During a break in flight training I chanced upon a television showing Barack Obama speaking in Oslo, accepting his Nobel Peace Prize. One phrase struck me as unusual, i.e., “no Holy War can ever be a just war”. This is a little bit like telling a hysterical person to “calm down”; it seems very unlikely to be effective.
Suppose that a religious person has read a text that he or she believes to be the word of God. God has written that every believer must wage a holy war against infidels. Barack Obama, despite his many godlike characteristics (see this posting for an exploration of his kinglike characteristics), is not a god in the eyes of our believer. If the holy book says “kill infidels” and Barack Obama says “it is not just to kill infidels”, why should the religiously observant person be swayed?
I read the full text of the speech earlier today and would encourage you to do the same: http://bit.ly/5Bhioq If you read the speech rather than rely on television excerpts of the speech, I believe you will agree that Obama does a pretty good job of describing what he considers to be just war and what he doesn’t. The point Obama is making about Holy War is a broader one, something along the lines of: if you are waging a Holy War then considerations of human rights, the Geneva Conventions, civilian deaths, etc. are allowed to be cast aside. Your scenario above takes a rather narrow view of the argument. Even though it may be unlikely that a holy warrior will back down in your particular scenario, it doesn’t mean that the Obama’s broader point is flawed or weak. Holy War lacks the foundation of a just war and promoting the recognition of this among the international community of nations might not be such a bad idea.
President Obama has admitted to being religious. In fact, according to CATO, by mentions of God and attendance in churches he is our most religious president since WW2.
He has said that his religion and faith in an imaginary friend (omniscient and omnipotent, and similar to Santa in the naughty/nice list) is what helps him know what is right and what is wrong.
He says the war in Afghanistan is “a just war.” A good war. It’s his decision. He’s religious. Ergo it is a religious war and, obviously, not a just war.
Maybe it is just war.
I don’t know how you can even discuss war when accepting a peace prize, except to denounce all of it (no war, that would be, uh, peace). Of course, the peace prize is from a munitions manufacturer, so I’m just being petulant.
It’s the same as gun control laws: why would a criminal care that owning a gun is illegal?
Colin,
“He says the war in Afghanistan is “a just war.” A good war. It’s his decision. He’s religious. Ergo it is a religious war and, obviously, not a just war.”
That is not logically sound. Just because a religious person makes a decision, it does not make that decision a religious one.
“Obama says his choice for lunch was a grilled cheese sandwich. It’s his decision. He’s religious. Ergo it is a religious grilled cheese sandwich.”
It just doesn’t work that way.