. In This Issue.

"The Christmas Message" by Jerry Parks

Quotes from Mark Twain & Lord Byron.

"Just-War Theory" by Juan Bernal, Ph.D.

"How the World Thinks" contributed by Harry Becker.

"The Flag" by Charlotte Aldebron

"How God is Doing!" Humor

At the Dec. 15^th Meeting:

Starts at 1:30 p.m.

THE CHRISTMAS MESSAGE

By Jerry Parks

The December program will be a discussion of the effects that Christianity, the Bible and religions in general have on all the citizens of the US, whether Christian or not, religious or not. It will include reviews of several books, including The Five Gospels by Robert W. Funk and other members of "The Jesus Seminar’, The Complete Gospels edited by Robert J. Miller and Secret Origins of the Bible by Tim Callahan.

Religious fundamentalists claim that the bible is to be taken literally, which has resulted in unprovoked attacks on some segments of the society and in efforts to get (and that in some cases have succeeded in getting) laws enacted that support religious beliefs but that have no other reason for being. Religious leaders have singled out humanists as the cause of "moral decay" in our country. Ex-president George H. W. Bush has remarked that he felt that anyone who did not believe in God should not even be considered as a citizen of the US. Attorney General John Ashcroft apparently believes that his interpretation of religious laws should take precedence over the state’s right to make their own laws. On the other hand quite a few biblical scholars claim that many of the stories in the Bible are borrowed from earlier civilizations with other religions and other gods, and that most of what Jesus is quoted as having said was written at a later date by unknown authors who never knew or heard Jesus, and that were simply trading on his name in order to advance their own agendas.

Studying the Christian Bible, the source of all the unproven but unquestioned beliefs of the fundamentalists, is the first step in being able to understand and counter some of this misdirected antagonism. Come and join the discussion.

Quotes of the Month:

"The best cure for Christianity is reading the bible." - Mark Twain

"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." - Lord Byron

JUST-WAR THEORY

by Juan Bernal, Ph.D.

During our discussion of the just-war theory, at the November general meeting, my impromptu, informal survey disclosed that most attendees felt that the United States’ participation in World War II was morally justified, whereas our country’s involvement in the war in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s was not justified. The results of the survey showed that most us have some idea of a just-war, whether we articulate or not.

Furthermore, we often hear references to the just-war idea. Bush administration spokesmen (and -women) invoke the idea in their arguments that war against Iraq would be a morally justifiable war. In addition much of the debate on our government’s war policy touches on the idea. For example, following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon, an LA Times article entitled "Catholic Church Debates ‘Just War’ " In this article (9/30/01), the writers reported attempts by Roman Catholic theologians and philosophers to evaluate the U.S. war against terrorism on the basis of the just-war criteria. The article summarized Catholic teaching that war may be declared, if the cause is just, if it is led by a legitimate authority and not guided by revenge, if the results do not produce more evil than the good sought, if it is waged as a last resort, if there is a reasonable chance of success, and if the goal is peace."

In a similar vein, an October LA Times article (10/13/2002) entitled "Bishops Dare to Dissent" reports that U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops issued a statement against the Bush administration plans to carry out war against Iraq. The writer states that "Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, writing on Sept. 13 to Bush on behalf of the bishops ..., expressed grave doubts that an American invasion of Iraq could meet the just-war criteria and urged the president to "step back from the brink of war... One of the key tenets of just-war theory is probability of success. The loss of innocent life in war cannot be justified if, after victory, the status quo ante is quite likely to remain unchanged. But will Al Qaeda not remain a threat after victory in Iraq, just as it has remained a threat after victory in Afghanistan?" Gregory asked, "Would ...force succeed in thwarting serious threats, or, instead, provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent?"

Thus, the just-war concept, with its criteria for judging whether a nation is justified in going to war, is not merely an abstract, philosophical concept, but applies whenever people deliberate about the morality of war. Supposedly, the participants in my informal survey (at the November meeting) could apply just-war criteria and find that U.S. participation in WWII was justified, but that the U.S. war in Southeast Asia (Vietnam) was not.

Most people, then, who give any thought to the issue of war, have some ideas about the criteria that justify a nation’s entry into war. I summarized these (jus ad bellum) criteria as follows: A nation has a just cause for entry into war when it must:

1. Defend against an attack by an aggressor.

2. Insure survival as a nation; defend a way of life.

(Here few question a nation’s right to fight a war; a nation must fight or surrender.)

3. Stop an aggressor/oppressor from killing, torturing, oppressing innocent victims.

4. Restore a just order (e.g., re-establish democratic, humane form of government).

(Here war is discretionary or optional, and thus a debatable proposition.)

The following tests are often applied to cases in which war is optional or discretionary:

a. War must be the last resort; all attempts to find peaceful remedies have been exhausted.

(In light of the UN and international law, this is a vitally important condition.)

b. Those declaring the need to war have legal, constitutional authority to do so.

(Revolutionary and civil wars can present special problems here.)

c. The ultimate object of the war is a just and lasting peace.

Some accounts include this fourth test:

d. A "cost-benefit analysis" has been done in which these questions have been answered.

•  
• Is there a high probability of success, i.e. high probability of winning the war?
• Do the predicted benefits of waging war outweigh the cost (death, destruction, suffering)?

[This is often posed as a question of "proportionality" of means (the war) to ends (political or national objective) Obviously this is a very difficult requirement, calling for predictions or projections about future events and consequences.]

Besides the criteria for a just entry into war, the just-war theory also includes discussion of just conduct of war (jus in bello), sometimes referred to as the rules of warfare. These can break down into two general questions: a) What kinds of military actions are justified in achieving our end? b) Who or what are legitimate targets of our military actions?

With reference to the first question (What kinds of actions are justified?), the just-war theory categorically rejects the claim (often heard) that once a nation engages in a war anything its military forces do in that war is justified. On the contrary, there are institutionalized rules of war which spell out legal and moral limitations on how war is conducted. Some of these rules result from international treaties, such as the Hague Peace Conferences (1899, 1907) and the Geneva Conventions, and are spelled out in military documents such as Department of the Army Field Manual PM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare .

R.B. Brandt, in an essay entitled "Utilitarianism and the Rules of War," informs us that the preamble to this Manual states that the law of land warfare "is inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war by:

a. Protecting both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering,

b. Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and

c. Facilitating the restoration of peace."

Other examples of rules of warfare listed in the army manual:

Military personnel are forbidden to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered....[also ] forbidden to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. [And ..] The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault is prohibited."

An obvious purpose of these "rules of war" is to prevent war atrocities, or at least minimize them. Some of these "rules of war" relate to the treatment of prisoners of war. Some are attempts to limit the violence and destruction of war to levels that necessary for achieving legitimate military objectives. Some are efforts to protect civilians and noncombatants from the violence of war.

Do warring nations and warring factions follow these rules? We’re probably too optimistic if we think that most of the time they do. Certainly fanatics and extremists (religious or secular) do not and, historically have not. These rules mean nothing to an Islamic fanatic bent on a suicide bombing of a busload of civilians, or the hijacking and crashing of an airliner full of civilians. Did these rules mean anything to the Nazis in WWII, or to the Allies who fire-bombed European cities, or to the Americans who justified, in some way, the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japanese cities? Yet, some of us hold that, at least in some cases, these rules have helped to reduce the barbarism and organized murder that we call "war."

This brings us to the second general question of jus in bello: Who or what are legitimate targets of our military actions? Some discussions of just-war theory refer to the principle of discrimination, which prohibits direct, intentional attacks on noncombatants and nonmilitary targets. Most debates about the morality of war have focused on the principle of discrimination, and many who deny that modern war can be morally justified do so because they find that modern war, by its very nature, violates the principle against the killing of noncombatants. The following points outline the case against a just modern war.

1. At first glance, it seems that this should be an unquestioned moral axiom of war: you don’t attack noncombatants or civilian targets.

2. Historically, the "rules" of warfare limited combat to opposing armies or military forces. Civilians were not supposed to be legitimate targets. (In actual fact, these rules were not always followed, and civilians often paid the cost.)

3. With the advent of modern total war, this restriction was no longer observed. Since the American Civil war attacks on the means of war production, often in civilian centers, were regarded as legitimate military targets.

4. Soon modern-war tactics were aimed at breaking the will of the opposing forces, both on the battlefield and at home. Thus, air bombardment of cities, for example, has generally been accepted as part of modern warfare.

5. In this modern-war context: How does one define "noncombatants"? How does one define "non-military targets"? Wm. V O’Brien tells us that

6. Many, thus, conclude that the principle of discrimination is no longer a "meaningful limit on war."

7. But some people reject this conclusion, arguing that the principle of discrimination is based on an absolute moral axiom "that evil may never be done in order to produce a good result." Accordingly, killing noncombatants intentionally is always an inadmissible evil.

8. Others (e.g. O’Brien) reject this moral absoluteness and argue for "a more flexible and variable international-law principle of discrimination," which attempts to balance a general rule limiting attacks on noncombatants with the needs of modern military operations (which sometimes call for military action that results in civilian deaths.)

9. This "flexible, variable" principle will likely involve the concept of double effect in one form or another." According to this notion,

10. But "...this distinction between primary, desired effect and secondary, concomitant, undesired by-product" is very questionable. It is not obvious that the secondary effect (the killing of civilians) can be legitimately seen as a mere unintended "by-product" of one’s primary action, when one knows that the action will likely cause the death of civilians. 11. Hence, it is doubtful that the moral principle prohibiting the intentional killing of noncombatants can be reconciled with the tactics of modern warfare. Thus, some people conclude that one cannot defend modern war, with its air bombardment of cities, as morally justifiable. In any case, the just-war theory continues to play a central role (sometimes controversial role) in discussions and debates relating to our government’s war policy.

HOW THE WORLD THINKS

From Harry Becker

Last month, a worldwide survey was conducted by the United Nations. The only question asked was: "Would you please give your most honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"

The survey was a HUGE failure because: In Africa they did not know what "food" meant;

In Western Europe they did not know what "shortage" meant;

In Eastern Europe they did not know what "opinion" meant;

In the Middle East they did not know what "solution" meant;

In South America they did not know what "please" meant;

In Asia they did not know what "honest" meant; And in the United States they did not know what "the rest of the world meant!

The Flag

An essay by Charlotte Aldebron, age 12

The American flag stands for the fact that cloth can be very important. It is against the law to let the flag touch the ground or to leave the flag flying when the weather is bad.  The flag has to be treated with respect. 

You can tell just how important this cloth is because when you
compare it to people, it gets much better treatment.  Nobody cares if a homeless person touches the ground.  A homeless person can lie all over the ground all night long without anyone picking him up, folding him neatly and sheltering him from the rain.

School children have to pledge loyalty to this piece of cloth every morning.  No one has to pledge loyalty to justice and equality and human decency.  No one has to promise that people will get a fair wage, or enough food to eat, or affordable medicine, or clean water, or air free of harmful chemicals.  But we all have to promise to love a rectangle of red, white, and blue cloth.

Betsy Ross would be quite surprised to see how successful her creation has become.  Thomas Jefferson would be disappointed to see how little of the flag's real meaning remains.

Charltotte wrote this for an essay in her 6th grade English class in Presque Isle, Maine.

Submitted by Frank Farsad, September 2002

HOW GOD IS DOING!

A little girl was sitting on her father’s lap as he read her a bedtime story. From time to time, she would take her eyes off the book and reach up to touch his wrinkled cheek.

She asked, "Grandpa, did God make you?"

‘Yes, sweetheart," he answered, "God made me a long time ago."

"Oh," she paused, "Grandpa, did God make me too’?"

"Yes, indeed, honey7 he said, "God made you just a little while ago."

"God’s getting better at it, isn’t He?" she observed.

A kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they drew. She would occasion-ally walk around to see each child’s artwork.

As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was. The girl replied, "I’m drawing God."

The teacher paused and said, "But no one knows what God looks like."

Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, "They will in a minute."