• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Iraq War and the failure of religion as a moral guide

Smoke

Done here.
From Death of the Liberal Class, by Chris Hedges:

The institutional church, when it does speak, utters pious non-statements. It seeks to protect its vision of itself as a moral voice and yet avoids genuine confrontations with the power elite. It speaks in a language filled with moral platitudes. We can hear such language in a letter written March 25, 2003, by Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien, head of the Archdiocese for Military Services, telling his priests that Catholic soldiers could morally fight in the second Iraq war. "Given the complexity of factors involved, many of which understandably remain confidential, it is altogether appropriate for members of our armed forces to presume the integrity of our leadership and its judgments, and therefore to carry out their military duties in good conscience." The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told believers that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a menace, and that reasonable people could disagree about the necessity of using force to overthrow him. It assured those who supported the war that God would not object. B'nai B'rith supported a congressional resolution to authorize the 2003 attack on Iraq. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, which represents Reform Judaism, agreed it would back unilateral action, as long as Congress approved and the president sought support from other nations. In a typical bromide, the National Council of Churches, which represents thirty-six different faith groups, urged President George W. Bush to "do all possible" to avoid war with Iraq and to stop "demonizing adversaries or enemies" with good-versus-evil rhetoric, but, like the other liberal religious institutions, did not condemn the war.

A Gallup Poll in 2006 found that "the more frequently an American attends church, the less likely he or she is to say the way was a mistake." Given that Jesus was a pacifist, and given that all of us who graduated from seminary rigorously studied just war doctrine, a doctrine flagrantly violated by the invasion of Iraq; this is startling.


If religion is important as a teacher of morals, how is it that religious institutions failed so miserably in their reaction to Bush's plans to invade Iraq?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Religion definitely does teach morals.
It's adherents are less effective at practicing them.
 

Gloone

Well-Known Member
Religion doesn’t play a role in national security or politics. If religion ran the country you would have an argument, but you don’t.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The institutional church, when it does speak, utters pious non-statements. It seeks to protect its vision of itself as a moral voice and yet avoids genuine confrontations with the power elite. It speaks in a language filled with moral platitudes. We can hear such language in a letter written March 25, 2003, by Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien, head of the Archdiocese for Military Services, telling his priests that Catholic soldiers could morally fight in the second Iraq war. "Given the complexity of factors involved, many of which understandably remain confidential, it is altogether appropriate for members of our armed forces to presume the integrity of our leadership and its judgments, and therefore to carry out their military duties in good conscience." The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told believers that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a menace, and that reasonable people could disagree about the necessity of using force to overthrow him. It assured those who supported the war that God would not object.

I find this interesting, since it seems to speak against the Vatican's stance on the Iraq War.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Religion doesn’t play a role in national security or politics.
In fact it does, and it would take an incredible ability to ignore the obvious to believe otherwise. However, that's not even the point. Hedges isn't talking about religion as policymaker; he's talking about the quality of the moral guidance offered by religious groups when they assert their role as moral guides.
 

Eliot Wild

Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
Religion doesn’t play a role in national security or politics. If religion ran the country you would have an argument, but you don’t.


No disrespect intended, but it seems to me you misread the OP. Let's take another look at the central question:

If religion is important as a teacher of morals, how is it that religious institutions failed so miserably in their reaction to Bush's plans to invade Iraq?


The OP does not claim that religion or religious institutions gave the Order to invade Iraq. It asks quite directly and plainly why there was such a miserable failure on the part of religious institutions to morally respond to the invasion of Iraq?

I understand what you're saying about religion's place in politics, at least as we 'ideally' perceive that relationship in the United States. However, we all know that religion certainly plays a part in politics and policy decisions, regardless of what our Ideals are supposed to be.

To me, though, the very fact that George W. Bush cited encouragement from his God as a personal justification for his decision to invade, that seems to imply there is actually a major inability, at least for some Commanders in Chief, to separate their religion from policy decisions.

The question still stands, and I personally would like to read some relevant thoughts on the matter: Why wasn't there more of a response and why wasn't there more noticable 'moral' commentary from religious institutions and 'people of faith' on the United States' decision, at least from within the United States, to invade another country which posed no immediate nor direct threat to this country's national security and national sovereignty?

If you supported the invasion of Iraq and if you consider yourself religious, moral and/or a person guided by 'faith' in a benevolent God, what about the invasion of Iraq did you find justifiable?
 

ellenjanuary

Well-Known Member
For a long time, American policymakers have done a brilliant job of disguising a conservative Christian agenda as "making the world safe for democracy." Rather than insult a poster, lemme just say, the line "religion has nothing to do with national security" just goes to show what a good job the Religious Right has done draping the flag over their might.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Religion definitely does teach morals.
It's adherents are less effective at practicing them.

Religions, in general, are much more concerned with teaching us to oppose homosexual marriages and comprehensive sexuality education than they are concerned with teaching us to oppose immoral wars.
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
Religions, in general, are much more concerned with teaching us to oppose homosexual marriages and comprehensive sexuality education than they are concerned with teaching us to oppose immoral wars.

That's a bit harsh. :)
You've just got too used to fundies in America.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I'd like to make a variation of the OP: The Iraq war and the failure of extremists as a moral guide. That would be more accurate. :)
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Religions, in general, are much more concerned with teaching us to oppose homosexual marriages and comprehensive sexuality education than they are concerned with teaching us to oppose immoral wars.

Sometimes I wonder if people being against gay marriage is more of a fear of change for those who appose it. People rebel against any kind of change. They fear it. Hatred is caused mostly by fear.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Religions, in general, are much more concerned with teaching us to oppose homosexual marriages and comprehensive sexuality education than they are concerned with teaching us to oppose immoral wars.
Exactly. I don't think that anybody is denying that religions teach morals. The problem is that more often than not, the morals they teach are defective.

That's a bit harsh. :)
You've just got too used to fundies in America.
But Hedges doesn't even address the fundies. Apart from the Roman Catholic Church, the religious groups he mentioned are groups generally considered socially and theologically liberal, at least as compared to Christianity in general. They aren't by any stretch of the imagination extremists or fundamentalists. Would you say that the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, or the churches of, say, Kenya and Uganda are better guides to morality?

Sometimes I wonder if people being against gay marriage is more of a fear of change for those who appose it. People rebel against any kind of change. They fear it.
If that were true, nobody would play the lottery.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I'd like to make a variation of the OP: The Iraq war and the failure of extremists as a moral guide. That would be more accurate. :)

But also a bit misleading, seeing how influential and, in fact, mainstream those groups are in the USA, don't you think?

I wonder how Americans who think of themselves as significantly religious ponder their attitudes towards the current wars.

If and when their opinions change, how does that impact their religious convictions (and vice-versa)? Much of American religiosity is based on a dangerous afinity to claims of certainty that often make admission of mistakes difficult.
 
Last edited:

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Religion seems to be a reflection of morals more-so than a teacher of morals.

Except with young children, I guess, because they're still very impressionable.
 
Top