Paths to peace In a season of immenent war, some Mainers are taking steps to avert global violence

Editor’s Note: On this Christmas, when peace on Earth is the refrain, Bangor Daily News reporter Meg Haskell looks at ways some Maine people are responding at home to global events.

When thousands die in a horror such as the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, does it smack of cowardice – or worse – to advocate against retaliation?

If, as we’re told, Americans stand united in support of the war on terrorism, is dissent a form of subversion?

And, if you truly don’t know what to think in these untried circumstances, if you don’t have a better answer, isn’t it prudent to invest your confidence in the people elected to make decisions on your behalf?

Despite the absence of clear answers to questions such as these, Maine’s peace movement appears to be gaining momentum.

From Eastport to Kittery, west to Farmington, and in myriad communities farther flung than these, people are gathering to explore the broad implications of the war on terrorism and discuss meaningful alternatives to the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq and other “axis of evil” nations.

“A lot of people are very concerned,” says Tom Ewell, director of the Maine Council of Churches. “Letters to the editor are running strongly against military buildup. People are very worried about the way our leaders are building the case for world domination, and they’re worried about important civil liberties issues.”

Any movement needs leadership. In Maine, there are dozens of small-time organizers and grass-roots leaders, loosely tied together by an Internet grapevine. In part, this decentralization reflects the state’s rural character and has served it well, with its scattered population and the isolation of its towns.

Ewell suggests it may also reflect the cultural values of a new generation of protesters. In contrast with the more organized, hierarchical protests of the 1960s and early 1970s, he said, “This new movement is very anarchical. Our young people talk about ‘randomness’ as a positive value.”

Importantly, though, this scattershot structure has kept powerful, visible organizers from emerging from the ranks of Maine residents. The absence of outspoken mainstream leadership has kept many doubters and critics sidelined, their misgivings private.

Many of the most logical peace leaders – members of the Maine clergy – have been notably absent from these activities and discussions. At the national level, many U.S. denominations have issued statements in opposition to “preemptive,” unilateral action against Iraq (although some very conservative Christian groups have not).

But many individual ministers, although they may personally oppose a military buildup, hesitate to assume a leadership position in their community or to make the issue of war central to their current sermons.

Even though war runs counter to the teachings of all major religions, Ewell says, “You cannot assume that mainstream churches are attentive to moral issues. It’s just too controversial.”

This is largely, he speculates, because of sensitivities within their congregations and an unwillingness to either challenge or offend mainline patriots. In some cases, a minister may fear retaliation – a reprimand or worse – by church directors, or may be wary of violating the trust of his or her congregation.

But there are some notable exceptions within the clergy, as well as individuals and groups not involved in organized religion who oppose war and are assuming leadership roles within their communities. Some reject the long-held notion of a “just war” and hold fast to the Fifth Commandment. Some are convinced the Bush administration is borrowing trouble to suit its own agenda, such as U.S. control of oil supplies.

What ties them together is a commitment to bringing the peace action movement to the mainstream consciousness, to galvanizing what used to be called the power of the people.