All Comments (57)

What has not yet been explained by either side
of the Iraqi conflict is the disturbing question
of where did the chemical weapons come from that
were used to eliminate 4000 Kurdish villages and
their populations?
Whereas "turning the other cheek" is a valid teaching so is "protecting the innocent". History must not define this Iraqi war as right or wrong for the Americans. It must be defined as a defense of every Kurdish child that was saved.
Michael (Miguel)
Cuauhtemoc,CH. Mexico

Well hello there,

Good place to contribute the thoughts on this website. Well first thing to be keep in mind is that This war is ofcourse 'unjust war' and countries have right to defend their land.

If there is any thing like 'preemptive strike' then every country has the right to strike on another country, not only imperialists. IF USA can have that right then Iran or Korea have that right too. Also i think if a country is strong enough then this phenomana fails. Like USA can't have 'preemptive strike' formula against Russia because after the preemptive strike Russia can hit back-hard. So by this way we just learned that 'preemptive strike' only works against weaker countries. In that context Iran and Korea and other nations have Right to develop Missles and other weapons for their safety against Imperialist nations like USA, Israel etc.

If USA and Russia and some of the other countries can keep nuke then i would say Korea has equal right to keep that weapons too.

If you even look back at the history you would notice that USA has destroyed the world-peace most right from japan to veit nam to recently Suddan,Afghanistan,Iraq and Somalia all were victims of USA. So saying that USA is a peace-maker is nothing but a 'joke'.

Some people talk about 9/11 and say what America did was a reaction but if you do research of 9/11 you would realise that there are plenty of questions never answered by American govt. like the pentagon more than 12 videos were never released, like which of the 757 plane is without windows, like what was the pod attached to planes that hit WTC and why couldn't the Security at airport see the clear pod / missles attached to plane, and how could other buildings besides WTC was destroyed the same day when we know it takes weeks or sometimes month of planning if the building has to be destroyed because of detunation and to know what beem and where to put the TNT bombs etc etc so that the buildins fall on their self and not destroy the other areas. If these questions were answered the 9/11 drama would totally collapse and the American govt would be held responsible for it. So they have used the Media to project the lies from Day 1. and i personally think to protect one lie you have to keep on lying and thats what we know American govt did and then a time comes when a lie is to believed that its a TRUTH and they have shed innocent blood all over the world just for their worldy and fake desire to control the OIL. Thats my opinion about all that. and Allah / God knows the best.

Correction: Israel (instead of Isreal)! It's my computer's fault, not mine! (I wish) Apologies to my Israeli friends.

Correction: Israel (instead of Isreal)! It's my computer's fault, not mine! (I wish)

Pre-emptive wars aren't smart, apart from any other considerations (moral or otherwise). They give legitimacy to "others" who feel threatened. Talk (even unofficial talk) about possibly invading Iran to destroy its developing nuclear program warrants that country taking preventative
measures against us (or Isreal perhaps) on the basis of the precedent the US has set. The Law of Unintended Consequences is riding high in the saddle. (As for Prof Volf, I hold him in such high esteem that I'm inclined to agree with nearly everything he says on any subject.)

Uncannyavenger, thanks,
Actually, my original "just wondering," just war," "just adultry" sentence carried some irony, but I'll go further to say that the "just war tradition" is not a single-issue stance.

Quite parallel to the case for war, even though the scale is different, would be its application to lying, promise breaking, letting die (instead of economic sharing) as examples of an analogous range of debatable choices.

The way that killing in war differs from the others is that this violation of the Gospel imperative of nonviolence and love has been institutionalized as the others have not. There is no dignified "just prevarication tradition" or "just adultry tradition" as there is a "just war tradition."

Killing in war has been not only justified as a borderline case, but has been made imperative as an institutional obligation.

President Bush, who confesses to have Christ in his heart, is the Texas Governor executioner and now the Iraq war Commander in Chief. This disgraces the good news of the Messiah.

Peace

White Eyes:

In response to your question about "Just-war" and "just-adultery", I must tell you why I believe juxtaposing those two items can be dangerous.

On a smaller (but no less important) scale, adultery involves the unfaithfulness of one who is in a supposedly committed relationship. At no time could it be seen as a "necessary evil" in continuing a marriage. Drawing from the Christian paradigm (since the Just War ideal is from the same background) for marriage, no husband or wife could realistically commit adultery and expect it to be for the purpose of strengthening the committed union, no matter what the relational setting or climate is.

Now let's look at war: the "just war" paradigm presupposes that evil has been committed or is being perpetrated. Any reponse to that would be defensive and dedicated to making sure that the evil does not continue. We authorize police officers to shoot to kill if they judge that more damage, injury, or loss of life could result from a perpetrator's actions. The law will provide for their defense of others. If those same protectors act with poor judgment or reckless intent, they will be held accountable by those same laws.

Aquinas and his contemporaries realized that in a world ruled by politics and armies, war- even for truly devout Christian rulers and kingdoms- would be an inevitability. If the time came where a country or empire was forced to defend itself or suffer the loss of innocent lives that depended on its protection, they would have some protocol and foundation for it. It was never intended to be a license for Christian rulers to throw their weight around in ignorant prejudice. If the local police forces operated like this, it would be unconvicted suspects being shot and killed, not perpetrators in the process of committing a harmful crime.

If we were to put the act of war and adultery on the same scale, it would have to be because adultery in whatever case was defending or protecting something. As far as I can tell, adultery by its very nature only destroys and never protects. A "just war" is supposed to be (key words) carefully and honestly conducted for defense or protection, not from deception, fear, suspicion, or a desire for unmitigated revenge. Furthermore, it is always a LAST RESORT.

To protect the innocent in its own jurisdiction from harm or expoitation, sometimes a nation going to war is necessary. From before its beginning, the Iraq War did not meet those requirements. The president- despite voices calling for him to pause and reconsider- adulterated the just war theory so that it applied beyond its normal scope to include cases of desired revenge, non-state actors, and the execution of warped "justice" on sovereign nations before conclusive proof of guilt could be established by the international community.

Thus deviated, the war in Iraq can only offer the nations involved what adultery offers the members of a committed relationship: disillusionment, a lack of trust, and hatred within and without.

M. Volf: Christian pacifism: "From the perspective of this tradition, the Iraq war is a perversion of Jesus’ basic teachings and therefore not simply unchristian but positively anti-Christian." This is correct.

For the first 200 yrs. plus, the Christians did not engage in military service. Ever since the 4th century this tradition has always existed in the church, but as a minority position.

For those Christians who insist on using violence and killing to bring about good, they might agree not to kill other Christians around the world.

Pacifist Christians can and do almost anything good others do, Christian and non-Christian, but they cannot engage in warfare as a way to settle disputes and problems.

Just wondering: "Just-war" Is there such a thing as "just-adultry"?

VICTORIA says:

ANNE- GO LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE ORIGINS OF THE TERM JUST WAR IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND

Hi, Victoria,

Could you give me that address again, please? Thanks.

Ann O.

ANNE- GO LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE ORIGINS OF THE TERM JUST WAR IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND

ONLY HADEETH WITH STRONG CHAINS OF TRANSMISSION FROM THE PROPHET(ATA) ARE ACCEPTED IN ISLAM
THIS IS FROM A COMMENTATOR NOT THE QURAN AND IS THE SOURCE OF THIS GROSSLY AND TOTALLY FALSE IDEA

IT IS NOT ACCEPTED BUT SOME CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT
ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO PICK AND CHOOSE

There is no direct evidence in the Qur'an to support there being 70 or 72 for each person. The numerical value of 70 is derived from a Quranic commentary by Quranic scholar Ibn Kathir. The number 72 comes from a hadith that says "'The smallest reward [each] for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from [Damascus] to [Yemen].'"

Do Muslims believe it literally? Are they required to? This particular Hadith has technical weaknesses in its chain of transmitters and is therefore not considered 100% authenticly faultless, though it is listed in an authoritative collection. As a result, Muslims are not required to believe in it, though many inevitably do (but an even more respectable Hadith with virtually the same message can be found in a separate hadith collection). Most muslims believe that they will experience incredible physical pleasures when they enter heaven, and that you will be happier in heaven than you could possibly be in this life. Some say that the houris are a metaphor for the ineffable joys of the afterlife. "Ineffable" is the perfect word to describe it, since Allah promises rewards beyond imagination, meaning you can't even guess what reward lies ahead since there is no equal on Earth. Ergo, if you can imagine the greatest, richest, best thing in this life, then what will actually be there will be even better.

So, to answer the question "Do terrorists get 72 virgins in Paradise?" Anyone who gets into Heaven will get the servants, it's not specific to martyrs or the shaheeds. The more important question is, who is privileged to enter heaven according to Islam? That's a topic for another node.(Hint: Islam is unambiguous on the issue of suicide and hurting innocent people; they're Completely sinful) In case it's not clear to anyone, Terrorists who hurt innocent people are sinning, so it's up to Allah if they'll go to Paradise or not. You see, bad deeds aren't rewarded, only punished.

Sources: I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR ENOUGH
The Qur'an
http://www.islamfortoday.com/firestone01.htm
http://www.guidedones.com/metapage/frq/islamicpar.htm

With all due respect to Ann O:

She says - "What I did was to raise a theoretical question about defending Nation A against Nation B which has missles that could be deployed against Nation A and is threatening to do so. ... It seems to me that the classic just war theory does not address such a problem."

On the contrary it does! Just war theory is very clear - "could be deployed" is NOT an act of war. "threatening to do so" is NOT an act of war. Responding to these possibilities (or even probabilities) with an ACTUAL act of war is not justified. To hold otherwise, would be to allow anybody's fears and ignorance to be used to justify wars.

The example of North Korea is ludicrous and born out of fear and ignorance. We (the USA) have threatened North Korea countless times (as early as 1993) with a missile attack, long before they had anything concrete, but were only building their weaponary. Instead of thinking of us as Nation A and North Korea as Nation B, think of us as Nation B and North Korea as Nation A. Under Ann O's logic North Korea would be justified in launching a "just" war against us!

AM, VIENNA, VA,

I could not agree with you more. We are created free, and thus solely responsible for our own actions, and all consequences. And, for believers of God, heaven and hell like me, there is always that extra, extra, extra punishment in the hearafter:)

The Iraqis have been living in hell for years and years and will continue to do so for more years to come. What with a certain proposed "surge" by a certain fella. As Mick Jagger sang in certain Rolling Stones song, and which can be applied to Iraqis, "When I die, I will go to heaven cos I've spent my time in hell".

There is nothing I can do about Iraq, but only to continue contributing towards humanitarian charities for the Iraqis, among other peoples wrecked by wars.

We should be discussing the scariest part of this thing called just cause instead of trying to justify or condemn it. That speach last night left a bit of a chill didn't it. The president and congress are now going to argue over troop levels?

This brings to mind the mighty Fuehr taking command of the battle from the safety of his Wolf's Burrow. Bush went into detail so much that I expected him to start naming the diffiernt Iraqi to be arrested or shot.

In case you don't understand what I just said, that's no way to run anything. It's like the president of the railroad deciding how much coal the fireman will shovel and when as though he didn't know. Is the fire going out or the boiler about to blow? One or the other always happens with executive hands on. I know. The boiler has exploded and now they're gonna clean up the mess.

Correction to AA's post. It's not 22 virgins it's 72 and even that's wrong. Anyone dying in the name of any one of the Gods gets a 72 YEAR OLD for his punishment.

Punishment and pleasure are sometimes related as in "have fun but don't have too much fun" implying a visit to the emergency room.

The Iraq invasion is clearly a case of having too much fun. Give that man a 72 year old virgin for his cause is just, ah, just cause.

Anne O there is a better war theory- if youre interested go the the theories of just war where ive posted it i dont want to distract the conversation here as its long.
peace

Jihadist at January 10, 2007 9:05 PM

You are correct: We are His creation. But we were created FREE. That makes us responsible for our actions and the consequences. That is the essence of Christianity (inherited from the Hellenic, not Judaic, influence).

I expected someone from Croatia to draw a parallel between Iraq's current problems and post-Tito Yugoslavia. Considering the recent history there, it's doubly distressing that the U.S. government was blindsided by "sectarian" violence. These *sects* are religious divisions, as the divisions in the former Yugoslavia (characterized as "ethnic" by the press although the country is comprised of one ethnic group).

Ignorance is a moral issue. If it's true that Bush didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shiia he definitely had no business trying to install his own "vision" of democracy in that country! His military advisors used experience in Bosnia as a guage for the needed military presence -- 300,000 to 400,000 -- to keep the peace after deposing Saddam, yet Bush sent in just over 100,000.

Some of my fundy friends have told me they expect the president to be the moral leader of the country. I guess without a pope, Baptists & other groups need to look toward someone, but sheesh! Is this the best they can do? They got their wish -- one of "them" is in the White House. I hope they're now aware of the immorality of deliberate ignorance, pigheadedness, and intolerance.

I can understand the need for the Christian concept of forgiveness considering the kind of immoral damage Christians do. Dubya's god will be the only one forgiving him for his shameful behavior.

I am a great admirer of Prof. Volk, who spoke at our Cathedral in Paris in 2004 on issues related to this question.

Three things: first, morality does not depend on religious belief, though one's beliefs certainly influence one's concept of good and evil. But all human beings are required to choose the good and reject the evil, regardless of religious affiliation (the rule of law). The Big Question is, of course, what is good or evil in general, or in a given situation.

Second, the just war theory has never stopped a nation from going to war. While it is obvious that the Iraq conflict does not meet the criteria of the theory, what is clear to me is its inadequacy. We theologians have a lot of work to do.

Third, one salient fact about the Iraq conflict is the US's complete and utter lack of preparation for it. Intelligence was a joke, the troop levels half of what was needed, and the post-combat plan non-existent other than trying to lure big investors. From anyone's moral POV, this war is therefore immoral.

To Mr. Jeff Wismer:

I would ask that you please re-read my post. I wrote that "religion in general transcends politics in purpose and scope". I did not spotlight my own beliefs in that statement, but said that religion by its very nature is in a different field and dimension from politics. In my thoughts and intention, it's like comparing science and magic.

If you are an anti-theist, you probably won't agree with me no matter what, knowing that a belief in God drives my actions, and you would be correct in assuming that we could not discuss this peacefully. You will again accuse me of hypocrisy and sycophantism.

If you are an atheist, I would venture that you believe there are certain questions and issues that politics and government does not and should not answer. Moreover, should they need to address them, religion or non-religion(especially in a pluralistic and diverse society like our own) should be left out of the reasoning when it is conveyed to the public. That is my point. A leader can say something like "Let's go to war for these reasons..." without being religiously vocal. This doesn't mean that he lacks belief or is hypocritical, just that he is being judicious in his utterance of his faith and fair to those who may disagree. Doing the opposite and giving a "divine imperative" for war (rather than telling the truth about motivations) can potentially and unjustly harm and villify fellow believers who may disagree with the reasoning and theology behind it. Fanatics, tyrants, and terrorists have proven this point again and again over the millenia.

Once a government or politician does that, he oversteps his boundaries as a servant of the people and their will. For the president to charge his political motives under any religious banner is both offensive and dangerous on many levels. I say that first as a follower of Jesus and an American second.

DIPU GOSH tells us:

Re: Posting by Ann O.
The "actual-threat-in-progress" argument is a clever but false technique to blur a clear distinction between a just war and a unjust war for the gullible among us. Remember we have satelites that show us what is happening. Missiles that can reach us take time to build, test and deploy - all while we are watching. Anybody looking at the satelite images would have known that there was nothing in Iraq. Remember too that the Russians also have satelites and can see what is going on, which is why Putin said there is nothing in Iraq. Yet the gullible among us were running out and buying duct tape!!

ANN O. replies : I did not defend the Iraq war in my post. I said explicitly it was unjustified.

What I did was to raise a theoretical question about defending Nation A against Nation B which has missles that could be deployed against Nation A and is threatening to do so. Nor

North Korea seems to be building just such missles. Putting my question another way: is a nation justified in striking first when another nation is threatening with actual weapons but has not yet deployed them? If so, under what circumstances might such preemptive action be justified and what sort of response would be justified?

It seems to me that the classic just war theory does not address such a problem.

Ann O.

If you define yourself as a christian, the first thing you should ask is are you a follower of Jesus, and then you need to ask yourself are you "saved" just for the "going to heaven" part. Or are you truly interested in folling the Jesus in the bible who is against anything not involving LOVE. How do you justify war if you are a christian? Love solves everything, open up the bible.

Colorado Kool-Aid.....you miss the point. There are just wars and defense of the country is not contraindicated by this article. The point is that a small cabal of supposed "christians" have perverted the process, and launched a war that need not have been fought. The current problem is to find a way to get the area as stable as possible, and let them rule themselves. The "we broke, we have to fix it" position has some merit. The leaders have been enabled by a large section of America who have abdicated their brains, and logic, and follow sheep like down a slippery slope. Indeed the very diety they praise will likely hold them accountable in the end.

Unjust war. Let us just clean the blood stain from the hands that placed Mr. Bush in Office. Historic double impeachment of President and Vice President. This will leave the Honorable Nancy Pelosi as President. Do a search on 'IMPEACH BUSH' and let's get to work saving this Country. It is not every generation that gets a chance to make this kind of difference. Let us make our parents and our children proud! Let us save God's Gift to this country, let us save the U.S. Constitution. NOW. While GWB "tele-blinks" his lying, people are dying. Please, move out....go friends, family, neighbors, church! grass roots!!!

God
Most Compassionate and Most Merciful,

Thank you for joining us in our thread here.

If War is not the answer, especially the invasion and occupation of Iraq (which the whole world knows is unjustified by any criteria as set by You, God, and by the secular laws of men), what is the answer, Dear God All Mighty and All Knowing?

I humbly seek Your revelations to us all here.
And by the way God, we are not Your Children, but Your creation. Have You forgotten that God?

Praise be to God, and others who think they are.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated at January 10, 2007 2:23 PM

"The Iraq war, borderline justified, ..."

I disagree: There was no justification for the Iraq war. Iraq did not attack us.

Does he really mean "preventive"? I think he means to say "preemptive".

My Children,
War is not the answer, especially this war.
God

Taking a non-theological approach (since I don't believe in God) let's ask who has benefited from this war. Clearly NOT the vast majority of Iraqis (hundreds of thousands dead and disabled, most of the rest living in misery); and NOT most Americans (tens of thousands of troops dead and seriously wounded, billions and billions spent, lost of security, loss of standing in the world, erosion of the Constitution).

I think the main beneficiaries are hard-liners in Iran, religious extremists elsewhere, and American war profiteers. Arguably it also got Bush re-elected in 2004.

Jane Auburn,

"Just wars" has been a subject raised for centuries now, by the clergy and now by secular governments invoking religious language "good vs. evil" to pursue war.

We never learn, and we will always have war from the beginning of human history that we are aware of, to the end of time.

All the texts of the major world religions made references to war - as to what is a just or unjust war. And the rationale for war. The "secular" Geneva Conventions codified the conduct of and engagement during war.

And there is already an "unjust war of words" here already on war and other side issues.....
sometimes, wars are caused by such misunderstanding or cross signals and assumptions/presumptions. Read Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August".

Jane, we were struggling to find something to say. Got into the quality of bushes being burned so God could speak to Moses, labyrinths and more you don't want to hear about.

Why has it taken so long for subjects like this to be raised?

This isn't a question or an answer but rather a thought. Suppose someone decided to make war and you happened to be where the first bomb fell. Think about it as we ponder just or unjust war.

Now the question. Could there simply be the realities of war and we're all balled up with some freakish morality mental thing trying to change that? Killing is kinda final no matter if it's just, unjust, on purpose or accidental. No matter how it's done the results are the same.

Now how many people must die for just causes to be realized? It's a radically different number when you're number 1 to die.

To Robert B.:

I was very clear in what I wrote:

UNTIL people see the hypocricy in this line of reasoning across the board....true dialogue between believers and non-believers is almost impossible.

Seeing hypocricy in thinking that one transcendant religion is better than the other one is not becoming an atheist...it's just a simple realization.

Nah, it is about "promoting democracy, freedom and peace" and to see the "birth pangs" of a "new Middle East". You have to believe. The Decider has decided and he got word from God for "just a war", er, I mean "just war" for that.

But, er, as I am a Muslim, and I hate your "freedoms", "democracy" is alien to me, and my religion, Islam, is "inherently violent", why in the world would I want anyone to liberate me and give me democracy, freedom and peace?

Very confusing.

Prof. Volf and I disagree about whether or not God exists, but we agree completely about this war for essentially the same reasons.

I will add one other to the ones he listed. This war is a gigantic colossal mistake from a strategic perspective and it makes us less safe, and it has increased the suffering of Iraqi's more than Saddam ever did.

Mr. Volf:

You present two theories that are untenable.

First you argue for pacifism. You argue it directly and indirectly by condemning any war that would result in civilian casualties. But to do nothing in the face of evil is to allow and encourage that evil. Even you recognize the problems with pacifism when you invoke a moral calculous: "It cannot be just to condemn masses of people to certain death in order to avert potential death of an equal or lesser number of people." So, if more people were threatened with death than would be killed by war, then the war would be just? That's not pacifism.

Second you argue that all preventative wars that do not pose "a clearly identifiable and imminent danger to the U.S. (or to Iraq’s neighbors)" are unjust. Assume in 2003 that we had solid intelligence that Iraq was developing a nuclear bomb and planned to slip it to terrorists for use against the U.S. as pay back for Gulf War I and the U.N. sanctions. Would you condemn a war against Iraq as an immoral preventative war because the threat was not imminent? Surely you don't mean that.

Or asume that that one segment in a country was committing genocide against another segment in a country, in, say, Bosnia. Would you say, "there is no danger to the U.S., so do nothing"? Surely you don't mean that.

I love the sarcasm and caustic humor that 'anonymous' just conveyed! The only 'just' war is the one fought for business interests as in MOST wars throughout history. All you have to do is follow the money trail and forget all the bs spouted.

How dare you, sir!

Our President has a perfect right to lay all blame for the mess in Iraq at the door of the U.S. Military Chaplains.

Specifically, all Christian military clergy have failed the President. The God of the Islamic martyrs has 22 reconstituting virgins, a palace and much more good stuff awaiting them in paradise, no questions asked. This is very significant among young men who are not known for their looks or intelligence. Our stingy-God Christian Chaplains have offered our troops nothing but vague promises and big words spoken with great authority.

Furthermore, it is shameful to consider Iraq anything but a just war. President Bush's Higher Father includes big money interests, especially big oil. It was to secure money-gushing oil contracts and to protect the oil assets in Iraq that the U.S. became an invading and occupying power. No further justification is necessary for this conflict. Our troops will leave when the actual mission is accomplished. The next two generations of working Americans will pick up the tab with honor.

As with all wars, the formal justification for the conflict is provided by the various religious organizations. Having let our troops down with a no-virgin policy, the President should consider any Christian designation other than Just War an act of treason, or at least the support of terrorism.

God Bless George Bush our President. And, let’s end the separation of Church and State as the new government of Iraq has done. We shall never cut and run, unless things get a lot worse.

To Jeff --

If I understand your position correctly, all of us must become atheists before you will dialogue with us.

Thanks, but no thanks. Though I respect atheists, I cannot stand anti-theists.

Uncanny Avenger said:

I am a follower of Jesus, and I very much agree with Mr. Volf's sentiments. I believe that religion in general transcends politics in purpose and scope, unless of course, the belief system in question is a state-run religion. If President Bush's brand of Christianity is that, I would ask that people faith hold him accountable to that as his actions do not represent Biblical doctrine as it is held by vast majority of believers the world over.

==============================================
So on one hand you don't approve of a "State-run" Religion (oh geez thanks for that)...but on the other hand you say that YOUR religion transcends politics...

So how does that really make you any different that Bush or any other Sycophant? Don't tell me it's b/c YOUR transcendant religions is more Progressive than HIS transcendant Religion.

UNTIL people see the hypocricy in this line of reasoning across the board....true dialogue between believers and non-believers is almost impossible.

I think that the greatest folly of the current administration was thinking that we could bring about peace by declaring and WAGING war out of grief and a desire for revenge. As a favorite singer/songwriter of mine says, "Peace by way of war is like purity by way of fornication". I believe it's beyond time that we reassess our role in global affairs and hold our leaders accountable for not being carefully considerate of the fallout of the current war in Iraq.

I am a follower of Jesus, and I very much agree with Mr. Volf's sentiments. I believe that religion in general transcends politics in purpose and scope, unless of course, the belief system in question is a state-run religion. If President Bush's brand of Christianity is that, I would ask that people faith hold him accountable to that as his actions do not represent Biblical doctrine as it is held by vast majority of believers the world over.

Regardless of what politicians think, say, or do, God is still bigger than the American will, way, or reprentatives thereof. Anyone who wants to follow Him (God) must recognize those things first before they claim to be doing something that He (God) directed.

I agree with your assessment and your analogy of the corruption of the teachings of Jesus. However, the lid is off and blood is being spilled. How do we best put an end to it? I say a controlled burn to prevent a raging inferno. Demilitarized zones as seeds of peace in the war's aftermath.

Re: Posting by Ann O.
The "actual-threat-in-progress" argument is a clever but false technique to blur a clear distinction between a just war and a unjust war for the gullible among us. Remember we have satelites that show us what is happening. Missiles that can reach us take time to build, test and deploy - all while we are watching. Anybody looking at the satelite images would have known that there was nothing in Iraq. Remember too that the Russians also have satelites and can see what is going on, which is why Putin said there is nothing in Iraq. Yet the gullible among us were running out and buying duct tape!!
Ann says "Today,there is no way for a nation to defend itself from missile attacks, except possibly with anti-missile weapons which might or might not work" --- This is false. There are many other ways: (1) Deterrence - this is what worked against the Soviet Union, (2) Limited Strikes against the threat - this is what Israel did against the Osirak reactor in Iraq, (3) Coup d'etat - this is what we have done many times to prevent unfriendly regimes from coming into power, (4) Bribery - this is what we do to prop up regimes friendly to us like in Egypt and Pakistan, and (5) Policy Change - this we almost never do, but if we remove the root cause of the foreign anger toward us it is less likely they will target us - jihadists are generally not targeting the Swiss!
There were also many other ways of removing Saddam without a war of aggression on Iraq, including his own offer to go on exile made 48 hours prior to the Bush attack..
The Iraq war was by no means a just war.

A christian said:

Well said, Prof Volf. I can see that you are a true Christian, unlike the "Christians" who are now running our great country to the ground.

==========================

So you're congratulating him on being selective about which quotes he's taking from the fictional character of Jesus?

Anyone can be idealistic and happy go-lucky about the sermon on the mount, the beatitudes, the golden rule.

But what about "bringing the sword" and "all those will live in darkness who don't accept my word" and "to those villages that don't accept my word, brush the sand from your feet and they will be judge accordingly".

As long as Jesus, and Muhammed are "accepted" as these theological super heros, and not just has a parables with some words that are instructive and nice, and some words that aren't constructive and that are destructive....Fundamentalists and Sycophants will always have what they need to impose their will on others.

The progressives, like Dr. Volf, choose to keep up this charade and pretend as this Jesus actually existed. You can congratulate him for what? nothing but being an idealist pointing out words that are pleasing to the ear.

What about doing something constructive and moving beyond 2,000 year old mythology. Wouldn't it be better to say...Well maybe there is a creator, or supreme abstract being...but we dont' know...and we were wrong to characterize god the way we have in the bible or in the Koran.

Wouldn't that be something at least?

There are no just wars for those who suffer in them. All wars are like lightning strikes that randomly strike and kill. No justice there.

To Colorado Kool-Aid --

And in what way was Iraq a threat to our freedom? I'm still waiting for an answer from the Bush administration on that...

this man is an idiot who would surrender our freedom before acting in defense of it -- thank god he isn't in charge of U.S. foreign policy.

Why do we as Christians continue to let people do bad things ( war ) in Our Name ?

To Concerned --

How would you say that the Iraq war is "borderline justified"?

World War II is proof that some wars are justified.

The Iraq war, borderline justified, but as someone said Saddam was himself a weapon of mass destruction. We destroyed this WMD and it might be time to leave. Unfortunately the crazy guy in Iran will not make that an easy undertaking but our presence in the area keeps him somewhat under control.

Western Imperialists have riden the Christian's name to the ground, and Christians suffer the consequences...

According to Augustine and Aquinas, a just war also needs to be declared by a legitimate authority. Given that the Congress never actually declared war against Iraq, that's another blow against the Iraq adventure being anywhere near just.

It may just be semantics, but an "authorization to use force" is not a declaration to war.

All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.

Eisenhower

Well said, Prof Volf. I can see that you are a true Christian, unlike the "Christians" who are now running our great country to the ground.

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors. (Al Baqarah 2:190)

PROF. VOLK tells us: Preventive war does not satisfy this criterion since it is waged not to “avenge wrongs” actually committed, but to prevent wrongs that are only anticipated.

ANN replies: The theory of a just war developed by Christian theologians was meant to address the problem of the wars in ancient and medieval times. Warfare then was quite different from today. Then, armies had to be amassed, borders reached and violated, and the threatened nation could also amass its troups, and only then would combat ensue.

Today,there is no way for a nation to defend itself from missile attacks, except possibly with anti-missile weapons which might or might not work.

So ISTM that there is a step missing from the old paradigm of warfare -- preparation for self-defense.

The ultimate purpose of the old just war theory was, as it says, justice. But how can justice be served when a nation cannot protect itself by preparing for war? Bush's answer to this question is a "pre-emptive war". Something is, of course, horribly sinister about such a notion. But what would be the alternative to such a threat?

One answer is Secretary Albright's: depend on the U. N. to provide the necessary intelligence as to whether or not there is an actual-threat-in-motion. (Somehow the word "threat" there is not strong enough.) I agree with her that in the case of Iraq we did not have such intelligence, and so our starting the war was not moral.

Still ISTM that the principle that we have the right to defend ourself against an actual-threat-in-progress needs to be looked at very carefully. Otherwise, we would be left with no principle to justify self-defence against an act-of-war that begins before a missile reach our own borders.

Perhaps the term "aggressor" needs to be re-defined? I don't know. But I'm sure the question presents an unresolved moral quandary.

Ann O.