Interfaith panel discusses perspectives on war

Intermountain Catholic

+ Enlarge

Tom McClenahan (left) discusses the just war issues of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rev. Dr. Michael Minch (center) talks about the Christian just war tradition, and Dr. Brian Birch gives a Latter-day Saints perspective on the wars.IC photo by Christine Young

SALT LAKE CITY — We live in a turbulent time with news of the war on television and in the newspapers on a daily basis.

An Interfaith Conference on War and Peace was held Oct. 6, in the Salt Lake City Library Auditorium to dialog the perspectives on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq among Jewish, Christian, and Latter-day Saint speakers. The panel included The Rev. Dr. Michael Minch, director of Peace and Justice Studies, Utah Valley State College; Dr. Brian Birch, director of Religious Studies Program, Utah Valley State College; Tom McClenahan, academic dean and assistant professor of Old Testament, Salt Lake Theological Seminary; and Dr. Alex Stecker, professor of history and Judaism, Utah Valley State College. Steve Trost, executive director of the Salt Lake Rescue Mission served as a moderator and was the inspiration behind the conference.

Minch said there are three ways Christians think about how war can be moral. The first is pacifism or nonviolence, the second view is Christians have the duty to obey the state law, and third, is following the transformation of Christianity into Chrisomdom.

Minch responded to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from the pacifist tradition saying he cannot possibly think the wars are just.

"The just war tradition says that in order for a war to be moral it must have a moral cause," said Minch. "Whereas resisting the oppression and violence of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, has a moral reason, it does not follow that the only way to do that is through violence. So whereas it seems moral to resist and seek to change the most egregious murderous acts of both the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Hussein’s regime, there is now evidence of the United States building several permanent bases in Afghanistan all of which happen to surround an oil pipe line. If you are going to war and killing people to secure a future where you have oil, then that is problematic to justify from the just war position.

"I think there has been a profound absence of proportionality whereas over 4,000 American troops and about 600,000 Iraqies have been killed," said Minch. "The just war tradition calls for war being moral only in so far as declared by just authority. In our context the just authority must surely mean the international community as a voice in the United Nations

Security Council. If the treaty is violated by the U.S, then the U.S. has violated its own law, and this is what has happened."

Minch said if the wars were merely to quell the violence that was present in the Taliban’s regime and the regime of Hussein, then those problems have been solved and the continuing wars in those two places speaks against peaceful intention.

McClenahan responded from the Christian just war tradition by saying, "With agreement that President George W. Bush of the United States is correct that the U.S. has a major responsibility of the safety and security of Iraq, after all it is the American military that brought down the former Iraqie government, the U.S. only bears responsibility until a new government can be in place. On the other hand, the president’s claim in his most recent speech to the nation Sept. 13, this fight is both just, right, and necessary is open to evaluation, especially on the criteria of the ends justifies the means, which itself raises grave concern for Christians seeking to be faithful and obedient to God.

McClenahan said from the just war tradition, the war was not properly declared and initiated by legitimate authority. The U.S. government has the right to self defense, but instead of launching a war quickly in response to imminent danger, the Bush Administration appealed to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), of which the U.S. is a member to initiate military enforcement of the UNSC resolutions, which Iraq has been ignoring or violating for a long time. In other words, of it own accord, the Bush Administration decided in 2002 that Iraq’s threat to America was not sufficiently imminent to require it to take military action on its own. As soon as the U.S. made that move, it discounted its independent authority to go to war for any reason other than defense of itself.

When the UNSC refused to approve international military action against Iraq, it thereby called into question the legitimacy of immediate military intervention in Iraq. The fact that the president did appeal to the UNSC meant the authority for military action by the U.S. led coalition became questionable and ambiguous right from the start. That is one reason why the U.S. has not been able, even to this day, to to rally sufficient international support for security in Iraq.

McClenahan said even though there were plenty fears of terrorism following the destruciton of Sept. 11, 2001, fears of terrorism do not amount to a just cause for war. Moreover since Bush took months to build up American forces and to allow time to argue his case before the UN, it is apparent there was no immediate danger of attack. The point is not to suggest that Hussein was not bad enough to worry about, but that warfare was not justified by a right intension.

Birch gave a Latter-day Saints perspective on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The LDS church has taken no specific position on the wars and LDS people are left to make up their own minds regarding the justification of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Birch said given this position, LDS scriptures, and culture, how should LDS people think about war? In recent times, the organizational model of the LDS church has been not to make a statement on a particular topic unless there is unanimity among the first presidency of the church and the 12 apostles. One speculation is they cannot get consensus among themselves to make an official statement about the war.

Secondly, Birch said the church makes a distinction between moral issues and political issues. They do not consider the war a moral issue of the type that bears their response. President Gordon B. Hinckley said at the April 2003 General Conference that the LDS people are a people of peace, but at the same time he doubts God will hold men and women in uniform responsible for death incurred in war.

"To complicate matters, Elder Russel M. Nelson said, ‘As a church we must renounce the war and proclaim peace,’" said Birch.

Stecker said Judaism is really a system of laws and ethics. Unlike many religious legal systems, the mandate of Jewish law is limited only by the scope of human activity. Jewish law regulates that which is ethical, and frequently Jewish law will conclude that a certain activity is perfectly legal, but it is not ethical. War is necessary but wiping out evil is also about justice. He said according to Deuteronomy dangerous disputes must be resolved because if you choose to leave evil alone, it will eventually attack you. In Jewish tradition before declaring war, one must attempt first to make peace.