Comments on: Deborah Froese in the Mennonite Church of Canada Newsletter http://www.departmentofpeace.ca/2010/05/deborah-froese-in-the-mennonite-church-of-canada-newsletter/ News from the Campaign to Establish a Canadian Department of Peace Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:13:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Phillip Bowman http://www.departmentofpeace.ca/2010/05/deborah-froese-in-the-mennonite-church-of-canada-newsletter/comment-page-1/#comment-55725 Phillip Bowman Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:51:44 +0000 http://www.departmentofpeace.ca/?p=336#comment-55725 Good and True Idea Whose time has come! PgB.5 Good and True Idea Whose time has come! PgB.5

]]> By: Eldo Neufeld http://www.departmentofpeace.ca/2010/05/deborah-froese-in-the-mennonite-church-of-canada-newsletter/comment-page-1/#comment-51689 Eldo Neufeld Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:32:36 +0000 http://www.departmentofpeace.ca/?p=336#comment-51689 A change of thinking is all that is required: not my way, but the way of the welfare of all people is all that is required. A change of thinking is all that is required: not my way, but the way of the welfare of all people is all that is required.

]]> By: Eldo Neufeld http://www.departmentofpeace.ca/2010/05/deborah-froese-in-the-mennonite-church-of-canada-newsletter/comment-page-1/#comment-51688 Eldo Neufeld Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:29:38 +0000 http://www.departmentofpeace.ca/?p=336#comment-51688 What is required on the part of everyone is a change of thinking. If we can accept that problems in the world can be solved with just a little forbearance on our own part and not pursuing only our own advantages and benefits, that change of thinking can take place. What is required on the part of everyone is a change of thinking. If we can accept that problems in the world can be solved with just a little forbearance on our own part and not pursuing only our own advantages and benefits, that change of thinking can take place.

]]> By: Gordon Witt http://www.departmentofpeace.ca/2010/05/deborah-froese-in-the-mennonite-church-of-canada-newsletter/comment-page-1/#comment-47602 Gordon Witt Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:48:49 +0000 http://www.departmentofpeace.ca/?p=336#comment-47602 Ms. Froese, turn your thoughts to Solomon being faced with the choice of determining which of two women was the actual mother of a disputed child. Then draw the modern (post 1949, the advent of the nuclear age) parallel and ask yourself how the subsequent conflicts and globe-threatening nuclear proliferation could have been avoided. The two nations which parented the Cold War chose to have ever more nuclear progeny (atomic arms) rather than agreeing to look for a more rational and just alternative. Given the wisdom of Solomon, the leaders of those nuclear nations could have chosen to adopt the nuclear progeny of each other. Or, to use a diffent metaphor, each could have chosen to "baby sit" one or more nuclear children of the other rather than compete and threaten to destroy the globe. Think about it Ms. Froese; the Golden Rule would have prevailed precisely because a doctrine of mutually asssured destruction would have been an obvious non-starter in the minds of both leaders and citizens alike. Voluntary reciprocal atomic sites would ensure that no number or kinds of hidden, hardened, space-based, or 'next generation' weaponry would be of any use to either foe. Nor would the breeding or acceptance/sponsorship/exporting of terrorism be an acceptable risk - unlike the politics we find ourselves embroiled in today. This was the alternative my late spouse envisioned and one which should be championed by the Mennonite community and all communities, in my opinion. And if you don't think so, why not? Ms. Froese, turn your thoughts to Solomon being faced with the choice of determining which of two women was the actual mother of a disputed child.
Then draw the modern (post 1949, the advent of the nuclear age) parallel and ask yourself how the subsequent conflicts and globe-threatening nuclear proliferation could have been avoided. The two nations which parented the Cold War chose to have ever more nuclear progeny (atomic arms) rather than agreeing to look for a more rational and just alternative.

Given the wisdom of Solomon, the leaders of those nuclear nations could have chosen to adopt the nuclear progeny of each other. Or, to use a diffent metaphor, each could have chosen to “baby sit” one or more nuclear children of the other rather than compete and threaten to destroy the globe.

Think about it Ms. Froese; the Golden Rule would have prevailed precisely because a doctrine of mutually asssured destruction would have been an obvious non-starter in the minds of both leaders and citizens alike. Voluntary reciprocal atomic sites would ensure that no number or kinds of hidden, hardened, space-based, or ‘next generation’ weaponry would be of any use to either foe. Nor would the breeding or acceptance/sponsorship/exporting of terrorism be an acceptable risk – unlike the politics we find ourselves embroiled in today.

This was the alternative my late spouse envisioned and one which should be championed by the Mennonite community and all communities, in my opinion. And if you don’t think so, why not?

]]>