Friday, November 23, 2007

Pres. Hinckley on Empire, War and Peace

So I just read Pres. Hinckley's talk on War and Peace at the 2003 General Conference. The link to it is here:

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-353-27,00.html

Given we are reading Tolstoy's thoughts on violence I wanted to perhaps make a few comments on Pres. Hinckley's speech.

In his speech Pres. Hinckley noted the need to defend freedom and the atrocities that are synonomus with empire, noting the horrors of the Ottmans, Romans and British. We are foolish to think the American Empire is atrocity free. The question is whether the benefits of empire (rights and freedoms) outweigh the moral costs (which inevitably is bloodshed on a genocidal level as there is no way to build an empire without committing atrocity on a previously unkown level given that the methods of killing have become ever more sophisticated). So it is a question of utilitarianism, are empires justifiable because they create the greatest good for the greatest number?

Second point in Pres. Hinckley's speech of which I must quote him:

"One of our Articles of Faith, which represent an expression of our doctrine, states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12).
But modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).
In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally."


For me the immediate question becomes the correlation between legality and morality? We all know there are unjust laws (one on need read Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" to best understand this, The letter can be found here http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) Our own Declaration of Indpendence notes the existence of unjust laws and our own revolution was treason made just by might making right, or that what is just is defined by the victor on the battlefield.

The debate between duty to God and duty to country is an old question. When is it just to violate a man made law? Was Gandhi just in marching to the sea to make salt? Is Cindy Sheehan just to protest outside to Whitehouse without a permit? Are the officers of the state who arrested Gandhi and Cindy Sheehan (in no way am I drawing a moral linkage or comparison between Gandhi and Sheehan) just in carrying out their orders?

Here comes a difficult one. Jesus of Nazereth was executed by the state. Of course there were numerous legal shortcomings in the process by which he was tried and executed, but no more than the processes by which numerous citizens find themselves under in our own country where we pride ourselves on due process of law. Under the law of the land, Jesus was a criminal and was dealt a punishment. Were the laws Jesus broke or the guards who nailed him to the cross just?

No comments: