 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The powers of this dark world must be resisted. Christians must stand united against war and the evil that it propagates. We must seek to stop the use of violence and help disagreements to be settled peacefully. There is no justification for the continued use of 9/11 as a cover for immoral action. Christians must stand up and clearly enunciate this truth. We are called upon to spread Christ’s message of peace, forgiveness and reconciliation throughout the world. This can hardly be done through the use of military personnel and "smart" bombs. How should Christians be known throughout the world, as ones who send militants….or missionaries?
War and Peace
The answer is that there is no such number. Murder is murder regardless of how many people participate. War is the most immoral and egregious violation of the will of God that people can commit. The fact that human beings, specifically Christians, can find ways of rationalizing this demonic behavior clearly shows the depravity of the human condition.
Christian authors have long debated and written about what constitutes a Just War. People certainly have the right to defend themselves. However, defending from aggression should be sharply distinguished from making war on another. Historically Christians have considered wars to be just if they are strictly defensive in nature, operate only for noble purposes and are undertaken only as an absolute last resort. Furthermore a war can only be just if it is executed justly, meaning that there must be clear discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. "The just war doctrine rejects the mindless patriotism of 'my country right or wrong' and challenges the citizens to make a moral judgment concerning the wars their nation fights" (Einwechter).
There is no such moral judgment in America. We live in a society that actively supports violence. People enjoy watching the dramatized murder of others on television as if it's normal. The 9/11 attacks have and continue to serve the needs of a massive propaganda campaign that plays on this sentiment. 9/11 is used to justify the most terrible crimes people can commit. Because of the attacks, people feel that they are somehow serving a greater good by torturing and killing people. As if by committing these heinous crimes they will be safer in the long run. The media has Americans whipped into a frenzy. After the attacks, the public’s appetite for murder grew to new heights. People wanted revenge. People wanted blood to flow in the streets…just so long as those streets are in a far off land where people have a different religion.
There is no such moral judgment in America. We live in a society that actively supports violence. People enjoy watching the dramatized murder of others on television as if it's normal. The 9/11 attacks have and continue to serve the needs of a massive propaganda campaign that plays on this sentiment. 9/11 is used to justify the most terrible crimes people can commit. Because of the attacks, people feel that they are somehow serving a greater good by torturing and killing people. As if by committing these heinous crimes they will be safer in the long run. The media has Americans whipped into a frenzy. After the attacks, the public’s appetite for murder grew to new heights. People wanted revenge. People wanted blood to flow in the streets…just so long as those streets are in a far off land where people have a different religion.
People are able to support such terrible actions because they lack firm ethical principles. The basis for all ethics is the position that the life of every human being has equal value. However, people unfortunately do not believe this in our culture. People will mourn the death of Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith for months. But when they here news that a CIA drone attack blew up a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing over 100 civilians, it means nothing to them.
“How can children, youths, and people generally be taught any kind of morality-not to speak of teaching in the spirit of Christianity-side by side with the doctrine that murder is necessary for the public welfare, and therefore legitimate, and that there are men, of whom each of us may have to be one, whose duty is to murder and torture and commit all sorts of crimes at the will of those who are in possession of authority. If this is so, and one can and ought to murder and torture, there is not and cannot be any kind of moral law, but only the law that might is right. And this is just how it is.
And indeed, what sort of ethical doctrine could admit the legitimacy of murder for any object whatever? It is as impossible as a theory of mathematics admitting that two is equal to three. There may be a semblance of mathematics admitting that two is equal to three, but there can be no real science of mathematics. And there can only be a semblance of ethics in which murder in the shape of war…is allowed, but no true ethics. The recognition of the life of every man as sacred is the first and only basis of all ethics.
But putting aside the sin of deluding men into regarding the most awful crime as a duty, putting aside the revolting sin of using the name and authority of Christ to sanction what he most condemned, not to speak of the curse on those who cause these "little ones" to offend--how can people who cherish their own way of life, their progress, even from the point of view of their personal security, allow the formation in their midst of an overwhelming force as senseless, cruel, and destructive as every government is organized on the basis of an army? Even the most cruel band of brigands is not so much to be dreaded as such a government.
The power of every brigand chief is at least so far limited that the men of his band preserve at least some human liberty, and can refuse to commit acts opposed to their conscience. But, owing to the perfection to which the discipline of the army has been brought, there is no limit to check men who form part of a regularly organized government. There are no crimes so revolting that they would not readily be committed by men who form part of a government or army, at the will of anyone (such as Boulanger, Napoleon, or Pougachef) who may chance to be at their head.”
And indeed, what sort of ethical doctrine could admit the legitimacy of murder for any object whatever? It is as impossible as a theory of mathematics admitting that two is equal to three. There may be a semblance of mathematics admitting that two is equal to three, but there can be no real science of mathematics. And there can only be a semblance of ethics in which murder in the shape of war…is allowed, but no true ethics. The recognition of the life of every man as sacred is the first and only basis of all ethics.
But putting aside the sin of deluding men into regarding the most awful crime as a duty, putting aside the revolting sin of using the name and authority of Christ to sanction what he most condemned, not to speak of the curse on those who cause these "little ones" to offend--how can people who cherish their own way of life, their progress, even from the point of view of their personal security, allow the formation in their midst of an overwhelming force as senseless, cruel, and destructive as every government is organized on the basis of an army? Even the most cruel band of brigands is not so much to be dreaded as such a government.
The power of every brigand chief is at least so far limited that the men of his band preserve at least some human liberty, and can refuse to commit acts opposed to their conscience. But, owing to the perfection to which the discipline of the army has been brought, there is no limit to check men who form part of a regularly organized government. There are no crimes so revolting that they would not readily be committed by men who form part of a government or army, at the will of anyone (such as Boulanger, Napoleon, or Pougachef) who may chance to be at their head.”
-Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You p.313
Click here to discuss this article in our forum.