures that has a long history: the war budget, and related dilemmas for conscientious objectors to that budget. The current U.S. administration is pushing Congress to approve a military budget of US$ 1.5 trillion, plus supplemental funds of US$ 67.1 billion for costs relating to the current unauthorized war on Iran. This seems like a good moment to review our covenant.
Quakers and war tax resistance have a long history together. For a brief account of that history, I recommend Wallace Collett's chapter, "Pay Thy Taxes as long as Thou Canst" (pages 170-181) in Leonard Kenworthy's Friends Face the World, available in PDF form here.
I remember a bit of this history myself. I was on the staff of Friends World Committee for Consultation, Section of the Americas, when Gordon Brown, the section's executive secretary, and Cincinnati businessman Wallace Collett worked together to set up a structure for Friends to consider war taxes across our diversities of geography and theology. This was the Friends Committee on War Tax Concerns, whose work resulted in a manual edited by Linda Coffin, A Handbook on Military Taxes and Conscience, and a supplemental manual for employers. I wrote more about these memories here.
For a sample of the Mennonite experience with tax dilemmas, here's a link to Titus Peachey's paper, Silence and Courage: Income Taxes, War and Mennonites 1940-1993.
Some context: even in less turbulent times, the U.S. war budget is around 50% of the annual federal discretionary budget, and if related debt service and the Veterans Administration are added in, then the proportion exceeds 60%.
As you consider your own faith in relation to paying these taxes:
Setting aside this particular era's scandals and causes for disillusionment, do you feel unease about helping fund the war budget? Is there a positive and persuasive comparison between refusing military service as a conscientious objector (instead choosing alternative service) and refusing to pay related taxes?
If you have been a conscientious payer of federal taxes to this point, do you feel that the government still honors the tax covenant it has with you and other taxpayers? Aside from force of coercion, is the covenant broken? (This assumes that the "covenant" analogy seems valid to begin with. For example, some libertarians argue that all taxes represent theft, a position I don't share.)
If you feel drawn to the tax resistance position, is this a dilemma that you can take to your meeting or church? (My experience at First Friends Meeting, Richmond, Indiana, was summarized in this post. We asked the church to advise us on the legitimacy of our resistance in discipleship context, and, if so, which proportion of the total federal budget we should choose not to pay—the current military budget, or a calculation including costs of past wars. We were serious about being in submission to the discernment of the community.)
To avoid benefiting financially from war tax resistance, would it help your decision-making to know that there are ways to direct that money to good purposes, and that there is a community that can help if/when your unpaid taxes are confiscated or penalties assessed? Check here for information and experiences related to redirecting taxes and sharing the burden of penalties.
My purpose here is not to encourage illegal or risky decisions, but in the face of unprecedented levels of corruption, misdirection, and general abuse of our taxes, I'm just suggesting that we have choices that are consistent with Christian faith as understood by Quakers, other peace churches, and well beyond.
As always, I'm eager to know additional sources of information and advice that you've found useful, and experiences that you've had in dealing with these ethical issues.
Having read through this passage of Romans together, we get a picture of our existence as a part of a grand cosmic drama of struggle and transformation. Simply put, the universe is vast beyond our comprehension, and yet our lives are incredibly important – central to God’s plan for the cosmos.
Blues and taxes ... Robert Cray ("1040 Blues"), J.B. Lenoir ("Eisenhower Blues"), Watermelon Slim ("Tax Man Blues") and (just for good measure) Lightnin' Hopkins ("It's a Sin to Be Rich, It's a Low-Down Shame to Be Poor"). All audio-only with graphics.
Tatiana Blokhina, Autumn in Bolkhov. Elektrostal Artists exhibition, 2012.
There is nothing new about imagining the world as a village. But today that image really struck me.
It came as I saw the photos and videos coming from Venezuela, with earthquake survivors' faces filling the frames with their personal accounts of disaster. That story on my news feed was followed immediately by the U.S. president blaming vandals for the National Mall's Reflecting Pool scandal, and his vice president and secretary of state spinning their awkward interpretations of war and not-war and maybe-again-war with Iran.
All that was soon followed by accounts of Europe's record-breaking heatwaves. (But nothing about South Asia.)
Speaking just for myself, maybe it takes witnessing disasters—earthquakes, famines, scenes of rubble-filled streets and their desperate inhabitants—to bring the world into human scale. But then, seen in that immediate scale, how do I regard the world's potentates and their conceits? Suddenly Trump, Putin, and other would-be global bigshots can be seen shrunk down to their true scale, not the puffed-up versions they want us to admire or fear. What right do they have—do we grant them—to pollute our village and put our neighbors and ourselves in danger?
I still don't advocate caricaturizing or demonizing them. But let's expose their imperial pretensions, whether they're peddling white Christian nationalism or the equally toxic Russian World ... or whatever actual demon is telling them and us that all our problems would go away if we saw our village neighbors as faceless "others."
We're going through a time when the vision of a global village may seem hopelessly idealistic. But ... is it nevertheless a valid vision? Or, if we surrender it in favor of a more cynical view, what keeps us from ending up behaving as apologists for the supposed realism of raw power, aided by increasingly clever tools of persuasion and disinformation?
Some of us are wonderful at bringing visions to life, whether through imaginative policy studies or through creative arts. Others are more suited to analyzing and exposing the forces which seek to pull down such visions in favor of passivity and mutual suspicion. Still others have the gift of keeping practitioners of these two different approaches in loving contact with each other, so that none of us find ourselves abandoned to disillusionment or resignation.
That's where I hope trustworthy faith communities can find a unique and urgent role.
Have you found such a home? Tell me about it!
Aleksandr Ilichev, North South East West, Elektrostal Palette exhibition, 2012.
Back when I was first interested in Russia and the Soviet Union, in my mid-teens, physicist Andrei Sakharov proposed a new twist on Marxist determinism: that, among other factors, the demands of industrial management, the rise of consumer demand, and the danger of nuclear annihilation would cause the great rival superpowers to take on each other's better traits and eventually converge. The resulting societies would feature both rational economic planning and freedom of thought.
Sakharov did not live to see much of the "end of history" phase and the idealists' disappointments in both superpower camps—both with their individual fragilities and their discontented peripheries. The year 2000 featured secret bargains, manipulations, dangerous theatrics, and general confusion in both Russia and the USA, with Vladimir Putin and George Bush ending up on top. Not exactly the convergence that Sakharov had in mind.
In both systems, the neocons (creatively defined for my purposes!) relatively quickly demanded the right to define reality for the rest of us. Putin arguably was ahead in this development, as he and his allies slowly but surely extinguished independent media and built the cult of the indispensable leader. "Putin is Russia, and Russia is Putin," proclaimed Vyacheslav Volodin, currently speaker of the State Duma, in 2014. And since that year, just in terms of government process (setting aside the ultra-nationalist intellectuals and church leaders who are his favorite influencers), Putin alone is the stubborn owner/driver of the war in Ukraine.
The USA's equivalent developments, although far less linear and absolute (we did elect two Democrats in those years), have reached the point where Donald Trump can assert to a journalist that "MAGA is Trump" and that, in starting yet another war, he faces no opposition in true MAGA.
In this Russian bookstore, someone put the Constitution in the fantasy section. (Originally used here.)
Both of these countries' constitutions nominally have power distributed among several branches. In Russia, the legislators and judiciaries go through the motions of their jobs but, when the stakes involve the interests of those at the top, they see no point in resisting.
Our situation may be less bleak: the judiciary still displays some independence, but the president's party's majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress mostly continue to fall in line. In the present case of Iran (and Israel and most of the Persian Gulf states), what the president wants is what he gets. Iran is, of course, just the most recent target of U.S. bombs and artillery in the past 13-1/2 months, after Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Iran (June 2025), the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, Syria, Nigeria, and Venezuela. In almost every case, Trump gave the orders personally and did not deign to invite Congressional consent. And now he supposedly gets to decide personally who will be the next leader of Iran.
One of the lonely critical Republican voices in Congress, representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, points straight to the constitutional illegality of Trump's process, as reported in The Guardian:
Make no mistake, Iran is an enemy of the United States. As our military engages them, they do so justly. [sic] Unfortunately, they are not yet doing so constitutionally.
For some, this debate will be about whether we should even be fighting in Iran. For me, the debate is more fundamental: is the president of the United States, regardless of the person holding the office, empowered to do whatever he wants? That’s not what our constitution says.
In fact, the U.S. Constitution, and most Republicans' unwillingness to defend it, is at the heart of several of today's crises as we transition from a republican democracy to a personalist authoritarianism. Due process and equal protection of the law came into the Constitution after a terrible Civil War, but today's legislative timidity in the service of throwing out immigrants is shameful. So is the attempt to organize a permanent governing majority through federal legislation, when the Constitution makes it clear that the states are to make election rules.
In 1967, a group of anthropologists contributed papers on war at a conference of the American Anthropological Association. The resulting book, War: the Anthropology of Armed Conflict and Aggression, opened my eyes to the possibility of studying war as a human behavior just like many others, subject to the same disciplines of observation and analysis totally apart from the myths, justifications, and deference it usually gets in real life. One of the contributors proposed that societies are usually either in a "relaxed" state or a "mobilized" state, and anthropologists should study the process by which a society goes from one state to the other. A respondent pointed out that, in modern conditions, most of society can remain in a "relaxed" state while specialists conduct wars on our (supposed) behalf, often without ever seeing their opponents, not to mention the collateral damage. To me this raises a question that I hope you can help me answer: how do we mobilize, not in favor of war, but in favor of our Constitution, before our "relaxation" becomes utter and permanent passivity?
Or, as one of our Moscow friends used to say to us, ironically, "Welcome to Russia!"
Speaking of Friends World Committee (previous link), the Section of the Americas has opened up registration for its annual sessions on Saturday, March 21. This year the sessions will be 100% online.
Once again, another version of "Scratch My Back." I've presented this one at least twice before, but it takes me back to Chicago like no other.... Illinois Slim does the chicken scratch.
... even when such violence serves a strategic purpose. When that strategic purpose does not exist, however, the moral case evaporates altogether. Israel now finds itself in a morally untenable situation. Rather than incur the world’s growing wrath, increased economic pressure, and the greater likelihood of future violence, Israel must reverse course and pursue alternatives to its campaign of mass death in Gaza.
—Robert A. Pape, "The Unparalleled Devastation of Gaza: Why Punishing Civilians Has Not Yielded Strategic Success." Foreign Affairs, August 7, 2025.
Robert Pape's article is behind a paywall, unfortunately. (It might almost be worth subscribing to Foreign Affairs for just this article, but I've seen consistently good argumentation in this periodical, even when I disagree.) Briefly, the author draws on his studies of previous wars that included mass destruction of civilian populations to conclude that, even setting morality aside (which he doesn't), such destruction rarely serves the claimed strategic goals.
I thought to myself, "Robert Pape...why does that name sound familiar?" Here's why: I'd just come across a reference to his book, Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, in an article that was very timely in a completely different way, because it referred to the bombing of Hiroshima 80 years ago this past week.
(A personal aside: I've written before on this blog about how the Grinch stole Hiroshima, so I don't intend to repeat those points here. But Judy and I just celebrated our 45th wedding anniversary, and, not by coincidence, our wedding took place on August 9, the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki. Several of the guests at our wedding had been taking part in the annual Hiroshima-Nagasaki peace vigil in Boston. I now reflect that we were married on the 35th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, and our latest wedding anniversary last week coincided with the 80th anniversary of that bombing. At the actual time of those bombings, my mother was a resident of Kobe, Japan.)
Pape's book was cited in an article by Graham Parsons on the Lawfare site, "The World Learned the Wrong Lesson from Hiroshima." Parsons takes on the arguments for the strategic usefulness of bombing civilian populations, in the face of the popularity of such arguments.
Teaching ethics at West Point for 13 years, I faced this view on a daily basis. Many of my students assumed that ethics is a kind of luxury. It helps service members defend their actions to themselves and to others. But it doesn’t help them win. I remember one student concluding, “Just war theory is a great way to lose a war.”
Parsons refers to the USA's current secretary of defense Pete Hegseth as an extreme proponent of the utter irrelevance of ethics in warfare. So, in the context of the atomic bombings, "Hegseth has chosen his side in the conflict between strategy and morality that Hiroshima supposedly reveals."
Parsons continues,
But Hiroshima reveals no such conflict. Contrary to the conventional discourse, many historians have concluded that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not cause Japan to surrender.
...
What was most consequential in the eyes of Japanese authorities was not the vulnerability of the civilian population to U.S. bombs, but the entrance of the Soviet Union into the war against them. The Soviets surprised the Japanese by declaring war and invading Manchuria on the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki. The Japanese leadership, who knew that their war was unwinnable for some time, was hoping the Soviets would act as a neutral arbiter of negotiations between Japan and the U.S. so that Japan could end the war while avoiding unconditional surrender. When the Soviets declared war, that possibility was off the table and Japanese leaders saw no better option than unconditional surrender.
Honestly, I've never thought about the similarities between the atomic bombings of Japan and the rubbishing of the Gaza Strip. Whether we can draw a parallel between Japanese motives and those of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, I'm struck by a very telling similarity: the apparent assumption that the greatest possible amount of death and destruction serves any kind of defensible goal, even within the logic of warfare. Graham Parsons is right, we've not learned the lessons of Hiroshima, and we're certainly not applying them to today's daily slaughter of Palestinians.
Reality check: drawing from research published in The Lancet, Robert Pape writes,
In sum, the authors of the study suggested that Israel’s campaign has caused at least an additional 26,000 Palestinian deaths and perhaps over 120,000 additional deaths, with the true death toll possibly exceeding 186,000. Taking that into account, as of late July 2025, Israel’s war in Gaza has led to the deaths of between five to ten percent of the prewar population of about 2.2 million. This represents an unprecedented slaughter. Israel’s campaign in Gaza is the most lethal case of a Western democracy using the punishment of civilians as a tactic of war.
Present tense: yesterday's compiled "impact snapshot" from the Gaza Strip.
It is my intention in good faith to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which at this time I am a subject or citizen.
I am, and have been during all of the periods required by law, a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
—Extracts from the naturalization petition form used at the time my parents became U.S. citizens.
Last week I wrote about the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and how postwar migrations and displacements brought my parents to the USA, where they met as university students. About five years after their arrivals as students, they became U.S. citizens.
I've been thinking again about the theme of patriotism, which has fascinated me both as a patriot (at least to my mind!) and as a Christian political scientist and pacifist. I noted the language in the naturalization petitions submitted by both of my parents, renouncing all other allegiances and claiming to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution" and "well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States."
As a legal standard that would-be U.S. citizens must meet, these promises seem to me to form a defensible definition of patriotism. Note that there is no requirement to agree that the USA is a better, superior, grander, more perfect country than any other on the planet.
General Motors begged to differ, in an advertising jingle I remember from childhood:
See the USA in your Chevrolet. America is asking you to call. Drive your Chevrolet through the USA. America's the greatest land of all.
Of course the USA is not the only country in the world whose citizens, or at least some of them, believe they live in "the greatest land of all." And, they might even be able to explain why they believe this. In the case of the USA, my idealistic preferred explanation to justify claims of the USA's greatness is John Gunther's famous line that the USA is "a country deliberately founded on a good idea"—an idea whose most succinct expression might be the first three words of the U.S. Constitution: "We the people...."
As an aspiration it is powerful, and it's part of our notorious American exceptionalism, but in these fractious times, are "we" still "we"? And as for "the people," is our government still, in Abraham Lincoln's words, "of the people, by the people, for the people"?
One thing seems clear to me about American patriotism. If it becomes detached from that "good idea," then it degrades into cultish compulsory slogans, chiefly useful for attacking one's political enemies.
Back in 2012, while I was reading Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands, I wrote a blog post with this question: What can Christians do to inoculate our nations against murderous and cultish forms of patriotism?
To me, the only healthy patriotism is functional, not mythological or tribal or cultic or anything involving ultimate loyalties that only God can claim. Functional patriotism treasures the mutual obligations of a nation's citizens, and gives us an investment in each other's success—not our own private aggrandizement. Functional patriotism promotes intelligent statecraft on the international stage, and the building up of institutions that promote trade and communication and prevent war. Functional patriotism encourages young people and newcomers to cherish the languages and cultures that we have the honor to host within our borders. Functional patriotism asks leaders to be as patriotic in deeds and sacrifice as those leaders want the rest of us to be. And functional patriotism understand that nations and empires come and go; they learn to recognize the limits that sustainability imposes so that the good things we stand for can last, and so the planet will flourish under our stewardship, not shrug us off on account of our abuse.
I'd love to think that we Christians can counter the blasphemies of cultic patriotism with the ethics of biblical discipleship and a style of participation that proclaims God's grace rather than our demands for privilege.
Here are some of my other blog posts on these themes.
The last chapter of Clarence White's new book, I Changed My Mind About..., has a thoughtful chapter on what Christians' relationship to their country should be. Excerpt (with Clarence's permission):
Most people in this country who attend a church never struggle with the question of what the relation of a Christian to their country should be. This is a rich area to think about, and has its own constellation of tributary issues.
For most of my young life I did not question this either, until I went to seminary. As I learned to think theologically, my understanding of what is involved in this issue began to profoundly change. That change has made me an outlier among even my friends. Even people who respect me personally and theologically have trouble with my thinking in this area.
The shift in my thinking is connected to the change in my thinking about war, as I outlined in chapter 5 of this book. When I had the life-changing experience of having my eves opened about Christian non-violence as I sat in a Mexican restaurant with Professor Wil Cooper, it was probably a natural development from that experience that my thinking about how a Christian should relate to his or her nation would also evolve.
To me, the issue is the Lordship of Jesus Christ. When Wil Cooper told me our job is not to calculate contingencies of what may happen if we do or do not use force, but rather our task is to simply do what Jesus said to do in the Sermon on the Mount, I knew immediately in a profound way that Wil was right. As I have written, that shook me like nothing ever had in my life up to that point, and the vision of that has never waned in the subsequent 42 years. I was tremendously shaken, and 42 years later I have been completely unable to shake myself loose from the impact of this imperative.
Director Robin Truesdale has made her excellent film Sweet Home Monteverde (my review here) available on YouTube:
The Russian Federation's "root causes" for the invasion of Ukraine.
For Putin and his regime, Ukraine’s democracy, its aspirations for EU and NATO membership, and its cultural independence represent an existential threat to the authoritarian model they have constructed. Ukraine’s success would demonstrate to Russians that a different, more democratic future is also possible for them, a prospect the Kremlin finds intolerable.
A useful overview of Friends Peace Teams, prepared for the annual meeting of Friends World Committee for Consultation, Europe and Middle East Section. (I serve on the Europe and Middle East team of Friends Peace Teams.)
Nathan Perrin on community and legacy vs isolation and chaos.
One of the valuable lessons we can take from both Mennonites and Sámi is that legacies that go on are the ones that are communal in nature. The communities that survive are the ones that dare to remember and, even more surprising, dare to celebrate. They have both lived through centuries of persecution through intentional love and service.
“Open my eyes that I may see….” Psalm 119:18, GIMEL
Open my eyes, Lord, when the Bible gets boring. When familiarity stiffens my brain cells and my heart feels paralyzed; when legality repulses and the light grows dim, open my eyes, Lord.
I am a stranger on earth, an alien among ordinary people, an imposter in church— unsanctified, blind and mostly silent. How will your commands bind my wounds? Will they bring me to the place where I can say, Your statutes are my delight!?
A great place to be: Nathan James and the late James Harman at the Blues City Deli.
Cover design shows Grini Concentration Camp main building. Print made by Ole Olden and smuggled out as his greeting for Christmas 1941. Nothing can keep a star from shining.
A couple of weeks ago, I posted "Under occupation" as one of the ways I'm trying to make sense of the current USA presidency and its actions.
A commenter on that post mentioned Myrtle Wright's book Norwegian Diary 1940-1945. I just finished re-reading it, to my great benefit.
On April 9, 1940, Wright was a Quaker peace worker who happened to be on her fourth day of a brief visit to Norway when the Germans invaded that morning. She ended up remaining there for nearly four years. Thirty years later, her account of those years was published by the Friends Peace and International Relations Committee in London. It's now out of print but there are used copies on the market. Online, a Russian translation is available in various formats.
After the initial conquest, the German occupation of Norway seemed relatively mild at first; the occupiers hoped to convince Norwegians that the invasion was simply to protect Norway from the UK's hostile plans. German soldiers conducted themselves correctly, by and large; the German overlords mostly operated behind the facade of the Quisling government and other local collaborators. In summer 1942, the mass arrests of Jewish people began, including a group of Jewish children who became a special concern of Wright and her friends. Executions were more frequent, private radios were outlawed on pain of death, labor conscription began (often destined for Germany). The occupation became much harsher. As life in Norway became more and more complicated under these conditions, Wright began keeping a diary starting in June 1942 in order to record and remember significant events, travels, and contacts as they happened. The first four chapters of her book were written after the war, and cover her arrival in Oslo, the German invasion, the famous teachers' and pastors' acts of resistance. After those first four chapters, the contemporary diary itself begins, and takes up most of the rest of her book.
The book was published in 1974, the very year I became a Friend. In 1975, after my visits to Moscow and Leningrad, I spent a couple of weeks with my grandparents in Oslo. On Sundays I attended the Oslo Friends Meeting, and there I met some of the people whose names come up in Wright's book, and visited some of the locations she described.
Norwegian Diary reminded me of Patricia Cockrell's more recent Sketches from a Quaker's Moscow Journal. In both cases, much of their service consisted of making and keeping appointments, arranging meetings, carrying food, money, clothing, and letters, dealing with bureaucracy, responding to emergencies, and observing discretion in risky situations. The level and character of repression differ between the two cases, but, sadly, that gap is narrowing.
I wondered—what might Myrtle Wright have recorded in her book that we might find interesting in our present situation? Here are some of her observations on living in an occupied country.
The importance of community. Even after being unexpectedly trapped in a country under occupation, Myrtle Wright was not alone. Her overlapping networks—including Quakers, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and Old Woodbrookers (alumni/ae of Woodbrooke College in Birmingham, England), and their families and friends—were sources of mutual support. Although at the start of her story, Oslo had just one Quaker member, there were frequent opportunities for worship with likeminded people. Occasionally Wright was able to travel to Stavanger, the historic center of Norwegian Quaker life.
The importance of information. After the German authorities confiscated private radios upon pain of death, Norwegians listened to BBC news and similar sources on hidden radios at great personal risk, and then passed along war news by word of mouth and through underground newspapers—also a very risky business. Information about arrests, prisoner transport, and incarcerations, about the underground railroad to Sweden (its departures, arrivals in Sweden, failures and betrayals) needed to circulate under the noses of the occupiers. The book gives several examples of the code words used by the resistance. Despite all the impediments, Norwegians found ways to keep themselves informed. One example: the amazing story of the White Rose circle in Germany became known in Norway.
Pacifists' dilemmas in war and occupation. Myrtle Wright and many of her friends were committed pacifists, yet (as she writes eloquently) they understood that Allied successes on the battlefield would hasten the end of the war. Within Norway, most people agreed that nonviolence was the only basis for resistance, but many people quietly cheered the Allies' advances in the USSR, (Stalingrad is often mentioned), North Africa, Italy, and France. With these wartime realities, Wright and her friends preferred to discuss postwar visions of freedom, justice, and the growth of empathy without distinctions.
War and occupation create understandable bitterness. The pacifist outlook, as expressed by Wright and many of her friends, not only made violent resistance unacceptable, it also helped them preserve empathy (for example) for the German cities being bombed by the Allied air forces. Such spiritually grounded empathy was nothing if not universally applicable, and would be badly needed when the time for repair and restoration would come, as these circles believed it would.
The value of humor. Humor has the power to build community, point out awkward truths, reward divergent thinking, and restore perspective.
At Christmas the prisoners had decorated the barracks and Per Krohg had painted a frieze. Fehmer, from the Gestapo ... came to inspect. He was evidently impressed and stopped in front of Per Krohg's frieze with the remark, "It is remarkable what a primitive nation can produce under German control." This became a byword in Grini and, when prisoners were digging ditches in slow tempo or on some other work, they would say to each other, "It is wonderful what a primitive nation can produce when under German control."
The importance of rest. The constant demands on Wright and her friends eventually brought them to the very limits of their energy. As the war went on and restrictions on travel increased, it became harder and harder to do the usual Norwegian thing—hiking on mountain paths, along rivers, on glaciers, in meadows ... and away from the stresses of daily life. Some of the most beautiful passages in Wright's book describe these wonderful escapes, even as they find their movements being more and more restricted by the occupation.
There are few direct parallels between the occupation that Myrtle Wright experienced and the looming threats to democracy in the USA, but I think that some of the values and capacities that aided her and her friends remain valid for today's resistance.
July 10 Saturday (from Norwegian Diary, 1943).
Landing on Sicily—the news has gone round like lightning and spirits rise at once. Everyone adds a few more details until there is no more to tell, and rumour does the rest. At least this is another step, and a long-awaited one. A pacifist, what should she think? Many lives will be lost, but every day of delay means more lives, to say nothing of illness and misery. The fury of this disease of violence is not likely to abate without much more loss of life, and, therefore, can one feel a little relief if only the end draws nearer? The physical death of the soldier cannot be worse than the torturing decay of the concentration camp, or the ghetto, or the terror of the civil population in the bombed towns. But physical death is not the ultimate test—what of the spirit which is bred in the warring nations and the occupied countries? We at least can do nothing to stop the fury of the armed warfare; our job lies in another direction and is quite clear, if only we can get it done. We have to prepare the minds of men for the moment when they again have choice and can by their actions, determine the way the peace shall be built; or will the end of the outward war show that Nazism, beaten in the battlefield, has won a victory in men's hearts?
Myrtle Wright (Norw.) married Quaker educator Philip Radley in 1951 and was then known as Myrtle Radley. She died in 1991. More about Myrtle and Philip.
Meanwhile, in Russia: Meduza's Lilia Yapporova and colleagues survey the realities and dysfunctions of the Russian opposition inside and outside Russia.
Last week, I proposed "under occupation" as a way of absorbing what the new Trump regime was imposing on us, and considering how to respond. I'm not going to try to list all the developments since then, that, taken together, feel like a occupation—you know as much as I do about all that. Here are just a few reflections, with references, on the past week.
Lawsuits: In my list of links last week, I included a lawsuit challenging a U.S. Department of Homeland Security policy change. That change allows DHS to invade "sensitive locations" such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals in order to arrest immigrants suspected of violating the law. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends, New England Yearly Meeting of Friends, and Baltimore Yearly Meeting of Friends, along with two congregations within Baltimore Yearly Meeting.
Since then, several other faith communities have joined the lawsuit, including New York Yearly Meeting. In that same list of links, I provided a link to this legal challenges tracker. At that point it listed 24 lawsuits challenging various executive actions of the Trump administration. As of today, the number of complaints has grown to 37.
The favored religion: Today, in a document entitled "Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias," Donald Trump announced that his administration "will not tolerate anti-Christian weaponization of government or unlawful conduct targeting Christians. The law protects the freedom of Americans and groups of Americans to practice their faith in peace, and my Administration will enforce the law and protect these freedoms. My Administration will ensure that any unlawful and improper conduct, policies, or practices that target Christians are identified, terminated, and rectified." (More in Reuters' coverage.) I wonder, will this protection extend to Catholics and Lutherans defending migrants, or "nasty" Episcopal bishops who preach the Gospel in the president's presence? And what about our neighbors who peacefully practice other religions, or none?
The executive order mentions religious freedom in general several times, but the heavy emphasis (judge for yourself) is on eradicating anti-Christian bias. The Biden administration is charged with "an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses." The charges include the completely coincidental timing of Easter Sunday 2024 and "Transgender Day of Visibility." I can't help suspecting that to score points with a crucial part of his base, Trump might actually contribute to a whole new wave of genuine anti-evangelical bias as religious and secular people alike absorb this embarrassing enmeshment of government with the Christian knockoffs that suit this cruel and irreligious regime.
Ethnic cleansing, American style: Joe Biden's active participation in the rubbishing of the Gaza Strip was bad enough, but here comes Donald Trump with an amazing new embellishment: remove the whole population and create a "Riviera of the Middle East"! Meanwhile, as Michael Arria (Mondoweiss) points out, (1) the West Bank may face equal threats, and (2) "A Trump-appointed member of the United States Holocaust Memorial" (Martin Oliner) "has published an Op-Ed calling Palestinians 'fundamentally evil' and not worthy of 'any mercy.'"
Meanwhile, up in space: First, another false witness against Joe Biden. Last month, Elon Musk posted on X "that the president [Trump] had asked SpaceX to bring the two 'stranded' astronauts back to Earth. Musk added that SpaceX would do so, and, 'Terrible that the Biden administration left them there so long.' Trump chimed in, "I have just asked Elon Musk and @SpaceX to 'go get' the 2 brave astronauts who have been virtually abandoned in space by the Biden Administration. They have been waiting for many months on Space Station. Elon will soon be on his way. Hopefully, all will be safe. Good luck."
The actual situation, and the complicated planning and spaceship-swapping involved (no fault of Biden's!) is described by Ars Technica's Eric Berger.
A history lesson: "What follows is a step-by-step account of how Hitler systematically disabled and then dismantled his country’s democratic structures and processes in less than two months’ time—specifically, one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours, and 40 minutes." Timothy W. Ryback (gift link) in The Atlantic.
Rebecca Gordon (Tomdispatch) sums up:King Donald, old and new litanies, and the Faithful Fools.
Heather Cox Richardson's own summary of the occupation's progress, and a few instances of resistance. (Don't blame her for the "occupation" metaphor; it's mine.)
A pro-Russian disinformation source produced a video discrediting USAID, and apparently Elon Musk and Donald Trump, Jr., have taken the bait.
Becky Ankeny has been speaking to Silverton Friends Church about the crucifixion of Jesus. Last month she spoke about the resurrection.
Micah Bales at Berkeley Friends Church on Jesus and his inaugural sermon.... "'All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth.' Wow, what a guy! He’s going to make Israel great again." Shouldn't he have stopped while he was ahead? More to the point: What has God anointed him to do?And are we ready, not just to admire, but to follow?
Greg Morgan, Elderchaplain: "Religious faith is an important source of peace for many facing death, but it’s no guarantee...."
Once again, an invitation to join our weekly online prayer meeting for peace, under the care of Friends World Committee for Consultation, Europe and Middle East Section. Every Tuesday, 1:30 p.m. London time. See this page for more information.
Christone "Kingfish" Ingram and his band perform "662."
