As indicated in the quote you used from a post I made on another topic, I also think that war is not the answer - except 'in extremis' - and even then that situation could probably have (almost) always been avoided. I would be far happier in a world where armed forces were not necessary. Sadly humanity is flawed, and there are people who will respond to nothing less. As a result, I accept that armed forces are a 'necessary evil' (sorry Eli, I know you will probably disagree with the 'evil' part of that!).
My father was a career soldier, starting with WW2, but that was a different culture with the cold war a very real threat in the perception of most of the world. That proved to be due to a communication problem. We thought they were trying to conquer the rest of the world and they thought we were trying to destroy them, so we both built up arsenals of weaponry that could wipe out the entire world several hundred times over, just so 'we' could be sure to come out on top - but of what?
For many years after that the British Army has been in active service somewhere on the globe - in fact I think I am right to say that there have been only a hand-full of years since WW2 when they have not been in on active service somewhere (and that excludes NI by the way). We have now been involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in quotes 'anti-terrorism' or 'humanitarian' actions which are actually regime-change wars in all cases. All of them are proving to make this country less stable and more prone to terrorist attacks. That is not to say that the aim of the conflict was a bad one - getting rid of Sadam Husein, Ghadafi and Al Qideida are all good objectives, but the question is, was this the right way to go about it, and indeed did we have a legal justification for the actions we undertook, let alone a moral one?
I firmly believe that war is NOT the way to achieve these goals, but diplomacy, backed by international sanctions and an international court which can hold even presidents (or equivalent political leaders) to book for their actions. The trouble is that, to ensure compliance, there has to be at the very least, an international Armed Force to deploy if the country's leader raises the proverbial 2 fingers. I do, however think that this is what it should be - and international (armed if needs be) 'police' force, rather than every nation having it's own army, and deciding to go to war with another country if the govt of the day decides it is in that country's best interest to do so - and damn the rest of the world!
To this extent I am a pacifist - but that is not to say that I am prepared to be a door-mat for any bully around.
As Christ said, you need to turn the other cheek - and by that he meant you have to stand up and make the other person see you as a human being of equal stature not someone who can be pushed around like a menial servant. Let me explain. What he was referring to was the back-handed slap that is meeted out to a menial who has offended, and who is in no position to offer the least resistance. If you turn the other cheek and say 'O K Now hit this side' the striker has to use the other side of his hand - which is the side you use to strike someone of equal stature, and is a challenge to a combat on equal terms - passive resistance, not lying down and being trampled on! the same is true of his comments about walking the extra mile - a Roman soldier could force someone to carry his pack for one mile, but was not allowed to make him carry it any more than that. By going the extra mile you were putting the soldier in breach of regulations and liable to being disciplined - but after all, you were just doing him a favour! Who said he did not have a sense Sorry this is a bit of a ramble and veering 'off topic' as well, but I do think it is relevant to the case. Pacifism is NOT cowardice or being a door-mat - indeed many pacifists were medics and ambulance drivers during the wars and suffered a huge rate of attrition as they were unarmed and could not therefore defend themselves.
As for the pardres, they are (as has been noted) there for the pastoral needs of the combatants - and God knows they are needed. Whether they should feel their role includes advising the soldiers to lay down their weapons and refuse to fight is a different question, but that is not what they are employed to do. Given that their role is to help those in a conflict zone I think it is reasonable to suppose that they will self-select from the group of priests who are OK with the idea of armed conflict and just wars.... but regardless of the rights and wrongs of armed conflict they do a very good job in very difficult circumstances.
Home
Search
Calendar
Login
Register