Help me frame a good argument for my niece's essay...

[Frogtutor]

My niece goes to a very religious right private school; she's in tenth grade. There is some kind of writing competition going on, yet the teacher is making all her students write on the topics whether or not they want to participate in the competition. Personally, I don't think students should be made to write opinion essays on topics in which they have little or no interest. Besides that, the topics are very loaded. Some of them are things like:

What should be the role of the national media in censoring or supporting religion?

What should the role of Christianity play in a political party?

What constitutes a just war?

and others concerning moral character and politicians, homeland security, etc.

She really had no opinion on any of these, and asked me about them. The one that caught my attention was "What constitutes a just war". I told her my opinions on it, gave her a few examples, and she agreed that would probably be the best topic to cover. Last night she was supposed to be doing brainstorming and research to help back up her opinions. Tonight she's probably going to come over for me to help her put the paper together.

I just kind of wanted to get feedback from liberal-minded folks like myself on this topic. What do you think constitutes a just war? What constitutes an UNjust war? Do you have any examples?

Thanks in advance for your viewpoints!

:)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. I'm a Liberal because I'm a Christian.....Sermon on the Mount; Matthew 5

[ewagner]

2. Here are some references

I posted the link to the full text at the bottom. You may have already had these but they're "religous" references which may do her well.


Just War? The concept was described over 1,500 years ago by Saint Augustine. A pagan turned Christian, Augustine argued there was never any justification for one individual to kill another, not even in self defense. But this limitation did not apply to nations. The rulers of nations, he argued, have an obligation to their subjects to maintain peace. This obligation gives them the right to wage war, and their subjects have a responsibility to go when called. The just motive for war? Peace. Augustine wrote, “We go to war that we may have peace.” Isn’t it a violation of the teachings? Doesn’t it conflict with that commandment to “love your enemies?” According to Augustine, “War is the result of sin, and war is the remedy for sin.”

edit: snip

Halfway between our time and Augustine’s was the time of Saint Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas detailed three conditions for a just war: proper authority, just cause, and right intent. The proper authority was the head of state, responsible for the welfare of the citizens. Aquinas found justification in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, where Paul writes, “Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God.” Obey since, “Whoever opposes the existing authority opposes what God has ordered, and anyone who does so will bring judgement on himself.” If the government says go to war, you go to war. Aquinas also considered a just cause for going to war. He wrote, “Those who are attacked should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.” As for right intent, Aquinas gave two possibilities: to further good, or to avoid evil

<http://www.misterthorne.org/ESSAYS/atheists_christians.htm>

[Crunchy Frog]

3. Here's some links concerning "just war" theory.

http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm

Good luck. Maybe the people at your neices school will learn something.

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. St. Augustine and later Thomas Aquinas did a lot on "Just War" theory

Do a google search on "'just war' theory" and "jus ad bellum" and you'll get lots of good stuff.

Here's a good summary:
http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

And an interesting article at national review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory101501b.shtml

There is a set of principles establishing criteria for moral evaluation of the use, or possible use, of military force. First, war can be justified only in self-defense or defense of others. Wars may not legitimately be fought for national glory, to avenge past wrongs, for territorial gain, or for any other non-defensive purpose. ...A second principle of just war requires that the use of force have a reasonable likelihood of success.... A third principle demands that force be used only when non-violent means will not suffice. A fourth recognizes the immunity of non-combatants from deliberate attack....it is never permissible to make the harming of noncombatants the object of the actions. ....A fifth principle requires that the use of force, especially where harm to noncombatants is likely, be "proportionate" to the evil being opposed.

Relatedly, norms of fairness must be observed in electing to perform acts one knows will likely cause such harm. The just-war tradition affirms the sanctity of life and the principle of equal human dignity. The Golden Rule forbids treating people we don't know or who have no connection with us or who differ from us in ways that are irrelevant to their status as noncombatants as having less of a right to life than people who happen to be our fellow citizens.

Rabrrrrrr speaking again: So, the US likely failed in Hiroshima. And is quite seriously failing in Iraq on the just war theory.

But note that it's really the Catholics, not any evangelical right wing war-mongerers, who have done much in terms of just war theory. The points mentioned above are Catholic (though you will most assuredly find that the liberal, mainstream, sane forms of protestantism will be in 100% agreement on those).

John Yoder, a mennonite theologian, also wrote a lot about war and peace.

And, of course, you have the words of Jesus: turn the other cheek, the aforementioned golden rule from above, the sermon on the mount...

[Guaranteed]

10. I agree with all that, except that I think

my rationale for actually going to war might be a bit more strict ("defending others" can be kind of vague- look at what Bush has done in the name of "democracy"). However, once in war I also think I have far less rules. I think the best thing to do in a war is to end it as quickly as possible, hit as hard as you can.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. And that's one of the difficult and nebulous areas about war

the "end it quickly" and "pull no punches".

Because one CAN say, as we did in WWII, that by dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yeah, we caused a lot of civilian deaths, but in the long run might have spared millions of military deaths - Russian, US, and Japanese - and saved Japan from ending up as part of Russia

But on the other hand, maybe not.

But I do agree that one should try to win as quickly.

But these are the gray area ideas that world leaders - at least, ethical ones - and military leaders are faced with. And there is no way to reduce it all down to a perfect mathematical equation that can be used in every situation from now until eternity. Including such things as "defending others". Because now we can ask, "If we're willing to defend the powerless in Iraq, why aren't we taking out the government in China? Or Korea? Or Cuba?" Or any host of other countries. And on the other hand, we have to answer, "We don't have resources, time, or ability to go defend EVERYONE". So we must make choices.

Right Wing Republicans gleefully, almost giddily, make choices that benefit their wallets. Ethical people, including the few ethical republicans, try to make choices to the best of their ability, and mourn having to make those choices, and also mourn the choices that they can't make.

[Guaranteed]

12. The intent matters, too.

I wasn't entirely comfortable with our involvement in Yugoslavia, but I trusted Clinton. And we saw what was going on over there every day in the papers and magazines. Our motive for going in was pretty clear, and certainly no one held it against us.

[Frogtutor]

13. That is one of the examples I gave her...

I remember while all the atrocities were going on in Bosnia. At the time I couldn't help but ask, "Why is it ok for us to go over in the Middle East and defend oil wells when this Milosovic monster is over there in Bosnia committing mass genocide?" It seemed to take an extraordinarily long time for us to get our asses over there. I mean, if war can be justified, I think it's far more justifiable over ethnic cleansing than over oil. I know, I know, he invaded Kuwait. Poor little rich Kuwaitis had to go party in Saudi Arabia for a while. I firmly believe the ONLY reason we( meaning, our government) cared was because of oil. Well, ok, it was worse than that, but NOTHING like what was going on in Bosnia.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. She should do one on the moral character of politicians and say

"You know, I LIKE my president to get blowjobs. Because when they're getting blowjobs, the economy is excellent, we don't get embroiled in illegal and costly wars, abortion rates go down, volunteerism goes up, crime goes down, the land and water gets cleaner, we don't defy God, and we don't piss in the face of Jesus Christ. Maybe it's adultery, and in that sense a sin, but compared to what we have now, a blowjob is a pretty minor and irrelevant sin. Talk about failing moral character: now we have a president who thinks it's wrong for a woman to have control of her body and supposedly supports life but finds the execution of mentally disabled people to be funny and has no problem killing 10,000 Iraqi babies in an unjust and illegal war and has no problem letting American children starve to death. We have a president who isn't getting a blowjob, but who is taking as much money from the poor and giving it to the rich as possible. we have a president who thinks that poisoning God's green earth, and thus 6 billion people, is acceptable. We have a president who forces people to sign a loyalty oath before they can see him - talk about idolatry!"

and so on.

[Frogtutor]

6. Lol; well, I was trying NOT to get her thrown out of school...

but still get that Christian Left point of view seen!

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. They can't throw her out for speaking the truth!

Well, they can, of course, but they can't do so on moral grounds. throwing her out would just prove their inability to think.

[Frogtutor]

14. True, but then they'd want to perform an exorcism,

and it would just get real ugly.

Hee hee

:evilgrin:

[Frogtutor]

7. Wow, you guys are great!

I just found a couple of good articles myself on Sojourners web site, and Faithful America.org.

Thanks for all the great info!

:yourock:

[Guaranteed]

9. A just war is one that you are not involved in by choice.

If a country chooses to go to war, as opposed to being pulled into one against its will, it's an unjust war.

But, then, once in a war- pull no punches. Just finish it.

[Frogtutor]

15. Thanks for all of your thoughts/references...

My niece didn't tell me about this paper until Wednesday night, and it was due today (Friday)! She had tried to find info Wednesday night, but couldn't find anything regarding just war, so she had gotten some other stuff, and still hadn't made up her mind on the topic. She came over last night after telling me this, and I told her that I had lots of material concerning just war (thanks to my friends at DU), so she decided to go ahead and use the topic. If it weren't for your contributions, this paper wouldn't have been written! We were up til nearly 2:00 AM, and I think it turned out pretty good. With more time, it could have turned out REALLY good, though (teenagers!). I'll try to let you all know how she does on the paper and/or the competition if she decides to enter it.

My niece and I thank you very much!

:D

[jswordy]

16. What constitutes a just war?

Nothing. There is no such thing as a "just war," according to the Bible.

"Thou shall not kill."

Four words...pretty simple...

That's why the fundies keep changing word four to "murder."

Sigh. They think the legalistic definition of "murder" absolves war from the Commandments. But not me.

[Frogtutor]

20. Interesting that you should bring that up...

We were using a couple of different Bibles as well as the Internet to find phrasing that we liked for certain verses. In the NLV Bible, given to us by my religious right sister-in-law, uses the word "murder", a reference to the same verse on a website used "kill", and the King James Bible I've had since I was a child used--well, we don't know what it used. We read it and went, "huh?" I was very aware of the distinction between the two words, and I think my niece was, too. We went with "kill."

[jswordy]

17. While I'm at it...

What should be the role of the national media in censoring or supporting religion?

They should do neither...and remarkably, that's pretty much how they play it now.


What should the role of Christianity play in a political party?

None. Values can play a role, and they are the fundamental building blocks leading to politics, but advancement of one one religious belief over another in any party is an ultimate hinderance to the party over the long run (as the GOP is to learn). There are lots of examples from our U.S. past. Or should I suggest Nazi Germany?

[SoCalDem]

18. Sounds like that teacher has an agenda

Damn "activist teachers".:)

[Frogtutor]

21. Oh, man...this school is something else

Assembly of God, I think. She goes there because she was not doing well in public school as early as the 3rd grade. She started going to this school then, and over the years (she's in 10th grade now) she has made many close friends, and the school is like a "family" to her. Luckily, she has me and other members of her real family around to temper the propaganda they feed her. There's been more than a couple of times I've wanted to go down there and raise hell about one thing or another, and she's not even my child!

[SoCalDem]

19. darnit.. a dupe

.