Amy N. Hayes

14 April 2014

Holy Wars are Always Unjust

The nature of religion, in general, is subjective to some

particular set of beliefs. Religion’s subjective nature does not

allow for one particular religion to be considered as “better” or

more “right” than any other religion. Ideals such as “better” or

“right” are merely opinions or preferences held by some

individual person, or a group of individual people, and should be

considered as being subjectively equivalent. It is permissible

for an individual, or group of individuals, to consider some

particular religion as being a right way of life for them, but

this preference of how an individual should live should not be

confused as being the set of ideals that objectively blankets all

people and all ways of life. There is no way to objectively

judge the relative truth and/or efficacy of the beliefs and

practices of a given religion.1 I argue that due to the nature

and consequences of war, a just war must be based only on some

set of objective and definable principles; therefore, any act of

1 From here on, “religious wars” will be referred to as “holy wars”.

Hayes 1

war based on religious ideals2 is always unjust, which means that

all holy wars are always unjust.

Some may argue that religions are objective in nature and

that there are clear sets of standards that every person should

live by, as outlined in numerous religious documents, such as the

Hebrew Bible, the Qur’an, etc. However, the mere fact that there

are numerous religious documents that religions profess to have

the right way for all to live, for all people, is evidence that

religions are, in fact, actually subjective.3 Some may also

argue that due to the fact that no one can prove or disprove the

existence of higher powers, such as God, that people should

always err on the side of caution and have faith that God or some

other higher power does indeed exist.4 This is where people are

typically divided into two groups: those who believe there is a

God, based on religious faith, and those who do not believe that

there is a God, based on the fact that God’s existence can

neither be proven nor disproven. Regardless of which side a

2 This paper will focus mainly on Christianity.3 Or, at least, that the choice of what religion to follow is a subjective choice.4 For the sake of simplicity, from here on, I will refer only to God; however,it should be assumed that I am referring to any supreme being in any religion.

Hayes 2

person can be categorized by, the inability to prove or disprove

the existence of God is further evidence that blatantly shows the

subjective nature of religion.

Religions, by nature, require a significant amount of

interpretation, and it seems plausible to assume that no two

people will interpret a religious document in exactly the same

way; neither will any two religions. It seems likely that even

if there were only one religious scripture in the world, it is

likely the case that people would still interpret it in many

different ways; the fact that there are many different scriptures

only complicates things further. Religious belief is a very

personal matter that is more often than not practiced internally

by individuals.5 Religious beliefs may continuously change based

on an individual’s life experiences, and since it seems obvious

that no two people will ever share exactly the same life

5 It has been suggested that many religion scholars would disagree with this idea. While this description does apply to, for instance, some forms of Protestant Christianity, many forms of religiosity have less to do with individual beliefs and more to do with physical practices and/or communities. However, I argue that most people would agree that no two individuals will ever have the same exact life and experiences, even if the two individuals are raised in the same exact environment, due to internal factors that are specific to each individual, such as personality traits, regardless of how minute the differences are. If this can be assumed, then there seems to be no real basisin arguing that any two individuals would hold the exact same ideals of some particular religion.

Hayes 3

experiences throughout their entire lives, it should also be

obvious that their specific internal religious beliefs will also

not be exactly the same. For religious belief to be considered as

objective, the possibility of at least two different individuals

possessing the exact same beliefs based on their individual life

experiences must be a real possibility, which is not the case at

all. When you consider religions in this way, it seems that

religions, such as Christianity, are a general blanketed category

in which people with similar beliefs can come together and

somewhat relate to one another, but each individual person

actually possesses a different specific religion. Given this,

when it comes to holy wars, it really is not the case that two or

more different religions are fighting against each other; it is

the case that hundreds or thousands—or even millions—of different

religions are fighting against each other. The fact that these

different religions are all fighting for different things, no

matter how small the differences may be, shows a subjective

nature of holy wars rather than an objective nature.

In regards to the understanding of religious interpretation,

Francisco de Vitoria acknowledges that belief in religion is a

Hayes 4

matter of a person’s will.6 A person’s will should never be seen

as anything other than subjective in nature, because the will is

based on a person’s feelings, unjustified beliefs, morals,

familial history, and a wide array of other things specific to

one particular individual. The will is not built on completely

evidentiary and verifiable criteria, which is a significant

factor for differentiating between whether the will should be

considered as objective or subjective.

When it comes to holy wars there is a significant issue that

must be considered, which is that each side of the war sincerely

believes that his side is the side fighting for the best cause,

which is to please God by following His commands. The people on

both sides of a holy war believe that their God is on their side only

and will help them defeat their enemy. The most obvious problem

here is that for God to be on both sides serves as a

contradiction in God’s commands and His assumed love for all

people that love and worship Him, but the nature of God is not

supposed to be one of glaring contradictions. For example, if

God commands and desires for Religion A to kill Religion B

6 Vitoria, p. 296.

Hayes 5

because Religion B is evil or wicked, it would not be logical to

say that God is also on the side of Religion B, who are evil or

wicked. It does not seem logical that God would command both

sides to kill the other, unless it should be assumed that God

desires to end human life on Earth altogether through the means

of war, which means that God would have to be deceptive to at

least one side of the war, if not both. Generally, it is not

assumed that God would have the desire to end human life on

Earth7, nor is it assumed that deception of this kind is a part

of God’s nature. Given this, it seems logical to assume that God

is either on one side or the other of the holy war, but not both.

If this is the case, then how can a holy war be considered as

just? The numerous details of the unknown—and cannot ever truly

be known—is more evidence that religions and holy wars are

subjective and not objective.

But what is a holy war? Reuven Firestone, in his article

titled “Holy War Idea in the Hebrew Bible” explains that “‘Holy 7 Although some religious communities have attempted to deal with this problemis by pointing out that sometimes God’s morality might differ from humans’ morality and that God might act in ways humans cannot understand, for the purposes of this paper, I will not be discussing the differences in views on humans’ morality versus God’s morality. The constraints of this paper will not allow me to go into the depth needed to entertain those differences any further.

Hayes 6

War’ is a Western concept referring to war that is fought for

religion, against adherents of other religions, often in order to

promote religion through conversion, and with no specific

geographical limitation.”8 From a modern point of view, holy

wars seem completely contradictory of what God is understood to

represent. To think that God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and

omnibenevolent being that could command a group of people to set

out with the mission to murder a whole other group of people

seems absolutely opposite from what is assumed that God

represents.9 In general, the typical understanding of religion

is that there is some higher power(s) that is a compassionate and

loving being that loves all people. In the Christian faith, for

example, it is believed that man was made in the image of God and

that God loves all people. It is this belief that God loves all

people that makes some things, such as holy wars, extremely

confusing and difficult to understand. How could a God that is

supposed to love all people command one group of people, whom he

is thought to love, to engage in a war that will inevitably

8 Firestone, p. 1.9 I am not arguing that this is how those people fighting in a holy war necessarily view their actions and their mission at hand.

Hayes 7

result in violence and the deaths of another group of his people,

whom he is also thought to love, among other atrocities, through

the use of force? Vitoria was one of the first just war thinkers

to argue in detail that force should not be a part of religious

belief.10 He states, “war is no argument for the truth of the

Christian faith. Hence the barbarians cannot be moved by war to

believe, but only to pretend that they believe and accept the

Christian faith; and this is monstrous and sacrilegious.”11 But

if force should not be based on religious belief, then it seems

that there should never be such things as holy wars, but perhaps

something along the lines of holy arguments instead.

The issue that both sides of a holy war sincerely believe

that his side is the side doing God’s work is an issue that

Vitoria felt was significant enough to address. His view was

that both sides could not in fact be fighting in a just way and

that the difference was that one side in the holy war was

fighting for substantive justice whereas the other side was

fighting for merely ostensible justice.12 This means that one side, 10 Vitoria, p. 295.11 Vitoria, p. 296.12 See Vitoria, p. 317 for the reference differentiating substantive justice from merely ostensible justice. Here, Vitoria was referencing all wars, not

Hayes 8

the side fighting for substantive justice, is fighting for what

is the most essential, while the other side, the side fighting

for merely ostensible justice, is fighting for what seems to be

the most important or essential thing but in reality it is not.

Vitoria treats this as if the merely ostensible side is fighting

for their cause simply because they are too ignorant to know

better. Vitoria’s view is that it is impossible for substantive

justice to apply to both sides of a war at once and that “error

may induce a belligerent to believe that it is in the right when

in fact it is squarely at fault. This gives rise to a situation

in which the guilty party (sincerely) believes itself to be

innocent.”13 Vitoria thought that although it could be the case

that neither side is truly just, it could also be the case that

one side is truly just. However, I disagree with Vitoria. Due to

the subjective nature of religion, I argue that both sides of a

holy war are fighting for merely ostensible justice because of

the fact that with religion there can be no provable or concrete

evidence to show that one side is fighting for something more

just holy wars; however, for the purposes of this paper, his view should be thought of with respect to holy wars.13 Vitoria, p. 317.

Hayes 9

just than the other, whereas Vitoria thinks that it is possible

for one of the sides to be truly just. Every aspect of a holy

war is a matter of perspective and interpretation, and

perspective and interpretation is different for every individual

involved.

Because both sides feel that they are doing what God has

commanded of them and strive to please God, each side’s overall

goal is to make its enemies convert from the “wrong” religion to

the “true” religion14, but often this can only be accomplished by

forcing others to change their beliefs, as well as nearly all

other aspects of their lives. Throughout history, more often

than not, Christianity is the side that believes their religion

is the “true” religion and the process to convert all other

religions begins with the Christians attempting to preach the

Gospel to the nonbelievers15. It is when the nonbelievers do not

conform to the Christian beliefs that the Christians’ temperament

begins to change into aggression through the belief that if the

nonbelievers are not going to voluntarily listen to the ways in

14 This is based on general knowledge concerning Christianity.15 For the sake of continuity, throughout this paper the term “nonbelievers” will be used to symbolize anyone without religious beliefs all together or anyone believing in a religion other than Christianity.

Hayes 10

which they (the nonbelievers) are ruining their lives and

ensuring their souls’ damnation for all eternity, the Christians

will make it their mission to force the nonbelievers to change

their ways.

Throughout history, Christianity has been involved in

countless holy wars (or similar to holy wars), and some

historical examples can be seen through the Christian Identity

movement, which encompasses several extremist conservative

Christian “churches,” such as the Ku Klux Klan and Christian

political conspiracy theorists like Timothy McVeigh.16 Christian

Identity is divided into two definitions or groups, the Anglo-

Israelism17 and the Racist, Christian-based faith groups18, with

16 See Robinson. Examples of groups or “churches” that fall under the Christian Identity movement are: the American Nazi Party; Aryan Nations; Church of Jesus Christ Christian, Aryan Nations; Confederate Hammerskins; Jubilee, National Association for the Advancement of White People; The Order; Scriptures for America, White Aryan Resistance (WAR) and White Separatist Banner.17 See Robinson. “Anglo-Israelism is a theological belief that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic and associated cultures are the racial descendents (sic) of the tribes of Israel. Thus, by extension, Americans and Canadians, are composed of the descendents (sic) of the ancient Israelites of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).”18 See Robinson. “Racist, Christian-based faith groups are a number of small,extremely conservative Fundamentalist Christian denominations which have accepted Anglo-Israelism, and grafted it to racist, sexist, anti-communist andhomophobic beliefs. They view the Jewish people as descendants of Satan. Followers tend to be involved in political movements opposing gun control, equal rights to gays and lesbians, and militia movements.”

Hayes 11

most of the religious violence stemming from latter. In the

United States, these Christian “churches” are typically so

violent and discriminating that they are more frequently referred

to as domestic terrorists rather than religious groups.

According to the FBI’s “Megiddo Report,” “There are numerous

Christian Identity churches that preach [demonic anti-Semitism,

political extremism, anti-tax and paramilitary] messages and some

espouse more violent rhetoric than others, but all hold fast to

the belief that Aryans are God’s chosen race.”19 According to

the FBI’s report,

Christian Identity also believes in the inevitability

of the end of the world and the Second Coming of

Christ. It is believed that these events are part of a

cleansing process that is needed before Christ’s

kingdom can be established on earth. During this time,

Jews and their allies will attempt to destroy the white

race…The result will be a violent and bloody struggle…

between God’s forces the white race, and the forces of

19 See Robinson.

Hayes 12

evil, the Jews and nonwhites…Some contend there will be

a race war in which millions will die; others believe

that the United Nations, backed by Jewish

representatives of the anti-Christ, will take over the

country and promote a New World Order…One…

interpretation is that white Christians have been

chosen to watch for signs of the impending war in order

to warn others. They are to then physically struggle

with the forces of evil against sin and other

violations of God’s law (i.e., race-mixing and

internationalism); many will perish…After the final

battle is ended and God’s kingdom is established on

earth, only then will the Aryan people be recognized as

the one and true Israel…[They] believe that God will

use his chosen race as his weapons to battle the forces

of evil. [They] believe they are among those chosen by

God to wage this battle during Armageddon and they will

be the last line of defense for the white race and

Christian America.20

20 See Robinson. I felt that this quotation was best left in tact rather thanbeing paraphrased in order to display the extreme views that this “church”

Hayes 13

Here, it is very clear that those involved in this Christian

Identity movement firmly believe that their way of life is the

life that God wants His followers to live. They believe that all

those people in the world who believe differently are demons sent

from Satan, and are tasked to conquer God’s children/followers.

Those in the Christian Identity movement seem to embody an

“all-or-nothing” belief system in which those who believe

differently either need to convert to their views (by force,

unless those different people are among one of the races or

groups of people which are so evil that they cannot be saved) or

face extermination. However, according to Vitoria, this is a

mistake and is not an appropriate action:

[T]he barbarians are not bound to believe from the first moment that the

Christian faith is announced to them, in the sense of committing

a mortal sin merely by not believing a simple

announcement, unaccompanied by miracles or any other

kind of proof or persuasion, that the true religion is

believes as what God seeks from them.

Hayes 14

Christian, and that Christ is the Savior and Redeemer

of the universe.21

Given Vitoria’s views on not using force—which is basically that

even if someone were to use force against another in an attempt

to force conversion to some religion, forceful action would most

likely have no effect because it seems unlikely that force could

change a person’s deep-seeded belief systems (or lack of)

internally—it seems easy to see why one should never force, or be

forced upon, religion just for the sake of doing so. All

religions embody different beliefs and carry different views on

life, the world, and everything in it. To impose one set of

religious beliefs on others, considering the subjective nature of

religion and the fact that no religion can ever actually know

whether their religion is the “true” religion—or even that there

are such things as “true” religions—should perhaps be considered

as religious bullying rather than an attempt to lead the wicked

towards eternal salvation. A religion should not expect that

just because they attempt to spread their religious doctrines to

21 Vitoria, p. 295.

Hayes 15

others, the others would understand and reciprocate. Vitoria,

through explaining Cajetan’s views, states that “it is foolhardy

and imprudent of anyone to believe a thing without being sure it

comes from a trustworthy source22, especially in matters to do

with salvation.”23,24 The basic idea is that the nonbelievers are

not obligated to change their religious beliefs just because that

is what the Christians want to happen. The nonbelievers should

not be required to change their beliefs without some form of

proof or evidence, and since religion is subjective and unable to

be proven one way or the other, there is no proof or evidence

that could be provided to the nonbelievers. If this is the case,

then holy wars that are waged for the purpose of leading the

wicked towards their eternal salvation—as those among the

Christian Identity movement would do—is pointless and in no way

an objective matter.

22 It should also be noted that due to the fact that the existence of God, or any other higher power, cannot be proven or disproven, there can really never be a “trustworthy source” concerning the matters of eternal salvation or what God truly commands.23 Vitoria, p. 295.24 Vitoria and Cajetan are referring to barbarians in this passage, which theytreat as being without religion.

Hayes 16

If one religion attempts to persuade nonbelievers to convert

and the attempt fails, according to Vitoria, the nonbelievers are

innocent and should never be attacked. If the Christians were to

attack the nonbelievers over their decision to not convert, the

Christians would be engaging in an unjust war, because, as

Vitoria states it, “[i]f the [nonbelievers] have done no wrong,

there is no just cause for war”25 and that “however probably and

sufficiently the faith may have been announced to the

[nonbelievers] and then rejected by them, this is still no reason to declare

war on them.”26 Vitoria explicitly states that the “difference of

religion cannot be a cause of just war.”27 If the difference of

religion cannot be the cause of a just war, then holy wars cannot

be the cause of a just war.

Religions, when attempting to spread their religious

doctrines to the nonbelievers, sometimes resort to using fear

tactics to change a person’s will in order to achieve

conversions. However, according to Vitoria, “fear considerably

diminishes the freedom of will…[and] [t]o come to the mysteries

25 Vitoria, p. 296.26 Vitoria, p. 296.27 Vitoria, p. 313. Emphasis removed.

Hayes 17

and sacraments…merely out of…fear would be sacrilege”28 and would

go completely against what is assumed to be the truly desired

goal. If a nonbeliever was forced into converting to

Christianity out of fear of what the Christians would do to him,

the new Christian faith that the nonbeliever claims to possess

would be a false belief and would therefore be meaningless and

nothing different than what he had possessed prior to the

Christians attempt to convert him, which could potentially lead

to a purely subjective holy war.

Some religions like to argue that nonbelievers should change

their ways of life because the nonbelievers are sinners. The

attempt that the Christians make is to shame the nonbelievers

into believing that if they (the nonbelievers) do not adopt the

Christian faith and way of life, then they will face monstrous

consequences at the hands of God, who, it is suggested, will not

show the nonbelievers even the slightest bit of mercy. This

scare tactic is just that…a scare tactic. The concept of sinning

against God has no objective nature because the idea of doing

something wrong according to God’s commands cannot be proved or

28 Vitoria, p. 296.

Hayes 18

disproved. Also, it is not the case that just because one

religion, or group of people, believes that one particular act is

a sin, that act is actually a sin.29

Although there are countless other examples that can be

provided to show that religion and holy wars should not be viewed

as anything other than individual preferences, I feel that the

information provided at this time should be enough to suffice and

provides at least sufficient doubt in the belief that holy wars

have any objective nature at all. There is no way to show that

any one religion is a “true” religion or “right” religion, just

as there is no way to show that any one religion is a “wrong” or

“wicked” religion. Holy wars are never just wars; and therefore,

holy wars should never be wars that actually come to fruition due

to the fact that they lack any objective nature. Due to the

nature and consequences of war, a just war must be based only on

some set of objective and definable principles; therefore, any

29 As an example, consider the views on polygamy between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS). These are two different sects that rose from the same religion, but the LDS views polygamy as a sin whereas the FLDS does not.

Hayes 19

act of war based on religious ideals is always unjust, which

means that all holy wars are always unjust.

Hayes 20

Bibliography

Firestone, Reuven. “Holy War Idea in the Hebrew Bible.”

Accessed April 9, 2014,

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/cmje/

issues/more_issues/Holy_War_in_the_Hebrew_Bible.pdf.

Robinson, B. A. “Christian Identity Movement.” Ontario Consultants

on Religious Tolerance.

Last modified on May 30, 2006. Accessed April 16, 2014.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm.

Vitoria, Francisco de. “Just War in the Age of Discovery.” The

Ethics of War, edited by

Gregory M. Reichberg, et al., 288-332. Malden: Blackwell

Publishing, 2006. Print.

Hayes 21