August 6 & 8
It's the end of July and I'm trying to write a sermon for Hiroshima Memorial Sunday.
This used to be our only summer service. Now we have services summer same as winter, only with spotty attendance.
I took over this service a number of years ago because I was sick of all the paper cranes, so to speak. It had generally been an excruciatingly self-flagellatory experience, which offended my personal philosophy of Sunday morning. I.e., people don't have to come to church; they could stay home and read the New York Times in bed, with coffee and danish. The person putting the service together is responsible for giving people a reason to show up.
I also think if you're going to talk about inherently painful things, you should try to talk about them as painlessly as possible, for purely practical reasons: because otherwise people will flip that "not listening" switch in simple self-defense.
I tend to select subjects for this sermon rather broadly. This year I asked the congregation for suggestions; and somebody who wrote his thesis (currently languishing in ABD hell, alas) on the Law of War asked me if we'd ever discussed the reasons the bombs were dropped. The answer was, "not lately," nor did I feel inclined to take it up. It's like analyzing Hitler: Probably somebody should, but people will always think you're excusing what he did.
On the other hand, I don't want to demonize that decision, either. But the bomb having been invented, continues to exist; having been used, is likely to be used again. Therefore, somebody has to accept responsibility for seeing that it doesn't happen. That, in three sentences, is the rationale for the Memorial Service.
I decided to talk about the Law of War. I once did a service about Just War criteria; it was not well received, on the grounds that wars are inherently unjust and also that the criteria are not adhered to. Well duh. Glad to see that people are paying attention, but that was kind of the point. (You have to expect this kind of thing when you volunteer to stand up in front of people and talk. It's very frustrating.)
But Just War Principles are inherently theoretical: you start out with an ideal position, and try to match up reality to it. The Law of War, by contrast, is a description of what is positively given (or what is actual). TBC.
This used to be our only summer service. Now we have services summer same as winter, only with spotty attendance.
I took over this service a number of years ago because I was sick of all the paper cranes, so to speak. It had generally been an excruciatingly self-flagellatory experience, which offended my personal philosophy of Sunday morning. I.e., people don't have to come to church; they could stay home and read the New York Times in bed, with coffee and danish. The person putting the service together is responsible for giving people a reason to show up.
I also think if you're going to talk about inherently painful things, you should try to talk about them as painlessly as possible, for purely practical reasons: because otherwise people will flip that "not listening" switch in simple self-defense.
I tend to select subjects for this sermon rather broadly. This year I asked the congregation for suggestions; and somebody who wrote his thesis (currently languishing in ABD hell, alas) on the Law of War asked me if we'd ever discussed the reasons the bombs were dropped. The answer was, "not lately," nor did I feel inclined to take it up. It's like analyzing Hitler: Probably somebody should, but people will always think you're excusing what he did.
On the other hand, I don't want to demonize that decision, either. But the bomb having been invented, continues to exist; having been used, is likely to be used again. Therefore, somebody has to accept responsibility for seeing that it doesn't happen. That, in three sentences, is the rationale for the Memorial Service.
I decided to talk about the Law of War. I once did a service about Just War criteria; it was not well received, on the grounds that wars are inherently unjust and also that the criteria are not adhered to. Well duh. Glad to see that people are paying attention, but that was kind of the point. (You have to expect this kind of thing when you volunteer to stand up in front of people and talk. It's very frustrating.)
But Just War Principles are inherently theoretical: you start out with an ideal position, and try to match up reality to it. The Law of War, by contrast, is a description of what is positively given (or what is actual). TBC.