Religion and war...

[andrew_carter]

Some thoughts - let's please make sure we keep this as a respectful thread because it has the potential of getting rather ugly...

Something that has bothered me (or at least interested me) for years is how, for example, the American president (and Australian prime minister, etc, etc.) will claim to be a devout Christian, then go and start wars knowing all too well that they will lead in the unneccessary death of a whole stack of people, and that their religion strictly prohibits killing people. And then at least half of their country (many of whom are religious) will support them.

In the books and writings of the other main religions is there anything that prohibits killing people? It would be interesting to know which have these rules and which don't.

On Remembrance Day I do spend that minute of silence thinking quite deeply about the past soldiers who 'fought for my country', but I don't 'appreciate' what they've done. So many people are so moved by the deaths of these 'innocent young men', but never seem to understand that they have murdered other 'innocent young men' who are in turn being mourned somewhere on the other side of the world. So I spend a minute on Remembrance Day thinking how horrible it is that they have died, but I can never bring myself to thank them for it. I realise this is a very touchy subject. I'm also very curious though as to whether or not anybody feels the same way. Like most of us, I have distant relatives who have died in wars. I think it's awful that they have died this way, and I know that most of them were kind, caring people. That's why I find it so difficult to understand what they were thinking when they went off to kill much the same types of people from the other side of the world. I hate to think how few of them really stopped to think what they were fighting for and whether or not they, as individuals, agreed with the beliefs of the men in power. I understand that conscription was sometimes an issue, but I know for sure that I would rather spend my life in prison than kill somebody, much less kill somebody I've never met before because somebody I've never met before told me it's the right thing to do...and there are few things I'd like less than to spend my life in prison! Am I the only one here who thinks this way? Please know that I mean no disrespect to the opposing views and the soldiers who have died. I'd really like to understand this whole thing better though.

Let's keep this civilised, please.

Andrew

[Catboy]

I just thought I should post this.

Christianity and war
The basic assumption of modern Christians is that war is rarely justified and should be avoided unless the Just War conditions are met.

An individual Christian may believe that the standard of evidence and argument required for them to support a war is higher than the standard of evidence that national leaders may require to go to war.

Christianity is no longer (if it ever was) wholly against war. Some say that modern Christianity has a 'presumption against war', but others say that it has a 'presumption against injustice' - and the bias against war comes from the injustice that war can do.

This view says that the aim of Christianity is to promote a world in which peace and justice flourish everywhere: war may sometimes be the tool needed to do this, and waging war may sometimes be a lesser evil (a lesser injustice) than allowing injustice to persist or tolerating the victimisation of innocent people.

Pacifism
Christians have a long history of refusing to take part in war. Many Christians are pacifists of various types. These range from peace activists, to those who need a great deal to convince them that war is justified.

The Christian argument for pacifism is based partly on Jesus's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount and other places, and in the example that Jesus sets Christians through his life.

* Those who argue against this say that Christ's pacifist nature and behaviour were part of his unique role as redeemer of humanity. Christians are not redeemers and so their conduct should follow Christ by seeking to bring peace and justice to the world even if this means not always turning the other cheek.

Christian groups that emphasise pacifism include:

* Mennonites: a church that grew out of the Protestant Reformation in Europe in the early 1500s.

Mennonites believe Christ's injunction to "love your enemies" prevents them from participating in any way in military action against another country.


* Quakers (or The Religious Society of Friends): a Christian group with a total commitment to non-violence.

In 1660 the Quakers declared "...the spirit of Christ which leads us into all Truth will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of the world."

Historical note
The Christian view of war has changed throughout the history of the faith.

The early church (the first 300 years) was strongly pacifist. Origen said that Christians "do not go forth as soldiers". Tertullian wrote "only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword." Clement of Alexandria wrote "...he who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God."

This changed rapidly in the time of Constantine - the Council of Arles in 314 said that to forbid "the state the right to go to war was to condemn it to extinction", and shortly after that Christian philosophers began to formulate the doctrine of the Just War. (Read more about the history of this doctrine)

For many centuries Christians believed that it was right and proper to use violence (and thus war) to spread the faith and deal with its opponents. They did not regard violence as an inherently bad thing: whether it was bad or not depended on what it was being used for.

This thinking is covered under holy wars - the main examples of which, for Christians, are the Crusades.

From Constantine onwards Christian writers and preachers have used warlike and soldierly metaphors in their writing about the faith.

The idea that violence is not inherently bad can also be seen in some versions of the Just War doctrine - violence (war) can be a vital tool in restoring justice and peace.

NOTE!!! I personally do not endorse the views expressed in the passage. I am merely a bystander who felt this should be posted for educational value and merit of discussion.

[andrew_carter]

Wow, thanks a lot for all that. I guess it's probably clear by now that I have a very limited knowledge of history in general.

I think it's a real shame that so many Christians adjust their religion to suit their lifestyle. Wait, that came out wrong...this is assuming that they have already given adequate consideration to what religion they want to follow according to their most basic moral feelings. I'm saying that once they have made this decision they are going and taking a hell of a lot of liberty in their chosen religion.

I dread the day when Christians honestly believe it's right to go to war, provided they're carrying guns and not swords.

Thanks for all the interesting info. I guess I should probably point out that I am a Christian. But I'm not of any denomination, haven't been baptised, and don't go to church (although I'm not sure about this last one). I really don't feel that it's right to say you're a certain 'type' of Christian (Catholic, and what not)...I definitely have much less respect for 'the church' than most others. Not killing people is far more important to me than meeting once a week of whatever it might be to 'prove' my faith. I have a lot of respect for pacifists.

Andrew

[kristine]

humm. Im not religious so I choose not to comment on that since I know nothing about it.

But...from history class, I have figured out that some wars, people were basically forced to fight... I guess. I know the French Canadians when Canada fell into English rule, would not sign a oath of allegiance because they did not want to be conscripted to fight against the French (their ancestors). And because conscription would mean that they would be forced basically... I think. And, so a lot of other things happened... and then the french canadians were deported because they would nto take the oath, and the english could not trust them.

So, I know nothing basically, thats what university history gets you. Anywho-I just wanted to point out that some of the soilders you are remembering were probably conscripted to fight. I assume conscription happened in places other than Canada, however I''m 100 percent ignorant to history outside of Canada (sadly).

[Denali]

In the books and writings of the other main religions is there anything that prohibits killing people?
I think it's a real shame that so many Christians adjust their religion to suit their lifestyle.

This happens in other religions too....
Islam:
I have a few friends who do condone terrorism and violence even in the name of religion.They say that war in the name of Islam is a sin.But quite a few also believe in "jihad"....I think its all about interpretation.Most of these scriptures were written centuries ago.Things get changed over time and the interpretation of these scriptures and holy books will vary....This also means that people will interpret these to suitt heir daily lives.....

Buddhism and its offshoots like Jainism, Taoism etc...
They strictly believe in non-violence...but you still find violence in places like Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand etc....There will never be a non-violent world....

Hinduism:
Thats too old...but in their stories and teachings even the Gods killed and waged war....so non-violence in out......But they do believe in honour,valour,pride and doing the right thing...In fact, one of the castes in this religion is the "kshatriya" caste which basically means "warrior".......

[john_childs]

Usually the arguement goes that religion causes war or that more wars have been in the name of religion than other causes.

Here's an essay that counters that argument: Religion is unfairly blamed for the world's wars

Michael Medved

Religion is unfairly blamed for the world's wars

http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
JESSE VENTURA'S recent Playboy interview may not have advanced his political career but it has certainly provoked some impassioned debate on the role of organized faith in American life.

In describing religion as a "sham and a crutch for weak-minded people," the Governor of Minnesota has drawn criticism from some religious figures as "Jesse 'the Bigot' Ventura." But he has also attracted enthusiastic defenders who turn the attention to faith's checkered history rather than the governor's controversial words.

Callers to my national radio show, solemnly intoned the same hackneyed charge with appalling predictability. "Religion has started most of the wars in history!" they declared, and Ventura himself echoed those same sentiments in a press conference. " At least I haven't started any wars," he declared. "But in Ireland today I don't think they're fighting about potatoes."

This indictment of religion's incendiary impact amounts to a simple restatement of conventional wisdom and may serve as a powerful debater's point. The only trouble is that the basic idea-that organized faith provokes most of humanity's wars --is utterly untrue.

Consider, for instance, the history of the United States. Since 1776, we have fought ten major conflicts. None of these struggles-no, not one --focused on religious priorities or doctrinal disputes. In fact, prior to our Cold War battles against officially atheist Communist powers (North Korea, North Vietnam) we fought all our wars primarily against nations (England, Mexico, the Confederacy, Spain, Germany) that shared with us a commitment to some form of Christianity. The War Between the States, by far the deadliest conflict in our past, centered on political and moral differences rather than religious or doctrinal ones. The boys in blue and the boys in gray who killed more than 600,000 of one another, not only worshipped the same God, but often did so from the same hymnals.

Beyond the borders of North America, the bloodiest, most ambitious conquerors in human history accomplished their deadly work with little reference to religious priorities. Pure lust for power, rather than some sense of holy mission, drove Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar (and his Roman successors), Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin. None of these tyrants made serous attempts to impose their faith on victim nations-and each of them, to a greater or lesser extent, faced troubled relations with the religious authorities in their own societies.

The twentieth century provides little or no evidence in any corner of the globe to support the contention that religion causes most human conflict. The greatest and costliest struggles of the uniquely blood-soaked hundred year epic just now concluding -World War I, World War II, the many "hot" conflicts of the Cold War-could scarcely be defined as religious disputes. Even Hitler's targeting of the Jews for annihilation bore little connection to faith-based concerns or hatreds.

The Nazis killed according to ethnicity and an alleged genetic taint; they spared neither Jewish atheists, nor sincere Jewish converts to Christianity, like the Catholic nun (and saint) Edith Stein, who died at Auschwitz. Relatively minor wars of the last hundred years (the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the struggle in Northern Ireland, the fighting in the Balkans) may contain unmistakable religious elements. But these struggles claimed only a fraction of the victims of horrific battles between co-religionists (the unspeakably bloody Iran-Iraq war), or genocidal tribal conflicts (in Rwanda and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa).

This atavistic tribal conflict should help us achieve a more realistic perspective concerning religion's role in the long sweep of man's brutal experience on this earth. Is there any evidence that before the advent of the world's great and enduring religions-Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam-human beings behaved in a less warlike or murderous manner? Primitive peoples lacked organized faith as we understand it, but they battled endlessly and viciously over territory, clan supremacy, natural resources, the capture of slaves, or for the sheer thrill of combat.

They hardly needed religious excuses for their blood lusts. Looking at the warring empires of the ancient world, where did religious imperatives play a key role in their struggles? Egyptians and Babylonians, Assyrians and Persians, Athenians and Spartans, made little effort to force their rival powers to accept their distinctive Gods or local cults--- but this didn't keep them from slaughtering one another over the course of thousands of years.

How can we blame today's religions for the world's wars, when those wars so clearly pre-dated the existence of these religions? When the Roman Empire turned Christian more than 1,600 years ago, it wasn't as if a peaceful, kindly people suddenly turned warlike and aggressive. Perhaps one can blame Christianity for dong too little to tame the ferocity of the Roman state, but you can't possibly blame the religion for causing that ferocity in the first place.

Of course, it's easy to find disgusting examples of brutal butchery committed in the name of a loving G-d. The Crusaders, for instance, massacred Moslems and Jews (and, in fact, other Christians when they sacked Constantinople) all in the name of some holy purpose. Following the Protestant Reformation, The Thirty Years War brought about a bloodbath in the heart of Europe-with an estimated one-third of the German population slaughtered by the contending armies. But even such struggles conducted in the name of faith contained ancient elements of power politics and greed--- with Catholic France, for instance, incongruously allied with the Protestant side in the Thirty Years War.

Describing wars in simplistic terms as "religious conflicts" inevitably leads to confusion and misstatements. President Clinton, for instance, spoke early in October at the opening of the new American embassy in Ottawa, Canada, describing his own efforts to help the people of Ireland to heal "the religious fights they've been having for 600 years." It's true that the Irish and English have been battling one another since the 14th century, but during the first 200 years of that conflict, prior to the Reformation, it hardly counts as a "religious fight" since both peoples were loyal Catholics.

If some clergyman tried to convince the public that religion through the ages has been a force solely for good, with no history of corruption or cruelty or hypocrisy, thoughtful people would rightly dismiss his arguments with laugher and contempt. The statement that "religion causes most wars in history" is similarly one-sided, ludicrous, extreme and ignorant.

Why, then, do so many Americans accept it without question or complaint?

[UniBrier]

Here's a pretty good description of the Just War Doctrine from http://www.americancatholic.org/News...ar/justwar.asp:

The moral theory of the "just-war" or "limited-war" doctrine begins with the presumption which binds all Christians: We should do no harm to our neighbors. Just-war teaching has evolved as an effort to prevent war. Only if war cannot be rationally avoided does the teaching then seek to restrict and reduce its horrors. It does this by establishing a set of rigorous conditions which must be met if the decision to go to war is to be morally permissible. Such a decision, especially today, requires extraordinarily strong reasons for overriding the presumption in favor of peace and against war. The conditions for a just war are as follows:

• Just cause. War is permissible only to confront "a real and certain danger," i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights.

• Competent authority. War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.

• Comparative justice. In essence: Which side is sufficiently "right" in a dispute, and are the values at stake critical enough to override the presumption against war? Do the rights and values involved justify killing? Given techniques of propaganda and the ease with which nations and individuals either assume or delude themselves into believing that God or right is clearly on their side, the test of comparative justice may be extremely difficult to apply.

• Right intention. War can be legitimately intended only for the reasons set forth above as a just cause.

• Last resort. For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.

• Probability of success. This is a difficult criterion to apply, but its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.

• Proportionality. This means that the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms.

And one Protestant demonination's position on war:

War

Position

All wars are the result of sin, and though God may use wars in his judgment on nations, it is his purpose to make all wars to cease. Christians are called to do all in their power to promote peace and understanding between nations and the resolution of differences without recourse to war, but they must also at times perform the solemn duty of defending their nations against aggressors. A just war is one in which the object is not to destroy or annihilate but to deter the lawless and overpower the enemy state in order to assign it to its rightful place in the family of nations. Its goal is to establish a lasting peace on the foundation of justice and a stable and righteous political order, in which human society can flourish.

Glorification of war for its own sake must be warned against, but pacifism that causes people to refuse to bear arms under any conditions is also to be condemned. Conscientious objection is discouraged except among those who believe that a given war is unjust and therefore cannot morally justify their participation in that war, being convinced of their duty to obey God rather than humans. The church must extend Christian love and concern to those who take up arms and to those who choose selective conscientious objection. Such choices must be made in the context of the Christian community and must be subject to the due process of law and even to the penalty of the law that has been conscientiously broken.

History

The *** formed its position on war in the 1930s, when the threat of the Second World War loomed and pacifism was a controversial issue. The basic statement adopted by Synod 1939 has not changed, but it has been affirmed, supplemented, and nuanced to fit more recent situations such as the Vietnam conflict and the Cold War. The issues of conscientious objection, amnesty, and nuclear disarmament became important in the 1970s and 1980s and were dealt with by the synods of 1977 and 1982.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally posted by andrew_carter
So many people are so moved by the deaths of these 'innocent young men', but never seem to understand that they have murdered other 'innocent young men' who are in turn being mourned somewhere on the other side of the world. So I spend a minute on Remembrance Day thinking how horrible it is that they have died, but I can never bring myself to thank them for it.

Andrew and Catboy and others,

Recall that the invasion of Iraq was not a justified war by anyone's measure.

And THE Pope spoke out against it.

And Bush Lied, People Died. And then Bush went to the Pope's funeral.

Billy

[mucRider]

Originally posted by Catboy
I just thought I should post this.

Christianity and war
.
.
.

Catboy, please give credit when credit is due. Here is a source for Catboy's post. I read all the way through your post thinking you were the author. When I got to your "NOTE!!!" I wasn't so sure.

[john_childs]

Originally posted by BillyTheMountain
And Bush Lied, People Died. And then Bush went to the Pope's funeral.

And then he'll dance on the Pope's grave.

[harper]

Originally posted by BillyTheMountain

Recall that the invasion of Iraq was not a justified war by anyone's measure.

And THE Pope spoke out against it.

And Bush Lied, People Died. And then Bush went to the Pope's funeral.

Billy

Which invasion?

The pope spoke out against it and was smote. (Or is it smited...maybe smout would be a good past tense of smite.)

Anyway, I'm not spending the rest of my life in a jail cell with Andrew watching him face plant on tractor tires. I just couldn't take it. So I'll go to war against Carol McClean. Then I'll be in the clear.

[gerblefranklin]

Andrew, your point was excellent. Not to put words in your mouth, but what I seemed to get out of it is that there is a difference between mourning a dead person and honoring his deeds. I read "All Quiet on the Western Front" recently. (It's a book written by a vet from WWI. It's the story of a man and his friends in the war. I found it to be an excellent, poetic, painfull piece of work. The author is Erich Maria Remarque) The book opened with:

"This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war."

This passage shows one thing about wars that I think your post missed, Andrew. The generation of warriors in WWI didn't get a choice to their fate. The same goes for the majority of the combatants in WWII. Even more goes for the American GIs in Vietnam. These people were not given a choice whether to go out and kill. This is something I keep in mind when I think of soldiers and their struggles, regardless of their causes. A soldier cannot be blamed for the cause of their war.

I just died a death by longwinded, uncredited (not cited), boring, plagurized catboy post.

Harper, would the word you're looking for be "smitten"? Yes, it does have an alternate meaning, but it seems to fit here. Or you could say that God put a Holy Hit out on him and specifically his urninary tract, sacred mafia style.

[Catboy]

Originally posted by gerblefranklin
I just died a death by longwinded, uncredited (not cited), boring, plagurized catboy post.

I had no intent of plagiarizing what I posted, I just meant to throw it out to inform people before they go off spewing flames from their asses.

BBC Religion & Ethics - The Ethics of War(CLICK ME)

Deal with it whiney boy.

[harper]

Originally posted by gerblefranklin

Harper, would the word you're looking for be "smitten"? Yes, it does have an alternate meaning, but it seems to fit here.

Yes. Smitten by the altar boys.

[andrew_carter]

Originally posted by gerblefranklin
Andrew, your point was excellent. Not to put words in your mouth, but what I seemed to get out of it is that there is a difference between mourning a dead person and honoring his deeds. I read "All Quiet on the Western Front" recently. (It's a book written by a vet from WWI. It's the story of a man and his friends in the war. I found it to be an excellent, poetic, painfull piece of work. The author is Erich Maria Remarque) The book opened with:

"This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war."

This passage shows one thing about wars that I think your post missed, Andrew. The generation of warriors in WWI didn't get a choice to their fate. The same goes for the majority of the combatants in WWII. Even more goes for the American GIs in Vietnam. These people were not given a choice whether to go out and kill. This is something I keep in mind when I think of soldiers and their struggles, regardless of their causes. A soldier cannot be blamed for the cause of their war.

I just died a death by longwinded, uncredited (not cited), boring, plagurized catboy post.

Harper, would the word you're looking for be "smitten"? Yes, it does have an alternate meaning, but it seems to fit here. Or you could say that God put a Holy Hit out on him and specifically his urninary tract, sacred mafia style.

I like it when people like you put the correct words in my mouth...I often have a hard time finding them myself. It gets very frustrating when it's something that I've given quite a bit of word-less thought to.

I read 'All Quiet on the Western Front' a few years ago and really enjoyed it. Maybe it would be worth my re-reading it but I've recently found "The Grapes of Wrath", among quite a few others that I'll have to get through first...and I'm no fast reader.

What was the penalty of the would-be soldiers refusing to go to war? Prison? That was the assumption I made in my original post when I said, "I understand that conscription was sometimes an issue, but I know for sure that I would rather spend my life in prison than kill somebody, much less kill somebody I've never met before because somebody I've never met before told me it's the right thing to do...and there are few things I'd like less than to spend my life in prison!".

Andrew