The crux Magazine has it that, the Vatican’s top diplomat at the United Nations in Geneva has called for a coordinated international force to stop the “so-called
Islamic State” in Syria and Iraq from further assaults on Christians and other minority groups. Whilst referring to it as Genocide the Arch Bishop Tomasi prescribed that any anti-ISIS coalition has to include the Muslim states of the Middle East, and can’t simply be a “Western approach.” He also said it should unfold under the aegis of the United Nations.
SO lets slow down and look at this from three important angles. The UN, the christian effect and also the political effect. It may come across a bit disturbing that the vatican would want to use force against force. Article 2 clause 4 of the UN charter clearly stipulates a prohibition of the use of forces by states. However that prohibition is not absolute and hence there is an exception in Article 51 and 42 of the same charter.
The vatican seems to have resorted to arguing that the use of force be permitted as a self-defense mechanism against ISIS so the question would be whether their argument falls within Article 51 on the use of force. For any state to institute self-defense or even resort to collective self-defense backed by the security council there must have been an armed attack to a the state employing self-defense. In this case the vatican is urging that the attack has been levelled against the christian community,however the christian community is not an organized state that is identifiable. Christians are scattered all over the world and as it stands the Vatican city standing on its own is not under an armed attack. To succeed under Article 51 it seems to me that the Vatican City would have to be called upon by the states under an armed attack of ISIS to join in collective self-defense .
Secondly any traditional christian like myself would question its biblical authority and try to understand if we are allowed to go back to the days of the book of Deuteronomy to salvage the situation. Or should we pray down fire to consume ISIS? I sympathise with christians all over the world who can’t bear the anguish of watching fellow christians beheaded and massacred in those disturbing videos posted online. Some people in the church resort to comforting themselves out of the pain by making reference to the fact that the ISIS trauma is a sign of the last days prophesied about in the Bible. But reflecting on it deeply causes a stir among christians who believe in fighting for their right to live and those who cannot fight because that would be a sin. Because God did not give us a spirit of fear, and because we can trust in him to see as through there is no need to fight: I hope I am right. There are a lot of christians who would rather turn the other cheek in anticipation of another slap from ISIS because that’s what we all learnt in sunday school. Or can we change the Bible verse to permit self-defense when the slap is heavy enough to kill us?
THE New Testament is entirely focused on the eternal and has little to say about striving for temporary peace on earth. For example, Jesus does not call for the abolition of political/economic slavery, or for the overthrow of tyrants, etc. On the other hand, that certainly does not mean that Christians should not give their lives to such things. It just means that in everything we do we point to the Kingdom of Heaven, where the Prince of Peace reigns. After all, if justice and peace are only temporary or generational, then they are about as meaningful as a one-night stand. So do we pursue them or not? Besides the Bible says we are to pray for our enemies. Am sure we all agree on the fact that ISIS is an enemy,but can you say a prayer for them tonight???!!!!SMH
Then there is the political side of things. Like who is sponsoring the group. Who created or influenced the sudden growth of the group. During the State of the Union , President Obama made a big claim about the war against ISIS. “In Iraq and Syria,” the President said, “American leadership — including our military power — is stopping [ISIS]’s advance. Yet some Americans backlash the Obama Administration and the CIA for allegedly training and funding the ISIS, others are furious with the Vatican claiming that the leaders of the church have exposed themselves for the first time and have basically admitted to being involved in a world-wide deception-war mongering and the fomenting of destabilization within the world. But really. Whose version is true or at least truer>>>
It is a bit convincing to argue that due to democracy, states cannot go to war as their leaders will. But then War is needed to gain power, riches, and control, but the general public has a tendency to be against it. What then can politicians do? The answer was found decades ago and is still used successfully today: Create an enemy so terrifying that the masses will beg their government to go to war. Is this is why ISIS exists. Is this why the beheading videos are so “well-produced” and publicized worldwide through mainstream media. News sources regularly come up with alarmist headlines about ISIS, are they used to serve the best interests of the world elite. The current objectives may be to: Sway public opinion to favor the invasion of countries in the Middle East, provide a pretext for “coalition” intervention across the world, and manufacture a domestic threat that will be used to take away rights and increase surveillance. In short, ISIS is yet another instance of the age-old tactic of creating a terrifying enemy to scare the masses.
Can Boko haram be explained by this theory, or did they just pledge allegiance to ISIS for a reputation uplift.
Whatever the case may be Violence is definitely out of my league. It’s sad that over 70 states don’t agree. The UN Diplomat for the Vatican presented a statement entitled “Supporting the Human Rights of Christians and Other Communities, particularly in the Middle East,” coauthored with the Russian Federation and Lebanon, to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.The statement has drawn almost 70 nations as signatories, including the United States. I agree that we stand up against aggression, but with the use of violence………………….may be I have to carefully consider that again.