Religion vs. War

Remove all ads!

My question is "Can you have faith in God, and support the war in Iraq, or similar conflicts? Is this a contradiction to support such a war?

This was inspired by some religious leaders in N.Ireland from both sides of the community who have one of the following thoughts:

1. It is a contradiction to either go to war in Iraq or even support the war in Iraq (As you can imagine, the Royal Irish Rangers did not take too well to this popular option).

2. It is okay to go to war and does not contradict the Bible/Jesus teachings.

What are your opinions on this? Feel free to comment no matter what your beliefs are (or lack of beliefs) on this subject.

 

Quite a few religious people belive in what they call "righteous war" which most of the time means that their guys gets to kill the other guys.

If you believe in a deity and you believe your deity is the one and only and you believe that you follow the word of your deity then everything you do must be right and the people following another deity must be wrong and thus you are always in the right in a conflict with them.

 

Well some general (forget his name) said he was 'hunting satan' in Iraq, but he authorised the use of cluter bombs in heavily populated civillian areas(a WMD but thats another issue), I don't think this ties in with Jesus teachings or the whole war in general, but thats just my opinion.

Of course people should blame the individuals for carrying acts in their religions names and not the religion itself.

 

It may well be necessary to have to defend yourself, but aggressive war? Depends. The most important problem is causing much more damage in a single war than a tyrant is going to cause over years. There are many Iraqis who hate American soldiers more than they did Saddam's boys.

If the American forces had the ability to remove Saddam in a surgical strike... maybe. And if they had reasons to suppose they were able swiftly to replace it with a reasonable new establishment. And so on and so forth. But this is supposing it really is about the Iraqis and not just oil or bad relationships with Saddam etc. Then I would see it as not a contradiction.

On the other hand, war generally tends to be inconsistent with religions while it often uses them as a pretext. Not like the war in Iraq is about religion.

 

Another concern that I forgot to mention in my first post was Charles Graner who received a huge welcome feast, that was reported to be organized by the local church minister... This person is famous for "getting to do some fun stuff with prisoners" as he puts it, putting on sex shows (with Lynnie England ) for fellow prison officers plus prisoners and just voilence (which he has a history for) in general.

Also stated is that most people in his hometown have nothing bad to say about him.

 

Nothing close to non-consensual sexual activity is compatible with Christianity. Sex is for spouses, for spreading the gift of life, bonding and enjoyment of each other, not for humiliating people.

 

Agressive war ? No way. As chev stated "in theory" that can be possible, but in practice that's impossible. And yes, I'm afraid all that died in this war will weigh on Bush conscience.

 

If your religeon believes in supporting the state as long as it behaves rightly, then you can be religeous and support a war. The blood of the dead will be on those who ordered the war if it was not righteous.

The Allies were right to enter WWII, and the blood of the dead would be on the hands of Hittler and company...

 

I agree with what's been said here. The blood is on the aggressor's hands in matters of war. Every nation has the right to defend itself, its borders, its citizens, its liberties. But the cause and reasons must pass the closest scrutiny, and be just. This is from Henry V:

 

Religion and war go hand-in-hand. Always have, always will. Just read the old testiment. The Hebrews were much more diligent at the destruction of their enemies (killing all the men, women, children, cows, pigs, and chickens -- then they salted the fields).

 

Yes I understand this t2Bruno, but the new testament paints a different picture. After all Jesus did not slaughter the Romans, rather he had healed and forgiven them. And most Christians take the New Testament view on things, or so I always imagined.

 

Heh, most of the serious christians I have met always seem to put a lot more stock in obscure old testament prophets than Jesus's quite appealing message of love. Much more keen on stoning people than turning the other cheek.

 

They probably get turning the other cheek the wrong way. It's not about being the loser but about a different kind of strength than your fists can provide. Heck, you do have to defend your house, your wife and children, but it's always better to stay calm and find out why the other person has a problem with you instead of lashing back. I know this is difficult. I'm always failing, myself. At least I try. Jesus Himself said love was the greatest of the three: faith, hope and love. It's just humans who try to leave the third one out. Peace and love can work out agression quickly unless it's really, really bad. My girlfriend has a wonderful way of staying calm and caring when she sees you worked up on something and she always gets things her way in no time. It has worked for me too. When you refuse to fight and tell the roarer to calm down and speak his mind, it always brings better results. Oh well, sometimes you do have to tell him to stop behaving like a kid and start using his head instead of fists to deal with problems, but it's still better than pounding the breath out of each other to no end.

[ May 12, 2005, 13:13: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

The New Testiment versus Old Testiment thing is really a moot point -- I'm with joacqin here. Unfortunately, the majority of christians I've met in my life follow the tenants of the old testiment (eye for an eye) rather than the new testiment.

Those that truly follow the new testiment know there are really only two commandments -- not ten -- and there is no place for vengence. But those true christians are very few and far between.

I believe most religions teach non-violence and a form of 'turn the other cheek.' Unfortunately, most people follow a belief in holy retribution. The teaching are wonderful, but until people change there will always be holy wars.

 

Thanks for your opinions. After reading some articles on various religions from www.chick.com I am currently going through a 'crisis of faith' and needed some peoples opinions on a few things... Of course I am not taking the Chick authors opinions too seriously, but it brought up some points I wish I never read.

 

The problem with Bush's message of liberating the downtrodden in Iraq is all the downtrodden in all the other parts of the world that have been ignored for years (eg. Sudan, Eritrea etc.).

The problem with 'Christianity' is how large a group of people the term covers. Because of the rapid spread of Christianity, and of the large number of people who have corrupted it, many people who call themselves Christian have a theology far distant from the original message. This means that a lot of bad stuff is done in the name of Jesus, by people who don't understand His message.

An excellent definition of meekness.

A note for agnostics - those two commandments are really just summaries of the original ten, designed to be memorable and aid in understanding. They are: Love your God with all your heart, your soul, your mind and your strength; and love your neighbour as yourself. Thisis the main message of Christianity, although it is often ignored.

 

Our Lord never condemned the soldiers he met and many of the early martyrs were soldiers. St. Augustine first put together the teachings on Just War, which were fully explicated by St. Thomas Aquinas and has become Church Teaching. Just War teaching not only requires a righteous cause, but also places constraints on how war is fought. Given America's current practice of bombing of civilian targets, America no longer fights wars in a just way, even if the cause was just.

As an aside, please do not be confused by Bush's claims of being Christian. The president's warmaking is religious, but that religion is not Christianity. There is in America a debased form of Puritanism that goes by various names, including Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism. President Bush's goal of using war to force the Islamic world to adopt American style "freedom" is religious in character. But it is not Christianity, it is the religion of American Exceptionalism.

Edited to correct mistaken statement that Just War doctine was not part of Church teaching, when, in fact, it is. Sorry about that.

[ May 24, 2005, 14:43: Message edited by: Khemsa ]

 

Thanks Khemsa, its good to see your view on this. I now feel better, as I could never accept a religion that would condone anything as terrible as this.

Though N.Ireland is mostly anti-war in Iraq, certain Methodist's have endorsed Bushes invasion, and will close their ears to any of the atrocities that have happened unless its the Muslims of course! - e.g. terrorists detonating car bomb in a populated area.