The War Prayer by Mark Twain

Something to keep in mind during this time of flag waving and drum beating... something to give us pause and reflect.

The War Prayer

by Mark Twain

It was a time of great and exalting excitement.

The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and sputtering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spreads of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.

It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came – next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their faces alight with material dreams – visions of a stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! – then home from the war, bronzed heros, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation – "God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!"

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory.

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting.

With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal," Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside – which the startled minister did – and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said

"I come from the Throne – bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd and grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import – that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of – except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two – one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of His Who hearth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this – keep it in mind. If you beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer – the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God to put into words the other part of it – that part which the pastor, and also you in your hearts, fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory – must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause)

"Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits."

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

An essay that appears to be (at best) a C- ethics paper.

I recently saw a news article on Facebook’s Newsfeed that was shared by another user.   Perhaps you’ve seen this article:  It concerned a South American man who turned himself into police for enabling the rape of his 1 year old son.   The article focused on how he was raped in prison by 20 inmates, sent to the hospital to be “stitched up” and then returned to the prison to be raped again, presumably by the same 20 prisoners.   The article contained a photograph of the man with numerous bandages covering his back and what appeared to be excessive blood stains on the seat of his pants.   I was not the least bit surprised to see that the article had thousands of “likes” and many comments stating that the man got what he deserved, that whatever punishment and degradation he endured was justifiable, compatible with his crime and in fact, how he deserved far worse.   

I cannot debate this viewpoint, because I am not sure that I disagree with it.   Any crime against a child is reprehensible so it is natural that these crimes evoke our deepest and basest emotions.  Even in our civilized society, when a crime involves a child, especially if the crime is of a sexual nature, then our view of justice goes beyond incarceration for the guilty party.  We not only applaud the vigilante justice meted out by violent criminals (prison inmates), we demand it and expect it, since jailhouse retribution for child molestation is a widely accepted form of punishment.  Again, I cannot debate the reaction many of us feel over events like this, but it still gives me pause, causing me to question why we react in this fashion to these types of crimes.

In this specific case, it should be noted that the man turned himself in to the authorities.   It is pure speculation as to what motivated him to do so but for all we know, it might have been guilt that drove him to surrender.   It should also be emphasised that he did not rape his own son, but enabled the rape to occur (much in the same way the guards and prison staff enabled the man to be repeatedly raped by his fellow inmates).   The article does not specify why the man allowed someone else to rape his son, but we can speculate that there had to be extenuating (but not necessarily justifiable) factors involved.  So, by indulging in purely speculative theorizing, we can construct a scenario where a penitent man, wracked with guilt, turns himself in to police and once incarcerated is tortured and violated by 20 criminals.   Regardless of how we feel about this man or what he did to “earn” that torture, we must refer to him as a victim himself.  So now the victim is so badly hurt that he must be sent to the hospital to have his wounds stitched together and upon his return is then raped 20 more times.   I would ask that just for a moment you consider this scenario, altered only slightly by speculation, and then in turn ask yourself, “Was justice served?”

You may at this point reply with a resounding affirmative and, as illustrated by the comments already made, say that he deserved worse.   In many cases, there has been a large public outcry for mandatory castration and/or sterilization for convicted child molesters.   Others have asked for the death penalty for these offenders.   In this specific case, I can safely say that such punishments are not justice.  As much as we wish to invoke Old Testament retribution when it comes to crimes against children, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth do not apply here.  Unless murder has been committed, death should not be the punishment.  So, to take the argument to its conclusion, if someone rapes, they should be raped in turn.   In the eyes of justice, that would serve.   But is justice the end goal?   Obviously not, since in the case of the man in the news article, he did not rape his son, but the overwhelming reaction is that he deserved to be raped and tortured.  So if it is not justice that we seek, what is it then?   

It might be argued that what we want is revenge.  Even though we have not been harmed, it is easy enough to imagine someone hurting our own child and since we can easily relate to the crime, our bloodthirstiness is awakened.   We applaud cruelty, torture, brutality and obviously even rape as justifiable actions.   We say that if a child is harmed, the perpetrator should be punished ten, twenty or forty fold.  Then, we add castration or murder and some don’t end there either.  Those of a certain religious bent assume the White Throne and condemn the accused to eternal perdition (more cruelty, torture, brutality, etc. unceasingly until the end of time.)  

     

Again, I am only questioning our behavior, not debating the rightness or wrongness of it.   In my defence, I must say that I believe it is worth questioning.   Our actions and thoughts and feelings when it comes to the treatment of wrong doers should be examined because we are members of a civilized society.   So, being civil minded, we know that no matter how much a child molester is raped and brutalized in prison, this has not been shown to be a deterrent.   So since it is not a deterrent and it is not justice, it could be simply an allowance to our baser natures to act out.    Since we must live lawfully, civilly, appropriately, within the bounds of society, perhaps our lust for violence is given an appropriate outlet (against those that hurt children).   After all, we allow the punishment to be handled by murderers, thieves, violent assaulters (and other rapists).  Do we imagine the prison inmates rape and brutalize child molesters because they all share a great love and protective, nurturing spirit toward children?  That they do this because it is their civic duty? 

Or perhaps they mete out their punishment because it is allowed and expected of them.   It’s a free pass to commit violence.   Maybe the same scenario applies to us when we applaud those actions.  We can inflict pain and punishment vicariously (as well as laudably).  Of course it is not without reason to suspect that inmates, no matter what their crimes (or their criminal natures) share the same feelings of vengeance and violence as we do, but are simply in a position where they can exact their actions on the victim.  

Qualities such as forgiveness, mercy, compassion and love do not enter the equation.  We accuse the guilty and excuse ourselves for abandoning the above aspects of our natures because it involves the harming of a child.   I don’t think we would ever view those emotions/actions as being the “weaker” or “lesser” qualities, but still, they seem to have no place when it comes to our wrathful natures against those that hurt children.  It is the unpardonable sin, the unforgiveable crime and the immutable line in the sand that cannot be crossed without the direst of consequences.  If it concerns our children, all bets are off.  Or should that really be the case? 

I think we can all agree that pedophilia or any kind of propensity that lends itself to harming a child is an unnatural aberration.   A normal, healthy person does not intentionally harm children.  Accepting this, we must recognize that we are dealing with a sickness and our focus should be on treatment, along with (rather than “instead of”) punishment.  I think that both retribution and rehabilitation must go hand in hand.  

One may argue that because I myself do not have children that I cannot relate to the issue at hand or be in any position to offer my own opinion.  I believe this to be a facile argument and a knee jerk rebuke.   I do not have children, but I was once one so I can certainly relate to the helplessness and innocence of a child.  To a much lesser degree, I don’t own a cat but I am still vehemently opposed to their mistreatment.   Empirical experience is not required in order to take a side, much more so to simply question why we stand where we do in regards to the retribution faced by child molesters.  Perhaps in so doing, we may end up changing our reactions and end up changing the behaviors of child molesters by recognizing the sickness before a crime has been commitment.   Another supposition may be that if the stigma of the crime is altered to that of a sickness, then those requiring treatment would be more apt to step forward rather than face the vilification in confessing to having those unnatural and disgusting desires.  I suppose the final questions is can we imagine ourselves evolving to the point where our higher natures govern not only our actions, but also our reactions when it comes to crimes against children?