Religious leaders debate Iraq

Religious leaders debate Iraq

As the Bush administration scrambles to gain support for military action against Saddam Hussein, religious leaders are debating over whether the United States has justification to attack Iraq.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, says a preemptive military strike against Iraq would be justified.

“If you are looking for just cause, we have already passed that threshold,” said Land, noting Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons “at breakneck speed,” has broken all cease-fire agreements since the 1991 Gulf War and attempted to assassinate President Bush’s father when he was president. There also is “a direct line” from Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorists, Land pointed out.

“The human cost of not taking Hussein out and removing his government as a producer, proliferator and proponent of the use of weapons of mass destruction means we can either pay now or we can pay a lot more later,” Land said. Hussein “comes closer to meeting modern history’s worst standard of that extremely dangerous world leader, Adolf Hitler, than perhaps any other figure to emerge since Hitler’s death in 1945.”

Despite the American threat to strike first, military action against Iraq would be a “defensive action,” he said.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, also applauds President Bush’s effort to round up support for a strike against Iraq.

“[Iraq] represents a real threat to freedom and security — not only to America — but to our friends around the world,” Sekulow said. “Without question, President Bush is justified in pursuing a strategy that protects America and our freedoms. … We encourage President Bush to take whatever action is necessary to protect the United States.”

Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, said, “There was a time when people played politics while Adolf Hitler gained more and more power. That should be lesson enough for us to say we dare not allow something to go that far again — or thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent people will die.”

But the majority of Christian leaders, including many evangelicals, raise objections to the possibility.

When 38 Christian leaders from the United States, Canada and Britain gathered in Geneva Aug. 30, they issued an urgent call for the United States to draw back from it move toward a potentially unilateral strike against Iraq. The Geneva gathering of church leaders was for a meeting of the World Council of Churches’ Central Committee.

“As Christians, we are concerned by the likely human costs of war with Iraq, particularly civilians,” the church leaders said. “We are unconvinced that the gain for humanity would be proportionate to the loss.”

Another group of Christian leaders known as the Churches for Middle East Peace are also opposing military action against Iraq. Forty-eight Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leaders signed a letter sent to President Bush asking for nonmilitary action.

“As Christian religious leaders responsible for millions of U.S. citizens, we expect our government to reflect the morals and values we hold dead — pursuing peace, not war; working with the community of nations, not overthrowing governments by force; respecting international law and treaties while holding in high regard all human life,” the leaders wrote.

Consult with U.N.

Stan DeBoe, chairman of Churches for Middle East Peace, said the United States should consult with the United Nations, not demand its own way.

“It is not a matter of ‘you go along with us or else we’ll do what we want,’ but rather how does the United States work with and through the U.N.? To implement the consensus of the international community,” DeBoe said, “We are arguing the president to uphold the values of our great country by working closely with the community of nations, not by rattling sabers nor by threatening to overthrow governments.”

Others who contend that clear evidence justifying an attack has not been found include David Gushee, associate professor of moral philosophy at the Southern Baptist-affiliated Union University in Jackson, Tenn.; Robert McGinnis of the Family Research Council; and Rick Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Roman Catholic bishops in the United States also disagree with the Bush administration.

“(It is) difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11,” they said in a letter to President Bush. Nor could an attack be justified without evidence of “an imminent attack of a grave nature” by Iraq, the letter said.

“The United States and the international community have two grave moral obligations: to protect the common good against any Iraqi threats to peace and to do so in a way that conforms with fundamental moral norms,” said Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The bishops’ stance in many ways mirrored that of other U.S. religious leaders who have cautioned the administration about a preemptive military strike against Iraq. Catholic bishops have long been an influential voice on matters of war and peace.

The pacifist Mennonite Church USA also opposes a war with Iraq. In just two Sundays, church leaders collected 13,396 signatures from 237 Mennonite congregations in 32 states on a letter delivered to the White House Sept. 12.

The letter argues war will not increase peace and security for residents of the Middle East, and urges President Bush to initiate a dialogue with Iraq and work toward a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.

A prominent Islamic advocacy group also wants President Bush to deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction.

Frank Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, agreed.

“Further unilateral military action would surely inflame the passions of millions, particularly in the Arab world, setting in motion cycles of violence and retaliation,” Griswold said. “Such action would undermine our firm national intent to eradicate global terrorism. As well, it would further strain tenuous relationships that exist between the United States and other nations.”

As the National Council of Churches, a group of 36 mainline Protestant and Orthodox denominations in the United States, planned to meet Sept. 23-27 about the Iraq issue, the group’s general secretary, Bob Edgar, has already expressed his conern.

“We do not need to march down the path to Armageddon. Preemptive military action now being contemplated by the (Bush) Administration cannot be morally justified,” said Edgar, who served six terms in the U.S. Congress.

“Among other consequences, consider that a preemptive strike by the United States presents to the world a model of aggression that may encourage other nations to attack neighboring countries that threaten them.”