Sunday, March 22, 2015

WHAT SCARES THE NEW ATHEISTS: The vocal fervour of today’s missionary atheism conceals a panic that religion is not only refusing to decline – but in fact flourishing


In this recent article in The Guardian, John Gray points to the racist and intellectually dishonest roots of the New Atheism.  Following are some excerpts (bolding is mine):


In 1929, the Thinker’s Library, a series established by the Rationalist Press Association to advance secular thinking and counter the influence of religion in Britain, published an English translation of the German biologist Ernst Haeckel’s 1899 book The Riddle of the Universe. Celebrated as “the German Darwin”, Haeckel was one of the most influential public intellectuals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; The Riddle of the Universe sold half a million copies in Germany alone, and was translated into dozens of other languages. Hostile to Jewish and Christian traditions, Haeckel devised his own “religion of science” called Monism, which incorporated an anthropology that divided the human species into a hierarchy of racial groups . . . .

The Thinker’s Library also featured works by Julian Huxley, grandson of TH Huxley, the Victorian biologist who was known as “Darwin’s bulldog” for his fierce defence of evolutionary theory. A proponent of “evolutionary humanism”, which he described as “religion without revelation”, Julian Huxley shared some of Haeckel’s views, including advocacy of eugenics. In 1931, Huxley wrote that there was “a certain amount of evidence that the negro is an earlier product of human evolution than the Mongolian or the European, and as such might be expected to have advanced less, both in body and mind”.  Statements of this kind were then commonplace: there were many in the secular intelligentsia – including HG Wells, also a contributor to the Thinker’s Library – who looked forward to a time when “backward” peoples would be remade in a western mould or else vanish from the world.

. . . . The racial theories promoted by atheists in the past have been consigned to the memory hole – and today’s most influential atheists would no more endorse racist biology than they would be seen following the guidance of an astrologer. But they have not renounced the conviction that human values must be based in science; now it is liberal values which receive that accolade. There are disputes, sometimes bitter, over how to define and interpret those values, but their supremacy is hardly ever questioned. For 21st century atheist missionaries, being liberal and scientific in outlook are one and the same.

It’s a reassuringly simple equation. In fact there are no reliable connections – whether in logic or history – between atheism, science and liberal values. When organised as a movement and backed by the power of the state, atheist ideologies have been an integral part of despotic regimes that also claimed to be based in science, such as the former Soviet Union. Many rival moralities and political systems – most of them, to date, illiberal – have attempted to assert a basis in science. All have been fraudulent and ephemeral. Yet the attempt continues in atheist movements today, which claim that liberal values can be scientifically validated and are therefore humanly universal.


As an organised movement, atheism is never non-committal . . . . It always goes with an alternative belief-system – typically, a set of ideas that serves to show the modern west is the high point of human development. In Europe from the late 19th century until the second world war, this was a version of evolutionary theory that marked out western peoples as being the most highly evolved. Around the time Haeckel was promoting his racial theories, a different theory of western superiority was developed by Marx. While condemning liberal societies and prophesying their doom, Marx viewed them as the high point of human development to date. (This is why he praised British colonialism in India as an essentially progressive development.) If Marx had serious reservations about Darwinism – and he did – it was because Darwin’s theory did not frame evolution as a progressive process.

. . . . The predominant varieties of atheist thinking, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, aimed to show that the secular west is the model for a universal civilisation. The missionary atheism of the present time is a replay of this theme; but the west is in retreat today, and beneath the fervour with which this atheism assaults religion there is an unmistakable mood of fear and anxiety. To a significant extent, the new atheism is the expression of a liberal moral panic.

. . . . Sam Harris, the American neuroscientist and author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason (2004) and The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Moral Values (2010), who was arguably the first of the “new atheists”, illustrates this point. Following many earlier atheist ideologues, he wants a “scientific morality”; but whereas earlier exponents of this sort of atheism used science to prop up values everyone would now agree were illiberal, Harris takes for granted that what he calls a “science of good and evil” cannot be other than liberal in content. (Not everyone will agree with Harris’s account of liberal values, which appears to sanction the practice of torture: “Given what many believe are the exigencies of our war on terrorism,” he wrote in 2004, “the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible but necessary.”)

Harris’s militancy in asserting these values seems to be largely a reaction to Islamist terrorism. For secular liberals of his generation, the shock of the 11 September attacks went beyond the atrocious loss of life they entailed. The effect of the attacks was to place a question mark over the belief that their values were spreading – slowly, and at times fitfully, but in the long run irresistibly – throughout the world. As society became ever more reliant on science, they had assumed, religion would inexorably decline. No doubt the process would be bumpy, and pockets of irrationality would linger on the margins of modern life; but religion would dwindle away as a factor in human conflict. The road would be long and winding. But the grand march of secular reason would continue, with more and more societies joining the modern west in marginalising religion. Someday, religious belief would be no more important than personal hobbies or ethnic cuisines.

Today, it’s clear that no grand march is under way. The rise of violent jihadism is only the most obvious example of a rejection of secular life. Jihadist thinking comes in numerous varieties, mixing strands from 20th century ideologies, such as Nazism and Leninism, with elements deriving from the 18th century Wahhabist Islamic fundamentalist movement. What all Islamist movements have in common is a categorical rejection of any secular realm. But the ongoing reversal in secularisation is not a peculiarly Islamic phenomenon.

The resurgence of religion is a worldwide development. Russian Orthodoxy is stronger than it has been for over a century, while China is the scene of a reawakening of its indigenous faiths and of underground movements that could make it the largest Christian country in the world by the end of this century. Despite tentative shifts in opinion that have been hailed as evidence it is becoming less pious, the US remains massively and pervasively religious – it’s inconceivable that a professed unbeliever could become president, for example.

. . . . For secular thinkers, the continuing vitality of religion calls into question the belief that history underpins their values. To be sure, there is disagreement as to the nature of these values. But pretty well all secular thinkers now take for granted that modern societies must in the end converge on some version of liberalism. Never well founded, this assumption is today clearly unreasonable. So, not for the first time, secular thinkers look to science for a foundation for their values.

It’s probably just as well that the current generation of atheists seems to know so little of the longer history of atheist movements. When they assert that science can bridge fact and value, they overlook the many incompatible value-systems that have been defended in this way. There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley. None of the divergent values that atheists have from time to time promoted has any essential connection with atheism, or with science. How could any increase in scientific knowledge validate values such as human equality and personal autonomy? The source of these values is not science. In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism.

The new atheists rarely mention Friedrich Nietzsche, and when they do it is usually to dismiss him. This can’t be because Nietzsche’s ideas are said to have inspired the Nazi cult of racial inequality – an unlikely tale, given that the Nazis claimed their racism was based in science. The reason Nietzsche has been excluded from the mainstream of contemporary atheist thinking is that he exposed the problem atheism has with morality. It’s not that atheists can’t be moral – the subject of so many mawkish debates. The question is which morality an atheist should serve.

. . . . It’s impossible to read much contemporary polemic against religion without the impression that for the “new atheists” the world would be a better place if Jewish and Christian monotheism had never existed. If only the world wasn’t plagued by these troublesome God-botherers, they are always lamenting, liberal values would be so much more secure. Awkwardly for these atheists, Nietzsche understood that modern liberalism was a secular incarnation of these religious traditions. As a classical scholar, he recognised that a mystical Greek faith in reason had shaped the cultural matrix from which modern liberalism emerged. Some ancient Stoics defended the ideal of a cosmopolitan society; but this was based in the belief that humans share in the Logos, an immortal principle of rationality that was later absorbed into the conception of God with which we are familiar. Nietzsche was clear that the chief sources of liberalism were in Jewish and Christian theism: that is why he was so bitterly hostile to these religions. He was an atheist in large part because he rejected liberal values.

To be sure, evangelical unbelievers adamantly deny that liberalism needs any support from theism. If they are philosophers, they will wheel out their rusty intellectual equipment and assert that those who think liberalism relies on ideas and beliefs inherited from religion are guilty of a genetic fallacy. Canonical liberal thinkers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant may have been steeped in theism; but ideas are not falsified because they originate in errors. The far-reaching claims these thinkers have made for liberal values can be detached from their theistic beginnings; a liberal morality that applies to all human beings can be formulated without any mention of religion. Or so we are continually being told. The trouble is that it’s hard to make any sense of the idea of a universal morality without invoking an understanding of what it is to be human that has been borrowed from theism. The belief that the human species is a moral agent struggling to realise its inherent possibilities – the narrative of redemption that sustains secular humanists everywhere – is a hollowed-out version of a theistic myth. The idea that the human species is striving to achieve any purpose or goal – a universal state of freedom or justice, say – presupposes a pre-Darwinian, teleological way of thinking that has no place in science.

At this point, the dread spectre of relativism tends to be raised. Doesn’t talk of plural moralities mean there can be no truth in ethics? Well, anyone who wants their values secured by something beyond the capricious human world had better join an old-fashioned religion. If you set aside any view of humankind that is borrowed from monotheism, you have to deal with human beings as you find them, with their perpetually warring values.

This isn’t the relativism celebrated by postmodernists, which holds that human values are merely cultural constructions. Humans are like other animals in having a definite nature, which shapes their experiences whether they like it or not. No one benefits from being tortured or persecuted on account of their religion or sexuality. Being chronically poor is rarely, if ever, a positive experience. Being at risk of violent death is bad for human beings whatever their culture. Such truisms could be multiplied. Universal human values can be understood as something like moral facts, marking out goods and evils that are generically human. Using these universal values, it may be possible to define a minimum standard of civilised life that every society should meet; but this minimum won’t be the liberal values of the present time turned into universal principles.

Universal values don’t add up to a universal morality. Such values are very often conflicting, and different societies resolve these conflicts in divergent ways. The Ottoman empire, during some of its history, was a haven of toleration for religious communities who were persecuted in Europe; but this pluralism did not extend to enabling individuals to move from one community to another, or to form new communities of choice, as would be required by a liberal ideal of personal autonomy. The Hapsburg empire was based on rejecting the liberal principle of national self-determination; but – possibly for that very reason – it was more protective of minorities than most of the states that succeeded it. Protecting universal values without honouring what are now seen as core liberal ideals, these archaic imperial regimes were more civilised than a great many states that exist today.

For many, regimes of this kind are imperfect examples of what all human beings secretly want – a world in which no one is unfree. The conviction that tyranny and persecution are aberrations in human affairs is at the heart of the liberal philosophy that prevails today. But this conviction is supported by faith more than evidence. Throughout history there have been large numbers who have been happy to relinquish their freedom as long as those they hate – gay people, Jews, immigrants and other minorities, for example – are deprived of freedom as well. Many have been ready to support tyranny and oppression. Billions of human beings have been hostile to liberal values, and there is no reason for thinking matters will be any different in future.

An older generation of liberal thinkers accepted this fact. As the late Stuart Hampshire put it:

“It is not only possible, but, on present evidence, probable that most conceptions of the good, and most ways of life, which are typical of commercial, liberal, industrialised societies will often seem altogether hateful to substantial minorities within these societies and even more hateful to most of the populations within traditional societies … As a liberal by philosophical conviction, I think I ought to expect to be hated, and to be found superficial and contemptible, by a large part of mankind.”

Considering the alternatives that are on offer, liberal societies are well worth defending. But there is no reason for thinking these societies are the beginning of a species-wide secular civilisation of the kind of which evangelical atheists dream.

In ancient Greece and Rome, religion was not separate from the rest of human activity. Christianity was less tolerant than these pagan societies, but without it the secular societies of modern times would hardly have been possible. By adopting the distinction between what is owed to Caesar and what to God, Paul and Augustine – who turned the teaching of Jesus into a universal creed – opened the way for societies in which religion was no longer coextensive with life. Secular regimes come in many shapes, some liberal, others tyrannical. Some aim for a separation of church and state as in the US and France, while others – such as the Ataturkist regime that until recently ruled in Turkey – assert state control over religion. Whatever its form, a secular state is no guarantee of a secular culture. Britain has an established church, but despite that fact – or more likely because of it – religion has a smaller role in politics than in America and is less publicly divisive than it is in France.

. . . . Evangelical atheists at the present time are missionaries for their own values. If an earlier generation promoted the racial prejudices of their time as scientific truths, ours aims to give the illusions of contemporary liberalism a similar basis in science. It’s possible to envision different varieties of atheism developing – atheisms more like those of Freud, which didn’t replace God with a flattering image of humanity. But atheisms of this kind are unlikely to be popular. More than anything else, our unbelievers seek relief from the panic that grips them when they realise their values are rejected by much of humankind. What today’s freethinkers want is freedom from doubt, and the prevailing version of atheism is well suited to give it to them.

You may find the full article here:
What Scares the New Atheists





Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Music for Holy Week and Easter at St. Thomas More, Toronto


Monday, March 9, 2015

Cardinal Collins to celebrate Solemn Pontifical Mass - April 12 at STM, Toronto


With the blessing of Msgr. Steenson, Cardinal Collins has kindly agreed to be with the STM Parish at S-C Church, 381 Sherbourne, Toronto, for Solemn Pontifical Mass and to receive some individuals into full communion next month on Low/ Divine Mercy Sunday, April 12 at 1:45 pm.  


STM wants to thank all the priests, religious and people who have been so supportive of the Ordinariate in these early years.  

Everyone is welcome as we mark the fourth anniversary of the first Anglican Use Mass in Canada which was celebrated at St. Joseph's, Streetsville by Fr. Christopher Phillips, of O.L. Atonement, San Antonio during the Toronto Ordinariate Conference, 2011. We are also giving thanks for the kind assistance of the Archdiocese of Toronto in the foundation of our Quasi (mission) Parish of STM, Toronto.  

St. Thomas More Choristers (our children's choir) will join our parish choir for this special occasion.  A reception will follow.

CONVICTED FELON BENJAMIN LEVIN WITH PREMIER WYNNE AND TRUDEAU



Convicted felon, Benjamin Levin (ball cap and red shirt), was Premier K. Wynne's Deputy Minister of Education in Ontario. Levin is pictured here sitting with Justin Trudeau, Wynne, her Gay partner and Bob Rae observing the nudity at the Toronto Gay Pride Parade recently.  

Levin was convicted this past week of the most horrendous child pornography crimes. However this notorious event was hardly reported by the mainstream media due to the enormous political influence of his family and friends. See LEVIN CONVICTED

Levin, with Wynne, oversaw the writing of the radical "Physical Education" curriculum which would introduce children from Grades 1 - 8 to graphic and controversial sexual topics upon which there is no public or scholarly agreement. The format and subject matter of the sex ed. curriculum is offensive to many Christians, Jews, Muslims and others.

Increasingly, people are coming to see this proposed curriculum as part of a greater agenda to groom young people for those who, like Levin, are committed to extreme sexual engagement with children. This is not paranoia.  The evidence mounts despite denials by the Liberal Ontario government that Levin was involved. E-mails and other communications have recently been uncovered under the freedom of information legislation which put Levin at the centre of the radical sex ed curriculum development.  

Ontarians and others are urged to sign a petition to stop this legislation.  The ideology that it represents is both anti-Catholic and inhuman.  You may sign the petition by going to this link.

sign petition

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

THE THEORY OF NOTHING – Dawkins and company exposed

The success of the recent film “The Theory of Everything” has produced a rosy glow around the speculations of the New Atheists due to the power of the god “Oscar”.  

The hype mesmerizes secular society and confirms the public’s prevailing faith in fantasy Naturalism, Hollywood’s religion for those in the Western world who have rejected theism and specifically Christianity.

However, a voice of sanity rings out amidst the adulation for Dawkins, Hawking and Co.. 

David Bentley Hart, the noted philosopher and theologian, with razor exactitude exposes the basic rational and philosophical errors these celebrity scientists make when they tread beyond the circumscription of real physics, and science generally, into the world of fantasy Naturalism. 


In his recent book, THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD: BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS, Hart skewers those who conveniently ignore the basics of logic in their pursuit of the fairy tale of a scientific “Theory of Everything”.

Hart points out the errors in reason that Dawkins and Hawking make while they criticize others for holding theistic views. Exposing their slick pop philosophy being foisted on the uninstructed public, Hart maintains:

“Naturalism is a picture of the whole of reality that cannot, according to its own intrinsic premises, address the whole; it is a metaphysics of the rejection of metaphysics, a transcendental certainty of the impossibility of transcendent truth, and so requires an act of pure credence logically immune to any verification.”

In his chapter ‘Pictures of the World’ Hart reveals that the whole project to make Naturalism the only acceptable worldview is itself outside of true science which is limited by its very nature and, though powerful within its limitations, utterly empty when individuals go beyond their expertise in the narrow mandate of science to describe, understand and adapt the physical world.

Hart: “[The sciences] yield only knowledge of certain aspects of things as seen from one very powerful but constricted perspective. If they attempt to go beyond their methodological commissions they cease to be sciences and immediately become fatuous occultisms.”

Pointing out “the fairly elementary philosophical errors”  in wildly popular books by the New Atheists, Hart relentlessly pursues the limits of a sham theory of knowledge which is being given to the public wholesale.

Exposing the confusion between actual scientific method and amateur philosophical speculation, Hart continues:

“Above all, we should not let ourselves forget precisely what method is and what it is not . . .[it is] a systematic set of limitations and constraints voluntarily assumed by a researcher in order to concentrate his or her investigations upon a strictly defined aspect of, or approach to, a clearly delineated object.”

The scientific method has been a phenomenally successful approach to understanding the world which has provided all sorts of natural advantages to the human race but, in the hands of Dawkins et. al., scientific method has been, in Hart’s words, “transformed into its perfect and irrepressibly wanton opposite: what began as a principled refusal of metaphysical speculation, for the sake of specific empirical inquiries, has now been mistaken for a comprehensive knowledge of the metaphysical shape of reality: the humble art of questioning has been mistaken for the sure possession of ultimate conclusions.”


Hart ends his work with a reflection upon the prevailing secular mentality which is based on a vapid Naturalism. The Naturalist worldview is now also at war with Islamic jihad while, at the same time, attacking traditional Western beliefs upon which our culture is founded.  

Despite this wanton assault of ego, a thoughtful, rational and yet faithful theism is still available to those who are prepared to look deeply beyond the Hollywood version of reality.

Hart recaps his basic points:
“. . . I suggested that atheism may really be only a failure to see something very obvious . . . . ours is a culture largely formed by an ideological unwillingness to see what is there to be seen.  The reason the very concept of God has become at once so impoverished, so thoroughly mythical, and ultimately so incredible for so many modern persons is not because of all the interesting things we have learned over the past few centuries, but because of all the vital things we have forgotten.  Above all we have forgotten being: the self-evident mystery of existence that only deep confusion could cause one to mistake for the sort of mystery that admits of a physical or natural or material solution . . . 

. . . Late modernity is, after all, a remarkably shrill and glaring reality, a dazzling chaos of the beguilingly trivial and the terrifyingly atrocious, a world of ubiquitous mass media and constant interruption, a ceaseless storm of artificial sensations and appetites, an interminable spectacle whose only unifying theme is the imperative to acquire and spend. It is scarcely surprising, in such a world, amid so many distractions . . . that we should have little time to reflect upon the mystery that manifests itself not as a thing among other things, but as the silent event of being itself.”


Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Just War - ISIS vs St. Augustine and 'American Sniper'

The question of Just War has arisen once again in light of recent thoughtful articles about Islamic terrorism, ISIS and related matters.  

"What ISIS Really Wants" by Graeme Wood  in the March 2015 edition of THE ATLANTIC and other articles, along with the just released film AMERICAN SNIPER have raised the issue of justified armed resistance to jihad in the popular and social media. 

The pressing need for military re-engagement by Western nations in the Middle East to stand against the brutal slaughter of Christians and others there is a pivotal question for all nations even as the jihadists plan and execute attacks around the world.


St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, along with other Church Fathers, have explicitly outlined how going to war to protect and defend the innocent may be a Christian obligation in such circumstances. The present need for application of the principles of just war in a global context has not been so clearly defined in modern times since the Nazi, Fascist and Japanese aggression which brought about World War II.




St. Augustine held that a Christian could be a soldier and serve God and country. Individuals should not resort immediately to violence, he taught, but  God has given the sword to government for good reason (Romans 13:4). 

His philosophical position was: 
"What is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart."

Augustine taught that peacefulness in the face of a grave wrong that could only be stopped by violence is a sin. Defense of self and/or of others may be a necessity, especially when authorized by a legitimate authority:
"They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with [God's] laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill.'

In his work THE CITY OF GOD, Augustine began to outline the conditions necessary for war to be just, and so originated the concept of Just War Theory: 

". . .  the wise man will wage just wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars." 


Building on this, St. Thomas Aquinas used the authority of Augustine's arguments to lay out in detail the conditions under which a war could be just:

1.  Just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.  Proper Authority represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end i.e. God.

2.  War must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for gain.  It must be "in the nation's interest" not just an exercise of power. 

3.   Peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence. 

According to Just War Theory as it has developed, the right to go to war must be accompanied by just action in war. 

The theory of Just War involves, then, both  jus ad bellum (the right to go to war), and jus in bello (right conduct within war).

jus ad bellum
A number of criteria must be met in order to enter justly into armed conflict:

+ Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just. It must not be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong.  Innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.  The US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

+ Comparative justice
To overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. 

+ Competent authority
Only duly constituted governments may wage war. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships like the Nazis are considered as violations of this criterion. There cannot be a genuine process of judging a just war by a regime that represses the due process of  justice. 

+ Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose.  Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention. Material or territorial gain or maintaining economies is not.

+ Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.  If the likelihood of defeat is certain, fighting for an ideal is ruled out.

+ Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. The unjust power may attempt to use negotiations as a delaying tactic and/or will not make meaningful concessions.  In this case, force may be necessary as a last resort to protect those in danger.

+ Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to the expected harm that will be done. This is known as the principle of macro-proportionality which distinguishes it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality (see below).


jus in bello

Once war has begun,  commitment to justice in the  (jus in bello) directs how combatants must act:


Distinction
Just war conduct is governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed only towards enemy combatants. Civilians caught in circumstances which they did not create should not be targeted whether they are related to the enemy troops or not. Prohibited acts include terror bombing civilian residential areas that include no military targets, committing acts of reprisal, and attacking neutral targets. Combatants are not permitted to attack enemy combatants who have surrendered, are captured or are injured; or those who are not presenting an immediate lethal threat. An example would be those escaping from a disabled ship. 

* Proportionality
Just war conduct is governed by the principle of proportionality. Combatants must not cause harm to civilians or civilian property beyond what is necessary for military advantage by an attack on a military objective. 

* Military Necessity
Just war conduct is governed by the principle of military necessity. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy.  Attacks must be on military objectives and the harm caused to civilians must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated. 

* Fair Treatment and POWs
Enemy combatants who surrender or are captured no longer pose a threat.T hey must not be tortured mistreated.

* No weapons or tactics which are malum in se (evil in themselves)
Combatants may not use weapons or other methods of warfare which are considered evil, such as mass rape, poison gas, nuclear or biological weapons.  Non-combatants may not be forced to fight against their own side.

In light of these criteria, just armed opposition to the jihadists of ISIS and related organizations can justifiably be engaged.  Not only is military action defensible but there is a moral requirement for Christians and others to use all means necessary to defeat and eradicate from the earth this evil threat to the lives and well-being of the innocent.