Radical nun says answering her Christian calling landed her in prison

[bananas]

Source: Al Jazeera

Sister Megan Rice presses the palm of her hand against the glass in greeting, her blue eyes welcoming her visitor in a cell opposite hers. Lamps illuminate her oval face framed by cropped hair like a white halo. Her uniform — a green-striped jumpsuit, sneakers and a gray blanket that covers her slender shoulders — is not the norm for a Roman Catholic nun, but she sees her presence in Georgia's Irwin County Detention Center as answering her Christian calling.

<snip>

Breaking into a sensitive nuclear facility to stage a protest, the three activists were prepared for the worst. "We were very aware that we could have died," Rice said.

They were not killed but found themselves incarcerated. Now she spends her days answering letters from supporters and educating other detainees about the dangers of nuclear weapons — and the connections she draws between militarism and the poverty she believes has landed so many young women behind bars. Rice accuses the U.S. government of denying citizens such basic rights such as medical care and access to education because it invests so many billions of dollars in military equipment.

"Every day is a day to talk about it," she told Al Jazeera, raising her voice a bit to be heard through the glass wall that separates her from the outside world. "It's not time lost by any means."

Citing backgrounds of poverty from towns "where there are hardly any other options," she blames a capitalist economy for not investing more in social services available to the underclass and effortlessly connects nuclear weapons to the "prison-industrial complex." They're not bad people, she says of her fellow inmates, but were unfortunate enough to be born into a society that gave them few choices.

<snip>

Read more: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/12/15/no-room-for-radicalnuninpopefrancischurch.html

[bananas]

1. She faces sentencing on Jan. 28 - where is Pope Francis?

A little more from the article:

Occupy Church

Rice may see her actions as inspired by her faith, but she has had little support from within the Church establishment. Retired Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, a renowned peace activist, laments the Church's tepid stance on Rice's detention and nuclear weapons. Citing official doctrine that explicitly condemns the use of weapons of mass destruction as "a crime against God and man himself," he calls on colleagues to take up her cause as an exemplar of someone who stood up for what is right.

"They're supposed to be leaders on something like this. There hasn't been any kind of statement from Catholic bishops on what Megan has done," he said. To be frank, Gumbleton added, "in the official church, I have to say most people don't even know about her. And that's really sad."

Rice doesn't expect much from the establishment — not even from the new pope, whose recent pronouncements have raised many eyebrows. She isn't interested in institutions but swears instead by a grass-roots church. "The church is where the people are," she said. The church matters only "on a local level." She is skeptical of Pope Francis but feels encouraged by his choice of a less extravagant lifestyle than those of his predecessors, who she said had been living like "princes in their palaces."

Her order, the Society of the Holy Child Jesus, offered the lone voice of support from within the Catholic establishment.

[niyad]

13. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for francis to say, let alone do, something meaningful with

reference to this nun.

[1000words]

2. Actually, breaking into a nuclear facility landed her in prison

As it should.

Frankly, she might have better luck with the "Chewbacca defense."

[kristopher]

3. "As it should"?

You think her "crime" presented a threat?

A lot of people would balance the motive against the action and arrive at a conclusion dissimilar to your own.

[blackspade]

5. Exactly.

+1000

[1000words]

6. I agree with her cause ... even applaud her actions.

But she knew the risks, and now wants to adopt some kind of religious martyr status. No Sale.

[kristopher]

7. Really?

You don't come across as a person that respects peaceful civil disobedience and the legitimate role it plays in maintaining a well functioning democratic society. It sounds more like you are embracing authoritarian institutions that enforce the will of an industrial/militaristic economic order.

Maybe she should be flogged as an object lesson.

[1000words]

8. Nope. Just someone who has seen the inside of a jail cell ...

as a result of direct action protest.

I thought it through carefully, and understood that regardless of my principles or opinions, there is a price to be paid for breaking the law.

[kristopher]

9. What was it you wrote?

Oh, right.

"No Sale"

[1000words]

11. Two more words:

Don't Care.

[niyad]

15. maybe you should read the article before you make any more comments implying that she was

too stupid to know what the consequences of her actions would be. this is not the first time this 83 year old woman has done something like this, and she is well aware of what happens.

[Gore1FL]

18. He never said she was stupid.

He specifically did say "But she knew the risks."

The article implies to me the nun agrees with 1000words on that point.

[niyad]

19. I said "implied". and the whole tone of his response implied just that.

[Gore1FL]

20. I guess it's interpretation n/t

[jberryhill]

12. The point of civil disobedience is to be punished under the law

The dynamic of civil disobedience is to resist an unjust law by bearing the punishment for violating it and exposing the extent to which the oppressor will go in upholding it, and by so doing, to deprive the oppressor of moral legitimacy.

If she had broken into a women's health facility in order to protest abortion, out of a belief it was a moral wrong, what would be your opinion?

Do you support civil disobedience only in instances where you happen to share the moral and religious agenda of the persons engaging in it?

[kristopher]

21. Not always.

The idea that only the legal system is the target when someone engages in an act of civil disobedience isn't accurate. It is also a tool for drawing attention to institutionalized problems in the social system itself.

I also reject your attempt to equate a privately owned medical facility with a national military instillation. I (and most others I think) see a difference in the degree to which each is able to wield the weight of an oppressive authority; and it is to act as a counterbalance to that unrestrained power which forms the rationale and justification for civil disobedience.

As to your final 'question', since I'm a dedicated atheist I think it is safe to answer "no" to the last part, but certainly "yes" to the former.

[jberryhill]

23. Ah, so...

When environmental protestors attempt to disrupt a privately owned industrial facility, then you part ways with them?

Or, say, animal rights activists interfering with privately owned animal facilities?

[kristopher]

24. That's a simplistic deployment of legalistic parsing

But I'll play.

The military installation is obviously a different entity that any of the other three examples you've employed.
Military instillation
Abortion clinic
Unidentified industrial facility
Unspecified "animal facility"

My words:

It is also a tool for drawing attention to institutionalized problems in the social system itself. I also reject your attempt to equate a privately owned medical facility with a national military instillation. I (and most others I think) see a difference in the degree to which each is able to wield the weight of an oppressive authority; and it is to act as a counterbalance to that unrestrained power which forms the rationale and justification for civil disobedience.

Are your unidentified industrial or animal facilities "institutionalized problems in the social system"?
Do they enjoy a privileged status that allows them "to wield the weight of an oppressive authority" that immunizes them against backlash for violating the social contract?

And finally, is the protest violent or nonviolent? If nonviolent, is it merely a visual exercise like picketing, a disruptive exercise like blocking access or show of force exercise where intimidation is implied?

All of these factors, and probably more, go into determining my view of any given situation.

It might interest you to know that I had the opportunity to spend about 2 hours with the Sister back around 1991 discussing her activities. I actually had some rather sharp disagreements with her, but I was also left with absolutely no doubt of her sincerity, good intent and willingness to pay the price for her beliefs.

She is a remarkable woman.

[jberryhill]

25. Lots of people are sincere

Yes, to someone who - wrongly - equates abortion to murder or who subscribe to "meat is murder", then a facility which performs abortions or raises chickens is an institution which is legally protected to engage in oppression. In the case of abortion, it certainly "wields the weight of an oppressive authority that immunizes" it, in the view of such a person - it has Constitutional protection.

I disagree with such a person. Vehemently.

Why you bring up your experiences or the sincerity of this woman, I have no idea. I don't question her sincerity, the depth of her convictions, or anything else about her.

But I do not understand how you make an objective distinction between one set of people whose sincerely held moral convictions lead them to, for example, block the entrance to a weapon facility, another set of people who block the entrance to a government animal research laboratory, and another set of people who block the entrance to a stem cell research facility or women's health facility.

If these types of non-violent disruptive protests were legal, what would be the point of engaging in them?

Non-violent protest is a tactic. If a group of religious motivated high school students wants to hold a non-violent pray-in to disrupt a meeting of the gay-straight alliance, at their school, it's not a question of their "sincerity".

[kristopher]

26. What is the purpose of bringing abortion into this?

Or gay rights? Do protests against either of those share commonality with a protest at a nuclear weapons facility? Or are you simply trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant diversions?

The defense you are offering that the Constitutionally protected status of the abortion clinic is in any way similar to the power of the MIC isn't accepted.

As to sincerity, that was a personal observation and a relevant one IMO. It isn't the end all, but it distinguishes her from political opportunists that try to stir up people with transparently cheap arguments designed to play on bigotry and hatred.

[jberryhill]

27. Let's see if we can follow a line of discussion, shall we?

The nice thing about a forum like this is that lines of discussion are neatly organized by actual graphic lines that can be followed.

1. Someone said that she is imprisoned as she "should" be.

2. You questioned why she "should" be imprisoned.

The answer to that is pretty simple. The POINT of civil disobedience is to do something illegal, get arrested, and then appeal to a sense of "why is this person in jail for having a deep moral conviction of some kind?"

You seem to believe one of the two following propositions:

1. Moral convictions with which I disagree are invalid.

2. People who engage in civil disobedience in the furtherance of causes should not be penalized, if I agree with the cause.

We could simply abandon enforcement of laws so long as the violators had a sincere moral conviction for doing so. That would have two effects:

1. People whose moral convictions I find odious - racists, homophobes, and various religionists - would be as annoying as hell.

2. The entire dynamic of civil disobedience would have no meaning. Again, the moral force of civil disobedience arises from the unconscionability of punishing someone whose actions arise from a "just" cause.

What you seem to have is an unerring ability to distinguish what is "right and just" from things which aren't. What follows from this is a sense that, so long as someone's definition of "right and just" falls within whatever you have decided it to be, then they should be immune from objective application of the law. In other words, every "no trespassing" sign has an invisible asterisk to the footnote which says "unless your sincere moral convictions dictate otherwise."

[kristopher]

28. Sorry, but you're not following anything except your whims.

You seem to believe one of the two following propositions:

1. Moral convictions with which I disagree are invalid.

2. People who engage in civil disobedience in the furtherance of causes should not be penalized, if I agree with the cause.

We've established that there are a range of factors involved in judging the validity of civil disobedience so when you reduce that discussion to these two options, it is inaccurate and appears disingenuous.

The proper option would state that I believe my government has no business incarcerating an 82 year old woman who walks into a supposedly secure nuclear facility to engage in a nonviolent act of obstruction that causes minimal disruption to the welfare of any other human.

I further believe that people who see this as a societal 'good' (which 1000words clearly did) are forming their beliefs on the basis of values I do not share; and further, I think they should be challenged on the values underlying their judgement.

[jberryhill]

29. Here's what you said

"A lot of people would balance the motive against the action and arrive at a conclusion dissimilar to your own."

"A lot of people" can, and do, think any number of things. Some people think their moral imperatives put them above the law.

Alternatively, they could have said "sure, lady, come on it" and let her walk around as long as she felt like doing so.

But that wasn't really the point, now was it?

If you want to divide the world into "good people" and "bad people", that's fine. The problem is that your "bad people" actually think they are good people too.

[kristopher]

30. You're doing it again.

Last edited Tue Dec 17, 2013, 03:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your evidence; it is nothing but a statement of your own opinion and values.

An 82 yo nun was imprisoned for harmless civil disobedience against a war machine the likes of which the world has never known. That is, and you may quote me, "wrong".

When 1000words expressed approval of the imprisonment it was an expression of values I do indeed disapprove of.

You have gone a step further and tried to analogize her act to a movement that assassinates physicians in pursuit of a form of religious zealotry incited and exploited by political demagogues. Leaving aside for a moment the obviously odious nature of that attempt, let's look at the way it relates to the nature of the relative power demonstrated within your example.

How may people have gone to jail in the antiabortion movement for acts on the level of what the 82 y/o nun was engaged in?

To make the analogy even remotely similar you'll need to incorporate the fiction that the 82 y/o nun is part of a movement that has been promoting and abetting the assassination of key actors in the structure of the nuclear weapons systems - the best choice probably being bomber pilots, launch control officers in silos, or captians of nuclear equipped naval vessels.

If activity such as that surrounding the assassinations of abortion doctors were part of the picture for the activities against the nuclear facilities, how would the response by authority be similar and different from that which the antiabortion protestors were subject to?

Denying that society has norms that we use to characterize actions as bad and good isn't going to get you very far.

As for the "they believe they are good people too" reasoning goes, it is generally a statement I agree with; unfortunately however it applies equally to people whose behavior is considered absolutely reprehensible by 99.99999999999999 of the people.

I'm absolutely certain that the ranks of murderers, rapists, child molesters and all sorts of other monsters are filled with people who think they are "good people".

When provide an accounting of the acts involved I am able to recognize the difference between evil people who think they are good and good people who are displaying values I disagree with.

[Gore1FL]

17. Civil disobedience means she recognizes the disobedience and welcomes the punishment.

When the poster said "as it should," he is correct. We live in a society of laws. When they are broken there are consequences. Based on the article, the nun appears to agree.

[kristopher]

22. "She welcomes the punishment"?

She accepts that it is a necessary part of the process she is engaged in, yes.

"Welcomes" would hardly be the word I'd use to describe what is happening. And I don't believe her belief has even a hint of the obvious contempt that was present in 1000words posts.

[blackspade]

4. A brave woman sticking to her principles

The MSM is sweeping this under the rug, because no one would want to protest nuclear weapons or power....

[truthisfreedom]

10. I see a crime here. The crime of leaving a nuclear facility so poorly guarded that three civilians

could successfully break in. They should be rewarded for revealing this crime, not punished.

[niyad]

14. . . this. .

The activists decided to stage a protest to draw attention to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Defunct cameras and fences couldn't prevent the three elderly people from damaging what some call the country's Fort Knox of uranium, raising questions about how they might restrain professional thieves with less idealistic intentions. Some members of Congress even thanked Rice and her accomplices for bringing the Y-12 facility's security problems to the nation's attention — the latest in a series of nuclear security breaches in recent years.

[BlueJazz]

16. Wish she could plead not guilty and I could be on the jury. I would press for not guilty.

...because I don't believe she is guilty.