Religious groups speak out about war in Afghanistan
Public opinion is still remarkably strong for America’s war on terrorism.
One of the leading sources of opposition to the military action, however,
has been agencies and boards of mainline Protestant denominations. The
following excerpts are from some statements released in response to the
September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
- United Methodist Council of Bishops: "We, your bishops, believe
that violence in all of its forms and expressions is contrary to God’s
purpose for the world. Violence creates fear, desperation, hopelessness
and instability."
- United Methodist General Board of Church and Society: "We claim
the teachings of the Prince of Peace who instructs us to love and pray
for our enemies and refrain from responding to violence with violence.
As we join people around the world in our resolve to bring terrorists
to justice, we understand that war is not an appropriate means of responding
to criminal acts against humanity."
"It is our firm belief that military actions will not end terrorism.
As people called to be a visible sign of God’s ever-present love,
we know that violence will not bring God’s peace. We are grateful
for those efforts by President Bush and the US Congress toward a measured
response to September 11. We continue to say no to war and encourage
our leaders to respond cautiously."
- Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries:
"We therefore call on United Methodist Women to: Urge the President
to use diplomatic means to bring the perpetrators of terrorists acts
to justice and to end the bombing of Afghanistan.
- World Council of Churches: "We abhor war. The first WCC assembly
in 1948 called it a sin against God and humanity. We do not believe
that war, particularly in today’s highly technologized world, can
ever be regarded as an effective response to the equally abhorrent sin
of terrorism."
- National Council of Churches: "Calls for an early end to the
bombing campaign and for all parties to collaborate with the international
community to discern non-violent means that may be available by which
to bring to justice those who terrorize the nations of the world."
Two exceptions to the religious anti-war movement have been from the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Roman Catholic Church.
The ELCA’s statement is the lone mainline denominational acknowledgement
of an understandability for the military response to the terrorist threat.
- Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: Presiding Bishop The Rev.
H. George Anderson: "…the love of our neighbor obligates us
to act to prevent wars and seek alternatives to them. However, we understand
that under certain circumstances, there may be no other way to offer
protection to innocent people except by use of military force. Now that
we are engaged in military action, we call on our leaders and military
forces to do all they can to protect civilians from harm."
The most in-depth religious statement was offered by the bishops of the
Roman Catholic Church. The following excerpt is from their pastoral letter.
- U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Our nation, in collaboration
with other nations and organizations, has a moral right and a grave
obligation to defend the common good against mass terrorism. The common
good is threatened when innocent people are targeted by terrorists.
Therefore, we support efforts of our nation and the international community
to seek out and hold accountable, in accord with national and international
law, those individuals, groups and governments which are responsible.…"
"National leaders bear a heavy moral obligation to see that the
full range of non-violent means is employed. We acknowledge, however,
the right and duty of a nation and the international community to use
military force if necessary to defend the common good by protecting
the innocent against mass terrorism. Because of its terrible consequences,
military force, even when justified and carefully executed, must always
be undertaken with a sense of deep regret.
"Every military response must be in accord with sound moral principles,
notably such norms of the just war tradition as non-combatant immunity,
proportionality, right intention and probability of success.
"Even if the cause is just, the grave moral obligation to respect
the principles of non-combatant immunity and proportionality remains
in force and must govern our nation’s political and military decisions.
Indiscriminate attacks on innocent people, whether by terrorists or
in war, threaten the common good. The continuing priority must be to
ensure that military force is directed at those who use terror and those
who assist them, not at the Afghan people or Islam. We welcome the stated
commitment to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, a
commitment that must be sustained over the long-term. We must not only
act justly but be perceived as acting justly if we are to succeed in
winning popular support against terrorism.
"In light of the Church’s teaching that the use of arms must
not produce disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated, the effect
of military action on the Afghan people must be closely monitored on
an ongoing basis. At the same time, there is a special need to maintain
and fortify our efforts to do everything possible to address the long-standing
humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, especially the risk of mass suffering
and starvation this winter. This humanitarian effort should continue
to be primarily in response to the overwhelming human need rather than
in the service of military and political objectives. The United States
and other nations have a moral responsibility to continue aid to Afghan
refugees and displaced persons and to assist them in returning to their
homes in safety where possible, or offer them other durable solutions.
"We must do what we can to work with the United Nations and all
interested parties to help Afghans rebuild the political, economic,
and cultural life of their country after this war is over. The actions
of our nation and other nations must ensure a just war now and a just
peace later.
"Probability of success is particularly difficult to measure in
dealing with an amorphous, global terrorist network. Therefore, special
attention must be given to developing criteria for when it is appropriate
to end military action in Afghanistan.
"Policy makers and all citizens must struggle with serious moral
questions and make informed judgments about how our nation can respond
justly to a terrifying threat. While we have offered our own judgment
about aspects of this question, we recognize that application of moral
principles in this situation requires the exercise of the virtue of
prudence. Some Christians profess a position of principled non-violence,
which holds that non-military means are the only legitimate way to respond
in this case. This is a valid Christian response. While respecting this
position and maintaining a strong presumption against the use of force,
the Church has sanctioned the use of the moral criteria for a just war
to allow the use of force by legitimate authority in self-defense and
as a last resort. Those who subscribe to the just war tradition can
differ in their prudential judgments about its interpretation or its
application.
True peacemaking can be a matter of policy only if it is first a matter
of the heart. Without both courage and charity, justice cannot be won.
In the absence of repentance and forgiveness, no peace can endure.…"
Good News Media Service
Steve@goodnewsmag.org
