peace

Should Religion Endorse the Use of Violence? How far are religious leader prepared to go in disowning violence?

David L Coppola has indicated various ways in which religion has been directly linked with violence. He discusses the place of sacrifice and suggests that where there is not an authentic relationship with the divine, then ‘religion has functioned as a vehicle to manufacture the power of awe, fear and transcendence through violence and death.’

Secondly, religion is directly linked with violence when it functions as a dividing force between believers and non-believers. He cites the case of Pope Urban II during the First Crusade telling the crusaders to enact violence because God was on their side. More recently religious leaders have been gathered at the White House to pray for the successful bombing of another country. Thirdly, he mentions people affiliated with religious groups who consciously encourage the use of violence.

Some misappropriate quotations from scripture or, like the KKK’s burning cross, pervert a religious symbol. Fourthly members of several religions accept that the use of violence may be necessary to restrain evil action. Although the early Christians were pacifist, when the Roman empire became Christian, the doctrine of the just war developed. Augustine helped to shape this teaching, but the first systematic account appeared in the decretum of Gratian (died no later than 1159). This theory requires, first, that there is a just cause, which may be to regain something that was wrongfully taken or to punish evil or in defence against planned or actual aggression. Secondly, it requires that the war is initiated by a legitimate authority. Thirdly, a right intention on the part of those involved is required and fourthly, the use of force must be proportional, that is to say relevant to the issue and not doing more harm than good. Traditionally, a just war had to be for the sake of peace and have a reasonable hope of success. The teaching also tried to limit the cruelties of war. There have always been Peace Churches, such as the Mennonites and the Society of Friends, which reject this teaching. More recently a number of Christians have argued that nuclear weapons were bound to do more harm than good. Some people raised the same criticism of the campaigns in Kosovo. Even so, the majority of Christians would accept that force may be necessary to check violence and oppression

There are some Jewish pacifists, but the horror of the Holocaust has convinced many Jews of the need for self-protection and Israel has been vigorous in its own defence and in Lebanon launched an aggressive strike against the Palestinians. Dr Louis Jacobs writes, ‘ Although Judaism sets the highest store on peace, it does not adopt the completely pacifist stand ... Judaism treats warfare as a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless.’

Jihad is often misunderstood. A Muslim is expected to promote the message of Islam through his words and actions. This striving is known as Jihad which ‘consists in exerting oneself to the utmost in order to personally follow the teachings of Islam and to work for their establishment in society.’ Jihad includes the willingness to use force in self defence and defence of the religious community. The Qur’an asks, ‘Will you not fight a folk who broke their solemn pledges and proposed to drive out the Prophet and did attack you first?’ (9, 13). Another verse observes, ‘If God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, then all monasteries and churches and synagogues - in all of which God’’ This implies that Muslims have a concern to defend the innocent victims of oppression.

None of the three religions that have done most to shape European society have been pacifist. The scale of devastation caused by modern weapons has led to renewed questioning of the use of violence, but the long shadow of the Holocaust and of Hitler’s aggression has left a deep fear of the dangers of inaction in the face of evil. Increasingly the supreme importance of human rights is being used to challenge older views of national sovereignty which held that other nations could not legitimately interfere in the internal affairs of a state. It has become accepted that the international community has a right to intervene to try to prevent genocide and that ‘war criminals’ can be tried before an international tribunal.