Lesson video

Hi there.

My name is Mr. Robertson.

I love, RE and I can't wait to get started with you today.

Our lesson is in our GCSE RE unit about Religion, Peace and Conflict.

This whole unit looks at ideas of violence and how different Christians, Muslims and humanists respond to war and conflict.

This lesson is called Reasons For War.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain reasons for war such as self-defense and retaliation, and show how Christians respond to these reasons.

We have three keywords in our lesson today.

Our first word is justification, and that means the reasons given to explain or defend something.

Our second word is retaliation, and by that we mean fighting back after being harmed or attacked.

And our third phrase is self-defense, which means protecting yourself or others when under attack.

And you'll see these words coming up throughout our lesson, so I think you'll be really confident with them by the end of it.

So this lesson has three parts, and in the first part of the lesson, we're going to be looking at reasons for war.

So a photograph here of war and conflict.

I wonder why you think wars begin.

What kind of reasons do nations or people within a country begin a war? What may be the catalyst that makes it happen? I wonder if you think they always start for the same reason, or could there be a variety of reasons why they happen? And I wonder what you might think might cause nations to go to war with each other.

You might want to pause the video here and maybe talk to the person next to you or just ponder for yourself some of those reasons, perhaps thinking about wars that you are familiar with or things you may have heard on the news.

So wars usually begin, and they can be between peoples on nations, religions.

There's generally a reason behind it.

But these reasons are not always judged in the same way.

So two particular reasons we're going to be looking at in this lesson is a war in self-defense and a war in retaliation.

So taking the first one first, an example of self-defense might be where Britain entered the World War II.

Nazi controlling Germany had invaded Austria, parts of Czech, Slovakia and Poland, and there was reason to believe that they were going to be imminently creating invasions across Europe.

Britain had a treaty to come to the aid of Poland, and so entered this war to defend itself and defend Polish interests.

Now, many people see this as a justified reason because it was about defending freedom and safety.

The United Kingdom, British government was concerned about other countries such as Poland, and it was also of course very concerned about its own citizens and the effect an invasion might cause on them next.

And so the World War II, you would generally argue, was justified on the grounds of self-defense.

Looking at the idea of retaliation, well, an example of retaliation might be the US invasion of Afghanistan after the attacks on the 11th of September in 2001, the bombings of the World Trade Centres.

There'd been an attack launched on America, and as a result of that, to find the perpetrators of that, the US invaded and bombed Afghanistan.

Some people saw that as justified retaliation.

So some people argued that that was okay to be doing that because there'd been a direct attack on the State of America, and therefore there was an retaliation was justified.

However, others said that that wasn't really acting out of justice, but was acting out of revenge and so wasn't a justified reason for going to war.

And of course, that invasion, that military action has led to long-term conflict and instability within Afghanistan.

So in summary, you can see that these two reasons, self-defense and retaliation, people can make arguments for why they're justified, but there are also criticisms of going into war on the basis of retaliation as well.

Now, most worldviews criticise wars started for greed as another reason for doing something.

This is seen as a negative reason for war, going to war because you want something, some territory or resource that's in another country.

An example here might be in 1990, the State of Iraq invaded the country of Kuwait.

And the reason for that by many people was seen as a war for oil or territorial expansion.

The dictatorship in Iraq wanted more land.

It wanted control of Kuwaiti oil wells.

And so the main reasoning there was that this was a war for territory, for conquest.

It wasn't about self-defense because Iraq wasn't being threatened.

It wasn't a war of retaliation because it hadn't been attacked.

And so it was not seen as a justifiable reason for war.

Now, of course, warfare is complicated, and it's not necessarily easy to create a single category and say, oh, that's a war of self-defense, that's a war of retaliation, that's a war about greed.

The reality of life is a lot more nuanced and messy than that.

So for example, a country might claim self-defense, but perhaps really be acting out of retaliation or even greed.

For example, the current situation in Ukraine, Russia's argument for invading Ukraine was that it was trying to protect itself.

It claimed that there were elements within Ukraine which it was trying to protect, but I think many people around the world saw that invasion as one that was about power and control rather than retaliation or self-defense.

Another issue with retaliation is that it can spiral out of control.

Once military action conflict has begun, one attack can lead to another.

It can be very hard to know where justice ends and revenge begins.

And even reasons that sound fair, like self-defense, can be questioned.

People may ask, was war really the only option? Could more work have been done to keep peace talks going? Could other compromises have been made? And so this area is a difficult and messy one with lots of powerful opinions on many sides.

Okay, let's just reflect on what we've learned so far.

Which of these is an example of retaliation as a reason for war? A, a country invades another to gain more land, B, a government declares war after a terrorist group bombs its capital city, C, a country builds up its army to defend against possible future attacks? Which of those fits the definition of retaliation? Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's B, isn't it? Retaliation.

A government may retaliate after an attack by a terrorist group.

A is a definition of greed, isn't it? Invading another to gain more land, whereas C is about self-defense.

Brilliant if you got that right.

Okay, so we're gonna think about what we've learned so far, and I've got a table for you here and it's got three reasons for war that we've looked at, self-defense, retaliation and greed.

And we've got three examples.

In self-defense, we've got Britain declaring war on Poland after Germany was invaded in 1939.

For retaliation, we've got the war in Afghanistan after the 11th of September attacks in 2001, and greed, we have the idea of Iraq invading Kuwait for oil in 1990.

And for each of these, I'd like you to think about what was the justification for the war against Germany and the US War in Afghanistan? Why did those countries go for war? How was it self-defense? How was it retaliation? And what might be a criticism of a war launched for greed? Why might, although the justification might be helping a nation's economy, what might be a counter argument to that? Think about what you've just learned.

Can you summarise some of that in this table? Look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Great thinking, everyone.

Okay, I put some reasons in, let's see how close they are to your arguments.

So we might say that a justification for Britain declaring war on Germany was that it protected people and nations from attack and it was seen as a just response to harm caused.

Britain was worried that the Nazis were going to invade many other countries and were also seen as pretty abysmal people and do some terrible things.

In terms of retaliation, justification for that retaliation was it might protect other people or nations from attack.

That same terrorist group may have gone on and attacked other people.

It was also seen as a just response to the harm caused.

Many people, innocent people died in the attacks on the 11th of September, and so there were, maybe there's an argument that then there's a response to that to try and get those who caused the harm in the first place.

In our third debate stroke criticism of a war for greed, most people would criticise that reason of invading a country to help the economy as selfish or unjust.

And we made the point that many religious and non-religious groups would not accept greed as a reason for war.

If you've got answers that are close to that, fantastic.

Hope you're understanding this idea of self-defense and retaliation.

So in the second part of this lesson, we're gonna build on the reasons for that we've looked at and we're gonna look at what some Christians and non-religious people might say about these different reasons.

So to start with Christians, when we look at Christian responses to reasons for war, these responses are going to be informed by a number of different sources of authority.

And that might include the Bible, it might include teachings of that particular church.

It might include the example of other Christians.

It might include Christian ethical theories such as natural law and situation ethics.

And it might include individual Christian's conscience and their own ability to reason.

So when we are looking at a Christian response, it's important to realise that it's going to be a mix of all of those different things and different worldviews will be influenced by those different things.

And Christians are all different, so they may interpret the same sources differently and they might emphasise some sources more than others.

So starting with the idea of self-defense, many Christians might accept a war in self-defense because the argument will be that it would protect innocent lives.

Now, a possible source for authority here is Jesus's teaching in Luke 10:27 to love your neighbour.

Now, you can argue that a war in self-defense is a way of loving your neighbour because it's about protecting your neighbour from harm.

And so a war in self-defense, say to protect the Polish people in the World War II, for example, would be seen as a loving thing to do even though it's a very violent and not very kind act because it's about protection, trying to help other people.

The idea of retaliation can be found in some sources.

So for example, in the Book of Exodus in the Christian Old Testament, it talks about an eye for an eye.

And so some Christians might argue that there is an allowing of a certain amount of retaliation there.

However, many Christians would look at Jesus' teaching to talk about the idea of turning the other cheek, i.

e.

of harm is done to you, rather than repaying it, you turn away.

You just let it go.

And that is an argument for rejecting retaliation entirely.

I would argue that that second interpretation is a more common Christian interpretation than the first.

A war launched on the basis of greed.

Most Christians would strongly reject war for any reasons of greed.

For example, in the gospels, Jesus says, "It's easier for camel to go through the I of a needle than for rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Christianity has traditionally argued against wealth over morality, and so a war for greed is not really a Christian argument for war.

So we might summarise that as many Christians accepting a war in self-defense, some few Christians allowing for a measured retaliation, and most, if not all Christians, rejecting a war on the basis of greed.

Now, let's talk to Danielle.

Danielle has a Catholic Christian worldview, and she says, "I don't like war, and I think we should do all we can to avoid it.

However, I do think there are times when it is justified.

I have some Ukrainian refugees living with me.

I think what's happening there is terrible and the most loving thing to do is support the Ukrainians' right to self-defense.

I think we can love our neighbours by helping them protect themselves." So what is Danielle saying here? Well, she's saying she doesn't like war.

However, she thinks there are times when it is justified.

She talks about the example of the current war in Ukraine saying, "I don't like it.

However, a loving thing to do is loving the Ukrainians as neighbours and we need to help them protect themselves." And so you can see an argument there for self-defense.

Let's talk to a different Christian with a worldview.

John has a Quaker worldview.

John says, "As a Quaker, I think that war or violence can never be justified.

I interpret Jesus as someone who always acted for peace.

When he instructed his followers to turn the other cheek, I see this as clearly saying that violence is not the right path.

I campaign for peace and ceasefires across the world." So I wonder what you think.

John's perspective is here, and how does he justify his worldview? You can see as a Quaker, John sees a violence or war as never justified.

So he has absolute pacifism against that.

He draws on the teaching of Jesus to turn the other cheek to say that violence is not the right path and one shouldn't meet violence with violence.

And as a result of that, he campaigns for peace and ceasefires across the world.

So we have two different worldviews here, one, allowing self-defense as an argument for war and one absolutely against violence in any form.

Let's check our understanding.

Which of these best describes when some Christians believe war can be justified? A, to gain more wealth and power, B, to defend the innocent or protect people from harm linked to love your neighbour, C, to take revenge for past wrongs because an eye for an eye always commands retaliation? Which of those fits to justifying war? Excellent.

It's B, isn't it? To defend the innocent.

Danielle talked about using that idea of loving your neighbour to stand up for the people in Ukraine, for example.

We can see here the happy human symbol, this humanist worldwide symbol.

Now, humanists and non-religious people have differing views over war.

Many see a war for self-defense as the only justifiable reason since it protects human rights and survival.

Humanism is a non-religious worldview and it looks at the inherent dignity of humans and holds up human rights as enshrining how humans should be treated.

And so therefore a war for the self-defense of people whose human rights are in danger would be a justifiable reason for a war.

Some humanists or nonreligious people may accept retaliation if it prevents further harm, but many others would argue that it risks creating endless cycles of violence as we talked about earlier.

And most humanists or non-religious people would not see a war fought for resources or powers unjust because they're prioritising profit or control over human life.

Many humanists would look to empathy and human equality, and so a war waged on a basis of profit or control or extraction is never going to be justifiable.

Let's meet Alan.

Alan has a humanist worldview.

He says, "As a humanist, I think that all lives on this planet are precious.

I have driven aid trucks to war zones and seen the destruction caused by conflict.

However, I think that sometimes, war is the only option if people are acting out as self-defense.

I think everyone has a right to live and practise their beliefs.

If these are threatened, then war is reluctantly justified." I wonder what we might think Alan's perspective is here.

I wonder how you see he justifies his worldview.

So we can see here that Alan's perspective is that all human lives are precious, but for him, sometimes war is the only option if they're acting out as self-defense.

He thinks everyone has a right to live and practise their beliefs, and if these are threatened, then war is reluctantly justified.

So I'd like you to name one reason that Alan as a humanist might believe war is justified.

Let's think back what he just said.

So you might have said that everyone has a right to practise their beliefs.

You might have said that if people are acting out of self-defense, then that's okay.

You might have said everyone has a right to practise their beliefs.

You might have said, if people are acting out of self-defense and need to defend themselves, then that's also a reason for justifying war.

Brilliant if you got that right.

Okay, I've got a second task for you here.

I have a scenario for you.

Danielle and John are discussing whether supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia is justified.

Danielle says, "I think it is right to defend Ukraine.

Innocent people are being attacked and killed, and self-defense protects lives.

Jesus said we should love our neighbour.

Surely that means standing up for them." And John says, "I disagree.

Jesus also taught us to turn the other cheek and to forgive.

If Christians follow that teaching, we should look for peace and reconciliation instead of supporting more violence.

War only causes more suffering." So you can see then thinking about that issue very deeply.

the question I'd like to ask is this, can you explain how each Christian is using different teachings to support their view? So which teachings did Danielle use to justify her idea of self-defense? And which teachings did John use to justify his violence always being wrong? You might want to think about which view you think is stronger and why, and also how you think a non-religious person might respond to this debate, thinking a little bit about what Alan said earlier.

Pause the video and have a go.

Good luck.

Wow, some really detailed thinking there.

Fantastic.

So you might have said, Danielle thinks supporting Ukraine is right because Russia invaded and people needed protecting.

And she linked this to the saying, love your neighbour.

John disagrees.

He used the authority of turning the other cheek to say Christians should focus on peace and forgiveness.

You might have said that you think Danielle's view makes more sense here because Ukraine didn't start the conflict.

They're defending themselves, and protecting people from invasion seems closer to Jesus' idea of caring for others than just watching people suffer.

But you might also thought that John's view made a lot more sense and said that the example of Jesus perhaps shows him always pursuing the way of peace.

There isn't really a right answer there.

It's about your justification for that.

And you might have gone on to say that a non-religious person might agree with helping Ukraine in self-defense, but for human rights reasons, not religion.

They probably also say war should only happen after other things to try and stop the conflict have failed.

If you've made some points similar to this, then that's great work.

Well done.

The final part of our lesson is about evaluating justifications for war.

So as we we made the point, not all reasons for war are judged equally.

Some seem more acceptable while others are widely criticised.

Self-defense is often seen as the strongest justification 'cause it tries to protect innocent lives.

Retaliation can be controversial.

Some may see action as fair punishment.

Others might argue it risks spiralling to the endless cycles of revenge such as we see in the Middle East at the moment.

And wars fought for resources, land or power are often seen as selfish or unjust.

For example, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was widely criticised as a greedy war.

So we can see that there's a scale here of acceptability in terms of reasons for war.

The key question is, does the reason truly justify the suffering that war brings, or could peace have been found in another way? Danielle and John are discussing justifications for war.

Danielle says, "I think it's clear from the Bible that Jesus does not believe in retaliation.

Acting out of revenge just means there'll be more violence and the cycle of war will go on." John says, "I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

I don't think retaliation is ever acceptable.

It takes more courage to meet violence with peace.

Ultimately, wars only ever end when both sides stop fighting and start talking." So Danielle being clear there that she doesn't believe in retaliation, although as we've seen earlier, she does think self-defense can be a justification for war.

And John saying that, no, for him retaliation, all war is unacceptable and one should try and meet violence with peace.

Why is retaliation a controversial justification for war? Is it, A, because it risks turning into revenge and endless cycles of violence, B, it always leads to countries becoming richer, C, because it guarantees peace will be achieved quickly? Brilliant.

It's A, isn't it? Because justification through retaliation risks becoming revenge and that can lead to cycles of violence.

Fantastic if you got that right.

Okay, our final task for the lesson.

Laura has been set a task by her teacher.

The statement is, retaliation is never a good reason for going to war.

And we've got Laura's statement on the next slide.

I'd like you to read it, and then from that, I'd like you to explain what she's done well.

So which points has she done and made out and brought out well? And what could be have done to improve it next time? So is anything in her heart that she hasn't done? What is something she may have missed out? Something she may not have referred to or she could phrase better? So I'm gonna give you some time to read that.

I'm gonna read it with you and then some time to go away and do the task.

What's gone well? What could be done better to improve it? So this is Laura's response.

"Many Christians think retaliation is never a good reason to go to war.

Getting revenge goes against the ideas of forgiveness and peace that Jesus taught.

Retaliation can also make problems worse and cause even more harm.

On the other hand, some people might disagree.

They say retaliation can show strength and stop others from attacking again.

War might sometimes be allowed, but only as a last resort and if it's done fairly to bring peace.

In conclusion, retaliation just for revenge is hard to defend from a Christian point of view, but some might say it could be acceptable as it protects innocent people." So what has Laura done really well there? What points has she made well, and how has she organised them? And what could she do better next time? What advice would you give her to improve that answer? Pause the video and have a think.

So you might have said that the answer had a clear structure with points for and against and a conclusion.

She made the point that Christians believe in peace and forgiveness, and she doesn't tell just one side.

She shows different views in her answer.

She's great.

Next time she could use a biblical quote, a source for authority.

She could have talked about turning the other cheek to back up her point about retaliation.

She could have given a bit more detail about when Christians might think war is acceptable.

Like for example, it only as a last resort.

And it's really important that not all Christians agree.

Some think all war is wrong while others think it can sometimes be allowed as we saw in our examples of Danielle and John.

If you managed to pick up on some of those points for Laura, fantastic 'cause it shows you are really understanding how to structure an answer and you're thinking about the things that might improve it next time.

Brilliant work.

So to summarise, we've been learning today about different reasons for war.

We've learned that war can start for different reasons, but not all are judged equally.

We've learned that a justification is a reason given to explain or defend going to war, but each justification can be debated and challenged.

We've learned that self-defense is often seen as the strongest justification because it protects innocent lives.

We've also learned that retaliation is controversial.

Some see it as fair punishment, others see it as revenge that risk spirals of violence.

And we finally learned that wars fought for greed, land or resources are usually criticised as selfish and unjust.

I hope this has clarified some of your thinking about wars and how Christians might respond to the reasons for war, and I really look forward to seeing you in a lesson soon.

Thanks.