Just War?

[schafer]

I would just like to know where/how people get the concept of a war that is justified, as in all discussions I've had, I haven't been fully convinced by any 'just war' advocates.

[Mel Brennan]

For Christians, there's no way to place what Christ made paramount, and claim the right to war.

It's impossible; Christ made love of the Other, neighbor and enemy, the way to "eternal life." Even if ignore that, he made it the Second Command, one that, along with the First Command to Love God, all the other law and all the other notions of the prophetic must harken to. Everything is, MUST be, framed in the "doing" of love. On top of that Christians have also been directly told to be nonviolent, by a godhead who lived and taught nonviolence, and who died nonviolently.

For these folks, just wars are impossible. Then why do they happen?

Scriptural equivocation; man's commitment not to faith but to power; fear; a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with being about the Commands to Love, in nonviolence.

Problem is, the regular Joe or Jane Christian, living their lives, isn't ESTABLISHING "just war" doctrine.

Who is establishing it? The paragons. The leadership of these dogmatic ways of wrestling with Divine Principle, that's who.

So it ostensibly the best thinking on the issue, the BEST examples of how to come at this relationship with Christ, that is producing this right to kill others and break things while also claiming Christ and putting Christ at the front of what HAS to be, to me, patently anti-Christ practice.

The day that hypocrisy is effectively challenged and the false idea of being able to claim "Christ-like" ness while also supporting waton murder and destruction is brought down for the false idol it is brings us one day closer to Christianity producing real results and authentic change in the world, instead of being, in cases of things like "just war doctrine," the religious megaphone for rapacious powers that cannot evne imagine Christ's way of being in the world.

[JBigjake]

I would just like to know where/how people get the concept of a war that is justified, as in all discussions I've had, I haven't been fully convinced by any 'just war' advocates.
What, if any, action would you propose if an alliance of Quebec & Nunavit encouraged homicidal attacks on Ontarians, especially Torontons, and especially encouraged torture of Chelsea fans? Should the national or provincial governments do nothing? Send peace squads out to discourage this murderous behavior? Agree with the reasoning behind the attacks? Complain to the World Court?

[christopher d]

What, if any, action would you propose if an alliance of Quebec & Nunavit encouraged homicidal attacks on Ontarians, especially Torontons, and especially encouraged torture of Chelsea fans? Should the national or provincial governments do nothing? Send peace squads out to discourage this murderous behavior? Agree with the reasoning behind the attacks? Complain to the World Court?
What, if any, action would you propose if the local powers-that-be trumped up some charges against your clergyperson because his/her message was too radical? Charges that would wind up in his/her execution? Would you slice off the ear of a Federal agent? Deny that you know the clergyperson trying to save your own skin? Offer to rat him/her out for $40?

[JBigjake]

Your scenario is not war. However, it would fulfill the scriptures, so I guess that you would do your part.

[servotron]

Just war. That's how a lot of people, particularly the ones sending kids off to die see it. "It's just war!"

Like Operation Just Cause. Why'd ya do it? Just 'cause!

[Ismitje]

I would just like to know where/how people get the concept of a war that is justified, as in all discussions I've had, I haven't been fully convinced by any 'just war' advocates.

Do you want to consider St. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians and their ideas of what constitutes a just war? I don't want to bring up said ideas if this isn't the direction you intended to go and/or is already so well known by the group that it would be repetitive even to raise.

[royalstilton]

For Christians, there's no way to place what Christ made paramount, and claim the right to war.
---
let's posit a scenario, shall we?

you are a the leader of a nation, like Israel, or Rwanda, it doesn't matter which, and a neighboring country decides to invade your borders and begin to kill your citizens, claiming "a divine right" to occupy your territory.

do you, whether Christian or Jew, have the right to resist, to defend to the death, your borders?

when Jesus said to turn the other cheek, please recall that he was talking about being struck on your right cheek. most people are right-handed. that would mean that to be struck on the right cheek the person would be hitting you with the back of his hand, by common inference. this is not the same as being struck with his fist on your left cheek, which would be what one would expect if what was described was an intentional, aimed-to-injure, blow.

no, Jesus is talking about being slapped, insulted, made to be the victim, not attacked with an intent to do bodily harm. the defense against such insult is to ignore it, to "turn the other cheek". to show mercy and not to dishonor the name of Christ.

this says nothing about defending oneself against mortal attack.

[DoctorD]

Do you want to consider St. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians and their ideas of what constitutes a just war? I don't want to bring up said ideas if this isn't the direction you intended to go and/or is already so well known by the group that it would be repetitive even to raise.
I've been refraining from posting a similar thought. The Christian idea of a just war has been debated by more brilliant theologians than anyone alive today.

[schafer]

I've been refraining from posting a similar thought. The Christian idea of a just war has been debated by more brilliant theologians than anyone alive today.

Honestly, it's just been something I've been exploring lately, and I'm not familiar with Aquinas or any other Christian theologians views on it. (I'm only 16, so I would appreciate exposure to their ideas, as well as your own.)

[christopher d]

when Jesus said to turn the other cheek, please recall that he was talking about being struck on your right cheek. most people are right-handed. that would mean that to be struck on the right cheek the person would be hitting you with the back of his hand, by common inference. this is not the same as being struck with his fist on your left cheek, which would be what one would expect if what was described was an intentional, aimed-to-injure, blow.

no, Jesus is talking about being slapped, insulted, made to be the victim, not attacked with an intent to do bodily harm. the defense against such insult is to ignore it, to "turn the other cheek". to show mercy and not to dishonor the name of Christ.

this says nothing about defending oneself against mortal attack.
This is so cool. It could lead to an entirely new (as far as I know) field of academics: The Semantics of Religion.

[DoctorJones24]

Honestly, it's just been something I've been exploring lately, and I'm not familiar with Aquinas or any other Christian theologians views on it. (I'm only 16, so I would appreciate exposure to their ideas, as well as your own.)

The body of thought that has developed around this idea is often referred to in the latin phrase: "jus ad bellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum)."

The Catholics in particular have had a lot to say about it over the years (Augustine and Aquinas for starters, but also some papal encyclicals, IIR). John the 23rd's "Pacem in Terris" might touch on it.

[Barbara]

Just war. That's how a lot of people, particularly the ones sending kids off to die see it. "It's just war!"

Like Operation Just Cause. Why'd ya do it? Just 'cause!


In some corners of Bigsoccer, instead of saying "just 'cause" you say "invasion of panama."

[Mel Brennan]

---
let's posit a scenario, shall we?

you are a the leader of a nation, like Israel, or Rwanda, it doesn't matter which, and a neighboring country decides to invade your borders and begin to kill your citizens, claiming "a divine right" to occupy your territory.

do you, whether Christian or Jew, have the right to resist, to defend to the death, your borders?

This whole post is, to be frank, offensive. Not in any way that challenges your right to post it, but in a way that makes me both angry and sad. I'll elucidate.

Christ didn't ask you to worry about the above scenario at all. Did he? Does Christ expressly offer tools for you to respond violently to violence and still be in meaningful relationship with him? Or does he in fact offer you tools of love, nonviolence and mercy by which to be in relationship with not only him but every other person you come across/comes into your awareness?

If you have language from Christ that provides you with tools that allow you to violently murder or intentionally do harm to another for ANY reason, please...share them with us.

when Jesus said to turn the other cheek, please recall that he was talking about being struck on your right cheek. most people are right-handed. that would mean that to be struck on the right cheek the person would be hitting you with the back of his hand, by common inference. this is not the same as being struck with his fist on your left cheek, which would be what one would expect if what was described was an intentional, aimed-to-injure, blow.

no, Jesus is talking about being slapped, insulted, made to be the victim, not attacked with an intent to do bodily harm. the defense against such insult is to ignore it, to "turn the other cheek". to show mercy and not to dishonor the name of Christ.

this says nothing about defending oneself against mortal attack.


(Sigh) This evasive, pathological interpretation is not only a borderline lie to the very face of the truth of the words we have from Christ - and cowardly, in my view - but understanding it is FUNDAMENTAL to understanding how a nonviolent Christ, who lived nonviolently, taught nonviolence, and died nonviolently, Commanding love of God, neighbor and enemy with mercy as THE form of agency by which such love gets experessed can be, for examnple, placed in front of death-dealing soliders in war and misadvenutre abroad, or in front of a Congressional speech by this Chief Executive, murdering and bombing and idolizing money and oil while asking for a blessing over all of that in Christ's name. It is why Christianity as practiced by most in the USA is Constantinian and not prophetic in nature, why it serves, almost always, empire and not the constitutents one finds Christ dealing with throughout the NT.

Context. Please, royalstilton, tell us about the language that introduces that whole section, the words before and after your interpretive dalliance. Please! Christ was talking about nonviolence, period. Any other interpretation does not spring from the clear language of the Bible, and must be infused with your own will and desire to have the right to do murder when you've established, for yourself, appropriate context to do so.

In other words, when Christ starts off this portion of the Sermon on the Mount by saying, specifically, that "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,'" there's no doubt that he's beginning this portion of the Sermon by grounding it IN the specific scriptural language that those who followed the Law to that point EMPLOYED to justify retaliatory and other expressions of violence.

Likewise, when he goes on, in the very next sentence, to refute such earlier Scripture by saying, specifically, "But I tell you not to resist an evil person," he is directing and compelling nonviolence directly and specfically, which of course makes sense if he has also made paramount the duty to Love, which he has, even one's own enemies, which he does, in this Sermon in the section just after the one you've attempted to turn on its head to allow murder and harm in contrvied contexts.

Then, after grounding people in the language they thought made retaliatory violence or violence in self-defense okay, and, specifically refuting it, he goes ON to submit further that "...whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." This is an example of HOW Christ wants what he JUST directed in the previous freakin' SENTENCE...HOW "not to resist an evil person."

Far from this being some abstract, dissonant and unrelated injection into the Message that is about bandying about metaphors of "right" and "left", Christ offers us, like he always does in the NT, direct, simple language related to what he just said, and what he's about to say; Christ of course would be tying this to everything he JUST said, and everything he's about to say.

Only those looking for ways to, for example, claim a relationship with Christ and still do whatever the hell it is they want to do, particularly harm others, choose the singular, isolated interpretation you pony up above, and, to be frank, it's sick, and a wholsale abdication of the challenge of faith that Christ offers. It's cowardly, in my view. I'm sure you feel different. Question for the neutrals is "which way of wrestling with Christ leaps around for singular isolated spin, and which one flows right from what the man, your godhead, actually is recorded as saying?"

Finally, Christ amplifies the duty to the other, in nonviolence, that is required of a follower of Christ who has given the Great Commands to Love the primacy that Christ has Commanded they have in the lives of those looking to build, and to live, in the way he demonstrated. "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."

Christ didn't ask us to wrestle with outcomes; he didn't ASK those aiming to be Christ-like a damn thing. He Commanded, directed, and led by clear and undeniable example. Love, mercy and nonviolence.

Period. Anything else is fear of even making the fullest attempt to be those things in our own lives. Thankfully, for every person I've heard spout the spin, above, you've just spouted, there's a Gene Sharp (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/198_methods.pdf) giving us the tools of nonviolent resistance and a Tom Fox (http://www.cpt.org/) ready to die in love in order to be Christ-like in our lives. I aspire to be where, and what , Tom and other s like him were, and are, asking question in the midst such as "What would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and self-sacrifice to nonviolent peacemaking that armies devote to war?" (http://www.cpt.org/publications/history.php)

What indeed?

I'll return to my challenge at the beginning of my response; If you have language from Christ that provides you with tools that allow you to violently murder or intentonally do harm to another for ANY reason, please...share them with us.

I know that those claiming Christ don't like it; sorry. You've got no loophole. No way out of loving, with mercy and nonviolently, every single person you come across. You just don't. And you CERTAINLY do not have ANYTHING from Christ that confirms a right to do intentional violence to another (or one's own self) at any level for any reason. Your God takes out copious amounts of time in the book you claim is the Word of God to Command and direct a clear and unyielding COMMITMENT to the diametric OPPOSITE way of being in the world!!!!!!!!

Will those claiming Christ have the courage of their faith to manifest such a world where they can, and demand it from their leaders, who employ the "energy" they give to such leadership (tax money, human resources) towards patently Anti-Christ ends? It remains to be seen.

In the interim between that crucial moment and this one, though, such abidcation and retreat into the right to hurt harm and kill as being aligned with what Christ said at all must be challenged directly each and every time you or another attempts it, each and every time me or someone else has the time to do so.

[LiverpoolFanatic]

That's the Christ I learned about Mel. Pity the religious people spoiled it for me though...

[Yankee_Blue]

That's the Christ I learned about Mel. Pity the religious people spoiled it for me though...

So Im guessing Mel and LiverpoolFanatic are Christians?

[Ismitje]

Mel draws a strong moral about Christ's admonitions regarding war. Here is one contrary view about a Just War from Aquinas:

"In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as 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."

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. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): "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." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

There's more at The Summa Theologica (http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html)

[sebakoole]

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as 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."
By this criterion both the Israelis and the Palestinians are justified in their continued attacks upon one another. Ask any Israeli politician who orders attacks and he'll say he's avenging wrongs. Ask any Palestinian who orders suicide bombings and he'll say the same. There will always be a just cause handy for those who want to perpetuate violence.

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. I'm sure the Iraqi mothers who have lost children to "collateral damage" are consoled by American rightful intentions. Our good intentions must rock their surviving frightened babies to sleep at night.

[DoctorD]

Mel - Was NATO's intervention in the Yugoslavia breakup a just war?

Sebakoole - official Catholic teaching also includes a requirement that all peaceable means to resolve a conflict are explored first before a just war can occur.

[#10 Jersey]

By this criterion both the Israelis and the Palestinians are justified in their continued attacks upon one another. Ask any Israeli politician who orders attacks and he'll say he's avenging wrongs. Ask any Palestinian who orders suicide bombings and he'll say the same. There will always be a just cause handy for those who want to perpetuate violence.

I'm sure the Iraqi mothers who have lost children to "collateral damage" are consoled by American rightful intentions. Our good intentions must rock their surviving frightened babies to sleep at night.

I don't think anyone's definition of just war includes one that intentionally targets innocent civilians.