There is widespread agreement that the “baptism” of violence in the past justifies use of violence in the present. As Schmidt and Schröder observe, “There exists no more important resource for an ideology of violence than the representation of past violence.”50 This is especially true when that past violence is idealized within a religious framework. Hence, those who wish to reduce the future possibility of justifying moral atrocities religiously will reject the use of religious narratives to justify past moral atrocities.
One of the oddities respecting this objection is the way Rauser uses “violence” as a synonym for “moral atrocities.” Is he claiming that violence per se is morally atrocious? Is violence intrinsically evil? Is there no distinction between licit and illicit forms of violence?
What about the use of violence to prevent a moral atrocity or “heinous, murderous actions”? Does that also set a bad precedent? Is Rauser a pacifist?
I like the way the Psalmst framed the answer:
ReplyDeletePsa 46:8 Come, behold the works of the LORD, how he has brought desolations on the earth.
Psa 46:9 He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the chariots with fire.
He "breaks" the bow and "shatters" the spear.
Nothing non-violent about that! :)