Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Religious abuses of just wars and holy wars
Q: Is there such a thing as a 'just war'? In his Nobel speech, was President Obama right to speak in these theological terms about war? He also stated that 'no holy war can ever be a just war.' Do you agree or disagree?
President Obama's distinction between a "just war" and a "holy war" reflects an awareness of traditional Christian teaching about war and peace.
The notion of "just war" goes back to Augustine around the year 400 CE. It was a departure from earlier Christian teaching: for the first three centuries of Christianity, Christians were pacifists. But with the Roman Empire under threat and Christianity as the dominant religion of the empire, Augustine argued that Christians could participate in a war of self-defense. He specified other criteria for a just/justifiable war: that its purpose was to rectify an injustice, that civilians (non-combatants) not be targeted, and that the good that could be obtained by going to war outweighed the cost.
"Holy war" is very different. In "holy war," the cause of the warriors is identified with the will of God, and the enemy is identified as the enemy of God. In "holy war," anything goes, for in destroying one's enemies, one is destroying the enemies of God. The Christian Crusades are a classic example of "holy war," and the crusading mentality has been condemned by Christian theologians and ethicists ever since.
But the notion of "just war" has been abused in much of Christian history. It has been used as justification for almost every war. Think of the wars in Europe for the last thousand years. These were wars between allegedly Christian nations. All sides consistently thought of their cause as "just." Think of other wars: has a nation ever thought of its war as unjust?
I am not an absolute pacifist. I can imagine circumstances in which armed conflict might be necessary. But I am also convinced that most wars are unjustifiable The pacifist is right about ninety per cent of time, perhaps more.
What does this have to do with Afghanistan? In my judgment, it was justifiable in 2001 to go after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Ideally, the pursuers would have been a multilateral international police action. Christian pacifism does not prohibit police action. And police actions could involve a force of thousands. But we as a nation did not choose that course. Even worse, we turned our attention to Iraq and launched a pre-emptive war - which is prohibited by Christian teaching about war and peace. Why, in the statistically most Christian nation in the world, did we do this?
Back to Afghanistan. Is it wise and moral now to continue our war? I think not. The cost - in blood and treasure - outweighs the good that could now be obtained. "Just war" is once again being used to justify a war that is neither just nor necessary.
By
Marcus Borg
|
December 21, 2009; 9:44 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: A just war has nothing to do with its holiness, or otherwise |
Next: Ignorance won't repair climate
Posted by: Counterww | December 24, 2009 1:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You can call it anything you want.
In the end, it is people killing people because they are unable to talk to each other, to communicate like normal human beings.
Posted by: yerit | December 15, 2009 12:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
so far, I agree with you, but add some other facts:
1. Since President Obama inherited this war, it is not his decision whether to engage in it. We have engaged the Taliban as well as al Quaeda with thousands of troops, and we can't just leave. So there is no peace for Obama to break, only war for him to clean up.
2. The president, a true scholar, has certainly recognized that there is a great gap between the people who believe in Christianity American style and those who attempt to live as Jesus did. He knows he must rally all of us to carry on the war. Manichean dualism is regrettable rhetoric for so enlightened a President, but he had to do it to achieve unity in wartime. War exists, and war demands recognition of its own rules. It does not play fair. So we motivate our christian soldiers with christian rehetoric. It helps us get the war over faster if we believe Gott ist mit uns. War is hell, and therefore the enemy must play the part of the devil.
3. He is the most brilliant president we have ever had, and if he says we have to have a troop surge in order to try to wind down Bush's moral and political folly of engaging in war as opposed to police action, then I choose to believe him.
e voila, a just war. I myself am shocked to say that but President Bush set it up, and now it is inevitable that we use the weapons of war to disengaqge and thereby leave behind some hope for peace.
Posted by: cbblnd | December 15, 2009 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
CBCBLD
What a crock. Al Qaida attacked us with bases in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban. Bush did not handle it right(Did not use the Powell doctrine) but this does not mean it was unjust, but handled poorly. Obama is doing the right thing, period. The Taliban are evil , we know it, and we must throw them out as best we can. There is no choice or we will be attacked again.