Re: Teddy bears and prophets

loiner2003 wrote:

David Aldred wrote:
True to some extent: but then even in a society in which the rule of law
is well established there is still a need for mechanisms to deal with
those
who, despite the law, act as though it wasn't relevant. If Pacifism was
not just the order of the day but also the guaranteed intention of every
human being, your point would hold - but that is unlikely to become the
case at least until the second coming!

Does that mean that Christians should decide not to live as Christians
until the second coming? Or do we live as Christians whatever the
decision of others?

The latter: but living as Christians doesn't absolve us of the
responsibility to improve society. By setting limits to the conduct of
warfare, yet still recognising that in an imperfect world there can be a
legitimate requirement for a society to defend itself, we are living as
Christians: more so than if we were to prefer a situation in which the
powerful simply overrode the less powerful wherever they so wished.

The just war concept restricts the use of armed force to properly
constituted authority, without specifically defining that authority.
Generally it's the government of a nations which decides on the nation's
use of armed force. So no, GWB has no role in taking the UK to war -
unless the UK has agreed to defend the US and the US is directly
attacked. Treaties, you see, can fall under just war theories only
insofar as they are clearly defensive.

Didn't we, under the Nato treaty, agree to the defence of any member
that is attacked? Thus, if the US is attacked, are we not obliged to
come to its defence?

Hmm. Not exactly, in fact. If any member nation is attacked then action is
to be taken to preserve the security of the North Atlantic area. That's a
slightly different statement. Nor can any member state of NATO which is
also a member of the UN act outside its obligations to the UNN, which is a
further limitation. Moreover, any action taken must cease when the
Security Council of the UN takes any necessary measures to restore
security.

And what if a government decides to go to war against the wishes, or evn
without asking the wishes, of its electorate (assuming it actually
allows an electorate)?

That raises the question of what is meant by legitimate authority. It's a
question which isn't just one for Christians to consider: the UN itself has
issues with it. Again, and example of how things are far from perfect, and
therefore why limitations on actions within an imperfect world are
necessary.

And there is a general move towards an overview by some authority, on
which there isn't yet total agreement, as to whether war is (legally)
justified; international law on war isn't very close to the just war
criteria, but the international law does at least exist and can develop.

And may id so so quickly. You are still left with the question of who
acts as policeman.

Well, yes: but then so was every society, at some stage of its development.
It's not that long ago in this country that there was no very clear
agreement on what constituted legitimate policing.

The armed forces' primary function is defence: defence isn't only about
military defence, and with both that factor and the generally accepted
peacekeeping intention of UN missions the situation is more blurred these
days.

You can say that again! Of course we talk about defence, but that
doesn't stop us being the invader as in Iraq or Afghanistan, with or
without UN support.

It should stop us invading without UN support - to do so is in breach of the
UN charter (and indeed of the North Atlantic Treaty). But if we're talking
about Just War, I don't think anyone has presented any informed argument to
the effect that those invasions fell within the criteria.

But, of course, no doubt we are going to replace
Trident just so we can ensure civil authority doesn't break down in,
say, Afghanistan!

Oh, there's no way anything like Trident could ever be justifiable in
terms of the just war criteria.

I'm glad you agree. But GB (our one) is a Christian and still wants to
replace Trident! (As was and did TB!)

We agree, then, that they are wrong to do so. We know very well from
discussions on this newsgroup that Christians do all sorts of things which
other Christians consider wrong; perhaps it's a pity neither of those
people considers himself under the authority of any Christian body with a
coherent Just War concept.

Thus the Just War concept remains a pleasant but useless idea. Unless,
of course, the Churches, including the RCC, are ready to tell us to act
in civil disobedience to any government that conducts or prepares to
conduct an unjust war - as we have been doing since Polaris, let alone
Trident.

To be involved in any unjust war is sinful, as the RCC teaches: the RCC also
teaches that one should act in accordance with the teachings of the Church
and with an informed conscience. It's just as clear on that as on any
other issue. It would indeed be nice if all Churches could agree to teach
the same way!

(OK: there's a possible get out clause there in that a soldier may not be in
a position to assess the status of the war, and may legitimately follow
orders of superiors (in properly constituted authority) whom he believes to
be in a better position to judge. But when a proper ecclesial authority
has made its position clear on the justice or otherwise of a war, that
uncertainty can no longer be argued).

It's good PR to portray the armed forces as aids to solving civil
problems. But that is just another way of saying war is the extension of
politics by other means!

Or another way of using a resource which it is necessary to have, but
which one might hope was rarely used. Would you rather the naval
frigates which provided help after the tsunami had stayed in their
dockyards so as not to 'say war is the extension of politics by other
means'? I don't think that was the message there at all.

Of course it makes sense to use them. But you wouldn't build a frigate
if your main purpose was tsunami relief, would you? All those expensive
weapons systems.

No: but your argument was that it was pure PR, and I don't think it was; as
the training and use for peace building of the armed forces is also not
simply PR.

--
David Aldred
.

Relevant Pages