- The main understanding of religion is the belief in the existence of a supernatural being and the activities that are connected to them. It is also widely used to refer to a group of people who profess certain faiths and identify themselves to belong to a particular faith group. Through this understanding, we have many groups that can be identified as religions, which includes the major world religions as-Christianity, Muslim, Buddhism, Judaism and others.
- When we turn our attention to religion and the use of religious weapons, the major thing we seek, is the different religious view on weapons that have the capacity to cause dangerous harm or even death to human life. The weapons are of different kinds where there are those that have physical, biological and even chemical effects to human life. Some of the weapons have the capacity to destroy the life of a few people while others can destroy even a whole city. Dangerous weapons therefore can range from knifes, swords, guns, missiles, grenades and bombs like the nuclear weapons.
- There have been a great debate within religious circles on whether it is right to keep or even use weapons, and to what extent such weapons should be used if need be. Religious scholars have therefore found themselves at the challenge of explaining their religious teachings on whether they support the use of weapons or not. The main references to the religious teachings remain to be the scriptures that the various religions adhere to. The teachings in the scriptures are usually the words of the religious founders and the key religious figures mentioned in the various scriptures.
- In order to find out what the various religions say about the use of weapons there is need therefore to give a close look at what the specific scriptures of the religions say, and also to follow both the religious debates and the various declarations by the religious groups on weapons use. In this we would therefore encounter quotes by the key leaders of these religions that would give us a better picture of the general understanding and opinion of these religions on the basis of the fact that these religious leaders have had a depth in the understanding of their religious teachings and are therefore able to make value-based judgment of what their religious view is, on the use of the dangerous weapons.
1. In Christianity, the biblical teachings are taken to be an authority in
determining whether the weapons are accepted for use. One major area of disagreement on use of weapons in the Christian circle in reference to the bible is whether the Old Testament writings still apply word by word to a Christian today. There are Christians who hold that the commands that Jehovah gave to the Israelites on engagement in war in the Old Testament, was something that only applied to the Jews in their Judaistic religion. These Christians therefore assert that a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus which they see as having made clarification on some teachings of the Old Testament to the extent of not giving in to violence, war and use of weapons. King David wrote in Psalm 46:1, that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God "Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1).Which proved that the God of the Old Testament was a proponent of battles using dangerous weapons. Christians assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
We must also consider what Christ told his disciples in his last hours with them: "...But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36). The sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier -- the equivalent then of a military rifle today. This to many Christians therefore implies that Jesus did not approve the use of violence and war but only approved use of weapons as tools for defence. This can be seen in Jesus statement to Peter who had used a sword against Jesus’ arresters, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?” (Matthew 26:52-54).
2. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest of Christian denominations, has long opposed the use of nuclear weapons in war. Pope John Paul II repeatedly called for their banishment. He did say in a 1982 address at the United Nations in the context of the Cold War, “In current conditions ‘deterrence’ based on balance, certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable.” But his address was titled, “Negotiation: The Only Realistic Solution to the Threat of War.”
- Twenty-three years later at the 2005 Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Archbishop Celestino Migliore, Vatican representative to the United Nations, indicated: When the Holy See expressed its limited acceptance of nuclear deterrence during the Cold War; it was with the clearly stated condition that deterrence was only a step on the way towards progressive nuclear disarmament. The Holy See has never countenanced nuclear deterrence as a permanent measure, nor does it today when it is evident that nuclear deterrence drives the development of ever newer nuclear arms, thus preventing genuine nuclear disarmament. The Holy See again emphasizes that the peace we seek in the 21st century cannot be attained by relying on nuclear weapons.
- On the global scene the World Council of Churches (WCC) brings together 349 churches, denominations and church fellowships in more than 110 countries and territories throughout the world. WCC represents over 560 million Christians and including most of the world's Orthodox churches, scores of Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist and Reformed churches, as well as many United and Independent churches. Among its numerous statements opposing nuclear weapons is one from its Sixth Assembly in 1983, rejecting the doctrine of nuclear deterrence and unequivocally declaring that the production and deployment as well as the use of nuclear weapons are a crime against humanity and that such activities must be condemned on ethical and theological grounds. United Methodist bishops took up this issue in 1987 and completely rejected the idea of nuclear deterrence. In their pastoral letter, which was part of their report, In Defense of Creation, they stated: Therefore, we say a clear and unconditional No to nuclear war and to any use of nuclear weapons. We conclude that nuclear deterrence is a position that cannot receive the church’s blessing.
3. In the Jewish religion, there are strong voices within the Jewish community which condemn the nuclear arms race and the possible use of nuclear weapons. Rabbi Arthur Waskow from the Shalom Center, observing an anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, observed: Today the whole earth is threatened by nuclear weapons, by the onrushing climate crisis of global scorching, and possibly by other tools of overweening arrogance. It is the same arrogance involved in the collapse of Eden's garden of delight…Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons should become a major goal of U.S. policy--and that requires radical reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. After all, the U.S. and British bombs sparked the Soviet bomb; that sparked the French and Chinese bombs; the Chinese bomb sparked India's bomb; and India's sparked Pakistan's. Israel's fear of large Arab-state armies sparked the Israeli bomb, and Israel's bomb has sparked some wishes for a bomb in some nearby Arab and Muslim nations. Only the United States can reverse the nuclear chain reaction that has fueled global nuclear proliferation.
4. In the Islamic teachings from an analysis of ethics and war in Islam, Muslim scholars, Jamal Badawi and Muzammil Siddiqi, provide “six powerful reasons for Muslims to oppose the production, deployment, and use of nuclear weapons.”-They represent a serious threat to peace, while peace is a central theme of Islam; they are brutal and merciless, and thus violate the Qur’anic description of the message of the Prophet Muhammad as “mercy to all the worlds.”;They are contrary to Islam’s promotion of human fellowship; Nuclear weapons do not fall within the scope of legitimate self-defense; Nuclear weapons research and production waste a huge amount of resources; While the argument for nuclear deterrence is not un-Islamic in principle, and while such deterrence apparently did work during the Cold War, there is no guarantee that it will work in the future. Nor is there any guarantee that nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of non-actors.
- Iran’s Islamic leaders join in the condemnation of nuclear weapons. Led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation's "supreme leader," Iranian clerics have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction. "The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form.
5. In Buddhism, a religion derived from the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as The Buddha, who lived in the Indian subcontinent in the fifth century. Over the centuries other teachings developed along with different branches of Buddhism. Today Buddhists in various lands are speaking out against nuclear weapons. The best known Buddhist leader is The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet. In his Message for the New Millennium He said: This past century in some ways has been a century of war and bloodshed. It has seen a year by year increase in defense spending by most countries in the world. If we are to change this trend we must seriously consider the concept of non-violence, which is a physical expression of compassion. In order to make non-violence a reality we must first work on internal disarmament and then proceed to work on external disarmament. By internal disarmament I mean ridding ourselves of all the negative emotions that result in violence. External disarmament will also have to be done gradually, step by step. We must first work on the total abolishment of nuclear weapons and gradually work up to total demilitarization throughout the world.
*Conclusion*
Basically there is not any religion in the world that supports use ofweapons for infliction of harm. The world religions seek to be seen as instruments of peace and so they discourage any form of harm or destruction of life on humans. It should therefore be noted that when some factions of religious groups support use of weapons for causing harm or destruction of life, they choose to go contrary to the basic teachings of their religion. The only closest place to the use of weapons that is seen in the religious teachings is where weapons are used for protection or defense.
Wilfykil answered the question on March 13, 2019 at 09:51