Peace and War in Christianity and Culture - Assignment Example

Order 307779 Topic: Peace and war in Christianity and culture Question 1: To speak against the war has become the lifestyle of anti-war contingent of American intellectuals. American action against terrorism fits into the philosophy of meeting good with good and evil with justice generally, but not always! Elshtain mostly defends American war on terrorism and criminal regimes. Her arguments are well-constructed. She has no hesitation to take USA to task, for its gross negligence for not responding to genocide in Rwanda, and for the lackluster response in Bosnia and Kosovo. If Christianity can end the suffering of the people through military actions, it must do so, according to Elshtain. Meet the challenge of evil and provide it the treatment it deserves—this is the important part of Christianity. America should not tolerate the organized torture and annihilation of their citizens by criminal regimes. She defends the American policy and advises the administration to act unilaterally or jointly with other Nations. The rising Islamic fundamentalism must be ruthlessly curbed now and for ever. The terrorists have made public their intention, times without number, to destroy America. That is their avowed aim. America has every right to defend herself and the question of reconciliation does not arise at all as the hot-headed terrorists are not amenable to reason and the negotiation table is not the place they favor. War brought peace in the struggle against the Nazis and the imperialist Japan. Elshtain’s well-founded arguments plead for the same against Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. She presents a moral case for USA and its military engagements in various parts of the world that are justified for fighting terrorism. This is the only alternative to achieve world peace. The wise saying goes—do not strike….when you strike, strike so hard and see that there is no need to strike again and again. Islamic fundamentalists richly deserve the latter option. Elshtain questions the departure of many Protestant and Catholic clergy from the reality of the situation in which America is placed. The anti-utopianism in the responses of Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr to World War II, also engages her serious concern. She fully endorses the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. This is the prime issue that she tries to tackle in the book. What prompts U.S. to do so, and what are its consequences? She does not spare the pacifists, who are opposed to war on any count as a matter of principle, cultural activists, who shut their eyes to the reality and are not willing to see the Islamic threat as evil and the leftists who must oppose US policies and the justice of American society. What are Christian religious principles? The preaching tells the faithful to fight the relentless inner war against the evil and the negativities. One applies the inner force (strength) to fight such tendencies. Similarly, to fight the mass evil like Taliban, a mass organized force is necessary-and that force is US military. Elshtain wants the American intellectuals to realize this fact. Social reform can never transform Al Qaeda. This cancerous part needs to be operated upon. “Citing a report by columnist Thomas Friedman, Elshtain lists the consequent "freedom deficit undermining human development" within Arab societies: "the shortage of freedom to speak, innovate and affect political life, a shortage of womens rights, and a shortage of quality education" (p. 143). Religion does not oppose war; rather it is very much concerned with the doctrine of just war. The current regime of Taliban deserves all-out destruction on religious grounds as well. “She maintains that the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan fully met the classic criteria for just war elaborated by Aquinas and later thinkers. To Elshtain, the case is obvious: was the United States not acting in response to a vicious and unprovoked attack?”(The Mises Review….) "Surely there can be little doubt that the attacks of September 11 constituted an act of aggression aimed specifically at killing civilians. Indeed, when a wound as grievous as that of September 11 has been inflicted on a body politic, it would be the height of irresponsibility and a dereliction of duty for public officials to fail to respond” (p.59) Clearly, then, "the U.S. military response in Afghanistan meets the just cause criterion of being a war fought with the right intention---to punish wrongdoers and prevent them from murdering civilians in the future."(p.61) But some wish to engage in hair-splitting arguments, state that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda and not Afghanistan. They are willing to sweep under the carpet the role of Taliban. Harboring an aggressive force with malicious intentions are adequate grounds for American intervention. No sensible government would wait to be attacked first and then retaliate—especially after the experience of 9/11. The author’s contention, that the situation met the requirements of the “last resort” principle, is maintainable. “Properly understood, last resort is a resort to armed force taken after deliberation rather than as an immediate reaction. The criterion of last resort does not compel a government to try everything else in actual fact but rather to explore other options before concluding that none seems appropriate or viable in light of the nature of the threat."(p.61) Elshtain makes clear and rationally acceptable distinction between the martyr and a murderer. She writes, “How should be describe the hijackers? Were they martyrs to their faith, as some claim? A martyr is generally recognized as one who dies for his or her faith. Even if he kills himself in the process, however, a person who murders is not a martyr but a murderer.” (p.10) Most of the Americans and right thinking people all over the world, feel that America has to deal with the murderers and it must deal with them as such! “The ethical context of her argument is the theory of justified war elaborated on the basis of Christian realism, specifically the Augustinian doctrine that statesmen have moral responsibilities both domestically, to establish and maintain a civil tranquility in which innocent citizens are protected from violence; and internationally, to cooperate in maintaining peace within a system of accountable national governments.” (H-Net Reviews….) Question 2: The sworn enemy of most of the terrorist groups, and particularly that of fundamentalists of Islam, is United States of America. Therefore, in any country, where terror is a serious issue, it demands the attention of America. The scenario of the possible major war is mind-boggling. The technological innovations and the internet revolution have completely changed the strategies and concepts of war. The power of the push button is more than the powers of a starred General. The national and international terror outfits are perilous for the interest of America. The reaction has got to be swift and decisive. In a war, one side is supposed to be moral and the other, immoral. The problem is that of judgment. One is right, and the other is wrong. Just as everyone has a reason to pray, every country has a reason for military action. “Political choice includes moral choices, but this variant of Realism assumes that ethical choices can not be categorical or absolute—that is, that they necessarily depend upon a prior consideration of strategic security.”(Doyle, p.45) It is easy to talk on peace from the ivory tower, but for a politician in power and who is responsible for security of the people, the national assets and for the governance of the nation, no alternative exists but to find desperate remedies for desperate situations. In calamitous situations, no matter what measures one takes, it needs to be taken well in time and decisively. War, when it takes place, is not about logic, right and wrongs. The only aim of war is to win the war, at all costs. “War is a world apart, where life itself is at stake, where human nature is reduced to is elemental form, where self-interest and necessity prevail. Here men and women do what they must to save themselves and their communities, and morality and law have no place. Inter arma silent leges: in times of war, the law is silent.” (Walzer, p.3) Elshtain makes her observations and passes judgments on terrorists/hijackers very clear in the 1st chapter of the book. She writes, “Labeling their victims—calling them “infidels”, the Islamist term for non-Muslims or Muslims who do not share their hatred; “bacilli”, a Nazi term for Jews; or “bourgeois reactionaries,” a communist term for any one who opposed their violent revolution —is but one way in which some human beings strip others of their protected status as noncombatants or, even more radically, or their very humanness”(p.10) These are the people who aver that whatever they do is correct and whatever correct is there in the world, belongs to them. Her arguments in favor of military action are acceptable and the just war theory in the Christian tradition stands the test of reason. The pages of human history are daubed in the bloodshed of the so-called moral and immoral wars. The wars between the divine and the evil forces! When a military intervention happens, even the ordinary reasons become extraordinary. All the political and military secrets can not be revealed to the common man. So the people make their judgments on the basis of the available data. When the truth comes out later, they are able to see the issue in its proper perspective. Elshtain’s observations about Islam and how it conducts itself are reasonable. There is so much confusion amongst the faithful of Islam, really speaking, not others, Muslims need to be converted to Islam! The views of the radical Muslims and the common Muslim are poles apart. Elshtain ably contrasts radical Islam and Islam. She emphasizes what one does is no doubt important; but how one does, what one does, is more important. The essential difference between the radical Muslims and USA applying force, receives careful consideration by the author. Terrorists kill a westerner, just because one is a westerner. They do not need or accept any other arguments. Westerners ‘kill’ through the judicious process. While initiating action to kill terrorists, every precaution is taken by USA to cause no harm to the civilians. The terrorists do not think before killing. Westerners adopt the negotiations process first. Terrorists speak through their gun. The application of force is done by the organized army as per the international statues of war ethics. Radical Islam carries the image of a street fighter. Terrorists kill at random, whenever and wherever they get an opportunity. Killing the innocents is their hobby. They have the advantage of surprise as for the first strike. The price they pay for this is too heavy as the losses suffered in the reprisals is manifold. The same is experienced in Iraq war and the current Afghanistan war against Taliban. Questions 3: The pages of human history daubed in bloodshed in the name of religion, race, color, territorial aggrandizement etc. ask the crying question. How to make this Planet Earth heaven-like? The answer is simple and straightforward. Eyes full of understanding, hearts full of love and the life that refuses conflicts-enough, these alone are enough! Lots of differences exist between pure religion and religion as it is practiced by the followers. The religious followers of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religion, are all mind-level thinkers. Scriptures of various religions contain revelations by the Realized Souls or Perfect Masters, who have transcended the mind, and revel in peace and bliss. All their revelations are identical just as the sun and the moon are the same for all. The conflicts arise, when Mullahs, Fathers, and Pundits interpret such revelations as per the level of their progression. The same confusion prevails today. “Islam is a contested notion. Since September 11, 2001, “Islam,” “Muslim,” jihad, fatwa and related terms have featured regularly on television and radio talk shows. Politicians, evangelical preachers, talk-show hosts and ordinary people use them with apparent ease. But their use is reflexive: their use shows more about where the speaker stands in the spectrum of political debate than about historical and current meanings of the words.”(Keslay, p.8) Not understanding the true meaning and import of Islam is the genesis of religious conflicts. This is the main problem with the fundamentalists of Islam. I am neither a pacifist nor a war theorist. I do not believe that Christianity and Islam are permanent enemies and they should remain at war for ever, until followers of one of them are eliminated from the face of Planet Earth. What is required is clear cut division of responsibilities between the religious and political leaders. If religious leaders play active politics that is the worst than can happen to the society. Religion essentially is a private issue for the individual. Global peace and harmony are attainable realities, when individuals change for the better. The power of the barrel of the gun can never change the heart of an individual. No mass philosophy can change an individual and the society as a whole. The world has seen how communism failed; the world is witnessing the confusion and degeneration in the capitalist societies; people have forgotten what the true definition of socialism is; religion has failed to unite the people. Many theocratic states should have been the most peaceful nations in the world. But unfortunately, religious conflicts between the sects of the same religion are rampart there. I can say that I am non-religious but I can not say that I am a non-spiritual person. When a war is declared, deviance from the stated objectives is a distinct possibility. The rule of the war is that the civilians can not be subjected to direct attacks. But if a group of militants hide in the civilian localities, they have to be eliminated as per the objectives of war, and in such cases, civilian casualties can not be avoided. For every attack, there are standards and limitations. Much depends upon the importance of the target. Your can not wipe out a city just to seize a few arms and some stock of ammunition. You can not aim to kill civilians. No method but only madness prevails in the style of attack of Al Qaeda, as rightly pointed out by Elshtain, "Terrorists aim to kill as many civilians as possible. . . How do we develop a proportionate response to a disproportionate intended threat?"(p.69) The two can not walk together, except they are agreed! Even though I am a non-religious person, I value religious freedom, human dignity and democratic polity. The Osama bin Ladens hate these values and want all those who believe in such lofty ideals, exterminated. They wish to establish the rule of a theocratic Islam. These die-hard followers of Islam—in reality have forgotten what true Islam is. Terrorists do not believe in the politics of negotiations. They talk through guns and bombs. Conclusion: No compromise is possible with radical Islam. America has to retaliate with clarity to defend freedom and human dignity. Study the historical analysis of terrorism in 1200; whenever they got an opportunity the fundamentalists have used the sword to promote the religion of their class. The worst of enemies of Islam are the fundamentalists. It is unfortunate that the so-called intellectuals, imbued with Marxism, do not see the writing on the wall. They are blinded to the sort of threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. All the religions of the world have used force in one form or the other, but a pertinent contrast exists as for Islam and Christianity. The ethical strictures for use of military force as for these two religions are entirely different. As per Christian tradition, war demands strong ethical and political justifications .Resort to war and conduct of war is governed by strict rules and regulations. As for Islamic fundamentalists, jihad against the unbelievers is a requirement of faith. The infidel has no choice—either Islam or death! So instead of getting killed, it is essential to kill the fundamentalist first. Works Cited Doyle, Michael W. Ways of war and Peace: Realism, Liberalism and Socialism: W. W. Norton & Co, 1997 Elshtain, Jean. Just War against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World. New York: Basic Books, 2004 H-Net Reviews-Terrorism and a New American Agenda- Reviewed by Edward Witman (Department of Philosophy, Georgian Court College) Published on H-Peace (January, 2004) – Retrieved on June 27, 2009 Kelsey, John. Arguing the Just War in Islam. Harvard University Press, 2007 The Mises Review: Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American... Edited and written by David Gordon, senior fellow of the Mises Institute.Summer 2003 Volume 9, Number 2. – Retrieved on June 27, 2009 Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 2000 Read More