Last Sunday (10/23/08), several of us attended a forum at University Christian Church discussing the morality of armed conflict from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim perspectives. The forum featured three panelists representing these three faith traditions, Rabbi David Komerofsky, the Executive Director of Texas Hillel; Dr. Ismael Garcia, Professor of Christian Ethics at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary; and Dr. Hina Azam, an Assistant Professor in the Departments of Middle Eastern Studies and Religious Studies at UT Austin. Dr. Whitney S. Bodman, Associate Professor of Comparative Religions at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, moderated the discussion.
This topic was addressed through a variety of questions. What would mainline thinking in each tradition consider justification for entering into "just war"? What are the repercussions for individuals violating such preconditions, and how can "apologies" be made for past transgressions? How was each faith's approach to conflict shaped by the social and governing power structure at the time of it's inception? Is life always the most sacred goal, or are there more honorable reasons or desirable outcomes that could justify conflict?
I found it interesting that nearly all of the approaches to armed conflict that these faiths advocated were formulated centuries ago with the assumption that the state would be the primary vehicle to decide whether or not to engage in conflict and then act on that decision. With few modern states explicitly promoting a particular religious viewpoint, is this even a reasonable approach to the problem today? Furthermore, in centuries past "armed conflict" would mean individuals could die, cities may be burned, survivors may be subject to famine, etc. All of these consequences are certainly undesirable, but within a few generations, at most, they become distant memories. Now, however, when discussing "armed conflict" we must address the very real possibility of mass extermination, destruction of shared resources, and large areas of the planet being left uninhabitable for centuries or longer.
With such consequences, when will it become acceptable to simply remove armed conflict from the list of courses of action altogether conflict in each of these traditions has much more common ground with the others than the differences that are often promoted. While absolutely true, I nevertheless cannot help but wonder why adherents of these traditions have been the instigators of so many violent and deadly acts and prolonged wars with other adherents of these traditions throughout the last millennium? Why is religion an acceptable front for confronting social and economic instabilities in society? Are the voices of reason in each tradition drowned out by the few but vocal extremes? And why do we continue to fight over a small patch of barren land at the intersection of desert and sea -- which looks more like West Texas than paradise and has few natural resources or fertile fields -- simply because our ancestors began fighting over this land long before any of the current cast of characters were born? Perhaps I am naive to believe (as mainline thinking in each tradition seems to espouse) that life is more sacred than the land on which it is lived.
Clearly this forum offered one ingredient too often missing from the landscape for so many centuries -- respectful interfaith dialogue. I thank the panelists for their candid and insightful responses, and I cannot but help feel slightly honored to have witnessed an expression of what so many have sacrificed for when engaging in armed conflict in the past. Yet there must be an easier -- less violent and more just -- route from there to here...
- Ian Roederer, Ph.D. Student
Posts
