Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 2/17/2003 4:30 PM (GMT -6)

Jus Bellum—aka Just War—do you believe there is such a thing? The church has traditionally answered “yes” to this question. Is the United States’ current interest in war with Iraq just? The Catholic church and most mainline Protestant denominations are answering “no” to this question, but Christians are taking strong stands on both sides of the issue.

I have listed the traditional criteria for the just war tradition below. Do you think the rationale for a preemptive strike on Iraq meets these criteria? Though this discussion may reveal that some of us are birds of different feathers (e.g. doves and hawks), I believe we can still flock together!

Seven traditional criteria for just war
(as presented by Gary Simpson, professor of Ethics at Luther Seminary)

1. just cause: it is in response to a real injury that has been suffered
2. right authority: it is declared legitimate by public authority
3. right intention: the prosecutors of the war have good intentions
4. proportionality: the damage likely to be incurred by the war will not be disproportionate to the injury suffered
5. last resort: it is undertaken only after all reasonable means of peaceful settlement have been exhausted
6. probability of success: there is reasonable hope of success and the reestablishment of peace
7. moral means: only legitimate and proportional means which descriminate between soldiers and civilians are used

Peace?
Electra

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/19/2003 5:02 PM (GMT -6)

Don't know if I can get into this right away, but I wanted to let you know, Electra, that I am interested in this discussion! I'll try to get you a substantive post here soon. . . thanks.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 2/19/2003 5:26 PM (GMT -6)

Long time ago on a thread about Hitler, I asked why didn't God stop him once he got started. I remember Doc and many others responding with the claim that God did act. God sent the allies. They WERE God's response to Hitler.

Hmm?

Tom

Love never ends

Edited by - TGB on 02/19/2003 10:29:00 PM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/19/2003 6:33 PM (GMT -6)

Let me begin by saying that I don't think the decision about whether to support military action in Iraq is a simple one. Unlike some past conflicts, we do not have the pleasure of a relatively obvious moral position. However, as of this moment, I am tentatively in support of military action in Iraq, and I do believe that it would be a "just war." With that said, I'll address Prof. Simpson's criteria for just war.

quote:
1. just cause: it is in response to a real injury that has been suffered

This is, of course, the distinction in Simpson's (and presumably many other just war theorists who may be in opposition to war in Iraq) theory of just war. He limits "just cause" to a "response to a real injury that has been suffered." In essence, he precludes the possibility that a pre-emptive strike could ever be just. I disagree. The theory of "anticipatory self-defense" fits well into the overarching principles that make up traditional just war theory.

George Weigel writes, in anessay adapted from his Pope John XXIII Lecture at the Catholic University of America Law School, regarding the concept of "just cause":

Just Cause. In the classic just war tradition, “just cause” was understood as defense against aggression, the recovery of something wrongfully taken, or the punishment of evil. As the tradition has developed since World War II, the latter two notions have been largely displaced, and “defense against aggression” has become the primary, even sole, meaning of “just cause.” This theological evolution has parallels in international law: the “defense against aggression” concept of just cause shapes Articles 2 and 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. In light of twenty–first–century international security realities, it is imperative to reopen this discussion and to develop the concept of just cause.

As recently as the Korean War (and, some would argue, the Vietnam War), “defense against aggression” could reasonably be taken to mean a defensive military response to a cross–border military aggression already underway. New weapons capabilities and outlaw or “rogue” states require a development of the concept of “defense against aggression.” To take an obvious current example: it makes little moral sense to suggest that the United States must wait until a North Korea or Iraq or Iran actually launches a ballistic missile tipped with a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction before we can legitimately do something about it. Can we not say that, in the hands of certain kinds of states, the mere possession of weapons of mass destruction constitutes an aggression–or, at the very least, an aggression waiting to happen?

This “regime factor” is crucial in the moral analysis, for weapons of mass destruction are clearly not aggressions waiting to happen when they are possessed by stable, law–abiding states. No Frenchman goes to bed nervous about Great Britain’s nuclear weapons, and no sane Mexican or Canadian worries about a preemptive nuclear attack from the United States. Every sane Israeli, Turk, or Bahraini, on the other hand, is deeply concerned about the possibility of an Iraq or Iran with nuclear weapons and medium–range ballistic missiles. If the “regime factor” is crucial in the moral analysis, then preemptive military action to deny the rogue state that kind of destructive capacity would not, in my judgment, contravene the “defense against aggression” concept of just cause. Indeed, it would do precisely the opposite, by giving the concept of “defense against aggression” real traction in the world we must live in, and transform.

Some will argue that this violates the principle of sovereignty and risks a global descent into chaos. To that, I would reply that the post–Westphalian notions of state equality and sovereign immunity assume at least a minimum of acquiescence to minimal international norms of order. Today’s rogue states cannot, on the basis of their behavior, be granted that assumption. Therefore, they have forfeited that immunity. The “regime factor” is determinative, in these extreme instances.

To deny rogue states the capacity to create lethal disorder, precisely because their possession of weapons of mass destruction threatens the minimum conditions of order in international public life, strengthens the cause of world order; it does not undermine it. Surely the lessons of the 1930s are pertinent here.

I gotta cut this short for now, but I think my main contention is with Simpson's unnecessarily limited definition of "just cause" anyway. Sorry for the long quote, but I think it's a good one. Be back soon.

Thanks!

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/19/2003 7:04 PM (GMT -6)

Without getting into all those issues from the "War: What is it good for?" thread, I'd like to just add my initial reaction to the Just War Criteria.

I remember the debates back in my political science class, "Globalization and the Changing World Economy", getting very heated and cyclical over the Just War Doctrine. The redundant nature of the conversation was largely due to the subjective nature of the Just War criteria. Most criteria listed above can be determined to be true subjectively. The arrival at the answer or the truth will rely on the value added by each individual to the particular criteria. Subjectively. As long as I can say that every possible means of settlement was not attempted, though you may think they were, I can determine an unjust war while you determine a just war.

So i would have to apply my own value to each of the criteria and say that I see loopholes where I could not define a situation that meats the necessary components of a just war. I don't think it's possible based on those criteria to arrive at a "Just War," though many or all would disagree based on their own subjectivity. Even if the Bible were used as a basis for Objective understanding of the Just War criteria, I think, based on my own reading of the scriptures, I would conclude the same thing. That there cannot be a just war.

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 2/19/2003 7:25 PM (GMT -6)

Thank you Tom, Brett, and fyodor! This is a complex issue indeed. Before we get too far into it, let me clarify that the criteria I listed are the criteria traditionally cited in support of Just War, and not Dr. Simpson’s own criteria (though I followed his presentation of them, which is why I thought I should cite him). Of course, historically there have been many variations on this theme, and there have also been rejections of this theme (e.g. the Anabaptists). Later, Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/19/2003 8:51 PM (GMT -6)

I am not going to get into defining this all that much, however, what most of the mainstream media seems to forget is that we have been “at war” with Iraq since they attacked one of our allies, Kuwait. And it was the ceasefire (peace treaties) agreements brokered by the U. N. that have been in constant disregard since they were signed. So it isn’t that we are preempting an attack as much as a resumption of it! Because all, what (?), 16 “treatise” have and are being violated. Remember, there is only one country that has attacked three of it’s neighbors, killed over 1.5 million of its peoples, and will (I believe have) given aid to terrorists who are at war with our way of life. When we go in, I believe we will find the gulag and archipelagos when we enter that country and free the people who want to be freed.

Robert McNamara's warnings to the congress the last time we were going to enter Iraq was that millions were going to die. Noam Chomsky went around saying millions were going to die in Afghanistan, etc, etc. All the doomsday sayers have everyone up in a tizzy. All these same people didn’t say a word when Clinton went in to Bosnia for regime change? And Clinton himself said the following: Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

However, if you listen to Clinton today, he is attacking Bush on the very issue he supports, why? Because the democrats – more succinctly, the liberal-left – are afraid they will lose in the next elections like they did in this last one. So what better place to start than to stir up your base that have been loyal since the Vietnam days, the anti-war protestors. And, if we can just show the anti-war protestors enough, maybe the public will second-guess at the polls? Chirac supplied about 13% of Iraq’s weapons between 1982 and 1989 (Russia was at 50%, the U. S. was less than 1%), the French have supplied uranium to Iraq, and the German’s sent over a team to help make the main section for the device to assist in a nuclear weapon. Isn’t it funny that all the countries that have egg on their face and secret oil deals with Iraq are the same ones who don’t want us to go in?

When Clinton supported regime change
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20030220.shtml

When have millions of Europeans ever been wrong?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030218.shtml

And the following text is from: http://www.nationalreview.com/10feb03/editors021003b.asp

The antiwar demonstration in Washington, D.C., showed the debasement of the Left. The New York Times characterized "many" of the marchers as "skeptical and frustrated citizens," who belonged to no organized group. No doubt that is true, even as it is true that most of the people who watch a bull fight are not matadors.

But the organizers are another matter. ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), which the Washington Post called an "activist coalition," is in fact a front for the Workers World party, a Trotskyite cult that split from the Socialist Workers party in order to endorse the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The WWP thus managed to embrace both Trotskyism and Stalinism — a neat trick. Half a century later, they are still in the streets, trying to fasten onto any convenient cause, while the same useful idiots (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jessica Lange) are willing to march along with them.

The rhetoric of the antiwar Left reeks with the formaldehyde of irrelevance. How will supporting Iraq end racism? (Saddam is notoriously tough on his minorities.) Demonstrators repeated the mantra that Bush was going to war for the sake of oil. Yet the Middle East supplies a shrinking share of the world oil market, and . . . But never mind, it's not worth debating. Some antiwarriors in San Francisco have remade Lyndon Johnson's poisonous 1964 "Daisy" commercial, which accused Barry Goldwater of risking Armageddon. At least in 1964 there were two nuclear-armed superpowers. The point of threatening Iraq now is to make sure that it never becomes one.

It was wicked for an earlier generation of leftists to ally themselves, tacitly or proudly, with Communist powers. But Communism used a universalist rhetoric that could lull the seriously inattentive. Nowadays the antiwar Left finds itself allied with regimes whose only claim to our attention is their thuggery. Saddam Hussein (and Kim Jong Il — wait for the demonstrations in his behalf) have no intelligible ideology, no goal beyond survival and oppression. Yet the American Left embraces them. Not, primarily, because they admire their societies, though Iraq and North Korea express a will to power that must speak to a similar urge in them. The Left supports them in order to hate America — its system, its leaders, its power; after 9/11, its dead. The antiwar leftists are slaves, in bed with beasts. The "skeptical and frustrated citizens" who march with them shirk the responsibilities of rational advocacy.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/20/2003 2:39 AM (GMT -6)

In this day and age, if we wait to first be struck, there may be little of us (or any other country that's been first struck) to strike back.

The world has changed. The Just-War constitution needs to be slightly changed; updated to consider the destructive power of merely one missle compared to all we dropped in World War II alone.

Starkman

(Personally, if one is stupid enough to tout one's intention to destroy others as soon as they have the weapon capability--nuke capability, that is--then the game changes real quick: get them before they get you.)

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/20/2003 2:54 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
It was wicked for an earlier generation of leftists to ally themselves, tacitly or proudly, with Communist powers. But Communism used a universalist rhetoric that could lull the seriously inattentive. Nowadays the antiwar Left finds itself allied with regimes whose only claim to our attention is their thuggery. Saddam Hussein (and Kim Jong Il — wait for the demonstrations in his behalf) have no intelligible ideology, no goal beyond survival and oppression. Yet the American Left embraces them. Not, primarily, because they admire their societies, though Iraq and North Korea express a will to power that must speak to a similar urge in them. The Left supports them in order to hate America — its system, its leaders, its power; after 9/11, its dead. The antiwar leftists are slaves, in bed with beasts. The "skeptical and frustrated citizens" who march with them shirk the responsibilities of rational advocacy.

This is an interesting political rhetoric in its own right (pun) SeanG. You have attempted to associate those who do not believe in the just causes of war with communists, totalitarian rulers, and America-Haters. This issue gets more and more polarized at every utterance.

Back to the Just War criteria, the three points that concern me most are: Right Authority, Right Intention, and Last Resort. at what point is war considered the last resort? 5years, 10years, 12years, 20years of stalemate? Is it a determination of time or dipllomacy? Have enough alternatives been provided or is it about being tired of trying to take the slow road? The Vaguery of public authority concerns me. At what point do we say the public has been informed enough to make rational decisions regarding war? Has debate been polarized by propaganda or rhetoric on either side? When can it be determined that the prosecutors have the right intention? Let's say, only hypothetically that this war is about oil? Would that be a right intention? Hundreds of questions could be asked with answers that ally with multiple outcomes?

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/20/2003 4:22 AM (GMT -6)

This doesn’t change the fact that most of those who marched in Washington were angered at capitalism as a whole, and the “Imperialistic Power” that they see in the United States. Whether the protestors knew about ANSWER or not is irrelevant, the goal is mutual. The communists were behind almost all the marches during the Vietnam era as well (a war we would have won if someone with heart was in charge)

The antiwar movement only served to inspire the communists to go on fighting and killing Americans and the South Vietnamese. The visits to North Vietnam by actress and antiwar activist "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, Ramsey Clark and others only served to encourage the communists to continue to imprison, beat and starve our prisoners of war. ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5956 )
Just like today with the two liberal presidents speaking out publicly, and the Hollywood “elite”, this is all serving to strengthen the enemy, and may in fact cause more death than if they had kept their big mouths shut. “The great irony of the anti-war movement is they would surely not be tolerated in the very countries they try to protect. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea and China would simply crack them over the head or shoot them the minute they hit the street in protest.”

What the marchers all had in common is distaste for capitalism, most were young college students indoctrinated in the anti-military anti-capitalism that runs rampant on our university campuses. So while most were not Marxists, per say, almost all were progressive social democrats (socialists), this is why the marches were bigger in Europe, because they are doggedly anti-capitalist and anti-war.

To publicly protest is one thing, however, to side with these rogue nations, which the marchers did, either knowingly or unknowingly, is morally atrocious, and any “rhetoric” to expose this is welcomed. Because if one doesn’t listen to talk-radio, the fact that the Washington march was organized by communists would have gone unnoticed in the popular press.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”

Edited by - SeanG on 02/20/2003 09:27:04 AM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/20/2003 4:31 AM (GMT -6)

The war isn’t about oil; it is about 17 broken treatise and a person in charge of a nation that is detrimental to stability in the middle-east. Iraq has swept aside all moral discussion in its rejection of what it signed or agreed to do. Therefore, it would be immoral not to resume hostility towards the leaders of that enslaved nation. Remember, it is not preemptive.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/20/2003 5:09 AM (GMT -6)

fyodor said:

quote:
[T]here cannot be a just war.

I asked this a couple times on the other thread, but I'll try again here. Was it just war to have stopped Hitler? And on a more personal level, would it be just to kill someone who was trying to murder your family?

I really want to hear your direct answers to these questions.

Also, the following responds to your claim of the moral high ground on this issue:

The "pacifist" proponents of nonviolent resistance do not, as many seem to think, occupy the moral high ground while the rest of us are prepared to get our hands dirty in "the real world." They live in an unreal world of utopian fantasy that has no basis in Christian faith. Yes, they may be intensely sincere, and that can be touching, but they are also monumentally wrong. The difference is not between idealism and realism, nor between moral purity and moral compromise. The difference is a disagreement in discerning one’s duty in the face of a challenge not of one’s choosing. In a time of patriotic fervor, it may take a measure of courage to be in a minority advocating nonviolent resistance, but the advocates of that course are also comfortably refusing the call to service with its risk of killing or of being killed.

Some ask, What would Jesus do? Can you imagine, it is asked, Jesus flying a stealth bomber or joining in a commando raid? One might as well ask if you can imagine Jesus driving a bus, editing a magazine, or being a tenured professor in a religious studies department. The question is not what Jesus would do but what he would have us do. Real pacifists answer that question one way. Other faithful disciples answer that, in obedience to the command to love the neighbor, it is their duty to defend the innocent by engaging in a just war against a murderous aggressor.

Electra said:

quote:
Before we get too far into it, let me clarify that the criteria I listed are the criteria traditionally cited in support of Just War, and not Dr. Simpson’s own criteria (though I followed his presentation of them, which is why I thought I should cite him).

Yes, I believe the criteria are those traditionally cited, but some of Simpson's definitions of those criteria, particularly that of the term "just cause", are arguably much more narrow than many just war theorists would have them. Many just war theorists would state that a just cause is defined generally as defensive--- not, as Simpson states above, limited solely to a response to an already suffered injury. The practical implications of such a narrow definition could -- especially in today's world -- result in much more loss of innocent life. The editors of First Things, a Catholic monthly, recently articulated their understanding of the just war criteria. I think it is consistent with the traditional principles underlying just war theory:

In this Christian teaching, the criteria of just war are divided into two categories—ius ad bellum and ius in bello. The first have to do with the reasons that justify going to war, the second with how a just war is to be conducted. According to the first set of criteria, a just war is defensive, aimed at protecting the innocent against unjust aggression. It must be undertaken with the right intention of establishing a just peace, and a reasonable expectation that the means employed will be proportionate to the ends sought. A just war is a last resort, undertaken when it is reasonably determined that there are not alternative ways to resolve the conflict, and when there is a reasonable probability of success in achieving the aims of the war. Such, all too briefly, are the criteria pertinent to the decision to go to war—ius ad bellum.

The second set of criteria, ius in bello, is quite distinct, and must be kept so. Distinctions can be multiplied, but the ius in bello criteria are essentially two: proportionality and discrimination. The first requires the use of no more force than is necessary to vindicate the just cause. The second pertains to what is called "noncombatant immunity," meaning that there must be no intentional killing of innocent civilians. Put differently, ius ad bellum deals with the "cause" of war and ius in bello with the "conduct" of war.

Enjoying the dialogue,

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Edited by - BJS on 02/20/2003 10:19:28 AM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/20/2003 5:16 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

quote:
It was wicked for an earlier generation of leftists to ally themselves, tacitly or proudly, with Communist powers. But Communism used a universalist rhetoric that could lull the seriously inattentive. Nowadays the antiwar Left finds itself allied with regimes whose only claim to our attention is their thuggery. Saddam Hussein (and Kim Jong Il — wait for the demonstrations in his behalf) have no intelligible ideology, no goal beyond survival and oppression. Yet the American Left embraces them. Not, primarily, because they admire their societies, though Iraq and North Korea express a will to power that must speak to a similar urge in them. The Left supports them in order to hate America — its system, its leaders, its power; after 9/11, its dead. The antiwar leftists are slaves, in bed with beasts. The "skeptical and frustrated citizens" who march with them shirk the responsibilities of rational advocacy.

This is an interesting political rhetoric in its own right (pun) SeanG. You have attempted to associate those who do not believe in the just causes of war with communists, totalitarian rulers, and America-Haters. This issue gets more and more polarized at every utterance.

Let me add, by the way, that I completely agree with fyodor here. It is entirely inaccurate, hyperbolic and unproductive to start labeling those against war in general or war in Iraq as communists, totalitarians, and anti-American (I like to think of it as the Wizard of Oz Rhetorical Method: "Lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my!").

The issue is not so simple, SeanG -- morally, politically, or spiritually.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/20/2003 5:47 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the direct questions BJS, I will try and postulate a more direct answer later tonight when I have more time. Thanks for keeping me honest to myself.

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/20/2003 6:10 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Thanks for the direct questions BJS, I will try and postulate a more direct answer later tonight when I have more time. Thanks for keeping me honest to myself.

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

Looking forward to it, fyodor! Be sure to keep me honest, too.

[Of course, I didn't mean to suggest that you weren't being honest about my questions, I just knew I hadn't seen your answers to those questions yet. Talk to you later.]

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/20/2003 6:25 AM (GMT -6)

It is very simple issue in fact, when Electra asked, “Do you think the rationale for a preemptive strike on Iraq meets these criteria?” I responded that it is in fact not a preemptive strike but a resumptive one. The second issue about whether war in general is justified, well, the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only worldview that can label a political philosophy as evil, and in doing so should fight (whether in words or in deeds) to stop the spread of such a politio-philosophy, such as Iraq holds. Eastern-Europe is on our side because they were part of an evil ideology, and since being freed from such (thanks to Reagan’s policy of meeting the problem head on militarily) understand that we need to go into Iraq now.

Clinton said it best:

“Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”

“Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. . . . Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. . . . Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.”

“Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”

“The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. . . . Heavy as they are,the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. . . . But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.”

Now, of course, Clinton wishes he could take back these words, only because the anti-war rhetoric is the only means of attack the liberals have.

Third, pacifist ideas dominate European society. Another major ideological consequence of the World Wars was the belief that wars are wrong, that any evil -- from Communism to Saddam Hussein or North Korea owning weapons of mass destruction -- is better than fighting. America, on the other hand, believes that it is sometimes better to fight evil. The last time many Europeans demonstrated against America was when President Ronald Reagan put Pershing missiles in Europe. Europeans thought that confronting the Soviets was provocative and wrong. (from: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030218.shtml# )

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

Edited by - SeanG on 02/20/2003 11:27:13 AM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/20/2003 9:43 AM (GMT -6)

SeanG said:

quote:
[T]he Judeo-Christian worldview is the only worldview that can label a political philosophy as evil, and in doing so should fight (whether in words or in deeds) to stop the spread of such a politio-philosophy, such as Iraq holds.

I truly hope you meant something else, because if what you wrote here is consistent with what you actually believe, you subscribe to a political philosophy that has historically been referred to as fascism.

I'm sure that's not what you intended.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/20/2003 7:38 PM (GMT -6)

BJS>>>

quote:
I asked this a couple times on the other thread, but I'll try again here. Was it just war to have stopped Hitler? And on a more personal level, would it be just to kill someone who was trying to murder your family?

I really want to hear your direct answers to these questions.

I tried really hard to come up with an in-depth answer to these two questions, but the answer is still quite simple to me. OK, to stop Hitler, yes, to kill him I would say no. On the family issue, no again.

The problem as I see it is the justification for killing is largely a human justification. We believe that choosing the lesser of two evils is justified. But choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. To justify killing is to justify a sin. Killing and war cannot be justified. When the justification for killing comes from God, to contradict the words that Jesus spoke when he said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." then it will seem as though we would have the green light on war. But I don't see that happening in the world as it exists since Jesus walked on earth. Prior to Jesus, it does seem that God did condone and even partake in some wars , but I just don't see it happening in the post-ressurrection world. So many times, Christ spoke words which seems to directly contradict the notion that we can justify killing, such as the scripture posted above, or when Peter pulled his sword as Jesus was being arrested, or in the commandment to love God above all else and love your neighbor as yourself, which also includes one's enemies. I see judgement not justification in regards to killing in the New Testament and any justification is such that is contrived by humans to fit a particular world-view, and not by Christ.

Sorry BJS if you were waiting for some long oratory, but occam's razor seems to be my solution here.

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

Edited by - fyodor on 02/21/2003 12:40:37 AM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/21/2003 5:42 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for your honest answers, fyodor. I know this is a tough issue. A few comments on what you said:

quote:
I tried really hard to come up with an in-depth answer to these two questions, but the answer is still quite simple to me. OK, to stop Hitler, yes, to kill him I would say no. On the family issue, no again.

It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. In other words, you recognize that it would be right to stop someone like Hitler, but no killing can be involved. As wonderful as it would have been if Hitler could have been stopped without war, fyodor, it was impossible. If you say it was right to stop Hitler, you must concede that to do it required war---and sadly, war requires killing.

A second point: When you say that it would be okay to "stop" Hitler but not kill him, what do you mean? Could you physically assault the Nazis? Could you injure them as long as you didn't kill them? Besides the complete futility of such an effort (as I described above), I would also note that your position seems inconsistent with itself. In other words, how would "stopping" Hitler without killing be any less inconsistent with your expansive application of Jesus' command to love our enemies? We are either allowed to fight someone like Hitler, or we are not.

Finally, I appreciate your candor about whether you would protect your family from being murdered. You claim that you wouldn't. Maybe, maybe not. But do you honestly believe that this philosophy is consistent with Jesus' command to love each other?

Let me put it this way: What you are saying, in essence, is that although Jesus calls us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, heal the sick, mend the broken-hearted, etc.---we are NOT allowed to physically protect them from being murdered?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/21/2003 6:25 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Finally, I appreciate your candor about whether you would protect your family from being murdered. You claim that you wouldn't. Maybe, maybe not. But do you honestly believe that this philosophy is consistent with Jesus' command to love each other?

I don't claim that I wouldn't try to protect my family, I claimed that the killing of someone as a means for protection can't be just. The point of all of this is not whether I would or wouldn't kill. The point is whether it can be JUSTIFIED to do so.

quote:
A second point: When you say that it would be okay to "stop" Hitler but not kill him, what do you mean? Could you physically assault the Nazis? Could you injure them as long as you didn't kill them? Besides the complete futility of such an effort (as I described above), I would also note that your position seems inconsistent with itself. In other words, how would "stopping" Hitler without killing be any less inconsistent with your expansive application of Jesus' command to love our enemies? We are either allowed to fight someone like Hitler, or we are not.

Again, the point is not whether or not we kill, but can the killing be justified? Does taking one life to save another, make one killing a sin and not the other? I don't see the loophole that allows for that. Is stealing food or medicine to feed the hungry a sin? As long as the means by which we exonerate killing are human means, then I don't think we can say that they are justified.

If killing can be justified, and thusly war can be justified, then what does it mean to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. You can kill them, but you should pray for their soul?

1 John 3:16-17 We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us – and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses to help?

It is true that we are indeed responsible to help those in need, and yes that does mean those in danger of losing their life. However, we cannot be certain that killing would be justifiable. Trading in a sin to use against another sin does not seem to be an option. Actually it tells us we are to lay down are life for others not take lives. To love is radical and it isn't always clear what love looks like, but I don't think it manifests itself in killing.

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/21/2003 7:49 AM (GMT -6)

BJS, how is the Judeo-Christian philosophy, or worldview related to fascism?

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/21/2003 8:51 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

BJS, how is the Judeo-Christian philosophy, or worldview related to fascism?

SeanG!

That's the point, SeanG. Christianity has nothing to do with fascism. However, plenty of Christians, both presently and historically, have had an unfortunate tendency to mix the two. You said that no one but "Judeo-Christians" can know whether a political philosophy is "evil", and once they do so, they are to conquer it. That's not Christianity, SeanG, that's political fascism. As I said, though, I'm sure you meant something else.

I would also point out as kindly as I can that much of your current participation on this thread has been composed primarily of ad hominem arguments against war protestors. In other words, rather than just engaging the real arguments against the war in a humble way, respecting the complexity of the decision, you have resorted to mass postings of right-wing ranting that war protestors should be dismissed because they're all just commies anyway. This isn't debate, SeanG. Stick to your political and moral reasons for supporting a war in Iraq.

[And, of course, this is coming from someone who IS in favor of war in Iraq if it is necessary, so. . .]

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Edited by - BJS on 02/21/2003 4:26:02 PM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/21/2003 9:03 AM (GMT -6)

fyodor:

quote:
It is true that we are indeed responsible to help those in need, and yes that does mean those in danger of losing their life. However, we cannot be certain that killing would be justifiable. Trading in a sin to use against another sin does not seem to be an option. Actually it tells us we are to lay down are life for others not take lives. To love is radical and it isn't always clear what love looks like, but I don't think it manifests itself in killing.

You just aren't responding to the dilemma that you have put yourself in. Again, in order to stop Hitler, killing was absolutely necessary. There's no way around it. If you agree that it was JUST to stop Hitler, you must agree that some war is JUST, because war was required to stop Hitler. So which is it? Can war ever be just, or not?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

fyodor
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179

Posted 2/21/2003 9:22 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
You just aren't responding to the dilemma that you have put yourself in. Again, in order to stop Hitler, killing was absolutely necessary. There's no way around it. If you agree that it was JUST to stop Hitler, you must agree that some war is JUST, because war was required to stop Hitler. So which is it? Can war ever be just, or not?

I've been pretty clear that I feel war can't be just.

I am responding to the dilema. The problem is that you come into the dialogue with a presupposition that war was the only way to stop HItler. Why was killing absolutley necessary? Is there no other intelligible resistance to violence? Understandably, there was insanely horrific crap going on, however it was years into Hitler's rule before there was a large-scale organized Christian resistance to an obviously evil leader? Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally naive about war, but I think there is something theologically wrong with the conclusion that war can be justified.

Perhaps it's semantics. I'm talking about justification on the spiritual plane. Can it be classified as good or evil?

†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/21/2003 3:23 PM (GMT -6)

BJS,

I do believe war is justified when there is evil in the world, such as with our situation with Iraq. However, to call something evil is to imply or suppose the Judeo-Christian ethic, worldview, philosophy… whatever you wish to call it. A pantheist cannot truly call something evil, neither can an atheist (they would have to adopt our ethic temporarily to do so). The West is inculcated with this Judeo-Christian ethic.

Fascism can never be confused with Christianity, there are some who would say that E doesn’t equal Mc(squared) either. The “fascism” practiced in Germany wasn’t fascism at all; it was occultism, tied to Madam Blavatsky and others (just like the meditation room in the U. N.). And this quote from an intelligent philosopher who came the closest to living the fascist life will show that it is at variance with the thesis that by some believing fascism and Christianity are mixable…

“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

~ Mussolini

If you read my posts you will see that I am for just wars, and the war with Iraq is just!

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

Edited by - SeanG on 02/21/2003 8:25:26 PM

41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:54 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual