Can war or violence ever be necessary?

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?

"What is a just war?" For some, there is no such thing, for others the parameters are drawn very wide. That said, I do believe that a physical confrontation that includes violence can be justified, but there must be narrow limits on when it should occur. As to having a theological dimension, for those who believe in the Divine, everything that happens can be viewed within a theological framework.

Peace and justice circumscribe the preferred state of being for most people and this has been the case throughout history. At the same time, violence has far too often been a reality part of human life. At one time or another, every major religious tradition has had to confront people and situations deemed evil and has justified some form of violence toward accomplishing that end. In the Dharma traditions, the concepts ahimsa ("non-violence") and karma have been fundamental in the teachings of these traditions, and both concepts have led to a general avoidance of violence. Nevertheless, followers of all the Dharma traditions have found occasion to use and justify violence. In most cases, however, it has been for defensive and not aggressive purposes. One of the more popular Hindu holy books, the Bhagawad Gita, has been used by some to justify violence for self protection and in the defense of righteousness against evil. Others claim the text's reference to war is strictly metaphorical and deny any justification for violence exists within the text. Along with ahimsa, doing one's duty is also seen as fundamental. This is why participation in righteous battle by members of the warrior caste is generally accepted within a religious framework.

In the Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam have been, throughout much of their respective histories, much more comfortable in using violence when dealing with enemies and aggressively spreading their influence. They have typically justified their actions by claiming they are doing Christ's work or promoting Allah's message. For Muslims, there are ample statements in the Qur'an that give validity to violence and war, but this is much harder to justify for Christians, since the message of Jesus is essentially one of non-violence. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a twentieth German Lutheran pastor and theologian, represents in his words and actions the difficulty that Christians have faced when seeking to rectify Christian beliefs with the reality of evil in the world. Throughout the 1930s, Bonhoeffer frequently spoke up against Hitler and his growing oppression of Jews. Non-violent resistance was his primary theme.

Then in the 1940s, the increasing slaughter of Jews and others led Bonhoeffer to join a group planning the assassination of Hitler. According to his friend and biographer, Eberhard Bethge, Bonhoeffer "could see no possibility of retreat into any sinless, righteous, pious refuge. The sin of respectable people reveals itself in flight from responsibility." In attempting to explain why he chose the path of active resistance against the Nazis and his involvement in the assassination plot, he said, "If a drunken driver drives into a crowd, what is the task of the Christian and the Church? To run along behind to bury dead and bind up the wounded? Or isn't it, if possible, to get the driver out of the driver's seat?" In the end, he was captured and executed for his involvement in the plot.

Throughout history there have been a variety of extremist individuals or groups that have used the need to "purify" or "unify" their land or the world as an excuse for violence and even genocide against those who are different. When such situations occur, there are limited options to prevent these individuals from carrying out their perverted designs, which have resulted the killing of millions of innocent beings. In such cases, physical defense and violent aggression may well be necessary. Tom Regan, the American philosopher and animal rights activist, was strongly influenced by Mahatma Gandhi and his teachings, including those on ahimsa. Yet, he found himself at odds with Gandhi over whether violence could ever be justified. Regan believes that it is sometimes necessary and gives three conditions he believes must be met: 1) that it is used to defend the innocent, 2) that all non-violent means have been attempted and exhausted to the degree possible, and 3) that the amount of violence used is the minimum absolutely needed.

When I was a monk and had no one depending on me, adhering to the concept of ahimsa in thought and deed was integral to my goals in life. I often read Gandhi and found great inspiration through him. I still read him regularly, but I now also have a family, and I see protecting them as one of my duties. I have to acknowledge that an occasion could possibly arise in which I would use violence to protect them or other innocent beings. Moreover, my teachers taught that using some violence when absolutely necessary to stop a great amount of violence can also a form of ahimsa, depending upon how it is undertaken. Most of my friends who are committed to non-violence tend to feel similarly. For some others, such a view is seen as hypocritical. They are free to think that.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. offered his advice to those who find themselves having to deal with oppression, aggression, and the potential for violence. He said, "If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi and non-violence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer." Dr. King was deeply aware that the connection between idealism and reality sometimes gets stretched more than we would like.

By Ramdas Lamb  |  December 21, 2009; 7:30 PM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: "Just war" or just more war? | Next: Ending us-versus-them mentality

The comments to this entry are closed.