On any single Sunday, almost as many Americans attend church services as go to all the major sporting events held in this country during an entire year. From its very origins, the United States has claimed a belief in a unique ethical foundation, a nation, as G.K. Chesterton said, "with the soul of a Church." Waves of immigrants assimilated the conviction that there exists a peculiarly American covenant with God and that the destiny and guidance of this nation, both in personal and national affairs, derives from that special compact. What was true in peace was assumed in war as well. The persuasion runs deep that America carries a moral banner into battle.
L. Bruce van Voorst is a correspondent for Time magazine. He has served in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America as Bureau Chief, and has reported extensively on peace movements both in Western Europe and the United States.
Because the nuclear issue is not simply political, but also a profoundly moral and religious question, the Church must pe a participant in the process of protecting the world and its people from the specter of nuclear destruction.
--Joseph Cardinal Bernardin
On any single Sunday, almost as many Americans attend church services as go to all the major sporting events held in this country during an entire year. From its very origins, the United States has claimed a belief in a unique ethical foundation, a nation, as G.K. Chesterton said, "with the soul of a Church." Waves of immigrants assimilated the conviction that there exists a peculiarly American covenant with God and that the destiny and guidance of this nation, both in personal and national affairs, derives from that special compact. What was true in peace was assumed in war as well. The persuasion runs deep that America carries a moral banner into battle.
President Ronald Reagan expressed this conviction in his speech last June to the U.N. Special Session on Disarmament:
The record of history is clear: citizens of the United States resort to force reluctantly, and only when they must. We struggled to defend freedom and democracy. We were never the aggressors. America's strength and, yes, her military power have been a force for peace, not conquest; for democracy, not despotism; for freedom, not tyranny.
For the most part, these ethical assumptions have been accepted and propagated by the nation's churches. Whether the historical record shows America living up to them is of course another question. Religious leaders have often been in the forefront of opposition to particular wars, notably the Vietnam War, usually on the grounds that the practical effect, if not the stated purpose, of these wars did not meet the very criteria stated by President Reagan.
But, with the exception only of the Quakers and other small historic "peace" churches, all congregations in America-Catholic, Protestant and Jewish-historically have supported the nation's readiness to engage in war. They have proudly sent their children into military service-and their chaplains to minister to them. And, with the same limited exception, no religious groups have ever challenged either the need for adequate defense or the basic defense policies of the nation or government.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The debates over Kosovo blurred the old divisions between liberals and conservatives, but they did not rise above an even older split in American politics and foreign policy: the enduring divide between a hawkish South and a dovish North. Regional differences based on culture and values have made Greater New England the heartland of opposition to foreign wars and the U.S. military establishment since the 1700s; they have also made the South a bastion of interventionism. All too often, the regional divides over U.S. foreign policy have just been a reprise of the Civil War -- and they are a recipe for paralysis.
"A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." The words are Ronald Reagan's. While McGeorge Bundy, like many others, finds Reagan's thinking about nuclear weapons muddy and his administration's public presentation of nuclear reality disgraceful, this particular sentence is crystal clear. It echoes the conclusion of the only person ever to authorize a nuclear strike, Harry Truman: "Starting an atomic war is totally unthinkable for rational men."
The White House's radical new strategy to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction will likely make the world less secure, not more.
