Showing posts with label Just War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Just War. Show all posts

An Alternative to Traditional War and Soldiers - Voluntary Military Service and Just War

If a nation believes the wars they fight are just, then that nation should allow its soldiers to decide whether to fight in specific wars.  Voluntary Military Service would allow for individuals to decide whether the war they are fighting in is just or not.

With a truly just cause, the soldiers would be more than willing to volunteer and fight. If the war is not just, then the lack of volunteering soldiers would reveal that the war is not one worth fighting. Voluntary Military Service would be a preventative measure from fighting too many wars while at the same time insuring the effectiveness of the military in fighting the wars it does fight.

From a purely military perspective, morale would be much greater if a soldier could make the conscientious decision that he believes the war he is to risk his life in is worth fighting.

From a social perspective, the citizens of the United States would know for a fact that the soldiers were not giving their lives away for something they did not believe in.

From a political perspective, Voluntary Military Service would have a taming effect on the nation, forcing it to be more particular in where and how often military incursions are undertaken. No longer would leaders be able to send people to war without making a solid and convincing case for that war.  But when the nation would go to war, the politicians would know that the people are behind it.

From a religious perspective, this would allow people to join the military that believe in the "just war" theory. Right now, proponents of "just war" should not in good conscience enlist in the military.  A soldier has to subject their opinion on whether a war is just or not to the heads of the State. When they join the military, in effect, they are making a permanent surrender of their religious conviction to the decision of the leaders of that nation. For an enlisted soldier, it does not matter if a war is just or not; it matters whether they have been given a command or not.  Religious beliefs should not be subjected to the state.

The very idea of "just war" means that in every war there is at least one side that is unjust.  The logical conclusion is that at least one side should have people conscientiously opposed to that war.  It is very convenient, although intellectually dishonest, to say that our side would always be on the just side in a war. 

For Voluntary Military Service to be implemented, transparency of information from the top of the executive branch all the way to the soldiers in the barracks would need to occur.  Information on why a war should be fought could not be withheld if the government needed to convince its citizens that they should enlist and fight in a war.  This would not give the soldier freedom to disobey orders once he has enlisted in a specific war; what it does is allow the soldier the option of deciding whether to participate in a war that they felt is just.

The benefits of allowing soldiers to decide whether to fight in a war outweighs the detriments to such an unorthodox process. Just wars would be decided based upon the conscience of the people rather than the conscience of a select few. The bar for the case for war would be raised. The responsibility for war would be on the shoulders of those actually fighting it. All soldiers would be allowed to participate with a self-perceived clean conscience. There is nothing to fear in allowing soldiers to decide whether they will or will not fight in a war if the war is just.  Unless we fear not fighting in wars all of the time.

A Difficult Love - Military and the Christian

Anonymous posted this comment on the thread about cutting military spending:
"As an anti-war guy, do you defend yourself when someone kicks in your door and decides he want your stuff or your wife? At what point do you defend yourself and your family? Or do you just take the peaceful way out? If we don't defend ourselves, we will be overrun. You have certainly never been in the military. By the way, I don't think we should be borrowing money from anyone. We don't have to. We need to change our way of spending. Even in the military. If we put our whole military budget into healthcare, these polititians would still puke it away on something such as acorn, unions, or something else that would not benefit us as a country."
I was never in the military although I had received a three-year full scholarship from the Air Force to attend college, but after the first year (the one I had to pay) I felt I could not serve in good conscience.  I concluded that even if I believed in the just war theory, I would have had no say as an officer on whether I believed the war I was fighting in was just or not.  As an officer or soldier, we just follow the chain of command; there is no possibility of opting out of a war that one feels is unjust.  At that point, following my personal conviction, I opted out and pursued ministry.  I do have a friend who was a soldier who left the military due to convictions of conscience he had developed while serving. 

Jesus taught a few hard teachings.  The hardest for us to follow in our culture seems to be the teaching to love our enemies.  We're taught, even on a personal level, to demonize and conquer our enemies.  As a Christian, loving those I should not even like is one of my priorities.  That is one of the ways I show Jesus to the world.  This means that I am willing to build bridges that people have burned, and I allow grace for mistakes.  And I hope others do the same for me because I also burn more bridges than I have meant to and make my share of mistakes that hurt people.  I am not perfect by any means, but I am blessed to be given grace every day to strive for perfection.  And I need to give that same grace, in a practical and tangible way, to others. 

Is this difficult love a feasible foreign policy if our whole nation did it?  I doubt it, but I am not worried about feasibility, just faithfulness.  Although, I must admit that it works good for Switzerland and was proposed here in America, even by Presidents, prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  See Common sense neutrality: Mobilizing for peace if you are interested in reading some of those views expressed prior to WWII.  God can handle feasibility and protection; I need to follow his difficult teachings even when it is "unrealistic" to do so.

So far I have been blessed and have not had someone come in and steal from my house or harm my family.  If I found myself in such an unfortunate situation, I hope I would respond with love and forgiveness.  Dying is not the worst thing in the world.  As a follower of the Prince of peace, I am willing to follow his example and die but not kill.  There is nothing wrong with being overrun.  My world is not this world.  My goal is not the accumulation of earthly goods.  The possessions they would be confiscating are not really mine anyway.  Jesus taught the Apostles that they were to just knock the dirt off their feet and continue on.  Christian traditions have done this before, so I know it is not impossible.  If I was overrun and found myself not being able to continue on, I would move along.  There are many things worth dying for; I can't think of anything worth killing for.

The Return of Mr. Anonymous - On Military Aggression, Health Care, and God's Will

Recently, an anonymous poster has frequented my political postings and railed against my views in the comments. I previously had an anonymous poster who disagreed with me about the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts.

My thoughts are the same today as they were then.
I appreciate the reply. I just don't see things the same way. As long as you reply in a spirit of love, I don't mind if you continue to reply. For if you are speaking the truth, it does need to get out there despite my thoughts.
Anyway, Anonymous wrote several comments regarding God's will and Obama. You can go there to read them in full because I have not reposted them in their entirety.
I think if it was God's will for us to stop killing people around the world, he would not permit it. Something would cause it to not happen.
God does not always enact His will immediately. There are lots of events and actions that are against God's will that occur daily. God is patient and would rather see us change our ways than to automatically punish us. Just because something happens does not mean it is His will.

Paul wrote to the Romans that God will work all things for the good of those who love Him. It does not say that all things work according to His will. Events are going to happen that are not God's will, but when we experience those sufferings or pain, we need to not lose hope. Especially in the surrounding context of Paul's letter, it means that God will never abandon or stop loving those who are His despite the circumstances we find ourselves in. We know that we are supposed to faithfully follow His will, even if it leads to the point of death. Our physical condition does not determine our spiritual condition.
What would you have us do about the people that are determined to kill American's? Go round them up and put them in jail or rehab? There is such a thing as self defense.
Since our government has begun to define preemptive strikes as self-defense, we can now categorize any aggressive military action as self-defense. It's very convenient that way.

In regards to the military issue, we seem to be coming at it from two different angles. My only concern is to follow Jesus' teachings to love my enemies and turn the other cheek. A person killing Americans has moved into the enemy category and needs to be loved by me. There will always be people in power trying to force their will on others, but my role as a follower of Jesus is to do His will. America will be able to take care of itself without me joining in on acts that would violate my conscience.
Does the Constitution mention anything about the gov't providing healthcare?
The Constitution does not mention health care nor was I stating that it does. I was talking about God's will that we should love one another. Providing health care for each other would be a form of loving one another. Maybe it is something that only the churches should do with money giving willingly rather than the government through tax dollars, but I do not see that happening. If it was happening, we would not be having this conversation. I only know of one church that has paid the health insurance of an individual that was in need and not an employee of the church. I see a lot of people being rejected health care unless it is an emergency treatment.

And a brief message to the anonymous poster:
Why are you reading all of my posts and anonymously commenting on them? We could discuss these things as friends over a meal if you would like. But if you aren't from this area, we can still discuss these things knowing one another.

The Desert Cross, World War I, and the Justification of War

The Sojourners posted a great, brief article and a Colbert clip on the Desert Cross controversy.

How the Desert Cross once looked:



How it looks now:


I find it disturbing for a cross to be a war memorial, especially during WWI in which both sides claimed to on the God's side.

During WWI, an American preacher gave a passionate sermon in which he said, “ It is God who has summoned us to this war. It is his war we are fighting...the greatest in history—the holiest. It is in the profoundest and truest sense a Holy War....Yes, it is Christ, the king of Righteousness, who calls us to grapple in deadly strife with this unholy and blasphemous power [Germany].” The dilemma with a statement such as this is that “inscribed on the belts and helmets of the men fighting for this 'unholy and blasphemous power' was the slogan, 'Gott mit uns' (God [be] with us), and their greatest wartime motto, inscribed on scores of monuments to their dead, to be covered by the ruins of a second World War was, 'Fuer Gott und Vaterland' (for God and country). On whose side was God?” [1].

On whose side was God?

One of the dilemmas of war is that every side believes they are on the morally righteous side. Albert Keim and Grant Stoltzfus, two prominent CO historians, wrote:
This view [just war]...is today the essence of the war ethic of most Christian groups. Implicitly, of course, it contains an alternative to war; if the war to be waged is an unjust war, the Christian alternative is not to participate. Unfortunately very few Christians through the centuries have rejected war on the grounds that it was unjust. Virtually all wars have been 'just' wars [2].
WWI, in the end, had no righteous winner. Americans were not quick to stand up and declare the war a just war although it was sold to them as such. Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes, a historian from Columbia University, noted that none of the stated reasons for entering the first world war were achieved. Americans had been sold a basket of lofty ideals that more resembled deception after the war. Prior to WWII, Barnes wrote:
We are all familiar enough with the myths that we believed in the first war. We were taught that our intervention was the only thing that could prevent Germany from conquering the world. We were informed that we were saving the world from further carnage and the rule of brute force. Finally, we were led to believe that we were fighting for noble ideals which would set up a new era in human civilization. On every point our experience in the first World War proved a tragic disappointment and disillusionment...By entering the first World War we did not save the world. We only made possible the smashing victory of the Allies which produced the fatal peace treaties...Not a single major ideal of wartime was realized [3].
This animosity toward war because of the false bag of goods sold during WWI crept up in the discussions prior to America entering WWII. The dominant thought against joining another war in Europe raged through America in the late 30s. Former President Hoover gave a statement in a speech on peace that was representative of the thoughts of many Americans in 1939 prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the United States entry into WWII:
Last night I referred to the suffering of women and children in the Great War...For years it was my sole occupation to care for the homeless, the foodless, the frightened, and the helpless. I have witnessed their sufferings in twenty nations. And when one speaks to me of war, I do not see the glorious parade of troops marching to the tunes of gay music. I do not think of great statesmen planning and worrying in their chancelleries. Nor do I think of those dazzling chambers where the peacemakers of the world meet to settle the affairs of mankind. I see the faces of hungry, despaired, and terrorized women and children. These are the real victims of modern war. The violence of war is year by year falling more and more horribly upon the civilian populations. Starvation by blockade and killing from the air have become weapons of attack in modern war. At least they have become methods of reprisals. Put bluntly that means wholesale killing of women and children [4].
War had been revealed during WWI as a new beast in the modern age with advanced military technology. In war, especially with air warfare, women and children die. Bombs did not distinguish between the warrior and the civilian. Blockades caused advanced industrial societies to starve since much of their food needs to be imported. The victims of this starvation were not the military or government leaders; they would be first in line to receive food. “All over Europe it was the women and children who, weakened from scanty food supplies, died not in hundreds of thousands but in millions” [5]. The new weapons of war—bombing, blockading, and complete mobilization of industrial society—caused whole societies rather than just the men to become participants and victims in war [6].

In modern warfare, can any war be just?

[1] Quoted in Mennonite General Conference, Peace Problems Committee, The Churches and War, (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1956), 16.

[2] Albert Keim and Grant Stoltzfus, The Politics of Conscience, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1988, 19.

[3] Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes, Common Sense Neutrality, ed. Paul Comly French ( New York: Hastings House, 1939), 14-15.

[4] President Herbert Hoover, Common Sense Neutrality, ed. Paul Comly French ( New York: Hastings House, 1939), 110-111.

[5] Ibid, 111.

[6] Ibid, 111-113