Sentences with phrase «just war»

We are sympathetic with attempts to so understand just war, but we think the issues surrounding this understanding of just war are much more complex than Prof. Cole's account suggests.

Soft just war theory is characterized by seven key components: a strongly articulated horror of war; a strong presumption against war; a skepticism about government claims; the use of just war theory as a tool for citizen discernment and prophetic critique; a pattern of trusting the efficacy of international treaties, multilateral strategies and the perspectives of global peace and human rights groups and the international press; a quite stringent application of just war criteria; and a claim of common ground with Christian pacifists.

In the end, competing perceptions of our national moral virtue lie at the heart of the division between soft and hard just war theory.

A country might go to war by applying just war principles, yet still violate the principles of just means.

Whereas «The Challenge of Peace» offered an extensive discussion of conscientious citizen objection to unjust uses of government power, Pavlischek instead emphasized the role of just war theory in statecraft and military planning.

The labels could be reversed: the antiwar position could be called «hard» because it tends to apply just war criteria stringently and thus rule out support for most wars.

For nonpacifists, the «just war» theory, developed by theologian and church father, St. Augustine (354 - 430 CE.)

If you accept the lesser evil approach to war, then you can not think in classical just war terms.

Pavlischek's hard just war theory reflects no yearning for the establishment of an international governing authority.

Her latest book, Just War Against Terror (Basic Books), asserts that the U.S., being the world's sole superpower, is obligated to rescue the victimized and defend the peace, and that this responsibility may entail going to war.

Just War theory was originally developed by Augustine to defend the Empire's actions of arresting and killing the Donatists.

He defends the «ahistorical nature» of the just war doctrine, but surely for people who seek to go to war justly it makes some difference what kind of society they think is capable of doing so.

Finally, Pavlischek has no use for pacifism and what he considers a «crypto - pacifist» corruption of just war theory.

Oakes appears to think that the American Catholic populace - at - large (including, presumably, him and me) is relieved from having opinions or making judgments about the justness of a particular act of war contemplated by our country because the classical just war theory permits those judgments only to statesmen and generals.

I am grateful for the opportunity to do two things in response: first, to clear up a misunderstanding that my article may have suggested; and second, to reemphasize one of the main points of the piece — namely, that pacifists have a very difficult time trying to think in just war terms.

Hauerwas has written repeatedly that Christians developed the just war practice because of their nonviolent assumptions.

A struggle against groups that fly jetliners into buildings requires the steely resolve that hard just war theory contributes.

It is no coincidence that the origins of American soft just war theory can be traced to the nuclear arms race and the turn against the Vietnam War.

As I hope I've made plain in my just war writing over the last fifteen years, there are certain forms of political «order» that are not «right order» and need not be preserved — indeed, conscience may require that they be resisted, by a variety of means, a point on which Thomas Jefferson and Lech Walesa would have agreed.

The section on just war theory closed with a warm affirmation of the value of a pacifist witness within the Catholic Church, claiming that it shares with just war theory «a common presumption against the use of force as a means of settling disputes.»

What difference does it make that advocates of just war work within the presumptions of a realist foreign policy — as in the case of United States foreign policy — which assumes that one must do evil that good may come?

How we construe just war theory must bear good fruit or that construal must be altered or the theory abandoned.

In other words, meeting just war criteria does not oblige one to act.

Pacifism nearly converged with a chastened just war approach to yield soft just war theory.

Seldom, for instance, does any advocate of just war address the issue concerning whether all the criteria of just war need to be met if the war is to be undertaken by Christians.

Christian pacifists of all sorts never tire in telling us that Christians developed the just war doctrine because of their pacific tendencies.

If you can accept the concept of a just war, then most of the «problems» with the OT go away.

Just like proponents of Just War or even Christian Realism, it may require that someone die for your convictions (as any convictions worth having may demand — pacifism, just war, and even basic recourse to self - defense are alike in this regard).

While I commend Beck for advocating charity (even if he does it mostly to make political points), if people like Beck and Santorum are such devout, outspoken Christians, why were they not vocal in support of the long - standing Vatican and Christian position that the War in Iraq violated Christian Just War Criteria from the beginning, and vociferously denounce the draft - dodging, war profiteers and religious hypocrites who started it?

Advocates of just war ignore the reality of the kingdom of God.

I come from this position from both having served in the military and considered «just war theory» at masters level.

In the herein God orders conduct that is clearly condemned by the proponents of the just war theory, let alone by those who believe that Jesus taught nonviolence.

The day after Bush's Religious Broadcasters sermon, the Wall Street Journal — in suspect synchronization — offered half its editorial page to a two - thousand - word blast from Richard John Neuhaus, now a bugle boy for Bush, who commended the president for his recitation of just war principles.

In fact, however, Neuhaus avoided any substantive application of just war criteria to the Gulf War itself, obviously preferring to seize one more occasion to beat up on religious leaders who don't share his brand of neoconservatism.

But the second clause was prelude to the invocation of Christian just war principles and specific citations of Saints Ambrose, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas.

It will consider natural law moral reasoning and its application to a variety of moral and political issues, including religious liberty, economic justice, just war and capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, and marriage and sexuality.

'» The technical discussions as to when or whether nuclear weapons can be used without violating just war criteria are irrelevant unless the question of escalation can be answered with certainty.

Neither real politics nor the just war theory can provide a legitimate basis for their existence or use.

I saw «The Call to Peacemaking» document as pacifistic and deficient in its failure to affirm the «just war.»

Our realization that the just war theory provides no justification for nuclear weapons or nuclear warfare has involved painful reappraisal, a «shaking of the foundations.»

Just war theory was expounded so that political leaders can discern when and how war can serve the greater end of peace; it is not a formula but a framework for judgment.

The just war tradition continues to provide helpful set of serious moral issues concerning war and peace The misuse and abuse of that tradition, however, are among the most terrible facts of political, and religious, history.

And for what it's worth, my just war commitments hinge upon my belief that church and state have separate approaches, and that the latter has the power of the sword to execute justice.

I think war is never an occasion for rejoicing, however, even if it's a just war.

The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility by Paul Ramsey Rowman & Littlefield, 554 pages, $ 19.95 A welcome reprint of a 1968 classic by the late Methodist theologian Paul Ramsey.

• Enemy combatants: I am a just war theorist, and affirm proportionality as a means of using force.

«When he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he became pope, he made a much - quoted remark dismissing the idea of Iraq as a «just war.

Fr Vickers demonstrates that Bourne was no jingoist, but he was a patriotic Briton and wanted his Catholic people to play an active part in what he perceived as a just war.

In my years here, I have taken a seminar on just war that drew generously from Catholic teachings, a lecture class on religion and the law in which we read Pope Benedict XVI, and a jurisprudence survey course where several of our assignments focused on the natural - law tradition.

The Church's role consists in enunciating clearly the principles, in forming the consciences of men and in insisting on the moral exercise of just war.