IF ONE OF THE MOTIVES behind the initiation of the Star Wars weapons program was to divert the thrust of the U.S. peace movement, then the program must be considered at least a partial success.
As indicated by public opinion polls, the significant opposition that was evident shortly after Star Wars was announced has now faded. Recent polls even show the program steadily gaining public support. Ironically, public support began to increase after the aborted disarmament showdown at Reykjavik. With the reality and expense of a new arms race so apparently distant, the U.S. public is, at the moment, choosing to believe the president's dream.
Support for peace movement initiatives such as a nuclear freeze has always been broad but shallow, and that vague anti-nuclear sentiment has yet to translate into an anti-Star Wars constituency. Building that kind of constituency will require the mobilization of a morally rooted and politically determined movement of conscience working on every possible level, including congressional letter-writing, lobbying, and electioneering; boycotts, divestment, and other forms of non-cooperation; and more active forms of nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience.
The first stirrings of such a movement can already be discerned in the highly publicized actions of scientists who are refusing to accept Star Wars research contracts and grants. The scientists' non-cooperation has called into question the feasibility of the president's dream. Their opposition, based on an assessment of the technological possibilities, is stated in the "Anti-SDI Pledge": "The program is a step toward the type of weapons and strategy likely to trigger a nuclear holocaust."
The idea for a scientific boycott originated independently at both the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Cornell University and was organized in 1985 by United Campuses Against Nuclear War. Nearly 7,000 university scientists and researchers have signed the Anti-SDI Pledge, including 57 percent of the faculty in the top 20 physics departments in the country and 15 Nobel prize winners in physics and chemistry. In addition to its challenge to Star Wars, the boycott also challenges those who are not scientists to "not support this deeply misguided and dangerous program."
WHILE THE SCIENTISTS have been focusing on the technology, churches and church leaders have begun to explore the moral ramifications of Star Wars. Religious leadership has been crucial to the peace movement, but in the case of Star Wars, it is the Religious Right which has been especially vocal.
The most outspoken advocate for the morality of Star Wars is, of course, the president himself. But echoing his themes is an ad hoc group which includes televangelists Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jim Bakker, as well as Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ. This group formed the Religious Coalition for a Moral Defense Policy, which has stated that Star Wars "offers the real prospect of providing a morally and perhaps also militarily superior policy."
Also in 1985 a very different group of church leaders - including Coretta Scott King, Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton of Detroit, Avery Post of the United Church of Christ, Haviland Houston of the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, Joseph Lowery of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Rabbi Alexander Schindler of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and Jim Wallis of Sojourners - signed a statement declaring that they have no faith in Star Wars. They pointed out that projections on the cost of Star Wars would mean spending more than $4,000 for every woman, man, and child in the United States. They said that the choice presented by Star Wars is the same choice the Israelites faced as they entered the promised land - the choice of life or death.
Other statements from religious bodies, including the United Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, the Church of the Brethren, the Reformed Church in America, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the American Jewish Congress, along with Church Women United and the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section, have strongly denounced the immorality of Star Wars (see "Church Opposition to Star Wars").
This redefining of the moral terms is exceptionally important to the Star Wars debate. But the religious community has just begun to take the next step and search out its moral equivalent to the scientists' vow of non-cooperation.
Building on the success of church-based campaigns against apartheid in South Africa and infant formula abuses in the Third World, shareholder resolutions and boycotts are emerging as tactics that are exerting moral and financial pressure on corporations involved in the development of Star Wars. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, as it did in the early days of the anti-apartheid movement, has been filing shareholder resolutions at annual meetings of corporations involved in Star Wars development and research. Seven such resolutions have been filed this year with well-known military contractors such as McDonnell Douglas, United Technologies, Ford Motor Company, and General Electric. Less well known contractors involved in Star Wars work, such as AT&T, BDM International, and Raytheon, will also have resolutions discussed at their annual meetings.
INFACT, which waged a successful international campaign against the Nestle corporation, is spearheading a boycott of General Electric products. The campaign began in 1986 with a focus on GE's extensive nuclear weapons work. GE is the 10th largest Star Wars contractor and thus a logical target for focusing opposition to space weapons as well.
AS OPPOSITION TO STAR WARS intensifies, the argument will again be heard that we need to let U.S. technology "work its wonders" and that such matters should be left to the "experts." Addressing this concern in their pastoral letter In Defense of Creation, the United Methodist bishops assert that "the moral and political dimensions of this new quest for nuclear defenses are understandable to non-experts and must be made understandable for our church people." It is necessary to reassert the democratic role of citizen participation in forming national policy. This involvement will include traditional forms of lobbying and politicking, but it should not focus solely on elections.
Opposition to Star Wars must begin at the stage where the framework of the debate is formed.
Discussions of Star Wars can and should take place in Sunday school classes, civic organizations, and union halls across the country. Issues of reconciliation between the United States and the Soviet Union need to be preached from the pulpit and placed on the agendas of all church gatherings. As with the issues of Central America and South Africa, government officials need to know that they are faced with a determined and well-informed constituency.
Possessing clear moral arguments and a compelling vision of reconciliation will not be enough to stop Star Wars. A third component - intensive political pressure - has to be applied. Countless local peace groups have formed over the past years. Many of them are not as active or focused as they once were, but when revitalized, they will play a key role in changing policy on Star Wars.
Some of the denominational offices in Washington, D.C., have begun lobbying against Star Wars. Lobby days and careful tracking of congressional votes on crucial pieces of legislation will be important tools. However, from our past successes and failures, we have learned that complete reliance on our elected officials will result in a few people making compromises that are unacceptable to the majority of people who are opposed to Star Wars. To ensure that this does not happen, broader actions need to be implemented.
Questions about church investments in military-contracting companies will need to be raised at local church board meetings and at the denominational level. If boards and general meetings are as unresponsive as they have been on issues of divestment of funds from corporations working in South Africa, then visible public actions will need to be used to expose their participation in perpetuating the arms race. It is important to give close scrutiny to church-related universities to see if any are involved in Star Wars-related research.
In the end, however, to turn around Star Wars and begin building on a vision of peace and democracy throughout the world, we as individuals and as a church community must refuse to cooperate with the plans to develop Star Wars. Opposition will require our refusal to pay for this system and our willingness to pay the price for that opposition.
To help build pressure for change, churches need to organize demonstrations and vigils at local offices and production facilities of corporations involved in Star Wars work. These actions will need to be more than one-time-only demonstrations, but rather nonviolent campaigns that focus on public education, gaining media attention, building coalitions, and developing relationships with employees. Information on Star Wars facilities, though difficult to track, is available from the Pentagon Audit Project of NARMIC, an organization affiliated with the American Friends Service Committee (see "Resources on Star Wars").
In every successful social change movement in U.S. history, from abolitionism and women's suffrage to the civil rights movement, nonviolent direct action has played a pivotal role. And people of faith have always been at the forefront of the kind of costly nonviolent action and civil disobedience that can move the conscience of the nation. That kind of action will again be required to make Star Wars "an issue of widespread public concern. Such action requires a firm foundation in the history, theory, and theology of nonviolence and the spiritual and practical support of committed faith communities.
IN THE PAST DECADE, concerted campaigns of conscience around the issues of nuclear war, Central America, South Africa, and the abandonment of the poor have made the moral force of churches and people of faith a significant factor in U.S. policy-making. The voices of the Catholic and United Methodist bishops and other church leaders, along with the grassroots actions of Christians across the country, have helped influence public debate and public policy. The same thing can happen with Star Wars.
Beginning with the broad spectrum of faith-based activity, a realization among the public and the policy-makers that the churches will not sit by and let Star Wars be deployed can begin to grow. We need to redefine the debate and help people take control of our country's policies.
We also need to show that we as Christians can address the needs of society and have the obligation to apply our faith to questions that have enormous impact on the daily lives of individuals and nations. Action strategies aside, our ultimate strategy is that of proclaiming the good news of repentance and salvation to a world threatened by all manner of sin and death.
Michael Verchot was on the staff of Sojourners Peace Ministry and was a member of Sojourners Community at the time this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!