The Parable of the Good Samaritan was a teaching of Jesus’
in relation to who the golden rule applies too.
Luke 10:25-37
New International Version (NIV)
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test
Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you
read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a];
and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this
and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And
who is my neighbour?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem
to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes,
beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going
down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32
So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other
side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he
saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds,
pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to
an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave
them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will
reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the
man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on
him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Footnotes:
Luke 10:27 Deut. 6:5
Luke 10:27 Lev. 19:18
Luke 10:35 A denarius was the usual daily wage of a day labourer
(see Matt. 20:2).
The Jews and the Samaritans were ethnic groups which loathed
each other – there was great racial hatred between these peoples. This is what
makes the actions of the Samaritan so powerful, as he alone helped his ‘enemy’,
relieving his suffering at the expense of his time and money. It is because we
have moral duties over space and time that we agree with Jesus that the
Samaritan is the man’s neighbour – he is the one who aided a stranger in need.
We are called to follow suit in our decision making.
Syria
Following the tidal wave which was the ‘Arab Spring’, many
individuals in Syria rose up in revolt against the regime of President Assad.
The causes and facets of this conflict are multiple and complex, with ethnic,
political and religious divisions playing significant roles. What is certain is
the catastrophe it has been in relation to human life. The Iraq War was a
bloody melee, with the Iraq Body Count project putting the 2003-2005 death toll
at 67,365 civilians. The 2011-2013 Syrian civil war has a death toll according
to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights of roughly 94,000, and possibly as
high as 120,000. The loss of human life is horrific, with human rights
violations by both sides of the war. Furthermore, it has recently been reported
there is evidence chemical weapons have been used in Syria. The people of that
nation are experiencing immediate suffering, and there cries echo in the news
broadcasts around the world.
After the interventions by British forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan, public opinion is resoundingly against military activity in Syria.
There are a few reasons often cited for this, which shall be examined as
follows.
We should spend
British money on British People
The economy is in a mess. Ever since 2008, the UK has been
flailing in a mire of debt, gigantic deficits and a populace who want to keep
all the perks secured by borrowed money. Many individuals struggle to find
jobs, and those who have them live in fear of being laid off or their firm
closing. Poverty is increasing, living standards are going down, life is
getting harder for thousands of people. The government’s priority should be
restoring economic stability and prosperity to the nation, a thing we would all
welcome with open arms.
So when we hear that the coalition is considering investing
in the expensive endeavour of arming foreign rebels, many people object. Whilst
they struggle to make ends meet, William Hague wants to spend money which could
help people in this country on those who pay no tax in this nation. Clearly,
this hurts the living of many Britain’s.
However, this argument fails in light of the actions of the
Good Samaritan. A member of the community of Samaria, he was from a different
society to the Jewish man. Not only were they from different nations, they came
from natural enemies, like South and North Korea. Yet he recognised that the
minimisation of suffering far outweighs any economic benefit from not acting.
He was willing to use his bandages, oil and wine on the man, all costing money.
Furthermore, he paid two days wages to the innkeeper, and offered to pay for
any further expenses. Clearly, the Samaritan understood that helping others is
far more important than keeping resources for oneself. When others are in need,
one should offer whatever they can, for wealth can never satisfy our deepest desires,
whereas love for another, stranger or not, gets to the heart of what fulfils
us. In the same vein, not intervening in Syria because it will cost money
suggests one prefers wealth over the wellbeing of others, which is abhorrent.
Life is precious, and building relationships with others are far superior to
any monetary gain, so we this is a bad reason not to engage in military action.
The Middle East is
not ours to Interfere with
It is no secret that different societies have very different
values. For example, whereas the Western World lives in an era founded upon
enlightenment principles, much of the Middle East is structured around Islam.
In light of British colonialism, most contemporaries believe the imposition of
one’s own values upon another is wrong, and that it is up to the Syrians and
the local region to solve this mess. The West has no authority to police the
world, as its values are no more right than those of other regions. The shadow
of Ayer’s emotivism is used as justification against being involved in other
nation’s affairs.
Yet this decision to do nothing in the face of suffering is
also reprimanded in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The priest and the
Levite both see the injured man on the road, a person they have the skill and
wealth to help. However, due to their own reputations and pride, ignore the
man, leaving him to go through much pain. Their decision not to act perpetuated
the evil that man endured, actively condoning the mugging inflicted on this
poor individual. The choice not to intervene in Syria legitimises the violence
taking place, just as much as killing innocents would. Just because various
communities have different values, it does not follow that the people of
Britain do not have a responsibility to help those in need, regardless of their
country of origin. Rather, this objection to intervention merely supports the
status quo of mindless bloodshed to prevent action offending anybody, just as
touching the injured man would have meant hours of purification rights for the
Levite. The minimisation of suffering far outweighs one’s own reputation in any
respect, and as such this criticism of intervening in Syria is weak.
We do not know who
the rebels are
This is the most popular and perhaps pertinent objection to
arming the rebels. After 9/11, President Bush declared a ‘war on terror’. Ever
since, the USA has been supported by the UK in undermining and attacking those
extremist groups which seek to harm the West through violence. In particular,
the group Al Qaeda are the prime organisation NATO seeks to destroy, which has
claimed the lives of thousands of innocents around the world. Many of these
individuals have joined the Syrian opposition, forming Islamist militias in
order to throw out Assad and make Syria a radical Muslim country. By arming the
rebels, the UK government may inadvertently provide military equipment to those
who would seek to harm our nation, which is unacceptable. History has shown
this to be bad strategy: when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, NATO armed the
Taliban, in the hope they could repel the communist invasion. When the USA and
UK later landed in the country to overthrow the Taliban, the very same weapons
they had supplied were used against them. Thus, arming radical groups with arms
may result in a worse government than Assad’s, which actively seek to destroy
the UK and her allies.
This objection also falls down. It relies on the position
that if someone may harm you, you should not help them in any circumstance.
However, this treats individuals as merely a means, not as ends. It was Kant
who recognised this is unacceptable. Every human being as an intrinsic dignity,
forged by natural rights to life, liberty and estate (Locke). Actions are right
if and only if they treat others as an end in themselves, and are for their
benefit, helping them flourish. Without this conception of humanity, the
killing, torture and suffering of strangers is legitimised.
Furthermore, the Good Samaritan did not take this approach.
He could have justified not helping the injured Jew by citing the fact that
Israel was an enemy of Samaria, and this man may one day take up arms against
the Samaritans. Allowing this man to die would have prevented him from
attacking the Samaritan’s homeland, bringing suffering to his nation. Despite
this, the Samaritan understood that no matter whom an individual is or what
they have done, they have an intrinsic dignity, whether on account of being
made in the image of God, having natural rights or having the propensity to be
rational, which means they deserve our kindness and love. If we can help the
Syrian people by arming Jihadists and radicals that should be our first
priority, not avoiding conflict at the expense of others.
Pressure and Peace
The primary argument for arming the rebels is that this will
put pressure upon Assad’s regime, which will make it more likely that peace
talks will ensue. As previously stated, the violence in Syria is astronomical,
with the death toll nearing 100’000. Providing Assad believes he can still
retain power, the violence will ensue. Thus, if one provides military equipment
to the opposition, Assad may reconsider his options, faced with a bigger
threat. By risking escalation, the killing may in fact be stopped. This is the
case William Hague and his followers are making.
The problem with this approach is that it changes too
little. If Mr Hague arms the rebels, at best a peace deal will be made by the
powerful and violent, and at worse one side will destroy the other by merciless
killing. By using the tools of the tyrant, one upholds rule by the self-righteous,
and only creates more vengeance and anger. Acquiring power by the means Assad
uses to keep control, the opposition would become nothing more than tyrants,
continuing the cycle of suffering at the expense of millions. Zealotry merely
perpetuates the problem of suffering, it cannot solve it. It will not prevent
wars or strife in the future, as it maintains the idea that oppression and
power can remove immediate suffering, which is manifestly false. As such,
arming the rebels will not provide the radical revolution needed to stop the
turmoil in Syria.
An Alternative
Recently, I watched the film ‘Gladiator’, a thrilling
blockbluster telling a magnificent story. At one point, the slave owner Proximo
tells the gladiators, which include Maximus, that we cannot decide what kind of
death we have. However, we can decide how we meet it, as either good or bad
people. This thought occurred to me regarding Syria. The argument for
intervening militarily is that it could relieve the suffering of thousands of
people. However, the cost of that is much further bloodshed of innocent
individuals. The fact of life we all try and run from is that one day we must
die, no matter rich or poor, black or white, Christian or atheist. No matter
what happens, bad things will happen to good people, whether Assad, the rebels
or anyone else govern Syria. To think human volition alone can remove the
sufferings of Syria and the world is false, the ‘Promethian Illusion’ to which
I allude to in my last article. It is pride in our own pitiful achievements,
which motivates intervention to stop suffering, and usually it only makes it
worse. Death will haunt these people, even if USA drones are on their side.
Christianity has a long history of supporting non-violence.
Jesus taught to ‘love your enemy’ and to ‘turn the other cheek’ in the face of
oppression. In 1 Peter, the author states we should ‘repay evil with a
blessing’. Marx describes this as ‘despicable rubbish’, yet the willingness to
forgive and embrace the persecutor is at the heart of Jesus’ ‘Original
Revolution’ (Yoder). When violence is met with love, the cycle of suffering
comes to an end, with injustice countered with a much more powerful warmth and
affection which can change human hearts. This approach can help build
relationships anew, start diplomatic negotiations and mend schisms amongst
warring peoples. Yet it is only if one refuses to ‘define themselves by their
enemies who can bless them’ (Volf). The Christian identity is that of being
‘reborn into a living hope’, through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
His love forms the centre of a Christian life, and one’s self-understanding
should start from Him. This is a positive identity, independent of other
people. By contrast, the Syrian rebel defines herself as an opposition to the
current world order, for their identity is moulded around a mission to displace
those currently in power to change social structures. Thus, they will always be
in conflict with Assad and his followers, pushing them away at every turn. As
such, only violence can ensue, once more upholding the existing values of
oppression. It is only in forgiveness can this conflict be stopped.
This sentiment has been at the heart of the most successful
revolutions. Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mandela all lead peaceful
demonstrations against violent oppression. They did not mobilise the will of a
nation by blowing up buses, shooting enemies and supplying their allies with
weapons. No, they took to the streets, calling for all people to rise up in
non-violent condemnation of the behaviour of the ruling faction. In each case,
they achieved their aims, and ever since the countries they have lived in have
in some way benefited from their actions. Indeed, the Egyptian rebels largely followed
this approach, and as a result a more peaceful transition took place. Contrast
that with Syria, a nation still in the iron grip of war. It is only through
public witness to a different way of doing things can a good peace be achieved
in this nation.
Conclusion
In summary, I have analysed the various arguments for and
against arming the rebels in Syria and concluded it would be a wrong decision.
Using the Parable of the Good Samaritan, I have critiqued the main arguments
for and against military intervention in Syria, and then offered a theological
response to the issue, claiming only peaceful protest and forgiveness can end
this struggle. Thus, Assad and the rebels should be encouraged to put down
their weapons, not be given more, and ask them to sit round a table. This will alleviate
the suffering in Syria, not more violence and zealotry. Therefore, the UK
government should not arm the rebels.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.