'War, is it for Nation or for God?'

[Quahom1]

May God forgive us.... Amen

Good Evening Salim,

I think to understand and come to a conclusion as to whether a war is just or not, one must view the entire contents of the situation, including events that lead up to that "war".

The debate on War and Pacifism is more of a paradox, than a contradiction, when viewing such from a scriptural perspective. On one hand we are told that murder is murder, whether against one's own society, or against that of another. On the other hand we are told that there is such a thing as a "just war", and we are obliged to participate to one extent or another in serving that cause.

Abraham (then still Abram), normally a peaceful man, did go to war against the four kings who abducted his relative (Lot). He not only defeated the kings armies, he destroyed their cities and stripped them of all their riches. Extreme? Perhaps, yet God called him blessed, and sanctified his actions against the enemy.

Joshua, the people and the priests with the aid of God, knocked the walls of Jericho flat. They then put to the sword every man, woman, child, and animal within that city. They burned the city to the ground, took the riches and then cursed the ground that the city once stood on.

Extreme? Yes. But God gave specific instructions on how the war was to be conducted. And there were specific reasons as to why the wars were to be so devastating not only to the armies of the enemy, but to the citizens as well as the very land they "owned".

The spirit of the vanquished had to be broken, or else they would come back again and again, and there would be no end to the fighting.

Spin up to modern times. In the 1890s forward, both the Kaiser's Germany, and the Emporor's Japan, had expansionist ideals. In 1905, Japan fought and won a limited war with Russia, resulting in the loss of several Islands under Russian sovergnty to Japan. They didn't stop there. China was invaded over and over again. Chinese citizens were if not raped and tortured, made slaves. Korea suffered at the hands of the Japanese Imperial Army as well. Anyone the Japanes conquered were considered second class humans, and treated worse than animals.

The Kaiser's Army decided that France, Belgium and other Frank countries should fly under the flag of the Prussian double headed Eagle. Though the US was not directly involved in the fighting, it was providing logistical support to the British and French. The Kaiser decided to teach America a lesson, and sank the Lucitania (killing American Citizens and destroying American property). So the American "dough boys" stepped into the fray, and didn't stop until the war was over.

Jump to world war II. Hitler did not want America to get into the war, and went to extremes in the beginning to avoid it. He wanted the US to be an Ally at best, and neutral at worst. But Japan had other ideas. Japan wanted to rule the Pacific Rim, and figured with the US Navy out of the way, they'd have carte blanche, plus, they wanted the Aleutian Islands of Alaska for their own. They attacked a sleeping nation. When this happened, Hitler had no choice but to declare war on the United States (in support of his Japanese ally).

City and country farm boys of America metamorphasised into what the German soldiers called "The devil dogs" (US soliders and Marines).

Towards the end of the war, both nations were putting 13 to 15 year old children in uniforms with guns or airplanes. Old women were building bombs in back yards.

The orders to the two nations were to fight to the death, every last man, woman and child. No surrender, for a war they started.

Skip up to the 21st century. In the twelve years preceding 9/11, this country was attacked at least 6 times, and we did nothing but maybe fire a couple million dollar missiles into an empty tent and hit a camel in the ass. We kept saying "don't do that, don't do that."

In 1988, Sadam Hussein bombed the USS Ward, and then said "oops my mistake". In 1990 he decided he was going to take back Kuwait, against that nation's wishes. After the fall of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia was next, and that would have put 43% of the world's oil reserves in the hands of hostile intent. In 1991, he destroyed his own citizens because they did not agree with the way he ran the country. In 1993 two of our embassies were leveled, the Twin Towers were bombed in New York, and we kept saying "don't do that to us". Then 9/11 dawned.

I'm not talking ideology, or religion here. This was madness, plain and simple. Did these people really think we would let that go by unchallenged? Do you really think we are going to stop, and go home? Get out of our land, that is what we are told...and we don't shoot those who are so frustrated to say that, because they know we won't.

So I guess freedom of expression is beginning to work, where once it meant death.

Oh, we've pulled some serious blunders, to be sure. We had no business being in Somalia, or the Baltic states. We messed up by thinking that we had to work with the United Nations, only to find out that the UN is one big cesspool of self serving idiots, with no regard for anyone but their own interests. But we learn quickly.

I am amazed sometimes at the short sightedness of the rest of the world when it comes to Americans. We are you, afterall.

Americans are the best and the worst the world has to offer.

Despite our bickering and other troubles, we are still one nation, under God (don't let American media fool you).

Like my son once said, "America came in like a lamb, and will go out like a Lion". And he is right.

The most dangerous animal on earth is a wounded pacifist, who finally picks up a sword...

That's about it.

v/r

Q

There, but for the Grace of God go I...so here I go.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Salim Syed, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Salim Syed

Heavy subject, but what is more important in this time that God has created us?

Indeed, and I don't know how much I will contribute before I refrain, because my views are not usually well received. When I joined here, I promised myself I would not discuss the current hostilities, nor will I discuss war in any more than abstract terms. That said, I will attempt to address some of your concerns, which are in my mind very valid.

First of all I would like to list the rules of war in Islam

Thank you very much, your insight in this is greatly appreciated.

St. Augustine was once asked by a (Roman?) Emperor how to conduct a "Just War."

I did not find any direct quotes of St. Augustine, but I found very many references to this, and it is said that St. Augustine told that Emperor that to be just, a war had to be conducted by a twofold set of rules. (I have listed somewhere else on this site, I forget now where, it has been quite a while since I posted it.)

It should be easy enough to look up, and consists of "Jus Ad Bellum" and "Jus In Bello," Justice in cause and conduct of warfare. I do not recall fully what they all were, but I found it very interesting that the current hostilities being waged by the Bush administration were perhaps the most "just" by St. Augustine's standards that have been conducted in the last hundred years, and probably in history since Augustine's time.

By contrast, WWII and WWI were not even attempted to be conducted by St. Augustine's standards, by any of the combatants. For instance, in WW's I and II civilian populations were frequently (habitually?) targeted, whereas (despite the rhetoric to the contrary) civilians are not intentional targets now. This is in accord with St. Augustine's teaching.

So, this is in clear agreement with what you say here:

Islam has first drawn a clear line of distinction between the combatants and the non-combatants of the enemy country. As far as the non-combatant population is concerned such as women, children, the old and the infirm, etc., the instructions of the Prophet are as follows:

"Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud). "Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).

During a war, the Prophet saw the corpse of a woman lying on the ground and observed: "She was not fighting. How then she came to be killed?" From this statement of the Prophet the exegetists and jurists have drawn the principle that those who are non-combatants should not be killed during or after the war.

Now, I suppose I could remark about the indiscriminate killing by the "Iraqi patriots" in killing their own women, children, aged and infirm in the attempt to "defend" their country, but I would think that to cross the line of my promise, so I will refrain.

The Prophet also prohibited the killing of anyone who is tied or is in captivity.

The US abides by the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war. Even those at Gitmo are treated with a level of respect unheard of by any other nation in any other war I am familiar with. Is it nice, is it pretty, is it a country club? NO, and it should not be. But consider the alternative...under Saddam for example. Of course, I cannot help but be reminded how many prisoners have been beheaded at this point...

Do not transgress limits!

These points are reinforced by other sayings of Prophet Mohammed collected in The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar)

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of God said: Do not desire an encounter with the enemy; but when you encounter them, be firm. - Muslim Book 019, Number 4313

Indeed! Sun-Tzu, whose seminal work "The Art of War," written something like a thousand years before Jesus, wrote something very similar. "The Art of War" is one of the texts used for teaching in the US military academies, so I am told.

So these are the limits set by God. No justification can be used to transgress these limit, either my Muslims or others.

I do not wish to appear provocative. I must first confess a very great ignorance of Islam. I mean no disrespect, and I wish to not display any disrespect. By saying "limits set by God," I presume then that the messenger that gave these words must be revered in Islam.

I run that risk in my faith as well, confusing the messenger with the message. It is difficult sometimes to discern when the words of wisdom are human or divine in origin. Human wisdom has its place, but is not the same as Divine wisdom.

So, for instance, I could presume that all nations must at all times abide by St. Augustine's teachings, as the will of God. And so few ever have, anywhere, anytime. It is a difficult thing to insist other cultures abide by your own culture's rules, especially if the other culture is not aware of what those rules are. Would you not think it better to find common ground and understanding?

For instance as someone said in the other forum, the atom bomb dropped on Japan stopped the war and hence saved another million lives...

Now we get into the philosophy of John Mills and his students called "Utilitarianism." "For the greater good." From what I see in your post, I don't know that I can make this clear. For a religious student, it is a difficult thing to consider. A secular leader, especially a political or military leader, must sometimes make hard choices between two bad alternatives. Once in a difficult situation, there is no easy way out. You could say that any choice is "damned if you do and damned if you don't." The decision to drop the bomb on Japan was one such choice. The bomb had finally been completed and successfully tested. The choice was made to use it, becasue killing 100-plus thousand people in two drops was deemed the lesser of two evils. In the end it saved countless many more lives on both sides. You may disagree, that is your right, but that is the reasoning that was used by the leaders (President Truman and the military high command).

And Q was correct, in that while we did devastate so much of Germany (and Europe) and Japan, in the end we also went back and fixed a whole lot at our expense, and Germany and Japan both are now serious competitors in the global marketplace. Is that a fair price for the countless lives lost? Perhaps not...but how many other victors in war have done anything even close? And we did it without griping or complaining, and with little to no thanks. How often do you hear of the good things Americans are doing in Iraq, rebuilding schools and hospitals and waterworks and electricity and other things that make life reasonable? Almost never, yet be assured that work is being done as well as the more unpleasant things.

[juantoo3]

****

His statment is very dangerous ! first of all he is not God. Only God knows the future. Any nation on earth can use the same theory - 'if we decimate all others they will be terrified and never stand up to us'

But this is a very dangerous assumption to make. At no time has an American leader claimed to be speaking for God. Men like Truman and Roosevelt knew they were only men, they made no attempt to make themselves seem Holy. I want to believe they prayed for guidance, as I know Abraham Lincoln did during our civil war, but none of our (US) wars have ever been "holy wars." We do not fool ourselves in that manner.

But the thing most errant in your presumption is that Americans willfully wish to decimate anybody. Let us look at the reality: if we truly wished to, Iraq would be a field of radioactive glass where nothing would live for centuries. We hold that kind of firepower, and yet we choose not to use it. Even though it costs us the lives of many fine young men and women, we chose not to decimate the Iraqi people. Our "war" is not against the people, it is against their ruler. It is against those who follow him, who want to hold the kind of terror he did over the rest.

This is terrorism - putting terror into the hearts of innocent people in order to turn a battle which you are losing around.

So I see this the other way around.

You cannot break the limits set by God, full stop. If it means you will be defeated then so be it ! it is better to die being oppressed than becoming an oppressor.

If America were truly oppressing the people of Iraq, I could understand this statement. Since we are not, and any honest look at the matter will show what I say is true, then this statement does not apply.

Also what does it mean to fight for your nation ? Yes if someone is invading you land or forcing you into starvation or taking away your right to follow your faith, then I would say it's a justification to fight until your homes are secure or your rights restored.

Of course. It is to be expected. Yet America feeds the world, including Iraqis. So who are we starving? And we have from the beginning insisted we want the Iraqi people to govern themselves, giving them back the rights they are given by God that they did not have under Saddam.

Weapons such as atom bombs, nuclear bomb, chemical weapons, naypalm are satanic weapons. Becuase these by their design are weapons of terror, they can not be targeted only to soldiers.

But weapons like civilian airliners with innocent passengers flying into tall buildings full of innocent people is a just way to wage holy war? Name one instance where a single American attack in either Iraq or Afghanistan claimed even hundreds of lives, let alone the what, 4 thousand I think was the count in Manhattan alone. And by far most of those attacks are waged specifically at combatants. There are American soldiers who have died because they let down their guard around "civilians" who snuck in weapons and cowardly attacked. This is righteous?

What was left behind in vietnam is Satanic ! even today women are having deformed children ! what did these children do wrong ?

Vietnam was a travesty on many levels, mostly in how it was run by the politicians. War does nasty things to people, even those who live. Sometimes, in order to live, people become nasty. This is sad, yes. But it does not make one side or the other righteous.

There is a lot to world politics you overlook. I will accept that you may not be aware, just as there is a great deal of world politics around the Middle East and Asia I am not familiar with. But in the struggle between Communism and Democracy, I will side with Democracy. Communism had world dominance by force as its goal. Vietnam was instrumental in breaking that goal. The blood shed was tragic, but were it not so, the world would be a very different place today. I do not think it would be nearly as good as it is. Is it perfect, no. But it could be a whole lot worse. And I am sorry, but for all of the good intent and well meaning, I do not think a jihad to make the whole world comply to Sharia law would be any better. If you think the world is a bad place with America as the policeman of the world, at leasst we try very hard to be tolerant of others. In what I have seen of Islamic empirialism, tolerance is the first thing to go. This is so throughout the history of the spread of Islam, across Africa into Southern Europe, and to the East as well. Tolerance is not Islam's strong point. I do not wish to be provocative with this statement, I am merely pointing out historic fact.

And America is not the same as the Crusaders. America did not even exist. America is mostly Christian, but not all. In fact, we have a lot of Muslims too, including immigrants from Iraq. And they are treated for the most part equally with all other citizens. They are free to come and go, to believe as they wish, to go to school and church/temple/mosque, to work and earn a living, buy houses and property, to speak their minds, to get healthcare, and on and on ... How many Christians in Islamic lands are allowed to be equal with their fellow Muslims? I have heard of only one (Tarek Azziz, Saddam's UN ambassador). The rest are persecuted and killed. Only in Lebanon and Turkey are Christians allowed any form of freedom to exist alongside their muslim brothers and sisters. And that is because of the secular governments, not Sharia.

Now, Christians are not guiltless of saying one thing and doing another. But what you say here is not being practiced in any Holy sense by the Muslim combatants. So it is very unfair to pretend that it is.

What is great about a nation ? it is only the a boundary of land, with people who eat different food and dress differently and talk a different language.

Which is why muslims too, need to learn and practice tolerance.

If every person was taught what is a just war and what is not a just war , and stick to it...

Yes. So, when Muslim Holy Warriors begin to practice what they preach, then your arguments will hold merit. Until then, humans are not perfect, and probably never will be. So we all do the best we can with what we understand.

only God is great and we are all his servants. The greatest position a human can reach is servanthood to God.

Agreed. God is great! And servanthood to God is a grand calling. Not all men are called to serve God directly (as priests/rabbis/immams), some men are called to be servants of their fellow men, and so do God service in that way. One way to serve their fellow men is in the military.

Until every human being looks to every other human as his brother, there will not be peace... Would anyone drop an atom bomb on his own family ?

Would anyone willingly crash an airplane into his own house?

The acid test is turn the situation around and then see if you feel it is just. If the Japs dropped an atom bomb on NYC and the Americans surrendered, would you say that it was a good thing because millions more would have died, or the American would have become extinct...?

So, God's will prevailed. The Japs did not get the bomb, God gave it to us, probably because He knew we would have the wisdom to use it prudently and justly. There has not been another nuclear bomb dropped on anybody in anger since. I doubt a warrior nation like Japan at that time, or dare I day Jihadis now, that would use such restraint.

Your heart can not lie !

May God forgive us.... Amen

Perhaps, but somewhere between heart and lips, we often do lie to ourselves, and from there to others. And sometimes what we think is our heart, is not. And sometimes we do not truly understand what it is our heart is telling us, and may spend a lifetime trying to learn.

So yes, may God forgive us. We will make mistakes. Not that we want to, it just happens. It is part of being human.

I hope I have not offended. That is not my intent. I only wish to present my view. I will not continue in this, because I have a bad habit of getting carried away on this subject. This is a fault of mine, God has made me aware, and I will refrain for the sake of civility and discussion among the rest. Thank you for your patience and kindness in letting me speak to this. I enjoy your posts, and look forward to more. Peace and God bless.

[Quahom1]

The Philosopher, the Theologian and the soldier...what a trio we make


v/r

Q

[Salim Syed]

Juantoo3,

Thanks for the reply. Your opinion did not offend, it's a very hot and difficult subject.

My post was to set the record straight on the rules of war in Islam. I am sure you would not argue with the rules given. Also one must be just in judging peoples actions and the religion.

For example Sep11 - The laws of Islam forbid this and if it was carried out by Muslims then they have committed a terrible sin. From my understanding of Islam this was mass murder not a Holy war. Also the only martyrs on that terrible day were the firemen who sacrified their lives for no other reason that to save lives.

Apart from a tiny fanatic section of the Muslim world, no one agreed with Sept11. Because the majority know the laws laid down by God. And they know it was wrong.

If the Muslims say that Sep11 was wrong then you should accept that they believe this and if the laws in Islam forbid it then you should accept that 'Islam' does not promote this, even if some hate bent Muslims do an act like this.


What I am trying to say is, we have a set of religious principles. If all of the Muslims were to break these principles it does not make the actions right. Because the laws of God specify what is right, that (for Muslims) does not change.

Also there is no such thing as 'Holy War' in Islam, this is a christian term. Jihad simply means 'struggle'.

It is to be expected. Yet America feeds the world, including Iraqis. So who are we starving? And we have from the beginning insisted we want the Iraqi people to govern themselves, giving them back the rights they are given by God that they did not have under Saddam

I was not implying that America was starving anyone. My point was about the conditions that should be set to go to war.

What I mean is , if other nations had started waging war on American soil, or stop food getting to American people, or stopping American following their faith, then they could have justification to waging wars.

This is what I see as 'self defense'. Fighting people becuase they may do this or they may spread a different ideology in another part of the world, for me is not justified.

Yes. So, when Muslim Holy Warriors begin to practice what they preach, then your arguments will hold merit. Until then, humans are not perfect, and probably never will be. So we all do the best we can with what we understand.

A Muslim cannot be a Holy worrier if the act it's self is against God's law. For instance just to make the point clear, drinking alcohol in Islam is forbidden. When a Muslim drinks alcohol, for that period of time he is in a state of non-belief i.e. his actions are like someone who disbelieves.

So a Muslim who kills an innocent person is not in an 'Islamic state' when doing a criminal act.

My basic point seem to 'want to' say Islam promotes these bad actions , even though they know Islam forbids it and that some Muslims have done bad actions which are against the religion.

If for instance you said that Christianity forbids chemical weapons and then America used them. It would be wrong for me to say Christianity promotes the use of chemical weapons. Because I would now have the knowledge of the religious principle and can see that it is the humans error not the religion it's self.

No matter what you say or what Muslims scholars , media etc say, some people keep saying Islam promotes this and that. I think this is because they do not want to accept that another religion can have just principles, even if the are sometimes broken by the followers.

All my text on Japan and the atom bomb was trying to put down a principle, I was not attacking Americans. If a Muslim country dropped an atom bomb I would apply the same rules.

What I wanted to find out from these posts are the underlying Christian principles for rules of war. Not the American constitution or the geneva convention. Mankind can make up many good and bad laws.

I wanted to see if Christianity has any fast and hard rules that in principles can never be broken - a basis for all other state and national laws, that people of other faith can say 'Christian law says this... but the American government did that....'

How many Christians in Islamic lands are allowed to be equal with their fellow Muslims?

I am afraid that this statement is unfounded. If you read the history of Islamic empires you will find that no other religious based empire has treated other faiths with the respect and tolerance of Islam. Again this is based on the fact that the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad (saas) laid down principles that cannot be broken. They are very detailed.

Please buy yourself a DVD called 'Islam Empire Of Faith' which puts the history of Islam into perspective.

Peace be upon you

Anyone who has joined this thread, please forgive me if I have offended in anyway, this was not my intention, just trying to clarify what I feel is Islam vs peoples actions....

[Quahom1]

Based upon your request, here are the hard/fast Christian rules of engagement in war:

Principles of War
The first five principles apply as a nation is "on the way to war" (jus ad bellum) and the final two apply to military forces "in the midst of war" (jus in bello). Briefly, they are as follows:

Just cause--All aggression is condemned in just war theory. Participation in the war in question must be prompted by a just cause or defensive cause. No war of unprovoked aggression can ever be justified. Only defensive war is legitimate.

Just intention (right intention)--The war in question must have a just intention, that is, its intent must be to secure a fair peace for all parties involved. Therefore, revenge, conquest, economic gain, and ideological supremacy are not legitimate motives for going to war. There must be a belief that ultimately greater good than harm will result from the war.

Last resort--The war in question must be engaged in only as a last resort. Other means of resolution such as diplomacy and economic pressure must have been exhausted.

Formal declaration--The war in question must be initiated with a formal declaration by properly constituted authorities. Only governments can declare war, not individuals, terrorist organizations, mercenaries, or militias.

Limited objectives--The war in question must be characterized by limited objectives. This means that securing peace is the goal and purpose of going to war. The war must be waged in such a way that once peace is attainable, hostilities cease. Complete destruction of a nation's political institutions or economic institutions is an improper objective.

Proportionate means--Combatant forces of the opposition forces may not be subjected to greater harm than is necessary to secure victory and peace. The types of weapons and amount of force used must be limited to only what is needed to repel the aggression, deter future attacks, and secure a just peace. Therefore, total or unlimited warfare is inappropriate. ("You don't burn down the barn to roast the pig.")

Noncombatant immunity--Military forces must respect individuals and groups not participating in the conflict and must abstain from attacking them. Since only governments can declare war, only governmental forces or agents are legitimate targets. This means that prisoners of war, civilians, and casualties are immune from intentional attacks.

The interpretation and application of these seven rules is not easy in modern warfare. Nor is there any assurance that they will always receive strict adherence. Warfare is not clean or nice. It is horrible. These principles are used, not to promulgate war, but to contain it. They are principles of containment, not principles of conflagration. They are moral and ethical guidelines for attempting to minimize the death and devastation that always accompany war. An attempt to put a rational face on irrational actions.

And Salim, it isn't Muslims or Christians that have cornered the market on warfare. It is people that use religion as an excuse to do so, while another agenda is hidden in their minds...power, control and greed.

There are over a billion Muslims, and a billion Christians on this planet. Less than half a million of each faith combined, are causing all of this heartache and sensationalism, while the rest of the world looks on in morbid fascination. Makes one wonder who the real fools are...

v/r

Q

[path_of_one]

I'll preface this by saying I'm very passionate about pacifism, but I do respect and appreciate those who feel it is their duty to be soldiers. While I truly believe pacifism is the right path, especially given the difficulty of carrying out a war at this point that avoids harming infrastructure and innocent civilians, I realize that many other spiritual people have come to different conclusions, and I respect their right to follow what they feel is the path of best action for them. I think there is nothing we can do as individuals except take these issues to prayer and base our decisions on the guidance we receive, as well as study our scriptures and try to see how they apply to issues today.

That said, I'm going to stay away from specific political issues when at all possible, outside of a few general comments. Those I think would be better addressed in a politics forum, and I think this is more about war in general than certain recent military actions. Suffice it to say that I think many, many citizens of all nations are quite uninformed about the reasons nations choose military actions (including all the actions that aren't technically wars the U.S. engages in without much knowledge by its citizenry). The U.S. government presents itself to its citizenry as a fighter for democracy, equality, and whatnot, but the reality is that many (though certainly not all) military endeavors have trained and aided dictators as opposed to the will of the people, supported elites who exploited the poor, and generally hurt the standard of living and security for everyday peasant and tribal peoples. Furthermore, our economy is dependent on the exploitation of poor and oppressed people in the third world and was built on a colonial, expansionist movement that usurped the natural resources, land, and labor of people not strong enough to defend themselves against the aggressive actions of our early government. Our power now is not, I think, a mark of God's favor, but rather a mark of a history rife with exploiting those who were powerless. Certainly, we've made big strides in the last hundred years to uphold more of the ideals we claim (such as justice and equality), but it is undeniable that our very economy and culture is currently based on using more natural resources than is sustainable, and so it is necessarily exploitive of other nations. We just do it mostly through economy rather than force now. To be fair, we're a young nation and if you look at the early history of many other nations, they were just as bad if not worse. It takes time for people to come up with a system that works.

First, I want to say that I also think that the ends do not justify the means. Motivation and intent does have a key role in ethical action, but that is different from assuming certain outcomes and deciding based on those assumptions. Humans are notoriously bad at making accurate predictions, especially in complicated situations. So, I don't think assuming that dropping the bomb on civilians in Japan in WWII resulted in less civilian casualties in the long run justified the action. And I don't think causing increased civilian deaths to avoid increased military deaths is justified. Now, I do think motivation and intent matter. And I see this as a question of ethics on an individual level, not a national one. A nation can only war if sufficient individuals make the decision that they will support it, even if the nation is not a democracy. One always has the choice to refuse to fight, even if it means death. And I personally know several people who were soldiers in Vietnam who felt led by God that it was an unjust war and talked frankly with their superiors, and were allowed to continue on without killing anyone. One man felt completely overcome by the Holy Spirit in Vietnam that killing these people, many of them mere teenagers, was wrong, even if his life was threatened. He filled his gun with sand so he would not be tempted to fire, even if his life was threatened. That's courage. He did what he perceived to be right, and he planned ahead to compensate for the temptation to do what he felt was sin.

Each person must decide for themselves, and the grace of God help them if they just follow orders rather than follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, because I honestly think swearing allegiance to any human-made institution means nothing much to God. I realize others would disagree, and it is certainly their right to do so, but I don't think God thinks about humanity as we do- divided up into nation-states and whatnot. I think as Christians we are called to love God and humanity, and I believe Jesus made it clear that peace-making and praying for our persecutors, not fighting, was what was correct. Myself, I don't consider myself an American. I'm just a human. Period. My allegiance is to all people of the world. Nation-states are temporary institutions designed by people. They are based on lines drawn on a map and a bunch of folks cooperating for a while. I see people on the freeway with "God Bless America" signs on their cars, and it makes me sad. I don't want God to bless America. I want Him to bless everyone, everywhere.

In studying human history, it is a long and bloody story of the rise and fall, rise and fall of nations. What are we fighting and dying for, if we fight for a nation? A temporary and man-made insitution. Quite frankly, it just isn't worth it to me. Am I an idealist? Absolutely. Without following ideals, how could we ever change the world from its current state of "practical" actions that have escalated to increased war and death for everyone over the last several thousand years to what we all want- a world of peace? As far as I can see, history bears out that increased war technology and war has only brought more war. Violence begets violence. The atom bomb may have halted WWII with fewer lives lost, but it ushered in a danger to global health and security that is unparalleled in human history and I believe will eventually cause devastating problems. No matter how many lives it immediate saved, surely there is no justification for developing a weapon that so thoroughly poisons the land on which it is dropped that for countless generations there are severe birth defects and cancer rates, the soil and water are contaminated, and entire ecosystems are lost. In the territories of the U.S. where we tested these weapons, generations later children were still being born with horrific defects- without spinal columns, missing parts of their skull, missing limbs. Our own country, in testing these weapons on its own territories, failed to remove the local peoples of those lands and left them in radioactive zones, keeping medical information on them as if they were laboratory rats. They suffer to this day. Nothing can justify such actions to me. Nothing can justify weapons that can impersonally exterminate hundreds of thousands of people, without regard for age or infirmity, and simultaneously ravage the very earth. All I can see is that we have this long history of increasing power to do damage to the earth and one another, and we just keep wanting that power to increase thinking it will somehow result in peace. Where once a soldier would enter battle with a sword, and the worst that could be done was burn fields, which could regenerate a mere year later... now soldiers enter battle with the capacity to kill thousands at a mere pushing of a button, and can poison the earth for generations upon generations. Not positive progress in my way of thinking.

There are accounts of terrible wars in the Old Testament- Jesus responded to the OT ideas of "eye for an eye" and such with very clear instructions to be willing to suffer at the hands of persecutors, to follow in Christ's foot-steps. There are certainly accounts of awful wars in the OT, but to me it is irrelevant as a Christian, because most of us are (1) not Jewish to begin with, so it's doubtful to me that our wars are holy or just as those that were reportedly under the banner of God Himself, and (2) we are under the guidance of Christ, who was very clear about avoiding fighting. Though I support individual self-defense, it is questionable to me that Jesus even thought that was OK- he did after all teach that if one was robbed, to give even more to the theif. If one was forced to travel with someone one mile, go two. To turn the other cheek (an Aramaic expression meaning "don't fight"). While he does not discuss what is appropriate action for governments/nations, it is clear that he discusses what is appropriate action for Christian individuals. And a nation of individuals who truly followed Christ's teachings- to be peace-makers and respond to hatred with love, persecution (even unto death) with prayer and forgiveness... that nation would clearly wind up pacifist. Now, perhaps the argument could be made that such a nation would clearly be impractical, and that it would be overrun by others. But I have faith that if Christ commanded us to act thusly, and we did, we would certainly be blessed by God. Does that mean we would necessarily be protected from harm, or economically blessed? No. But we would be a nation truly based on the example of Christ, and so we would certainly be blessed spiritually, which is, in the end, all that matters.

Peace to all

[Salim Syed]

Thanks for the reply. I must say your answer was the first one which I felt was based on Christian principles that we here from it's followers. You actually believe in what you read and say, and have a great faith in God's reward for obediance at the cost of your own life.

You are honest and admit faults of your own people if you feel they are wrong. A very noble character I must say.

My own feelings about Christianity in America, is that the patriotism of the nation has overtaken the true Christian values as you have explained them.

I was watching the film 'Judas' just a few hours ago. It seems to be created by (maybe) evangelists. In the film Jesus talks about:

1) forgiving enenmies
2) giiving the other cheek
3) praying for the one who does you wrong

etc..etc..etc..

When ever I talk to Christians they always talk about these noble things, and I think if they really practised what they believe Jesus' wants of them, they would have to be pacifists.

I personally feel that the ideologies of the State (not Christians) is so far from Jesus' messages. I cannot wonder if Americans would think that Jesus would endorse their military actions and weapons arsenals...

Saying that , as a pacifist is there any situation that you would feel justifies defending one's self ? Do you not feel that God being just, would allow self defence as a last resort against agressors ?

thanks for your very unbiased views, your moral principles are not compromised by nationalism or patriotism I admire that..

Peace ....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Salim Syed

Thanks for the reply. I must say your answer was the first one which I felt was based on Christian principles that we here from it's followers. You actually believe in what you read and say, and have a great faith in God's reward for obediance at the cost of your own life.

You are honest and admit faults of your own people if you feel they are wrong. A very noble character I must say.

My own feelings about Christianity in America, is that the patriotism of the nation has overtaken the true Christian values as you have explained them.

I was watching the film 'Judas' just a few hours ago. It seems to be created by (maybe) evangelists. In the film Jesus talks about:

1) forgiving enenmies
2) giiving the other cheek
3) praying for the one who does you wrong

etc..etc..etc..

When ever I talk to Christians they always talk about these noble things, and I think if they really practised what they believe Jesus' wants of them, they would have to be pacifists.

I personally feel that the ideologies of the State (not Christians) is so far from Jesus' messages. I cannot wonder if Americans would think that Jesus would endorse their military actions and weapons arsenals...

Saying that , as a pacifist is there any situation that you would feel justifies defending one's self ? Do you not feel that God being just, would allow self defence as a last resort against agressors ?

thanks for your very unbiased views, your moral principles are not compromised by nationalism or patriotism I admire that..

Peace ....

Pretty slick way of telling someone they are an idiot...I'll have to give you that.

think this idiot will go and defend the shores against some fictitious enemy.

[Salim Syed]

Quahom1

Thanks those principles sound very good. I totally agree people are using religion to cover their real objectives.

Most people know who are really creating these wars and who are manipulating the mass media etc... but I dare not put my thoughts downs.

I truely believe that if the governments of the world were ruled by the sincere Christians, Muslims and Jews (and other faith leaders) then much needed world peace would be achieved.

I think the last century and this century has seen most polictical system overtaken by a small but very powerful set of people, who are not adhering to sincere moral principle (even though they talk the talk).

I recently found a website called http://www.unionoffaiths.com/index.html
which shows how people of faith can join together to bring the much needed peace that now seems so far away.

Thankyou for your reply .... vbmenu_register("postmenu_35188", true);

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Salim Syed

Saying that , as a pacifist is there any situation that you would feel justifies defending one's self ? Do you not feel that God being just, would allow self defence as a last resort against agressors ?

Hello to all--
I suppose now it's the theologian, the philosopher, the soldier, and the mystic. Yikes!

I'd like to begin by explaining that although I do feel pacifism to be the right path, I fully respect people like Q who have no doubt prayed over their decisions and feel that their actions are right. I come to ethical decisions based on prayer and the guidance I feel I receive from God through scripture and through revelation, but I do not believe that I have a monopoly on truth. Only God is great enough to judge another's actions, and so while in my heart I can only support pacifism, both in my own life and in my voting decisions, I do not believe Christian soldiers like Q are any less Christian than I. We each are on our own paths, we each seek God and spiritual development of our soul, and each must answer to his/her own conscience and God. This is why although I am entirely against war, and I strive in all my actions to promote peace, I would never be disrespectful of soldiers as many were during Vietnam. Such condemnation does not promote love either. There are those in my family and friends who firmly believe in war as an option, and who are soldiers themselves, and I love them and respect their beliefs, though I do not agree with them and I consistently work in my own way against war (of course, only through non-violent and respectful means). I believe as pacifists we must each love everyone, no matter how much we disagree with their actions, and non-violence should be discussed and preached in love and understanding.

I feel blessed that I feel God is immanent and that death and oppression cannot bind me. I do not feel afraid of my own death, or oppression of my freedom, or poverty, though I certainly promote freedom and universal human rights through non-violent means. I believe very much that freedom of belief and practice (so long as it does no harm to other life) is a God-given gift, as we each have free will, and we ought to uphold this gift for others. But I do not believe that violence is justified through such motivations, and nations have rarely truly been involved in war for such noble causes. While the rhetoric of war may speak of dignity, those who profit from war are rarely truly concerned with the dignity and rights of the poor and oppressed, and it is (statistically) the poor, the civilians, and the children who pay the highest price of war. I have the deepest respect for life, and yet I feel my own life is only a transitory state. My own spiritual experience is that I existed before now, and will exist after I depart from this earth, and it is only God who is eternal. So, though my I may fleetingly fear what may happen to my physical form, I am very careful to take these fears to the feet of Christ and let him take this burden from me, to remind me to have courage and perseverence, for after I die this life will seem but a moment, and all humans ever made of history but an hour. It all rolls away in the Presence of God, but our actions and beliefs remain as we stand before Him. I try always to be acutely aware of this, and let it guide my actions. I am not a saint. We all have issues that are more of a moral dilemma than others, and we each have our weaknesses with which we battle. But I do believe we each, as Christians- and more broadly everyone, no matter their religion- would be correct to faithfully remind ourselves that there is, in all cases, a path of best action, of harmony, of being in accordance with God's will. Even in matters which are not under the constraints of scriptural law, in matters that cannot be judged right or wrong, there is a best course of action. I believe it is in our best spiritual interest to be ever mindful of the eternal watchfulness of God, and to be careful to develop a personal connection with Him that we might be of service to Him. I have the highest respect for those who do so, and believe that the path of best action for themselves is to fight, though I cannot agree with such actions. I have the greatest concern for those who do not, and blindly pledge allegiance to temporary, human-created institutions without real regard for the guidance of God, for I truly believe nothing this world can give is worth the pain and grief of standing before God having lived a life based on worldly rather than spiritual ideals.

That said, I will now answer the question of self-defense. My beliefs are that there may be appropriate moments for self-defense, but only in the case of immediate and personal bodily harm. I do not believe that it is correct to defend one's property or "rights" violently, as Jesus clearly says that if someone takes something from you, to give him more than he took, and if someone forces labor upon you, to give freely more than was forced. These actions prove to others, who are lost and in the grip of their own greed and hatred, the love of God and the faith of His followers- they show that we are not afraid of anything on earth, and that we trust that God will deliver us- spiritually if not physically. Self-defense to protect one's own bodily security, if immediately threatened, or those in one's immediate surroundings (such as one's children in a hostage situation) is understandable, though I do not know if it is justified. I believe God forgives and understands much that is not just. There are Christian groups that are firmly against all violence, and will allow themselves to die rather than raise one hand against an enemy.

For myself, I try to always be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I have faith that God would not desert me. I believe He would let me know what to do, and if I got a clear feeling that fighting back was the path of best action, I would do so. However, I would only find self-defense possibly justifiable if it arose only in the moment of threat (and was not preemptive, nor vindictive), if it was not out of anger, and if its aim was only to wound the attacker enough to escape to safety. Killing someone is not justifiable to me under any circumstances. I do believe that martial arts training and such are very healthy disciplines, not because they teach you how to fight, but rather because they teach you how to control one's force and to remain calm under pressure.

For what it's worth, my mother is a Christian mystic. She was abducted at gun-point when she was a young adult, before I was born, and was taken by her attacker to a remote area in a padded and sound-proof van. She knew he was intending to rape and kill her. She prayed for guidance from God, and ultimately she responded to the situation by the Holy Spirit overcoming her and speaking to this man. She told him, at gun-point: "Shame on you!" of all things. She told him that God was watching this very moment, and her death would only result in God's wrath against him. She told me that she would never, ever have thought she would have the strength to stand in such a situation and say such strong words, essentially calling on the name of Christ and having God speak out against him through her. Her attacker, who she felt through spiritual discernment had done this before and premeditated such attacks, was overcome with fear. If you can imagine, this violent, gun-toting, big man was absolutely shaking in fear from an unarmed, 5'4", tiny little woman, because he recognized the power that spoke through her. He fled from her, and my mother was saved by the grace of God. I asked her what if God had not spared her life, and she responded that she was sure the Holy Spirit would have comforted her in her last moments, and that ultimately God's plan for the attacker would be worked out. Obviously, it was God and God alone who knew this man could be reached by His wrath and the faith of just one victim. Who knows what happened after that? What went through his mind as he reflected on the power that came through a faithful servant of God? She prays that his soul eventually found God, love, and peace.

With memory of my mother's faith, I came once to face one to whom I was close, that became utterly lost and overcome by evil. He hurt me and would have killed me. My response was to pray for strength from God, stand up against him and leave in peace, and trust to God for my protection. Did and do I have fear sometimes? Of course. My body is an animal- there are instincts there to preserve my life and security. But my soul is of God, and I find strength there to preserve my ideals. It is God who gives me the comfort and strength to forgive this man and pray that he finds God, and it is God who gives me the strength to slowly, but surely, deal with the trauma done to my heart and mind. As my husband tells me, people can hurt my body, my mind, and even my heart. But they cannot touch my soul. My soul is God's alone, and from this place can come the healing for all other pain.

I did not intend to share so personal a testimony, but it pains me when people think that pacifists have never faced death or harm, and are cowardly or unrealistic. I simply truly believe that God is my sword and my shield, and no other is needed. I go into battle as do we all, for the battle invariably finds us all. My weapons are just not of this world.

You just never know how God will work through the suffering of the faithful to turn the hearts of the lost, and none are beyond His reach. If we do not wait until the last moment, until we are in a face-to-face situation with one who is in the grasp of evil, and we can feel the Holy Spirit's guidance and God's power work in us, how can we hope for those who are lost? Bombing people is impersonal and there is no opportunity for God to guide our heart, our words, and our hands. We are not allowing for the unique working of God through us in each of our enemies' lives.

Peace to all

[Salim Syed]

Quahom1

Pretty slick way of telling someone they are an idiot...I'll have to give you that.

think this idiot will go and defend the shores against some fictitious enemy.

Definately not what I was trying to say, your mind must be on another wave lenght. I can sincerely say that path_of_one seems extremely sincere in her beliefs.

Any listening to the Christian talks on Love and peace etc etc I would really expect them to have the same sort of ideals as path_of_one.

I also find this with myself and most Muslims. When I read about the companions of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) I see how far our ideals have strayed from his teachings.

I suppose being created 1400 years after his lifetime , one cannot expect to understand the way they lived, as it is almost impossible to find humans in our time who can come close to the greatness of the Prophets or even their companions.

Thanks vbmenu_register("postmenu_35212", true);

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards all!

The theologian, the mystic, the soldier and the philosopher...I think I kinda like that idea.

Any listening to the Christian talks on Love and peace etc etc I would really expect them to have the same sort of ideals as path_of_one.

Dearest Salim,
A Christian does not look to or for war. War is a consequence of last resort. Something like what you said earlier of avoiding war as much as possible, but if it becomes necessary then war with all you have. A half-hearted war is almost surely to be lost. Sun-Tzu said something like this as well.

Peace is the desired goal. Governments being what they are, institutions of men, it is hard to fully apply religious rules and doctrines at all times. Surely even in the history of the spread of Islam you can see this as well. Christianity is every bit as guilty in this respect. The dominant religion of a culture may have a series of rules or guidelines, but the actual government in the actual action of war, and more importantly the warriors called to do the actual fighting, do not always have the luxury of thoughtful consideration of their actions. They do what they feel they have to do in that moment, and consider the consequences of their actions after the deed is done. That is perhaps the most important reason not to war in the first place, aside from taking human life.

What path of one has to say is very valid. She has pointed out some very important things that are real and factual. A very important thing to consider when looking at America is that not all Americans are Christians. Not all leaders, and not all followers. Very many are non-believers of any stripe, or only pay lip service to religion and its tenets. Sometimes too, the outcome cannot be humanly foreseen, as in the aftermath of nuclear testing. I feel that is a fault of science when it has no conscience, in using people as "guinea pigs." I want to believe we are growing out of that, but all too often I see things that make me wonder.

America has a tradition of separation of church and state. We try, very hard, to keep religion apart from our government. I realize this is a foreign concept to many, to whom government and religion are almost the same. We have our reasons for why we have done this, reasons I think are valid and seem to have worked for the most part very well for us. We still struggle with this, but in the end it allows us to be more accepting of others whose views we culturally differ with.

I bring this up, because it is extremely difficult to say that the US government is operating on Christian values. To some degree we are, Christian values are the foundation of our way of life. But we also include other things that separate and build upon our Christian foundation. For better or worse in the eyes of God, that is what we do. So to hold America solely to Christian values in the conduct of war is to ignore so much of our history and values. We are not, solely and only, Christian. We are also Muslim, Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist and so many other things, devout and nominal, including non-belief. And these things make themselves known in our way of life.

Very few American leaders have been openly known for their faith and religion. Abraham Lincoln was one, and he was for the most part allowed this political indisgression during his time in office because of the civil war going on. But look to how George Bush Jr is ridiculed, at home and abroad, for his stand in Christian faith. I personally do not see him as an ideal Christian, but I must give him some credit for trying to maintain some form of Christian value in his leadership, which is traditionally shunned by American Presidents. The example I gave concerning the rules of "Just War" help to show this, where Presidents before did not even try to live up to these rules. GB jr has also shown some Christian value in efforts concerning the use of fetal tissue for example, for which he is ridiculed by those in this country with even less Christian values than he.

America, especially in the last century, is a very secular nation. So there is really no accurate way to hold America's actions, in wartime or not, to Christian principles and values, because those are not the things that are used to guide us in anything much more than lip-service. I hate to say these things, but these are the reality and truth of our recent history.

Don't get me wrong, there are many well-intended and thoughtful people, even religious people, in positions of political power that help to keep the less thoughtful in check. ( I would add here though, that Christianity traditionally shuns positions of political power outside of church authority, at least here in the States) That is another beauty of our method of government. Without them, we probably would run amok all over the world, or worse, get ourselves in really deep doo-doo by doing so. But we are not perfect, and we do not kid ourselves into thinking we are. We do feel we have a better system than most, and certainly better than a tyrant.

I guess what I am trying to say is, there is no real way you can look at America's actions and hold them accountable by Christianity. On the surface, that would seem natural, but that would be in defiance of our founding principles. We do try to be moral, but as has been discussed many times, what exactly is morality? What is moral for you may not be for me, and likewise in reverse.

I know this comes across as backtracking and making excuses. Perhaps it is. I still think what you are looking for cannot in truth be found, because in reality it doesn't exist as any more than just illusion, a phantom, a fantasy.

[Quahom1]

I guess what I am trying to say is, there is no real way you can look at America's actions and hold them accountable by Christianity. On the surface, that would seem natural, but that would be in defiance of our founding principles. We do try to be moral, but as has been discussed many times, what exactly is morality? What is moral for you may not be for me, and likewise in reverse.

I know this comes across as backtracking and making excuses. Perhaps it is. I still think what you are looking for cannot in truth be found, because in reality it doesn't exist as any more than just illusion, a phantom, a fantasy.

Juan, I have to disagree on certain points. Perhaps in Big City, America the values considered by the media and the Big City folk are "pipe dreams". But in rural towns, and villages (where the most of Americans live), that way of living and thinking and acting is alive and well.

I live 50 miles from Wash, DC, and it is alive and well here, in the small towns, and farm communities. I mean, "nightly news" is like watching some alien planet's programs. That is not how we live. When I go to work In DC or Baltimore, I change my demeanor, just to survive. And when I get home, I can "let my hair down" (breathe a sigh of relief). Church is so important here, as are the people of the community. Seems the farther we are apart, the closer we are together.

In fact there was a developer who tried to overtake a local town by sheer legaleese, and that town blew that company out of the water (figuratively speaking). Stopped development, and forced that contractor to seek elsewhere for their "profit". Town name? Emmistsburg, MD. They want growth, but on their time and on their dime.

And they look out for eachother. Just one small place, like so many other small places in America. Not like the big cities, with the fancy ways of thought, and the slick politicians who change their minds once they step in office.

I must respectfully disagree with you on some parts of your assessment of America.

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Q!

I have no qualm with your assessment. At the "village" level, faith is a very important part of everyday life, no question. Certainly any person who takes up arms for their nation must believe in the cause, that the cause is just. That is how things start.

Once into the fray, sensibilities sometimes get set aside, and reviewed only after the fact. This is most visible at the upper levels of leadership, but there are far too many PTSD victims in military hospitals to deny the impact of wartime actions on the psyche of a given soldier.

Even in considering the separation of church and state, look at the recent ruling over the last day or two from the Supreme Court dealing with the display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses. The High Court was as closely divided as possible on the two rulings handed down. The Court decided that any display of the Ten Commandments must not be in a religious context, that they may be displayed only if they are presented in an historic context. Our government, of the people, by the people, for the people, has taken a stand not to directly endorse any specific religion, broadly or narrowly, at the expense of any other religion.

And I am sorry, but I have seen too many politicians promote their agendas from church pulpits. In my mind, that is a complete disregard for the purpose of a church pulpit, that is, the church pulpit is the place for administering God's Word, not political agendas. I have also seen politicians give lip-service to God in one moment, and supporting causes I view as completely opposite to God's Word in the next.

So I stand by my comments, when looking up at our leadership, historically and currently. I have never doubted the faith of the individual at the "village" level, and if I seemed to come across in that manner, I apologize.

Perhaps I should have qualified my comments better, as I understood the question to be how to hold the American government accountable strictly by Christians concepts and values. While I think St. Augustine's work regarding Just War principles is admirable, it is not scripture. It was his assessment using the scriptures as a foundation to build from. I do think using those principles in conducting warfare is a noble effort, if war can be said to be noble, but it is not strictly speaking scriptural.