Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!yetti!peter From: peter@yetti.UUCP (Runge) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Re: Easter and the Arms Race Message-ID: <151@yetti.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Apr-85 21:43:46 EST Article-I.D.: yetti.151 Posted: Sat Apr 13 21:43:46 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 00:40:44 EST References: <135@yetti.UUCP> <1154@topaz.ARPA> Organization: York U. Comp.Sci. Downsview, ONT. Lines: 171 The responses I have received to my posting have definitely helped me to understand at least some aspects of the relationship between Christian faith and the possibility of global annihilation. There appear to be a number of Christians who hold what I believe is called a "millenial" view (since it was very common in the century prior to 1000 AD) -- that the end is nigh; Christians should await it with acceptance and joy, because they will be spared its horrors. Obviously this is not a majority view -- the Consumers Price Index or the GNP would have no meaning or interest if it were. However, it is a view which at least relates to Christian teaching in an understandable way and does not duck the nuclear issue. My guess, based on responses such as Hedrick's (discussed below), is that the majority of Christian Americans (including perhaps Reagan and maybe even Weinberger -- although the latter's greater technical understanding makes that less plausible) reconcile their faith with support for nuclear deterrence and American "defence" policy by shutting out the fundamental features of our situation from their consciousness. This is in sharp contrast with the millenial view which sees much more clearly the true scope of global destruction. Before responding to some details of Hedrick's article, I should make clear that I appreciated it very much and learned a number of things of which I was not aware. Had I asked a different question, it would have been even more useful to me. > However this obviously changed when Constantine made Christianity the > official religion of the empire. Many Christians feel this was the greatest > disaster to hit the church. I think it is highly unlikely that "mainstream" American Christianity feels this strongly about the concept of Christianity as an 'official religion'. If they did, why do American coins say "In God We Trust"? Why was "under God" added (in the 50's?) to the Pledge of Allegiance? It is possible that the leaders at the time intended thereby to assert that America was "officially" committed only to the existence of God, no matter whose, but I doubt it. I think only the Christians were interested in such state recognition. > > ... [The Church] decided that some wars had to be fought. However they > tried to limit war in several > ways: - it had to be "just". Typically this meant it couldn't be aggression > on your part, but most be protecting your citizens - there were limitations > on attacking civilians, on handling wounded, on when fighting could be done, > etc., to try to keep some humanity present. Some of these limitations are > now seen as silly, but it was was sincere idealism I think, at least in the > beginning. > Unfortunately, Christian theology on the subject of war seems quite irrelevant to our current situation. War is the use of organized violence to force another group or society to yield land, treasure, etc. or to prevent another society from taking land, treasure, etc. War has the objective of winning. But nuclear deterrence doesn't fit into the concept of war. The threat is at least in part that if one side takes certain actions, the other side will retaliate by destroying large parts of the world, with the distinct practical possibility of destroying all human life. (This is all explained much better in Jonathan Schell's book *The Fate of the Earth*.) The issue I was attempting to raise for Christians in the context of Easter was NOT the problem of coping with evil or violence or war from a Christian perspective. That is a very old problem and I leave it to others to assess how well Christian theologians, philosophers, priests and ministers have dealt with it. I was concerned with what I take to be a NEW problem, not considered in traditional Christian thinking: is it compatible with Christ's teaching in any sense (pragmatic, fallabilist, quietist, etc.) to threaten death on a global scale? to threaten that under certain circumstances this society would be willing to risk the annihilation of the species? to use a large part of its resources (at the cost of neglecting the poor, and the sick and the small children) to intensify the threat and make it even more all-consuming than it already is? > [Several churches] are undertaking church-wide studies of peace. > ... In general the membership of these churches are not > unanimously behind this effort. ... This is very confusing. Unanimity isn't really required -- how about a healthy majority? or is the implication to be drawn that American churches are deeply divided on the nuclear issue? If so, what position would those opposed to these "peace efforts" like to have the churches officially support? (I am not interested here in positions which are unrelated to Christian faith such as "don't protest against the manufacture of bombs, because a lot of people here in town work at the local bomb plant". I am trying to understand what alternative views to the peace movement are held by mainstream American Christians which bear some recognizable relationship to the deep, core beliefs of Christianity -- those beliefs which Christians would want non-Christians to share or become converted to.) > In general, those who favor current U.S. policy do it reluctantly, because > they see no other good choice. There is a growing feeling that deterrence > is morally wrong. It is an attempt to restrain a group of leaders by > threatening the lives of a large number of innocent bystanders. This begins to get to the point. The question it raises is the following: if deterrence is not a natural outgrowth of Christian values and may be, in fact, unsupportable on the basis of Christian values, then why is it supported at all? Perhaps Christians cannot imagine any alternative; even so, why support one you don't believe in? Doesn't that just remove the incentive to find a better and more Christian policy? (I don't think a 'lesser of two evils' argument will work here, because the mainstream Christian churches have never supported extreme violence such as armed revolution in the face of oppression or enslavement (think of the teachings of the Church to American slaves.) > Indeed Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative is a result of this realization. > You may have cynical views of Reagan's intent in proposing it. You may not > believe it will work, and you may also believe it will be destabilizing. > But I think the only reason it would get any widespread support is because > it is an attempt to find something other than deterrence. > There is a great deal of evidence to show that SDI is not intended to replace deterrence. It is intended to protect missiles which could be destroyed in a first-strike, thereby increasing the deterrent threat of retaliation. If it were, in fact, capable of providing a shield against Soviet missiles for American *cities*, then it would be obviously destabilizing, since the Soviets would have no way of deterring a first-strike on the part of the US, and the US is on record that it would consider a first-strike to deter aggression by Soviet conventional forces against Europe. In either case, I do not understand the connection between support for SDI and Christian values. The situation is still that American society is dedicating itself to improving its ability to threaten to blow up the world (SDI is not replacing MX missiles. Does anyone sincerely believe it ever will? That would be unilateral disarmament, to which the US is opposed.) Is this goal of American society legitimate for mainstream Christians or not? If not, why do they support it? if not, how is it related to Christian values? (I take it for granted that the enormous moral significance of making threats on this scale guarantees that Christian thinking must take account of it, but perhaps I am wrong on that point.) > The reason why some Christians in the U.S. continue to support nuclear > weapons is that they see the Soviet Union as threatening the world with war, > and they see a nuclear deterrent as the only practical way to stop them. This sounds plausible, but it might simply mean that some Christians disconnect their practical actions from their religious beliefs, which is understandable but surely not defensible on religious grounds. That is to say, a person might support deterrence on practical grounds, on game-theoretic grounds, on economic grounds, etc., but given what's at stake, are there religious reasons for believing that what the US is doing is what it as a society ought to do? If mainstream Christians have such religious reasons, what are they? > I do know Christians who believe that if we drop this policy, the world > will be overrun by evil. *Given that belief*, Christian tradition does > supply justification for continuing the current policy. At this point, I feel very stupid and un-understanding. Surely the world is already "overrun" with evil. Is that not an essential part of Christian theology? If not, why would baptism be important? What worse evil (in the religous sense, NOT in the sense of economic oppression or censorship) is it that justifies (in Christian tradition) 'the current policy'? Is this JUST the 'lesser evil' argument which any atheist can use to justify any action? -- Peter H. Roosen-Runge, Department of Computer Science, York University Toronto (Downsview), Ontario * *Our* universe is not merely bankrupt; there remains * no dividend at all; it has not simply liquidated; it * is going clean out of existence ... * H. G. Wells, 1945