"During all the history of man there have been strivings to find methods for assuring peace. . . . From time immemorial, nations have marked the end of their wars by the signature of treaties of ‘perpetual peace' and solemnly promised its continuance. We are, however, at this point interested not in promises, but in methods for preserving peace." (P 169).
The book cited examples from the ancient world:
- "ancient Chinese proposals of arbitration"
- "settlement of controversies among the early Greek states" (P 169)
In that ancient era, "the first workable scheme for the preservation of peace was the Pax Romana." (P 169)
"The Pax Romana is proverbial and the model of various later systems which have not always admitted the resemblance. . . . With the triumph of the Roman Empire at the beginning of the Christian era came a period of peace which lasted for more than three centuries. That is to say, there was peace within the empire, although there was constant fighting on its borders. " (P 170)
"There were thousands of other writings and millions of preachers of peace and good will. And always the greatest of all contributions to the building of moral and spiritual foundation of peace began with the Sermon on the Mount. These teachings of Christ have thundered down over these 1900 years." (P 169)
For background on the Early Christian view, see, e.g., "Return to the Catacombs: Reintroducing the Nonviolent Jesus," by Archbishop Robert M. Bowman (23 Sep 2002).
Sadly, "these teachings" were notoriously violated in, e.g., the Crusades. See, e.g.,
"Holy Smoke: What Were the Crusades Really About?," by Joan Acocella, The New Yorker, pp 92-100 (13 Dec 2004)
Henry Treece (1911-1966), The Crusades (London: Bodley Head, 1962)
Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History (Oxford, September 2004)
Jonathan Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (Viking, October 2004). |
“From the Middle Ages [on], there was a wealth of plans for averting war and keeping the peace. Allowing for the differing conditions, they are strikingly like the plans of our own day [e.g., the 1920's - 1940's]. There are plans for a League of Nations. There are plans for federations. We find supergovernment and an international force to impose its rulings, collective security, mutual assistance, sanctions against an aggressor—even the radical idea of applying undiluted Christian morality to international affairs.” (P 172)
“. . . the [Medieval] Church took the first steps toward regulation and restraint of warfare. A notable instance of this was the 'Peace of God'—a tenth-century attempt to do away with private warfare. This was an early effort to compel [governmental entities] to submit their conflicts to the judgement of tribunals.”(P 171).
 “The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistance in their literal sense. They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves the Old Testament prophecy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture; they declared that it was their policy to return good for evil and to conquer evil with good,” says
Cecil John Cadoux, M.A., D.D., The Early Christian Attitude to War: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics (London: Headley Bros., 1919), Summary.
Thus “refusal to serve in the military was the normal policy of the early Christians,” says Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D., “The Early Christian Attitude to War” (7 November 2005). “And while 'a general distrust of ambition and a horror of contamination by idolatry entered largely into the Christian aversion to military service,' it was 'the sense of the utter contradiction between the work of imprisoning, torturing, wounding, and killing, on the one hand, and the Master’s teaching on the other' that 'constituted an equally fatal and conclusive objection.'”
Note Early Church "mortal sin" teaching pursuant to, e.g., Matt. 18:6, Mark 9:42, and Luke 17:2, as war is a "proximate occasion of serious sin," with politicians' votes and orders immorally placing lower-ranking individuals, e.g., troops, in the position of committing "mortal sin," e.g., atrocities, destruction, violence, killings, etc., typical in warfare.
The wholly anti-war Christian position is to be sharply distinguished from the competing heathen "just war" notion of the pagan Roman philosopher Marcus T. Cicero (106 B.C. - 43 B.C.). "The just war ethic [is] based on Roman thought," says The Dictionary of Bible and Religion, "War" by Prof. Charles S. McCoy, General Editor William H. Gentz (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986), p 1099.
“War is the pornography of violence. . . . filled with the monstrous and the grotesque. The Bible calls it 'the lust of the eye' and warns believers against it. War allows us to engage in lusts and passions we keep hidden in the deepest, most private interiors of our fantasy lives. It allows us to destroy not only things and ideas but human beings. In that moment of wholesale destruction, we wield the power of the divine, the power to revoke another person’s charter to live on this Earth. The frenzy of this destruction — and when unit discipline breaks down, or when there was no unit discipline to begin with, “frenzy” is the right word — sees armed bands crazed by the poisonous elixir that our power to bring about the obliteration of others delivers. All things, including human beings, become objects — objects either to gratify or destroy, or both. Almost no one is immune. The contagion of the crowd sees to that . . . They [troops] can instantly give or deprive human life, and with this power they become sick and demented. The moral universe is turned upside down. All human beings are used as objects. And no one walks away uninfected. War thrusts us into a vortex of pain and fleeting ecstasy. It thrusts us into a world where law is of little consequence, human life is cheap, and the gratification of the moment becomes the overriding desire that must be satiated, even at the cost of another’s dignity or life,” says Chris Hedges, M.Th., “Collateral Damage
What It Really Means When America Goes to War” (4 June 2008).
“Have you ever had to kill anyone?”
The man put his hands behind his head, stared up at the ceiling and responded: “Yes I have had to shoot to kill many times.”
“Didn’t it bother you at all to know that you had killed another man?”
With his hands still behind his head and one leg crossed over another, he leaned back in his chair and said
“You know I’ve got 22 years in the Army. You learn that you don’t think about what you do, you just do it. I’ve never seen the results of my shooting.
“That’s the problem with the ‘boys’ they’re bringing in today. I tell them and tell them in training, don’t look back – just shoot ‘rat-a-tat-a-tat’ (holding his hand out as a weapon) and don’t look back. When we was first starting out, the soldiers I came in with and me, we all learned in training, shoot and look away – walk away but don’t look at what you’ve done.
“If I could get anything across to these new ‘boys’ it’s that they can’t look. I see them; they shoot and then look to see if they hit their target, if they did good, if they followed orders. I see their eyes and there’s fear, and I know right away if there’s going to be trouble with that one or the other by their face after they see the result of the explosion.
“We’ve got to teach these boys to shoot and look away, and they wouldn’t be so bothered by what they did.” Cited by Monica Benderman, "What Do You Know of War?" (28 November 2007).
Church anti-war teachings derive from the Judeo-Christian Bible's multiple anti-war teachings and principles. Christ overruled the war "traditions of men” (over 14,000 wars), Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:6-8.
The Bible of course says “thou shalt not kill,” Exodus 20:13. That bans significant methodology in war-making.
More fundamentally, it bans the underlying causation process in wars—coveting, “thou shalt not covet.” Exodus 20:17. War is due to covetousness, meaning lust, says James 4:1-2. Lusting for money/wealth is root-cause of evil, 1 Timothy 6:10.
Re “thou shalt not kill,” Christ expressly added to the command, banning even the earliest stages, the pre-action thought level, e.g., anger and name-calling, Matthew 5:21-22. See also 2 Corinthians 10:5 (on the duty to make every thought morally right).
The Bible bans another fundamental aspect of war, stealing (e.g., land and other property), says Exodus 20:15.
It bans lying, Exodus 20:16. Truth is notoriously the first casualty in war. Three-fold lying (about the enemy's nature and activities, about one's own purposes and activities, and to entice youths to enlist) is common. See, e.g., Aimee Allison and David Solnit, Army of None: Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War and Build a Better World (Seven Stories Press, August 2007) and "Top Military Recruitment Lies" (20 September 2007).
The Bible bans extortion, 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 1 Corinthians 6:10, whereas extorting, coercing, the 'enemy' is of course the whole point of war, meaning, all aspects of war causation are forbidden!! Note various Bible anti-extortion references:
Ezekiel 22:12 ,
Matthew 23:12,
Luke 18:11,
and Isaiah 16:4. (And note that extortion is often used [in combination with lying and deceit] to raise, draft, enlist, and
establish military entities such as armies.
The Bible bans smiting fellow humans with guile, Exodus 21:14. War often involves "guile," deceits, strategems, demonstrations, feints, flanking movements, surprise attacks, etc. This includes targeting youth below age of consent.
The Bible bans following a multitude to do evil, Exodus 23:2. Armies are, of course, 'multitudes,' not a mere one person entity.
Love does no harm to others. Romans 13:8-10.
The greatest commandment is love, Matthew 22:37-39, meaning to love God and fellow humans. Love is the fulfillment of the law. Galatians 5:14; Romans 13:8-10, and is to be internalized, Jeremiah 31:33-34. Esteem others better. Philippians 2:3.
This includes to “love your enemies,” Matthew 5:44.
This includes to not revile, nor threaten nor retaliate, 1 Peter 2:23.
This includes to not cast the first stone, John 8:7, e.g., not fire the first shot, not drop the first bomb, even under provocation, Luke 9:54-55. No doubt, as "My [God's] kingdom is not of this world," John 18:36.
Instead, Bible-adherents are travelers, sojourners [Gen. 23:4, Ps. 39:12], pilgrims [Heb. 11:13, 1 Pet. 2:11], and wanderers [Hos. 9:17], essentially "in tents," 2 Corinthians 5:1-10.
Christians' real citizenship is in heaven, i.e., we are citizens of heaven itself, our country, from which Christians are now [temporarily] absent, and from which Christians await a savior, a different government, the Lord [President, Prime Minister, King, Emperor] Jesus Christ, Philippians 3:20. Christians thus do not and cannot "serve their country" with its borders in politico-geographic terms. The heathen politician "serve your country" concept inherently leads to wars, is inherently sinful, is inherent violation of Genesis 1:28 (the "original grant").
The duty is not for the nation to coerce other nations but to set a good example, be a model nation, for others to imitate. Deuteronomy 4:5-6. For the nation to do that, its individuals are to "be ye perfect." Matthew 5:48.
People can serve “God or mammon,” Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13, God or politicians, God or country, one citizenship or the other. The choice is clear, the nations with their borders are "as nothing," Isaiah 40:15 and 17.
War is a symptom, Proverbs 16:7, Judges 2:10-20, Judges 3:7-8, Judges 3:11-14,
Judges 4:1-3,
Judges 6:1-7,
Judges 10:6-9,
Judges 13:1,
1 Samuel 4:3, etc.
Christ loved sacrificially that He “might reconcile both groups [people in all nations] to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it,” Ephesians 2:16.
War to move boundaries to cease a neighboring nation's land is unacceptable. Hosea 5:10.
The duty is, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good,” Romans 12:21. "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men," Galatians 6:10.
“Resist not evil,” Matthew 5:39.
“See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good,” 1 Thessalonians 5:15.
The message is, “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy . . . Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God,” Matthew 5:7, 9. "Live peaceably with all men," Romans 12:18. "Follow peace with all men," Hebrews 12:14.
The divine goal is “peace on earth to men of good will,” Luke 2:14.
Genesis 1:28 cites human authority as in charge only of nature, in the "original grant." Reference Psalm 8:6-8 and Hebrews 2:6-8.
The Bible warns of the danger posed by the existence of politicians, specifically citing politicians' war-making propensities. 1 Samuel 8:11-12.
Politicians (whether hereditary or elective) are a “tradition of men.” Christ explicitly warns against and rejects “traditions of men.” Matthew 15:9. Cf. Colossians 2:8.
People are to "obey God rather than men." Acts 4:19, Acts 5:29,
Exodus 1:17, 1 Samuel 22:17, Daniel 1:8, Daniel 3:12 and 18, and Daniel 6:7 and 10. There were 613 clauses in the Laws (or Constitution, in modern terminology) of Israel, 613 commandments. Said Laws made the nation a theocracy, i.e., church and state were united. “The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society,” said U.S. President John Quincy Adams, in Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61. The 613 Commandments were not to be added to nor subtracted from. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 (Commandments 14-15). (This concept of not adding, not subtracting, is also evident in the New Testament e.g, Revelation 22:18 Revelation22:18). The 613 Commandments/Laws do not include a law to “obey men rather than God,” a law commanding politician wars and partaking in same. Politician laws commanding such are clearly an addition, thus are forbidden. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32.
“Patriotism is a religion, the egg from which wars are hatched.”—Guy de Maupassant. As a religion, patriotism competes with Bible religion (the mammon vs. God issue, you can serve one or the other), and has its own idols, e.g., politicians and troops.
Idolatry of politicians directing commandment violations is also banned, Exodus 20:3-5, Colossians 3:5. Such idolatry is rampant in war, with the public and troops typically en masse obeying/serving politicians ordering commandment violations. In contrast, I Cor 6:18 and 10:14 give the principle, "flee" sin, vs join in! becoming partakers. Note Bible warnings against becoming partakers in sin, e.g., Ephesians 5:7, 1 Timothy 5:22,
John 17:15, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18,
and Revelation 18:4. Instead, people are to become partakers in the divine nature, 2 Peter 1:4. “Let him that stole steal no more,” Ephesians 4:28. Don't be overcome by evil, Romans 12:21. Resist the devil, James 4:7 and 2 Peter 5:8-9.
Be holy, 1 Peter 1:16. Abstain from lusts, 1 Peter 2:11. War is caused by lusts. James 4:1-2.
Additional idolatry, of troops, is banned, e.g., Deuteronomy 8:17 (bragging that national benefits or freedom are from troops' power and strength, for example, especially on "Veterans Day" and "Memorial Day"). Cf.
Acts 12: 22-23 (idolatry of political leader vs. giving God the glory, and setting aside days to do so; penalty was death for the political leader); Daniel 5:23-31 (idolatry of false gods vs the God whose power they should have known; penalty was death for the political leaders and the nation being conquered by foreign invasion).
Note also the idolatry of weapons, underlying the hostility to the anti-war
advocates at a 1 May 2008 Raleigh, NC, war parade.
Contrast such attitude with principles evident in incidents cited at, e.g., Exodus 14:13-14, 2 Kings 6:14-23, 2 Kings 7:6-7, and 2 Kings 19:35-36
Idolatry of politicians includes them usurping the divine prerogative of forgiveness of sin. “As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead trying [via universal malice] to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor I against them. They are only doing their duty, as the saying goes. Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed bomb, he will never sleep any worse for it. He is serving his country, which has the power to absolve him from evil [power to forgive sins].”—George Orwell (London, UK, 1941).
Re such a nation, killing, wicked, unrepentant, do not even pray for them.
Proverbs 1:26-28,
Isaiah 1:15, Isaiah 59:2,
Jeremiah 2:28-29,
Jeremiah 7:16, Jeremiah 11:14, Jeremiah 14:11, and 1 John 5:16.
2 Chronicles 20:21-23 cites an alternative to oneself going to war.
Going before or to unbelievers to decide disputed issues is warned against, 1 Corinthians 6:1-10. (Cf. 'trial by combat' analysis.)
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:21.
The works or practices of the flesh are clear: immorality, impurity, indecency, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, divisions (dissensions), party spirit (factions, parties, heresies), envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. . . . those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21. Note that many of such activities are elements of war.
And the entire Book of Jonah is devoted to opposing war, preemptive war. Nineveh (Iraq) was foreseen as soon attacking. Preemptive war against Nineveh, destruction of Nineveh was sought, and immediately sought, to occur in 40 days! Jonah tried to arrange this. God personally intervened and prevented the destruction, for the reason that He is "gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and kind," Jonah 4:2 (certainly not politician traits! and their "tough" approach), and thus with these holy characteristics, God was concerned lest the result include property damage and 120,000 casualties, Jonah 4:11.
As "Judge of all the earth," God in contrast with war with its "collateral damage," killing the innocent, does not "put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked," Genesis 18:23-25.
 Note the divine warning that those who live by the sword shall die by it. Matthew 26:52, Revelation 13:10. This includes even small-scale military action, 2 Kings 1:9-14. National strength (including GNP including agriculture and the military) shall be spent in vain, Leviticus 26:20.
People are to be in the habit of obedience to God, not to politicians. Troops ultra-blatantly "follow orders," politician orders, thus when Christ returns, will "follow orders" to open fire on Christ and His angels. The penalty for thus "following orders" will be mass extermination. Zechariah 14:12-13 and Revelation 14:20, the final fulfillment of Matthew 26:52, the final penalty for the bad habit of following politician orders.
Instead of many nations with their conflicting borders, the divine goal is
for the LORD to be the unitary ruler over the whole earth, Zechariah 14:9.
Vengeance belongs to God. Proverbs 20:22, Deuteronomy 32:35, and Romans 12:19.
The repeatedly emphasized divine goal is for no hurting, no destroying, hence that swords, war weapons, be re-manufactured into plow-shares, agricultural tools, peaceful devices. Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 65:25,
Joel 3:10, and
Micah 4:3.
Isaiah 2:4 goes so far as to provide for total disarmament and peace: "neither shall they learn war any more," i.e., the abolishment of military academies, schools, lessons.
The Bible economic system was incompatible with war.
The Bible has clear unmistakable language expressing the bottom line reason for wars. It bluntly says that war arises from politician-based causation, politicians' lusts, says
James 4:1-2:
| “From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.” [KJV]. |
These words refute the opposing heathen "just war" notion of pagan Roman philosophy of, e.g., Cicero). These words state the opposing view, the Biblical view that wars are in fact caused by violation of the "thou shalt not covet - steal - kill - idolize" commands.
For a refutation of the "just war" heresy, see, e.g., Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy
Christian Just War Theory: The Logic of Deceit (2003).
Christians are not to even keep company with, associate with, the covetous, railers, idolaters, and extortioners. 1 Cor 5:11, much less, to join the military and partake in their war-making enterprises. Reference Ephesians 5:7 and Revelation 18:4. Bible teaching on "mortal sin" shows wrongfulness of politicians placing people in the position of committing sin.
Christians "are not of this [politico-military] system [thus] do not fight in the wars of the kingdoms of this world," says John W. Ritenbaugh of The Bible Tools Website, citing Philippians 3:20, "our citizenship is in heaven," 2 Corinthians 5:20, Christians "are ambassadors for Christ" (Christians' allegiance is to Christ, the King of the Kingdom of God); and 1 Peter 2:11, Christians are "strangers and pilgrims" in a foreign land. The national duty is, by adherence to the Divine Laws, to set a good example to other nations, not to fight them. Deuteronomy 4:6-7.
The defiance by politicians and their people of these Bible commands and principles will lead to killing all of mankind. Jeremiah 25:33, Revelation 6:8 (25% leaving 75% left), Revelation 9:15 (33% leaving 42% left), Revelation 9:18 (33% leaving 9% left), and Matthew 24:22 (the remaining 9% -- except divine intervention stops them before politicians can commit this yet additional killing spree against the 9% remainder of humanity).
“The decisive contradiction of the kingdom of God against all concealed or blatant kingdoms of force is to be seen quite simply in the fact that it invalidates the whole friend-foe relationship between one human and another. . . . The disciples are told: ‘Love your enemies!’ (Matt. 5:44). This is the end of the whole friend-foe relationship, for when we love our enemy he ceases to be our enemy. It thus abolishes the whole exercise of force, which presupposes this relationship, and has no meaning apart from it. . . . In conformity with the New Testament, one can be pacifist not in principle but only in practice (praktisch Pazifist). But let everyone consider very carefully whether, being called to discipleship, it is possible to avoid – or permissible to neglect – becoming a practical pacifist!”—Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/2,
pp. 549-50 (KD IV/2, p. 622).
Note that "the military has deliberately researched how to best design training for how to teach recruits how to kill. Such research was needed because humans are instinctively reluctant to kill [and for] teaching recruits how to dehumanize the enemy. The process of dehumanization is central to military training," says Sgt. Martin Smith, USMC, ret., "Learning to be a Lean, Mean Killing Machine: Structured Cruelty"
(20 February 2007). And, "It speaks volumes that in order for young working-class men and women to gain self-confidence or self-worth, they seek to join an institution that trains them how to destroy, maim, and kill."
Troops thus admit a money-motive, a "lust" or "covetous" motive, for “serving,” e.g., “excuses that they give for joining or intending to join the US military terrorist training camps are first and foremost motivated by a desire for money. One student proudly said that he is willing to kill for money, a better standard of living and an education,” says Dr. June Scorza Terpstra, in “Killers in the Classroom” (15 Feb 2007).
And, “for the most part and by their own admission, personal financial gain was their main focus in signing on. Their bottom line was getting the money and their thrills . . . .”“They know the greed and programmed lust for violence that motivates them. They expect that if they can make it out alive, they get some money, a comfortable lifestyle and an education. Their plan is to secure the oil, the diamonds, the gold, the water, the guns, the drugs, and the bling for their masters, who they hope will cut them in on the swag.”
“They want a university degree so they can get an even higher salary terrorizing more people around the world with security companies such as Blackwater or Halliburton. They want that appropriately named 'sheepskin' so they can join the CIA, FBI, and other police and track down and terrorize US residents here.”
“These terrorist camps train money hungry working class stiffs to murder, steal and plunder for the power hungry US corporate war lords.”
Then Lt. Ulysses S. Grant observed money-motive among his colleagues: "Some of them seem to contemplate with a great deal of pleasure some difficulty [war] where they may be able to gain laurels and advance a little in rank," says Profs. Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton, The Dominion of War: Empire and Liberty in North America, 1500-2000 (New York: Viking, 2005), Chapter 7, p 273.
Note example of "unabashed glee in killing people from high altitudes [that] might not be a psychiatric aberration, but an inevitable consequence of the entire structure of our economy, which is based heavily on government spending in the area of high-technology defense manufacturing," says Matt Taibbi, "Too Much Blood: On being the subjects of a military economy"(3 March 2007).
In contrast, the divine goal is, “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4). Note the contrast with the present era, “the way of peace they [politicians] know [respect] not” (Isaiah 59:8). Politicians, practical atheists, teach young people to violate God's laws, by the process known as "killology." God's Will is to abolish learning war; politicians take the opposite view. See Vicki Haddock, "The Science Of Creating Killers: Human reluctance to take a life can be reversed through training in the method known as killology" (San Francisco Chronicle, 13 August 2006).
For more on killology, see Penny Coleman, "War Psychiatry and Iraq Atrocities: How Killing Becomes a Reflex" (Alternet, 22 August 2007) ("American soldiers are using indiscriminate and often lethal force in their dealings with Iraqi civilians. . . . American troops are trained to act in criminal and sadistic ways [military] training . . . makes use of the principles of operant conditioning to overcome what studies done over the last century have consistently demonstrated, namely, that healthy human beings have an inherent aversion to killing others of their own species.")
For more on leaders' responsibility, see Paul Rieckhoff, President of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, "(a)nyone who wants to write a serious piece about the ethical lapses of the U.S. troops should start and end the article by putting blame where it belongs -- on the politicians who sent our troops to war unprepared and without a clear mission" (The Nation, 13 July 2007).
 And note the type of persons who choose a military career. "'You say his military career is a result of his [mental] disturbance?' 'Most military careers are,'" says Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny: A Novel of World War II (Garden City: Doubleday & Co, Inc., 1951), chapter 35, p 416.
And: "the military [is] now forced to accept high-school dropouts, felons, drug addicts, fatsos, gang-bangers, rapists, cretins and half-wits in a desperate attempt to meet the Pentagon’s demand for more bodies," says "Army Brass Beg 24: 'Stop Torturing Everybody'" (13 February 2007).
"The American army of World War II habitually filled the ranks of its combat infantry with its least promising recruits, the uneducated, the unskilled, the unenthusiastic," says "military historian Russell Wrigley," cited by Prof. Paul Fussell, Ph.D., Doing Battle: The Making of a Skeptic (Little, Brown, 1996), p 171. (Review; 2) (Chapter 1).
"Those remaining after the Air Corps, the navy, the coast guard, and the marines had exercised their choices 'were then expected to bear the main burden of sustained battle.' A hell for the men, and a hell for their leaders. . . . the bulk of those killed by bullets and 172shells were the ones normally killed in peacetime in mine disasters, industrial and construction accidents, lumbering, and fire and police work. No one we [upper classes] knew, certainly. Wasn't the ground war . . . an unintended form of eugenics, clearing the population of the dumbest, the least skilled, the least promising of all young American males? Killed in their tens of thousands, their disappearance from the [gene] pool of future fathers had the effect . . . of improving the breed," says Fussell, Doing Battle, pp 171-172. "It's hard to enough to be asked to die in the midst of heroes, but to die in the midst of stumblebums led by fools--intolerable," p 173.
"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? . . . A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men." -- Daniel Webster- (1782-1852), Source: Speech in the House of Representatives, 14 January 1814.
Military officers bond together by factors including their graduation class and seniority, thus can impact political decisions. See, e.g., Prof. Alfred W. McCoy, Closer Than Brothers: Manhood At the Philippine Military Academy (New Haven, Conn: Yale Univ Press, 1999).
"Uncomfortable truth: U.S. troops ignored sex slave atrocity, used Japanese-run brothels" (Mainichi Daily News, 26 April 2007) ("Japan's abhorrent practice of enslaving women to provide sex for its troops in World War II has a little-known sequel: After its surrender—with tacit approval by U.S. occupation authorities—Japan set up a similar 'comfort women' system for American GIs.")
“And we were approaching this one house, and this farming area; they’re, like, built up into little courtyards,” he said. “So they have like the main house, common area. They have like a kitchen and then they have like a storage-shed-type deal. And we were approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, because it was doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it. And he didn’t — motherf—er — he shot it, and it went in the jaw and exited out.“So I see this dog — and I’m a huge animal lover. I love animals — and this dog has like these eyes on it, and he’s running around spraying blood all over the place. And the family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad horrified. And I’m at a loss for words. And so I yell at him. I’m like, ‘What the f— are you doing?’ And so the dog’s yelping. It’s crying out without a jaw. And I’m looking at the family, and they’re just scared. And so I told them, I was like, ‘F—ing shoot it,’ you know. ‘At least kill it, because that can’t be fixed. It’s suffering.’ And I actually get tears from just saying this right now, but — and I had tears then, too — and I’m looking at the kids and they are so scared. So I got the interpreter over with me and I get my wallet out and I gave them twenty bucks, because that’s what I had. And, you know, I had him give it to them and told them that I’m so sorry that asshole did that. Which was very common," says Chris Hedges, M.Th., “Collateral Damage
What It Really Means When America Goes to War” (4 June 2008).
Early Christians opposed war and participation in it. Pagan Romans objected to Christians' anti-war activism, saying, for example, as Roman writer Celsus in The True Word (178 C.E.), § viii. ¶ 68, did, "If all men were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent the Emperor [politicians] from being left in utter solitude and desertion and the forces of the Empire [politicians] would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians" (as though the Roman / politician system wasn't / isn't wild and barbaric!). For more on Early Christians vs war, see Cecil John Cadoux, M.A., D.D., The Early Christian Attitude to War: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics (London: Headley Bros., 1919). (Review).
For additional background on historic Christian views, see Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace (New York: Abingdon Press, 1960). (Review, 19 Theology Today (#1) 133-137 (April 1962). Note deterioration from original purity to the modern seemingly 'anything goes' attitude.)
See also John J. Neumaier, Ph.D., "Obstacles to the abolition of war" (3 July 2006).
See also Chris Hedges, M.Th., Losing Moses on the Freeway: The 10 Commandments in America (New York: Free Press, 2005), especially pp 48-50 and 101-115; and
anti-war writings by Count Leo Tolstóy, e.g.,
“Thou Shalt Not Kill” (8 August 1900)
"Last Message to Mankind" (1909).
See also Jozef Hand-Boniakowski, Ph.D., "The War on Iraq vis-à-vis The Ten Commandments" (Metaphoria, Vol. 11, # 5, Issue 126, January 2004) (while it cites the Iraq War, it shows how war inherently violates all Ten Commandments).
Nowadays, most "Christians" hold the opposite view of the First Century. Most are now pro-war. As in the book Nineteen Eighty-Four [1984] by George Orwell, the truth of history has being falsified, forgotten. The original doctrine of the First Century has been reversed, all the while keeping average church members in ignorance of the reversal. Church hierarchies reverse the facts of history, and conceal them from their gullible members / sheeple.
Said Martin Luther, "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the [christian] is proved; and to be steady on all the [rest of the Bible] is mere flight and disgrace if he [the alleged Christian] flinches at that point." This trenchant comment reminds us that most so-called "Christians," especially the leaders, are conspicuously absent from the peace cause.
Some few clergymen, churches, and organizations still promote the Early Christian view. See, e.g.,
"Every Church A Peace Church"
"Christian Nonviolence — Heresy? Or The Peace Plan Of God?"
"Christian Nonviolence and The Church"
Orthodox Pro-Peace Quotations
Pax Christi - WNY: ""Following the Nonviolent Jesus - The Iraq War"
"Some People Don't Register for the Draft ... Should I?” (“Today,some believers cannot . . . register for the draft. To do so wouldbe to perform a sacramentum to war. It is having another godbefore the true one.”)
“Disturbing 'Christian'
Website Mixes Killing & Evangelism”
"War, Killing and the Military"
Pax Christi Michigan
Center for Christian Nonviolence.org
"Military Service and War"
Gary G. Kohls, M.D., "Reflection for the Nagaski/Hiroshima week:What if every church had been a peace church? (8 September 2001)
Clergy Behind the Scenes (19 June 2006)
Gary G. Kohls, M.D., "Christian Nonviolence -- Heresy?
Or The Peace Plan Of God?" (November 2007)
Fr. John S. Rausch, "Opt-Out of War" (12 December 2007)
Gary G. Kohls, M.D., "Calling Down Fire: Lost Sheep and Lost Shepherds" (24 December 2007)
Daniel H. Shubin, Militarist Christendom and the Gospel of the Prince of Peace (2007) (cites Christian religion purpose to stop aggression and war, and unveils how Jesus Christ's message of peace was altered and corrupted into a message of militarism)
Dr. Roger Ray, "Our local churches should - finally - oppose war in Iraq" (The News Leader (Springfield, MO), 19 March 2008) ("the churches of this nation [should] observe the fifth anniversary of the war by repenting for their cowardice, silence and failure to provide moral leadership as our nation spiraled down into unjustified war, torture and indefensible incarceration of prisoners.")
Rev. Rich Lang, pastor, Trinity United Methodist Church, Seattle, WA, "We Dare Not Speak Its Name (August 2008)
("When do we, as clergy, take up the ministry of Ezekiel, and warn our people of that which is coming (Ezekiel 33:1-9)?)
Rev. Charles E. Jefferson founded the New York Peace Society and preached a "Sermon on Militarism and the Church" 3 May 1908.
Rev. Clarence Waldron, told a Bible Study class, "Christians could take no part in the [1914-1918 world] war" (was arrested, convicted, sentenced to 15 years in prison)
In contrast, "Maine Jury Says It's Legal to Protest an Illegal War" (Penny Coleman, AlterNet, 31 May 2008)
Mick Meaney, "‘Western Leaders Are War Criminals’" (26 April 2008) ("The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, has echoed calls for Western leaders to be charged with war crimes over the illegal invasion of Iraq. Speaking at Imperial College in London, Mahathir, who was in office from 1981 to 2003, singled out US President George Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australia’s former prime minister John Howard")
Ted Rall, "Arrest Bush: Bush Confesses to Waterboarding. Call D.C. Cops!" (30 April 2008)
Vincent Bugliosi, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" (10 May 2008) (Review 1, and 2, due to the illegality of the War of Aggression Against Iraq)
Richard C. Cook, "The Battle for America Has Begun: Strategic Forecasts" (14 May 2008) ("the U.S. economy is bankrupt . . . suckered . . . into the last thing we need—a major Asian land war that threatens tobring Russia and perhaps China into the fray.")
Sheila Samples, "EVERYBODY KNOWS..." (15 May 2008) ("George W. Bush -- a 'criminally insane, pill-popping dry drunk' . . . can neither think nor speak coherently, can recognize little other than Texas on a map, has completely torpedoed every business venture he attempted, and admittedly was a hard-partying sot until he was 40. . . . a spoiled, bumbling, schizophrenic little president. . . . can't be trusted to maintain a single train of thought in one-on-one interviews . . . .")
Dave Lindorff, "For His Treatment of Children in the 'War on Terror,' Bush Is a War Criminal" (22 May 2008)
George Monbiot, "War Criminals Must Fear Punishment" (The Guardian, 3 June 2008).
"Howard war charges bid" (The Age, 3 June 2008) ("AN AUSTRAL-IAN doctors' group is pushing to have former prime minister John Howard charged with war crimes for sending troops to Iraq. The Medical Association for the Prevention of War said the war was illegal because it was not backed by the United Nations. Association spokesman Robert Marr said Mr Howard committed Australian troops to the war on the basis of misleading information about weapons of mass destruction. He said the medical group was supporting a legal brief prepared by International Criminal Court Action Victoria that would be sent to the court. Dr Marr said more than 650,000 Iraqi citizens had died as a result of the war.") (This would be a precedent for charging the pertinent U.S. officials who started the war of aggression against Iraq.)
Massachusetts School Of Law, "Law School to Plan Bush War Crimes Prosecution" (17 June 2008) ("This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred," said convener Lawrence Velvel, dean and cofounder of the school. "It is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth." "We must try to hold Bush administration leaders accountable in courts of justice," Velvel said. "And we must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war-criminals in the 1940s.")
Law Prof. Francis A. Boyle, "On the case against Bush and potential war with Iran" (18 June 2008) ("George W. Bush could be indicted at the state level for murder with malice aforethought . . . According to Boyle, President Bush deceived US soldiers about the reason for sending them to Iraq. Thus, he argues, the 4100 US soldiers who have died in Iraq thus far were murdered. Professor Boyle sees a variety of cases that could be brought and he believes it would take just one indictment . . . .")
Tom Lasseter, "America’s Prison For Terrorists Often Held The Wrong Men" (15 June 2008)
"Maj. Gen. Taguba Accuses Bush Administration of War Crimes" (19 June 2008) ("Retired Major General Antonio Taguba, the Army general who first investigated the abuse at Abu Ghraib, has accused the Bush administration of committing war crimes. 'The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture,' Taguba said.")
Nat Hentoff, "The 'W.' Stands for 'War Criminal'" (24 June 2008) (on the recent request for "an immediate investigation with the appointment of a special counsel to determine whether actions taken by the President, his Cabinet, and other Administration officials are in violation of the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) . . . and other U.S. and international laws.")
Linda Milazzo, "Momentum Building For Bugliosi's Case AgainstGeorge W. Bush For Murder" (27 June 2008)
Glenn Greenwald, "Tom Friedman doesn't understand why America is unpopular in the world" (Wednesday, 16 July 2008) (unpopular due to "Abu Ghraib, torture and Guantánamo Bay" and "unprovoked attacks onother countries -- who casually justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people")
Aijaz Zaka Syed, “Justice Only For Darfur Victims?" (Arab News, 18 July 2008) (supports the ongoing prosecution of crimes in Darfur, urges doing likewise re crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine)
Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., “From Stupid to Moronic to Evil" (8 August 2008) (gives background behind the war between the nations of Russia and Georgia)
Timothy Gatto, “American Complicity: The Solution (8 August 2008) (“everything that happens . . . has a cause and effect. . . . We are in a period of American Fascism, where the corporations, the bankers and the government direct and control policy. Benito Mussolini once stated thatthe definition of fascism could be 'corporatism.'”)
The role of covetousness and lust is verified by history: “every . . . war [has] an economic foundation. Every reputable historian . . . no matter how great his proccupation with the diplomacy of its [wars'] precipitation, regards the diplomacy, the propaganda, the [politician] alleged [high-sounding] aims and objects for fighting, as mere secondary structures reared on the foundation of money and trade [lust]. The flag follows trade [lusts], the politicians follow the flag, the propagandists [including mainstream clergy] follow the politicians, and the people follow the propagandists.”—Historian Clinton H. Grattan (1902-1980), Why We Fought (New York: Vanguard Press, 1929, 1957), p 127.
“Everything, everything in war is barbaric . . . But the worst barbarity of war is that it forces men collectively to commit acts against which individually they would revolt with their whole being.”—Ellen Key.
And "war, organized war, is not a human instinct. It is a highly planned and co-operative [organized] form of theft. And that form of theft began ten thousand years ago when the harvesters of wheat accumulated a surplus, and the nomads rose out of the desert to rob them. . . . Genghis Khan and his Mongol dynasty brought that thieving way of life into our own millennium. From AD 1200 to 1300 they made almost the last attempt to establish the supremacy of the robber who produces nothing . . . that attempt failed. . . . they [too] became settlers because theft, war, is not a permanent state that can be sustained," says Prof. Jacob Bronowski, The Ascent of Man (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1973), p 88. (Note: In reality, permanent war may not have been sustainable in the past, but now in the modern nuclear and organized media and government propaganda era, a war footing is being maintained almost indefinitely by the USA. Many movies aid and abet, see, e.g., “Operation Hollywood: Hollywood's dirty little secret” (20 February 2005). They “glorify war in order to get the public to accept the fact that [the government is] going to send their sons and daughters to die.” This documentary exposé has the “the inside story of the cozy relationship between big box office American war movies and the Pentagon.”)
“In short, many wars seem to be a mass, communal robbery of another social group's life-support resources,” says Prof. Michael P. Ghiglieri, Ph.D., The Dark Side of Man (Reading, MA.: Perseus Books, 1999), p 190. [Example: the U.S. v. Mexico War.]
Saying likewise was Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler in his book, War Is A Racket (New York: Round Table Press, 1931 reprinted 1935; and Torrance CA: Noontide Press, 1984; Gainsville FL: Veterans for Peace, 1995; Los Angeles CA: Feral House, 2003, etc.). (This book was cited anew in "Intrigue" by David Gallagher, Military History, pp 18-22 [May 2005]. See also "Marines Self-Destruct," by Robert S. Finnegan [13 November 2004])
Of course, politicians say other reasons than lusts for their starting wars, pursuant to “the capacity of mankind to rationalize its conduct in ways more flattering to its self-esteem than a frank [honest] admission that dollars and goods [lusts] rule. Economics [lust] provides the ground to walk on, while the rationalizations [politican lies] give the excuse for walking.”—Grattan, p 127.
“In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.”—Leo N. Tolstoy (1828-1910).
“They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.”—Eugene Debs.
"Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle
Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen
along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their
prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves
did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street
go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles.
The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that
when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to
fall upon one another and to cut one another's throats for the profit and glory
of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives.”—Eugene Debs (16 June 1918. Note this speech was deemed a crime so Debs was thereupon arrested and jailed long-term).
“Governments [politicians] have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deducted from it.”—Hebbel (1813-1863).
“The biggest lesson I learned from Vietnam is not to trust [our own] government statements. I had no idea until then that you could not rely on [them].”—Senator James William Fulbright (D-Ark., 1905-1995).
The book, Soldiers in Revolt: The American Military Today (Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday, 1975), by David Cortwright, Ph.D., and the
movie "Sir! No Sir!
The Suppressed Story of the GI Movement to End the War" (April 2006) concern GI's vs the Vietnam War. GI opposition to the war brought it to an end as they came to mass refuse to fight the war. See also modern parallel,
cited by Ana Radelat, "Thousands of Troops Say They Won't Fight" (Gannett News Service, 5 August 2006).
|
"The [medieval "Peace of God"] scheme [anti-war policy] was not successful partly because the nobles were unwilling to forego the use of arms or to accept the decisions of the tribunals. The Peace of God was later (in the eleventh century) supplemented by the Truce of God, designed to regulate what could not be suppressed. It prescribed that there should be no private warfare during certain seasons and on certain days." (P 171).
"The seasons included the time from Advent to Epiphany and from Septuagesima to one week after Pentecost. Throughout the rest of the year hostilities were forbidden from sunset on Wednesday until Monday morning and on all saints' days. By the end of the eleventh century private warfare was forbidden on all but some eighty days in the year. Sometimes the national sovereign supported the decrees of the Church, which thus became law of the land." (P 171)
Some international "laws" "could be imposed by a clearly recognized authority, as when Pope Alexander VI [1492-1503] drew a line on the map and divided the overseas world between the great colonizing powers, Spain and Portugal. The penalties were of a spiritual character, culminating in the dread sanction of excommunication. The influence of the Church was effective in averting warfare and contributed materially to the growth of higher standards of international conduct." (P 172).
"Gerohus of Regensburg, about the time of the Third Crusade (1190) advanced a plan for abolishing war. Gerohus saw the problem in simple terms. In his view, it would suffice for the Pope to forbid all war—an early version of the [1920's] outlawry of war. He proposed that once this was done, all conflicts between princes [governments] should be referred to Rome for decision—here we have compulsory arbitration. And finally, any prince rejecting the arbitral award should be excommunicated and deposed—sanctions with a vengeance." (Pp 172-173)
"A plan for a League of Nations appeared in the fourteenth century. In a document entitled On the Recovery of the Holy Land, Pierre Dubois of Normandy (c. 1300's), an adviser of [French King] Philip [III (1270-1285)], advocated a federation of Christian sovereign states. There was to be a Council of Nations to arbitrate all quarrels." (P 173).
"Dante [Alighieri (1265-1321)], in his De Monarchia, tried his hand at designing a brave new world. . . . he did put forward the idea that human happiness must come from the reign of Law. He did not advocate the supremacy of one state over another, but the supremacy of law over all, so that national passions might be held in check—in other words, international law for arbitration of disputes [in essence] a world state guided by a Supreme Court of Justice." (P 173).
[French King] "Henry of Navarre (1553-1589-1610) and his adviser, the Duc de Sully, produced a more detailed and specific plan, the Great Design." (P 173). "Europe was to be redivided among fifteen Powers in such equal portions as would prevent any future uneven balance of power—a drastic and original method.
"Having redrawn the frontiers of Europe, Henry set up—on paper—his League of Nations. The fifteen Powers were to be represented in a Great Council, whose members were to be subject to re-election every three years. The expenses of the Council were to be paid by proportional contribution from the member states. It would be the duty of the great Council to settle disputes of all sorts among the states and to deal with current affairs.
"Thus far, Henry kept closely to the lines of the future League of Nations. But he further proposed an international army and navy to enforce the decisions of the great Council. . . .
". . . .the Great Design was to do away with war among the fifteen member states . . . And it was prescribed that the Council should undertake reforms which would from time to time be necessary. This was a wise and farsighted regulation by which Henry of Navarrre proposed the peaceful revision of treaties."
"Henry's plan was never put into operation, although Sully tells us it was on the eve of being tried ‘when it pleased God to call him too soon for the happiness of the world.' But it has been a mine of precedent and ideas for every subsequent plan for international government. It is the first balanced plan of federal partnership among sovereign states, with machinery for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and an international force to apply sanctions" (P 174).
"Emeric Crucé produced his Nouveau Cynée some twenty years after the Grand Design of Henry of Navarre. He went further in two particulars. He advocated that membership in the League of states should be open to non-Christian as well as Christian states—which thus opened the door to world federation. He further proposed that war should be done away with by the adoption of a comprehensive system of arbitration." (P 175).
Charles Irénée Castel, Abbé in Saint-Pierre's Project for Settling Perpetual Peace in Europe (1713), had a plan that "shows the inspiration of Henry of Navarre. Saint-Pierre proposed: a League of Sovereign states in a permanent Congress of Representatives; a code of Articles of Commerce; arbitration of disputes by a permanent Senate; combined military sanctions against a rebellious state; reduction of peacetime armies in all states to 6,000 men; weights, measures, and coinage to be standardized throughout Europe; creation of a similar self-contained Asiatic League." (P 176)
"Jean Jacques Rousseau's Judgment on a Plan for Perpetual Peace (1761) sought to improve on Saint-Pierre's plan by guaranteeing the existing status quo and rendering it subject to modification by arbitration only. He provided for the drafting of a Code of International Law and its amendment by unanimous vote of the Diet or Congress of Representatives." (P 176).
"William Penn [1644-1718] advanced in his Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe (1693) a scheme for the future organizing of the world which he hoped would create tremendous benefits. By stopping war, he hoped to avoid bloodshed, save money, strengthen Christianity's reputation, increase trade and commerce—and make it possible for princes to marry for love, not power. A permanent International Tribunal was to be set up by the sovereigns of Europe, consisting of ninety representatives, chosen by a system of proportional representation, meeting every year to discuss and settle all international differences not settled by diplomatic means. Decisions were to be made by ballot, with a minimum majority of three quarters of the votes. He recognized the need for sanctions . . . against an offender." (P 175). So "he prescribed common action involving the use of sanctions of more violent order than those of the League of Nations." (P 176).
"Jeremy Bentham, in Fragment of an Essay on International Law (1786-89), devised a plan to avert future wars comprising four fundamentals: reduction of armaments; "Permanent Court of Judicature" with powers of arbitration backed by sanctions of force; codification of international law; emancipation of all colonies." (P 176).
The philospher Immanuel Kant's "Kant's Zum Ewign Frieden (Perpetual Peace) (1795) contained an examination of reforms to be undertaken while war still existed." (P 176). The goal was "to create a public opinion favorable to the abolition of war, and [he made] suggestions for final organization of perpetual peace. . . . He foreshadowed . . . a ‘federation of free republics,' meaning by ‘republic' any form of government embodying the liberty and equality of its subjects. Federation would involve a surrender of a portion of power in return for participation in a wider, richer, more abundant life. His practical measures concentrated on . . . the gradual abolition of standing armies. . . . Kant's enduring contribution to the problem was that he lifted the discussion of war and peace above the level of politics and exalted it into a question of ethics and social conscience." (P 177)
". . . there were other plans and proposals for maintaining peace. But these references will at least indicate the antiquity of peace yearnings." (P 177).
"The Protestant churches have been no less vigorous in teaching the moral foundations of peace." (P 172) "In a brief study of this sort we cannot hope even to outline the important role of the Papacy in the struggle for peace. A separate volume could be profitably devoted to this . . . ." (P 171).
As recently as the Napoleonic Era, Tsar Alexander I around 1806 proposed an international treaty to "never to begin a war again before having exhausted all means to have the quarrel settled by a third party," and a league to "form a new code of law for the nations." Three nations, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, in 1815, did sign a treaty, the "Holy Alliance," wherein they agreed that they would
"in the administration of their respective states and in their political relations with every other government, take for their sole guide the precepts of that Holy Religion, namely the precepts of Justice, Christian Charity and Peace,
- which far from being applicable only to private concerns must have an immediate influence on the councils [decisions] of princes [governments], and
- must guide all their steps as being the only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections."
Further, that they would remain united "by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and considering each other as fellow-countrymen, they would on all all occasions and in all places lend each other aid and assistance."
In the 19th century, in 1897, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Lord Salisbury (1830-1903), deplored the arms race (production of "instruments of death"), foresaw a "terrible effort of [nation's] mutual destruction which will be fatal for Christian civilization," and said the only hope would be to "be welded in some international constitution."—London Times, 10 Nov 1897.
Two years later, Ivan Bloch, in his six-volume work, The Future of War (1899), compiled and published facts showing that wars would no longer be short, with oft-decisive one-day battles, limited to the military as in the past, but would involve the total society, constitute "total war," and tend to become vastly protracted, with large numbers of casualties. His prediction were soon verified in World Wars 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.
Earlier, William Jay (1769-1853), son of John Jay (1745-1829), a long-time U.S. diplomat and even Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, had published War and Peace: The Evils of the First With A Plan for Securing the Last (England, 1842), recommending an international arbitration process. That writing helped lead to the Treaty of Paris (1856) saying that nations, before going to war, should obtain third party advisory.
[William Jay (Yale, 1807) had been a founder, 1816, of the American Bible Society.]
In the 21st century, some clergymen continued peace activism, e.g.,
worldsabbath.com.
the Church of the Brethren and Recent News
the Friends
the Mennonites
the American Friends Service Committee.
See also the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. |
