Lesson 4 Paradigms of War Election, Holy War and Restraint
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Wilfrid Laurier University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
366
Subject
History
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
17
Uploaded by ChancellorArtSheep29
Week 4 Lesson 4: Paradigms of War –
Election, Holy War and Restraint Assignment: Discussion Board Activity; Reading Quiz Required Viewing: The Crusades: Pilgrimage or Holy War?
(11.32 min) [
Online
] Supplementary Optional Viewing: The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross
, Part One and Part Two Required Readings: •
Küng, “Religion, Violence and ‘Holy Wars’” [CR] •
Childress, “Just War Theories” [CR] Optional Reading: •
Sells, “Crosses of Blood” [CR]
Evaluate the Crusades as an example of "Holy War" and "Just War". Can you think of another example? The Crusades is a series of religious wars initiated by the Western Christians. To evaluate the “Holy War” and “Just War”
, I will examine the historical context, motivations, and consequences, then compare it to another example, using the Pontiac's War. Crusades as a holy war had religious motivations, justification, and symbolism. Firstly, the Crusades we heavily driven by religious motivations, especially when they emphasized the liberation of the Holy land from the Muslims to justify Christianity. Secondly, the Crusaders felt that all their actions and causes were allowed by God a
nd that this was a part of helping do God’s work. In return for their efforts, the Crusaders believed that they would be awarded spiritual in heaven, such as lifting or giving their sins. Lastly, the Crusaders had religious symbols and relics that they carried with them during battles. This reinforces their purpose of fighting on behalf of their faith. On the other hand, Crusades as a Just War shows just cause, legitimate authority, and proportionality and Right Intention. Firstly, the Crusaders believed they had just case because they wanted to reclaim what they thought was wrongfully taken by non-Christians, Jerusalem. Secondly, from a Western Christian perspective, the Papal endorsement by the Crusades had a sense of legitimate authority. When the Pope had organized and authorized the Crusades, it was seen as an attempt to stick to the legitimate authority principle. Finally, even while the Crusades saw numerous crimes, some Crusaders genuinely wanted to guard Christian pilgrims and preserve access to sacred places. An example of another War relating to the context of “Holy War” and “Just War” is the Pontiac's War, known as the Anglo-Indian Wars in North America. The Pontiac War as a Holy War includes religious elements. Although it may seem like the primary conflict was between Native American Tribes, there was religious significance. Native Americans' rejection to British colonization had to do with their spiritual practices and beliefs. It's possible that some Indigenous leaders viewed their struggle as a type of spiritual defense against the advance of European settlers. On the other hand, Pontiac's War as a Just War is from the perspective of many Indigenous groups, the British were infringing on ancestral lands as well as disrupting their way of life. Another example related to Canada that can be examined in the context of "Holy War" and "Just War" is the Pontiac's War (1763-1766)
and the broader conflict known as the Anglo-Indian Wars
during the colonial period in North America.
Pontiac's War as a Holy War:
•
Religious Elements:
While Pontiac's War was primarily a conflict between Native American tribes, particularly the Ottawa leader Pontiac, and British colonial forces, it had elements of religious significance. Native American spiritual beliefs and traditions were intertwined with their resistance to British expansion. Some Indigenous leaders may have seen their struggle as a form of spiritual defense against the encroachment of European settlers. Pontiac's War as a Just War:
•
Just Cause:
From the perspective of many Indigenous groups, the British were infringing on their ancestral lands and disrupting their way of life. They saw the need to defend their territory, cultures, and livelihoods from British encroachment, which aligns with the principle of a just cause. •
Legitimate Authority:
Indigenous leaders like Pontiac held legitimate authority within their own communities, and their actions were supported by various tribes in the Great Lakes region. This reflects a form of legitimate authority within Indigenous societies. •
Proportionality and Right Intention:
While violence occurred during Pontiac's War, it was not simply an unprovoked attack by Indigenous peoples. It was a response to British policies and actions that threatened Indigenous autonomy and resources. Some Indigenous leaders sought to negotiate with the British before resorting to warfare, indicating a degree of proportionality and right intention. Comparison with Another Conflict - The War of 1812:
The War of 1812
between the United States and British North American colonies (including what is now Canada) also provides an interesting comparison in terms of a Just War. War of 1812 as a Just War:
•
Just Cause:
From the American perspective, the war was partly driven by a desire to protect American sovereignty and territorial integrity against British interference, including the impressment of American sailors and support for Indigenous tribes resisting American expansion. This reflects a sense of a just cause. •
Legitimate Authority:
The United States government, with its elected leaders, declared war on Britain, demonstrating a legitimate authority within the American political system. •
Proportionality and Right Intention:
While the War of 1812 had its share of violence and conflicts, it also featured attempts at diplomatic resolutions, such as the Ghent negotiations, indicating a willingness to seek peaceful solutions. In both the case of Pontiac's War and the War of 1812, there were justifications and motivations based on protecting perceived rights, sovereignty, and interests, even though the conflicts were complex and had varying degrees of ethical conduct. These examples underscore the multifaceted nature of conflicts and the importance of considering historical context when evaluating them as Holy Wars or Just Wars.
Crusades as a Just War:
•
Just Cause:
From the perspective of the Crusaders, they had a just cause. They believed that Jerusalem had been wrongfully taken by non-Christians, and they sought to reclaim it. This aligns with the principle of a just cause in Just War theory. •
Legitimate Authority:
The Papal endorsement of the Crusades provided a sense of legitimate authority, at least from a Western Christian perspective. The Pope's role in authorizing and organizing the Crusades can be seen as an attempt to adhere to the principle of legitimate authority. •
Proportionality and Right Intention:
While many atrocities occurred during the Crusades, some Crusaders genuinely aimed to protect Christian pilgrims and secure access to holy sites. This suggests that, at least in some cases, there was a proportionate use of force and a righteous intention. The Crusades, a series of religious wars initiated by Western Christians in the Middle Ages, are indeed a complex and controversial example of both "Holy War" and "Just War." To evaluate these aspects, we need to examine the historical context, motivations, and consequences of the Crusades, as well as compare them to another example of a similar nature. Crusades as a Holy War:
•
Religious Motivation:
The Crusades were fundamentally driven by religious fervor. Pope Urban II's call for the First Crusade in 1095 emphasized the liberation of the Holy Land from Muslim control and the defense of Christianity. This religious motivation is a defining characteristic of a Holy War. •
Religious Justification:
The Crusaders believed that their cause was sanctioned by God and that they were doing God's work by reclaiming Jerusalem. They believed they would earn spiritual rewards in heaven for their efforts, including the forgiveness of sins. This demonstrates a strong religious dimension to the Crusades. •
Symbolism:
The Crusaders often carried religious symbols and relics into battle, reinforcing the idea that they were fighting on behalf of their faith. Crusades as a Just War:
•
Just Cause:
From the perspective of the Crusaders, they had a just cause. They believed that Jerusalem had been wrongfully taken by non-Christians, and they sought to reclaim it. This aligns with the principle of a just cause in Just War theory. •
Legitimate Authority:
The Papal endorsement of the Crusades provided a sense of legitimate authority, at least from a Western Christian perspective. The Pope's role in authorizing and organizing the Crusades can be seen as an attempt to adhere to the principle of legitimate authority. •
Proportionality and Right Intention:
While many atrocities occurred during the Crusades, some Crusaders genuinely aimed to protect Christian pilgrims and secure access to holy sites.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
This suggests that, at least in some cases, there was a proportionate use of force and a righteous intention. Comparison with another example - The Reconquista:
The Reconquista, the centuries-long campaign by Christian kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula to retake territory from Muslim rule, serves as another example of a Holy War and Just War. Reconquista as a Holy War:
•
Religious Motivation:
Like the Crusades, the Reconquista had strong religious motivations. Christian rulers and soldiers believed they were fighting to reclaim lands that were historically Christian and sacred. •
Religious Justification:
Religious leaders often played a significant role in promoting the Reconquista, emphasizing its religious importance. The capture of cities like Toledo and Cordoba was celebrated as religious victories. Reconquista as a Just War:
•
Just Cause:
Christian rulers argued that the territories they sought to reclaim were rightfully theirs before Muslim conquests. They saw the Reconquista as a restoration of their legitimate rule. •
Legitimate Authority:
Christian monarchs and nobility led the Reconquista, providing a sense of legitimate authority within their own Christian domains. •
Proportionality and Right Intention:
While there were instances of brutality and intolerance, the Reconquista also featured efforts to coexist peacefully with Muslims and Jews in recaptured territories, demonstrating a degree of proportionality and right intention. In conclusion, the Crusades and the Reconquista can be evaluated as examples of Holy War and Just War, each with complex motivations and outcomes. These historical events highlight the intertwining of religion, politics, and warfare in the medieval world and continue to be subjects of historical and ethical debate. Lesson Overview In this lesson, we will explore the some aspects of the vast topic that is "holy war." Holy warfare is one of the most commonly cited examples of religious violence, but it is a woefully misunderstood topic that is often over-simplified. We will not be able to cover all aspects of such a complex issue, but we will get you started on thinking about it in a more nuanced way. You will have two readings to complete, and some required and optional videos to view. After reading the lesson and the required readings, there will be a Discussion Board Activity to be posted by Day 5, as well as a short Reading Quiz to be completed by the end of Day 7. Lesson 4: Paradigms of War –
Election, Holy War and Restraint •
Assignment: Discussion Board Activity; Reading Quiz •
Required Viewing: The Crusades: Pilgrimage or Holy War?
(11.32 min) [Online]
•
Optional Supplementary Viewing: The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross
Part One
and Part Two
•
Readings: o
Küng, "Religion, Violence and 'Holy Wars'" [Online]
o
Childress, "Just War Theories" [Online]
•
Optional Reading: o
Sells, "Crosses of Blood" [CR] Learning Outline A.
"Holy War" B.
What is a "Just War"?
C.
Religion and Restraint
D.
Conclusions
E.
Learning Activities
o
Discussion Board Activity 4
o
Reading Quiz 4
Lesson Objectives By the end of Lesson 4, you should be able to: 1.
Construct some functional definitions of "holy war".
2.
Define and describe "Just War" as a concept and code (in its three stages).
3.
Summarize some of the ways in which theologies and practices influence the use and restraint of violence.
Required Readings Do the required readings, now. •
Küng, "Religion, Violence and 'Holy Wars'" [Online]
•
Childress, "Just War Theories" [Online]
Consider the following reading questions –
these questions are not to be turned in for evaluation, and are meant to help you process the readings. Küng, "Religion, Violence and 'Holy Wars'" •
Why did Christianity change after becoming a "state religion"? •
What's the difference between monolatry and strict monotheism? •
What is "jihad"? •
What does "holy war" look like in Judaism, Christianity and Islam? •
Why might war be argued to be impossible to justify in these three religions?
Childress, "Just War Theories" •
What is "Just War"? Why might they be called "Justified War," instead? •
What are the three main stages of "Just War" and what are some of their characteristics? •
What are the roots and the modern descendants of Just War theology? •
Why might "Just War" be considered choosing the "lesser of two goods"? •
What are the five different approaches to "Just War" criteria Childress discusses? "Holy War" Thought Activity: How do you define "holy war"? Do you think the term is contradictory? Hans Küng (2005: 255) writes, ""Holy" wars are understood to be wars of aggression waged with a claimed missionizing purpose at the command of a given divinity." This is in accord with how most people use the term, loosely, but one should not be tempted to consider the concept uncomplicated. Generally speaking, we consider "warfare" to be only those conflicts that are officially declared as war. "
Religious Warfare
" (popularly known as "
holy wars
") are those events of war that rely significantly on religious languages, symbols and motivations. These events might be inspired, justified and/or sanctioned by religion and religious paradigms or law, and may even be lead or shaped by the participation of official, organized religious organizations and clerics. They are typically accompanied by some element of religious ritual/piety, and the combatants and actions are delineated by religious conventions, identities or categories in some manner. Ethnoreligious warfare, in which official religious involvement may be a bit murky, is a sustained conflict in which the opposing combatants use the blend of ethnicity/tribal identity and religion as their main unifiers, identifiers and/or motivations. It's difficult to define exactly what makes warfare "religious," because most acts of war contain some aspect or element of spirituality, religion or religiosity, or at least ritual or ritualized elements. War is one of those human endeavours that bring the major challenges of the human condition, like life and death, into stark relief, and it is often described in terms that reflect the profundity of its impact. The old adage "There are no atheists in the foxholes" seems to suggest that the immediacy of the experience of war brings out the spirituality, religiosity and/or superstition in a person, and one can believe this might be so. Certainly, nation states clothe their conflicts in spiritual and mythic symbolism, even if it is the state, rather than the Divine, that holds court therein. In fact, the concept of "
Civil Religion
" is pertinent here. Civil Religion refers to the ways in which secular nations appeal to ritual and religiosity to create a sort of patriotic nationalism or piety, especially in times of war. Flags, anthems, monuments, leadership, and the idea of the nation's origins and destiny
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
can take on as devotional an aspect as any religion, at times. One concept equivalent to theology in civil religion is military ethics, which, as we shall see, also has many of its roots in religious views on warfare. Sidenote: Military ethics
is a loose term referring to those forms of moral philosophy contending with the moral/ethical, ideological and philosophical problems caused by military activity and its fallout. While "military ethics," as a term, often refers specifically to the discourses found in modern, professional armed forces conduct, all times and places have wrestled with some of its basic issues –
how to begin a war correctly, how to conduct war effectively and ethically, how to disengage in a moral manner, etc. Some of the specific challenges do change (ex. the role of computer technology in contemporary warfare), but many of the trends remain remarkably similar. Similarly, many events of "religious warfare" contain economic, political and/or nationalist sentiments that cloud their designation as religious events. What distinguishes "holy war" is often a matter of semantics when defining it against some examples of secular warfare, and the contrast is often simply a matter of optics. And no war is ever fought for "purely religious" reasons. What is a "Just War"? In this section, we will look at theological and religious forms of military ethics –
that is, those doctrines and theologies that make way for the sanctioned use of warfare by religious communities. Thought Activity: Which religions do you think are most likely to have doctrines adapting their religion to holy war? Which religions do you think are the least likely to have them? The term "holy war" might strike us as contradictory. "Holiness", something that is pure and uplifting, almost seems incongruent juxtaposed against the brutal and profane conditions of "war". Yet, the ideals of perfection attached to the idea of the "holy" often come into conflict with the grim realities of life, and history reveals many examples of people adjusting to such demands. All religions have doctrines of peace, and all religions have dealt with violence –
thus, all religions have developed some ways to reconcile the idea of peace with the perceived necessity of war or violence at some point in their history. In this lesson, we will look at three religious doctrines or tropes that seek to reconcile religiosity with warfare –
the Islamic concept of Jihad
, the Hindu Dharma-Yuddha
, and, one of the most influential, the Catholic doctrine of "
Just War
". Jihad in Islam
Within Islam, "jihad" refers to a struggle against the enemies of God and Islam, and, thus, for a just or admirable cause. Jihad, then, is a demonstration of faith, obedience and loyalty, and is waged with the understanding that such willingness to defend God is the least a Muslim can do in light of God's merciful creation and abundance. However, "jihad" is probably one of the least well understood religious concepts in the world, especially at the moment. Thought Activity: Google "jihad" and check out the assortment of sites and images associated with the term. What is the impression you get about popular views of Islam, and how people online understand "jihad"? Were you aware that "jihad" is not synonymous with "holy war," in the way we typically mean it? If this is news to you, you aren't alone, and the majority of popular and media discourses reflect the common, erroneous notion that violent jihad is the only possible form of jihad. Thought Activity: In your Google search above, roughly what percentage of images and pages portrayed jihad in a non-warlike way? Consider how the explanation in this short video differs from popular usage: What Does Jihad Actually Mean?
(NowThisWorld, 2014; 3 minutes) Jihad doesn't equate simply to "holy war," though it is used to refer to violently opposing the enemies of God and the Umma
(Islamic community). The meaning of jihad, however, is closer to "struggling/striving (in the path of God)," as Küng notes closer to "effort" than "to fight," and this takes on many forms. In many circumstances, this effort might be armed resistance or conquest. In others, it includes cultural or activist resistance to assimilation, oppression or injustice. On a personal level, it may refer to an individual Muslim dealing with the daily struggles of balancing life and faith, or working against his or her personal inclinations towards sin. However, the main concept always guiding jihad, violent or otherwise, is whether the struggle is about faith, rather than personal gain or glory. A struggle for vanity, wealth, or the acquisition of power is no jihad at all, because it is not done for the right reasons. The question that jihad asks in relation to warfare, then, would be whether the warfare is being done in an Islamic fashion –
that is, whether God would approve of the act, whether it's done for the right reasons and against an appropriate target, whether it demonstrates modesty and restraint, and whether the motivation is sufficiently pure. These restrictions are important to remember, especially when we get to Catholic doctrines of Just War, as they may ring a bell when you read that section.
The Hindu Dharma-Yuddha Thought Activity (reprise): Which religions do you think are most likely to have doctrines allowing for holy war? Which religions do you think are the least likely to have them? Chances are, when you came up with your list of religions most likely to include doctrines outlining holy war and its acceptable practices, Hinduism was not one of the top traditions you anticipated. In fact, Hinduism benefits from a public profile that typically emphasizes the theologies of peace found therein. This profile is not without good reason; the concept of "
ahimsa
," or "non-violence" (or "non-harm") is deeply engrained in almost all forms of Hinduism and can be found in all its major off-shoots, including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. We will be exploring ahimsa in greater depth in Lesson 7, but for now it is enough to say that
"ahimsa"
is a central concept in Hinduism, and has wide reaching implications for many facets of Hindu life. How, then, can Hinduism include a concept of "holy war"? Alternatively, however, one can also ask how any religion can function as a state religion without some sort of adaptation to necessary violence. Hinduism, after all, is one of the oldest religions in the world, and has served as the official religion for many dynasties in India throughout that subcontinent's history. One could argue that a religion is unlikely to maintain strict pacifism as a state religion, given the violent proclivities of human history. Dharma-Yuddha
is a compound comprised of two Sanskrit terms –
"Dharma," meaning "correct", and "Yuddha", meaning "warfare". In essence, the Hindu concept of Dharma-Yuddha means warfare that is done correctly, and in accordance with the ethics of Hinduism. The Hindu response to the necessities of warfare in light of its emphasis on non-harm is to make warfare as lawful and fair as possible, and many Hindu authorities agree that violence should only be undertaken for the right reasons (i.e., self-defence, or out of compassionate defense of the vulnerable). The Bhagavad Gita
, one of the most popular Hindu scriptures, suggests that warfare might even be an obligation under certain conditions; even though non-violence is the ultimate goal, specific situations can call upon different responses, one of which might ethically be violence. Dharma-Yuddha are appropriate acts of war; Adharma-Yuddha
, or Kutta Yuddha
, are those which are not appropriate –
these include acts of aggression that are made out of anger, or for self-aggrandisement, rather than more ethical reasons. Hinduism is a vastly complex set of traditions, texts and practices, so let us select one relevant example to examine in more detail. The Mahābhārata
(ca. 9th C. BCE) is an epic telling of the Kuruk
ṣ
etra War, which may have taken place circa 3000BCE. In the narrative relating the preparation and undertaking of this war, several policies for sanctioned warfare are established: Firstly, proper authority, appropriate motivations, and formal declarations of war must be demonstrated. Then, once war has been entered upon, the certain battlefield etiquette must be strictly observed, including:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
1.
A warrior in armour must not fight with another warrior without armour.
2.
Fighting should be on a one-to-one basis and one should stop fighting when the opponent becomes disabled.
3.
Warriors should fight only with their equals, e.g., cavalry soldiers should not attack a chariot-warrior.
4.
Poisoned or barbed arrows should not be used.
5.
A weak or wounded man should not be killed, nor one who has no son.
6.
He whose weapon is broken or whose bowstring is cut or who has lost his chariot should not be hit.
7.
One who surrenders should not be killed, but he can be captured as a prisoner of war.
8.
A King should fight only with a King.
9.
Aged men, women of all ages, children, and those in retreat should not be killed.
10.
The panic-stricken and retreating foe should not be pursued hotly.
11.
The sleepy, the thirsty, a peaceful citizen walking along the road, the insane, one engaged in eating, a camp-follower, a war musician, and the guards at the gates should not be killed.
12.
Spectators and other non-combatants should not be fought against, nor those hiding themselves in fear.
13.
Gardens, temples and other places of public worship should be left unmolested.
14.
Prisoners of war should be treated humanely.
15.
A wounded prisoner should either be sent home or should have his wounds attended to.
16.
When a fort can be captured by other means, no attempt should be made to set fire to it, for fire will cause indiscriminate damage.
17.
Fighting should not take place at night.
18.
In order to be strictly in accordance with dharma the place and time of battle must be specified beforehand.
Thus, in order for warfare to be lawful, and remain ethical, matters of fairness, proportionality and restraint must be honourably attended to by professional, morally upright military personal, working on the authority of an ethical ruler. Again, keep these regulations in mind when we look at "Just War" in the next section. Just War Just War is looked at in greater detail in your readings for this lesson, but let's briefly consider it, here. "Just War" (
jus bellum iustum
) refers to doctrines, theologies and theories comprising of mutually agreed upon ideals of how war is justified and how it is to be conducted, rooted in Greco-Roman philosophy, Catholic theology, and European legal and military ethics and theory. As a concept, it is one of the most central doctrines in pre-modern European history, and is, today, one of the most influential perspectives in international law. Just War, as the term is usually used, refers to a concept developed through Roman, Catholic and subsequent secular European military ethics, and details how a war might be entered into, conducted and concluded in a just and moral fashion. If the criteria is not met, a war might be considered unjust, or even illegal.
In Catholicism, Just War theology begins with the problem of violence for Christianity as a state religion. Before Christianity was adopted by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 312CE, it was essentially a pacifist faith; this changed once Constantine believed the Christian God had granted him military victory, and God entered the realm of bloody state affairs. Acknowledging the emphasis on peace found within the root Christian tradition, including the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill", St Augustine (354 –
430) nevertheless concluded that, because wicked people love violence, good people are necessarily drawn into engaging with violence. Otherwise, only wicked people would wield violence, and there would be no one to defend the vulnerable. Thus, some form of ethically acceptable violence and warfare must be developed for use by morally upright Christians who wish to defend their faith, communities and people. Thomas Aquinas (1225
–
1274) furthers the doctrine by establishing the three basic precepts that would be the foundation to all later formulations: 1.
Proper authority is the beginning point of any Just War
2.
Just cause must be established (i.e., for the right reasons, rather than just greed or power)
3.
Just intentions must always include a desire to further the cause of peace –
that is, only war that will result in a lasting peace is worth entering, and only those intending to cultivate peace are truly engaging in Just War
Later founders of international law, such as Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), used the Catholic tradition of Just War when constructing ideals for the relationships between nations, thus taking what is essentially a theological discussion and making it a matter of secular legal philosophy. For Grotius, this process was a matter of taking what was useful (regulations placed on warfare) and holding them to Enlightenment standards of reason –
in effect making these ethical principles true, regardless of whether God actually exists or not. Modern "Just War" criteria can be broken down into at least seven aspects: (1) Just Cause, (2) Right Intent, (3) Net Benefit, (4) Legitimate Authority, (5) Last Resort, (6) Proportionality of Means, and (7) Right Conduct. Some add jus contra bellum
, or the just argument against a potential war. And the conventional process of a "Just War" includes three major distinct stages: 1.
Jus ad Bellum
–
Just cause for entering a war, and a fair entrance process.
2.
Jus in Bello
–
Just methods and conduct during a war.
3.
Jus post Bellum –
Just and reasonable exit strategy followed by a legal and complete exit.
Thought Activity: Compare and contrast the Islamic, Hindu, and Catholic (and subsequent legal theory) described in this section. Which seem to be common trends? In what ways do they differ? The interesting thing about these three formulations of religious military ethics are that, though stemming from different religions and from different periods in history, they come to many of the same conclusions
–
war is only ethical if it is entered into in the right spirit, based on the right motivations and intent, and conducted fairly. Historical Example: The Crusades One of the most commonly mentioned events of "Holy War" are the Crusades, a series of wars fought between Catholic Europe and the Islamic powers of the Middle East and Northern Africa during the Middle Ages. The Crusades are often discussed as early stages in the formation and application of European "Just War" concepts. Please watch the following short "crash course" on the Crusades: The Crusades - Pilgrimage or Holy War?: Crash Course World History #15
(2012; 12 minutes). Supplementary Viewing:
If you would like more background on the Crusades, I recommend the following long (about three hours!) documentary on the Crusades (but you are not required to watch it): The Crusades:
The Crescent and the Cross
(History Channel, 2005), which is currently online here - Part One
and Part Two
. For us, the Crusades are an important historical example of religiously-motivated warfare precisely because they demonstrate the ways in which religion (endogenous factors) melds with a variety of other factors (exogenous factors) to create war –
religion, politics, treaties, territories, economics, etc. Warfare is never about a single factor. However, the Crusades are often largely reduced to the religious factor, leaving a highly problematic legacy. The Crusades (a) are often grossly oversimplified and, in some discussions, even idealized as "holy," and (b) are often described as being entirely about the religious conflict between Muslims and Christians. This oversimplification would seem to suggest (c) that they represent the first great example of the Clash of Civilizations –
the theory that "The East" and "The West" (i.e., Muslims and Christians) will always be at odds, and the natural state of these opposites is conflict. Not only is this Orientalist, it has also served as fuel for many aggressive policies since. (Further, it is just plain wrong, since Christian forces were often used against Jews, as well as Muslims, and even against other Christians.) In contrast, others seek to describe the Crusades as completely un-religious, emphasizing the non-
religious factors, especially money and conquest. While the Crusades shouldn't be reduced to just religion, they should never be stripped of their religious dimension, either. Faith was at the heart of the matter for many volunteers, was a major factor in manufacturing popular support for the campaigns, and served as a guiding principle in directing and driving the Crusades. It is also entirely possible that religion was responsible for fueling some of the ferocity on both sides of the conflict, as it served as a unifying and rallying motivator for individuals engaged in the battles.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Still, despite the way they are so often used as the prime example of Medieval Catholic holy warfare, and, thus, "Just War," it's debatable as to how well the Crusades stand up to the test of "Just Warfare" criteria, especially when one breaks it down to the three stages of Just Warfare. Thought Activity: What do you think? Were the Crusades "Just War"? (
Hint: This activity will also feature in your discussion activity, so save your ideas!
) Religion and War Today If you're interested in considering the role that religion is playing in the current Russo-Ukranian War, check out the following examples (optional). What kinds of patterns do you see in this emerging story? Orthodox Church leader says Russian soldiers dying in Ukraine will be cleansed of sin - Reuters (2022) Ukraine is moving its Christmas Day holiday to Dec. 25 in defiance of Russia - CBC (2023) Ukraine war: Russian strikes on Odesa damage Orthodox cathedral - BBC (2023) In Ukraine's East, A Shrapnel-Scarred Monastery Is Caught Up In War And Religious Rivalry - RadioFreeEurope (2023) Why the Russian Orthodox Church Supports the War in Ukraine - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2023) Also, watch this short CBC documentary (optional) for more on Putin's goals in invading Ukraine, and note the religious/mythic tones to his mission: What is Putin's endgame? (CBC, May 2023) https://youtu.be/cAh9mbw1J68 (Especially around 8.30-11 minutes.) See also: "Russia uses religious sentiments to support political crusades" Religion in the Russia-Ukraine war https://youtu.be/9-XZMfDy3Wo And: Ukraine: Religious War I ARTE.tv Documentary https://youtu.be/7iWpITbwB-I
Religion and Restraint Thought Activity: When religion is involved, do you think violence is made "better" or "worse"? Why? It is possible that religion can fuel ferocity in fighting. Serving as a rallying and inspirational focal point, it can drive combatants on, making them last longer and fight harder, and making ceasefires seem almost sinful. Further, in providing justification and valediction, religion can possibly take violence to higher and more volatile levels, with individuals engaged in violence feeling secure in their holy or redeemed status. However, there is another perspective on how religion interacts with violence through theologies that seem to promote violence –
some might argue that doctrines such as "Just War" serves to temper and restrain violence. This argument is particularly salient within worldviews that believe violence is an integral, possibly inevitable, aspect of human nature; if humans are doomed to fight, placing religious regulation on the fighting is not making violence happen, but is placing restraints and regulations on the violence that always results from human power and aggression. This is certainly one way in which proponents of Just War view the doctrine and its application. Rather than promoting war, those advocates might argue that Just War policies at least make sure inevitable war is entered into for the right reasons, is conducted in a moral fashion, and is exited or ended responsibly. For those who believe war is the natural outcome of kingdoms and nations, such restraint is a way in which religious and post-religious ideology can actually save lives and prevent unreasonable harm. Similarly, we see the idea of restraint being a virtue of martial discipline in the practices associated with Bushidō
. Bushidō
is a Japanese term (possibly from the Chinese) often translated as "way of the warrior," denoting the sacred/spiritual and social habitus of the warrior class, including discipline, honour, manners, self-control and power/privilege associated with their status, in particular reference to those social norms/expectations of the Samurai. Influenced by Shintoism, Confucianism, and forms of Buddhism, Bushidō
is not just a physical activity, but encompasses a wide range of educational and spiritual practices. Self-policing and the maintenance of strict honour codes mark the discipline of such warriors, where strength of character is not just demonstrated through physical strength and martial arts skill, but through confidence, competence, strength, spirituality, propriety, education, artistry, nobility, obligation, and compassion, as well. The 8 Virtues of Bushidō
are generally listed as: •
Righteousness •
Courage •
Compassion
•
Respect •
Integrity •
Honour •
Loyalty •
Self-Discipline Training as a fighter is only one aspect of Bushidō
training, and is not viewed as a complete education on its own. Within Bushidō
social ideals, moral education must compliment physical training for the production of a competent, ethical warrior. For followers of Bushidō
, mastery of the martial arts denotes not just the ability to use violence but the ability to control it. Therefore, martial and military discipline can ultimately limit or even prevent violence, and promote its use morally in order to protect the weak and serve the course of justice. To learn more, you can read a classic text of Bushidō online,
Bushido, the Soul of Japan by Inazo Nitobe (1900). Within many contexts of Bushidō
, again, violence is a part of humanity's natural instinct; Bushidō is a way to temper, restrain and discipline that instinct. Even within small dojos throughout the world offering karate and other forms of martial arts for children as a sport, Bushidō
's emphasis on self-control and the avoidance of violence is often a serious part of the training. Thought Activity: Re-read the story of the binding of Isaac
. Is there a way you can re-interpret this story as a story discouraging violence, or at least encouraging sacrificial restraint? With Judaism, Christianity and Islam the story of the Binding of Isaac is one that is seen as demonstrating Abraham's immense inner strength and faith, which allows him to loyally and obediently submit to God's apparent instructions to sacrifice his beloved child in order to show his dedication. Isaac was his only legitimate son, so slaughtering him was cutting off his own legacy; it was almost a form of suicide to do so! (Indeed, in giving up his own legacy, Abraham is often understood to be choosing obedience and a form of martyrdom over the world and its mundane ambitions.) When God provides a ram, instead, this not only serves to encourage animal sacrifice instead of human sacrifice, it also demonstrates God's willingness to offer mercy in exchange for such loyalty. By being willing to kill his child, Abraham was rewarded with a proxy to slaughter, instead. It is easy to read this story as a paradigm of willingness to commit an extreme act of violence against an innocent in the name of God, and this story can be viewed as a paradigm that normalizes such zealous faith. It has also been used as a metaphor exhorting parents to willingly send their sons to war, as an example of altruistic self-sacrifice of one's progeny. Thought Activity: Listen to these songs by folk legends Leonard Cohen
and Bob Dylan
, and consider how the binding of Isaac has been used as a metaphor for the draft at times of war.
But can the story of Abraham's binding of Isaac also serve as a paradigm of restraining
violence? Within Islamic interpretations of this story, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son (identified as Ishmael by many Muslim sources) does show obedience and submission, but the restraint he showed in
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
stopping immediately once an alternative sacrifice was offered demonstrates moderation. In this perspective, Abraham was willing to offer his son, but he also saved him from being offered. Theoretically, Abraham could have become overzealous and insisted on killing his son in order to prove his obedience. Yet, he did not. The moment he was absolved of the obligation, his restraint prevented him from doing excessive violence to his son. Thus, Abraham's sacrifice of his child is not just a story of violence, but also one of being willing to restrain one's violence. Restraint, or Havlagah
, has, appropriately enough, become a principle in Jewish military ethics, as well, and has been a persistent theme in the discussion of how much violence is enough violence
, even in warfare. After all, while Abraham's willingness might be the shocking aspect to the story that we remember, we should not forget that father and son walked home, together, in the end –
both alive. The ending of the story is what tends to be emphasized in Jewish, Christian and Muslim recollections of this story and its implications for child sacrifice –
that is, its prohibition, and the restraining hand of God reeling in the passionate willingness of Abraham. The message is, then, it is not piety to exceed moderation in violence, even in the name of faith, and their paradigms suggest that restraint is an important component in the ethical use of violence in both sacrifice and warfare. Thus, the story of Abraham's sacrifice, like the practices of Bushidō
and the Just War doctrine, demonstrates how the same texts or principles can be viewed as both promoting and restraining violence at the same time, depending on one's perspective. Side note:
Hermeneutics
is the study of how texts are interpreted. Understanding that all texts can be read in a wide variety of ways is central to understanding how texts and myths are understood by different people in different circumstances. A nuanced study of religion and violence requires some delving into the hermeneutics of the faith and textual communities involved. All of the narratives we look at in this course have multiple readings, some of which are completely oppositional –
indeed, most of them can be read in ways that both promote and reject violence, depending on how they are interpreted. This complexity reflects the complex nature of the topic of this course, itself. Conclusions In this lesson, we have seen how various endogenous factors (those stemming from inside a tradition) can contribute to the justification of holy war as a legitimate option, and the ways in which these doctrines can be reconciled with conflicting views on peace and non-violence, especially when combined with relevant exogenous factors (those contextual conditions occurring outside the control of the religion). Through the establishment of regulations relating to the "proper" exercise of warfare, however, we can see efforts to restrain and civilize violence, even as it allows for its use.
Lesson 4 Wrap-Up Consider to yourself this lesson's Learning Objectives: A.
Construct some functional definitions of "holy war".
B.
Understand "Just War" as a concept and code (in its three main stages).
C.
Consider the ways in which theologies and practices influence the use and restraint of violence.
Can you explain the concept of "holy war" in more than one religion? Can you describe the criteria for all three major stages in Catholic and secular doctrines of "Just War"? Can you explain the ways in which theologies and paradigms that relate to violence and war can appear to both promote and restrain violence at the same time?