Posted on 01/09/2003 5:27:34 AM PST by logos
I don't wish to be contentious here, but I don't understand your definition of "war" at all. As far as I know war may be either offensive or defensive, or both at the same time. It may also be just or unjust. Whichever it is in any given situation, however, when men of opposing nations or factions are killing each other en masse, especially to further political objectives, then it's a war.
What is this? A war for religious objectives on one side and self-defense on the other? Where are the politics?
Nothing. He was speaking of others, to wit:
Some analysts, however, take the trope of “the fog of war” a philosophical step further and suggest that warfare takes place beyond the reach of moral reason, in a realm of interest and necessity where moral argument is a pious diversion at best and, at worst, a lethal distraction from the deadly serious business at hand.
To which men and women formed by biblical religion, by the great tradition of Western moral philosophy, or by the encounter between biblical religion and moral philosophy that we call moral theology must say: “No, that is a serious mistake.” Nothing human takes place outside the realm or beyond the reach of moral reason. Every human action takes place within the purview of moral judgment.
I don't think we're speaking the same language here. If by "a war for religious purposes" you mean the Islamists seeking world dominion it seems clear to me that they have, by their attacks around the world against those they wish to dominate, merely extended their diplomatic measures (politics) into war (who was it who said that war was just the last resort of the politician [or something like that] - I don't have time to look it up).
If you're calling our reaction to their attacks against us "self-defense," it seems to me you've overlooked the so-called "preemptive" strike we're contemplating against Iraq, which in the broadest of terms is again, an extension of foreign policy (politics).
At any rate, it's the politics of last resort on either side ... but it's still "politics".
That some of the Crusaders had personal territorial ambitions doesn't change the fact that for many of the Crusaders, Jihadists, Zionists, whatever -- this has been religious above all. Even Columbus [yet another wild hypothesis] was possibly a Crusader, trying to find a base in India to continue the Crusades from the east.
The situation in Iraq isn't a religious war on either side. It's secular.
On NOW at RadioFR!
Join AnnaZ, Mercuria and Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson for a…
A DAY AT THE RACISTS!
The Lott Thing!
The Byrd Thing!
The Je$$e Jack$on Thing!
The Sharpton Thing!
The Profiling Thing!
The Reparations Thing!
The Thought Police Thing!
It takes awhile to get to the following paragraph in the article, but it seems to me it is those theologians who are in error about the doctrine of just war that he is attempting to answer. As he says, they start with a presumption against war, to wit:
Thus those scholars, activists, and religious leaders who claim that the just war tradition “begins” with a “presumption against war” or a “presumption against violence” are quite simply mistaken. It does not begin there, and it never did begin there. To suggest otherwise is not merely a matter of misreading intellectual history (although it is surely that). To suggest that the just war tradition begins with a “presumption against violence” inverts the structure of moral analysis in ways that inevitably lead to dubious moral judgments and distorted perceptions of political reality.
While those who take the position of a presumption against war or violence may well have done some praying, it's fairly evident they haven't done a whole lot of Biblical exegesis concerning the matter. And while Weigel clearly discusses the theological nuances of the doctrine of just war, he also points out that it is the head of state who uses (or doesn't use) the doctrine of just war as a step-by-step methodology in the attempt to justify going to war. (Or more likely, it's the historian who uses the methodology after the fact, rather than the head of state before the fact...)
At any rate, unless I simply miss your point entirely, I don't see that omitting prayer from the piece is a weakness at all.
Right, this is the problem addressed in reply # 9.
As far as I can tell, there are two only two possible responses to this fog: irrationalism or faith. In reply # 6 the "pagan" or "ancient" response exemplifies both.
Sounds like a wild goose chase to me. I don't really care what the Fiji Islanders mean by the word "war;" when roughly 150 million Muslims have declared war against America, the only cultural meaning of war I'm concerned about is that held by Americans. Just to be sure, I've re-read the posted article, and as far as I can tell you've really taken us off on a tangent here.
But if you really want to conduct your little poll, I'll bet you a good sized American bill that the vast majority of FReepers agree with me and the author of this piece as to the meaning of "war".
logos, what a magnificent statement! What incredible simplicity, clarity, and penetration. This is the very message the American people most need to hear and understand, in these perilous times. If we do not understand this distinction, then there can be only moral equivalency as between George Bush and Osama bin Laden (or arguably, Saddam Hussein, whose behavior is more that of a private individual than a head of state, as can be seen clearly in the way he treats his own people).
You are so correct to note that Weigel deserves a wider audience. Thank you so much for this truly marvellous post!
Hear it they might, if Dan Rather mouths the words; understand it they won't.
--Hey, Dude, what's this bell they're talking about? Do you hear a bell?
Nice "seeing" you again, bb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.