A reader pointed me to this interesting post on Pacifism and Just War Theory from Baylor University Philosophy Professor, Alexander Pruss.
Interestingly Pruss offers an argument similar to the one I presented at a panel discussion on the ethics of war recently. In this discussion I suggested that traditional Christian Just War Theory follows from the contention that a government has the right and duty to use force to uphold justice within the geographical area over which it has jurisdiction. A just war is simply an extension of the government’s police powers. If a criminal attempted to rape or kill people within the geographical realm over which a government has authority then the government could justifiably use force to prevent this. It could also use force to try and punish anyone who did do these things; this is why we have a police force, court system and prisons. Just war theorists cannot see why this should cease to be the case when the person committing the offence is a soldier from another country as opposed to a domestic criminal.
Pruss gives a similar argument; he starts by defining problematic violence as “lethal violence, i.e. violence that, if successful, has a high probability of resulting in the opponent’s death, counts as problematic, even when the death is not intended.” He then argues,
“If it is permissible to use problematic violence to stop a citizen wife from murdering her citizen husband, it should also be permissible to use problematic violence to stop a non-citizen woman who sneaked into one’s country to murder her citizen husband. Moreover, this should be permissible even if the woman was commissioned by another state to kill her husband. But if we allow that it is permissible to use problematic violence against criminals acting on behalf of foreign states, then there seems to be no way to deny that it is permissible to use problematic violence to stop invaders.”
He makes this illustration,
“When the invading army marches in, burning crops and murdering citizens, they are breaking the victim country’s laws. If problematic violence is permitted to enforce the laws of one’s territory, it should be permissible to use problematic violence to stop them. But this seems to be a case of war.”
This argument is common in the Reformed or Presbyterian traditions. John Murray, in his book Principles of Conduct, notes the Pauline teaching that the “governing authorities” are “established by God.” One is morally bound to submit to rulers because “rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” He then asks, “by what kind of logic can it be maintained that the magistrate, who is invested with the power of the sword, may and must execute vengeance upon evil doers within his own domain must sheath the sword of resistance when evil doers from without invade his domain.”
The Westminster confession makes a similar argument. It argues that because a Government has the authority to use force to maintain justice and peace within the realm over which it governs it can fight wars to maintain justice and peace within this realm.
I think this is one of the most important lines of argument in defence of Just War Theory. In my talk, I argued that the standard six criteria of a just war: just cause, lawful authority, last resort, the use of proportionate and discriminate force and so on simply unpack the general circumstances in which governments are permitted to us force and apply it to warfare. Here I simply want to explore one implication of this line of argument that Pruss raises.
“There is, though, a consistent position that someone could hold here; problematic violence by agents of a state must be confined to that state’s territory. This is not a pacifist position by my stipulation of what a “pacifist” is but it may be thought to be a pacifist position in a broader sense. I am not sure. It seems that this is not so much a position against violence, as a position about jurisdiction.”
I don’t think the position Pruss alludes to here is a form of pacifism but it does provide the basis for a particular type of Just War Theory. One of the standard criteria employed in Just War theorising is that a war is just only if it is prosecuted by a lawful authority. If a just war is simply an extension of the states police powers, the rationale for this criteria is quite clear. Only the lawful government of a country can prosecute a war, because only the lawful government has the right to use force to uphold justice within the geographical area over which it has jurisdiction. Private citizens do not have a right to pass laws binding on all other citizens and back these up with force – only the government does. Similarly, private citizens do not have the right to arrest, prosecute, judge and punish people who break these rules – only the government has the right to do this.
Pruss’ comments point to another feature of lawful authority. A government’s right to use force to uphold justice is limited to the geographical area over which it has jurisdiction. The Australian government cannot pass laws binding on New Zealand or France or Canada. Nor could they prosecute people for crimes committed in the United States. The government of Australia can only use force to uphold justice within Australia. In terms of every other jurisdiction, the Australian government lacks lawful authority.
This line of reasoning implies that the only just wars are defensive wars. A war is prosecuted by a lawful authority only when the government in question is using force to stop attacks on the life, liberty and property of the people living inside its borders. If another nation threatens to commit crimes within its borders then it has the right to respond with force. Foreign intervention would, at least on this argument, not count as a just war.
Defending Nation A from unjustified attacks by Nation B or defending the citizens of Nation A from unjust attacks from their own government might count as a just cause for war but, only Nation A would have the lawful authority to prosecute such wars.
Now I am not entirely comfortable with this conclusion. I find the idea that other nations should stand by and refuse to intervene when a genocide occurs in another country deeply disturbing. However I will grant that the argument both Pruss and I provide does appear to limit just wars in this way. I will now offer a couple of possible qualifications on this conclusion.
First, it is conceivable that alliances could change the situation. Suppose Australia and New Zealand enter into a treaty whereby they agree to defend each other in case of attack. In this case, it could be argued that the government of Australia has given New Zealand the authority to uphold justice within Australia under certain situations and that New Zealand has given Australia the same authority over New Zealand. One could ask questions about whether governments can lawfully cede sovereignty to foreign nations in this way but it seems to me that this is what an alliance involves.
Secondly, a government can acquire the right to uphold justice in another jurisdiction under certain situations if it has unlawfully meddled in that nations affairs. Suppose the Australian Government had destroyed several properties on Auckland’s North Shore, justice would require that the Australian Government compensate the relevant property owners. Compensating someone is to redress an injustice they have suffered. So, in this context, the Australian Government by its actions aquires a right to uphold justice within New Zealand.
This has some interesting implications. Suppose the United States had for many years adopted a foreign policy where they aided and abetted various dictatorships in the Middle-East and were, as a result, complicit in the enslavement of the people living in those nations. A person who has aided and abetted the enslavement of a people acquires an obligation to liberate those people.
Similarly, suppose the United States engaged in an unjust war and in doing so overthrew the government of a particular nation. The United States would plausibly acquire an obligation to reconstruct a just government in that area. If I smash someone else’s stuff I acquire an obligation to fix it.
In these sorts of cases a government arguably acquires lawful authority to uphold justice in regions outside its borders and so using force to achieve this may not necessarily violate the criteria of lawful authority.
Subject to these qualifications, if, as I have argued, the basic premise of the Just War theory is the contention that a government has the right and duty to use force to uphold justice within the geographical area over which it has jurisdiction. If a just war is simply an extension of a government’s police powers to protect people within its jurisdiction from criminal violence, and if the standard six criteria of a just war simply unpack the general circumstances in which governments are permitted to use such force, then it appears to follow that only defensive wars can count as just wars.
Tags: Alexander Pruss · Just War · Pacifism · War Ethics66 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
One question Matt
While it is not a biblical doctrine it has long been a military doctrine that sometimes the best defence is offence. Taking action now and pre-emptively can often prevent a much larger degree of grief later. Likewise in WW2 what started for the allies as a defencive action finished as an offencive action to bring an end to it all. Or to put it another way, my son used to get bullied at school, one day he got tired of just defending himself and hit back actively and effectively. That was the end of the bullying.
@ Matt – I’m interested in how you would view the justification of the dropping of the two atomic bombs at the end of World War 2.
I’m not not looking for a ‘fight’ on this, but I’m curious as to how the action of Country A attacking Country B in a particular way to influence Country C which Country A cannot directly or indirectly attack would be viewed.
Thanks.
Jeremy, I think that using force defensively is always the same as striking second. In cases where there is a credible threat of attack, I think a first strike could be a legitimate defensive measure.
This is actually recognised in other contexts, suppose the police develop credible information that some people are planning to bomb a supermarket, they are not required to wait for the bombing to occur before they raid those peoples house or try and stop them.
Paul, I think the nuclear bombing of Japan was unjustified, I don’t think it can be justified under normal just war criteria. It was directed against non combatants, and the aim of unconditional surrender was arguably unnecessary. That I think is pretty much the orthodox just war position on that incident. Most attempts to justify it are based on utilitarian considerations.
Paul, you might be interested in the classic paper protesting Harry Trumans degree, written by Elizabeth Anscombe, who offers a now classic catholic just war condemnation of those bombings, the essay is avalible here:http://anthonyflood.com/anscombetrumansdegree.htm
another statement of her position is here http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Anscombe.pdf
Thanks Matt, I shall have a read.
I like the comments about the US helping foreign dictators because of course it is the truth that a lot of Americans need to wake up to. Also, it is the direct cause of so much foreign hatred of America/ns.
I think pre-emptive war is 100% complete garbage. There is a tremendous difference between discovering a planned bomb attack on a supermarket and *invading another country*.
I’ve briefly looked through the paper and it brought back alot of memories of the “Protest and Survive” movement and Greenham Common.
So, thanks for that at least. 🙂
I think pre-emptive war is 100% complete garbage. There is a tremendous difference between discovering a planned bomb attack on a supermarket and *invading another country*.
I don’t recall saying anything about invading another country, suppose however I have credible intelligence that a country is about to launch a strike from a missile silo at people in my country so I bomb the Silo and eliminate the threat. That seems to me a legitimate defence move. The idea a state should wait till lots of its citizens are dead because its another country seems to me odd.
@ Matt
“I don’t recall saying anything about invading another country, suppose however I have credible intelligence that a country is about to launch a strike from a missile silo at people in my country so I bomb the Silo and eliminate the threat. That seems to me a legitimate defence move. The idea a state should wait till lots of its citizens are dead because its another country seems to me odd.”
I’m really glad you not Secretary of Defence then because that attitude is really scary.
However based on that – what is your view of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a treaty that deliberately made each country more vulnerable to attack, in order to slow down the pace of missile escalation ?
Matt, thanks for responding. I agree with your reasoning. I suppose the phrase pre-emptive war is poisoned to me because I live in America and know that our pre-emptive war is just complete garbage and there is nothing pre-emptive about it, nor is there any type of American defense in mind here.
“I’m really glad you not Secretary of Defence then because that attitude is really scary.”
Do you therefore think that the State should wait until citizens have been killed or hurt before acting to defend them?
I agree that appeals to pre-emptive strikes can be abused and nations can get it wrong. Its also true however that nations can get it wrong when they fail to engage in pre-emptive strikes, there is risk both ways and failures on both sides results in needless death. In some cases a pre-emptive strike can actually save lives. A surgical strike on a missile silo, or a bombing of airlines on the ground probably is better than shooting planes with pilots out of the sky while they drop bombs on your country.
http://among.wordpress.com/about-among-friends/thy-friend-john/jesus-christ-forbids-war/
WWJD?
is it ironic that ultra-pacifists like matamha ghandi and the delai lama are often looked to by todays societies as ‘good’? they’re very much the modern day equivalent of jesus and his martyrs taking no steps to retaliate or defend themselves WHATSOEVER. somehow popular opinion recognises a sort of nobility or true commitment to a higher cause.
meanwhile a christian nation like america with mottos like “In God We Trust” (haha, awesome Tui add! “Yeah Right!”) acting on principles like national security, self-defence, pre-emptive strikes, and “the right to uphold justice in another jurisdiction under certain situations if it has unlawfully meddled in that nations affairs”, have invaded iraq, created guantanamo bays, covered vietnam in agent orange, overthrown south american democracies, and so on and so forth.
if that’s not irony, i don’t know what is.
@ Matt & Jeremy
This is really scary stuff from you two.
If you are saying that it is morally justifiable to engage in a first strike and I, as your enemy, am aware of that policy then surely I too am also justified in a first strike policy too ?
It’s a wonder the world is still habitable.
Please tell me that neither of you intend running for office.
🙂
Paul, actually that does not follow. I said a first strike can be defensive if I have credible reasons for believing you are about to attack me.
Sam G, actually wether Ghandi was good is a matter of dispute, outside trendy leftist evangelical circles there is debate about the wisdom of many things he advocated, moreover the idea that Jesus taught people including governments to never resist people even those who tried to rape and murder their citizens is actually questionable to the extreme.
yeah, you can see my confusion though, turns out that when george bush said god wanted him to be president and invade afghanistan and all that, he was right, jesus is a republican warmongering hawk.
sorry, this is all coming as a bit of a shock, i can’t believe my sunday school teacher lied to me! i feel betrayed. turns out god actually wanted me to punch that other kid in the nose before he punched me. and here is me believing all that ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘vengence is mine saith the lord’ crap. dammit.
no but seriously, you’ve consulted the oracles and read the birds intestines, and come up with exactly the same reasonings and justifications for war that everyone else does anyway. not saying it’s right or wrong, just that you’re only appealing to your own common sense and judgement, which anyone can do without god.
@ Paul and Sam G
to take the question back one level, if the police find a group intending to commit a crime by bombing a subway do they wait for the bomb to go off and for people to die? Or do they pre=emptively arrest them using whtever force necessary to protect the lives of the public?
Were the Brits wrong in trying to shoot down German bombers before they dropped their bombs on London?
Paul you are deliberately misinterpreting and twisting words.
“If you are saying that it is morally justifiable to engage in a first strike and I, as your enemy, am aware of that policy then surely I too am also justified in a first strike policy too ?”
Of course not, you cannot use the fact that some one might defend themselve to justify attacking that person.Thats the same kind of twisted logic that is applied when criminals try to justify carrying firearms to defend themselves from the police.
@ Matt:
“Paul, actually that does not follow. I said a first strike can be defensive if I have credible reasons for believing you are about to attack me.”
I’m still concerned about any ambitions that you have for public office.
A first strike is still an aggressive act against a potential and not an actual threat.
If we follow through the logic then we would have justification for every nation to attack every other nation based simply on what each nation *could* do rather than based on what they have actually done.
In which case we should just go nuke the Chinese and get it over with, and then do the Argies, and then the Indians and Pakistanis, and then maybe the French.
@ Jeremy
That’s a false analogy – the act of violence is in progress in the subway or in the German bombers flying overhead during the Blitz.
A much better example is the contentious use of control orders against specific individuals who may *potentially* engage in or induce others to engage in acts of terrorism. However that is ‘first strike’ at a very much lower level.
“Of course not, you cannot use the fact that some one might defend themselve to justify attacking that person.Thats the same kind of twisted logic that is applied when criminals try to justify carrying firearms to defend themselves from the police.”
Two points there, I think
I’m saying that during the Cold War the attitude of the Soviet Union and the USA was, post Cuba, to reassure each other that the likelihood of a first strike was low, rather to convince each other that it was high.
It was not the prospect of a devastating first strike capability that preserved the peace but the ability of the opponents missile delivery systems to sufficiently survive an initial first strike and to maintain the ability for massive retaliation, that did so.
In such a case a defensive first strike was not justifiable. It was the doctrine of MAD.
The second point is when does a criminal become a criminal ? I’d like to see the line of argument that states that, in the USA, anyone carrying a firearm is a potential criminal rather than a citizen exercising their constitutional rights.
“vengence is mine saith the lord”
yes, and defending yourself, your family and your country is not taking revenge
and the “turn the other cheek” is also in the context of not taking vengence. As Paul the Apostle put it “as much as it depends on you, live at peace with all men” . These are not instructions to stand idlely bye while your wife is raped, your kids beaten or the neighbour across the street is suffering a home invasion. Neither does it mean you should accept shoplifting in your shop or burglary in your house. Much trouble and many wars have been fought because vengance was being sought.
That’s a false analogy – the act of violence is in progress in the subway or in the German bombers flying overhead during the Blitz.
i disagree , the Brits didnt wait until bombers got into British airspace, andthe police have stopped plenty of crimes before they actually happen. Thats why we have laws against consipiracy to commit crime, not just against criminal actions.
The question becomes one of motive as in your example of US citizens carrying firearms, which is their constitutional right. But it is still against the law to use one in the commission of a crime, and even more so to use one to “defend” against police trying to apprehend you or prevent you committing that crime. You have no constitutional right to use a firearm to commit a crime.
MAD was mad, insanely effective and insanely dangerous, stepping back from the brink was a much better move. Of course it was also an economic war and USA won it because Russia could not keep up. But the whole thing need never have happened except that the commies had political and idealogical doctrines of revolution and/or conquest by force. The same problem occurs now.Why is China so keen on expanding its military, it is under no concievable threat from anywhere in the world.
“to reassure each other that the likelihood of a first strike was low”
thats a good thing, but neither Matt nor I have been talking about “first strike” as in initiating a war because we wanted to prosecute a war but only in the same sense as the police might defend citizens by preventing a terrorist from planting his bomb if the had the opportunity to do so.. Pre-emptive first strikes dont come on the agenda unless some one is already threatening you.
Interesting article. Over the centuries, many Christians have looked to Christ’s directives of peace as mandating pacifism. But I think they sale their self short on the grounds of loving one’s neighbor. I think this the most important consideration for the Christian, one that trumphs the two reasons offered above. It not only justifies the use of violence, but just war theory as well.
Consider a man walking through the neighborhood, from house to house, carrying a sawed off shot gun. He enters one house, in which screams and gun shots follow. As I am immediately aroused, I watch in horror as the events are repeated again. At this point, I am forced to reckon with what it means to love my neighbor. At this point, pacifism does not seem to be reconcilable with Christ’s command and the right to privacy and private property becomes a non issue if there is no neighbor to hold the property. My resolve becomes clear, as the man approaches the third house, I must utilize whatever force necessary to stop the madness.
At this point, I think it should be logical to use the minimal amount of force necessary. But, we are not capable of knowing what the minimal amount of force might be, so in the case above, since I may not get a get a second shot with my berretta, I would do best to put him down for good, thereby preventing more casualties.
My understanding of just war theory is based on the above senario. I have never hear anyone else explain it this way, but it seems the most viable for the Christian. I have wavered on the subject of pacifism, but the power of this logic has held me. Love is an action. Pacifism is non-action. Jesus calls us to action. May God give us wisdom in when and how to act.
Godspeed!
@ Jeremy
“i disagree , the Brits didnt wait until bombers got into British airspace, and the police have stopped plenty of crimes before they actually happen. Thats why we have laws against consipiracy to commit crime, not just against criminal actions.”
It’s the difference between having bombers lined up, armed and fulled on the runway, and them crossing into international airspace and entering your airspace.
A first strike at the bombers on the runway is simply naked aggression against a potential military threat.
To use your other examples – you have the right under UK law to apply reasonable force in defence of your person, family and property. You do not have the right to blow the head off someone walking down the street simply because they look at you in a disrespectful way.
In terms of the terrorist examples – planning a terrorist threat, including the gathering of intelligence, is an act of terrorism.
That’s quite a different matter to going onto every university campus and arresting all of the Muslims – just in case, which seems to be what you and Matt are advocating.
@ J. Paul
as an non-christian i agree with everything you just said, except i interpret it as your evolutionary instinct kicking in and determining how you interpret the scripture. “I ALREADY know it is good to defend myself, Jesus is good, therefore Jesus wants me to defend myself”.
what about trust in god? he looks after the birds and the lillies in the field, and all that carry on, how much more will he care for you? because you don’t fully trust him? jeremy points out that terrorist bombers should be stopped, and he’s right. you say that if you’re about to be murdered you should shoot the guy, and you’re perfectly correct too. normally you two pray to god for stuff, but when it comes to cold hard reality you concedes you do actually need to look after yourself?
unless you actually have strength in your convictions, like jesus not letting peter attack the romans or resisting cruicifixion, mahatma ghandi, te whiti o rongomai, and the dalai lama (although apparently matt has some juicy gossip about ghandi). these people are respected because they were brave enough to keep to their principles while they WERE being raped and murdered, meanwhile christians are fighting in the dirt with the rest of us?
joke: guy is on his roof in a flood. a boat comes by and offers to save him. guy says ‘no, god will save me’. god doesn’t save him, the guy drowns. he asks god ‘why didn’t you save me?!’ god says, ‘i sent you a boat, you moron!’
what you guys are saying is that god wants us to use boats to save ourselves and our neighbours in floods? and by ‘use boats’, i mean, go out and buy berettas so we can shoot people who threaten us or our neighbours? if we have a boat (superior firepower), and our neighbour is at risk of drowning (raped and murdered and so on and so forth), god obviously GAVE us that boat for the PURPOSE of saving them? or does god just say that IF you have a beretta (boat) in you drawer you should use it, and it’s just a coincidence that you HAPPEN to have one, so you should use it?
wait, i’ve got it:
and when the multitudes had gather jesus spake unto them saying:
“look at the birds of the field and the lilies in the field and the guy on the roof, if god looks after the least of these, how much more will he look after you? but if the cold brutal reality is that the birds are being raped, the lilies are being murdered, and the guy on the roof is drowning, then obviously all this nice warm fuzzy rhetoric isn’t meant to be taken seriously. in those situations god actually wants you to fight for your own survival, and work out your own foreign policy and guidelines for intervening in humanitarian crisis’ just like all the non-christians are doing. god’s decided that seeing how you already have a boat and an beretta, you can just do it yourself.”
using god’s care and providence for comfort is really only any good for situations over which you have no control. if you’re dying of cancer then it’s obviously god’s will, he moves in marvelous mysterious ways, hallelujah praise the lord. if you are about to be attacked, god obviously expects you to fight tooth and nail for your own survival. kind of like you would do instinctively if you had evolved from monkeys… funny that…
hehe actually, i know a guy called Paul J. (pauls the first name) who owns a beretta… he can’t shoot for shit 😉 you don’t live in whangarei, nz, do you?
“That’s quite a different matter to going onto every university campus and arresting all of the Muslims – just in case, which seems to be what you and Matt are advocating.”
Paul i am more than prepared to have a respectful conversation, bur respectful conversations do not continually misrepresent the points of those you are speaking with..
As best i can tell the only suggestion i can see that Matt made and i agreed with was that if someone is posturing and prepareing to attack you and aiming weapons at you then taking pre-emptive preventative action may be the best course. None of which translates into the kind of things you are suggesting.
And you Sammy boy are so busy disparaging other people and quoting scripture out of context that you are not really entering a conversation at all.
What about the other passages which teach, stewardship of the planet, responsibility for your brother, caring for other people, using what God has given you to the best of your ability. Nowhere are we asked or told to be passive idle and negligent in our responsibilities..
Christianity inludes a responsibility not only to do the right things but to do them for the right reasons [motives], as another piece of scripture which you failed to quote say God looks on the heart. This was largely the point of the Sermon on the Mount from which you were quoting, but you seem to have missed it.
hehe hi again jeremy, told you i’d be back again 🙂 and you’ll be happy to know i’m just passing through. but i am trying my hardest to contribute to the conversation, i’m not just trolling, honest. are my posts so blatantly ridiculous as to not deserve any reply at all?
yeah i know there are heaps of other scriptures that say all sorts of other stuff and what a scripture appears to say can change depending on how you interpret the context, and there’s always a verse which says something different.
last time i commented on one of matts posts that’s all i got, in fact. ‘obviously thats the logical conclusion if you take it literally, that would clearly be bad (according to who?), given that jesus is good (whatever that means…) and the scriptures are true, you must be interpreting it wrong or out of context or something.’
what i’m asking again is, this is all fluid. is there actually any fixed point which you use as a reference point? is there anyway you can check? or test your hypothesis? to know that it isn’t your own subjective interpretation that’s at fault?
i just get the impression that your beliefs of what you should and shouldn’t do are the product of your up-bringing, your own personal social context, evolutionary instinct, common sense, and so on and so forth, just like mine are. but you then interpret the bible to fit. when you read the bible you already have a pre-determined sense of morality that you use as a standard to compare the scripture too, and if they are not compatible, it is your interpretation of the scripture which must change. in effect, creating god in your own image.
not quite sure how i can elaborate on this any more than i already have in my previous rants. as i’m sure you’ve already figured out, i’m not very good at expressing myself. i agree we should defend ourselves and others even if this means resorting to violence. but i arrive at this independent of a belief in the scripture, how do you know you’re not doing the same?
“A first strike is still an aggressive act against a potential and not an actual threat.”
No Paul, if you have credible evidence of an attack, then there is an actual threat a first strike is a defensive measure against and actual threat.
This is accepted in self defence law by the way, if I see someone coming at me with a knife. I don’t have to wait till I am stabbed before I defend my self.
@ Sam
i just get the impression that your beliefs of what you should and shouldn’t do are the product of your up-bringing, your own personal social context,”
As a NZer your whole social and cultural context has been heavily influenced by Christianity for nearly 2000 years.Maybe your understanding of self defence etc is Christian rather than mine being inspite of Christianity. The worth and value of all people regardless of race sex social status etc is a peculiarly Christian concept. Its at leastly partly from this that rights to self defence etc are developed. Once, peasants, women, children etc had no rights to self defence especially if te aggressor had superior social status. [ Still the case in much of the world] Your king or lord basically had the power of life and death over you and you had no rights. Again, right to life, right to self, individual worth, these are Christian concepts. You might like to think about serfdom in Russia, peasant rights through most Asian history, how much importance is not attached to individual rights even today in China, Lybia, Syria etc
@ Matt & Jeremy, firstly my apologies if I seem like a broken record on this issue but it is one of the most interesting exchanges that I’ve had with a theist because of it’s immediate and practical implications and a subject area that I was deeply concerned about, and debated earnestly some thirty years ago when Greenham Common was in the news. There’s also the Tony Martin issue too – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29
That all said I am still struggling with the Christian/Philosophical justification for the principle of first strike and it’s practical application in modern international relations as well as at the level of individual self defence.
@ Jeremy, actually the Muslims on campus example is valid – it’s a pre-emptive strategy to engage with the Islamic student body and HMG has placed the onus on University authorities to identify potential “trouble-makers” to the Police. We’ve had students arrested for downloading material judged to be subversive eventhough it formed part of their coursework.
With regards to the actual application of First Strike in international affairs I still don’t see how the presence of the doctrine can be anything other than provocative, and therefore unjustifiable in that it escalates international tension.
Any nation constructing a defensive posture would have to consider the possibility of a pre-emptive First Strike and would have to make a judgement about whether they themselves should strike at the first available opportunity.
The behaviour of the IDF with regards to Syria in 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/washington/14weapons.html and http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/826/the-attack-on-syrias-al-kibar-nuclear-facility is a good example of when a First Strike policy is utilised. Was it justified ? I would argue not. There was no imminent threat. Indeed, it’s difficult to argue that there was a potential threat. Yet the IDF and the Israelis still maintain that it was one of their finest military achievements. At what stage in that process of analysing the development of that nuclear facility would a First Strike be justified ?
The end result, Arab Spring aside, is that Syria still poses a threat to Israel but uses Hamas as a proxy.
Did the First Strike work in removing the overall threat of attack by Syria – no.
@ Matt – maybe Madeleine can advise on the issue of the legal position of attacking someone coming towards you with a knife.
I’d be interested in her opinion as to the stage at which defensive action is appropriate. I’d suggest that you would have to convince the court that you felt that you were in immediate danger of injury or death otherwise it might be you who is the bad guy. Hence the Tony Martin example (there is also the Munir Hussain example too – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munir_Hussain_and_victims%27_rights).
IANAL by the way.
Many thanks to both of you in anticipation of your responses.
hi jeremy,
no i reject almost everything you just said.
i have spent a year in south-east asia, including a month in myanmar, have done 6 month deployments with the army to afghanistan and east timor, (please don’t turn this into a who-has-traveled-the-most contest, it’s not the point) so i understand what you mean by social status and placing a lower value on human life.
but on the micro-level if there is one thing i’m sure of, it’s that we are all human, and as individuals we all want to defend ourselves and our loved ones, we all feel justified in retaliating when goaded. those asian peasants you mentioned? i can tell you first hand they value their own lives and their families lives and wellbeing pretty bloody highly. i’ve been invited in and eaten meals with poor muslim families in afghanistan, and those men will fight to the death to defend their burkha wearing wives. these attitudes have absolutely no correlation with ones religion. christianity does not have monopoly on these traits, they’re not even specific to homo sapiens. FFS, they’re not even restricted to bloody mammals.
and on the macro-level the rights and worth of an individual are not ‘peculiarly christian’, that is complete and utter BS. they are recently western, and if they have their ideological roots anywhere, it’s in ancient greece. ancient PAGAN greece.
you know those kings and lords who had power of life and death over their serfs that you mentioned? well for hundreds of years they WERE christian, and yet it’s only in the last few centuries that it’s changed? britian was christian for how long? and yet slaverly was outlawed in britian when? 1830’s? i’m not saying that christianity caused anything, i’m saying christianity is irrelevant. an individuals position in society today has got absolutely nothing to do with religion, because religion follows society, not the other way round. modern western society has moved to concepts like individual rights and worth, and any christian body who hasn’t followed suit has found itself disconnected from its community at best, at worst label fanatical cults, and died out. the version of religion which survives is the one best fitted to its social environment.
(fantastic book: ‘the geography of thought’, can’t remember who it’s by, but it talks about the differences in thought patterns between east and west, and even explain how greek concepts like logic and ‘either true or false’, which seem so important to us, can be completely irrelevant and even immature or childish when looked at from a different but equally legitimate point of view. it’s kind of meaningless to think about the way you think, unless you actually have an example of another way of thinking, which this book offers. fantastic. also talks about how we in the west identify ourselves as fixed individuals surrounded by other individuals, essentially the same person wherever we are, while chinese may see themselves as an actual part of their group or environment, defining themselves by their context, which can change. shows how religions at both ends have been tailored to fit socio-economic and pre-existing ideals. fascinating stuff.)
Hi Paul,
do you think first strikes are a luxury that can only be afforded by the strongest side? they are generally made on the assumption that the suspected aggressor doesn’t have a huge amount of firepower with which to retaliate, and that your first strike won’t provide justification and further provocation to someone who has the ability to annihilate you. if syria made a first strike against isreal they would just be seen as the instigators. or if suddam had made a first strike against america?
soldiers rules of engagement often refer to proportionate response, meaning that if you are not justified in shooting a guy throwing cow shit at you. the self-defence guideline for the military is used in the context that i’m allowed to come through your home with an assault rifle, set up road blocks in your community, and so on and so forth. while doing so i am allowed to defend myself or my allies from you if you retaliate or make a ‘first-strike’. but i am always acting on the assumption that no matter how much fire-power you can bring to the party, i can bring more (up to and including air-support), or i would not be there in the first place. another luxury the under-dog can’t afford, because that’s where they live.
also, the moment you stop being a threat i must stop. there is a story of a brit soldier in ireland who had a speeding car drive towards him in a road-block. he was justified in opening fire while the vehicle was being used as a potentially lethal weapon, but the moment the car drove past him he turned around and continued shooting, which he shouldn’t have because there was no longer any threat.
also jeremy i don’t buy your dismissal of ‘turn the other cheek’.
jerusalem was occupied by an oppressive foreign force, and plenty of jewish groups were advocating violent resistance and self-defence. jesus set himself apart because his approach was so radically different and non-retaliatory. he was telling people not to take up arms and fight back, but to focus on the reward they would receive in heaven.
matt and jeremy, isn’t ‘first strike’ and ‘self defence’ just old testament ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy, except with a slight difference in timing? kind of ‘eye BEFORE an eye’? or ‘eye, LEST an eye’?
as long as you do it to them before they can do it to you, it’s fine. if you do it after they’ve done it to you, that’s just revenge.
Sam G you writeyeah, you can see my confusion though, turns out that when george bush said god wanted him to be president and invade afghanistan and all that, he was right, jesus is a republican warmongering hawk.
Once again, instead of actually responding to what I said you have attributed to me a whole lot of stuff I did not say, and sarcastically mocked the straw man of your own making.
You are not an honest skeptic with questions you are a liar. Come back and talk to me when you are interested in discussing what people actually say.
matt and jeremy, isn’t ‘first strike’ and ‘self defence’ just old testament ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy, except with a slight difference in timing? kind of ‘eye BEFORE an eye’? or ‘eye, LEST an eye’?
No self defence and retribution are actually quite different. Defensive force used to prevent and stop aggression against an innocent person. Retributive force is used to punish someone culpable of criminal activity they have already commited. These are quite different. Revenge is different again, revenge is generally extra judical, disproportionate and based more on malice than a concern for justice.
Keep distorting what people actually say Sam, try as hard as you can to ignore the arguments people actually make, that might mean you actually have to think about your own positions defensibility.
and on the macro-level the rights and worth of an individual are not ‘peculiarly christian’, that is complete and utter BS. they are recently western, and if they have their ideological roots anywhere, it’s in ancient greece. ancient PAGAN greece.
Err um no, the ancient Greek philosophers Plato, Aristotle stressed virtues, not rights.
Instead of making assertions and shouting BS you could read Nicholas Wolterstorffs recent study which traces rights language, he notes that it comes predominately from developments in Canon Law in the middle ages, he utilises historical evidence, that tends to be a better message than simply asserting “BS”.
also jeremy i don’t buy your dismissal of ‘turn the other cheek’.
Jerusalem was occupied by an oppressive foreign force, and plenty of jewish groups were advocating violent resistance and self-defence. jesus set himself apart because his approach was so radically different and non-retaliatory. he was telling people not to take up arms and fight back, but to focus on the reward they would receive in heaven.
Actually this is totally wrong, first, Jesus said “if someone slaps you on your right check turn him you left cheek” we know that in a slap on the right cheek in that culture was not a violent assault it was a form of grave insult, Rabbinic law used as a paradigm of an offence which cause not harm but which caused insult and humiliation and hence one could sue in court for loss of pride.
Second, the context of the discussion is the Jewish Law, Jesus has introduced the issue as one of him “not abolishing the law” and has just addressed how to interpret commands about , murder, adultery, divorce and oaths, all where he addresses rabbinic interpretations of his day. The specific law he is addressing in this context is the phrase “an eye for an eye” which was not the law of self defence ( that’s called the law of the pursuer and was based on different case law) its was rather a legal proverb which allowed people to sue for proportionate damages in court if they had been assaulted.
So in context Jesus says he is discussing the jewish law, turns to the issue of suing for damages and says, when it’s a trivial matter and you have been insulted but not hurt let it go. Its odd if Jesus wanted to condemn all violence he used the one case that did not involve violence and in fact used probably the most trivial and weakest form of assault to make his point.
I believe Jesus did oppose violent rebellion against the romans, for other reasons, but the claim that one should not engage in violent rebellion in this context does not entail that rulers should not defend those living in their boarders from violent attack. These are not the same situation at all
Now if you think this is a unjustified “dismissal” perhaps you can show me whats wrong with the argument. Can you show me that the phrase “turn the other cheek” mean’t “don’t fight against the romans in a rebellion” in 1st century jewish context? Can you show me this was the context of Jesus’s sermon on the mount? I look forward to you ignoring the argument and being sarcastic again.
you know those kings and lords who had power of life and death over their serfs that you mentioned? well for hundreds of years they WERE christian, and yet it’s only in the last few centuries that it’s changed? britian was christian for how long? and yet slaverly was outlawed in britian when? 1830′s?
No try again, it was outlawed in the empire in the 1830’s slavery had been abolished inside europe many centuries before that, and Christian political thought never allowed kings to have “absolute rights” of life and death over serfs. Read some medieval discussions on kingship sometime.
I note however how you again nicely change the subject.
@Sammy
I going to repeat this for you because you clearly didnt read it the first time.
“The WORTH and VALUE of all people REGARDLESS of race sex social status etc is a peculiarly Christian concept. Its at leastly partly from this that RIGHTS to self defence etc are developed.”
So i am not disagreeing that people have always wanted to defend themselves or their loved ones, as you so correctly point out even animals defend their offspring and/or group.
However for most of history , untill quite recently in the west, and still in many parts of the world, people are still not regarded as of equal worth and value regardless of race sex or social status. In the very countries you have been deployed women are still chattels and the husband/father has an absolute right of life and death over his children. In Islam a womens testimony is worth half that of a mans as is a non-muslims.
So to repeat
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28
This is the first record in history of such a radical idea, saying that race , social status, sex was irrelevant before God, and again you are right it took thousands of years to properly penetrate even the Christian influenced west let alone the rest of the world. But dont give me that garbage about it being anything other than a Christian idea, especially not Greek. Platos republic was very much about a place for every man and every man in his place [no women, non greeks, slaves etc].
Again you right about people defending themselves, but again through most of history the poor, the lower classes, the peasants etc have had no RIGHTS to do so against their superiors.They havent even had rights against involuntary detention. In Engilish law Habeus Corpus was only codified in law in 1679.
“because religion follows society, not the other way round. ”
The only thing i can say to this is you really need to go and do a bit more reading, and go back overseas and look around some more.
hi matt,
all criticisms accepted, and i will try to not be so sarcastic.
i am fascinated by your jesus… he ‘s so different to any other i have heard of. for example, i’ve never heard anyone say that his ‘turn the other cheek’ doesn’t actually mean you shouldn’t hit people.
can you elaborate more on why jesus didn’t want his followers to fight the romans, if it not because violence is bad? because violence isn’t always inherently bad, it is how and when it is used that makes it acceptable or unacceptable to god? clearly this was the case under the old covenant, but still under the new?
and the following cliche arguments do not actually support a pacifist christ?
“love your enemies”
“blessed are the peacemakers”
“be as harmless as doves”
“my kingdom is not of this world”
jesus allowed himself to be tortured and killed, like a lamb to the slaughter, even healing the soldiers ear.
jesus asked forgiveness for his executioners.
“those that take up the sword shall perish by the sword”
christians weapons are spiritual not physical
“bless them that persecute you; bless and curse not” (paul)
we are ambassadors for christ and should behave with dignity.
“forgive your brother if he sins against you until seventy times seven times.”
stephen didn’t fight back.
the early persecuted christian didn’t take up swords and fight back when arrested (acts?)
paul didn’t even try to save himself by escaping from prison after the earthquake.
“trust in god” (garden variety christian rhetoric)
and so on and so forth.
i guess you’ve already implied that none of them indicate a pacifist jesus. combined, these all gave me the impression that jesus wanted his followers to rise above the primal animal instinct of striking out when we feel threatened, and to rise above the chaos and violence of the temporal world around us instead of participating in it. i am sure you will agree that many christians also believe this. almost all the ones i’ve ever talked to do, and is probably the source of my confusion. have they got it wrong?
you said you looked forward to my ignoring the argument and being sarcastic, and i’ve really tried my hardest to disappoint you.
The answer is simple and i have already told you. God looks on motive fully as much as action.’Christians are called to right action for the right reasons.
Which works in both directions. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons may not be as bad as doing the wrong thing but it is still incomplete.
Yes we are called to be peaceful, to be gentle kind considerate, to as far as it depends on us , live at peace with all men, to not take revenge. We are also called to be carful in our motives for all things. You cannot earn your way into heaven through good works, you must first be in a right relationship with God.
But dont confuse meekness or gentleness with weakness or refusing to stand up for what is right. We are also called to defend the weak, the poor and the oppressed. None of which is an excuse for violent aggression but neither is it a recipe for pacifist inaction.
jeremy, i just need to clarify something in your earlier post.
are you saying that galatians 3:28 indicates that christian thinking has always advocated equal rights and treatment for everyone regardless of race and gender?
also, not really sure if your ‘simple answer’ actually answers anything. in fact i think i’ve already argued why it doesn’t. will wait and see what matt says.
Sam, I would start by drawing a distinction between what its right and wrong for an individual to do and what its right and wrong for a person acting as a government official. These are not the same, a police officer or a judge has the right to do things which a private individual does not have the right to do.
Sam, I also am fascinated by your response, you aware that the “just war theory” has been the dominant moral tradition of Christianity for the last 2000 years, there is a massive volume of literature discussing it and its relationship to Christian pacifism.
So when someone out of the blue states, I don’t get this, why do you think that, I kinda wonder if they have bothered to ever actually look into the issue. Its not like no one has ever discussed the issues you raise.
It’s odd, I was on a panel discussion on the ethics of war a few weeks ago. I gave some fairly standard arguments, some hundreds of years old, nothing new, and many pacifists acted like they had never heard these issues before and seemed unable to address them. Its hard to understand how one would dismiss a dominant tradition as clearly false and also have never even bothered to be familiar with it.
Christians like everyone else fail at being perfect. fail or dont want to learn lessons they need to, or are simply never taught.
And just as you dont understand how much Christian thought and belief have influenced Western civilisation, most Christians do not realise how thoroughly they are influenced by their culture rather than Christianity. Surely this is what Christian theology, Bible study and Apologetics are all about, trying to figure out the differences. I am sure you have meet the idea that many Victorian missionaries confused Victorian English cultural norms as necessarily being the way everyone should behave.
So yes i am [ though not that bit about rights]
“saying that galatians 3:28 indicates that christian thinking has always advocated equal rights and treatment for everyone regardless of race and gender?”
or at least should have on the basis of scripture.
I am saying the idea of equality is intrinsic in Christianity, it has been there from the beginning and is the basis for equal rights. The Bible actually has little of nothing to say about RIGHTS. God pays no attention to our human imposed divisions, i am obliged to acknowledge that even Christians can be very slow to learn this.
Posted 21st June; addendum to my 20th June posting to this site..
Firstly, nowhere does the Bible promise free & undisturbed possession to live as we choose. Rather it teaches ~all off our peace~ is dependant on serving Him.
This Biblical position is consistent with the known facts of science. In this whole universe man is the only species ~known to us~ equipped with self determination & endowed with a life supportive biosphere, effectively as our own private fiefdom. Thus the Biblical imperative we are not here to please ourselves, is consistent with the material reality ~we better be worth the trouble~ to justify our unique place in the wider scheme of things.
Secondly, the Bible grants man the status of ~head tenant~ a position which accords neither authority nor right. To Jews & Christians head tenant is held a ~partner~ of God, which is a fair assessment of our capacity for self determination & the restraints under which we can exercise it.
By comparison the word Muslim (submit) does not recognize our capacity for self determination at all. Muslims live in submission to a set of arbitrary (fixed) edicts; Christians live in partnership with a developing process. These are the requirements of ~two different Gods~
The condition Christian (partner) is a limited dominion obliged to ~work in partnership with~ the wider paradigm which is given to us. The Bible holds man is not a static condition, but ~His living process~ one which continues to evolve & develop. Thus the partnership is not static, but subject to continuous review as man progresses; yet always defined ~relative to Him~
Nowhere does the Bible bestow authority or right on man, rather it holds both as illegitimate. All that is illegitimate rots; human authority rots into tyranny, human rights right into anarchy. The Bible accords us neither.
Instead it commands governments to administer in His Righteousness & the people to live in His Grace.
To go back to my first posting… righteousness & grace are defined… ~relative to Him~
Why relative to Him? If we look at the forces of evolution, man is little more than a collection of self determining flotsam adrift in a void. There has to be a lodestone (ends) against which we define ourselves. For better or for worse, (I believe for the better) the Bible specifies that lodestone as the ~Most High God of the Bible~ An entity best described as the Highest man can aspire to & ~reasonably presume sound~ at any current level of development.
While many people question this & some openly ridicule it; this Christians challenge to all skeptics. Show me a better lodestone against which a collection self determining flotsam might define itself. .
Ken Maynard Webb… http://www.communichristi.org.nz
……………………………………
Footnote, theGod off the Bible is the lodestone of EVERYTHING.
The Ten Commandments are ~His~ law. If you reject Him, you reject the foundational authority on which His law stands. You thus become an outlaw, in the tradional sense of ~ouside the law~ external to the considerations & protections of His law.
The Ten Commandments are a complete set; one cannot cherry pick them to uphold those which please us while disdaining those which cost us. The purpose of His law is the salvation of humanity, not to keep us in an undisturbed self righteous comfort zone.
5, says honor thy father & thy mother; to the extent they ~in their turn~ honor Him. If they don’t then Christ said ~leave thy father & thy mother & follow me~ Parents have ~first option~ not ownership.
6, do not murder; both murder & just killing are defined ~relative to Him~
7, do not commit adultery; both chastity & adultery are defined ~relative to Him~
8, do not steal; both theft & lawful acquisition are defined ~relative to Him~
Virtue & goodness are defined relative to Him & ~His purposes~ Blasphemy & hersey also defined relative to Him. As is just & unjust cause.
The TC is not a system of earthly order per se, not ends in & off themselves; but a system of order intended to serve His end purpose of guiding us toward salvation.
Redemption & Salvation are defined relative to Him; if you reject Him or reject His Son you reject His salvation. This does not necessarily put one wholly beyond salvation but certainly invokes another & less favorable set of conditions.
…………………..
Lastly, on the legitimacy of governments.
Generally the Bible recognizes all governments as ~representative~ in that, no matter how appointed, they are the sum of the people of which they are comprised. Yet the Bible is judicious on the matter of the legitimacy off any such compact; it holds the people & the administration ~jointly & severally responsible~ for any compact which follows false Gods. It is the God of the Bible, specifically, who sits in judgment over the nations. He exercises judgment at the time of ~His~ choosing, usually at a time when there is enough at stake to warrant it.
Even with a majority mandate a government is not held legitimate because it is representative, but dependant on what it is representative off. As religions shape the people of which the state is comprised, this reduces to just what God a people worship & seek guidance from. Neither PLO or Taleban would be held legitimate, even if they obtained a majority mandate. Democracy only attests representative as ~the~ standard, in order to legitimate its own secular (Godless) rule.
Denying, rejecting or subverting the one God who can save humanity is a very serious matter. Those who believe representative of a peoples self indulgent ~wish list~ equals legitimacy need to think again. As should those who attest ~right of undisturbed possession to live as we choose~ If there was any purpose more important than the salvation of humanity, the Bible would not exist as ~His~ Holy Word in the first place.
The whole of the moral order depends on the law of consequence applying to ~all parties~ involved in right & wrong choices; as does man having any merit as a self determining species.
matt,
throughout this discussion hasn’t personal self defence been used as an example to illustrate arguments concerning national self-defence? you seem to have used it yourself several times, as has j paul. i would have thought the principles were the same?
and you have misunderstood my position on a just war. not only have i heard of it (hence my republican hawk coment), i completely accept all your arguments in support of it. and as i told j paul, i’m the last person who will argue that he shouldn’t use his beretta in self-defence. what i don’t understand is how this is consistent with the teachings and example of jesus.
perhaps you could illustrate in terms of personal self-defence? for the reasons i have already outlined, i have always been lead to believe that if you are being attacked, jesus message and example would be to pray for your attackers instead of fighting back. i do agree that this probably won’t help and you’d be a moron to try, but there you go.
and as i (sarcastically) asked j paul, is there an inconsistency here between threats you feel you can counter, and threats you can’t? to illustrate, if you die of cancer, is that gods will? but if you have the ability to kill your assailant before he kills you, then it is not part of gods higher plan to call you home?
jeremy,
i do note you said ‘or at least i should have on the basis of the scripture’, and that christians can fail, but i’m still curious so will continue anyway.
because if what you’re saying is true, then why are we only just seeing changes in recent history, given that the christianity has been in a position of authority for so long? if christianity has advocated equal treatment and value of women the whole time, why didn’t anything happen until recent history, when women started demanding it for themselves? and in new zealand their treatment and recognition in society and the workplace has got better as we became a more secular society.
this verse seems to indicate that christianity has been opposed to racially based discrimination for the last 2000 years? and yet dr king has only just had his dream? it seriously took john newton 1700 years to arrive on the scene? (matt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807) what about the christian whites in south africa? european colonisers all around the world?
there just does not appear to be any correlation between the presence of christianity and the equal treatment and value of individuals.
i’m sure you can understand my scepticism when you try and claim equal treatment of individuals as christian. and if you’re right, what good was it to sit on these ideas for 2000 years when the church had the power to change things? and even then people still had to fight the establishment to be recognised.
this verse seems to indicate that christianity has been opposed to racially based discrimination for the last 2000 years? and yet dr king has only just had his dream? it seriously took john newton 1700 years to arrive on the scene? (matt:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807) what about the christian whites in south africa? european colonisers all around the world?
Sam, if your going to cite Wikipedia, then I suggest you read it carefully. That deals with the abolition of the slave trade this is not the same thing, as slavery.
If you want to read what Wikipedia does say about slavery you could read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain_and_Ireland
Here is a pertinent section for you
“Slavery in Britain and Ireland dated from before Roman occupation. Chattel slavery virtually disappeared after the Norman Conquest. It was finally abolished by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833”
Note this text states slavery virtually disappeared from England after the Norman conquest. The act of 1833 dealt with slave trading in the colonies.
Also
“Some of the earliest accounts of the Anglo-Saxon English comes from the account of the fair-haired boys from Yorkseen in Rome by Pope Gregory the Great. In the seventh century the English slave Balthild rose to be queen of the Frankish king Clovis II. Anglo-Saxon opinion turned against the sale of English abroad: a law of Ine of Wessex stated that anyone selling his own countryman, whether bond or free, across the sea, was to pay his own wergild in penalty, even when the man so sold was guilty of crime.[9] Nevertheless, legal penalties and economic pressures that led to default in payments maintained the supply of slaves, and in the 11th century there was still a slave trade operating out of Bristol, as a passage in the Vita Wulfstani makes clear.[10] Under ecclesiastical pressure, however, as the feudal order congealed in England during the 12th century, villeinage took the place of outright slavery.”
Also
“ In 1102 theCouncil of London (1102) convened by Anselm issued a decree: “Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals.”[13] However, the Council had no legislative powers, and no act of law was valid unless signed by the monarch. As the feudal order congealed during the 12th century, the reduced status of the villein rendered outright slavery largely obsolete; the last form of this enforced servitude had disappeared in Britain by the beginning of the 17th century, though the laws on villeinage remained on the books for centuries.
You can also read about Anslem of Canterbury and the council of London here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_London_(1102)
An English court case of 1569 involving Cartwright who had bought a slave from Russia ruled that English law could not recognise slavery. This ruling was overshadowed by later developments particularly in the navigation acts, but was upheld by the Lord Chief Justice in 1701 when he ruled that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England. [24]
You could also read Wikipedia’s link on Sicut Dundum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicut_Dudum
So the picture that no one rose in opposition to slavery till the 1800’s is false.
“there just does not appear to be any correlation between the presence of christianity and the equal treatment and value of individuals.”
yet Martin Luther King jr, John Newton, William Wilberforce were all Christians and led by their Christianity to oppose the slave trade.
and even now you can compare those countries that have been influenced by Christianity with those for whom it has been much less of an influence, and compare their past and recent histories. I would venture that for all your scepticism you would not like to have lived in a society with little or no Christian influence.
“I would venture that for all your scepticism you would not like to have lived in a society with little or no Christian influence.”
you may be right, you may be wrong, that’s what i’m trying to find out. granted i’m certainly glad i live in the society i do, but given the points i’ve already raised, is this actually as a direct result of its christian heritage? i’m also glad i live in this current society as opposed to christian ones in the past…
you’re exactly right to say i am comparing their past and recent histories. that’s the point.
yes, i can compare christian influenced countries to non-christian influenced countries, but haven’t there been plenty of other influencing factors in western society as well? industrial revolutions and the like?
yes those men you mentioned fought on the basis of their christianity (although dr king may possibly have fought anyway, given that he had skin in the game, no pun intended), but again, what religion were the men in the old and powerful establishments they were fighting against? what did these other people think the bible said?
matt you have fantastic research skills, but completely miss the point. ignoring british tea and sugar plantations and the like, you’ve provided the exception which proves the rule. if one group of christians value all individuals equally so can’t own their own slaves (except presumably while the ‘goods’ are in storage and transit), but there is another group of christians who are more than willing to buy and own them, how is christianity the influencing factor? is it not possible that both groups were interpreting scripture to confirm their independently existing beliefs?
so when you say that we owe our equal value and treatment of individuals to christianity, i stand by my statement that this is complete and utter BS. the fact they emerged in christian societies is meaningless.
you both seem to have missed the paragraph about women?
you pointed out women in afghanistan are only chattels, but the governor or the bamiyan province is a women. yes she is the only one, but it was not long ago that it was just as rare to see a woman in a similar position in new zealand. the men who respect her authority (which they do) are just as devote in their muslim faith as any other afghani male. it is an oversimplification to say that it is religion which causes it; they were still devote muslims in the past when it was a much more open society, and i have seen muslim husbands whose worlds revolve around their wives.
so yes they use religion to justify sexism (just like the west used to do), but to imply that islam is the root cause is about as questionable as saying that christianity is the root cause of fairness and equality in our own society.
matt still looking forward to your take on jesus’ attitude towards violence for personal self-defence, although i have got the general gist from your other pacifist column.
“so when you say that we owe our equal value and treatment of individuals to christianity, i stand by my statement that this is complete and utter BS. the fact they emerged in christian societies is meaningless.”
So you make an assertion of BS, but provide no alternative hypothesis, nor account for the fact that such men did not emerge in non-christians societies.
Also i think you are suffering from confusing christian by association [nominalism, as in Muslim countries seem to think everyone in the West is Christian when you would by lucky to find 2% of the population as practicing Christians] with Christian by commitment and practice.
As already mentioned
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28
this is the first record in history of such a radical idea and i am not denying it took a long time to penetrate society but people are very slow to relinquish power and nominalism doesnt normally bring about the change of heart required to do so.
Calling yourself christian because its the pc thing to do doesnt mean you behave well morally or obey God anymore than calling yourself atheist makes you a power hungry megalomaniac like Stalin Hitler or Pol Pot
You might like to read some of Matts other articles since you mention the industrial revolution [ and i assume you also have in mind the rennaisance etc], you will find that there is major Christian influence in the development of Western Society, especially in the sciences that led to economic development and one time strength of the West .Compare the philosophical underpinnings of other parts of the world to see how they provided no foundation for Western style development.
Its a real pity we cant edit things anymore
I wanted to insert before the last paragraph of my previous comment,
Sam, that you seem unaware of how much influence underlying belief and philosophy and theology have on the way people think and act. You seem to have dismissed these as influences at all
Sam, I have written some stuff on the Pacifism issue but can’t blog it yet because someone else has first rights,
As to the “exception that proves the rule” I am inclined to think its the other way around, it seems to me that the rule was that the church condemned slavery in the new world, the Inquistion, popes, church councils and so on had normally opposed the practise, as did Jesuit missionaries and so on. The US South were probably not the norm. I also think the issue is more nuanced, there are different types of servitude, different contexts for slavery and so on, so some people cited as supporting it, did so in certain contexts or subject to certain qualifications which make there position much less crazy than it appears.
@ Sam
“what about trust in god?”
Sorry, such a long response, I’m a little busy. If your worldview were to be correct, then this might be a tough question to answer. On the other hand, if the Bible does in fact records the words of the prophets, then this is not a problem.
From all the posts you’ve made here, I’m sure that you are capable of figuring that out if you have any desire to do so. But then, if there is no God with whom we have to do, then what difference does it make? If we are the product evolution, then life is meaningless anyway and all of the speculation in the world is completely irrelevant. Therefore, why trouble yourself with the whole God question in the first place? Why bother engaging in such discussions with Christians, if the answer is already obvious? If there is no God, then such conversations seem absurd. Perhaps it is just a compulsive disorder on the part of such atheists. Whatever it is, it appears counterintuitive at best. If there is no God, then, whatever.
hi, sorry for taking so long to reply, had an exam.
i know that i “seem to have dismissed these as influences at all”. i actually haven’t, but for now it can stay seeming that way.
if we were to take galatians 3:28 to christians in the past, and tell them this indicates the equal “WORTH and VALUE of all people REGARDLESS of race sex social status” is it not probable that many of them would disagree with you on the basis of their understanding of the bible?
for example, if we were to tell christian leaders in the past that this verse meant their wives were their equals and peers, wouldn’t many of them say “what about the other scriptures about the husband being the head of the wife as christ is the head of the church, and god creating woman second to be a companion to man?” in much the same way as you said “What about the other passages…” in relation to ‘turn the other cheek’. and i’m not just talking about the medieval times or the colonial era, i have friends today who go to a church where women aren’t allowed to preach. you’re old so i’ll ask you because you were probably their: would it be fair to say these attitudes were prominent even in nz all the way up until maybe the 60’s, and that women today owe their equal treatment to angry feminists instead of christian theologians?
matt points out there are many different types of servitude, so instead of strictly slavery, lets look for proof that “christian thinking has ALWAYS (emphasis added) advocated equal … treatment for everyone regardless of race”. the exploited non-europeans in the colonies would disagree (tea, sugar, rubber, tin, opium). even white people like the scots and the irish did not feel particularly valuable. and of course all the rest of the european colonies and missionaries were christian, although admittedly mostly catholic. again, the whites in south africa have always been christian too. how would they have interpreted galatians 3:28?
to speculate, perhaps they all would have said ‘galatians 3:28 clearly only states that we are equal in christ, meaning his salvation is available equally, don’t over-analyse it. it even acknowledges the existence of a master and slave relationship and doesn’t actually state that that is wrong!’ i don’t actually know, i just made that up to illustrate.
actually, matt says “some people cited as supporting (slavery), did so in certain contexts or subject to certain qualifications which make there position much less crazy than it appears”. can you please elaborate on their contexts and qualifications in the light of galatians 3:28?
i would like to amend one of my previous statements: i am glad of the christian heritage of the society i live in because i am white, heterosexual, mentally sound (??), and male.
Sam, I believe the question was in regard to why God doesn’t just do everything that He expects of us, and why it isn’t right now?
j. paul
see my june 21 8.07pm and june 20 9.00pm posts to matt.
it’s not ‘why God doesn’t just do everything that He expects of us’, it’s what it is that he actually expects of us. your reasoning was based purely on an appeal to our animal-like instinct for self-preservation.
and i do acknowledge your post about how pointless this discussion is if i don’t believe in the existence of god, but won’t reply. humour me.
everyones got bored of playing with me so i’ll wrap up.
jeremy, if i’m right in suggesting that christians in the past (and even today) have different interpretations of this and other scriptures, then outside of your own personal judgement and pre-existing morality, what reason do you have to believe that you’ve got the bible right this time? given that two people can read the same bible and arrive at different conclusions, your bible is more like a psychiatrists inkblot: what you see in there says more about you and the times in which you exist than about any external fixed standard.
you laughed at me when i said that religion follows society, but this is what i meant and i stand by it. i also stand by my accusation that you have created a god in your own image.
to illustrate:
i have no idea what your feelings towards homosexuality are, and for the sake of this argument it is completely irrelevant because you’re going to be dead soon. the generation which will replace you (me) is a lot more accepting. sure we can still be homophobic and take the piss, but we won’t try and tell anyone it’s a sin they shouldn’t commit in the privacy of their own home.
you know that feeling of disgust we’ve all been trained to feel when we hear about the racism and sexism of 200 years ago? 200 years from now people will look back at the churches treatment of homosexuals today with exactly the same feeling of disgust. in 200 years a wise old man called jeremy will stroke his beard and say ‘well clearly christianity itself has never said homosexuality is evil, it’s just that christians in the past have misinterpreted the scriptures’. and viola, an immortal and eternal god will have changed his mind again, just like he’s already done about women and non-europeans.
Sam,
Quite the contrary, my reasoning definitely was NOT “based purely on an appeal to our animal-like instinct for self-preservation” or anything of the sort. The motive I offered was/is based on “loving thy neighbor.” That is not a self-defense mechanism. Isaiah 1:17 says, “Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.”
Jesus certainly did not teach that when face to face with evil, we have only to pray. As a matter of fact, when he took his disciples to the Garden where he was to be betrayed and arrested, he had them bring a sword. Of course, he forbade Peter from using it, but that doesn’t alter the fact of the matter.
BTW, I do not reject man’s free will, as God has so obviously saw fit to instill. God, as God, is not incapable of imparting such a gift. It is evolution + naturalism + materialism on the other hand, that attempts to reduced free will to utter meaningless nonsense; a dream within a dream, if you will; dancing to your DNA.
Ahhh, but then, why if God is so wonderful, doesn’t He just do everything for us? Why doesn’t he destroy all enemies and hatemongers in one fell swoop? This is nothing more than a regurgitated form of the question of suffering and evil. It may sound trite, but God will set things right one day. Meanwhile, to follow Jesus is not a mandate to become monks or hermits, it is to be his hands and feet, in a lost and dying world. This is why it was the church, not the government that was the first responders in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and it is why they continue their work there and elsewhere.
For the atheist, on the other hand, evil is a socially projected illusion that is useful to the herd and nothing more, while suffering is a natural nemises to remind us of the ultimate futility of the life of such animals. Hardly what I would call a home run. But by all means…
jeremy, just been reading (that thing you said i should do more of) the history of christian europe by gr evans, who points out that feudalism developed after the fall of the roman empire not far behind the spread of christianity. she then says ‘the medieval christian acceptance that some were born to be masters and some to be servants… faded when a degree of social mobility became a real possibility for enterprising rising bourgeoisie.’
so again religion follows society which follows socio-economic and geographical influences (guns germs and steel, university if maryland tight vs loose societies).