The Washington Post’s ‘On Faith’ section asks a panel of people from varying religious perspectives to comment on topics every week or so. This week the topic is: Just war or holy war in Afghanistan?
Is there such a thing as a 'just war'? In his Nobel speech, was President Obama right to speak in these theological terms about war? He also stated that 'no holy war can ever be a just war.' Do you agree or disagree?
All wars are holy wars. If we lived in a world without superstitious beliefs and in a world in which everyone was reasonable and being reasonable was a virtue then war would be obsolete. But we don’t live in such a world.
The religions of the world have polluted us all. Thomas Paine put it best over two centuries ago when he wrote, “Freedom has been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think.” Modernity, human progress, rational thought, and critical thinking are the enemies of religion and as such, religious fundamentalists will continue to use violent force to preserve their superstitious beliefs. Religious moderates will continue to silence those who speak out against superstitious beliefs as a last ditch effort to cling to their irrational traditions.
Then there is the old saying that if you want peace, you must prepare for war. Because we live in a world filled with religious fundamentalists who hold to their superstitious and unreasonable beliefs and in a world filled with religious moderates who demonize those who criticize ridiculous beliefs peacefully, nations of the world must be prepared to defend ourselves from other nations or individuals who have deeply held irrational beliefs.
To quote my favorite philosopher, Jedi Master Yoda, “Wars not make one great.” There is no such thing as a just war, but there are just causes which need to be defended. If we had gone into Afghanistan because the Taliban oppress women and behead homosexuals and infidels, then I would have supported the war there in the interests of human dignity and human rights. But that was not the case.
We went to Afghanistan because the guy who planned the 911 attacks was hiding out there because his daughter’s husband felt religiously obligated to be a good host. None of the 911 hijackers were Afghani nor were these hijackers sent by the Afghani Government.
If our goal is to hunt down and capture Al-Qaeda, thirty thousand additional troops isn’t the best way of accomplishing that task. That task would be better achieved by Special Forces units in concert with the Central Intelligence Agency and the intelligence agencies from nations around the globe. However, in an ideal world reason alone would be sufficient. If we could just admit to our own people that religious beliefs are irrational and destructive, we could make the argument to Al-Qaeda members and weaken the chances of future terrorist attacks.
As long as one or both sides believe that God is on their side, more innocent people will die needlessly. The only way to make this war a just war is to make it a non-violent war and fight on the battlefield of ideas. On such a battlefield, religion loses to reason every time and that is why fundamentalists are forced to use violence and terror to win their battles.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing the link and subscribing.
On Faith Series:
On Faith: holidays or holy days?
On Faith: Swiss ban on minarets
On Faith: A crèche in the White House?
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Comments
When Vietnam invade Cambodia in the 1970s was that a Holy War?
Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia was a humanitarian effort (just ask them), but you're on the right track, John. What about the Khmer Rouge's invasion of Cambodia? What about Stalin's invasion of Ukraine in the 1920s? Mao's invasion of China in the 1960s? Death, death, death by the millions, and not a (supernatural) god in sight. Murderous fundamentalism doesn't need a supernatural god. As C. S. Lewis put it, you can reason with a thief because you can appeal to his conscience, but when an "omnipotent moral busybody" is convinced that they're doing right by doing violence to others, you can't even appeal to their conscience.
The invasion of Afghanistan was planned in March 2003 to secure a future oil pipeline. Christians are rightly grateful for a government that stays out of our lives, but somehow most have decided their freedoms come from that government and have wrapped an antigovernment religion (*pace* Romans 13) in Old Glory. Judgment Day won't be pretty.
Here's my favorite religious quote -- from Mercer, founder of Mercerism as described in Philip K. Dick's _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_: "Our curse is that we cannot help but do wrong." What this means is that, because the world wasn't made for us, we don't naturally live in harmony with our fellow beings. It's an idealist fantasy that there'd be no conflict if only everyone were "rational" and "reasonable." People who are rationally pursuing their respective interests, as shaped ultimately by natural selection, can rationally judge that the cost to themselves of initiating force will be outweighed by what they can gain at someone else's expense -- and they can reasonably believe they are entitled to this, since everyone's sense of justice tends to reflect their self-interest. This isn't dishonest rationalization, since that would presuppose there's some objective definition of justice from which they're deviating, and that's just more idealist metaphysics.
I wouldn't want my last post to be taken as an expression of pessimism. Hope arises from the fact that what natural selection has favored is ever higher levels of self-organization of matter -- i.e., of cooperation. This may eventually reach a level at which we naturally cooperate with each other because our perceived interests have converged. This won't result simply from being "reasonable," but from our society's having reorganized itself in a way that fosters cooperation rather than antagonism. Both political and technological revolutions may be necessary to realize this fully.
Eric I think you answered your own question. Cooperation is the most rational position to take so if people were the most rational, then everyone would cooperation. But you are right, it is an idealist fantasy. But that wasn't the point. The point is that all wars are holy wars.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!