Why do we still worry about War?

Why do we still worry about war? We have become so "rational" these days. We can analyze everything, but some things still don't make sense. Is there something really wrong with us? War is essentially a social problem, and one that we have to deal with urgently. This needs a solution at least as much as poverty, or any other social problem.

So what are Society's crucial issues? What must Society secure for us? Let's think for a second. What do we really need, that we can only get collectively?

The list is short:
   1. Identity     (belonging & value)
   2. Hierarchy (leadership & example)
   3. Rules        (etiquette & taboos)
   4. Trade        (fairness & value)
   5. Justice     (penalties & reconciliation)
   6. Defense   (territory & security)

In theory, all of these can be achieved by (mostly) peaceful means. Even Teddy Roosevelt's adage to "Walk softly, and carry a big stick" is mostly peaceful, so long as you don't strut around swinging the stick. But the promise of peace has eluded us throughout history.  We always seem to find some reason to fight, either as the aggressors or in defense. Is this something ingrained into human nature? Certainly, it is not a trend to be continued in Heaven. So, let's try to see what is going on here.

What do men fight for?
   1. status (respect & authority)
   2. women (reproductive rights)
   3. slaves (labor assistance)
   4. wealth (abundant resources)
   5. land (perpetual self-regulation)
   6. battle buddies (solidarity)
   7. to save our children (futures)

What would we die for?
   1. save family
   2. rescue friends
   3. preserve honor
   4. defend community
   5. save souls

There are other ways, besides war, for us to achieve the benefits that we fight for, and today, we usually get them without fighting. But that wasn't always the case. In ancient times, and in prehistory, any insult could start a conflict. Just our natural inclination to take any kind of advantage we can get, regardless of any other's need, would have precipitated a vicious vendetta. That is why we have law codes that date back all the way to our earliest civilizations.

Society's first action was to curb our need for revenge, and replace it with measured justice. Each generation built upon those foundations, imagining better and better ideals, until we could feel safe living among strangers. And as the centuries pass, societies get larger and more inclusive, and the rules ask us to be more restrained in our responses to those who offend us. Great civilizations encompass many peoples, some of whom used to be enemies, and they have to learn tolerance just to keep the peace.

It isn't easy, but the larger our groups get, the lower the rate of violence goes... at least until two groups with irreconcilable differences come into conflict over which is to be superior and dominant, overruling the observances of the other. When push comes to shove, and the lifeways of both seem to be an offense to each other, conflict becomes inevitable. And if both sides feel powerful enough to assert their own prerogatives, there will be a war until one or the other is forced to back down.

If neither is willing to accept subjugation, may Heaven help us. Our only hope is the separation of two territories, a treaty of non-interference, and recognition of spheres of influence. Hopefully, this won't have to be backed up by the full intent to achieve mutual destruction if the peace is ever broken.

It seems hard to believe that people still want to fight wars for their gods. Most people would be aghast if they had a vision of God telling them to sacrifice their children upon some altar for Him. Religion is supposed to be about trusting God to help us build a better society. Our older religions that separated peoples into friends and enemies have faded into the obscurity they deserved. But not all have been abandoned, some people still listen to a long dead prophet who tells them to go to war with those who have different beliefs. Honestly? That's bloody insane!

It's bad enough that our "duly constituted" governments think they have the right to make us join the armed forces and go to war. They at least claim that they do it to defend us against aggression, or to preserve our rights and freedom. But why would anyone in this day and age think they should fight for a bloodthirsty god?

If God is real, (and my vote says He is) then He loves us and wants us to be kind to each other... even to people who don't like us, and oppose the ways we want to live. But not everyone thinks their theology all the way through. They would rather let other people take all of the responsibility and tell them what to do. Personally, I want to examine the motives of anyone who wants to be the boss of everyone, including God. I want to know that He has my best interests at heart. Anyone who claims to speak for God, but wants me to go to war and conquer people who only want peace for everyone, is both deluded and a liar.

Not even if this supposed "God" comes to me personally, if he wants to start a war of conquest, will he get me to believe. The only God I want to hear from is the One who wants, and knows how, to prevent all future wars, and do so without making us all die or become slaves. And please God, not another "War to end all wars." That didn't work last time, and probably never will. If God can really perform that miracle, I will seriously have to consider his claim to be divine. And I accept that I will have a bias toward faith and belief.

"Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44) Jesus wanted us to convert our neighbors by using kindness to show what kind of God we venerate. Our willingness to accept martyrdom was meant to prove our faith in Christ's resurrection and our trust that we too would rise again at the end of history. But that is purely religion, and not even a realistic mode of survival, much less for political stability and security.

We can believe that the best policy is to use non-violent resistance when faced with oppression, but even Gandhi allowed that it might not have worked for the Jews against the Nazis. "Not without serious losses," he said. I don't think it would work against an enemy that insists that you are a lesser kind of "not quite human", or "the worst of men." You can't just refuse to fight an enemy whose sole aim is to see you dead. At some point, you have to try to block the gun that is pointed at your head.

The same goes when your faith is the object that is meant to be obliterated. If you can't see any better choice than the one you have already, especially if you really do believe in it, then nothing short of a struggle for survival can be predicted. And if one faith is refusing to even try to understand the other, while trying to violently subjugate its practitioners, then no one should be surprised that violence will be met with violence.

But any true faith should know, God doesn't work that way. God doesn't tell people to attack and kill another people until they are forced to surrender, just because they have a different religion. Those tactics faded from history three thousand years ago. Only a megalomaniac, or a lunatic, would want to revive such barbaric excuses for political conquest. No religion that fails to promote peace, or abrogates its true purpose to improve our character as human beings, can be a real religion. And any prophet who teaches violence is no prophet at all, and certainly not any kind of paragon to be emulated.

So we are left with an unsatisfactory solution: the separation of these two diametrically opposed ideologies, each holding a fundamental faith in God. We must achieve a perennially renewed truce, that keeps us from coming back ever again to fight for cultural dominance. We both attribute our culture's success to our faith in God, but the "One and Only" God that we define appears to be totally at odds with their definition and practical faith. One side preaches kindness and freedom, but the other practices violence and subjugation. Meanwhile, both claim to be a religion of peace. Can they both really be serving the same God?

But we can all see who sends out suicide bombers, telling them that they will be martyrs for the cause. Is it any wonder that we are so adamantly opposed to their ever getting the technology to build atomic bombs? They want to die fighting! Only a sane person is dissuaded from violence by the worry that he might also be killed; a suicidal lunatic is only encouraged.

We won't be truly safe until we achieve a way to leave the crazy people behind, and ascend to the Heavens. There we can live in peace, among our own kind, and maybe build the golden societies we have always dreamed about. I don't want to be meek and inherit the Earth, if all I will get is an early grave plot, and I don't think that you should have to settle for that either. We need to support the drive to get human society into space, on the Moon, on Mars, among the asteroids, or just in orbital space colonies.  Any way we can get there to find a refuge from violence and religious subjugation is a way that we need to pursue with all the necessary care and deliberate speed. America was settled by many who only wanted a place where they could worship in peace, free of religious persecution. That may again become one of the main reasons for many of us to migrate, this time into space.

May we all share in God's peace and blessing, and Godspeed.