Navigation – Plan du site
Contemporary Aspects of Censorship in Great Britain and the United States

Censorship of Pacifist Movements through Religious Arguments

Les mouvements pacifistes censurés par l’argumentaire religieux
Bill Bolin

Résumés

Le nombre de guerres dans lesquelles les pays anglophones, en premier lieu les États-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne, sont intervenus depuis un siècle peut donner l’impression que les mouvements pacifistes n’ont aucun impact dans ces pays. Presque toutes les guerres, dans leur histoire récente, ont généré des mouvements de protestations pacifistes ; cependant de tels mouvements ne sont jamais parvenus à contrer une opération militaire même s’ils ont parfois eu un effet notable sur la politique militaire pendant un conflit en cours. Malgré cela, les mouvements pacifistes sont accusés d’égoïsme et de trahison. Cet article défend l’idée que les mouvements pacifistes sont victimes de la censure exercée par les instances influentes — notamment les gouvernements et la presse — animées d’un certain patriotisme. Il se concentre spécifiquement sur les États-Unis et l’Europe juste avant le début des deux conflits mondiaux qui délimitent le XXe siècle : la Grande Guerre et la  « Guerre contre la Terreur ».

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1The number of wars in which English-speaking countries, primarily the United States and Great Britain, have been involved in the past one hundred years might leave the impression that peace movements are ineffectual. Virtually every war in recent US and UK history has had its corresponding anti-war protests, and there is no record of a peace movement actively stopping an impending significant military action at inception, although evidence exists that peace movements have affected martial policy after the initial stages of a military action. Instead, peace movements seem to elicit ill will and accusations of self-preservation and treason. This paper will argue that peace movements are thus censored through a sense of patriotism constructed by those in positions of influence, including government entities and the press. After a selective review of literature on censorship and on world views, the paper will move on to examine the ways in which peace movements in the UK and the US were stymied prior to the Great War of 1914 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

2The work of cognitive linguist George Lakoff has lately been used in different academic disciplines to explain how people view the same evidence differently because of the frames through which they perceive the world around them. Lakoff argues that cognitive linguistics is the disciplinary area most attuned to studying how people view their surroundings, and his explanation of how this area affects perception is delineated in several books, including trade publications like Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate The Essential Guide for Progressives in 2004 and The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century Politics with an 18th-Century Brain in 2008. Both books represent Lakoff’s findings in cognitive linguistics as a series of steps to win an election, and both books were published just before a major election in the United States. In discussing cognitive linguistics for a popular audience, Lakoff emphasizes the need for people to be aware both of how they view the world and of how their manner of viewing the world might differ from the way others do. While the work of other theorists might also be used profitably in this argument, Lakoff represents cognitive linguistics closely aligned with politics, and so his theory will be featured in the space allotted, although the work of Stephen Pinker, his primary critic, and that of I.A. Richards, a twentieth century philosopher, will also be utilized.

3If one turns from this general or political context to that of war, then one might use Lakoff’s binary of the conservative authoritative parent versus the progressive nurturing parent and conclude that conservatives are more prone to punish and demonstrate force to mitigate future acts of aggression while liberals would more likely pursue avenues other than military actions first to try to coax some understanding between countries. A progressive would necessarily try to understand the conservative worldview before engaging in a fruitful conversation with conservatives over the efficacy of military action in particular situations. Likewise, a conservative would attempt some empathy of the progressive’s penchant for consistently suggesting various forms of diplomacy.

  • 1 Steven Pinker and George Lakoff, “Does language frame politics?” Public Policy Research, vol. 1, n° (...)

4Of course, Lakoff’s argument has its critics, particularly cognitive linguist Stephen Pinker, who in a review of Lakoff’s book Whose Freedom? points out what he sees as a number of lacunae in the work. For one, Pinker takes exception to Lakoff’s habit of grouping people into two distinct camps when it would be more profitable, even more accurate, to view the political views on a continuum, abandoning the authoritative/nurturing dichotomy in favor of a sliding scale with discipline at one end and compassion at the other.1 Utilizing such a continuum would allow more flexibility in determining on which issues some conservatives and progressives might agree to a significant extent and would better represent how thinking actually happens.

  • 2 Ibidem, 67.
  • 3 Ibid., 70.

5Although Lakoff has been getting more public press concerning politics than have other theorists, his work’s residing in the public sphere necessitates its oversimplification, as Pinker suggests. However, in his response to Pinker, Lakoff recalls that the modern mind works in frames and metaphors, so the key to successful communication is what “‘reframing’ is all about — correcting frames that distort truths and finding frames that expose them.”2 Lakoff goes on to say that this newer view of thought, arising from the brain with certain pre-formed structures, is especially important for politics “because politics is centrally about ideas, actions, perceptions, policies, and communication, all of which require an understanding of the mind.”3 Thus, societies can be seen to employ censorship in order to safeguard what they consider their cultural treasures. More specifically for this topic, societies whose worldview allows them to see a particular war as a means of preserving cultural lifestyles or artifacts or values will attempt to stifle opposition to such wars. The means to do so are various but generally center on actively engaging all forms of media to promote one message while discounting others.

  • 4 Ivor Armstrong Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York: Oxford UP, 1965 [1936], 3.
  • 5 Ibidem, 11.
  • 6 Ibid., 34.

6In some ways, Lakoff’s work here was anticipated by I. A. Richards, most notably in his addresses to Bryn Mawr College in 1936 and later compiled into his book The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Richards famously claims in that book that the primary function of rhetoric “should be a study of misunderstanding and its remedies.”4 Richards writes of the interanimation of words, how words mean what they do because of context and not because they have essential meanings of their own. This context includes other words around the words under scrutiny,5 but it also includes the missing ideas that a word comes to represent through people’s interpretation.6 Thus, the word censorship can be and has been defined differently at different times for various purposes. And acts of censorship can be and have been defined as censorship for various purposes, as will be illustrated below in the examples of global warfare, one predating both Richards and Lakoff, although not their general ideas, and one post-dating them.

7In the advent of the Great War, citizens of both Great Britain and the United States debated the merits of entering combat or staying out. While the United States managed to delay entering until 1917, British citizens most actively engaged in such argument just prior to and just after their entry into the war in 1914. Slightly earlier, in 1912, the Rationalist Peace Society formed in London, publishing the following message in the first issue of their journal:

  • 7 “To Our Readers,” Rationalist Peace Quarterly, vol. 1, April 1912: 1. The Rationalist Peace Societ (...)

While the churches have blessed the war banners and prayed for the destruction of their enemies, Rationalists have had no enemies, save the enemies of human freedom, including the churches. And this spirit continues. It is for this reason we hope the first Rationalist Peace Society will prove itself a body of increasing influence; that its present numbers will grow to many thousands; that it will stand for the modern expression of the Peace idea. The future is with us, and we must be careful that we play a worthy part.7

  • 8 Unsigned Letter, Rationalist Peace Society, 17 August 1914.
  • 9 “Compulsory Prostitution,” Rationalist Peace Quarterly, 5 April 1913: 3.
  • 10 John Mackinnon Robertson and Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner, “A Letter to the Members and Friends of the (...)

8The Rationalist Peace Society argued for reaching international agreement through peaceful means because war is inhumane, a product of people’s baser instincts. At the start of the Great War, the Society issued a letter on 17 August, 1914, condemning war in general and this war in particular, calling on members to help those hurt by the war “who are wounded, starving, or destitute” as their humane obligation in the face of the inevitable conflict and resulting tragedy.8 The view of the Society would run counter to the prevailing view of British society that the war was necessary to preserve political and cultural values. While young British men were encouraged and even coerced by aggressive recruiters into military service in what most of Britain would consider an act of patriotism, the Society compared conscription to prostitution.9 In fact, it would be two years later, during the midst of the war, that the Rationalist Peace Society would, in effect, admit defeat. Circumstances were such that the Society issued a letter by both its president and its chairman, conceding the necessity of the current war as the lesser of two evils. The letter maintains that breaking an alliance with Belgium when it was attacked by Germany would have been the greater evil and that moral arguments are not effective in the face of tyranny. The letter further argues that avoiding war would have meant merely postponing the war and transferring its pain and misery to future generations, “placing upon the shoulders of our children a burden which we found unbearable.”10 Rather than looking at only peace as the absolute good, the Society focused on its responsibility to others, giving ground on the question of war for what it saw as the larger value of social responsibility in the face of tyranny.

9A contemporary movement was the Fellowship of Reconciliation, begun in England in 1914 and growing out of a conference in Switzerland called to try to prevent war in Europe. Various committees in the London branch tried a number of tactics to protest the war: the Political Committee encouraged members to write letters to the local press, the Educational Committee suggested writing articles about the hardship of war on children, and the Propaganda Committee suggested staging anti-war dramas and public demonstrations. The theme throughout here is that maintaining peace is a Christian duty and that the word must be spread to official channels (directly to politicians) and more quotidian ones (door-to-door campaigns, processions, leaflets).

10One method of protest utilized by groups such as these was conscientious objector status. The pacifist movement sought to advertise the option for young men to avoid conscription and follow their Christian duty by registering as objectors. It is likely that this approach, more than any other, contributed to the idea that pacifists were more interested in self preservation than in any higher calling of peace. The public expressed their feelings of outrage and ridicule against objector status in public ways, including letters and opinion pieces published in the newspaper. For example, in the Lansbury Collection in London are several clippings, including a piece from the 17 March 1916 Western Morning News in Plymouth in which the writer berates objectors in Princetown Prison on Dartmoor as “pampered pets” who “are afraid to ‘do their bit’ for their country,” even contrasting these objectors to recently freed prisoners who were enthusiastically signing up for military service. The objectors, according to the writer, had a relatively easy incarceration and were even able to leave the prison during the day. Beside that clipping is a photo from the 16 October 1917 Daily Mail depicting a conscientious objector holding up a shovel with the words “For Conscience”. The Mail’s caption referred to this “Conchy” as turning his spade into a manifesto. Other published examples, whose full attribution is lost to history, include a poem called “The Shirker’s Alphabet” by a Trooper W. E. Leonard and another poem called “Why” written by a J. Smith and addressed to the “stay-at-homes”. The theme in both poems is that the conscientious objector’s primary motivation is self-preservation rather than a higher principle of peace. The publication of such pieces helped to silence, to censor, the pacifist movements, primarily because they reframed the argument from one of pursuing diplomacy over war to one of keeping safe at home while others took on the burden of fighting a noble war. To use Lakoff’s terminology, the voices in support of the Great War were able to frame the debate in such a way that resistance was seen, not as Christian or humane duty, but as pitiful selfishness as a means of having both personal safety and, eventually, national security.

  • 11 Richard Rorty, “Richard Rorty. (Cover Story),” Nation 279.21, 2004: 17-18.
  • 12 Ibidem, 17.
  • 13 Brian C. Schmidt and Michael C. Williams. “The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives Ver (...)
  • 14 Ibidem, 209.

11Although there would be more wars throughout the rest of the twentieth century, the involvement of the United States in what was loosely declared the “War on Global Terrorism” in the twenty-first century offers a different and especially productive examination of the censorship of pacifist movements. While support for the United States ran high after the attacks of 9/11, the United States soon entered into a more controversial aspect its war on terrorism with the decision to engage Iraq militarily. In fact, the frames would change dramatically in 2002 as the world argued the merits of a US-led invasion of Iraq. By that time, particularly in the United States, many Christian congregations supported the war, and their leaders used their media outlets to silence critics of the invasion by painting them as self-serving and ignorant of Scripture. Although every major religious denomination in the United States except the Southern Baptist Convention spoke out in opposition to a war with Iraq, many Christians in the United States follow religious media personalities with no clear connection to an organized denomination. Moreover, according to Richard Rorty, the American public was prepared to support American troops and any war effort as a way to recompense for the generally negative attitude toward the military during the Vietnam War.11 Such determination to support the troops precluded critical examination of the Saddam Hussein’s supply of weapons or purported links to the 9/11 attacks.12 Similarly, Schmidt and Williams note that the Bush Administration was heavily populated with neoconservatives who promoted the invasion and who had access to the rhetorical inroads to much of the American citizenry.13 The shock following the 9/11 attacks gave the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration a strong platform from which to connect their views with national security, a platform they exploited with consistency.14 The sheer number and volume of such voices, both religious and secular, served to silence the peace movement.

12Church leaders speaking out against the invasion of Iraq could be accused of censoring the perceived necessary move toward war, depending on how censorship is defined. Richards reminds us that words themselves carry no meaning; rather, meaning is derived from how words work together and from how these combinations are received by different audiences. While some of these influential and media-savvy leaders argued that the invasion was ill advised and did not fit the criteria for a Just War, their attempts at persuasion were overwhelmed by the opposing voices which called into question the wisdom and patriotism of those opposing an invasion against a known tyrant, one who allegedly held weapons of mass destruction and was implicated in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

  • 15 Jim Wallis, God’s Politics, San Francisco: Harper, 2005, 51.

13The church leaders opposed to the invasion of Iraq marshaled evidence for several reasons, although they still acknowledged the danger and brutality of the Saddam regime. Jim Wallis of Sojourners and John Bryson Chane, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, DC, penned a six-point plan that was published in the Washington Post less than a week before the invasion. That plan called for removing Saddam by charging him with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The plan is vague on how to accomplish his ouster and subsequent trial, but it suggests removing him and his Baathist supporters without harming the Iraqi people. The plan goes on to recommend increased and aggressive weapons inspections and a push toward Iraqi democracy, complemented with an increased and aggressive humanitarian focus.15 While this treatise arrived too late to effect a change in foreign policy, it does serve as a rationale to view options other than war. Citizens and other observers who were concerned about Saddam Hussein’s place in the ambiguous war against terror would see that the plan addresses the threat that he had posed over the years. The argument from definition here turned on the view that a brutal dictator should not escape punishment but that war, especially one that did not follow logically from Just War theory, would be undesirable.

14Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, President of the Chicago Theological Seminary, preached a sermon titled “Just and Unjust Wars in the Christian Tradition” to the congregation of St. Peter’s United Church of Christ one month before the invasion of Iraq. Thistlethwaite provides an outline of Just War theory, and she cites Augustine and Aquinas, as well as Exodus and the Gospel of John, in supporting her interpretation. Her principal theme is that people are often moved to supporting violence if they feel threatened and that people often feel threatened by that which is foreign to them. It is thus possible to utilize the language of religion and morality to emphasize differences between the familiar and the foreign and, thereby, to increase that initial anxiety. Whatever the war is about, it has been described in religious terminology, highlighting the differences between Islam and Christianity. Thistlethwaite’s conclusion is that the war in Iraq would not fit the criteria of Just War doctrine because the United States had not received any credible threats from Iraq and was not on a mission to protect another state. Thistlethwaite’s later explication of the exchange between Jesus Christ and the Samaritan woman at the well is a compelling argument for how Christians should continue to engage with adversaries rather than attack them. We can see that Thistlethwaite argues from definition in her principled belief that one must reach out to those who are foreign rather than assume they are evil, and she draws from the example of the war in Iraq to illustrate a failure to comply with the understood criteria of Just War. However, if her argument is to be judged by its overall effect, it must be considered weak because it was not widely publicized or considered.

  • 16 Mark Zwick and Louise Zwick, “Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Ir (...)
  • 17 Robert Scheer, “Overlooked: The Pope’s Opposition to the War,” The Record (Bergen County, NJ) 14 Ap (...)

15Pope John Paul II spoke out against the war quite clearly in the winter of 2003, delineating the moral problems with invading Iraq. He and his emissaries demonstrated how such an invasion would not fit the criteria of Just War doctrine, and he did not change his views when President Bush sent conservative columnist Michael Novak to the Vatican to explain how the invasion of Iraq would be a Just War as a continuation of the first Gulf War. Novak also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to use against the United States and to share with other rogue entities.16 The Vatican officials were not convinced, and these officials included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and the successor to Pope John Paul II. It is curious, of course, that a person of the Pope’s influence would be so little heeded in a nation with over 60 million Catholics, many with voter registration cards. But the mainstream news media in the United States did not feature the Pope’s opposition to the war or his declaration after the initial stages of the invasion that he firmly sided with the opinion that the weapons inspections needed more time.17

16While the arguments against the invasion were muted through lack of widespread exposure, they were also discredited through the active and vocal support for the invasion. Reasons to support the invasion ranged from protection of the United States to zealous patriotism, and such a range helped serve to quiet opposition, or at least foster difficulty in taking opposition to the invasion seriously.

  • 18 “Bring It On: The War on Terror,” The Christian Broadcasting Network, 2005. <http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/BringItOn/waronterror-index.asp>, accessed 10 July 2011</http>
  • 19 Idem.

17Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and of the Christian Broadcasting Network, regularly offers political opinions couched in religious terms for his large audience. On his CBN website, he provided answers to questions about the war on terror, claiming that the United States was attacked in September 2001, so it responded appropriately according to Romans 13: 1-4. Robertson merely listed the Scripture reference without summary or explication, but the passage refers to the command to yield to authority because all power comes from God. The implication here is that because the nation was attacked, as Christians the citizens need to yield to the decision of the government. Bertson concluded that “it is a just and a right cause to do so.”18 In response to a query about the possible pacifism of Jesus Christ, Robertson explained that Jesus was talking about individuals when he said to turn the other cheek or to surrender one’s shirt also to those who would take one’s coat. Without providing any evidence except to say that Jesus never commanded any centurion to quit the military, he claimed that pacifism does not extend to governments, which must restrain evil.19 His theme is that Jesus will come back as a warrior and put to an end all the evil and oppression in a sinful world. Clearly, his audience of CBN listeners, viewers, and readers are expected to make the leap from the mission of Jesus to the mission of the United States. Nowhere in this exchange is the suggestion that the United States should wait for the Lord’s judgment. The warrant here is that there are nations clearly on the side of global good and others on the other side, a warrant almost universally held. Further, Robertson appeals to an audience who see the United States on the side of the universal good, so the only response, according to such a worldview, is to attack evil.

  • 20 Charles Colson, “Doing Justice in a Time of War: Preemptive Attacks,” Break Point, 4 October 2002.<http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/BP_Just_War_Doctrine.htm>,</http> (...)

18Charles Colson is another public figure who is comfortable blending conservative politics with conservative Christianity. Colson, former special council to President Richard Nixon, spent time in prison for his part of the Watergate cover-up, using that experience to launch a prison ministry and then a public ministry. In an opinion piece in the autumn of 2002, Colson points out that the Christian leaders taking an oppositional stance to the impending war with Iraq — leaders he names as US Catholic bishops, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury designate, and others — are defining Just War too narrowly. Colson compares Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler in arguing that a preemptive strike would save lives more effectively than diplomatic effort. He argues also that Saddam must have weapons of mass destruction because no American president would go to war without good intelligence and a solid case for war, thus invoking the faith in authority of government. He concludes by asserting that “just war is a way to show love of neighbor — protecting our neighbor. And in protecting innocence against Saddam Hussein, we are doing just that: exhibiting Christian love.”20 A sermon that explicitly justifies war to remove a tyrant who is bent on destroying Western civilization and that implicitly allows for the tyrant’s people to turn from their own faith to Christianity at the end of the war is well received by many evangelical Christians, more so than the calls for peace and restraint by the leaders of the major denominations in the US.

  • 21 Art Toalston and Dwayne Hastings, “Land: Military Action against Iraq Meets Ethical Standards for W (...)

19Richard Land, leader of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, used the same reasoning for supporting the invasion as early as Autumn 2002, claiming that “If you are looking for just cause, we have passed that threshold.”21 This is a theme that is extended in the sermon of another popular evangelist, James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Dobson wrote on his website on the first day of the invasion that Saddam compares to Hitler because of his killing of innocent people, his invasion of Kuwait, and his firing of missiles into Israel. He uses those particular circumstances to fill in the reasoning for an argument from definition — that tyranny is wrong. In all of these instances, leaders of popular and media-driven evangelical movements have associated the war on terror, but more specifically the invasion of Iraq, with Christian and American duty, simultaneously suppressing opposing voices, even those of organized denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church and United Methodist Church, by the implication that those voices are un-Christian and un-American.

20The primary difference in the Christian outlook in England in the early twentieth century and that of the United States in the early twenty-first century has to do with the Christian’s responsibility regarding war. On principle, the Christian pacifists during the Great War were opposed to war before all efforts of diplomacy were expended. But the loudest Christian voices before the invasion of Iraq were united behind the principle that removing a dictator through force would save countless innocent lives. While the shade of Christianity represented in this presentation changed from early twentieth century Britain to early twenty-first century America, the idea of censorship of pacifist movements through the media has been consistent. Further study in this area might consider the role of politics or nationality in censorship: are some political groups or nations more prone or positioned to censor than others? Such research would likely discover productive means of studying motivation for the diverse ways societies have been framed.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

“Bring It On: The War on Terror,” The Christian Broadcasting Network, 2005. <

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/BringItOn/waronterror-index.asp

>, accessed 10 July 2011.

Colson Charles, “Doing Justice in a Time of War: Preemptive Attacks,” Break Point, 4 October 2002. <http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/BP_

Just_War_Doctrine.htm>, accessed 10 July 2011.

“Compulsory Prostitution,” Rationalist Peace Quarterly, 5 April 1913, Rationalist Peace Society Archive, Bishopsgate Institute, London.

Pinker Steven and George Lakoff, “Does language frame politics?” Public Policy Research, vol. 1, n° 14, March 2007: 59-71.

Richards Ivor Armstrong, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York: Oxford UP, 1965 [1936].

Robertson John MacKinnon and Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner, “A Letter to the Members and Friends of the Rationalist Peace Society,” January 1916, Rationalist Peace Society Archive, Bishopsgate Institute, London.

Rorty, Richard. “Richard Rorty. (Cover Story),” Nation 279.21, 2004: 17-18.

Scheer Robert, “Overlooked: The Pope’s Opposition to the War,” The Record (Bergen County, NJ), 14 April 2005: Infotrac, 9 November 2005.

Schmidt Brian C. and Michael C. Williams, “The Bush Doctrine And The Iraq War: Neoconservatives Versus Realists,” Security Studies 17.2, 2008: 191-220.

Thistlethwaite Susan Brooks, “Just and Unjust Wars in the Christian Tradition,” sermon delivered 23 February 2003. Minnesota Council of Churches website, <

http://www.mnchurches.org/peace/justwar/

justwarsermon.html>, accessed 8 November 2005.

“To Our Readers,” Rationalist Peace Quarterly vol. 1, April 1912: 1.

Toalston Art and Dwayne Hastings, “Land: Military Action against Iraq Meets Ethical Standards for War,” BPNews, 9 September 2002. <

http://www.bpnews.net

>, accessed 11 November 2005.

Unsigned Letter, Rationalist Peace Society, 17 August 1914.

Wallis Jim, God’s Politics, San Francisco: Harper, 2005.

Zwick Mark and Louise Zwick, “Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected,” Houston Catholic Worker 23, 2003. <

http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

>, accessed 10 July 2011.
Haut de page

Notes

1 Steven Pinker and George Lakoff, “Does language frame politics?” Public Policy Research, vol. 1, n° 14, March 2007: 62.

2 Ibidem, 67.

3 Ibid., 70.

4 Ivor Armstrong Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, New York: Oxford UP, 1965 [1936], 3.

5 Ibidem, 11.

6 Ibid., 34.

7 “To Our Readers,” Rationalist Peace Quarterly, vol. 1, April 1912: 1. The Rationalist Peace Society archives are available at the Bishopsgate Institute in London.

8 Unsigned Letter, Rationalist Peace Society, 17 August 1914.

9 “Compulsory Prostitution,” Rationalist Peace Quarterly, 5 April 1913: 3.

10 John Mackinnon Robertson and Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner, “A Letter to the Members and Friends of the Rationalist Peace Society,” Rationalist Peace Society, January 1916.

11 Richard Rorty, “Richard Rorty. (Cover Story),” Nation 279.21, 2004: 17-18.

12 Ibidem, 17.

13 Brian C. Schmidt and Michael C. Williams. “The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives Versus Realists,” Security Studies 17.2, 2008: 191-220.

14 Ibidem, 209.

15 Jim Wallis, God’s Politics, San Francisco: Harper, 2005, 51.

16 Mark Zwick and Louise Zwick, “Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected,” Houston Catholic Worker 23, 2003. <http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html>, accessed 10 July 2011.

17 Robert Scheer, “Overlooked: The Pope’s Opposition to the War,” The Record (Bergen County, NJ) 14 April 2005: Infotrac, 9 November 2005.

18 “Bring It On: The War on Terror,” The Christian Broadcasting Network, 2005. <http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/BringItOn/waronterror-index.asp>, accessed 10 July 2011.

19 Idem.

20 Charles Colson, “Doing Justice in a Time of War: Preemptive Attacks,” Break Point, 4 October 2002.<http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/BP_Just_War_Doctrine.htm>, accessed 10 July 2011.

21 Art Toalston and Dwayne Hastings, “Land: Military Action against Iraq Meets Ethical Standards for War,” BPNews, 9 September 2002. <http://www.bpnews.net>, accessed 11 November 2005.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Bill Bolin, « Censorship of Pacifist Movements through Religious Arguments », Revue LISA/LISA e-journal [En ligne], Vol. XI – n° 1 | 2013, mis en ligne le 30 mai 2013, consulté le 26 février 2018. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/lisa/5218 ; DOI : 10.4000/lisa.5218

Haut de page

Auteur

Bill Bolin

A&M University — Commerce, Texas, États-Unis. Bill Bolin is Associate Professor of English at Texas A&M University-Commerce, where his research focuses on rhetoric and writing theory. He has been publishing on intellectual property in Currents in Teaching and Learning, on the rhetoric of Jim Corder in Composition Studies, on the effects of online research in Revue LISA, and on the public face of writing instruction in Issues in Writing.

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Les contenus de la Revue LISA / LISA e-journal sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • OpenEdition Journals