I recently did an internet search and happened upon a theology blog called “Faith and Theology” (http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/) that was a hoot for me to spend some time on. “Faith and Theology” seems to be stocked with left-leaning divinity students and professors. It is a hermetically sealed world where its participants write verbose posts filled with made-up words like “hi-story” (instead of history) and support each other with grandiose but vapid theological reasoning that uniformly supports a leftist political agenda. Obviously, I was in “hog-heaven” as I presented them with some Aristotelian and Thomistic reasoning on different subjects. An apt metaphor might be that it was like shoving a stick into an undisturbed hornets nest. While on the “Faith and Theology” blog I noticed that all roads seemed to lead to certain political topics. Chief among these was the issue of war and non-violence. It is probably needless to say that the participants at FAT consider themselves pacifists. While on FAT I even read an article making the case for vegetarianism based on Christian theology. Please understand, this article was not saying that one may wish to be a vegetarian, it was making the case that it is a moral imperative that all Christians must be vegetarians and oppose the “slaughter” of animals. I’ll set that aside for now and concentrate on the subject of war.
Christians and Non-violence: The History
Throughout Christian history there have been Christians who have believed that it was wrong to participate in armed conflict. However, this has been the minority position. We can see this today with such groups as the Amish, some Friends, and the Mennonites. Generally, these groups have taken the position that their Christian conscience does not allow them to be soldiers. They have not sought to push their view on other Christians nor on the countries in which they have resided.
The majority opinion has been the Just War Tradition which was first formalized by Augustine and fine-tuned by Aquinas.
Basis for the Just War Tradition
The basis for the Just War Tradition is that it separates the individual Christian’s personal ethic from that of the government’s responsibility to provide justice and peace. The JWT also takes into account the full counsel of Scripture giving full weight to the Old Testament teachings on war, punishment and God’s nature. Christian pacifism seems to be unable to grasp that there are two separate ethics taught in the Bible that spring from the same God. One ethic is for the Christian as a private citizen within a country and another ethic is for the government and the magistrates of the government.
The Private Christian Ethic
The New Testament clearly teaches that Christians are to love their enemies and to do good toward those that treat them evilly (Matt. 5:43-47 and Romans 12:14-21). The mandate for the individual Christian is to “…not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” This makes complete sense and is reasonable when we understand God’s nature. God has overcome His own just right to punish us through His mercy made available through the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Likewise, Christians are, by the power of the cross, able to overlook an injustice and through love overcome evil.
On the other hand, the government and governing magistrate is in no position to overlook injustice. In fact, the Bible teaches that the magistrate is God’s “servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Roma 13: 4). Both Paul and Peter go into some detail on this issue (Rom 13:1-5 and 1 Peter 2: 13-14). The governing magistrate does not act as an individual but as a representative of the government and, as such, must act in accordance with God’s requirements of the institution of government. God requires of governments that they act on His behalf to provide peace and tranquility (1 Tim 2:2) to the populace by “commending the good” and punishing wrongdoers. They are to provide justice for the oppressed and those who have been unjustly treated. When governments and magistrates fail to provide justice for their people or pervert justice, they are punished by God (check out the OT prophets).
The Just War Tradition
The JWT builds on the apostolic teaching in the New Testament in that it reasons that the government must protect its citizens from violent predators within its borders (i.e. criminals and murderers) and from outside its borders (i.e. pirates, brigands, mercenaries, terrorists and invading countries). The JWT notes that if a government fails to protect its citizens from those from outside its borders it is just as irresponsible as when failing to deal with criminals and murderers.
Here I will summarize the JWT; however, if you would like a fuller explanation you can check out Aquinas’ brilliant overview at: http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS040.html#SSQ40A1THEP1
1. War may only be declared by the proper governing authorities. No private individual or group is justified making war (by the way, Al Qu'ida is not a legitimate government and has no right to make war against the U.S.). 2. There needs to be a just reason for waging war (i.e. Augustine lists: “…one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly”). 3. Thirdly, it is necessary that the “belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.”
Aquinas quotes Augustine, “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." The participants at FAT would probably go into coronary arrest if they read Augustine’s quote. Imagine that, Augustine actually believed that wars can be waged as “peaceful,” meaning, for the purpose of providing peace. Such a concept does not seem to make much sense to those at FAT, however, to the rest of us who live on planet Earth, and enjoy the peace and tranquility provided by our government from fascist and communist dictators, it makes perfect sense.
|
I like that fact that your initial post is deemed "violent" - presumably for the firmness in its rational explanation of a position that runs counter to the received conventional wisdom of the people who post in this thread - but Jesus' overturning the benches of the moneychangers isn't "violent" - notwithstanding that that conduct also ran counter to the then received conventional wisdom...and overturned benches.
It's interesting how Jason takes you to task for your purported over-emphasis of "logic and reason." He prefers - apparently - the "counter-intuitive" as in the "counter-intuitive" that makes Jesus sweat blood (whatever that means). Presumably, to understand the "counter-intuitive" we have to share the same feeling or gnoetic moment. But what then? If we don't share that sames sense of the "counter-intuitive", which is apparently beyond "logic and reason", how do we communicate our understanding, which relies on "logic and reason"?
Are we left to grunts and performance art?
What do we say to those who disagree with us?
Because notwithstanding the post-modern pastiche of his response, Jason seemed invested in logic and reason in the form of communicating with you, except, of course, when it became convenient for him to lapse into primal truth beyond mere words, and to suspend dialogue...which seems to tie into Benedict's Regensburg Address.
On which point, isn't it strange how Jason equates rational thought with spousal abuse.. Jason writes: I could argue with using reason and logic upon the grounds of my own pre-established argument till I'm blue in the face, but I refuse. A woman who marries the wrong guy might as well chop off half her heart. I refuse emphatically.
And: You, dearest nameless one, seem a bit taken by the Enlightenment. I smack it like an abused widow standing her ground (just kidding :)! My Real husband freed me from the bonds of slavery to the "laws of the land" (particularly the "natural" ones)...laws that can possibly lead only to my FATE! But what ELSE is the Ressurection!
The meaning of both sentences is obscure - to put it charitably - but equating (your) reasoning to something like spousal abuse is odd.
He could have stayed in California, if he was looking for earthquakes.
You wrote: “Jason seemed invested in logic and reason in the form of communicating with you, except, of course, when it became convenient for him to lapse into primal truth beyond mere words, and to suspend dialogue...which seems to tie into Benedict's Regensburg Address.”
● Agreed, and this seems to be the modus operandi for post-modern theological bloviation. I was also struck by the self-congratulatory attitude of the participants based upon the number of contemporary theologians one could reference.
●I, too, pray that things are well with Stealth and his family.
I've said this before and I guess I'll say it again. I believe that the Christian, on a personal level, is commanded to a life of peace at all cost. Of course, this does extend only to the personal level.
Nationally, countries are required to do what is best for the people, and, at times, this can lead to war. As Christians we are also given a few other commands, and one of those is to support the government so long as it does not cause us to abandon our faith. I believe that this means Christians should not seek to dodge the draft, or cut their taxes by less than completely honest means for that matter.
Anyways, I know I have been called a bleeding heart liberal before, but in general I would have to say that I am far from it. Still, I tend to believe that Christians should "not resist the evil man." It is a hard road, but much of Christian life is. Kind of like when I chose to "rather be wronged" than to seek justice.
● I have no quibble with your statement, it is certainly taught in Scripture as the private ethic of the Christian. My post here is in regard to the public ethic of Just War.
● I am still working through my theology of self-defense. Currently I hold to the view that the force used in self-defense must be minimal — not more than is necessary for the preservation of one’s life.
● Just a side note, it is estimated that 2.5 million violent crimes are thwarted each year simply because victims brandish firearms without firing. In the vast majority of cases the attackers immediately skedaddle. In these cases neither the attacker nor victim are injured. A large percentage of these are women who would be likely victims of violent sexual assault. Of course, criminals (particularly violent criminals) purposefully look for the easiest prey they can find. As the Israeli’s discovered, “gun-free zones” are an invitation to killers—modern public schools are like a flashing sign that says, “Come and use us as a killing zone.”
All are welcome, and this one is mercifully short.
Also, you might be interested in how I worked God's love and will into this post.
I'm shamelessly opportunistic when it comes to using things I've just learned, albeit that is one way to cement concepts into place.
Self-deffense is an interesting question. Peter drew a sword and was reprimanded by Jesus. "He who lives by the sword will die by it." More over, it appears no single apostle relied on self defense after pentecost and they all paid with their lives except John who is believed to have died of natural causes, but only after being boiled alive.
Some other interesting notes here. Jesus said, "turn the other cheek ... do not resist the evil man." When speaking of coming destruction, which came and will come again, he did not say "form a militia and train to defend yourselves," but rather said, "run to the hills and leave everything behind."
I think trying to prove that the NT teachings of Christ and the Apostles supports inflicting violence in self-defense is drawing conclusions unsupported by any direct scriptures, and outright denouces specifically by at least once scripture.
It may well be true that there are a large number of violent crimes averted by people packing in America, but in the same vein, there are fewer violent crimes in Great Britain per capita than in the US. I don't think we should get rid of guns, I own a rifle and a shotgun. I enjoy hunting and target shooting. If we took away all weapons, some people would use stones and other blunt objects. That is the nature of some humans. However, dispite all of this, the Christian is told not to resist the evil man, and the Apostles demonstrated this, as did other Christians through the ages.
The Christian walk is difficult. We are told to count the cost and abandon ourselves. Just because we live in America in this day and age does not mean we can just abandon what we wish.
Now, I am not going to say people cannot be a Christian and defend themselves. I will not say that people cannot be a Christian and serve their country or community. Once a centurian came to Christ with a need. Christ met that need. God gave Peter a vision and Cornelius (also a centurion) a vision bringing them together so that Cornelius and his family could be saved starting a great gospel movement in the Gentile world that reaches to us this very day.
All of this proves that people can serve their government, even in force, without sacrificing their faith. Still, the clearest teaching on violence in the Christian faith is to avoid it even in self defense. Again, I say that the Christian doing what is most right will say "I would rather be wronged than to bring any reproach to the name of Christ."
As for this topic, all who speak to it seem to have laid aside the biblical historical fact that the ancient nation of Israel made NO such differentiation between the conduct of government and the rule of God. When war was justified, it was as a consequence of the presiding authority. The presiding authority was not the King, for the king made himself subordinate to the Prophet. At that time the singular Prophet recieved His directions from God, for God's chosen people. And when Israel was right with God, nobody could stand against her- no matter their number. That is a documented fact.
No longer in America do we have a "nation under God". As Thom has indicated so splendidly here. He identifies when waging war or even in our dialogue with other nations, the government and God are mutually exclusive. And this is brought to you NOT by the Prophets of Old, nor Jesus Christ, nor His Apostles, but (once again) it comes to you from philosophers far separated from the writers of the Bible or any scripture.
We have descended to constitutional interpretation as described here. We are like so many other countries. We shake our sabres and throw bombs from a distance, spreading destruction without the benefit of the God of Abraham. Ignoring His counsel.
If you see a different God in the New Testament as compared to the Old, then you worship a changed God. That should tell you something right there, should you have ears to hear, eyes to see.
I react scornfully upon seeing the bumper sticker that declares, "God Bless America". What a blind and arrogant point of view. Who are we to command such an act? With all you see coming from our national or local governments, is there any sense of God's blessing flowing to us those sources?
You react scornfully to a lot of things ... usually Christians. Dispite that, America is the most blessed of nations as measured against the blessings described in the Bible.
Anyways, back to the point at hand. You can't seem to make up your mind. God's Spirit is poured out on all flesh, and as such all receive prophecy. Many believe that Bush has declared war on Iraq because he is doing what God desires, this would line up with your claims regarding the OT.
Now, I do not see a different God in the NT. I believe that the Laws of the OT are misunderstood. People seem to think they should seek justice based on the fact that the laws of the OT require justice. What they fail to realize is, the sacrifice of Christ is justice. Christ did not come to do away with the law, but rather to fulfill the law. This includes justice.
Of course, the law of the land will seek out justice as well. So will national actions on the world level. I believe this should be seperate from religious beliefs as much as possible. When a Christian leader steps up and says we need to eradicate Islam ... even if it is qualified as "radical terrorists" then world oppinion starts to shift. They will decide that religions such as Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are causing world strife. This is wrong, but when enough people believe it they will act. These actions will not be good for Christians, Muslims, or Jews. This is in line with prophecy, so it will happen. When it happens Christians that "defend themselves" will die, and Christians that "do not resist the evil man" will die. They will cry out to God from beneath the altar asking how long we must endure. This is just the way it is.
In the end, I would rather not contribute to the horrors to come, and I would rather do my best to walk the narrow path.
Does this mean that I think the US should not be involved in war? Certainly not. The US is involved in the war on terror. With all the propaganda and spin, I don't know how directly Iraq is related to this war, but the US is there. Here is what I think though. Peopl think this is a war between Christianity and Islam. It needs to be made clear that this is between the US and terrorist. It doesn't matter what their beliefs are or what our beliefs are.
As to your comment about those 'God Bless America' bumper stickers I must concur. I think we should have bumper stickers that say: "God has blessed America! When was the last time you stopped to say "Thank you"?
Ingratitude, according to St. Paul in Romans 1, is the first step away from God. It is the first sin among many sins. In this season moving into Thanksgiving we would do well to remind each other that we have lots to be thankful for - and to quite begging or ordering God to bless us more!
ron
can you clarify?
You wrote: “It may well be true that there are a large number of violent crimes averted by people packing in America, but in the same vein, there are fewer violent crimes in Great Britain per capita than in the US.”
● Most Americans are shocked to discover that England has an out-of-control violent crime rate. Objective observers identify England’s super-prohibitive gun laws as the prime reason law-abiding citizens are so heavily victimized. Below I will quote from an article by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College found in Reason Online. You can access the full article at: http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
● Her is what she says in part:
“From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.” Joyce Lee Malcolm, Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome, Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
● My points here would be two-fold. First, the most effective form of self-defense that reduces the likelihood that neither the assailant nor the victim will be injured is the availability of a firearm for the victim. Statistically this is indisputable. Second, Americans that do not have firearms in their homes, those that oppose gun ownership and anti-gun activists are all receiving a substantial indirect benefit from those Americans that do possess firearms. Criminals, by a huge margin fear homeowners with firearms more than they fear the police. Also, please notice the key statistic above regarding criminal break-ins while occupants are home. Notice that in England 53% of burglaries occur while the occupants are at home as opposed to 13% of break-ins in the U.S. This is, statistically, a huge difference. In England there is an added benefit for the burglar because he is able to rob the personal valuables of the homeowner without fear of facing a firearm. The downside for the homeowner in England is that burglars tend to be high on drugs or alcohol and are likely to commit violent crimes against the homeowner.
● These things all make perfect rational sense when viewed from the perspective of the criminal.
● In regard to Israel as a theocracy, I don’t think we can do any kind of one-to-one comparison between ancient Israel and any contemporary country. This is why I think we must refer to the NT for direction for our personal ethic of love and our governmental ethic of delegated justice (Rom. 12-13).
God is not at our back in this wandering, groping "war" OVER there. I have never voted for a Democrat in my long life for national office. I am a Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush Republican. But first I am a Christian.
It seems to me that Aquinas provides as much reason for Islam in total to wage war against us as you suppose we have to take it to them.
But, in truth Thom, this whole topic is meant to give Christian crutches to your political agenda. Just wanted to state it clearly, since you fairly avoided it.
Your position:
1. In the Old Testament the nation of Israel was a theocracy ruled by God in which the prophets served as the “presiding authority” that determined when Israel went to war. This insured that Israel always won her battles.
2. In the United States we are no longer a “nation under God” and the government and God are “mutually exclusive” so our decisions to go to war are based not on the “Bible or any scripture” but these decisions are based upon “philosophers far separated from the writers” of the Bible.
3. However, a nation “need not have a theocracy to follow God’s will in our relations with other nations.”
4. The Just War Tradition as outlined by Aquinas gives as much reason for Islam to wage war against us as it does us against them.
5. The whole topic of the JWT is meant to give a Christian justification to a political agenda.
Responses:
Point 1: It is true that Israel was a theocracy ruled by God; but, it was uniquely this. The Israelites were God’s chosen people. This is stated over and over again in the OT. While often the prophets were consulted as to when to conduct a war, so also, were the priests. David sought God’s guidance from the High Priest using the Urim and Thummim in order to conduct a war. The sad truth is that Israel often lost her battles because of her disobedience.
Point 2: Obviously, all nations are under God whether they realize it or not; however, the motto “One Nation Under God” is intended to signify that the United States is a nation that willingly submits to God’s sovereignty. However, there has never been any other nation that has had God as their political sovereign (king) except ancient Israel. The Bible clearly states this in Deut. 4:19-20 “ …the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are. Consequently, America must seek to live by biblical principles if it intends to have God’s favor. The JWT is based upon the biblical principles ascertained from the Bible as to how to conduct a just war. Every point of the JWT arises out of a biblical concept that is referenced by both Augustine and Aquinas. Modern Western governments do not have formal relationships with “prophets” and “priests” by which they seek political guidance. Additionally, there no longer exists the office of Levitical Priesthood nor do the Urim and Thummim exist.
Point 3: It is true that a modern government does not need to be a theocracy to follow God’s will; however, the United States separates its government from a direct relationship with any religion. This provides for religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Therefore, the government must be religiously influenced by its populace. Whether the United States follows God’s guidance and conducts Just Wars is dependent upon the spiritual vitality of the populace.
Point 4: Contrary to your assertion, the JWT does not give “Islam” the right to conduct a war against the United States. First of all, the United States is conducting a war against terrorist organizations and rouge states that support terrorism. It is not conducting a war against “Islam.” Secondly, groups like Al-Qu’ida are not legitimate governing states and therefore cannot meet the first requirement of the JWT. Thirdly, terrorists attacked us repeatedly. Whatever grievances that Osama Bin Liden may have had, they do not justify, according to the JWT, attacking unsuspecting non-combatants. The terrorists cannot possibly met even one requirement for a just war.
Point 5: The JWT is indeed designed to give moral justification for political action—this is its whole purpose. By the way, the prophets and priests of the OT did the same for David and other Israelite kings. This seems obvious. However, you use the word “political” in a pejorative way as if it was sub-moral or unsavory. In the United States the word political has a long and wonderful meaning. It refers to the American system as the government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” I think it is terrific!
I do believe you left out two points of Augustine's just war theory. 1) No violence should be done to non-combatants. This pretty much rules out modern warfare because our so-called weapons do not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants (or for that matter between adults and children). Thus Augustine would call our modern wars unjust because they indiscriminately slaughter civilians and women and children.
2) I think I recall that Augsutine said in his just war theory that wars should only be defensive, in responce to violent attack. This would rule out the Iraq war as just since Iraq did not attack us and as far as we can tell they did not assist those who did.
Now as far as Christians participating in warfare. Did Jesus mean what He said in the Sermon on the Mount -- turn the other cheek, love your enemies, do good to them? And did Paul mean what he said: "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal (physical) but mighty through God"? If so, how can Christians ignore those commands?
Even if the state wages a so-called "just war" how can Christians disobey their Leader, Jesus, and engage in killing other human beings? And what if those enemy combatants are fellow Christians, brothers in Christ? Is that not the ultimate blasphemy (sp) for two Christians to engage in mortal combat? Should they not love one another and pray for one another as the Bible says instead?
Ghandi and Martin Luther King proved that Jesus' method of non-violent direct action works! Both men had a "just war" right to take up arms according to Augustine. The British had invaded and held India. The blacks in American were being violently abused. But both men had the courage to choose Jesus way of loving your enemy instead. And it worked!!!
I believe it will work today if we have the courage to obey Jesus and love our enemy! Remember the woman that read the book, Purpose Driven Life, to the murderer who was holding her captive and he surrendered. Wow. Love is powerful if we will just give it a chance.
For Vitoria and Suarez, hostilities can be sub-divided into two groups: 1) an armed attack against a peaceful society and 2) “injurious actions” against a peaceful society (“generally defined as an infringement of a right”). The first is obviously a defensive war and, according to Vitoria and Suarez it needed “no special justification.” However, the second type of war needed justification because it was considered offensive.
Specifically, the two conditions added by Vitoria and Suarez were that an offensive war—to be justified—must be fought as a last resort and it must be done in a proper manner. The proper manner referred to avoiding the loss of innocent life.
●Regarding the loss of innocent life: I believe that Vitoria and Suarez were realistic enough to know that it is impossible for a war to be conducted without the loss of innocent life. What they meant is that the Just War country must avoid conducting a campaign against innocent parties. In my opinion, no nation in the history of the world has been more conscious, concerned and careful at doing this than the United States of America. Can you imagine, for instance, the former Soviet Union conducting a court marshal against its soldiers during the time of war for mistreating POWs—not torture—mistreatment? Ever read about how the French treated the Algerians when they rebelled against the French? Ever read about how the Belgians treated the Congolese in the 20th century? Ever read about how the French treated the rebels in the Ivory Coast? Ever read how the Soviets treated the people of Afganistan?
●See, what the world and the left does is hold America up to a standard that even angels could not maintain and then when they conduct their wars, they feel free to use whatever means suits them. Unfortunately, Americans are clueless about world history so they fall for this ridiculous nonsense.
●Iraqi civilians killed this year by Islamic Terrorists: 10,564
●Iraqi civilians killed collaterally by Americans: 71
●Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists).
If you will do the math, you’ll see that the U.S. military is responsible for less than 1 in 100 deaths in Iraq. Americans killed fewer Iraqi people this year than those that died in Iraq due to automotive accidents. Now please take the time to research how many Afghan citizens were killed per year by the Soviets during their 1980’s occupation and the number of those killed by the French in Algeria.
I am willing to bet that you had no idea that the number of collateral civilian deaths caused by the U.S. military was so low. Please be willing to give me an honest reply and suggest to me why you think you are not aware of this information.
Here is another thought question. How many stories have you seen in the mass media highlighting the heroism and positive work of our military in Iraq? If all we get is reporting on the aberrant, negative behavior and absolutely no reporting on the heroic, positive and uplifting work of our military, how can we possibly make any kind of rational judgment of the just or unjust means of our endeavors? What if absolutely no context is supplied from the mass media? What if the mass media never reports on the incredibly low level of collateral civilian casualties? How can you or anyone ever make a rational judgment? If all you ever get is the aberrant and negative, my view is that you will assume that the U.S. military is the worst, most war-mongering institution ever launched against the innocent peoples of the world. However, the factual reality is 180 degrees the opposite. It is the least offensive and least aggressive of any military in human history.
Thom in writing here is simply endorsing that the Iraq war is just. It would seem that terrorism will not be ending ever. Thus, his justification has now eternal implications.
Oh, the wisdom of men.
do believe you left out two points of Augustine's just war theory. 1) No violence should be done to non-combatants. This pretty much rules out modern warfare because our so-called weapons do not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants (or for that matter between adults and children). Thus Augustine would call our modern wars unjust because they indiscriminately slaughter civilians and women and children.
I think that Just War Theory – actually “jus in bello,” or justice in war, as opposed to “jus ad bello,” the justice of the war itself – does not require that no violence be committed against non-combatants. Rather ‘jus in bello” requires that civilian populations may not be targeted and that civilian deaths cannot be “disproportionate” to the objective of the action. Check out this site on these points.
So, JWT recognizes that civilian deaths are an unfortunate, unintended consequence of just wars and that the fact or risk of civilian deaths does not make a “just war” any less just.
One example of this point would be the placement of a nuclear manufacturing facility in a civilian neighborhood. Insofar as the objective of an airstrike is the facility, the likelihood of civilian deaths might not be disproportional to the objective, particularly with modern smart weapons.
On the other hand, the atomic bombing of Nagasaki probably violated this jus in bello concept. The nominal target of the bomb – ground zero - was an army base, but the civilian death certainly was disproportionate to that objective. Presumably the argument in favor of the bombing was that the real objective was causing Japan to surrender, which it did, but at that point it would seem that the humane limitations on warfare provided by just war concepts have been abandoned. Catholic philosopher GEM Anscombe wrote an essay that applied just war theory to the use of nuclear weapons against Japan and concluded that they violated just war standards. (See this Amy Welborn post on Anscombe.)
ron
ron
Sorry I took so long to get back. Today is a very busy day. I read what you wrote first thing this morning, but I really haven't had to time review the article and check the facts.
I find it interesting that the article does show where the US easily beats Britain in homicides. Actually I checks several other articles and it turns out the US leads the industrialized world in two catagories of violence. Homicides, and justifiable homicide/ self-deffense. It turns out that this is directly related to the fact that the US has more handguns per person than any other country in the industrialized world.
Certainly there is handgun usage in England, but your article, as well as several others, cannot link absolutely the violent crime (which by the way includes crimes I would not link as violent) to the handgun controls. Rather, it is linked to an overall mindset where people are not interested in the violence that befalls others. This is certainly a bad mindset to get into, and worst of all, it is officially encouraged by the state.
I believe that this mindset is the reason that certain big cities, and specifically certain areas of those cities, have such a high rate of violence. When people stop caring, that is when the crooks get free reign, not when the people give up their handguns.
Anyways, I thought I'd toss out one of the articles that I read. It is pretty well unbiased and compares several classes of crimes and tries to draw out the reasons that those crimes tend to be higher in certain countries, or geographic regions, over others. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000242f.pdf
The acknowledged expert on firearm’s ownership and crime is Law and economics professor John R. Lott Jr. You can find a University of Chicago interview with Dr. Lott here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
Here is a National Review article by Dr. Lott touching on the Canadian, English and Australian crime rates. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp
Regarding the American murder rate: Over 70 percent of American murders take place in just 3.5 percent of counties--these being the inner-city areas where drug dealers are concentrated. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports show that in 2005, 88% of murder victims were age 18 or older. Of all murder victims, 45% were 20 to 34 years old. In short, the largest group of violent crime perpetrators are young men living in urban centers who are involved in drug trafficking.
●For the period 1999 to 2001, the average rate (the number of homicides per 100,000 population) was 1.6 in the EU with the highest rates in Finland (2.9), Northern Ireland (2.7) and Scotland (2.2). For the other countries, the highest rates were found in Russia (22.1), Estonia (10.6), Lithuania (10.6) and the USA (5.6). Source: Barclay, Gordon & Cynthia Tavares, "International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2001," Home Office Bulletin 12/03 (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate, October 24, 2003), p. 3.
●However, there are also a large number of peer-reviewed academic studies showing that letting private citizens own guns reduces violent crime—even against the police. Professor David Mustard in the Journal of Law and Economics specifically tested this and found that each additional year a state allows citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces the number of police murders by another 2 percent.
Th mindset I am refering to is the one tat is brought up by the article you refference, and I explain it in m comment. Specifically, I am reffering to the idea that has been officially promoted by the British government of non-involvement by British citizens. If you see a crime, let the profesionals hadle it.
This is drastically different from the "wild west" attitude of us Americans. I think one of the best examples of the difference is found in pop culture. In Tom Clancy's book Patriot Games American Jack Ryan ends up saving British royalty from IRA terrorists attempting to assasinate them. James Bond, a trained spy with a license to kill, is the British version of Jack Ryan. If you aren't familiar with Tom Clancy, at this point in the story, Jack Ryan is a historian.
For violence being concetrated into a small area in America, well that seems obvious. The population is also most dense in those areas. Still, there was a drive by literally 2 blocks from my house a couple of months ago. In Joplin, less than 2 hours away, there was a kid who brought an assault rifle to school apparently in a copy cat attempt of the other school shootings that have been happening just a couple of weeks ago. The greatest number of violent crimes in America may be concentrated into a few geographic regions, but they certainly not contained to those places.
Sometimes we need to move from statistics to real life experience. Jesus didn't talk about numbers he ministered to real people with real life issues. Even his parable about the 100 sheep focuses on the one! Well, got to go and focus on the 'ones' in my life today.
And by the way I agree with AzRon - dead is dead and when it hits home one sees it in an entirely different way. Ask the families of service people who have died in friendly fire - we have at least one in Az. - the Tillman family. just thinking in my small way -
The Lancet (a British medical journal) analysis estimated that 100,000 civilian casualties had been caused in Iraq. However, their "study" has been widely discredited by credible groups on both sides of the debate. Yet, we continue to be inundated with high casualty numbers with massive numbers of civilian dead reported. However, Logic Times’ maintains an in-depth analysis of all combatant and non-combatant deaths. They report that after “two years of combat since the fall of Baghdad, much of it urban warfare, with less than 1,000 (948) civilians killed as a result of U.S. action.” A full and detailed analysis of all deaths can be found here: http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf
The website: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ maintains a complete week-by-week full analysis of every single death related to Islamic terrorism; an ongoing analysis of the civilian collateral deaths from both Islamic and American forces; and a listing of all terrorism attacks in the world.
I agree with Ralph Peters the brilliant columnist for the New York Post and Washington Times. He maintains that the media has been unconscionably irresponsible and childish in its misrepresentation of the American effort in Iraq. Never has a military labored so hard to reduce civilian casualties and so maligned and misrepresented.
How were you able to translate the casualty counts from Islam to English?
If they were here doing to us as we are doing to them, would you trust the numbers they report to the world?
People, the supposed facts posted here are usually in every case opinions. You should have the courage to question them or at least request the source.
Again, the "facts" and theory provided in this post are the crutches that prop up the just cause of a particular front on the war of terror. A war on terror can be just. Justice is not what we are after, however.
The war as it is being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan is not achieving any of the desired primary objectives.
---------------------------------------
Peter, I am still spinning over the possible justification of Hiroshima because there was an airbase local to ground zero. With more than 100,000 people killed in what must have been agonizing death, our objective was to destroy their will through indescriminate total destruction. Isn't it curious that the same tactics are being used against us wherever radical Islam can find us?
I believe there is a link. That link is what is called Justice. Throughout history, this has been the pattern of God in His dispensing of justice as we go about our lives.
This is a mistatement of the facts. The US didn't enter WWII until it was attacked at Pearl Harbour - December 7, 1941. The US didn't enter WWII because Hitler was sending "millions and millions to the gas chamber."
In fact Jews who were trying to escape Europe after WWI were denied entry into our country. (The US was in a protectionist mode after WWI and was not open to any new immigrants - which is why grandparents who were escaping the terrors of the Leninist regime in Russia ended up in Canada in 1926.) In one of the sadder moments in US history, our country let the St. Louis, a ship loaded with 930 Jewish refugees, sit outside of the harbor at Miami, Florida (after being denied harbor in Havana, Cuba) for several weeks and finally sent the ship back to England, France and the Netherlands. Many of those returned to France and Netherlands lost their lives in Hitler's gas chambers.
●When you say “If they were here doing to us as we are doing to them…;” I am wondering what you mean. This may shock you, but, there is an elected government in Iraq that actually does not want us to leave until they have a firm grip on their country. The Shi'ite-majority government has not been willing to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops.
●I am satisfied with the reasonable accuracy of the casualty numbers posted on the websites I referenced. These kinds of numbers are never easy to validate until some time has passed. You may remember how long it took for us to get an accurate count for the 9/11 deaths. If you check the sites I recommend you will notice that they provide all the individual data which you can cross-check. Go for it.
You wrote: “The war as it is being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan is not achieving any of the desired primary objectives.”
●You are such a typical American—microwave mentality. The clear and decisive objectives for Afghanistan were to end the Taliban’s rule of the country and its usefulness it as a base of operations and training for Al-Qu’ida and other terrorist groups. An additional benefit for the Afghan people was that it allowed them to restart their country and economy and develop a viable democratic government. The clear and decisive objectives for Iraq were to depose Saddam Hussein after violation after violation of U.N. sanctions. Side benefits have been the ending of his rule of terror, the formation of an elected government, an improved economy, the end to his secret police’s involvement in terrorism, etc. As I have mentioned, the historical record indicates that it takes a minimum of 10 years to end an insurgency. Even when we are able to largely withdraw, the Iraqi government will be dealing with terrorism and insurgency for some time into the future.
You wrote: “…believe there is a link. That link is what is called Justice.”
●I take it that you mean that because Islamic Jihadists are using terrorism against us, this means that God is bringing justice against us because of Hiroshima in the form of suicide attacks and the whole-sale slaughter of Muslims.
●I take it that you would have preferred that 500,000 to 1,000,000 of our American servicemen should have been sacrificed on the shores of Japan in order to appease your sense of fairness. This, of course, would have meant that at least two-three times the number of Japanese would have died defending their mainland (conservatively 1.5 million). I draw your attention to Iwo Jima were 20,000 Japanese troops literally fought to the last man. It took 7,000 Marine deaths to secure that small island. However, that was even less intense than Okinawa where the battle lasted for two and a half months, until June 21, 1945 and cost nearly 19,000 American lives. The Japanese losses were even more sobering: more than 100,000 Japanese soldiers were killed (out of just over 100,000 Japanese soldiers on the island), while the civilian death toll was estimated to be 80,000 to 100,000. The closer the American forces got to the Japanese mainland the more extreme the Japanese methods of defense became. The Japanese assessed that, while they could not defeat us, they could cause so many casualties that we would leave their country and future empire in tact. After 1942 the Japanese refused to surrender in any battle no matter how badly they were loosing. Literally—in no way figurative—a ground invasion of Japan would have been catastrophic. However, I am sure none of this makes any impact on you because no matter how evil our enemies may have been, for you, we are always at fault and God is always pouring out his wrath on America.
●Guess who was pressuring the United States NOT to enter the war against the Axis powers. In the minds of American pacifists and isolationists, what was happening in Europe and Asia was not worth dying for—am I wrong? It took a direct attack against our navy to overcome the opposition to the war. I think a policy of appeasement (a literal policy and not a pejorative term) was the guiding principle for many until Pearl Harbor. I believe the thinking was “that’s not my problem.” Actually, if it hadn’t been for Pearl Harbor, it is very likely that pacifists and isolationists would have allowed Hitler to have his way with millions; because, after all, the death of one innocent American life or one innocent bystander is not worth our involvement.
●You’d think we would have learned our lesson, but, frankly it doesn’t appear that we can grasp the idea that there are evil regimes in the world.
●Again, the biblical principle is that one’s individual Christian ethic is guided by “love overcoming evil.” The Christian ethic for the government is serving as an “instrument of God’s wrath” against evil doers. In my opinion, confusing these two leads to catastrophic disasters.
I think you are wrong about the stance of the isolationists had about entry into WWII. The isolationists actually had an economic reason for not entering the war - they felt that the war effort would lead to widespread inflation. Second, they felt that Europe was always at war and that it was unnecessary to solve Europe's perpetual attempt to kill one another in battle. Third, They thought that maybe Germany would actually take care of the Red-scare (as it was called then) and take out communism (Americans were more afraid of Moscow than they were of Berlin). Fourth, They thought Britain could take care of Germany - although isolationists argued if they should fund Britain's war effort. Some supported funding Britain's war effort and others spoke against funding Britian's war effort.
You'll be happy to know that Canada, my homeland, support the Brits and joined up with them long before the Americans joined up.
You can read more here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/6_3/6_3_1.pdf
ron
●A war in Europe or Asia wasn’t worth dying for.
●There was a desire to follow a policy of appeasement: "…the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody and possibly dangerous." Paul Kennedy in his Strategy and Diplomacy, 1983.
Its four principles were:
1. The United States must build an invulnerable national defense.
2. No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack an America that is prepared.
3. American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the war in Europe
4. "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
Within a year the organization had more 800,000 members.
Charles Lindbergh.com has an extensive article on the America First Committee and has a wealth of resources including an archive of Lindbergh’s isolationist speeches. They describe his leadership and thinking as follows:
His approach was, in effect, more understanding of the Germans (without approving of what they did) and more skeptical of the Allies than the conventional view in the United States. Lindbergh saw a divided responsibility for the origins of the European war, rather than an assignment of the total blame to Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Axis states. He did not view Germany, Britian, and France as implacable foes with irreconcilable differences that could be resolved only by war; he saw them all as parts of Western civilization. And he conceived of the European war as a fratricidal struggle (like the wars between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece) that could destroy Western civilization. http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/index.asp
One might argue that Lindbergh was not appeasement minded; however, you may be aware that many in the United States believed that he went too far in justifying and accommodating the Axis position and in his urging the American government to avoid siding with the Allies. The fact is that Lindbergh lived the rest of his life (like Chamberlain) with the whispers of being a Nazi appeaser or sympathizer.
Again, I am sure there were many and varied views within the isolationist and pacifist camps. However, I think I am justified in using the broad brush stroke that they calculated that the loss of American lives was “not worth it” and that appeasement was preferable (certainly this was true at with the leadership of the largest isolationist group in the U.S.).
Finally, you’ll notice that none of the things that you listed as the “economic” reasons for staying out of the war were listed by AFC in its printed literature. Other isolationists may have valued the things you listed; however, they didn’t make it into the platform for the largest isolationist group in pre-war America.
Peter, I am still spinning over the possible justification of Hiroshima because there was an airbase local to ground zero. With more than 100,000 people killed in what must have been agonizing death, our objective was to destroy their will through indescriminate total destruction. Isn't it curious that the same tactics are being used against us wherever radical Islam can find us?
I believe there is a link. That link is what is called Justice. Throughout history, this has been the pattern of God in His dispensing of justice as we go about our lives.
First, I wasn't attempting to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the basis that an army base was ground zero; I was using those examples as instances of potential "disproportionality" vis a vis objective and civilian deaths.
Second, it is specious to pretend that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not given precedent by the Japanese. The Bataan Death March, the treatment of Allied POWs, the Rape of Nanking, the exploitation of Korean women as sex-slaves, human experimentation and Pearl Harbor all violated jus in bello and jus ad bello concepts. From a broader perspective, Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been, and were, viewed by American war planners as within the rules of war established by the Japanese.
Third, it is therefore specious to pretend that Islamo-fascist justify or need to justify their atrocities on the basis of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Islamo-fascists would be engaging in such atrocities even without the use of atomic weapons in World War II. As this anthropologist points out, the idea of sneakily knifing an opponent in the back when he isn't prepared is wired into Arab culture.
Fourth, even imperfectly held notions of jus in bello - such as targeting the army base - is to be preferred to completely abandoning such notions - such as hijacking civilian planes filled with women and children to target civilian buildings. The former admits of some hope of restraining the evil of violence; the latter knows no restraint whatsoever.
Fifth, America is not the telos of man's life on Earth. As much as I love America, she has had her share of human injustice. But it is specious to pretend that America has ever been the moral equivalent of Imperial Japan, which indulged in The Bataan Death March, the treatment of Allied POWs, the Rape of Nanking, the exploitation of Korean women as sex-slaves, human experimentation and Pearl Harbor, or with the Islamo-fascists, who wish to make you a dhimmi and who would scrub your Temples off the face of the Earth as surely as they did the statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.
"the idea of sneakily knifing an opponent in the back when he isn't prepared is wired into Arab culture." So you say Peter. I say That is hateful. For if that were true, they would not have waited so long to appear with their knife in Manhattan. This Arab culture has coexisted with us in America for many generations without that hard wired attribute revealing itself.
Sadly, that comment incites the kind of attacks we have seen.
Let me put it this way Peter, If I had an eight year old boy, where should I send him to be protected from Islam........should he be cared for by Catholic Priests?
We fear what we do not understand. The news now is that full veils should not be permitted for religious reasons. How sad./
"1. The United States must build an invulnerable national defense.
2. No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack an America that is prepared.
3. American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the war in Europe
4. "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad."
I don't know about anyone else, but the first two principles read like the viewpoint of the US in the Reagan presidency.
As to your point that Lindberg was held as a suspect Nazi sympathizer - this is still a widely held opinion of many people. I don't think you were suggesting this - but some people may conclude that if the Lindberg was a Nazi sympathizer therefore, all 800,000 members of the AFC shared his stance. I think that is always a risky extension. Obviously, AFC became a lightening rod which seemed to attract a concern about entering WWII - and it's spokesman was a mysterious, charismatic person who attracted national notoriety. I think I would look deeper into the list of people who were apart of the AFC and see where their opinions differed with Lindberg.
Those are my thoughts before I go to work.
"how sad
"the idea of sneakily knifing an opponent in the back when he isn't prepared is wired into Arab culture." So you say Peter. I say That is hateful. For if that were true, they would not have waited so long to appear with their knife in Manhattan. This Arab culture has coexisted with us in America for many generations without that hard wired attribute revealing itself."
You clearly didn't bother to read the blog post that I linked to.
If you had you would have seen that the author is an anthropologist who lived in Saudi Arabia and his observations were based on his actual observations. His actual experience changed him from the view that you share into that of a substantially critical perspective on Arab culture. He makes a number of important observations, including that within the human nature that we share, there are a lot of ways to be human.
Concerning the ingrained Arab practice of "the knife in the back", he writes:
An American would never take pride in the boast that we would knife someone in the back, but there are cultures who do. That doesn't make those cultures wrong or bad, but it does mean that they have a different schedule of values than Americans have.
Under that schedule of values, terrorism - attacking non-civilians women and children - isn't considered a vice or evil; it's considered common sense.
Your post is, if anything, far less sensitive to Arab poster than the post I linked. You think that your values are universal and that everyone shares it simply because your values are better. You never realize that your American distaste for attacking civilians is a product of a unique set of historical circumstances - thank you Aquinas - and so you deny the existence of other viewpoints, except those that you want to tar with caricatures.
Stealth wrote:
Sadly, that comment incites the kind of attacks we have seen.
This is specious. My comments weren't even made when Islamo-fascists threw an crippled Jewish American off a cruise ship, cut the head off of a Jewish American reporter or hijacked planes filled with women and children and flew them into civilian buildings.
Your apologetics ignore the free will of those who commit such evil acts. Your argument also denies the cultural practices that explain why it's Muslims doing these things rather than Methodists.
Stealth wrote:
Let me put it this way Peter, If I had an eight year old boy, where should I send him to be protected from Islam........should he be cared for by Catholic Priests?
Ah, pedophilia - the last resort of Anti-Catholic bigots.
Actually, the first resort of Anti-Catholic bigots.
Nonetheless, yes, by all means send your child to Catholic priests. The incidence of pedophilia reports against Catholic priests is sadly no better and no worse than that against any other group, most definitely including teachers.
You were a school administrator, so I take it that you didn't consider your old profession to inherently dangerous to children. But, perhaps, that's because we don't hear the constant drum pounding against teacher pedophilia like we do against Catholic priests... because the media can't sell papers by tapping into prejudice against teachers in the way that it can tap into the irreducible prejudice against the Catholic church.
Like you just proved.
Incidentally, your slur illustrates the point I made previously. Unlike the Arab attitude toward the "knife in the back" - which is not considered a lack of virtue - Catholicism doesn't teach that homosexual pedophilia is a virtue. It teaches that homosexual pedophilia is a sin. If it taught that men sleeping with boys was something that made sense and ought to be done, then you could make the comparison with the Arab attitude that open conflict with a stronger opponent is something to be avoided at all costs.
But you can't make that comparison, because the schedule of values in the two cultures are so very different.
Stealth wrote:
We fear what we do not understand. The news now is that full veils should not be permitted for religious reasons. How sad./
The comment about veils is a distractor.
As for the idea that "we fear what we do not understand", certainly this is a mantra from the '60s that was probably inscribed on your mind with an non-erasable marker, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote.
To the contrary, I provided you with an insightful essay by an anthropologist who knows Arab culture, but you didn't read it. Apparently, you'd rather construct a fantasy world that confirms your pre-existing prejudices.
We must avoid thinking about the new political realities in England, making our most true partner disappear.
If we are true Republicans, we must be in denial and find a way to explain it all away as if the fault is somewhere else. Oh, yes, of course, they aren't fighting fair in defending their homeland.....that works.
Alright, I am completely rejected. We are to go to your article, rather imagine the anecdotal view of a single observer must be true for all and we must close our ear to what BUSH is about to say about exiting our current crusade in the Arab world. We must believe Thom when he tells us it takes ten years to win over there...why not twenty and express shock when Bush acknowledges ERROR and congress together gives him a thumbs up on his compromise for not HOLDing THE COURSE and not CUTting AND RUNning even where it has placed us in the toilet in world opinion and not protected us a lick at home.
You still haven’t read the essay by an anthropologist who lived in Saudi Arabia
Dismissing out of hand the observations by someone with real experience is an irrational position. Although you are not required to accept the person’s conclusions, and you may question his claimed observations, before you do so you ought to read what he says and determine whether what he says seems internally consistent and/or consistent with other things we or you know about the subject. You, of course, have done nothing of the sort.
Likewise, calling the essay “anecdotal” is not an answer. All facts are “anecdotal.” The question is whether the author’s anecdotal observations allow the conclusions he reaches. I think they are, based on my knowledge of history, culture and religion.
You, on the other hand, have offered nothing – noth