By Rudy Barnes, Jr.
Hardly
a day passes without a news story on how religion motivates hate, violence and barbaric
acts of terrorism. In her latest book, Fields
of Blood, Karen Armstrong seeks to absolve religion of blame for the violence
of war, indicting instead the secular forces of modernism and progress to which
she also attributes the rise of religious fundamentalism in The Battle for
God. In truth, religion is not the
sole cause of the world’s violence, and it can be a motivating force for peace when
it supports a rule of law that protects fundamental human rights.
War
is orchestrated violence that is considered an extension of politics by other means. Not all peacetime military operations are violent,
but they all require public support to sustain their legitimacy, and the standards
of legitimacy are different in war and peace.
In wars that threaten national survival, might makes right. In
peacetime operations, might must be right
based on standards of legitimacy in both the U.S. and the area of operations,
and those standards may conflict. Because
of painful lessons in legitimacy learned in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq,
contemporary U.S. military operations to counter insurgency and terrorism are
considered peacetime operations and avoid direct combat “boots on the ground.”
Religion
is a primary source of the standards of legitimacy, and U.S. standards can be
in conflict with those in hostile cultural environments in which U.S. forces
are deployed. That can create daunting
challenges for U.S. military operations in cultures where Islamic law conflicts
with the fundamental freedoms so prevalent in Western concepts of justice. It is a conflict between concepts of faith and freedom that can deny public
support for the political objectives of U.S. military operations in Islamic
cultures and jeopardize U.S. national security interests.
Conflicts
in legitimacy originate with the way religions and culture shape behavioral norms. Religions in the West have long embraced the secular
libertarian standards of the Enlightenment that emphasize individual freedom,
while Eastern Islamic cultures continue to embrace the authoritarian norms of
the Qur’an that emphasize communal obligations.
Whenever religious fundamentalism embraces an immutable code of laws in a
holy book, whether it is the Hebrew Bible or the Qur’an, it conflicts with more
modern and progressive religious views that accept changes in standards of
legitimacy based on new knowledge, reason and critical thinking.
A common word of faith can help us resolve
conflicting standards of legitimacy. The greatest commandment to love our
neighbors as ourselves is at the heart of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (see http://www.acommonword.com/). Protecting the human rights of our neighbors
is an act of sacrificial love that requires defending those rights against those
who would violate them, and how we do that creates complex issues of faith and military
legitimacy.
Moses
and Muhammad taught and exemplified that lethal force could be used to deter
threats and to punish those who were a threat to others, but unlike Moses and
Muhammad Jesus never addressed the use of force and taught his followers to turn the other cheek and to love their enemies. But while Jesus discouraged violence, he never
prohibited the use of force for self-defense or the defense of others. His central teaching was that we love one another
(John 13:34-35), and that there is no greater love than to give one’s life for
another (John 15:12-14).
Self-defense
and the defense of others is a universal standard for the use of lethal force. It is based on having a reasonable belief
that lethal force is necessary to defend one’s life or the lives of others. The same principle applies to nations that
are attacked or threatened with an imminent attack, but the standards for the
use of military force are more complex.
The
Just War Tradition evolved as the Christian
standard of legitimacy for going to war (jus
ad bellum) and for the conduct of war (jus
in bello). Going to war requires a
just cause and right intention, and the conduct of war is based on the principles
of discrimination (choosing legitimate targets) and proportionality (using no
more force than necessary). These
principles of Just War are not just
moral standards, but obligatory legal standards of the Law of War.
The
Just War Tradition and the Law of War illustrate how religion and the rule of
law address the violence of war, but neither apply to peacetime military
operations. Human rights are a primary
standard of military legitimacy in peacetime, and they include the freedoms of
religion and expression and equal protection of the law for women and religious
minorities. This presents challenging issues
of military legitimacy in fields of faith
as well as in fields of blood wherever
Islamic law rejects fundamental human rights.
References
to Website Resources:
On war as an extension of
politics by other means, see Military Legitimacy at p. 53, note 1; on the requirements and
principles of military legitimacy, see Military Legitimacy at chapter 3;
on Just War, see MilitaryLegitimacy at pp 54-55 and pp
66-68.
On conflicting concepts of human
rights in Western and Eastern Islamic nations, see Religion, Legitimacy andthe Law at pp 7-8 and end notes 17 and 18.
Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights (ratified by the U.S. in 1992 and by Israel in 1991) protect
the freedoms of religion and free expression, but the Cairo Declaration of Human
Rights of 1990 has no comparable provisions, and Articles 24 and 25 of that
treaty condition all human rights on Shari’ah “…as the only source of reference
for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this
Declaration.”
On how conflicting concepts of
human rights can jeopardize the legitimacy of contemporary U.S. training and
advisory missions and national security objectives, see Back to the Future.
On turning the other cheek and love
for enemies, see the J&M Book topics, Submission, retribution
and giving to all who ask at pp 102-103, and Love for enemies at p
104; see also A new command: love one another at pp 325-329, which is the
greatest commandment of John’s Gospel and considers giving one’s life for
another as the highest form of love (John 15:12-14); on Islamic laws on belief and
rewards and punishment for Jews and Christians that support laws on apostasy
and blasphemy that conflict with the fundamental freedoms of religion and
expression, see Appendices to the J&M Book at pp 476-485; and on
Islamic laws of war and the morality of violence, see Appendices to the J&MBook at pp 498-502.
No comments:
Post a Comment