No war on Iraq
March 4Students and professors came together for an informal discussion Tuesday night to describe how their religious beliefs influenced their opinion on the Iraq conflict. Everyone who spoke at the forum dismissed the United States' motions against Iraq, saying that the current circumstances did not justify military intervention. The event, "Peace Talks," was sponsored by Department of Comparative Religion and chaired by Professor Joseph Walser, who started the conversation by pointing out that "our beliefs are informed by religion, but not necessarily tied to it." Conversations between different groups will always have some basis in religion, which necessitates discussing these differences, he said. But many people said that different religions have different thresholds for justifying conflict. In Islam, contemporary interpretations of the Koran justify only defensive wars, according to Visiting Lecturer Alnoor Dhanani, a practicing Muslim. Still, Dhanani said he supported the first Gulf War and the US invasion of Afghanistan, because he believes both wars produced beneficial results. But the current conflict with Iraq is not acceptable, he said, because the Bush administration "keeps changing the ends justifying this war day to day." Dhanani also predicted that war would lead to a destabilization of the Arab world, a rise in fundamentalism, and increased anti-Americanism in the region. Rabbi Jeff Summit expressed similar concerns and pointed out that while Judaism permits waging conflicts in response to threats, toppling Saddam may ultimately prove to a dangerous move. "Many people are trying to figure out how this would affect Israel," Summit said. "There are people in Israel who are against the war [and] many Jews in the United States who are questioning its merits." Craig Winnard, a Comparative Religions major, questioned how it was possible to protest the conflict without causing more damage by threatening the opposing side. In response, Walser said that protesting the impending conflict takes precedence over controlling anger. "If you get upset and get something accomplished, that might be worth getting worked up over," Walser said. Some people at the discussion thought anger about the potential war on Iraq could be justified. "There is such a thing as righteous indignation," said History Professor Gary Leupp. If anything, Leupp criticizes the anti-war movement for being "too calm" and unwilling to make a scene over its cause. Leupp, who helped to organize recent protests in Ciaro that drew half a million people, offered last week's demonstrations at former President George H.W. Bush's speech as an example of the fear of using anger. While many have criticized the protesters for disrespecting Bush, he said people should not worry about embarrassing the University or offending the former president since "there are lives at stake" and people should take a stance against it. Professor Peter Thuesen also criticized the current Bush administration's war effort. He said Bush's use of religious language to justify the war was ironic: while Bush speaks of liberating the Iraqi people, there are many people in the Arab world who say the war would be an attack on Islam, Thuesen said. As a Protestant, Thuesen described how the Bible had passages that both justified and refuted the use of armed conflict. Shifting interpretations of other religious texts were brought to light when junior Jason Brown read from the seminal Toaist document Tao Te Ching, which Brown used to justify his participation in the anti-war movement. Walser noted that the exact passage Brown read was once used to justify the overthrow the Han dynasty in China. Since religious texts can be used to support many differing points of view, the speakers came to consensus that political leaders should generally not use them in political rhetoric. But Leupp said he still hoped that many of the participants were involved in the anti-war movement and that people of all faiths joined the action against Iraqi involvement. "I think it is possible the administration, under pressure, will reevaluate and make a judgment call that they vastly overreached," he said. "People will realize the whole justification for war was predicated on lies and they will not accept it."
