70 years

It is said that Gandhi was once asked, "Is there anything for which you would kill?"  The story says that his answer was, "No. There is nothing for which I would kill.  There is much for which I would die."  When killing is allowed has always been a sticky question.  For many cultures, killing someone who is part of the ingroup is not allowed, but someone who is an outsider is allowed.  We give police officers permission to use deadly force under very specific circumstances.  And finally, even the military are allowed to kill only under certain circumstances and there are long traditions of writing "rules of engagement" and moral frameworks for warfare.

All of the data indicates that the earliest followers of Jesus were pacifists and would have identified with Gandhi's answer.  The stories of the martyrs include many instances where individuals willingly gave their lives and watched as family members gave theirs without returning violence for violence.  After Constantine it became clear to those in power that pacifism was no longer an option.  They believed that empires required armies and the threat of death so the theologians went to work to build a schema that would allow for the possibilities of state sponsored violence and would define under what circumstances killing was allowed or even required.  They came up with the "Just War Theory."

Augustine was the first theologian to propose a just war framework and set the tone for the discussion from then on.  His framework was

Principles of Just-War Theory

1. Last Resort

A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. The use of force can only be used as a last resort.

2. Legitimate Authority

A just war is waged by a legitimate authority. A war cannot be waged by individuals or groups that do not constitute the legitimate government.

3. Just Cause

A just war needs to be in response to a wrong suffered. Self-defense against an attack always constitutes a just war; however, the war needs to be fought with the objective to correct the inflicted wound.

4. Probability of Success

In order for a war to be just, there must be a rational possibility of success. A nation cannot enter into a war with a hopeless cause.

5. Right Intention

The pirmary objective of a just war is to re-establish peace. In particular, the peace after the war should excede the peace that would have succeeded without the use of force. The aim of the use of force must be justice.

6. Proportionality

The violence in a just war must be proportional to the casualties suffered. The nations involved in the war must avoid disproportionate military action and only use the amount of force absolutely necessary.

7. Civilian Casualties

The use of force must distinguish between the militia and civilians. Innocent citizens must never be the target of war; soldiers should always avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are only justified when they are unavoidable victims of a military attack on a strategic target. 

Other expressions of the Just War Theory also included a proscription against destruction of property, specifically the burning of structures.

Certainly that framework has formed the basis of moral justification of military violence since and the argument makes sense even if some of the criteria, especially #2, may seem a bit dated.  I would argue though that there has never been a war that met those criteria.  That is not the point of today's post.

Seventy years ago, the US dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima followed a few days later by the second on Nagasaki.  The argument goes that Japan was planning to execute all prisoners of war and that a ground war in Japan would have cost many more lives that the conservative estimate of 135,000 (mostly civilian) deaths from the dropping of those two bombs.  

If we begin with virtually any iteration of the Just War Theory, the bombings were simply immoral.  The number of civilian deaths and the complete destruction of two cities is simply not acceptable according to any Just War theory.  To equate the deaths of civilians to that of military is never allowed.  Even if those civilian deaths did save the lives of Allied military forces, it is still immoral according to Augustine's argument.  That a second bomb was dropped was even more repugnant.

My local paper had an editorial today arguing that the bombings were both necessary and good.  That the writer felt that argument needs to be made is telling.  It also feeds the continued growth of nuclear weaponry as the argument states that there are times when the use of such horrible weapons is justifiable.  The lesson we must learn from the bombing of those two cities is that the use of weapons of mass destruction is simply immoral under any circumstances and the world must work in concert to rid ourselves completely of all nuclear weapons.

The Authority of Faith or If You're Going to be a Catholic, Be a Catholic

I believe in freedom of religion.  I believe politicians can and should vote their consciences and that their consciences should be informed by their faith.  I also don't believe that public policy should be formed around religious preferences.   That basically means that when a politician puts forward a policy that is consonant with their faith, they better also have some good reasons that are outside of their faith.  A foundation in one's faith is not enough to form public policy.

I respect politicians who truly hold their faith, whatever it may be, and live it with authenticity.  I have no respect for politicians who use faith as a wedge between constituencies and I have little respect for politicians who are less than genuine in their commitments.

That brings me to Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, both of who have been playing the "good Roman Catholic" card of late.  Neither is a good Roman Catholic.  Both are ignoring the nature of authority in the Catholic church.  They think and act as if a good Roman Catholic can pick and choose between the teachings of the church and embrace those that fit their own politics or morals while rejecting others.  While in fact, many who call themselves Roman Catholics in the US do just that, it is a difficult place to be when the Catholic Church is built on a hierarchy of authority which cannot be easily ignored.  Juan Cole has an interesting blog piece entitled the Top Ten Roman Catholic Teaching Rick Santorum Rejects While Obsessing about Birth Control where he shows how Santorum does just that.  These two politicians claim to be pro-life and point to their supposed Roman Catholic faith as the foundation for that understanding, all the while ignoring that in Roman Catholic teaching, pro-life is a much broader term that rejects capital punishment, any kind of pre-emptive war, most specific wars including Iraq, and which calls for universal health care, welfare for all needy families...

The first time a politician stands up and says "I am against birth control because I'm a Roman Catholic... and I'm also against capital punishment.  I take Just War Theory seriously and I believe in a safety net that truly provides for the needs and dignity of the poor," I will take that person seriously.  Until then, he or she can't say that they hold a position based on the authority of their church without me laughing at them.  I laugh at Santorum and Gingrich.

Now, there are other kinds of Christians who understand authority very differently.  The Baptist tradition, for example, says that an individual's relationship to God is between them and God.  Authority does not come from a hierarchy but from responsible reflection by the individual and interaction with the Holy.  Without responsible reflection and without relationship to the Holy, there is no authority.  Even when the relationship is authentic, in this tradition, one still cannot generalize the shape or substance of another's relationship with the Holy.  (This is why freedom of religion was an idea that came primarily from the early Baptists).  I know many in this tradition, my tradition, who see things very differently than I do.  Some I respect deeply because their views are based in responsible reflection and in their understanding of their relationships with God.  Others... not so much.

Still other traditions place the authority in the gathered community.  The bottom line is that if one is going to claim religious authority for a particular stand, they had better understand how authority works in that tradition and own the tradition.