Posted on Jul 23, 2019
Despite legal setbacks, Plowshares 7 hold to religious freedom defense
940
3
4
1
1
0
Necessity.
Let's say the house across the street is on fire. You hear someone trapped inside, calling for help. The only way in to save that individual is to kick down the door, go inside, and pull them out.
"Necessity," under the law, means that should you kick down the door, you could argue you should not be charged with breaking and entering because force was required to prevent a greater evil. It was necessary, in this situation, to enter someone else's property without permission. It wasn't trespassing, wasn't a crime. It was a rescue operation.
Patrick O'Neill says that "necessity" is what drove him and six other Catholics to break into a naval submarine base in Kings Bay, Georgia, the night of April 4, 2018, and vandalize the military complex to protest the existence nuclear weapons.
The Catholic peace activists who refer to themselves as the "Kings Bay Plowshares 7" believe the prospect of nuclear war and the potential for annihilating humanity is only "a hair trigger away." O'Neill said that such conditions necessitated a dramatic, high-profile action to call attention to the dangers of nuclear weapons or, what he calls, "this evil."
Let's say the house across the street is on fire. You hear someone trapped inside, calling for help. The only way in to save that individual is to kick down the door, go inside, and pull them out.
"Necessity," under the law, means that should you kick down the door, you could argue you should not be charged with breaking and entering because force was required to prevent a greater evil. It was necessary, in this situation, to enter someone else's property without permission. It wasn't trespassing, wasn't a crime. It was a rescue operation.
Patrick O'Neill says that "necessity" is what drove him and six other Catholics to break into a naval submarine base in Kings Bay, Georgia, the night of April 4, 2018, and vandalize the military complex to protest the existence nuclear weapons.
The Catholic peace activists who refer to themselves as the "Kings Bay Plowshares 7" believe the prospect of nuclear war and the potential for annihilating humanity is only "a hair trigger away." O'Neill said that such conditions necessitated a dramatic, high-profile action to call attention to the dangers of nuclear weapons or, what he calls, "this evil."
Despite legal setbacks, Plowshares 7 hold to religious freedom defense
Posted from ncronline.org
Religion
Christianity
Nuclear
Protest
Kings Bay
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
Very interesting article share brother Chip. I'll have to ponder on this one.
(1)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth In the Catholic Faith there are quite a Few Different "Societies" Not Familiar with "Catholic Worker House" but it appears they are kinda taking up the Banner that that Mary Knoll Sisters used to. Mary Knoll sisters Used to Protest and Trespass the School of the Americas for Teaching "Warfare" to Central and South Americans and they had a Point since Many South and Central Right Wing Dictators did receive some sort of Training at the School of the Americas. In England I was Familiar with CND Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that used to carry out similar type protest and operations in the UK.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm going to potentially tick a whole lot of people off with my opinion on this...but here goes.
To begin, I'm not a big supporter of the "nuclear option" in the first place. As a historian and former officer, I understand the importance of the nuclear deterrent in preventing a first strike from another power. As an American, I realize that the "sword" can often be the "shield" that has protected far more good than any evil it has perpetuated. As long as our rivals have nuclear weaponry...it seems we must.
However, as a human being, I view any weapon capable of such wide-spread, indiscriminate destruction, as being horrific in its implications. I took my oath, and if I had been called upon to "push the button"...I assume I would have done so. Now that the possibility of that responsibility ever landing in my lap is (thankfully) nil...I'm willing to respectfully, and cautiously argue that we have (or should perhaps look for) other options.
That being said, speaking as a Christian...and one time devout Catholic, I disagree with this group's actions. Why? To begin with, they are futile acts. If I seriously wanted to oppose nuclear weapons on the grounds of my moral beliefs...I'd try putting myself in a position to influence the policies of how and when said weapons might be used. If I were intelligent enough to enter the arena of weapons development...perhaps there's an alternative means of deterrence or defense against the nuclear arsenals of our enemies. A policy maker or commander with a moral compass is perhaps a better control on unleashing this terrible force than a few pints of animal blood.
I don't think they should have the "book" thrown at them...though penalties are in order. At the end of the day, I don't see a band of activists making it to a silo, and bringing down the arsenal. They aren't terrorists, or even particularly menacing hooligans. The fact that people can do this in our nation and not be shot on sight says a great deal about our relative freedoms and protection under law...things the nuclear arsenal is presumably a part of defending.
To begin, I'm not a big supporter of the "nuclear option" in the first place. As a historian and former officer, I understand the importance of the nuclear deterrent in preventing a first strike from another power. As an American, I realize that the "sword" can often be the "shield" that has protected far more good than any evil it has perpetuated. As long as our rivals have nuclear weaponry...it seems we must.
However, as a human being, I view any weapon capable of such wide-spread, indiscriminate destruction, as being horrific in its implications. I took my oath, and if I had been called upon to "push the button"...I assume I would have done so. Now that the possibility of that responsibility ever landing in my lap is (thankfully) nil...I'm willing to respectfully, and cautiously argue that we have (or should perhaps look for) other options.
That being said, speaking as a Christian...and one time devout Catholic, I disagree with this group's actions. Why? To begin with, they are futile acts. If I seriously wanted to oppose nuclear weapons on the grounds of my moral beliefs...I'd try putting myself in a position to influence the policies of how and when said weapons might be used. If I were intelligent enough to enter the arena of weapons development...perhaps there's an alternative means of deterrence or defense against the nuclear arsenals of our enemies. A policy maker or commander with a moral compass is perhaps a better control on unleashing this terrible force than a few pints of animal blood.
I don't think they should have the "book" thrown at them...though penalties are in order. At the end of the day, I don't see a band of activists making it to a silo, and bringing down the arsenal. They aren't terrorists, or even particularly menacing hooligans. The fact that people can do this in our nation and not be shot on sight says a great deal about our relative freedoms and protection under law...things the nuclear arsenal is presumably a part of defending.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google