‽istis reclaims never
just war, ever Just War? (weekending May 15th 2021)
This week, surprised when ‘My Sweet Lord’ playing on
GLGZ Jerusalem came over the airwaves from a random multi-station radio tour of the area
of conflict in the news, ‽istis pondered
whether religion is a power for peace or whether it causes conflict? whether religion
has helped or hindered the cause of peace? more problem than solution? balm,
fig leaf or clenched fist? treatment or illness?...
A search brought up many facts and
stats, opinions and views. Apparently the ‘Encyclopaedia of Wars’ (Charles
Phillips and Alan Axelrod) reports that of all known 1,763 recorded conflicts,
123 or 6.98% had religion as their primary cause. Matthew White in ‘The Great Big
Book of Horrible Things’ lists only 11 'horrible things' under the category
of ‘religious conflict’.
Led to the BBC Bitesize pages[i] for
schoolchildren in England (key stage 3 c. 11-14 yr olds) the explanation is
this: ‘Religious teachings tend to focus on how people can live alongside each
other with love, understanding and compassion. However, there are many different
religious and different beliefs, and this can sometimes lead to conflict.’
Headings for the information on the
BBC pages included: The Golden Rule (see previous blog entry weekending April 10th
2021); Pacifism; Words of Wisdom; A just war; Conflict and peace in pictures and
the reader is invited to take a quiz: ‘How much do you know about religious and
non-religious teachings on war and peace?’ (PS: the answer to question 1 is: ahimsa).
The ‘Words of Wisdom’ include quotations
and citations from sacred texts and venerated figures:
·
‘Hatred will not cease by hatred, but
by love alone. This is the ancient law.’
·
‘Love your enemies and pray for those
who persecute you.’
·
‘I object to violence, because when it
appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.’
·
‘Do you know what is better than
charity and fasting and prayer? It is keeping peace and good relations between
people, as quarrels an bad feelings destroy mankind.’
·
‘Either man will abolish war, or war
will abolish man.’
You may wish to ascribe, research and/or
add…?
A video[ii] presentation
considers:
·
‘rules for war’ (self-defence, fighting
as a last resort, innocent people and children not to be harmed, property not
to be destroyed, no plants or animal to be killed);
·
a list of the reason why people may
fight: rights, identities, religions, communities under threat; because they
are scared; to get revenge; because they want something: more money, more land,
more power, change, to control what other people do or what they believe.
And so, as the right-now death of children,
families, people like you and me – death from conflict, from bombs and bullets
and beatings - again find a way on to the news agenda; as images of homes and
infrastructure destroyed again fill screens on TVs and phones across the world… ‽istis wonders whether war can ever be ‘just’,
legitimated, acceptable, exonerable?
Apparently, in an article on ‘Just War’[iii]
by James Johnson ‘most scholars agree that to be considered ‘just’, a war must
meet several requirements:
·
declared openly by a proper sovereign
authority
·
have a just cause (e.g: the defence of
the common good or a response to a grave injustice)
·
the warring states must have ‘just’
intentions (i.e: wage a war for justice rather than for self-interest)
·
have as its aim the establishment of a
just peace.
And the word ‘just’ and the notion of ‘justice’
may, for now, perhaps have to be left for another ‘weekending’ ‽istis reclaims
and wonders blog…
The article suggests that since the ‘Second
World War’, three other conditions might be thought important in the
declaration of a ‘just war’: having a reasonable chance of success; force used
as a last resort; the expected benefits outweighing the anticipated costs.
On reviewing various attempts to
develop international law and conventions relating to conflict, Johnson outlines
three principles that seem to be established:
·
targets should include only combatants
and legitimate military and related industrial complexes
·
combatants should not use unjust methods and
weapons (e.g: torture or genocide)
·
force should be proportionate to the
end sought.
And as
the news reports continue to come in this week, two sides of an imagined embossed
coin come to mind - perhaps spinning as they are tossed in the air or fired and
flying over territories in a state: ‘no peace without justice’, ‘no justice
without peace’‽
Words
from two poems[iv] in ‘101 Poems against War’
compiled and edited by Matthew Hollis and Paul Keegan will linger this week:
‘I am the victim of the map… When they slammed shut the door of my heart… When they threw up barricades… When they imposed a curfew inside me… my heart
grew into an alley… My ribs became hovels... But carnations were budding… Carnations were in bud’
‘..four
dead and eleven wounded… And around them
in a greater circle of pain and time are scattered two hospitals and one cemetery…
the young woman who was buried where she came from over a hundred kilometres away
enlarges the circle greatly… And the lone
man who weeps over her death in a far corner of a distant country includes the
whole world in the circle… the crying of
orphans that reaches to the seat of God and from there onward, making the
circle without end and without God.’
And so ‽istis ponders
these words; looks at the pictures; hears the words of the destitute, the
bereaved, the grieving and the aggrieved, the perpetrators and victims – and is
sure that it is never, ever just war… and wonders whether there has ever been, or
can ever be, a Just War‽
©
Pistis
NB: further reflections and comments linked to
this week’s theme and past blog
entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t necessarily
indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’:
@Pistis_wonders
[ii] Is
religion a power for peace or does it cause conflict? – KS3 Religious Studies –
BBC Bitesize - BBC Bitesize
[iv]
By Mahmoud Darwish (from ‘Poem for the Land’) and Yehuda Amichai (‘The Diameter
of the Bomb’), respectively
