God and War

[greatcalgarian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3475359.stm

I have come across the above bbc program last year, and the article by Greg Austin et al is really worth reading whether you are pro-war or pro-peace.

The following article is really an eye opener, and I encourage everyone to read the entire article, a total of 42 pages on pdf format:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/04/war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf

I especially enjoyed reading III Violence in the name of God:

There are four main ways in which religious texts have been used to comment on war and the
use of violence for mass killing:
* Evangelical war
This is the war when one state (or one religious group within a state) decides that
its neighbours should either convert to its religion peacefully or be punished with
conquest or death for remaining loyal to another faith.
* Wars of conquest: glory of the state is the glory of God
This is the war where the state authorities, often backed by the hierarchy of the
dominant religion, see the destiny of the state as ordained by God and are willing
to perpetrate wars of conquest in order to advance state power, because gains in
state power and military victories are seen as a reflection of the glory of God.
* Just War: God permits violence for self-defence
This is the belief that some wars, at least, are right because they are perceived to
be in the interests of justice - and should therefore be fought according to just
rules.
* Wars of retaliation: God is vengeful
Belief in 'Holy War': the God of a religion is perceived to ask, or command, its
followers to make war on those who have committed some offence against the
religion.
These four categories really depend in the main on the idea that in some circumstances, God
and religion justify war. This is the ‘just war’ doctrine.

And we see Pope John Paul II stand on the war:

Pope John Paul II, the US Catholic
Bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and countless theologians from around the world
echoed similar conclusions that the US and UK argument to go to war against Iraq miserably
failed to meet the seven rigorous criteria of just war doctrine. These criteria are extremely
rigid especially when applied to a situation in which a nation-state seeks to exercise preemptive
warfare.

And what the west media has painted the wrong picture about Islamic teaching:

Islamic teaching on war and just war is not too different in its philosophical roots from that of
the Christian tradition, in that it provides for self-defence.
‘Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but aggress not. God loves not
aggressors. And slay them wherever you come upon them’ [Koran 2:190].
‘To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight] because they are
wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid’ [Koran 22:39]
The Islamic tradition provides for limits on the use of force in war similar to those found in
the Christian tradition: ‘Never transgress limits, or take your enemy by surprise or perfidy, or
inflict atrocities or mutilation, or kill infants’; and ‘Never kill a woman, a weak infant, or a
debilitated old person; nor burn palms, uproot trees, or pull down houses’. The Koran also
provides for the humane treatment of prisoners of war: ‘And they feed, for the love of God,
the indigent, the orphan, and the captive’ [Koran 76:8-9].

Do you agree with the general discussion in Dr. Austin article, especially regarding his analysis of why GB go into Iraq war, for cause of religious reasoning?

 

[michel]

Obviously, I haven't had time to read the pdf, but I agree with the contents of the other pieces you quoted.

 

[Sunstone]

I wonder how our invasion of Iraq fit any of the criteria for a just war?

 

[Popeyesays]

I wonder how our invasion of Iraq fit any of the criteria for a just war?

Righteous war in the Baha`i Faith is when a nation is invaded. All the other nations of the earth, under the Baha`i ideal, should come to the aid of the invaded nation. This will deter war, because no agressor can gain anything from it.

In this regard, the war to liberate kuwait was a "righteous" war, in my opinion. It meets the criteria and has the element of international cooperation to punish an agressor.

In my opinion the current war in Iraq does not fit that criteria. But Baha`i law requires me to obey the law of the land in which I reside, and to refrain from partisan political causes as they are as disruptive of attaining peace as a shooting war.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Darkdale]

I wonder how our invasion of Iraq fit any of the criteria for a just war?

I think the article was speaking strictly about the relationship between religion and war.

 

[A. Leaf]

I have always said a true soldier of God is : TO PROTECT AND TO LIBERATE THE INTELLIGENCE OF LIFE AGAINST THOSE WISHING TO DESTROY OR HINDER ITS DEVELOPMENT IS A SOLDIER OF GOD, BUT WILL USE ALL MEANS NECESSARY TO STAY ALIVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.
I believe in the four gospels Jesus actually said for soldiers to lay down their arms, and that was 2000 years ago

 

[A. Leaf]

But an Army trying to Protect and an Army trying to Liberate? Who can the winner be, who is on the side of the Intelligence of Life, I wonder?

 

[A. Leaf]

Can you have 2 Armys coming into conflict with each other using that philosophy, I know you can, it has happened close to home. It all depende on how far you want to go back in history to prove a point.

 

[A. Leaf]

depende=depends(sorry)

 

[greatcalgarian]

I think the article was speaking strictly about the relationship between religion and war.

Other than attempting to develop a correlation between religion and war, the article also discuss the 7 criterion to justify a war,to arrive at whether the war is moral or not, niz:

The jus ad bellum criteria include:
1 just cause
2 competent authority
3 comparative justice
4 right intention
5 last resort.17
Once engaged in warfare, the jus in bello criteria address:
6 probability of success
7 proportionality.18
If any one of the seven criteria is not fulfilled war cannot be justified and, therefore, any military action would be illegal and immoral.

If we accept the above critiria, then obviously GB Iraq war did not meet many of them, and hence most people would have reached the conclusion the Iraq war is not just.

On the other hand, the Kuwait case, though the reason for Iraq to invade in my humble opinion is also justified from historical point of view (Kuwait was created, and was a non-existing nation previously), so are the US and coalition to move in to protect their estabish interest there. Hence without moving all the way to Bagdad then made the involvement of US in Kuwait a morally just war.

 

[jobalexander]

Obviously, you can't believe that war is justified by God. The current war is a blatant effort to cause perpetual war. When the Iraq army is sufficient to police it's own boundaries, and strong enough to patrol it's own borders who do you think they're going to attack? The current administration is using bogus "facts" to stage a false war in order to build military bases in the middle east and as a way to always have a precedence to be involved with the pipeline in Iraq.

 

[robtex]

From a theistic point of view wouldn't divine guidance and faith trump religious reasoning? With a belief in a theistic God and divine intervention and guidance why should it matter, if there is
1) just cause (divine guidance trumps this right)
2) competent authority (divine guidance)
4) right intention (god's will, God works in mysterious ways)
5) last resort (divine intervention divine will)
6) probablity of success (which should be 100 % if one is doing the "work of God")
7) porportionality (divine guidance again)

 

[Scuba Pete]

The jus ad bellum criteria include:
1 just cause The premise was WMDs, but the reason was a combination of revenge, power grabbing and greed. Of course, the entire premise was FALSE.
2 competent authority Bwahahaha! No, make that BWAHAHAHAHA!
3 comparative justice Compared to what? Imperialism is BLIND to any justice!
4 right intention Again, the premise was absolutely WRONG!
5 last resort. This is what Congress passed and unfortunately, Shrub used war as his very FIRST option!

Once engaged in warfare, the jus in bello criteria address:
6 probability of success They have claimed victory and yet the fighting, killing and dying continue!
7 proportionality. The entire war has been an exercise in extremism.

If any one of the seven criteria is not fulfilled war cannot be justified and, therefore, any military action would be illegal and immoral.

 

[Darkdale]

Obviously, you can't believe that war is justified by God. The current war is a blatant effort to cause perpetual war. When the Iraq army is sufficient to police it's own boundaries, and strong enough to patrol it's own borders who do you think they're going to attack? The current administration is using bogus "facts" to stage a false war in order to build military bases in the middle east and as a way to always have a precedence to be involved with the pipeline in Iraq.

That's just crazy talk. The US has no interest in Iraqi oil. We do have an interest in changing the Arab World. Just as we fought to end Communism, we now fight to end Islamic-Socialism. It's necessary and just. The gods look after the courageous and abandon cowards. It's always been that way. But the gods don't justify wars. The Cause does.

 

[retrorich]

Good Christian Soldier
Kris Kristofferson

Not so long ago in Oklahoma the son of an Okie preacher knelt to pray
He said Lord I wanna be a Christian soldier just like you
And fight to build a new and better day
Now many years and miles from Oklahoma
That same young Okie boy still kneels to pray
But he don't pray to be no Christian soldier anymore
He just prays to make it through another day
Cause it's hard to be a Christian soldier when you tote a gun
And it hurts to have to watch a grown man cry
But we're playin' cards writin' home havin' lots of fun
Telling jokes and learning how to die

Now the things I've come to know seem so confusin'
It's gettin' hard to tell what's wrong from right
I can't separate the winners from the losers anymore
And I'm thinking of just giving up the fight
Cause it's hard to be a Christian soldier when you tote a gun
And it hurts to have to watch a grown man cry
But we're playin' cards writin' home ain't we haven'
Turning on and learning how to die

 

[michel]

The jus ad bellum criteria include:
1 just cause The premise was WMDs, but the reason was a combination of revenge, power grabbing and greed. Of course, the entire premise was FALSE.
2 competent authority Bwahahaha! No, make that BWAHAHAHAHA!
3 comparative justice Compared to what? Imperialism is BLIND to any justice!
4 right intention Again, the premise was absolutely WRONG!
5 last resort. This is what Congress passed and unfortunately, Shrub used war as his very FIRST option!

Once engaged in warfare, the jus in bello criteria address:
6 probability of success They have claimed victory and yet the fighting, killing and dying continue!
7 proportionality. The entire war has been an exercise in extremism.

If any one of the seven criteria is not fulfilled war cannot be justified and, therefore, any military action would be illegal and immoral.

Do I detect some cynicism ?
I would honestly argue about point 1. As I have said before, I am personally convinced that Blair went in for the right reasons.

2. Competent Authority ? - well as much as you will ever get from humans.
£. Comparative Justice ? - in an Ideal world yes, do we aim for ideal targets, or just accept bad will remain, and leave the world to rot ?

4. Right intention ? I believe some folk genuinely believed it was a duty to rid the World of a poisonous tyrant.
6. Probability of success; again, in idealogical thinking yes; add the human to the equation, no.

7. Proportionality. ? that is a hard one to reconcile...............

I think the whole subject revolves around a) what was in Bush's heart (and only he will know), but more frighteningly b) the value of interference in a third party political system, however bad it is. Go in and try to sort it out, and be damned. Leave it and ignore it and be damned. I think somehow the first option is the most honest.



BTW the tooth Fairy left me a coin 'cos I broke a tooth yesterday!!:woohoo:

 

[Arkangel]

That's just crazy talk. The US has no interest in Iraqi oil. We do have an interest in changing the Arab World. Just as we fought to end Communism, we now fight to end Islamic-Socialism. It's necessary and just. The gods look after the courageous and abandon cowards. It's always been that way. But the gods don't justify wars. The Cause does.

now who gave the US the right to change the Arab World. How would you like if someone tries to change your life and culture just because they think it is necessary and just. That is crazy.

Define courageous. Is somebody who kills another courageous or somebody who goes to war.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So Michel,

Why did Blair go in? Was it different than the US excuse?

Again, your country may have had competence in the top seat: we are not that fortunate!

 

[michel]

now who gave the US the right to change the Arab World. How would you like if someone tries to change your life and culture just because they think it is necessary and just. That is crazy.

Define courageous. Is somebody who kills another courageous or somebody who goes to war.

now who gave the US the right to change the Arab World

So, if you saw someone beating up a guy in the street, you would walk by ?

 

[greatcalgarian]

So Michel,

Why did Blair go in? Was it different than the US excuse?

Again, your country may have had competence in the top seat: we are not that fortunate!

If I am not mistaken, Michel thought that Blair believed sincerely that Sadam has WMD

But we all know that the Russian, the Chinese, the French, and the Germany were all getting (or going to get) a piece of cake of oil from Iraq, and there was nothing for UK and US. That is the true reason why US and UK went in to Iraq.:biglaugh: