War

12/06/10 Prompt9 BIG PICTURE: MAIN RULES AND CONSEQUENCES. Describe the main teachings of **The Chinese Philosophies: Confucianism and Taoism** pertinent to your issue. What are the consequences (legal, social, spiritual) when the teachings are not followed? In other words, I'm asking you to investigate whether your ethical issue is considered a public matter, with public, legal, and social consequences, or is it considered a spiritual or personal matter, with more private consequences affecting personal relationships and spiritual matters.

Winning without fighting is an important thought in ancient Chinese military theory.The reason why the Chinese philosophy of war values victory without battles is that the Chinese have a deep understanding of war and a clear assessment of its consequences. Laozi thought that war was not a good thing, and should be waged only when one must. One should put the approach of waging war under a bigger goal, and treat it with caution and deliberation. A quiet life lived without war or fighting is a good life.Benevolence and justice are always used in an evaluation of a decision to go to war, in order to determine the probable benefit to the people. Chinese military culture uses benevolence and justice as guidance, and will not let war escalate out of control. The emphasis is not on its military strength, nor will it engage in uncontrolled violence - rather, it strives to win without fighting. http://www.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/features/chinaoverview/TraditionalChineseIdeas.html

11/22/10 Prompt#8 BIG PICTURE: MAIN RULES AND CONSEQUENCES. Describe the main teachings of **Buddhism** pertinent to your issue. What are the consequences (legal, social, spiritual) when the teachings are not followed? In other words, I'm asking you to investigate whether your ethical issue is considered a public matter, with public, legal, and social consequences, or is it considered a spiritual or personal matter, with more private consequences affecting personal relationships and spiritual matters.

Buddhist scholars say there is no justification for war in Buddhist teaching. Yet Buddhism has not always separated itself from war. There is historic documentation that in 621 CE monks from the [|Shaolin Temple of China] fought in a battle that helped establish the Tang Dynasty. In centuries past, the heads of [|Tibetan Buddhist schools] formed strategic alliances with Mongol warlords and reaped benefits from the warlords' victories. Buddhism challenges us to look beyond a simple right/wrong dichotomy. In Buddhism, an act that sows the seeds of harmful karma is regrettable even if it unavoidable. Sometimes Buddhists fight to defend their nations, home and family. This is not "wrong." Yet even in these circumstances, to harbor hate for one's enemies is still a poison. And any act of war that sows the seeds of future harmful karma is still akusala.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/war.htm

11/15/10 Prompt#7 BIG PICTURE: MAIN RULES AND CONSEQUENCES. Describe the main teachings of **Hinduism** pertinent to your issue. What are the consequences (legal, social, spiritual) when the teachings are not followed? In other words, I'm asking you to investigate whether your ethical issue is considered a public matter, with public, legal, and social consequences, or is it considered a spiritual or personal matter, with more private consequences affecting personal relationships and spiritual matters.

The conduct of war
The Rig Veda sets down the rules of war at 6-75:15, and says that a warrior will go to hell if he breaks any of them. Hindus believe that it is right to use force in self-defense: > May your weapons be strong to drive away the attackers, > may your arms be powerful enough to check the foes, > let your army be glorious, not the evil-doer.Rig Veda 1-39:2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/hinduethics/war.shtml
 * do not poison the tip of your arrow
 * do not attack the sick or old
 * do not attack a child or a woman
 * do not attack from behind

11/08/10 Prompt #6 BIG PICTURE: MAIN RULES AND CONSEQUENCES. Describe the main teachings of **Islam** pertinent to your issue. What are the consequences (legal, social, spiritual) when the teachings are not followed? In other words, I'm asking you to investigate whether your ethical issue is considered a public matter, with public, legal, and social consequences, or is it considered a spiritual or personal matter, with more private consequences affecting personal relationships and spiritual matters.

Islam preaches peace and condemns war. There is a general impression that Islam is a militant religion and it was spread by sword. Islamic concept of Jihad is always misrepresented. In Sura “The Heifer” the Quran says: “O ye who have faith, enter in to peace all of you, and do not follow the footsteps of Satan” – (2:208). Islam calls to peace and abhors war.About peace Allah Almighty says: “And if they incline to peace then incline to peace and put your trust in Allah.”(8:61). Islam emphasizes on the need of peace and avoids war. If war is thrust upon Muslims, then they are asked to defend themselves. http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_201_250/islamic_view_on_war.htm

10/18/10 Prompt#5 FINE PRINT: DIVERSITY AND NUANCE. Are there different rules for different people/sects within **Christianity** regarding your ethical issue? What about differences in the way consequences are applied? **This week, concentrate on the similarities and differences between Catholics and Protestants on your topic.** In Catholic Moral Theology, war is addressed and condemned as an immoral activity save for the singular exception of a just war. It outlines the principles that a nation or social body must observe and exhaust before war can be engaged as a means of self-preservation. The difficulty lies in the discernment of how these principles are practically applied, as nations or social groups may disguise their true intentions in order to appear in the right. A nation or leader that falsifies their claims may be recognized as just until years later when condemning facts come to light. For this reason the Church is loathe to sanction any war, since the reasons and intent of the conflicting parties are very difficult to discern. However, by the same token, the Church does not sanction complete pacifism on a national level, since it is not the leader's right to sacrifice the lives in his/her care, thus if the nation must fight to avoid annihilation, the government is obliged to defend those in its care. For Protestants there is also a "just" war that is acceptable just like Catholics. Both Catholics and Protestants have almost the same views on war. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Catholic_Church%27s_position_on_War

10/04/10 Prompt#4 BIG PICTURE: MAIN RULES AND CONSEQUENCES. Describe the main teachings of **Christianity** pertinent to your issue. What are the consequences (legal, social, spiritual) when the teachings are not followed? In other words, I'm asking you to investigate whether your ethical issue is considered a public matter, with public, legal, and social consequences, or is it considered a spiritual or personal matter, with more private consequences affecting personal relationships and spiritual matters.

For Christians the only acceptable war is a "just" war. This is when a nation goes to war out of self-defense. There are many different reasons that could be used as self-defense. A nation could be going to war to prevent invasion, helping an ally or other reasons. //MESSAGE FROM THE MASTER//. //Pastor Steven J//. //Pagels// www.milwels.org

9/13/10 Prompt #1 Define and describe your topic as an ethical issue and identify the controversies and dilemmas within the issue. Seek to do general background reading to understand the main issues inherent in your topic.Identify at least two opposing positions often taken on your ethical issue, and explain two to three main arguments for each side.

Each religion in the world has their own view of war and rules of engagement. Each religion may have similar views but will be different overall. In some religions they believe that war is necessary sometimes. There are also dilemmas when at war. When countries are at war a problem is unwanted casualties. With a lot of firepower it is difficult to avoid casualties. If not enough firepower is used then troops will be exposed. Not only are casualties a controversy but so are the reasons for going to war. For example in the Iraq war there has been controversy for many years about the real reason of going to the middle east. Almost every war has had some sort of controversy. There are different types of warfare. There is civil war, nuclear war, and conventional warfare among others. Civil war is where those who are at conflict with each other belong to the same nation. Nuclear war is when nuclear weapons are the primary weapons used. There is also chemical warfare which was used in World War I. Conventional warfare is an attempt to reduce an opponent's military capability. War has an effect on many things. Civilians in countries at war have a direct affect. It was estimated that in World War II almost 2/3 of those killed were civilians.

9/20/10 Prompt#2 BIG PICTURE: MAIN RULES AND CONSEQUENCES. Describe the main teachings of Judaism pertinent to your issue. What are the consequences (legal, social, spiritual) when the teachings are not followed? In other words, I'm asking you to investigate whether your ethical issue is considered a public matter, with public, legal, and social consequences, or is it considered a spiritual or personal matter, with more private consequences affecting personal relationships and spiritual matters.

Judaism does not forbid war. Some wars are legitimate, according to Judaism. The rabbis defined two types of legitimate wars.Obligatory War is a war in which Jews are commanded to fight. God commanded the Israelites to fight wars in Biblical times. Obligatory wars also include defensive wars. When the Jewish nation is threatened, Judaism permits a war to be fought in self defense. Self-defense can include a making a pre-emptive attack when anticipating an upcoming attack by an enemy. Some Biblical commentaries state that any capture of the land of Israel is reason to wage an obligatory war. Discretionary war is a war fought to enlarge the borders of Israel beyond those designated in the Bible. According to the rabbis, the Sanhedrin, the High Court of seventy-one judges, must debate and approve this type of war. Thus, no Jewish leader can fight this type of war on his own. Jewish soldiers are expected to abide by specific laws and values when at war. The Jewish people have guidelines from the Torah which gives them steps to follow before and during engagement of war. They must pursue peace before engaging in war. The Torah instructs soldiers at war to preserve the environment's ecological needs. They need to maintain sensitivity to human life, and their main goal is peace.

Sources: http://judaism.about.com/library/3_intro/level2/bl_war.htm

9/27/10 Prompt#3 FINE PRINT: DIVERSITY AND NUANCE. Are there different rules for different people/sects within **Judaism** regarding your ethical issue? What about differences in the way consequences are applied?

The Jewish tradition is clear that before declaring war, or starting a battle, there must be an attempt to make peace - any military action without doing this is probably unlawful (Deuteronomy 20:10).Only combatants are allowed to be killed intentionally in war. Military commanders should give non-combatants a good chance to leave the combat area before the battle starts.However some authorities say that if a non-combatant knowingly stays in a place where a battle is about to take place, they lose their protection.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/jewishethics/war.shtml