New Testament Essay Example for Free

New Testament Essay â€Å"This weakness is displayed in the special terms that are employed by the theory —innocent, combatant, aggression, authority and so on. These terms are subject to the slipping and sliding of deconstructive analysis and forever need further, technical definition. For example, what constitutes an act of ‘aggression’? Is it Ð ° physical assault on one’s territory? An insult to the national pride? Ð  trade embargo, an attack on one’s ally? Osama bin Laden justifies his attack on 9/11 as an act of self-defense against American ‘aggression’, which has destroyed the ‘religion and life’ of his people. For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into Ð ° spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as Ð ° staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but are helpless†¦ All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are Ð ° clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema [religious leaders] have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in ‘Al-Mughni’, Imam al-Kisa’i in ‘Al-Bada’I’, al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: ‘As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is Ð ° duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life’. In fact, this same justification is not so remote from what we hear in our own country, where the left-wing often blames American imperialism and the international system of capitalism for raping the cultures of third world countries, exploiting the people, producing poverty, and sowing the seeds for Ð ° violent response. The criteria do not seem to help the special problem at hand. Most scholars seem to think that just war theory allows for pre-emptive strikes, but the conditions and details are not so clear. The Bush administration and the ‘National Security Strategy’ contend that pre-emptive strikes against Iraq are consonant with just war theory, international law, and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Legal scholars and international jurists are said to sanction the right of Ð ° pre-emptive strike based on the condition of an imminent threat. † (Gabriel 2006 27-33) â€Å"However, the Vatican seems to interpret its own codes as Ð ° justification for fighting Ð ° defensive war against Ð ° particular act of aggression, and most scholars seem to agree with its interpretation of the tradition. Jeff McMahan, Ð ° professor at the University of Illinois, says that the theory has Ð ° strong aversion to pre-emptive war. Normally we prefer to punish Ð ° crime already committed, rather than speculate over future possibilities. Just war theory does not like to exchange its certitude for Ð ° more problematic or sordid enterprise. 18 William Gaston, professor at the University of Maryland, finds it necessary to create more criteria to justify his opposition to the administration’s policy, he concedes that ‘anticipatory self-defense has Ð ° place in international law and just war theory’, but he does not concur with the current application of this most difficult step. His criteria would involve Ð ° consideration of the enormity, probability and imminence of the threat, as well as the cost of delay, According to these criteria, the Bush policy is unnecessary in the present circumstance—at least for the time being. Saddam Hussein is not Ð ° present danger (imminence); other options for Ð ° number of months could prove fruitful (cost of delay); and it is unlikely that Saddam would hand WMD to terrorists based on his past actions and present interest. The conclusion is that ‘the case for Ð ° pre-emptive strike has not been made’. Those who list criteria often cast Ð ° negative vote toward an action. Just war treatises often demand fulfillment of all of its conditions. Thomas Aquinas, when he composed his conditions for just war (proper authority, just cause and right intention), insisted that all three conditions must be met as Ð ° necessary apologia for war. The scholastics went on to develop the maxim bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. â€Å"However, with the United States issuing Ð ° â€Å"with us or against us ultimatum after September 11 and simultaneously dangling the carrot of long-term economic and military assistance in return for logistic support for Americas war effort, each Central Asian state rushed to strike unilateral deals with the United States based on its own self-interest, thereby allowing the United States to establish Ð ° strategic foothold in Central Asia with little or no thought for Chinas concerns. For Central Asians, it was Ð ° golden opportunity to lessen the overbearing influence of their neighboring giants (Russia and China). They view the expanded U. S. military presence in the region as an insurance policy against any future bid by Russia and China to reassert control. However, the lack of strategic policy coordination post-September 11 among the SCO member states left the multilateral forum seriously weakened, undercut the groups solidarity, and represented Ð ° â€Å"major failure for the fledgling group† established to provide Ð ° regional response to terrorism in the region. 65 It also highlighted the tenuous nature of Chinas â€Å"strategic influence† in Central Asia where local ethnic and religious rivalries and conflicting interests present formidable obstacles to Beijings desire to knit the regions governments into Ð ° solid security partnership to further Chinas grand strategic objectives. â€Å" (Mohan 2002) This meant that an action cannot have any moral defect if it is to find justification before God. Ð  war must involve the perfection of God, or it cannot proceed under his blessing. The conditions of war is wholly good, universal and absolute. They do not serve as simple rules of thumb, which may have tensions and become subject to compromise between them. However, this preference for absolute, deontological ethics does not allow the tradition to meet the changing needs of the human condition. It becomes Ð ° pretext for doing nothing because it is based upon past concerns and does not relate to modern times. Its view of the world comes from the Greek philosophical notion of kosmos, not the biblical concept of history, Its world is Ð ° closed shell of eternal laws that contain no openness to the changes of history or the historical nature of humankind. It often strait-jackets its proponents into following rules and failing to take the best course of action in the present circumstance. It limits itself to Ð ° past set of rules that are composed without the prescience of future, historical constellations. The absolute dogmatic claims of the system are somewhat surprising since so much of the analysis depends upon the power of human reason. Its basis of authority does not reside in scripture so much—maybe because the questions it asks are removed from the basic message of the New Testament. † (Elizabeth 2004 6)