Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.29.2008 1:08 am

Finally, something that unites religions of the world

Special to the Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

A major and an unusual event took place earlier today uniting people from ALL major religions of the world. Look at this list of diverse nations that agreed on that one thing: US (Western Christianity), Russia (Eastern Christianity), China (Buddhism/atheism), India (Hinduism), Pakistan (Islam), and Israel (Judaism). Any lucky guesses what brought the disparate parties together?

‘Bomblets’ of a Cluster BombsSorry ladies and gentlemen. I am not talking about prospects of world peace, abolition of poverty or God revealing Himself to all humanity. I am talking about little flying things that go by the ‘cute’ name of bomblets.

I know this is not a political blog but the list of those countries, covering all major world belief systems, uniting behind anything makes religion somehow come to my mind.

Some of you may know by now that earlier on Wednesday, 111 nations have approved in Dublin a treaty banning the use, manufacturing, distribution, and selling of cluster bombs. These horrible weapons are considered indiscriminate, they cover wide areas that tend to include civilians and, moreover, they have high failure rates (see photo below).

Cluster-bombs unexplodedThe unexploded 10% of the hundreds of bomblets released from each cluster bomb just lay there, waiting for civilians coming back to war-torn areas after the war is over. The bomblets tend to have bright color, attracting children who make a significant fraction of the post-hostilities victims in areas carpet-bombed by cluster devices. Hundreds of civilians are still being reported injured, maimed or killed since the end of Kosovo/Serbian war, the 2006 Israel war in Lebanon, and, believe it or not, in Vietnam still.

It would seem, then, that the ban on cluster bombs is a reason for celebration and cause to unite behind. It definitely has a pretty good moral foundation. But that is NOT what united those 6 countries. They united behind NOT approving it. They simply refused to be part of the negotiations. They opted out.

The reason, as some observer mentioned, is that those countries are the largest manufacturers and/or stockpilers of those horrible devices. Why would they waste a perfectly good bomb?

Money was the main reason the British military objected early on. But the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, took the decision to ban cluster bomb use by the UK, overriding his military, in a move that pushed the treaty beyond the final hurdles and got it approved. He felt that the 80 million or so dollars to be wasted were a minor sacrifice considering the harm done by these weapons.

The British PM was quoted saying that the ban was “in line with British interests and values, and makes the world a safer place.”

Hats off to Mr. Brown, who had his priorities right this time.

As for the objecting nations, nothing is new there. Throughout history, the mighty buck has proven a strong rival to deities of all kinds.

That is probably why the question ‘what would Jesus do?’ - or its equivalent in other religions - has never been frequently or seriously contemplated in making decisions in business, politics or war.

I am opposed to making religion a gold standard in the public arena, but shouldn’t morality be part of the decision making process for all of us?

Additional links:

Cluster bombs explained - The Guardian

111 Nations, Minus the U.S., Agree to Cluster-Bomb Ban - The Washington Post

Turnabout key to cluster bomb ban - LATimes

4 comments

Comments are closed.

Congratulations for printing this article. could you send special copies to hilary clinton John McCain, George bush and Pastor hagee. Now when do we make an invasion of Israel and the rest of these countries because they have weapons of Mass Destruction. HoHo. We Christians and especially the Taliban Catholics should be very sorry for their hypocrisy in opposing so stongly Abortion and gay marriage and Capital Punishment but saying nothing about these weapons.. thank God for Gordon Brown!!!!! PJM

— Paul of the Desert
12:20 pm May 29th, 2008

Khaled,

I think this is exactly the kind of issue that people of faith–indeed all people of conscience–should be blogging about, reading about, and DOING something about. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. How shameful that our government should be on the wrong side of this issue, and how significant that most Americans are responding with silence.

Pamela Dolan

— Pamela Dolan
1:06 pm May 31st, 2008

A religious question is “Why?”.

Why cluster bombs?

Evidently, from World War II, the Cold War, Kuwait and Iraq, technology wins wars. Failure to use technology may prolong war and cause even more collateral damage. Tactical weapons, like cluster bombs, are used to destroy military forces. Strategic weapons, like nuclear weapons - used to deprive the enemy of the means to wage war, cause even more collateral damage and any duds are more problematic. Area effect cluster bombs are effective against massed enemy forces and cause less collateral damage than larger bombs (Would you prefer a tactical nuclear weapon?) to get the same effect.

The real problem with cluster bombs appears to be the elimination of bomblets that do not explode. The problem seems to be more technical than religious.

Nations that fight wars should not give up technology designed to win a war without serious deliberations. For an independent view of United States’ policy, I went to the Center for Defense Information web site. The Center for Defense Information is independent of the government and industry and is part of the World Security Institute, a non-profit organization committed to independent research and journalism on global affairs.

For a printer friendly explanation of “U.S. Cluster Munitions Policy” see

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=4216

To see the evolution of United States policy for cluster munitions go to http://www.cdi.org/clusters/#021508

I think a better religious question than “Why cluster bombs?” would be “Why suicide bombers?”

Suicide bombers cause collateral damage – in fact they seem to be designed to cause collateral damage. What can be done to control them? What is the policy of those who employ them?

— davel
12:32 pm June 3rd, 2008

This is one of those fun issues that people like to start injecting religion into politics to try and shame one side. Evidence Paul who brings in Pastor Hagee for I’m not sure what reason.

The religious answer to any question of war and conflict should usually be that these weapons shouldn’t exist. Along with carpet bombs other weapons such as landmines and nuclear devices should go as well. This should be the creed of any loving faith.

The secular answer to these questions is that it would be best if these weapons didn’t exist, but at the same time one side can’t realistically not have weapons if the other side does. The question then turns to responsible use of these weapons and the larger issues of what their use will cost and benefit. How many lives were lost in the nuclear bombings of WWII, but how many more would have been lost in a protracted fight? How much help did cluster bombs and landmines really provide versus the later civilian toll? How were these weapons used and controlled?

Heres my thought. Religion doesn’t enter in to this discussion since religion would neither approve of any conflict nor would it defend any citizen. In reality faith should not have approved of either side of WWII. But had it not been fought one side would have overwhelmed the other. Just as religion has no business being written into a bill, it has no place in military tactics. However, there is a humanist argument to make against landmines and cluster bombs. Specifically an argument about their indescriminate use and failed design. But religion hardly factors in because religion should want to ban the use of all weapons, just like a lot of religions should seek to ban all forms of abortion. Life is paramount. And while this can guide our morality, it can not be the end of the line for a decision.

Gordon Browns choice wasn’t good because he made it with religious morals, but that he made it in the interest of all morals or England, religious and otherwise. Its the same decision making that lead Truman to use two nuclear warheads, to end the war faster and protect his citizens from a much prolonged conflict. He denied religious morals in this case.

— RCJ
11:10 am June 5th, 2008