2016/05/07

全国戦没者追悼式 - Wikipedia

全国戦没者追悼式 - Wikipedia

全国戦没者追悼式

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
全国戦没者追悼式が毎年行われる日本武道館
全国戦没者追悼式（ぜんこくせんぼつしゃついとうしき）は、日本国政府の主催で毎年8月15日に行われる、第二次世界大戦の戦没者に対して宗教的に中立な形で行われる追悼式。第1回の追悼式は、1952年（昭和27年）5月2日に実施された。

概説

第1回全国戦没者追悼式（1952年（昭和27年））
全国戦没者追悼式は1952年（昭和27年）4月8日の閣議決定により、同年5月2日に新宿御苑で昭和天皇・香淳皇后の臨席のもとで行われたのが最初である。第2回は1959年（昭和34年）3月28日にやや変則的に実施され、その後1963年（昭和38年）に日比谷公会堂で8月15日に、1964年（昭和39年）には靖国神社で8月15日に開催。翌1965年（昭和40年）から日本武道館にて8月15日に行われるようになり、現在に至っている。追悼の対象は第二次世界大戦で戦死した旧日本軍軍人・軍属約230万人と、空襲や原子爆弾投下等で死亡した一般市民約80万人である。式場正面には「全国戦没者之霊」と書かれた白木の柱が置かれる。
式典は政府主催で、事務は厚生労働省（旧・厚生省）社会・援護局が行う。現在は東京都千代田区の日本武道館で開かれる。式典開始は午前11時51分（以下日本時間）、所要時間は約1時間である。正午より1分間の黙祷を行う。
式典には天皇・皇后、三権の長である内閣総理大臣、衆議院議長、参議院議長、最高裁判所長官及び各政党代表（政治資金規正法第3条2項に規定する政党で国会に議席を有するものの代表）、地方公共団体代表（都道府県知事、都道府県議会議長など）が参列する。
また、日本遺族会等関係団体の代表者（日本遺族会会長）、経済団体（日本商工会議所会頭）、労働団体（日本労働組合総連合会会長）、報道機関の代表者（日本新聞協会会長）、日本学術会議会長、日本宗教連盟理事長などを招くほか各都道府県遺族代表、一般戦災死没者遺族代表、原爆死没者遺族代表らを国費で参列させている。
2007年（平成19年）の参列者数は、約5,200名の遺族参列者（付添を含む）と遺族以外の者を合わせて約6,000名。

式次第

  1. 開式　　 　
  2. 天皇皇后両陛下御臨場
  3. 国歌斉唱
  4. 式辞　内閣総理大臣
  5. 黙祷（1分間）
  6. 天皇陛下のおことば
  7. 追悼の辞　衆議院議長、参議院議長、最高裁判所長官、戦没者遺族代表（1名）
  8. 天皇皇后両陛下御退場
  9. 献花（この間奏楽）
  10. 閉式

根拠規定

「全国戦没者追悼式の実施に関する件」（1952年（昭和27年）4月8日閣議決定）によれば、「平和条約の発効による独立に際し、国をあげて戦没者を追悼するため」に実施するとされた。
「「戦没者を追悼し平和を祈念する日」について」（1982年（昭和57年）4月13日閣議決定）によれば「先の大戦において亡くなられた方々を追悼し平和を祈念するため、「戦没者を追悼し平和を祈念する日」を設け」てその期日を8月15日とし、この日に政府は「昭和38年以降毎年実施している全国戦没者追悼式を別紙のとおり引き続き実施する」ものとしている。
別紙「全国戦没者追悼式の実施について」の内容は、以下の通り。
  1. 全国戦没者追悼式は天皇皇后両陛下の御臨席を仰いで毎年8月15日、日本武道館において実施する。
  2. 本式典における戦没者の範囲及び式典の形式は、1981年（昭和56年）の式典と同様とする。
  3. 本式典には、全国から遺族代表を国費により参列させる。
  4. 式典当日は官衙（が）等国立の施設には半旗を掲げることとし、地方公共団体等に対しても同様の措置をとるよう勧奨するとともに本式典中の一定時刻において全国民が一斉に黙祷するよう勧奨する。

歴史

中継放送

日本放送協会（NHK）が、総合テレビ、ラジオ第1と国際放送のNHKワールド・プレミアム（ノンスクランブル放送も実施）、NHKワールド・ラジオ日本で当日の11:50から天皇の御言葉まで中継し、12:05に終了する。NHKは式典に「NHK時計」で技術協力を行っており、会場で流される正午の時報（黙祷の合図）を提供している。これは2012年（平成24年）3月11日の東日本大震災一周年追悼式でも使用され、発生時刻の14時46分にあわせて時報を流し、黙祷の合図を行なっていた。

備考

戦犯
政府は連合国によって戦争犯罪人として裁かれ、死刑判決を受けたいわゆるA級戦犯やB・C級戦犯が全国戦没者追悼式の戦没者の対象となるかどうかについて明確にしていない。戦犯遺族にも招待状が出されているが、これは各都道府県に参列遺族の選定を委ねた結果としている。小泉純一郎が首相在任当時、靖国神社に参拝し続けたことに対して批判的な菅直人や坂口力が厚生労働大臣（旧・厚生大臣）の時も戦犯を対象外とする決議や声明は出されていない。これに関しては靖国神社が戦犯を顕彰の対象としていることを問題視しているのであり、戦犯を追悼することは問題視していないためとされる。
衆議院議長の欠席
2005年（平成17年）には8月8日に衆議院が解散（郵政解散）し、衆議院議長が空席となったため、三権の長の1人である衆議院議長が全国戦没者追悼式を欠席する異例の事態となった。同様の事態は2009年（平成21年）にも起きた（7月21日衆議院解散、8月30日総選挙のため）。
式次第の変更
1998年（平成10年）までは天皇・皇后が厚生大臣の先導により臨場する際に、国歌「君が代」が演奏された。1999年（平成11年）の国旗国歌法施行後は天皇・皇后の臨場後、君が代を斉唱することになった。
いわゆる戦争責任論への言及
2006年（平成18年）には河野洋平衆議院議長が追悼の辞で「戦争を主導した当時の指導者たちの責任をあいまいにしてはならない」と異例の戦争責任論に言及した。

脚註

  1. ^ （千鳥ヶ淵墓苑の竣工式及び戦没者追悼式の開催について） 1959年（昭和34年）3月13日 岸信介内閣閣議報告

関連項目

外部リンク

「https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=全国戦没者追悼式&oldid=58620029」から取得
Posted by at

UN says Israel, not Iran, North Korea or Syria worst violator of human rights | Fox News

UN says Israel, not Iran, North Korea or Syria worst violator of human rights | Fox News

UN says Israel, not Iran, North Korea or Syria worst violator of human rights

Anne Bayefsky
  
What country deserves more condemnation for violating human rights than any other nation on earth? According to the U.N.’s top human rights body, that would be Israel.
Last week, Israel was the U.N.’s number one women’s rights violator. This week it is the U.N.’s all-round human rights villain.
Playing at caring about human rights is the U.N. game. And no state does it better than Iran.
The U.N. Human Rights Council wrapped up its latest session in Geneva on Friday, March 27 by adopting four resolutions condemning Israel.  That’s four times more than any of the other 192 UN member states.
Playing at caring about human rights is the U.N. game. And no state does it better than Iran.
There were four resolutions on Israel. And one on North Korea -- a country that is home to government policies of torture, starvation, enslavement, rape, disappearances, and murder – to name just some of its crimes against humanity.
Four resolutions on Israel. And one on Syria. Where the death toll of four years of war is 100,000 civilians, ten million people are displaced, and barrel bombs containing chemical agents like chlorine gas are back in action.
Four resolutions on Israel. And one on Iran. Where there is no rule of law, no free elections, no freedom of speech, corruption is endemic, protestors are jailed and tortured, religious minorities are persecuted, and pedophilia is state-run.  At last count, in 2012 Iranian courts ordered more than 30,000 girls ages 14 and under to be “married.”
And what did that one resolution on Iran say? Co-sponsored by the United States, it was labelled a “short procedural text,” consisting of just three operative paragraphs that contained not a single condemnation of Iran.
The Israel resolutions, on the other hand, were full of “demands,” “condemns,” “expresses grave concern,” and “deplores” – along with orders to “cease immediately” a long list of alleged human rights violations.
Ninety percent of states – inhabited by 6.6 billion people – got no mention at all. Countries like China, Qatar, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.  For the UN, there was not one human rights violation worthy of mention by any of these human rights horror shows.
Why not? For starters, China, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia are all members of the UN Human Rights Council. Actually protecting human rights is not a condition of being elected to the Council, and thereby transforming into a UN authority on what counts as a human rights violation.
As a result, what counts fast becomes unrecognizable. Subverting human rights principles for all turns out to be the other side of the coin from subverting human rights for Jews.
Thus at this session, “death to America” Iran sponsored a Council resolution called “Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights.” It was adopted by consensus – with U.S. blessing.  
The Cubans successfully engineered a Council resolution on protecting “cultural rights” – minus free expression.
The Palestinians – whose unity government includes the terrorist group Hamas – co-sponsored the resolution “effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights.”  
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation – representing states where converting to Christianity is subject to the death penalty – sponsored a resolution called “combating intolerance of persons based on religion or belief.”
Playing at caring about human rights is the U.N. game. And no state does it better than Iran.
Iran’s human rights record happened to come up at the March session in the context of what the Council calls a “universal periodic review” (UPR). Touted as its leading human rights innovation, the same process is applied to every state every four years.  
That means Iran and Syria get treated the same way as, say, the United States and Canada.  At the end of the UPR, a report is summarily adopted containing a bunch of recommendations that the former cast of characters summarily dismiss.  
It was suggested to Iran, for instance, that it stop peddling little girls as sex slaves for old men. The recommendation received this reply:  “in light of Islamic teachings, a person that has reached the age of maturity and is of sound mind has the possibility of marrying.”
The Council created a human rights investigator on Iran, but Iran has never let him into the country.  Recommendations made to Iran during the UPR that it cooperate, were simply ignored.  
On March 19, 2014, the U.S. representative mustered all her courage and countered with this: “we note with disappointment that Iran has not addressed the issue of allowing the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran to visit the country…”
There is an alternative conclusion. We note with disappointment that the United States legitimizes this travesty and empowers the real enemies of human rights.
Anne Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. Follow her on Twitter @AnneBayefsky.
Posted by at
Labels:

What is a Just Peace? - Oxford Scholarship

What is a Just Peace? - Oxford Scholarship

What is a Just Peace?

Pierre Allan and Alexis Keller



ABSTRACT

While an old doctrine of Just War exists, surprisingly little conceptual thinking has gone into what constitutes a Just Peace. This book presents various — and at times conflicting — viewpoints on this question of Just Peace from perspectives originating in political science, history, international law, political philosophy, cultural studies, and theology, as well as from a policy perspective. The book challenges a liberal perception of peace founded on norms claiming universal scope, and instead looks to negotiation for arriving at shared views that help build a consensus on what justice might mean in specific circumstances. Although some contributors explicitly outline and advocate specific cases for ‘justifiable violence’, it is made clear that alternative and non-violent ways to peace need to be contemplated, and conceptualized. Even though the path through justice is a demanding one, its accomplishment opens the way to a durable settlement accepted by the parties initially engaged in conflict. Clearly, the more ambitious goal of peace with justice can lead to smaller chances for success. It may even derail the whole enterprise and keep the flames of violent conflict alive through the search for ‘justice’, particularly because this concept is not necessarily the same for all concerned parties. Ultimately, an inter-subjective consensus needs to be built through negotiation with both parties to a conflict so that the concepts of shared history, and an often inextricable future, can be reached with a mutual understanding. In this collective process, it is more likely that a stable foundation can be created through recognition, renouncement, and rule, and thus a Just Peace can be achieved.



Keywords: just war, justice, peace, law, negotiation, conflict, recognition, renouncement, rule of law, conceptual



BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Print publication date: 2006 Print ISBN-13: 9780199275359

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2006 DOI:10.1093/0199275351.001.0001

AUTHORS

Affiliations are at time of print publication.



Pierre Allan, editor

Dean of Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences and Professor of International Relations, University of Geneva

Author Webpage

Alexis Keller, editor

Senior Research Fellow, Swiss National Science Foundation, and Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard University

----

1 Introduction: Rethinking Peace and Justice Conceptually

Pierre Allan and Alexis Keller

2 Peace and Justice: A Prologue

Stanley Hoffmann

3 Justice, Peace, and History: A Reappraisal

Alexis Keller

4 Just Peace: A Cause Worth Fighting For1

Sir Adam Roberts

5 Measuring International Ethics: A Moral Scale of War, Peace, Justice, and Global Care

Pierre Allan

6 Just Peace: A Dangerous Objective

Yossi Beilin

7 Peace, Justice, and Religion

David Little

8 A Method for Thinking about Just Peace

Edward W. Said

9 The Concept of a Just Peace, or Achieving Peace Through Recognition, Renouncement, and Rule

Pierre Allan and Alexis Keller
Posted by at

Nonviolence and Just Peace, April 2016 | Pax Christi

Nonviolence and Just Peace, April 2016 | Pax Christi

The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and Pax Christi International will convene an international conference on Nonviolence and Just Peace: Contributing to the Catholic Understanding of and Commitment to Nonviolence, to be held in Rome, Italy, 11-13 April, 2016.
In recognition of the Year of Mercy declared by the Holy Father, this carefully planned Catholic conference on nonviolence and just peace will take place in Rome -- the invited participants represent a broad spectrum of Church experiences in peacebuilding and creative nonviolence in the face of violence and war. Read the concept note for the conference here.
The conference will initiate a conversation about Catholic teaching on war and peace, including explicit rejection of “just war” language in favor of an alternative ethical framework for engaging acute conflict and atrocities by developing the themes and practices of nonviolent conflict transformation and just peace. It will develop clearer Scripture-based Catholic teaching and an action plan to promote such teachings in seminaries, Catholic educational institutions, Catholic media, Catholic dioceses and parishes.

A call for prayer and solidarity

We ask for your prayerful support before and during this unique conference. Following is a prayer written especially for the conference by Austrian nonviolence activist and theologian Hildegard Goss-Mayr. Prayers from Archbishop Stephen Fumio Hamao and Pope St. John Paul II are also included. Also in francais, italiano, español, Croatian and Deutsche. A PDF flyer of the prayer (in English) is available here.
Holy Spirit, our source of light and strength, we thank you for having inspired the call to peace-makers from all over the world to meet in the dramatic situation of humanity to reconsider our responsibility, to deepen and promote the liberating and healing nonviolence of Jesus.
Merciful God, our Father and Mother, you sent your Son Jesus, our Brother, to reveal through his life and teaching your divine, self-giving Love and so incarnate in our world the power of nonviolence, able to overcome ALL forms of violence and to reconcile humanity in justice and peace.
We confess that for centuries our Church, people of God, has betrayed this central message of the Gospel many times and participated in wars, persecution, oppression, exploitation and discrimination.
Holy Spirit, as we meet as peacemakers, we count on your light and your strength to help revive in the Theology of Peace the nonviolent message of Jesus in which there is no place for violence and to offer to all Christians the arms of peacemaking, pardon and reconciliation.
Holy Spirit, we trust in your light and strength that this Conference may mark a new step for our Church, on its way to becoming a Church of Peace, in the spirit of our Brother Jesus and so respond to the cry of humanity for life in dignity and peace.
- See more at: http://www.paxchristi.net/news/nonviolence-and-just-peace-april-2016#concept-note


Posted by at

Just Peace: A Message of Hope (0050837239326): Mattie J.T. Stepanek, Jennifer Smith Stepanek, Jimmy Carter: Books

Just Peace: A Message of Hope (0050837239326): Mattie J.T. Stepanek, Jennifer Smith Stepanek, Jimmy Carter: Books

Just Peace: A Message of Hope Hardcover – March 1, 2006

by Mattie J.T. Stepanek  (Author), & 2 more

4.9 out of 5 stars    32 customer reviews

----

About the Author

 Mattie J.T. Stepanek was a poet, a peace activist, and the best-selling author of the Heartsongs poetry series. He was a motivational speaker and the National Goodwill Ambassador for the Muscular Dystrophy Association for three years. He died in June 2004 from dysautonomic mitochondrial myopathy. The Mattie Fund was established at MDA to specifically continue research of treatments and cures for childhood neuromuscular diseases.



 Mattie's mom, Jeni Stepanek, is a Ph.D. candidate in early childhood special education. She is an inspirational speaker and writer and a national vice president for MDA. She lives in Maryland with Micah, the service dog she and Mattie shared.



 Jimmy Carter is a former United States president and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. In 1982, he founded the Carter Center, a nonpartisan and nonprofit group that addresses national and international issues of public policy, including resolving conflict, promoting democracy, preventing disease and other afflictions, and protecting human rights throughout the world.



----

Top Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars

"Peace is Possible"

By Robert M. Balkam on March 4, 2006

Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase

Having served 38 months in Europe in World War II, peace has always meant a great deal to me. While I had sympathy for conscientious objectors and admiration for peace organizations, none of their positions seemed to really `fit'. There was a missing link which I never identified until I heard and understood Mattie Stepanek's message. Its simplicity defines its great strength:



"Peace starts with me. Make Peace an attitude. Make Peace a Habit. Make peace a reality."



Furthermore, he makes a very convincing case for the practicality of living this way and of ultimately having an effect on others. President Carter's many contributions to peace, meriting the Nobel Peace Prize, are widely known and appreciated. His collaboration with Mattie adds real substance to the book and validates Mattie's thesis that "Peace is possible".



A very fitting bonus is the collection of e-mails exchanged between Mattie and "Jimmy" which reveal a closeness that one might never guess would exist between two separated by generations, backgrounds and experience. Jeni Stepanek, Mattie's mom, as Editor, melds the whole package together with amplifying comments in all the appropriate places



It is difficult to imagine a more compelling presentation. It is so compelling that my conviction is that a person who had never before heard of Mattie, or read any of his previous works, could be just as convinced as I am. If you think the world is presently in a serious and troubled state, try reading "Just Peace" in order to discover a possible and even better way.

----

4.0 out of 5 stars

Powerful reading -- I was surprised

By Rekz kaRZ on March 10, 2006

Format: Hardcover

I was poking around a bookstore & saw this book. Recently, I saw Jimmy Carter running around SF, and I saw his face on the book. Then I opened it, and was blown away. Jimmy Carter loved this boy bc his innocence and sincerity were so huge in the face of his own personal traumas.



This young kid, Mattie, had both vision and enough writing skill to deliver accessible, powerful poetic visions. He died in '04, but his vision will linger.



I'm not your typical reader of this kind of stuff. I prefer scifi/fantasy, and how-to books. I write poetry for pleasure, and have been published, but that's also not a common book genre for me either. Generally I prefer more radical, powerful, left-wing writing.



I strongly suggest people consider this book, or at least look at his website and read some of the poetry: [...]



There are poets who are elaborate, who paint lengthy pictures. And there are poets like Mattie, who write poems that hit so hard with using a simple structure. I haven't finished the book yet (bought it yesterday), so I can't give it 5 stars yet, but I find it very inspiring.

----

5.0 out of 5 stars

Amazing Grace

By Lolly on March 13, 2006

Format: Hardcover

Im fourteen years old, and Mattie Stepaneks words have showed me that it make look like you have everything, but you're really in dire need of help.



Mattie Stepanek went through an amazing amount of emotional pain, physical pain, and yes, it all cost his mother a large sum of money.



Not only was the boy sick -- but they would have to live in peoples basements, and get food from churches in order to survive the "storm".



But Mattie held his head high and believed that you really can "Play after every storm".



This book is one of the /best/ books Ive ever read. Mattie is a TRUE poet, and a REAL peacemaker!

And its true -- all we need is PEACE!

-----

5.0 out of 5 stars

A Profound and Inspirational Book

By penarts on April 4, 2007



Mattie J. T. Stepanek's book is one of the most profound and inspirational books I have ever read. I don't know if any of you had the privilege of encountering young Mattie on his numerous television appearances on Oprah, Good Morning America, Larry King, or the Jerry Lewis M.D. telethon, but if you did, or did not, I invite you to read this book by this best-selling young poet, peacemaker and philosopher. Mattie J.T. Stepanek died in June, 2004, weeks before his 14th birthday. I have all his previous poetry books, but this book goes far beyond his poetry, with brilliant essays, and email correspondence with his hero, President Jimmy Carter. His essays are incredible, filled with wisdom and insights that hardly seem possible coming from such a young mind.



Mattie wrote these words: "I believe that I am here to reach out and touch the world gently with my thoughts and my experiences, and with my observations and my reactions, to help people more fully appreciate and respect all aspects of life. I believe that I am here, even if only for a few handful of years, to help people consider the important matter of future, during our lifetime, and for eternity."



His essays are profound and I find I cannot even put into words the value of his work, except to say it has to be shared. You may think, oh, this is a kid, what can he know. Trust me, his writing is beautiful, his philosophy profound, insightful, and filled with a wisdom far, far, beyond his age. His legacy is a gift for humanity, and those of us who did encounter Mattie will never forget this special angel, a messenger of peace, and those who now read his book, will also remember



Mattie J. T. Stepanek lived and died a child, but he had the spirit and wisdom of an old soul. In his short thirteen years, he became a poet, best-selling author, and peace activist, and his words touched millions of our hearts. Before his death in June 2004, his six volumes of "Heartsongs" poetry have sold more than a million copies. It is my hope that "Just Peace, A Message of Hope," will also reach millions of hearts and minds throughout the world.



I have bought a number of copies of "Just Peace: A Message of Hope" as gifts for my family and friends.

----
Posted by at

2016/05/06

Christian Just War Theory – All My Roads

Christian Just War Theory – All My Roads

Christian Just War Theory

Let’s Talk About War

As Christians we need to talk about war.
In the last century over 160 million people have died due to armed conflict, a vast majority of them were civilians. The June 2014 issue of the American Journal of Public Health notes that since the end of World War II the United States has launched over three-quarters of the armed conflicts that have taken place across the globe. Furthermore, the United States, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, accounts for 41% of the world’s total military spending, over 640 billion dollars in 2013 alone. The next closest is China, which spent under 190 billion. For American Christians, war is a prevalent- though, albeit- abstract reality. It is a machine churning in the undertones of our culture. And yet remains largely unattached to and removed from public conversation.
This has all come to a head over the last couple of weeks with the release and subsequent success of Clint Eastwood’s film American Sniper. Eastwood’s blockbuster tells the story of U.S. Navy SEAL Chris Kyle- the most lethal sniper in our history- and has broken box office records across the country. Some Christians openly praise the film, saying that Christians should at least support and appreciate the story, as part of our patriotic duty. Other Christians have had an abrasive reaction to the film, stating that it involves a type of hero worship- an idealization of violence- from which Christ-followers are commanded to separate.
As Christians, we must acknowledge that our faith addresses and speaks to the notion of war. Because the Christian message, the message of Jesus Christ, has more than theological significance. It is grounded, as was Christ himself, in a country which had a history of political turmoil leading up to and following Jesus’ life. Indeed, Jesus’ death on cross, while it also was profoundly theological, historical andpersonal, was also profoundly political. His death was an act of forced submission on the part of the occupying Roman, a punishment the Romans did not invent but certainly perfected as a means of humiliation and torturing anyone attempting to challenge the empire.
Thus I want to examine three views-positions, if you will- which Christians could hold, as a means of beginning the discussion. I want to try and outline- inasmuch as possible- the flaws and realities behind each. For I think it’s only with an established and understood paradigm that we can begin to ask the questions that must be asked about war.
In beginning this discussion, we must acknowledge the tension it present. The tension lies in our following of the Jesus who told his followers (ironically? metaphorically? literally?) “if you don’t have a sword, sell your clock and buy one” (Luke 22:36) but also commanded us (ironically? metaphorically? literally?) “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44).
1.) America as Israel
The first viewpoint that I want to examine is the belief that all war is necessary and, for the American Christian, all war is just. This would require believing that America is a just and God-honoring nation. Often this viewpoint is supported by declaring America to be the second Israel, a belief that has (if I may remove my gloves, so to speak, for one moment here) no solid exegetical grounding. But if one were to adopt this viewpoint, it would allow for the implication that whatever America takes on in the way of armed conflict is justified that American geo-politics carries out the will of God.
The easy counter to this position is that America does not prioritize the well-being of the weak and innocent across the globe as James 1 (as well as numerous teachings of Jesus) commands Christians must. Rather American politics have are driven by an agenda of promoting and protecting Western, Democratic styles of government. The modern American military and government is-in its own way- rather imperialistic. Probably in the sense Roman imperialism was also viewed. For if we read the Biblical text, not as a Westerner, but as a non-American living in the Middle East, we might easily read the narrative to be one of condemnation against the Roman/American state. Roman armies, after all, were hardly viewed as barbarous in their time but were viewed as the sophisticated, orderly and ultimately heroic perpetrators within its kingdom that fought for the betterment and protection of its citizens. An honest look at the correlations between Roman military code and modern American tactics -particularly with the release of the CIA torture report- is startling, to say the least.
It seems difficult, then, for a Christian to hold the viewpoint that allwars in which America is involved are justified and that Americans are justified in all their actions within any specific conflict. Of course, such a sweeping statement is a generality. America is, after all, part of the Geneva Convention. But such mandates are in and of themselves loopholes waiting to be discovered and overtaken by a more realistic “might-is-right” mode of politics, as the torture report unabashedly revealed. The victors write the history books, after all, and we Americans are no different. It is possible for a Christian to hold this view with some type of Biblical support. But- and this is my personal belief- for any American to utilize Biblical exegesis in support of this notion they must do so with a westernized reading which is blind to the realities within the Biblical narrative and thus rather dishonest, to say the least.
2. Just War Theory
The second position one could hold with regards to war is a belief in Just War Theory. In fact I would say this is the position which a majority of Christians have adopted. Just war Theory posits that there are certain requirements of an armed conflict that it must meet in order to be justified.
Just War Theory was not invented by Christians. Rather they adopted it from Greek and Roman ideals; as early as the fourth century BC Aristotle taught that war must be waged only for the promotion of higher virtues such as peace and prosperity. In Christian circles, this position was adopted and posited by first Ambrose and then Augustine. The church came to support the position and carried it through the Middle Ages and Crusades. One could now trace its influence to various streams of International Law, such as the Geneva Convention. Though modern laws are, for the most part, divorced from theological reflection, there has been a resurgence of Just War Theory discussion among Christians.
Under this theory, a war can only be waged if it meets a list of requirements. These requirements, briefly summarized, are:
  1. legitimate authority
  2. just cause
  3. right intent
  4. last resort
  5. reasonable chance of success
  6. discrimination or noncombatant immunity
  7. proportionality
A quick glance at the list shows that there are numerous subjective qualities to Just War Theory which make it ambiguous, to say the least. Is it necessary collateral for thousands of civilians to die in a “Shock and Awe” bombing of Iraq? Is it necessary or just for Hiroshima to be decimated by a nuclear warhead? What about the fire-bombing of Dresden? Does ‘right intent’ include nuclear weapons that are never found? Does ‘shock and awe’ count as proportionally appropriate?
Ultimately these questions boil down to one: who ultimately decides if a war is just? The victors? Civilians? A world council? The problem with this theory is clear, as Professor of Theological Ethics Dr. Daniel M. Bell states: “one would have to search long and hard to find a war whose supporters did not claim their cause was just.”
These are questions Christians must- and I think do– ask. But the difficulty with this position if we aim to hold to it with any sort of objective integrity is that no American conflict possibly since the Civil War and certainly since World War II could be considered remotely just. Nor is a medium of art that even remotely promotes and praises warfare- as American Sniper seems to do- one that can be supported or praised by Christians. Just War Theory allows for the reality of war, but condemns this reality at the same time. The crusaders, Dr. Bell notes, who went into combat under the order and blessing of the Pope, were still required to do penance.
Thus the strength of Just War Theory is that if offers a Biblically-grounded and practical position in which to view something as inevitable and horrid as war. Just War Theory acknowledges that yes, there will be war. But it also holds Christians to a higher standard than the rest of the world. It allows for the reality of our fallen nature while placing parameters- with Biblical support- on how that nature will be conducted. In this, I find Just War Theory to be very helpful.
That said, I think the ultimate weakness of the theory is that it leaves a lot of room for ambiguity. There have been endless conflicts over the past century that have been supported and fought by Christians while not meeting most- sometimes all– of the requirements for a justified conflict. Furthermore, our culture withholds from condemnation of the horrors of warfare, a Biblical necessity. And if the success ofAmerican Sniper tells us anything, it shows that the pendulum swings the other way. Just walk into any youth group or men’s Bible study and ask them if they like the movie Braveheart. Violence is not deplorable, it’s a thrill. We’ve gravely mishandled the concept, to say the least.
3.) Christian Pacifism
The last ideology to take into consideration is that which holds all conflicts as unjustifiable for the Christian and claims that God calls his people to an ethic of non-violence. This has strong Biblical support from the teachings of Jesus who commanded love for enemies (Matthew 5:44), as well as being the historically understood ethic of the early church; Tertullian noted that Jesus “in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. Paul commanded early believers to, as much as possible, live at peace with everyone (Romans 12:8). It is difficult to take not take this verse as a proclamation of nonviolence among Christian communities. The Pacifist view is also supported with specific understandings Old Testament proclamations of the coming eschatological kingdom, a reign in which swords would be beaten into plough shares (Isaiah 2:4). Instruments of violence, Isaiah offers, will become instruments of civilization and community, instruments of human flourishing.
But the pacifist ethic is often refuted by point to God’s obvious implementation of violence throughout the Old Testament. Furthermore, Jesus did make passing references to violence and also commended the faith of the centurion, a man who’s profession and reputation was built on warfare (Matthew 8:11). And Paul frequently used military imagery (Ephesians 6:10-18).
What is equally unfair to the pacifist argument, in modern times, is that proponents of this view have adopted a rhetoric that is anything but meek or unimposing. In my (albeit limited) experience, many who stand in opposition to warfare often use an us-verse-them mentality in addressing their Christian. I mean this not in condemnation of all pacifists or Christians dedicated to nonviolence, only to say that I see a great amount of this conversation that takes place in such circles often has an (ironically) aggressive nature.
Such disservice to the pacifist argument is great indeed. For many modern Anabaptists implement a rhetoric that is entirely fundamentalist. They use blanket statements to condemn all acts of war, employing alienating terms against those who don’t agree. Whereas the fundamentalist would say “this is what the Bible literallysays so you get with the program” their message is: “this is obviously what Jesus would do so you get with the program” Both are black-and-white perspectives on the topic at hand without any acknowledgement of the inevitable gray area in-between, particularly the reality not just of human nature but of Biblical interpretation itself.
What I’m saying is that the greatest objection to this view is in its presentation. Too often, the Christian pacifist movement shows itself to be fundamentalism by a different name. And this camp has been the primary mouthpiece of nonviolence ethics within contemporary Western thought. Again- this is just my observation and I’m hardly an academic, so I can’t comment on fields of higher education. Still, I find this to be a grave injustice. If Christian pacifism is to be considered, it must be presented, not as different words plugged into the same rhetoric and paradigm, but rather as an alternative paradigm altogether. What I mean by this is pacifism needs to be seen not as the black-and-white answer to “what would Jesus do?” (as I find it presumptuous for any of us to know exactly what Jesus would do in any number of situations). Rather, nonviolence needs to be adopted and preferred by Christians as a way of proclaiming Christ and his coming kingdom, which has already arrived in the world.
Christians ought not to adopt a mentality of convincing others to adopt our nonviolent ethic. Rather, if we are to be nonviolent it must be humble and founded within the Biblical narrative. Furthermore, itmust speak to the realities of war while acknowledging the nuances of Biblical ethics but also the overarching and permeating reality of Christ and his kingdom. As Stanley Hauerwas stated:
“Christians are not called to non-violence because we think non-violence is a strategy to rid the world of war. Of course, we would like to make war less likely. But rather Christians are called to non-violence in a world of war because as faithful followers of Christ we cannot imagine being anything other than non-violent in a world of war.”
Thus the Christian should not be too adamant about declaring nonviolence in their words (for talk is cheap). But Christians shouldlive it in their actions, actions, which-for the average American Christian- have much less to do with actual warfare itself and much more to do with how the discussion is engaged and handled. If we are going to hold this ethic then then I offer that this is the honest and effective way in which we can go about it. Lest our desire to promote Christ through peace become more of a Babel-ish excursion of liberal progressivism set on eliminating warfare to which end that violence and hero worship is not eradicated but only transferred to rhetoric.
a
Posted by at

BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, Just War

BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, Just War



Just War

In Our Time
Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the idea of a just war. There were theories about a justified or noble war before the birth of Christ, but it was his reported teachings and a powerful influence, particularly on the Emperor Constantine, which set the standard which had to be kept or bluntly modified. “I say unto you, love your own image,” Matthew writes, “bless them that curse you, be good to them that hate you and persecute you”. In the fifth century, the mighty St Augustus prised the Christian church away from Christ’s reported teachings and the idea of a Just War took root to be formalised and given power by St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, and by other Christian commentators even up to this day. But after a century, our century, of almost unimaginably violent conflict, does the term a Just War have any meaning at all? The historian AJP Taylor wrote that "the medieval pursuit of the just war is a pursuit as elusive as the Holy Grail. For it is almost universally true that in war each side thinks itself in the right, and there is no arbiter except victory to decide between them". So is the Christian idea of the Just War simply a way of justifying aggression or is it a moral position to take?With Professor John Keane, Professor of Politics, University of Westminster and Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy; Dr Niall Ferguson, Fellow and Tutor in Modern History, Jesus College, Oxford and author of The Pity of War.
Posted by at

Korean Reunification: Alternative Pathways: Michael Haas, Jae Bong Lee, Theodore L. Becker, Johan Galtung, Glenn D. Paige, Dae Sook Suh, Oran R. Young: 9781478180586: Amazon.com: Books

Korean Reunification: Alternative Pathways: Michael Haas, Jae Bong Lee, Theodore L. Becker, Johan Galtung, Glenn D. Paige, Dae Sook Suh, Oran R. Young

Political scientist Michael Haas brings together essays by seven distinguished authors with different ideas about how North and South Korea might again become a single, unified state. The book presents a history of Korea and pathways that may be followed to bring the two Koreas together in a confederation or federation despite different economic and ideological systems—and new material identifies progress already achieved toward the goal of reunification. Chapters deal with the following approaches that have been used in other cases of divided peoples who eventually became unified under a single government: Neutralization - concluding a peace treaty and dismantling armies Functionalism - nonpolitical cross-border economic and social contact Nonviolence - the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Mediation - how third parties can facilitate agreements between North & South Negotiation - diplomacy involving professionals and nonprofessionals In addition, one chapter examines the feasibility of reunification from a political and military perspective. The final chapter assesses progress over the past 25 years and prospects for the future. The book has several unique elements: Proves that plans of both Koreas have changed dramatically over the years. Shows 4 basic ways to redesign relations between the Koreas. Explodes the myth that the two Koreas do not talk to each other. Explains how both Pyongyang and Seoul co-hosted the Olympic Games in 1988. Indicates that more than 100 South Korea companies operate in the North. Cites approved visits of ordinary North Koreans to South Korea and vice versa. Specifies 5 tasks for nonviolent global transformation. Traces the impact of the ending of the Cold War on both Koreas. Explains second- and third-track diplomacy—and who is involved today. Suggests how reunification could occur “spontaneously.” Provides guidelines for successful negotiation outcomes. Identifies the size of armies and revenue from arms exports of both Koreas. Reveals that the USA withdrew all nuclear warheads from South Korea in 1991. Dates the origin of North Korea’s nuclear program from the Cold War’s end. Compares divided Korea with other divided peoples around the world. Gives details about Korea’s relations with China, Japan, Russia, USA. Table of Contents Preface 1 Introduction (Michael Haas) 2 The Historical Approach (Michael Haas) 3 The Neutralization Approach (Johan Galtung) 4 The Functional Approach (Michael Haas) 5 The Nonviolence Approach (Glenn D. Paige) 6 The Mediation Approach (Theodore L. Becker) 7 The Negotiation Approach (Oran R. Young) 8 The Political Feasibility Approach (Dae-Sook Suh) 9 The Contemporary Approach (Jae-Bong Lee) Appendices: 5 Plans for Reunification Combined References Index Contributors Theodore L. Becker, Auburn University Johan Galtung, Transcend (formerly University of Oslo) Michael Haas, California Polytechnic University, Pomona Jae-Bong Lee, 


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)