Does Christian Doctrine support or condemn war?

[Quarkhead]

Do you feel that Christianity preaches a doctrine which justifies war? Specifically, the war in Iraq, and the War on Terror? Why or why not?

[bernee51]

Perhaps you should listen again. On four separate occasions Rice was challenged on the issue of a pre-emptive strike against Iran. She refused to rule it out on all four occasions. That implies that the USA will carry out such a strike, otherwise why refuse to rule it out?

And then, of course, there was this...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 005556.php

New York Times. September 3, 1967:

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

Plus ça change, plus ça même chose

[Dilettante]

potwalloper:

Democracies do not torture minority groups

...

I agree that democracies should never torture minority groups.. or anyone else for that matter. But unfortunately, democracies sometimes do horrible things. The Americans had segregation, the Japanese American internement camps, and now Guantanamo. Britain did horrible things to the Irish in the past and now there's Belmarsh prison. France tortured Algerians and Corsicans. Perhaps Britain, France and the US are not true democracies? When democracies feel threatened, their rulers tend to cave in to populism and even racism.

...democracy in a true sense carries with it a number of principles including that minority groups will not be tortured for speaking out against the current government.

True. In the case of Israel, a country surrounded by enemies and plagued by constant suicide bombings, there's a "siege mentality". Of course this does not justify Israeli abuses, but helps put things in perspective. It's not black and white.

But the Israelis do physically persecute Palestinians...sorry Dilletante but you can't look at the situation in Israel through rose tinted specs.

I don't. Earlier today, after the handshake between Abu Mazen and Sharon, the worst fanatics on both sides refused to accept the truce. Jewish extremists used graffiti to issue death threats on Sharon (and we all remember what happened to Isaac Rabin). I'm not optimistic. When I think about the Hamas militants who use their children to carry out suicide bombings, I realize such a level of nihilism is probably irreversible.

Compare how many people the Americans have killed in the last 50-60 years.

Now look at how many people Bin Laden has killed.


Bin Laden is a nutter

Bush is a nutter

I fear the nutter with a nuclear bomb more than the nutter with a gun...

A better comparison could be made if the same timespan was used for both. Bin Laden has not been at it for so long. Considering this, Bin Laden probably has killed more civilians in the past five years.

The Americans have not used the nuclear bomb much lately, have they?Bin Laden presumably would use anything he could get a hold of. Bush has not (as yet) threatened my country. Bin Laden has, and islamists blew up 200 people here last March. I fear the nutter who has attacked me before more...

Perhaps you should listen again. On four separate occasions Rice was challenged on the issue of a pre-emptive strike against Iran. She refused to rule it out on all four occasions. That implies that the USA will carry out such a strike, otherwise why refuse to rule it out?

Well, I guess you may be right here. I hope that the current American administration realizes that their troops are already overextended and that Iran is a bigger country than Iraq. Something must be done about Iran, but it must be done with diplomacy.

As for American emissions, I'm sure that something must be done. But I'm not sure exactly what. True, most Americans seem unaware that current sources of energy are exhaustible. However, since I am not a climate expert, I have no opinion on the appropriateness of the Kyoto protocol. British philosopher Richard Swinburne and others are skeptical. They may be wrong, but then again, maybe their arguments deserve a hearing.

bernee51, that's a chilling coincidence. But history does not repeat itself. For one thing, I bet the percentage of Iraqis who are currently engaged in insurgent activities is not nearly as high as the number of Vietnamese doing the same in 1967. This is not to say that democracy will succeed in Iraq: the conditions are not good. But it doesn't have to be a second Vietnam. Look at it this way: there's only four more years left of "W".

[Dilettante]

Correction:

I wrote

Considering this, Bin Laden probably has killed more civilians in the past five years.

Actually, it's hard to make a comparison because:

1. I don't think the exact number of Sept. 11 casualties is known (only the number of those reported missing). Illegal immigrants working in the WTC probably weren't all reported.

2. In the case of casualties of the Afghanistan war, I have not yet seen an impartial figure, but only the numbers given by the Taleban.

Finally, is it really a matter of numbers? Wholesale killing is wholesale killing, the quantitative aspect doesn't seem to me as important as the planning and intentionality of the carnage.

[Dilettante]

I think I see now what the problems is. By "democracy" we mean two things:

1. A political system.
2. An ideology (obscurantist and confused as it actually is)

I was referring to meaning 1., while potwalloper was referring to meaning 2. A "pure democracy" is a non-existing abstraction, no more observable than a soul. That's where our problem lies.

[potwalloper.]

Hi Dilletante

Try here http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

I don't think Bin Laden has quite reached this level...

And I agree that our problem is with our interpretation of what is a democracy

Regards


Pot

[Dilettante]

Hi pot,

Thanks for the link. it's really hair-raising. You're right, in terms of numbers, Bin Laden is still far behind. OTOH numbers may not be everything to most people. The randomness of the violence is also an important factor. People are not usually afraid of the police, unless the police are arbitrary or unjust in their use of violence.

However, I don't think it is going to convince those who think the invasion was justified (I wrote it was a war of choice, most likely unnecessary, and clearly not justifiable under the Christian "Just War doctrine"). Ideology plays a key role here. If a person believes that this war was absolutely necessary to avoid the collapse of our civilization, they'll see those deaths as inevitable "collateral damage".

But this discussion, as well as the one about concepts of democracy, probably belongs in another thread...

Regards,
Dliettante

[Khaen2010]

I decided that I would take a little different approach to this problem than most people seem to have. Everyone uses only the new testament, yet we find in the old testament, where Israel is still a sovereign nation that the Israeli's went to war with God's approval quite often. If Christianity can use Leviticus, also Old Testament, to forbid homosexual civil unions, then Christianity can also use the Old Testament to justify any war we feel is necessary to protect Christianity.

[Dilettante]

Khaen2010,
you're right that the Old Testament can be used to support any war (it can also be used to support a number of unethical things such as slavery, selling women as objects, etc). But I thought the New Testament was supposed to be more important to Christians.
Also, I admit that I overlooked the possibility you mention probably because my background is Catholic (though I'm agnostic now), and Catholicism is not based on the Old Testament, but on the New Testament and the philosophy of Aquinas.
(BTW, the reason why the Catholic Church disapproves of homosexual unions/marriages is because they cannot produce children, and for the Church the main goal of marriage is procreation).

[AlAyeti]

Neither war nor killing others finds a voice in the Gospels. No authority in Jesus.

Plain enough for me.

But, running a country (something a Christian should not do), finds the individual who is running the country having to make good and bad decisions.

Looking back on what the Nazi's and Japanese did to all sorts of people, can, maybe, justify the killing of the bad guys in a war. But never under any circumstances can a war be fought for Jesus.

When you think on a national level it may not be hard to decide. When you think on the Spiritual level, the decision has already been made.

[McCulloch]

Rather than try to argue that the Christian Scriptures do or do not justify war one should look at the practice of Christian societies over the last two millennia. Thousands of denominations, movements and sects within Christianity is more than enough testament to the fact that agreement is impossible. So from Constantine to the Crusades to the Reconquest of Spain to the Inquisition and the witch hunts to the slaughter of heretics to the invasion and conquest of the Americas, Australia, the Pacific island to colonialism in India and Africa, various European wars, the civil war in the USA and the current invasion of Iraq are sufficient evidence to me that Christian societies have no difficulty justifying war.

Who was it that said, "By their fruits will they be judged"?