Justification for war?
A Moral and Theological
dialog
By A.R. Schaffer
©2003
Item
One – Augustine and Aquinas
While religion and politics do not often mix,
politics often uses the “just war” theology of Augustine and Aquinas as a basis
for their justification of their declarations of war. Aquinas established a three fold rule, based
upon Augustine’s reasoning, as to determine if a war was just or not:
1, The authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be
waged.
2, A just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked should
be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.
3, It is necessary that the belligerent should have the right
intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of
evil. [1]
He also states:
“Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to
peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord came not to send upon our earth
(matt.
In respect to these great thinkers we
should point out that there logic is based upon a time of ignorance and
superstition, and that they were a product of a thinking that believed leaders
were somehow sanctioned with some type of Divine Authority. They also saw the
church as the only administrator of goodness in the world. But in today’s world, their simple logic
cannot be applied to the complexities of war and society, nor, can their
fundamental thinking that the church is always a tool of goodness; history has
proved otherwise. While their arguments
may have been innovative in the times, the complexities of our world combined
with our destructive potential, demand that we move beyond their thinking.
In the first place, a democracy does not
have a sovereign, because the people actually are the rulers (at least in
theory). God does not appoint leaders,
the people choose those who represent them; therefore there can be no sovereign
leader in a Divine sense in any democracy.
Leaders are human entities, designated by the approval of the people
they lead, or by imposing their will over the masses. There can be no claim as to any Divine right
to proclaim war by a leader, or justification for it in God’s Name. Such an idea is superstition at best and very
dangerous as history demonstrates at its worst.
This is compounded by the problem that a
war in today’s world affects not only the warring parties, but very often the
world as a whole. Using such logic,
there is no single authority that can grant such a directive except by a
consensus of world leaders; and then, only as an absolute last and desperate
resort. But, theologically it must be
remembered that men cannot proclaim God’s Will; therefore, such consensus could
not be said to be a justification before Almighty God.
The next requirement of Aquinas states that
a “Just cause” is necessary. This
becomes a very subjective argument.
Outside of the invasion of one nation by another, or possibly genocide
of people, what could constitute a “just cause” that can be cited that
would justify the deaths of soldiers,
innocent people and children, and the destruction of property and human
suffering that war inflicts on all involved; especially, in light of our
ability to wage war from the air and its potential to kill thousands in brief
periods.
Too often, one man’s “Just cause” is based
upon cultural, regional, religious or philosophical ideologies. It would seem ideological wars are not
defendable in the name of theological or even moral values, as they make the
assumption that one ideology, political system, religious belief structure, or
value system is superior to others --- giving such a system the right to
overthrow another. Human history has
proven there is no such system. All systematic thinking has positive and
negative aspects to its reasoning, and too often the basic concepts of a
thought system are distorted to support the views of the warring leadership.
While many religious systems claim to
have their authority from God, or contain God’s holy truth; none can cite proof
of this by some Divine confirmation of this claim. Most religious systems have some merit as
well as flaws. It would seem prudent to
think that God relates to His/Her peoples according to their ability to relate
to Him/Her, and that the only pure ideal is one based upon love and the
sacredness of all life for such is shared by most religions. If we attest to the fact that God is the
Creator, than all of creation is of His/Her hand; thus, all is sacred. The sacredness of life makes it imperative
that war is avoided in every conceivable way known to the human intellect ---
and that becomes the only responsible theological approach. For theology to justify war is to stand in
contradiction to the core of its basic precept.
The third argument
that Aquinas makes is perhaps the most absurd, being that it is actually
contradictory. The advancement of good
can never be accomplished through evil, and killing of the innocent, even when
so-called morally justified, is evil.
“The advancement of good” and the “avoidance of evil” in his argument
are also so subjective as to be flawed in there very foundation. Whose definition of “good” or “evil” do we
use? Our women in western cultures do
not cover their faces and often expose much of their body, evil to many of the
Islamic faith; does that given them the right to attack us? Perhaps this is simplistic, but to the
point! Morals vary from society to
society; consequently, subjective evil varies according to one’s culture.
A more universal definition of evil would
be: that which violates the sacredness of human life or forcefully seeks to
impose its will over that of another.
Evil is the antithesis of love.
War violates all these principles no matter what the reason. Therefore, of itself war is evil; thus, when
we resort to war we are not avoiding evil.
The idea that goodness can be advanced by
war just has no merit. Killing our fellow man can never advance goodness, for
the act itself violates the sacredness of human life and there can be no
advancement of goodness for those who have lost their lives, for their life has
ended. In World War II we may have
stopped the advancement of Hitler’s egregious crimes against humanity, which by
any humane standards were “evil”; but, it would be hard to argue the
advancement of good was achieved. Mankind seemed to learn nothing from this
devastating event, fighting several wars after it and filling their weapons
arsenals with enough power to destroy humankind, certainly there was no
goodness achieved here. The families
destroyed, the pain, the destruction, if avoided, would have been far more in
line with goodness and its goals. We may
have stopped a civilized consensus of “evil,” but nothing was done to advance the
cause of goodness in a lasting and meaningful way. After that War, the world
then became divided into two opposing ideologies that only avoided serious
conflict by a “Mutually assured destruction” mentality. One may cite some benefits from that war, but
the overall picture of the state of world affairs hardly moved in that
direction. The point here is that while
there can be some human justification for war it is an absolute contradiction
to say that the “advancement of goodness” was the objective. The very objective
of war is to kill and destroy until one’s enemy surrenders; an objective that
is contrary to all that is good.
We must keep in mind that to Aquinas, the
propagation of the Catholic faith was a cause of goodness, a so-called justification
for the crusades. There lies the danger
in making any justification for war in the name of goodness. So the idea of goodness cannot enter into
the discussion of the justification for war.
War may become moral through absolute necessity, but it can never be
cited as a tool to advance goodness or of a good cause. And, while some national political systems
may be better than others, there is none that have evolved so far as to be
defined as goodness --- all have shown corruption and injustices.
“Be peaceful in warring” is yet another
flaw in Aquinas’ arguments. The
contradiction of the statement speaks for itself. And, if we could make war to be at peace,
peace would have been achieved centuries ago.
The idea of war, no matter what the explanation, is to subdue and
conquer; to force the enemy by inflicting damage and causalities to surrender
to one’s terms, measured by any standard this is in total opposition to
peace. Surrender is the objective, not
peace. One of the
Given the realities
of the state of the world, we do need a modern justification for war in terms
of “Just War” ideals based upon ethics, not theology, as there can be no
theological justification for war, as war does not appear to be of the
nature of God but of the invention of men.
It is men who have devised a way to settle their disputes by killing one
another, truly the intent of any war.
God has given us the wisdom to avoid conflict and to settle disputes
peacefully, if only we had the common sense to use it.
That being said,
refining Aquinas’ reasoning one might offer the following guidelines to
determine a non-theological moral justification for war (the difference between
a moral and theological justification for war is explained at the conclusion of
this thesis).
1, A consensus of
world leaders, having exhausted every means available to settle the dispute,
and using war only as the absolute last resort to settle the dispute.
2 A acceptable
justification brought about by the aggression of one nation upon another
seriously threatening its survival, or, the attempt of a nation to exterminate
through genocide numbers of its peoples; or, an act so egregious that it is
recognized by all peoples as a crime against humanity itself; and, war must be construed as the only possible
solution to the crime.
3, The intentions of
the warring party must never be self-serving, but rather, serving the cause of
liberation from the act of aggression or the resolution of the egregious act
perpetrated against humanity. It would
be absolutely immoral for a nation to exploit any advantages it may obtain in a
war.
In reality, there
can be no theological justification for war. War can only be justified in terms of human
necessity. War is either a product of
defense, misunderstanding, or selfish pursuits of material or idealistic
gains. It is a human flaw which God has
given us the intellectual tools and reasoning abilities that empower us with
the ability to overcome differences. To
cite any cause of war in the Name of God amounts to blasphemy of the worst
sort. It implies that God is incapable
or unwilling to render justice, and such asserts we can appoint ourselves to
act as His/her agents.
War amounts to a
human sickness that should cause shame no matter what its rationalization. Think of the millions of lives lost in
conflicts in the course of human history, all claiming justification for one
side or another. And history tells us
that many of these conflicts could have been avoided. For any religion to offer a theological
justification for war is irresponsible, in that it provides a Divine purpose
for any cause allowing human nature to make the action fit the criteria actually
encouraging aggressive behavior.
War, and the
preparation for war, has also cost in terms of human resources that could be
used to solve other injustices in humanity.
Think about the advancements that could have been made in feeding the
starving populations of the world, the possible advancements in technology,
medicine, and learning that could have been made if the same effort were put
into these things that has been put into war and weapons. Arms are so entrenched into our economic
systems and way of life that they have become virtually impossible to remove.
The profits to be made in such industries produce a high incentive as to
actually encourage conflict. The gains
in self interest are so profound today that it makes any theology irresponsible
to argue for justice for war in the Eyes of God, for such encourages
individuals to justify their hostility by rationalizing the cause to fit the criteria as is being
done today.
It should be the
role of theology to offer a Divine perspective as best it can represent it, not
to offer rationalization for barbaric and atrocious human behavior before
God. A cleric’s responsibility before
God is to promote peace; not offer justification for war. Justice and mercy are never served in
violence, but only in peace that advances the totality of the human cause.
Item
Two – Paul and war
Certain theological sects who shy away
from Catholic Theology often cite the Bible as a justification for war, which
will be covered more in the next section.
Of particular concern here is a passage used from Paul to justify war.
1.
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is
no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist
have been established by God.
2.
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against
what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3. For
rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do
you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right
and he will commend you.
4. For
he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does
not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring
punishment on the wrongdoer.
5.
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only
because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6. This
is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their
full time to governing.
7. Give
everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then
revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
(Romans
13)
In particular verse 4
is emphasized to support the concept that not only war can be justified, but that
the army, acting under the command of
the higher powers of the state, are agents of God so long as the state defines
goodness in terms of their particular theological perceptions. But like so often in these Bible citations it
is what they leave out that brings into question their interpretations. That same chapter goes on to say:
8. Let
no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for
he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.
9. The
commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder,"
"Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be,
are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
10. Love
does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
[3]
“Love does no harm to
its neighbor” stands in stark contrast to the first seven verses of this
quote. Love was the primary directive of
Jesus. Here Paul’s reasoning is contradictory,
as it so often is, in that if the COMMANDMENTS are summed up in “love your
neighbor as yourself”, and love “does no harm to its neighbor”, and “love
becomes the fulfillment of the law”; then, it would naturally follow that
someone acting as an agent of the state inflicting violence upon others could
not be fulfilling the commandments. And,
God would be violating His/Her own law if the state were empowered by Him/Her
to dole out punishment as the whole of law rests in the command to LOVE.
While morally and ethically a state may
have rights to pass laws to maintain order, and execute fair punishment for
infractions of that law, it is a dangerous absurdity to cite that the state
represents any Divine Authority. For
theology to makes such assertions is for theology to speak the mind of
God. It also imposes the responsibility
upon the theology (by the nature of the bias of its beliefs) to justify state
acts because the state operates with Divine Authority.
Item
Three – The Bible and War
It becomes a flaw of
any theology to cite the Bible as a Divine Source for its pronouncements, or
for that matter any sacred work penned by the hands of men, especially when
these works are used to incite justification for the violation of the
“sacredness to life”. Such works may
contain Divine Inspiration but do not constitute the mind of the Creator; but
rather, a human perception of such inspirations. Such works may also draw upon metaphors to
convey their point. Language,
translation and interpretation are also barriers to the absolute authority of
such material. ( Problems
in Dealing With Revelation )
The Bible is full of monstrous commands of
war, supposedly by God. But such
commands also often violate God’s own laws to His/Her people. Read Numbers Chapter 31 and ask
yourself is this is compatible with the idea of an all loving and merciful
God. The entity giving direction here
seems like a vengeful, vindictive, and punitive creature, much more like human
reasoning than Divine. If anything, such
a story should convince a theologian of the dangers in assigning any man the
right to speak on behalf of the Divine. Another example is in Psalms 137:7-9:
7.
Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the
day
8. O
Daughter of
9. he
who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
New International Bible
Could one really lay
claim that dashing infants against rocks is within the realm of the justice of
God, or that such thinking is of Divine origin?
The reality is that theologians have been
picking and choosing from the Bible to support their individual assumptions for
centuries. The Bible can be used to
demonstrate a variety of points of view as demonstrated by the number of
religions and their differing belief structures. Based solely upon the Bible one can make a
theological case “for” or “against” war depending on what they choose to
quote.
But when one looks at a cross section of
all religious beliefs, a clear cut consensus soon becomes apparent, an
inspiration to most all faiths, and manifests itself repeatedly in inspired
thinking, is the concept of the sacredness of life, particularly human
life. Furthermore, any theology that
asserts that God created life, is asserting that every human being is created
by the Will of the Creator making us all children of God, negating the
superiority of one people over another.
When theology uses the Bible (or any other declared sacred
writing) to justify or incite violence of any sort based upon any Divine
Authority it has stepped beyond the scope of its limitations. Theology, by its very definition[4]
is limited. At best, one can only speculate on the Nature of God. A flaw with religious thinking is they
confuse faith and the speculations that build that faith, with absolutes,
especially when it comes to scriptures that by their very ambiguity are often
subject to the reader’s interpretations. In that monotheistic theology
represents the idea of a universal Creator it must consider the effects of its
teachings upon the whole of humanity above and beyond the faith system it is
based upon. Most Universalists’
Theologies already recognize the “oneness”
of all creation and promote pacifism over violence.
Item
Four- Other spiritual support
The distaste for war
is also expressed in other religious concepts, particularly that war should be
a tool of last resort. A last resort
means that every possible avenue has been already pursued to settle the
differences. Islam for example, like
much existing Christian Theology, permits war in self defense:
Fight in the
cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors. (Koran
2:190)
If they seek
peace, then you seek peace. And trust in
God for He is the One that heareth and knoweth all things.
(Koran 8:61)
The important part of
this is that God knows all things, not humans; so in reality we cannot know the
true causes of God. And, there are
peaceful means of fighting injustices, so the term “fight” itself could be subjective.
Those extremists who assert holy wars and proclaim God’s Will become as
arrogant as their Christian counterparts. To assign human interpretation Divine
Truth is to declare ourselves equal to God, an ideal blasphemous to Islam. Even the greatest of prophets, it would seem,
being human, would be subject to possible error. One cannot have a “free will” theological
position and assign any human Divine authority to speak as it would be
necessary for God to violate the human free will. And, logic would dictate that we cannot know
the Will of God, when in truth, we cannot truly know the will of another human
being. One cannot cite God as the
progenitor of all creation, claim that man is created in His/Her Image, and
then set one aspect above the other and justify killing in His/Her Name. The idea that a war can be Holy is an
absurdity.
The Eastern world
religions also support the concept of either pacifism or war as a last
resort. Buddha himself did not provide
any justification for war, and says in Pali
Scriptures:
All tremble at violence,
All fear death;
Comparing oneself with others
One should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
(Dhp. v. 129)
Victory breeds hatred,
The defeated live in pain.
Happily the peaceful live,
Giving up victory and defeat.
(Dhp. v. 201)
The wisdom in these
two statements needs no commentary.
A common thread that is basic to most
religious tenants is the sacredness to human life prohibits the taking of one
life by another. “Do not kill” is a
universal ideal that humankind has riddled with holes in an attempt to justify
outrageous and inhuman behavior. The
same logic that is used to apply to existing Christian justification war ideals
could be applied to other religious ideologies that acknowledge the sacredness
of life. It is an absolute hypocrisy,
and contradiction, for religion to state such a precept and justify certain
killing in the Name of God. If religion
were responsibly representing God there would be no war, for leaders would be
unable to gather the faithful to take up arms and fight for them.
President Jimmy Carter sums up the reality
of this nicely when he said, “There may be necessity for war, but it is always
evil.” Evil is always the misuse of God’s Being and thus can never be justified
in His/Her name no matter what human moral justification we may invent or
criteria we might establish. This ideal
should be central to all who recognize a higher power or purpose to creation.
Conclusions:
There can be no theological
justification for war
No War can be justified theologically. To do so is to put God’s stamp of approval on
a human atrocity, a misuse of the very gift of life. War would also be contradictory and violate
the almost universal religious premise of the SACREDNESS OF LIFE.
God created man, He/She did not create
war. War is a human invention that God
has given us the intellect, direction and communicative skills to overcome;
particularly in our modern age. Too many
of the causes that lead to the evil necessity for war are a result of our own
refusal to acknowledge and treat the economic and social problems often leading
to war. So long as we have exploitation
of one people by another, hunger and starvation, extreme inequality, and indifference
to these problems war will remain in humankind’s history. It is the role of religion to address the
injustice of these problems and encourage working towards their solutions.
A secondary cause of war is born in the
arrogance of the absolutism of varying ideologies; religious, political and
philosophical in nature. Here too,
acknowledgement of our human intellectual limitations could go a long way in
solving human disputes; and instead of leading to war in such disputes, we
could learn from each other and advance the whole of human knowledge and the
human cause itself. To encourage such
ideals is not only the role, but the duty of religion.
War cannot be justified in the Eyes of God
because we have been empowered with the ability to rise above it --- it is only
the lack of human determination that fails us.
In the end, all war disputes are settled in some manner, but only after
people decide there has been enough bloodshed, destruction and suffering. It would only be logical to assume that God
would have us settle such disputes before such a folly.
To assert there can be justification for
war in the Eyes of God is to assert we can know the mind of God; it is to
assert that God approves (under certain human reasoning) of man’s inhumanity
toward one’s fellow man; it is to assert there is justification for the
slaughter of innocent human life. Such
assertions should be contrary to everything a responsible religion should stand
for. It is the role of theology to discourage and
prevent war rather than justify or condone it. One should think that it would be a logical
and safe theological conclusion to assume that a Divine Being would desire us
to rise above such violence being extremely disappointed by such human madness.
Religion and war
Even when a war may
be morally justifiable it is the role of religion to encourage peace, condemn
the death and destruction and come to the aid of the suffering incurred by
either side. It is the duty of clerics
and theologians to condemn any assertion that God is on the side of any participating
party in any conflict, even if there may be human justification for it. To use God for a justification for
participation in any act of human violence, especially those acts that are
designed to kill and destroy, is to reduce God to a human level of reasoning
and psychologically reduces the human dignity of one’s enemy. Religion must acknowledge that from a Divine
perception war should not exist. If
humanity truly accepted the “sacredness of life” and lived respecting the
rights of others war would not exist.
God rises above conflict and can never be cited to condone it.
Moral acceptability differs from
theological
Unfortunately, the human condition remains
as such that nations may need resort to war and under extreme circumstances it
could become morally acceptable to do so.
Moral acceptability differs from theological justification in that in
theology recognizing the “evil” of war it removes the idea that God can be on
any side committed to the destruction of life for any reason, even a moral
one. If human beings accepted the
complete responsibility for war, as well as its consequences; just perhaps
there may be a little more incentive to settle a dispute through peaceful
means. There may be more incentive to
address the problems that may lead to war.
And, war could never be fought under the banner of righteousness,
holiness, or with Divine sanction.
Moral justification for war
Moral justification for war should be
extreme in its guidelines and admit to, rather than seeking justification, for
the death, human misery and destruction which are always the result of
war. There should be no celebration in
victory; but rather remorse and sadness that human beings had to resort to such
barbaric and atrocious behavior to achieve an end. Morally war can only be justified through
human weakness that creates its necessity; never can war be righteous or
honorable, for such should be shameful to the human condition.
Moral justification to war should contain
the three elements stated above and repeated here:
1, A consensus of
world leaders, having exhausted every means available to settle the dispute,
and using war only as the absolute last resort to settle the dispute.
2 A acceptable
justification brought about by the aggression of one nation upon another
seriously threatening its survival, or, the attempt of a nation to exterminate
through genocide numbers of its peoples; or, an act so egregious that it is
recognized by all peoples as a crime against humanity itself; and, war must be construed as the only possible
solution to the crime.
3 The intentions of
the warring party must never be self-serving, but rather, serving the cause of
liberation from the act of aggression or the resolution of the egregious act perpetrated
against humanity. It would be absolutely
immoral for a nation to exploit any advantages it may obtain in a war.
Going beyond basic Justification
But any moral
justification must go beyond these things especially in modern warfare which becomes
impersonal and often involves massive civilian causalities. It is the responsibility of military leaders
to minimize the use of force, limiting casualties to military personnel who
have volunteered to defend the cause. It
is only natural that a nation would seek to reduce the casualties of its
military; but to do so at the expense of innocent men, women and children is
immoral, in that, (voluntary) military personnel accept the risks involved in
war knowing fully well its potential, while the civilian populations are
bystanders to that which they cannot control.
Ethically, only absolute necessary force should be used that would
create the minimum number of non-military casualties.
Political and
military leaders are also aware that there may be unscrupulous people serving
in the military and that unlawful consequences such as rape or torture are
conceivable during war. Such acts,
morally, become their responsibility unless they have taken every precaution humanly
possible to weed out such deranged individuals and every effort is made to
apprehend and prosecute such violators.
No moral justification for certain
types of wars
There can be no moral justification for
wars waged as punishment, revenge, or pre emptive in nature; for such can be
construed only as acts of aggression.
Wars of punishment fail the moral test on the grounds that they are
punishment of masses for the acts of few.
They inflict too much unnecessary suffering on the innocent. It is the responsibility of those who have
the authority to punish, to hold accountable, only those who have committed the
grievance. Revenge is immoral in that it
serves no useful purpose, is self-serving and only promotes more hostility. Preemption is immoral in that it violates the
principles of justification in that it is highly unlikely that preemption can
ever fulfill the requirement of “last resort”, even if a threat may appear
imminent. One simply cannot be certain
about future events and fear alone cannot justify war! It also fails to fulfill
the self-defense justification and is not of itself the result of any egregious
act.
Moral responsibilities of
the victorious
If one is to claim
any moral justification to war, responsibilities do not end in victory. Every
effort must be made by the victor to ensure that food, shelter, medical
attention, warm clothing and any other necessity of life is distributed to the
defeated party. It is the responsibility
of the victor to repair and restore civilian buildings, infrastructure, housing,
and services that served the civilian population’s needs previous to the war
and that were interrupted or destroyed because of the war as a result of the
victor’s actions. Apologies, and
reparations should be made to innocent civilians who suffered loss and death as
a result of the victor’s actions. The
defeated military should be treated respectfully, justly, and humanely. A victorious nation should refrain from
celebration of the victory because there is no cause for celebration in any
achievement caused by inflicting hardship, death and destruction. And finally,
the victorious shall strive to allow the defeated to self-govern as soon as it
becomes possible for them to do so. Such
responsibilities might serve as an incentive for a nation to settle a dispute
peacefully.
War only as an extreme
The moral
justification for war should be so stringent that it virtually makes war an
unacceptable social pursuit except in the most extreme of cases. The moral criteria for justification of war
should deliberately be costly and stringent as to encourage alternative
solutions. Politicians and leadership
are too quick to resort to war these days to settle differences, punish the
masses for the acts of few, or launch an offensive out of a perceived threat. The threshold of tolerance for war by
religion, and the public in general, is far too low due to dependence on
outdated philosophies and theologies that could have never envisioned the
destructive forces that human kind would create. Religious standards must
reflect the realities of war, and ethical standards need to reflect he horrors
that war brings about.
The concept of war itself is insane. It defies both human logic and violates every
survival instinct we are endowed with.
It pits strangers against each other under the direction of leaders who
are most often far away from the realities of its horrors. It perpetuates hatred and justifies
violence. War is not justifiable
religiously; and, ethically a shame that any justification becomes necessary. It is the role of religion to help us evolve
beyond war so an ethical contemplation becomes unnecessary.
God, grant us the strength to move forward
and give us the wisdom to rise above such human failing.