Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
An eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek? Respond to terrorism with bombs or with legal pursuit? Religious authorities, like religious Americans, differ on the measure of a just war.
By SHARON TUBBS
© St. Petersburg Times, published September 24, 2001
As many Americans see it, the nation has no alternative.
Terrorists came onto U.S. soil and killed thousands. What are we supposed to do now, put on Uncle Sam T-shirts, join hands and sing Kumbaya?
No, we retaliate, the majority would say, according to recent polls. We have a pretty good idea who did it, so we get on their turf. We drop bombs. We dispatch ground troops.
The country now rallies behind a new no-pussyfooting president ready for combat. And though many in the religious world are in favor of military action, there are those who say war would be wrong.
Opponents say that God, so often asked to bless America, would not approve of fighting back, that God would want international police to investigate, to find the evildoers and peaceably arrest them. There would be a trial, and punishment -- justice the American way.
Borrowing from the ideologies of Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi and other religious doctrine, they say war and revenge are beneath the United States of America, a country built on spiritual principles.
Several note the Bible's Book of Romans to bolster their view:
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
After terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a rural Pennsylvania field, daily headlines touted sound bites from President Bush.
"Get ready," he told the nation, implying that war was imminent.
"Wanted: dead or alive," was his call for Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect, whose supporters refer to the United States as "the great Satan."
Polls suggest that Bush said exactly what the country wanted to hear. The people were -- are -- eager for action, a tangible form of justice to account for the innocent lives lost and some assurance that it can't happen again.
In a New York Times/CBS News poll released Sept. 17, 85 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should take military action for the terrorist attacks. Of those people, 75 percent said the nation should take such action even if innocent people were killed.
Even if innocent people were killed?
National leaders acknowledge that civilians, as well as members of the military, are likely to die if and when the United States launches a full-fledged war.
"We are a proud people, a brave people," Secretary of State Colin Powell said during a recent interview with TV news host Jim Lehrer. "I'm confident we will do what is necessary to prevail in this conflict, and that will involve, I regretfully have to say, that will involve casualties, and we should not look for some cost-free option. They really don't exist."
With tensions around the nation running high, some people are afraid, like Peggy Farrell, who belongs to the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, an organization long known for its opposition to war.
"I get nervous when I hear declarations of war being tossed around cavalierly, as they have been lately," she said.
Farrell says she's beginning to doubt that justice will be served. "Not when I hear the president of the United States say he wants bin Laden dead or alive," she said from her home in Brandon.
Quakers believe that God exists in everyone, even terrorists, so they deserve compassion, too, she says.
"We should seek to change the circumstances that drive people to do such desperate acts," Farrell said. "We need to realize that we're all in this together. There is no us and them anymore. It's just us."
Like others who oppose retaliation, Farrell believes that war begets war. World War I begat World War II, which set the stage for the Cold War, and on and on, the argument goes.
So what should an embattled nation do?
Mobilize international leaders, the religious anti-war contingent says. Wage an intense investigation and find the perpetrators. Leave the mostly impoverished people of Afghanistan out of this. The rulers who are harboring bin Laden will seek cover, so if the United States bombs Afghanistan, it'll be the poor citizens who get hurt. Arrest the perpetrators and put them on trial.
"I think that what we should do is assemble all the evidence as to who did this," said Richard Deats, interim co-director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation in Nyack, N.Y., which represents people of various faiths who oppose war and violence. "Look at it as a police action, rather than a military action."
But if behind all this is the face of bin Laden -- a man thought capable of masterminding the most egregious terrorist attack in history -- will traditional investigations and commando-style force be enough to catch him?
Deats, who is also a United Methodist minister, noted that former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is imprisoned in the Hague, facing charges stemming from the Kosovo conflict.
Milosevic was indicted and accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with acts committed during his crackdown on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo in 1999. In April, Milosevic surrendered to authorities after a 26-hour standoff at his villa.
With help from international leaders, the same could be done for those involved in terrorism, said Deats. "We can mobilize the world."
Now, if bin Laden did not surrender peacefully and was killed, that could be justified, Deats and others say.
"We look for justice to come from the principle of karma," said Bill Aiken, public affairs director for SGI-USA, a Buddhist association based in Washington, D.C. "We share the view expressed in the Bible that says, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.' "
Both Deats and Aiken quoted peace leader Mahatma Gandhi, who denounced the "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," sentiment of the Old Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures.
"An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind," Gandhi said.
Aiken said a good friend of his died on the American Airlines flight that crashed into the World Trade Center. He says the American people need to be protected from future attacks.
But, Aiken said, "Let's at least not create an atmosphere of revenge. We should try to kill the will to kill. That's what the Buddha taught."
For sure, people who shun war completely are in the religious minority. Consider that Bush, who is talking war, has a Christian background that has made him a favorite of the religious right.
Most believe there are certain conditions under which war is necessary and condoned by God.
"Just war" theories are similar in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, said Darrell Fasching, a religious studies professor at the University of South Florida.
Members of the three religions generally believe they can use violence to protect the weak and innocent, Fasching said. A people must have a good reason to go to war, he said. Also, to be spiritually acceptable, war must be declared by a legitimate political entity, such as a king or president.
Such theories evolved to stop people from going to war out of greed, then expecting God to save them, Fasching said.
"The dominant branch in Christianity has been the just war theory," Fasching said. "God was often described as a warrior."
In the Book of Numbers, for example, there are stories of God telling the Israelites to seize land from the Canaanites.
Relying on Old Testament scripture to justify war is part of the problem, Deats says. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ spoke of peace and turning the other cheek.
"I think that one of the curses of the world is that religions have blessed war," Deats said. "Religious folk are praising the Lord and passing the ammunition."
But some conflicts require military force to prevent future evil, said Mark Pelavin, associate director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington, D.C. The center supported military action in Bosnia, Pelavin said. Sometimes, not going to war "can endanger more lives," he said.
Religious leaders, including the center's director, drafted an "Interfaith Response to Terrorism." The statement said leaders were praying that the president and Congress would be careful in waging war and seek "the wisdom of God." But the statement does not denounce war. More than 200 faith leaders have signed it.
Locally, some religious leaders say they would hate for the current situation to lead to war. But if it did, they would not be against it on a religious basis.
"This is one of those cases where . . . I would think that if it is a well-thought-out response, then, yes, it is appropriate to bring justice even at the loss of life," said the Rev. John M. Stephenson, pastor of Anona United Methodist Church in Largo.
Elder Clarence Welch, pastor at Prayer Tower Church of God in Christ in St. Petersburg, said the key to him is whether the terrorists were backed by a government. If so, war might be reasonable.
"That country must be reminded that they can't do that to people," he said. "In war, there have to be casualties."
-- Times researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report. Information from Times files was also used.