|
|
Post by robin on Oct 20, 2008 13:33:37 GMT -8
First of all I would like to give two examples of the just war theory that I think make sense. CS Lewis said: "War should be a last resort, declared by lawful authority and conducted according to the natural moral law: It should be defensive, not imperialistic, and there should be limits to one’s war aims, a fair chance of success, no torture of prisoners, no slavery, full personal accountability for the acts of those engaged, no intentional ‘collateral damage,’ and mercy and reconciliation after the conflict ends."Wikipedia says: Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality. The fact that we even accept a just war theory indicates that war is not inherently evil, but rather is necessary in order for justice to be served under the right conditions. It's my opinion that war is the loving and compassionate under the right circumstance. We must face the fact that the world we live in is filled with people who don't share our concern for human life. We take for granted that life is valuable, and worth protecting but much of the world’s leaders doesn’t share these values and are all to willing to see there populations brutally slaughtered in order to achieve certain goals. Saddam Hussein was one of them. The whole world watched as innocent Iraqis starved to death, were murdered and killed by the 10s of thousands. Husbands and fathers had to watch their wives and daughters get raped and killed, many wives watch their husbands get killed in brutal disgusting fashion. Lets not forget the massive killing fields that were uncovered shortly after the invasion in 2003, where 100s of thousands of Shiites were murdered by the government of Iraq. I have seen the videos of the Kurds in northern Iraq where Saddam had unleashed his chemical and biological weapons killing thousands of men, women, and children. The same Chemical and biological weapons that Iraq never had  . For too long the world sat and watched, and some countries were complicate in the atrocities by scamming the Iraqis in the oil for food program. Finally President Bush said enough is enough. We could no longer allow Saddam to threaten us and, mistreat his own population. All the intelligence reports indicated that Saddam did possess WMDs, and had the capabilities to pass them on to a third part that could bring them inside the US in order to attack us. President Bush once again went back to the UN and had another resolution passed spelling out in no uncertain terms that this time we were serious, and if he did not comply with the international community, that the US with or without the UN's help would take military action in order to remove Saddam from power. Saddam continued with his tactics of deception and non-compliance. For 1-1/2 years we waited and gave Saddam time to come around. Had we not move on Iraq and take action to results would have been devastating. Sorry folks, I have to run for now. God bless, Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 20, 2008 18:28:30 GMT -8
Thanks, Robin. I think you selected some good synopses of just war theory. I've got thoughts on the subject but need to collect them.. which considering the craziness of these days might take some time  Just a couple indications of my thinking for now: 1) In general, I rationally agree with "just war" theory along these lines. I think some credit needs to be given to my man Augustine for developing these ideas. 2) However, I have unresolved tension between these ideas and Christ's "sermon on the mount" teachings, in conjunction with the question of whether there are different standards for individual Christians versus governments and where the line between the two can actually be drawn (if Christians for instance, are agents of the government)- and also how we should think about this as members of a representative democracy. 3) Of course one can accept these just war principles and still quibble about specific wars like the Iraq war. It's rarely a black and white case imo. But while I"m collecting the thoughts further, don't let that stop anyone else from jumping in. |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Oct 21, 2008 22:36:42 GMT -8
Thanks, Robin. I think you selected some good synopses of just war theory. True dat. I've got thoughts on the subject but need to collect them.. which considering the craziness of these days might take some time Me too. Saddam Hussein was one of them. The whole world watched as innocent Iraqis starved to death, were murdered and killed by the 10s of thousands. Husbands and fathers had to watch their wives and daughters get raped and killed, many wives watch their husbands get killed in brutal disgusting fashion. Lets not forget the massive killing fields that were uncovered shortly after the invasion in 2003, where 100s of thousands of Shiites were murdered by the government of Iraq. I have seen the videos of the Kurds in northern Iraq where Saddam had unleashed his chemical and biological weapons killing thousands of men, women, and children. The same Chemical and biological weapons that Iraq never had . For too long the world sat and watched, and some countries were complicate in the atrocities by scamming the Iraqis in the oil for food program. Finally President Bush said enough is enough. We could no longer allow Saddam to threaten us and, mistreat his own population. All the intelligence reports indicated that Saddam did possess WMDs, and had the capabilities to pass them on to a third part that could bring them inside the US in order to attack us. President Bush once again went back to the UN and had another resolution passed spelling out in no uncertain terms that this time we were serious, and if he did not comply with the international community, that the US with or without the UN's help would take military action in order to remove Saddam from power. Saddam continued with his tactics of deception and non-compliance. For 1-1/2 years we waited and gave Saddam time to come around. Had we not move on Iraq and take action to results would have been devastating. Agreed, about Saddam. Just wondering if you are using this as justification for the current Iraq war or just an example in general? Do yall think this should be discussed in general or using a particular war, specifically the obvious one, as an example? It may cloud our thinking a bit more doing the latter, but may prove more worthwhile...  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 22, 2008 7:30:22 GMT -8
Both.
I figured that the discussion would at some point find it way to the current wars we are engaged in, so I thought that I used Iraq as an example. However, the reason for starting this thread was to discuss Christianity and war in broader terms, and not just limited to Iraq.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 24, 2008 16:43:57 GMT -8
In preparing for more posts on this subject Ive been doing some reading and have found two main steams of thoughts in regards to the subject of war, and reconciling that with the sermon on the mount. One is the Anabaptist view that sees the sermon on the mount as instructive to all segments of the Christian's life. The second which was held by Martin Luther is called the two realm view, which sees the Sermon on the Mount addressing Christians personal lives, and specifically the spiritual realm. I plan to say allot more on this, but I thought I would mention these two views in case others wanted to look into it on their own. I must say that thus far the two realm view appears to take a greater and more in-depth look at all of the relevant scriptures to reach their conclusion, while the Anabaptist view looks only the the sermon on the mount to reach their conclusions. You can get a good understanding of these two theories by linking the article below. members.truevine.net/shadrach/war_serm.htmI look forward to this conversation. God bless, Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 24, 2008 20:42:55 GMT -8
In Phillip Yancey's The Jesus I Never Knew he considered both of these and other viewpoints on the Sermon on the Mount. I personally agree that intellectually/holistically Luther's position is more satisfactory, but Yancey argues that it was just this kind of dualistic thinking that helped pave the way for the Nazi state in Luther's Germany.
The danger of the "two realms" view is that while it encourages individual piety it can devolve into a very machiavellian or utilitarian ethical view of the state. And it can encourage invidividual Christians to be divided in their loyalties and scizophrenic in their approach to ethics.
Still, Paul himself seems to have some version of a "two realms" view in his statements that the state has been given certain powers by God (the power of the sword for instance). However, he wasn't envisioning a state in which Christians actually had influence, as we certainly have in western representative democracies. When that is the case, I think it's dangerous to draw a hard and fast line between the ethics of the sermon on the mount and how a government should act.
On the other hand, the Anabaptist, pacifist, other extreme (which represents my original faith tradition incidentally) does appeal to me in other ways- namely that the Church has often done best when it has been very detached from the state-- even at odds with it. Though I can't say I'm a pacifist I'm glad there are pacifists out there because they point strongly to a better world- a time when we will beat our swords into plowshares and show that even in the kingdom now, men will begin to no longer train for war, as the prophets predicted.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Oct 24, 2008 20:52:29 GMT -8
I agree with this 100%. I thank God for the Anabaptists, and other Christians who are pacifists. I certainly have my points of disagreement with them, but without a doubt I believe that the world is better because of them.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Nov 3, 2008 23:18:25 GMT -8
I agree w/ both of you also, and wouldn't consider myself a pacifist either. I can see myself becoming one though. The main problem I have w/ complete pacifism (as I understand it) is there are times when the innocent* need protection.
I see wars waged in the defense of a victim from it's abuser, in instances of genocide for example, as more just than wars of retaliation**, or wars to protect a nations self interest. I also am leaning towards being against the latter two altogether.
*In some situations how we decide and define innocence may be somewhat subjective or even skewed. This possibility of human corruption of judgement, I suppose, would be a reason to error on the side of non violence in all instances.
**There comes a point when not retaliating against continuous attack becomes a defense of the innocent. But retaliation for the sake of justice alone...I don't know? A little more sketchy IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 4, 2009 18:52:54 GMT -8
This convo stalled probably due to the complexity of the topic.
But I think what Nate said here is a good place to continue from.
Can you guys provide some concrete (historical or present-day) examples of times when "the innocent" need military protection? Then we can dissect the examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by meghan on Jan 4, 2009 21:08:51 GMT -8
CS Lewis is crazy. How can you require limits to war when the mere act of war is killing and destruction? Mercy and reconciliation afterward? that's like telling a kid that it's okay to fight, but that after he has to say sorry, and it will all be okay.
And as for a justified Iraq war... we all know that Iraq wasn't overtaken by the U.S. for humanitarian purposes. If that is that the U.S. sets out to do when they declare war, then where's the war on North Korea, where the people are suffering by the thousands? Where the entire country has been blown to pot?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 4, 2009 21:40:02 GMT -8
Well, Lewis is coming from the perspective that killing in warfare is not always a morally wrong decision (though it is always an evil result of the fall). This is also the perspective of most of the Old Testament as well, so Christians have to deal with it. The books of the Law prescribed God's limits to the kind of warfare the ancient Israelites were permitted to engage in. God differentiated in the past between just war and unjust war. This is very similar to the discussion we've had on the death penalty www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=ironsharpens&action=display&thread=1528If we are to take the whole of Scripture seriously, we have to take what the OT says about warfare into account. In order to find a good Christian grounding for pacifism, I think the Christian pacifist must not deny that God did permit and even command warfare in the past, but emphasize that Jesus came to show a way of peace beyond the basic rules of fairness and justice. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 5, 2009 7:31:46 GMT -8
Are you trying to bait me? I only have a moment, but the first to come to mind would be WWII where millions a Jews and other ethnic minorities were brutally murdered in concentration camps. Perhaps we can start there. Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 5, 2009 10:49:53 GMT -8
Yep (sorta) That's exactly where I'd hoped you would start  In some ways, it's a good place to start because WWII is often touted as the last good war, or one of the clearest examples of a just war. In some respects, I agree with this. But I think in discussing WWII we'll see how in many ways it wasn't such a black-and-white conflict* *Mo, I hope you'll join us for this one. Getting a modern German perspective on WWII would bring so much to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 5, 2009 20:51:00 GMT -8
So, Robin:
Which of the United States' military actions in World War II do you think were justified? Are there ones you think were not justified?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jan 6, 2009 6:32:32 GMT -8
*Mo, I hope you'll join us for this one. Getting a modern German perspective on WWII would bring so much to the discussion. Hm, many thoughts here. Where to start? I think that one of the first things that have to be considered is the nature of war. Meghan (I dig that name) has a point when she underlines that "mere act of war is killing and destruction". What people tend to forget easily is what war really is. Horror. John McCain said during his campaign that war should always be the very last alternative and though that's right, it appears to me that war, as a solution to problems, is much more accepted among the people, especially those who never experienced it (actively or passively). To me war implies evil. Even if it's not the intention, war brings out the beast in us. And WWII is a good example to show the full extent of it. Now I think you (Josh) absolutely have a point when you say that sometimes one finds himself in a situation where the only two alternatives imply evil (engaging into war or standing idly by while evil is occuring). I do think that ends can justify means under certain circumstances (I'm not bound by the implications of the sermon on the mount though). The problem is that war can't be seen as a single homogegeneous action or event. War is the umbrella term for a set of actions and interventions. The spheres that have to be considered reach from the individual action of every soldier or person involved, over the action of single segments of the army or the involved parties, to the overall purposes behind it. So what about WWII? I don't think there was any other way to stop Hitler than through force of arms. And I do think he had to be stopped (not only because he was committing a holocaust and aggressively invading neighbouring countries). From that angle the US operations in Europe were certainly justified. But as you said the story isn't just black and white. Engaging in war, as I tried to point out above, is engaging in evil. And although the victors of this war are annually celebrating their righteousness, a closer look will show that they also have innocent blood on their hands. The article Marcus posted in another thread scratches on the topic of the moral bombings of Dresden and Hamburg. Those operations, just to name one example, were directed not just at military targets or combatants, but also deliberately at civilians. The goal was not only to damage military infrastructure, but to break the moral of the people. No matter how much I can relate to hate towards Germans in that time (I'm not trying to switch the scapegoat), big parts of those operations were murder. It wasn't an intervention with a calculated and accepted number of civil colateral damage (which is bad enough), but directed precisely at the people. According to official statistic up to 25.000 civilians were killed in one night in Dresden, not to speak of Hamburg (inofficial sources speak of up to 300.000 killed people). Or take the Hiroshima bomb. And don't forget the several individual evils that have been committed on all sides (rape, torture, murder). So was WWII a just war? In many ways yes, in many ways no. More than the question of whether this was a just war or not, we should ask ourselves how to prevent such escalations which force one to engage in war.  PS: as a sidenote I'd like to add that according to the eyewitnesses I got to know, the postwar conduct of the Americans was by far the best of all occupying forces. My father thinks that's because unlike Russians, French and British, the Americans didn't experience German terror in their own territory. They had less motives for revenge and less reasons to hate the Germans. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 6, 2009 10:16:41 GMT -8
So, Robin: Which of the United States' military actions in World War II do you think were justified? Are there ones you think were not justified? I don't know if it is helpful to say "This action was justified, and this wasn't". The question that must be settled is, was the War just? I say unequivocally, yes. Who am I to judge the the individual actions and tactics employed by our soldiers. In order to do that I would have to assume that if I were in their shoes I would have made a morally superior decision. I have no confidence that I would have. Therefore the way I see it is like this. If we ask men to engage in battle for a cause that we deem worth, and Just, we must also allow a great amount of wiggle room for those men and women to accomplish their mission. Also in response to what Mo Wrote, in regards to the Dresden and Hamburg bombings. Perhaps the bombings were taken a too far, but I'm not sure if we can say that all civilians were innocent. Where were these same innocent Germans when the Nazis were killing Jews in concentration cams, in invading their neighbors? Yes there were some Germans who did not support the Nazis, but lets face it. Without the popular support of the public, Hitler could not have achieved what he had. There was blood on the hands of the civilian populations as well, and perhaps this is the price they paid for their sin. Lets keep in mind this was the War the Germen's chose, not America. As a side note, I tend to believe the same thing about our own civil war. Millions gave their lives, includes civilians in order to emancipate the slaves in the south. In order to right these types of wrongs, a price must be paid and sometimes that price is high. Also it must be noted that innocence is very hard to determine. Unless we are talking about children, of course. I also can't agree that war is evil, unless we are to say that it is a necessary evil*. Blanket statements like "War is evil" will put Christians in a difficult defensive position. God ordained war in order to judge nations and to correct wrongs, and I'm not ready to call Him evil. (see Matthew 24 & book of Revelation) I'm sure I didn't make any friends here, but his is how I see it. Also I don't mean any disrespect to Germans with my comments. I am perfect aware that Germans today have a great distaste for the the actions of there country during WWII. *Some wars are evil, but it does not follow that all wars are evil, or that all who engage in war are evil. Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 6, 2009 11:05:15 GMT -8
Mo wrote:
I agree. This is precisely why I think the discussion of "just war" is so difficult.
Conversely, though, I think perhaps in the final analysis, somewhat along the lines of what Robin is saying, some judgment may be made about a war in total.
Robin wrote:
Are you saying that we can't judge an action as immoral unless we're in the "shoes" of the person committing it? I find that idea problematic at the least. Then how could we condemn the actions of the Holocaust?
It's the wiggle room that turns a just cause into an unjust war often times.
Perhaps one could make an argument along these lines in general terms, but two factors temper this idea:
1) people who resisted the Nazis and Japanese governments died in these bombings
2) just because someone is guilty and maybe even deserving of death, doesn't mean that someone is justified in killing them. German "national guilt" doesn't equal a license to kill indiscriminately.
But, of course we are talking about children! And the elderly and the infirm, the resisters as well as the accomplices and every shade in between.
Deliberate civillian bombing was just a wrong choice point blank. The US stayed out of it for quite a while until the final stages of the war. They should have refused to the end.
I agree. There's a careful distinction I'm trying to make here and elsewhere. War is "evil" in that it is a result of the fall- just like death itself could be spoken of as evil. But in regards to morality, it can be neutral/justified in some cases.
|
|
. For too long the world sat and watched, and some countries were complicate in the atrocities by scamming the Iraqis in the oil for food program. Finally President Bush said enough is enough. We could no longer allow Saddam to threaten us and, mistreat his own population. All the intelligence reports indicated that Saddam did possess WMDs, and had the capabilities to pass them on to a third part that could bring them inside the US in order to attack us. President Bush once again went back to the UN and had another resolution passed spelling out in no uncertain terms that this time we were serious, and if he did not comply with the international community, that the US with or without the UN's help would take military action in order to remove Saddam from power. Saddam continued with his tactics of deception and non-compliance. For 1-1/2 years we waited and gave Saddam time to come around. Had we not move on Iraq and take action to results would have been devastating. 
