All Comments (14)

MICAH that is the simplest answer in the world-

stop giving money and guns and bombs to the israelis to kill palestinians with-

i think going into iran would inflame rather than pacify any potential terrorists...

ROBERT B- ISLAM HAS HAD A CODIFIED AND ETHICAL RULE OF WAR FOR 1470 YEARS- IT IS SUPERIOR TO AUGUSTINES AND PREDATES THE GENEVA CONVENTION- PERHAPS YOU WOULD CARE TO LOOK AT IT- I WONT POST IT HERE BECAUSE ITS TOO LONG- IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER THE ORIGINS OF THE TERMS OF WAR QUESTION-
YOU MIGHT FIND IT OF INTEREST
PEACE

Thank you sir. Finally an irrational believer and a rational non-beliver readily agree. We both apparently share that innate sense of human "morality" (ethics) which is encoded in our dna and both predates and transcends all religious belief.

To Ba'al --

You question regarding Augustine is a sound one. When he wrote about the just war, Augustine was taking on a strong tradition of Christian pacifism that included several earlier Church fathers, most notably Tertullian.

The answer to your question, I think, lies in the description of Christ's actions in the temple:

14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" (John 2:14-16)

As you can see, when a cause was righteous, Christ was no pacifist. Also, when talking with his disciples, there is the following:

"See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:38)

Note that christ does not condemn his disciples for carrying weapons.

In the end, Augustine's reading of Scripture regarding the pacifist notions you mentioned is that Christian soldiers ought to cultivate a proper attitude towards the enemy. They have to kill them out of military necessity, but they should not have malice in their hearts when they do so. Also, one must remember that for Augustine, a just war is one that is not only fought in the cause of justice, but also one that is declared by those in governmental authority. Hence, the idea of a soldier "following orders" when he fights removes in part the sinfulness of the killing (provided, of course, that the war is indeed just and that the soldier has no malice in his heart).

If anyone better versed in Augustine's works and thought has anything to add, please do so. I would rather make a mistake and be corrected than continue in ignorance.

Here is the problem, one that has, and will always be with us. The former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."

So Bush claims God told him to do it. If true, what all the believers arguing about. Their argument should not be whether this is a just war but whether God actually spoke to Bush and told him to do this. If He did, the argument is over and we don't need the UN or anyone else. Non-believers don't have to argue about a just or unjust war, but whether or not Bush is a dangerous sociopath.
When senile old fools such as Pat Robertson make similar pronouncements about talking with God, we can all have a good laugh. But is different for men with power, such as heads of Churches or heads of state.
So my question is: Did Bush speak to God or does he hear voices that make him a danger to the world?

There is no such thing as a just war, for wars are forced upon men and nations for reasons of survival, national or leadership interest! The war in Iraq was driven by vengeance on the part of the United States for the September 11, 2001 attacks and dictated by its global interests and access to Middle East oil. The rationale of ridding the region of weapons of mass destruction and spreading American beliefs of freedom and democracy, while noble is not primary. Nonetheless, it is in the best interest of the United States and the western world for the US-led coalition to complete its mission in Iraq. The cost of subjugation and pacification however must be economically and politically reasonable and must lead to long term stability of the region. As the cost and casulaties in Iraq escalate, a viable win-win solution must be found with bipartisan support. To withdraw from Iraq for reasons of costs and overbearing tactical defeats will be a big blow to global peace and stability of the region. It will likewise be a disaster for the Bush administration and eventually reflect on American prestige. The war in Iraq must be won at reasonable cost. Religion will play a significant if not a complex role in this exacerbated conflict.

An excellent article, though I wish to add some nuances to the argument and also general information that is widely lacking in the public domain: in the previous century more people (I think 2 or 3x, though I'm not sure myself) died at the hands of their governments (Communists, Nazis, other dictatorships) than did in all the (World and other) wars combined. Deadly leadership is deadlier even than war, and deserves to be removed by force if the consequences are not worse. Public sources estimate that Hussein killed an average of 10,000 people / year over 30 years, and all signs indicated that his sons were likely to continue his legacy, even more brutally perhaps. In that sense I disagree with Rev. Byron - it was clearly a *necessary* war.

But was it a *just* war? Losses of civilian life averaged <10,000 / year during "major combat" and would have decreased precipitously had insurgents not started on their murderous campaigns. However, perhaps we should have anticipated an insurgency, or as I did more vaguely, have had deep concerns over whether nation building was even feasible. On the matter of anticipating consequences, I agree with Rev. Byron. Iraqui Body Count http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ estimates 53,000 - 59,000 civilian deaths which "includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks)." This averages 11,000 - 12,000 deaths per year and it may well go up if, as is likely to happen, if nation-building fails.

My reasons for being against the war were partly pragmatic - I saw nation-building as fraught with risk and unlikely to succeed. But my reasons were also moral and selfish (yes, selfishness can be moral). 1) I anticipated little reward for the US even if this venture succeeded, and 2) I do not think it right to ask individuals, even those in the military, to risk their lives for a cause not connected strongly to the defence of lives and property in their own country. (I suppose you had to be skeptical of Bush's evidence in making this link, but it seemed very thin, even at the time.) The lesson of Vietnam is to not over-subscribe to the theory that if we don't take care of it there, it will be worse when it comes to our shores. It might even be the case that if Al-Qaeda takes over in Iraq, forming institutions will rob it of the stealth necessary to its success.

We owe it to the iraqis to kill their own "insurgents" who are the iraqis?

so by your reasoning we owe it to the iraqis to go and kill more of them?

im sure theyre celebrating about this

o wait- i know many iraqis that ive actually had real life conversations with- theyre not celebrating
but mourning their dead

Oops, I wrote the last anonymous comment.

I completely agree with you that this war is unjust and a disaster for everyone. I would make the point in even stronger terms. But then there is the theology you cite. I'm an atheist, maybe that's why I don't get it.

You wrote, "Over time, this Augustinian premise developed into a Catholic doctrine of a right of self defense and the right was parsed, if you will, or translated into a set of criteria for the exercise of that right of self defense."

How did Augustine justify that in light of this:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV).

And this:

"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

"Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:28-31. King James Version)

I have read that some theologians claim that this refers literally and only to the practice of Roman soldiers and upper class citizens slapping Jewish people they thought were inferior. I guess that is one way to look at it. However, it seems to me that need some pretty powerful "parsing" or "translating" because otherwise it seems to me that Augustine is just making it up as he goes along.

I think it is easier to say the war is unjust because it was unprovoked, based on lies, badly planned, a strategic error of the first order, and has worsened conditions for everyone involved and has made our country less safe.

This sounds nice, but how do you diplomatically convince al qaeda operatives who on a regular basis brutally kill innocent people that what they are doing is wrong and should be stopped? We can't just decry war as if there were so many other possible alternatives. If we stop our vital effort in Iraq, we will be consigning thousands if not millions to death. We owe it to the Iraqis to at least try to defeat the terror groups now causing so much damage.

I agree. Any so-called Christian hates violence. You cannot run around, thumping the bible in people's faces and be for this war. What makes it so deplorable, as the Reverend says, is that diplomacy is frowned upon with this president. How can you not talk to our enemies? You do not have to do anything, but at least listen and talk and after a very long time of negotiation and communication, there may be peace. This president wanted to show the U.S. would knock you down if you did not see thing our way. That make-believe world he lives in is far from reality, as we now see very clearly.

I agree completely with Mr. Byron's arguments and would add this comment: War is archaic in the nuclear age. To objective of fighting a War, per se, is the complete annihilation of the enemy forces over the shortest period of time. That said, the use of nuclear weapons is the literal solution to conducting a war. However, as nuclear weapons are not used to conduct war, excepting WWII, then by deductive reasoning war as a means to an end, is archaic, outdated and not functional behavoir. To resolve political differences we must, as Mr. Byron says, "rely on diplomacy as the only way to peace..." Sadly, this Administration is not competent enough to conduct anything except "gun boat" diplomacy and as we now see in Iraq and across the Middle East, that approach is doomed to failure.

found this comment:

This is a pretty good piece that should have been published before the war started. It was as obvious then as now that this "preventative war" was "unjust" and based on reasons that contradicted not just Christian thinking, but all serious Western moral and political traditions. Now the war is spreading to Somalia, Iran, and Syria--and who knows where else after that. Buddhists (or Christians) who thought it best to do and say nothing before the war started, might want to re-examine their thinking on the matter, for that single "cause" may lead eventually to a nuclear conflagration involving the entire world. We are dangerously close to that happening right now. ABN

here: http://americanbuddhist.net/node/4044