Introduction
In recognition of Memorial day, the focus of today's service will be on selected religious perspectives on the morality of war, in particular the concept of a "just war". What does religion bring to the table regarding war?

The three principal western religious perspectives on the morality of war are embodied in the concepts of pacifism, just war, and holy war. Advocates of the respective positions use religion to oppose war, to justify limited war, and to actually encourage war. The views of most UUs no doubt cover the spectrum from strict pacifism through support of the just war construct. There are probably few, if any, who agree with the notion of a holy war. Yet Unitarian Universalism as a denomination should not be considered a pacifist religion, in the sense of the Amish or Mennonites or Quakers. Absolute pacifism isn't a common tenet of our faith, even if there is currently a strong pacifist sentiment.

Early Christianity and Pacifism
For thousands of years, philosophers and theologians have pondered the question: what, if anything, constitutes a just war? Consideration of this query in the western world over the last two millennia has been strongly influenced by Christian thinking. The Scottish pacifist and World War One veteran G. MacGregor noted "There can be no question that the teaching of Jesus, if taken at face value, is uncompromisingly pacifist . . . the debate between pacifist and non-pacifist ought to be, not concerning any possible ambiguity in Jesus' teaching . . . but rather concerning its practicality, its relevance to present circumstances, the extent to which Jesus himself intended it to be put into effect in an imperfect world."

Jesus did not merely rely on his own personal authority in advocating pacifism, but offered underlying reasons in support of this stance. These include his belief that all humans are brothers and sisters, children of one loving, parental God; and the cause-and-effect observation that those who live by the sword, tend to die by the sword. For example, in the gospel according to Mathew, Chapter 5, verses 43 - 45, Jesus said: "You have heard that it has been said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who use you and persecute you. That you may be the children of your Father in heaven." And in Mathew, Chapter 26, verse 52, when Jesus was taken by the chief priests in the Garden of Gethsemane, he said to his followers: "Put away your swords; for all who live by the sword, shall die by the sword." Of course, many authority-minded biblical scholars interpret the "death by sword" statement of Jesus as a threat that any mortal who uses violence inappropriately will in turn be violently punished by God. And the statement doesn't mean that pacifists can't also "die by the sword" - Jesus was himself crucified, and in modern time the pacifists Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior were both assassinated. Jesus never suggested that true pacifism would be "easy".

Early Christians were intensely pacifist, and considered violence an anathema to their faith. Recall their submissive response to brutal persecution by Roman authorities. Not until the year 312, when the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, did this attitude begin to change. Soon Christians found themselves responsible for civil defense against continual attacks by barbarian invaders, and had to reconcile their pacifist roots with demands for defensive warfare.

Arguments Concerning Pacifism
Perhaps the most powerful arguments against strict pacifism both at the time of Emperor Constantine and now are teleological, or based on consequences. Pacifism may lead to instability in regional and global politics, as pacifist nations would be perpetual potential targets of aggressive neighbors, and would be unwilling to ally with other nations to combat aggression elsewhere in the world. Some have argued that pacifist communities can only persist within greater non-pacifist societies willing to protect them from such external threats. Pacifist nations would also be vulnerable to attacks from within. One of the primary purposes of government in the western world is the protection of individual rights and property. Without the threat of force, it is questionable that government could fulfill this purpose.

On the other hand, even pacifists who accept teleological reasoning could maintain that these arguments are false. Granted, a pacifist country may be inevitably gobbled up by an aggressive neighbor. But national borders may mean little, if anything at all, to a truly pacifist community. After a pacifist country is conquered, its principles might be assimilated by the larger culture. The early Christian community itself grew to dominance in a particularly hostile external environment. Principles of nonviolent opposition can also be applied to deal with a variety of conflicts, both internal and external.

Of course, if you are a pacifist on grounds of principle, all these arguments are irrelevant - anything other than strict pacifism is simply wrong; the end does not justify the means. The purest pacifists, such as Jesus, appear to operate from such a profound sense of oneness with others that they simply cannot bring themselves to intentionally harm or kill another person under any circumstances. As observed by Mairead Maguire, the 1977 Noble Peace Prize recipient for her work in Northern Ireland, "The life of nonviolence is the fruit of an inner peace and spiritual unity already realized in us, and not the other way around."

Just War According to Saint Augustine; Holy War
Religious leaders in the newly Christianized Roman Empire ultimately acquiesced to some of the anti-pacifist arguments. St. Augustine of Hippo was the first Christian theologian to propose a doctrine of "just war", early in the 5th century. While detesting the destruction and death attendant to war, Augustine argued that a "just war" might be preferable to an unjust peace; that the use of force is necessary - though always regrettable - in a fallen world in order to restrain evil, but that its ultimate goal must be to restore peace. Augustine carefully distinguished between the biblical mandate for an individual to love his or her neighbor, even to the point of renouncing self-defense, and the duty of a government to preserve civic peace and secure justice. In particular, he specified circumstances under which good Christians could wage war and take the lives of invading pagan barbarians.

The religious aversion to killing nonetheless remained strong in the empire for hundreds of years. At the end of the first millennium CE, Byzantine knights who engaged in combat were denied the holy sacraments until hostilities ceased, because they were engaging in acts considered morally wrong. As a consequence, the Byzantine rulers routinely hired non-Christian soldiers to fight their wars.

These views were severely distorted when the Christian world became involved in its first holy wars - the Crusades, a grand mission to drive Islam out of the Christian holy land around Jerusalem, that lasted from the end of the 11th to the end of the 13th centuries CE. According to the Mennonite pacifist John Yoder, characteristics of a holy war include a belief that authority for the war comes directly from God, through Divine Revelation that transcends human judgement. The adversary is seen as having no rights; indeed, excess in battle may be a sign of devotion, and death in combat is a ticket straight to heaven. Killing the enemy becomes a mandate, an intrinsic righteous obedience, rather than the mournful concession and regrettable duty envisioned by Augustine.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims have all had their holy wars - none is exempt. When Christian crusaders at last captured Jerusalem, they slaughtered the 40,000 Muslim and Jewish inhabitants of the city - all in the name of God. Even the American Civil War had elements of a holy war - recall the words in The Battle Hymn of the Republic sung at the beginning of this service. Today, many Arabs see Israel and the United States as engaged in a holy war against them. And there are currently two versions of Muslim holy warriors - Palestinians fighting perceived Jewish crusaders; and fundamentalist Islamists such as Osama bin-Laden fighting encroachments by western culture all over the world.

Later Religious Views of Just War
As the Crusades wound down, views toward war moderated once again in the Christian community. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, expanded and refined Augustine's concept of a just war, describing three basic criteria by which a war could be justified. The Catholic Church ultimately expanded this list into the following six tenets:

1) A just war must have a just cause.
Going to war for self-defense is considered just, for example, while going to war to simply acquire coveted territory or resources is not.

2) A just war must be waged by a legitimate authority.
This is usually considered to be the sovereign power of a legitimate state.

3) A just war must be fought with right intention -
for the advancement of good and justice, and the avoidance of evil. The goal of the war must be to establish peace and justice.

4) A just war can be waged only as a last resort.

5) A just war must have a reasonable chance of success.

6) A just war must be proportional - the damage inflicted must not exceed the evil being averted. This criterion was introduced largely in response to the emergence of weapons of mass destruction.

The Catholic church also developed rules for just conduct during warfare - weapons and tactics whose use is considered morally justified when waging war. For example, soldiers must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. During the Middle Ages, these precepts were enshrined in the code of chivalry. Historically, the importance of tenets in a "just war" doctrine should not be underestimated - if a medieval knight took a life in what was considered an unjust war, or by what was considered an unjust means, he would be denied the holy sacraments, which meant eternal damnation to a devote Catholic.

Other religions have developed their own perspectives regarding war. During the Reformation, most Protestant reformers upheld the general features of the Roman Catholic just war tradition, although details were modified. A few, such as the Quakers, even returned to their strictly pacifist roots.

Contemporary Secular Views of Just War
There will probably never be unanimity, either nationally or internationally, as to what, if anything, constitutes a just war. Religious fundamentalists tend to base their views strictly on reference to holy scripture. More liberal religious and secular thinkers may either apply basic but disputable ethical principles, or reason from a teleological, pragmatic, or other philosophic perspective. In the United States, the concept of just war has become largely divorced from strictly religious thinking. This dates back to the Revolutionary War, which was justified on the philosophic grounds of the right of a people to overthrow an unjust ruler. Indeed, the "just war tradition" of the Catholic Church was originally developed to guide absolute monarchs in Europe, and was not intended for use in a democratic society.

The secular views of just war held by many government leaders today evolved from arguments similar to those advanced by the Princeton theologian Paul Ramsey in his influential 1968 book The Just War. Rather than give a comprehensive list of his conditions for a just war, I will outline a few of the more relevant points.

1) The responsibility of political leaders is to balance the common good of humanity with the common good of their own nations. National leaders should neither pursue self-interest with complete disregard of their neighbors, nor be excessively internationalist at the expense of their own people.

2) There should be a powerful and resolute international governing body, such as the United Nations, which unites countries into a cohesive international community, governed by binding laws. However, when such a body does not exist, or is not powerful or resolute, it is the responsibility of individual nations to act unilaterally to secure the common good.

3) There is no limit to the threats you can make against enemies in order to intimidate or deter them from violence. But if you actually fight them, there are limits to the weapons and tactics you may employ.

4) Nuclear weapons are just, as long as they only act as deterrents to war, but are never actually used. Many of you may remember MADD - the mutually assured destruction doctrine - that was pursued by US and Soviet leaders during the Cold War era.

5) The military should discriminate between enemy combatants and civilians, and target only the enemy forces. However, only the intent is important here - as long as the military does not intentionally target civilians, even if they are killed in large numbers as a result of military action, the action is still moral.

These secular guidelines have a distinctly different ring from those proposed by most religious groups. The "mournfulness" required by Augustine when making just war is certainly not evident, or embraced by our culture for that matter. When soldiers return from even a just war, rather than mourning with them the regrettable duty they had to perform, we prefer to welcome them with ticker tape parades, and celebrate them as returning heroes. We treat war as a football game, rather than the grim and ugly business that it is. What else can this be but a monumental mistake? Perhaps we need to find ways within our greater society to respect and honor soldiers who fight in what we consider to be just wars, without glorifying warfare and killing itself. Otherwise we will continue to raise generations of children who romanticize armed conflict, and who grow into adults only too eager to make a premature plunge into the night of war.