S17 E8: The One About GCSE RS Paper 2 Theme D - Peace and Conflict

This week I go through the main content and exam questions needed for GCSE AQA Paper 2 Theme D: Religion, Peace and Conflict

In theme D we should study religious teachings, and religious, philosophical and ethical arguments, relating to the issues that follow, and their impact and influence in the modern world. We should be aware of contrasting perspectives in contemporary British society on all of the issues. 
Our three special topics are Violence, weapons of mass destruction and pacifism. For these we must be able to explain contrasting beliefs with reference to the main religious tradition in Britain (Christianity) and one or more other religious traditions:
The specification is separated into two sections as are the other themes. The first section is Religion, violence, terrorism and war and the second section is Religion and belief in 21st century conflict.

Give one way in which religious believers help victims of war. 

Raise money

4-marker

Explain two different beliefs in contemporary British society about weapons of mass destruction. In your answer you should refer to the main religious tradition of Great Britain and one or more other religious traditions.
One Christian belief is that weapons of mass destruction should be owned but not used.
This prevents war therefore saves human lives which is important because they believe in the sanctity of life
A different Christian belief is that they should not be used because they go against the Just War Theory
This states that war should be proportional and using nuclear weapons is not proportional

6 marker

Explain two religious beliefs about forgiveness. Refer to sacred writings or another source of religious belief and teaching in your answer.
One Christian belief about forgiveness is that it is an important part of being Christian as it is what Jesus did
This means that in a war, Christians must forgive the enemy
This is shown in the Bible when Jesus said ‘forgive them father for they do not know what they do’.
This shows that like Jesus forgave those who tortured and killed him, Christians must forgive people who kill in a war
Another belief about forgiveness is that it can lead to peace and prevent war
This is because if you have forgiven someone, you will not want to fight them.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Before we get started, I'd like to thank Reimagining Education for sponsoring the RE podcast. They share our passion for making learning exciting, meaningful, and accessible to everyone. It's so good to have their support so we can keep bringing you more conversations about religion, ethics, and philosophy. To learn more, just head to reimaginingeducation.uk. Welcome to the R.E. Podcast, the first dedicated RE podcast for students and teachers. My name is Louisa James Smith, and this is the R.E. Podcast. The podcast for those of you who think RE is boring, which it is, and I'll prove it to you. What I wanted to do is create a series of episodes to help students revise for their GCSE RE exam. This can be used with year 10 or 11 to revise topics, prepare for mocks, or support revision for the final exams. It might even be helpful for teachers who are new to teaching GCSE RE or just need a refresher to give them an overview of the main concepts and exam skills. I'm going to focus on AQA as this is what most people follow, and I'm going to use Christianity as my religion as this is the one everyone has to do. I've completed episodes on all of paper one in the last series, and now I am doing paper two. I've already done a general introduction to paper two plus the first three themes. So theme A, Marriage and the Family, theme B Religion and Life, and theme C the existence of God and revelation. Now remember, there are six themes in paper two, but you only need to learn four for the exam. So check which four you are doing and only listen to the relevant episodes. This episode is on theme D, peace and conflict. It is worth noting that if you do theme B, many of the same Bible verses and religious beliefs can be used from that theme in theme D due to the crossover in terms of sanctity of life, do not kill, and stewardship. If you don't do both theme B and theme D, this is something I would recommend as they connect together very logically. I would also teach them consecutively so that knowledge builds logically. In theme D, we should study religious teachings and religious, philosophical, and ethical arguments relating to the issues that follow and the impact and influence in the modern world. We should be aware of contrasting perspectives in contemporary British society on all of the issues. Our three special topics are violence, weapons of mass destruction, and pacifism, and for these we must be able to explain contrasting beliefs with reference to the main religious tradition in Great Britain, so Christianity, and one or more other religious traditions. The specification is separated into two sections as are the other themes. The first section is religion, violence, terrorism, and war, and the second section is religion and belief in 21st century conflict. But I don't think the order of the spec makes logical sense. So peace, pacifism, and peacemaking are separate in the specification, but I would teach them together. And nuclear weapons are before weapons of mass destruction generally, but it makes sense to do this together. So let's start with religion, violence, terrorism, and war. The first thing we need to know is the meaning and significance of four key words peace, justice, forgiveness, reconciliation. I'm going to look at peace later when I talk about pacifism and peacemakers, and I will look at forgiveness and reconciliation later too. It makes sense to look at types of conflict before looking at forgiveness and reconciliation. So let's first look at justice. Justice means bringing fairness, restoring equality, and righting wrongs. It is really important when you get a question on justice in peace and conflict that you relate it to the theme and don't talk about crime and punishment from theme E or God's judgment from Christian beliefs. So what we're interested in is can conflict bring about justice? Justice is a really significant word in this topic as it is usually what there is conflict about or why some people are against conflict. It also impacts how we conduct ourselves within that conflict and that we have to do it in a just way. The Bible says let justice flow like a river. So most Christians will agree with standing up for justice and fighting justly. Pope John Paul said, if you want peace, work for justice. So this shows the link between justice and peace. People are simply less likely to fight if things are fair. But sometimes you have to fight to get that justice. Let's look at World War II. Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland in order for his territorial expansion. We tried to use diplomacy to prevent this, but this failed. So we had to go to war. In this instance, we were standing up for justice by fighting the Nazis. Justice and peace are strongly linked because you either fight for justice to achieve peace or you fight for justice to prevent war. There are international laws about rules of engagement. You can't target civilians, you can't recruit children, you can't use chemical or biological weapons, you can't use torture, rape, or genocide. If you break these, these are called war crimes. So wars have to be fought justly. The concept of justice is going to come up a lot in this topic. For example, it will link to the just war theory, which we will look at later in the episode. Something else we have to look at is protests. A protest is a public expression of disapproval, often in a big group, and it can be peaceful or violent. Now we can obviously link protests to justice. Often protests are trying to protect justice. If we think about the civil rights movement or climate justice, these are both examples of protests which were standing up for justice. So Martin Luther King protested against the unjust laws against black people. Mahatma Gandhi protests against unjust British rule in India. Climate justice is protesting against the abuse of the environment, which is unjustly impacting people in poorer countries. So remember that quote again. If you want peace, work for justice. So protesting is a way of working for justice. The next point on the spec is violence, including violent protest. Violence is one of those special topics where we have to be able to explain contrasting beliefs with reference to the main religious tradition in Britain, Christianity, and one or more other religious traditions. Violence is defined as behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone. The Old Testament is full of stories of violence. Cain killed his brother Abel, Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood story. But generally the Bible speaks against violence. If we think back to theme B where we talked about the sanctity of life, we can apply this here. God made humans in his image. That means human life is sacred. This is called the sanctity of life. If human life is sacred, then we should preserve it and protect it, not hurt it. So therefore many Christians believe violence is wrong. However, if the Pope says, if you want peace, work for justice, maybe sometimes working for justice means using violence to defend the defenseless and standing up for what is right. Jesus told Peter to put your sword back into its place, for all who take up the sword will die by the sword. But he also tells them to sell their cloak and buy a sword. Furthermore, let me read you something that Jesus did. So he made a whip out of cords and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves, he said, Get these out of here, stop turning my father's house into a market. While Jesus has not physically hurt anyone here, it might, to some, be seen as physical force intending to damage something, which is part of the definition of violence. So it feels as though there are mixed messages about the use of violence in the Bible. However, there is a really important verse that might make it clearer. It says, if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. So it appears as though it depends on the situation whether to use violence or not. The ideal is not to use violence, but that is not always possible and not always dependent on you. So to summarize, two beliefs about violence are that it is wrong because Christians believe in the sanctity of life. Also, Jesus told his disciples to put away their swords. However, some Christians think it is justifiable in certain situations if you are standing up for what is right and for justice. And yes, you could use love your neighbour here, as violence is not a loving action. We can link this then to violent protests. So while Martin Luther King and Gandhi, that we mentioned earlier, used non-violent protests due to their religious beliefs, Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela used violence. Malcolm X famously said, by any means necessary, and Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years for being a terrorist, or were successful in their protest despite their different approaches to it. The problem is that if someone agrees with the reason for the protest, they will agree with whichever methods are used. However, if you disagree with the protest, you will be less tolerant of the methods. Let's take climate justice. They used non-violent means of protest and it didn't make any difference. When they lay in the streets blocking cars, people criticize them for putting people's lives in danger by preventing emergency vehicles from getting through. There were actually zero deaths. However, if we look at the 2011 riots all over England, as a violent protest against racism and the police, five people died, plus the police were all diverted to deal with this so weren't preventing other crimes. Plus, there was damage to shops costing tens of millions of pounds. But many people believe that this violent protest was justified despite people dying. Two religious beliefs about violence and violent protests is that it is always wrong as you should love your neighbour and violence isn't loving, plus human life is sacred as we were made in the image of God. Furthermore, it is against the law, and the Bible says that Christians should follow the law and the government as they were established by God. And violence and violent protests are against the law. However, some people believe that while violence is wrong, it is sometimes necessary, for example, if you are standing up for someone innocent. This is how you show love to someone by standing up against injustice. Some Christians believe you do not have to obey laws which are against God and the Bible, as that means the governing bodies are not from God. We can also apply humanist ideas about violence to violent protest, which is that it is generally against humanist values of empathy and kindness, but you can use your reason and intellect to decide whether it might be necessary in certain situations. The next point on the spec is terrorism. Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, particularly against civilians, to achieve political, ideological or religious aims. So if you use violence to intimidate or scare others, particularly civilians, i.e. people that are not military personnel, in order to challenge something the government has done or not done, or because you disagree with somebody's ideas, or you have a religious belief that you are wanting others to have too. The fastest group for terrorist activity in the UK is from the far right. Four in the past six years, including Joe Cox, who is a humanist and Labour MP, who was shot and killed by someone who is a white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and British nationalist. Terrorism is believed to be wrong by almost all Christians and most non-religious people. It is against the law, and it usually involves killing innocent people. For Christians, they must love people, they must not kill, and they must obey the law. For humanists, they must protect human life and use intellect and reason to stand up for justice. The next section of the spec is reasons for war. There are three reasons for war we need to know for the exam. Greed, self-defense, and retaliation. Greed is going to war for personal material gain, for example, land, resources or power. If we think about Germany invading Poland or Russia invading Ukraine, or the Iraq war motivated by wanting oil, any of the colonial or empire wars where European countries invaded and took control of other countries. Most wars in history are started because of greed. Now the Bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. If you invade another country in order to seize power or take natural resources, then you love money more than people. And this, according to the Bible, is evil. As such, most Christians are strongly against any war fought in the name of greed. Humanists too believe in justice for all humans, so killing people for any personal gain is against their values. Going to war for self-defense is when another country invades you and you defend yourself. Or it could be that a country invades another country and you defend them. When Britain joined the Second World War, it was to defend Poland. So for us it was a war fought for self-defense, but for the Germans it was fought for greed. Russia invaded Ukraine for greed, and Ukraine is fighting back for self-defense. Going to war for self-defense is probably the only reason for war that most Christians would support. This is because of verses that we've seen before, like, let justice flow like a river, meaning that it should continuously flow. The Bible says do not kill, but this is often seen to mean murder, premeditated killing of a particular person. The Old Testament sees God telling Israelites to kill, and a famous example would be the conflict against the Philistines, where David ends up killing Goliath. We have already seen Jesus instruct his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword. Plus, a way to love your neighbour could be to come to their defense. However, the Bible also says to love your enemy, turn the other cheek, do good to those who hurt you. As such, the Bible gives mixed messages, and so Christians are divided on the issue of going to war. Humanists again would prefer not to go to war, but may in certain situations if they were standing up for justice of an oppressed people, so would also believe in going to war for self-defense. The final reason for war is retaliation. This means starting a war because of an act of aggression from another country. You might then react as a warning or to try and scare them from trying any further acts. For example, after the 9-11 Terrorist Act, the US, under the presidency of George Bush Jr., went to war in Afghanistan. The US believe it was a terrorist organization called Al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, who were responsible for the attacks. The Taliban, who were the ruling party in Afghanistan, refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, and that led to the US starting a 20-year war on terror that included Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen, as well as Afghanistan. It's really important that we understand the difference between wars for self-defense and wars for retaliation. Wars for self-defense is when you defend yourself against somebody else's attack. Wars for retaliation is when you get someone back for what they did to you. Retaliation is generally not proportional to the original attack. And as such, most Christians do not agree with wars started as retaliation. This is because they are not proportional as they are a show of power, not self-defense. For example, the war on terror lasted 20 years, caused nearly 5 million deaths, and cost$8 trillion. This was a retaliation for a terrorist attack which killed 3,000 people and cost$35 million. As the Bible says, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, do good to those who hurt you. Many Christians believe wars for retaliation are against biblical teachings. Furthermore, eye for eye, life for life, is not relevant here, as this teaching means the retaliation has to be equal to the aggression. All wars fought for retaliation are far greater than the original aggression. Alongside this, the Bible says do not kill, and many innocent people die in wars fought for retaliation. For example, the US targeted schools, hospitals, and villages in their war on terror as they believed terrorists were hiding there. However, some Christians believe they have the right to attack countries disproportionately in order to keep their own citizens safe and put people off attacking again. Most non-religious people agree that wars fought for retaliation are not justifiable because of the number of innocent people that are killed, injured, or cause suffering. These wars are often not reasonable and often antagonize the aggressor, leading to more conflict. Furthermore, international law forbids excessive force and unnecessary injury. It is much more difficult to measure this in wars fought for retaliation, as they, by definition, have to be forceful and effective. But some people feel it is right to attack people who attack them first. The next thing we have to look at is the just war theory, including the criteria for a just war. We can link this back to what we know about justice as a key concept in this theme. A just war is a war which is fair and right. The just war theory is a very specific theory put forward by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, which laid out conditions that had to be met for a war to be right and fair, and in which case, a Christian could morally fight in. You might remember Thomas Aquinas from theme C with his five ways to prove God's existence. Anyway, when he wasn't busy proving God's existence, he wondered whether it was ever right for a Christian to go to war. He decided that a Christian could only go to war if certain conditions were met. If the war met all these conditions, then it could be called a just war and a Christian could fight in it. They didn't have to, they just could. He said the war needed to have a just cause, be declared by a proper authority, and therefore have the right intention. Later, other people added three further conditions. It had to be a last resort, there had to be a reasonable chance of success, and it had to be proportional. A just cause would be to restore peace, punish evil, reclaim what was unjustly taken, and defend the common good. It does not include being attacked as a just cause unless the person attacking has done something exceptionally unjust. The proper authority is a recognized sovereign like a monarch or statehead. It can't be an individual, it must be someone who is responsible for the common good. The right intention must be to establish peace, advance good, and avoid evil, and cannot be for retaliation or greed or attacking an enemy. Proportionality means that the harm caused by war must not outweigh the good achieved. We can link this to the point on the spec about justice. So if you get a question on justice in theme D, you can refer to the just war theory. So two beliefs about the just war theory is that it was written about by Thomas Aquinas, and secondly, that there are conditions by which Christians can justify going to war. Many Christians agree with this theory as it allows them to come to people's defence and stand up for justice. Remember, the Pope said if you want peace, work for justice. The just war theory allows people to work for justice. It is also consistent with the Bible that. Sometimes allows violence and sometimes doesn't. The only problem is, and it's a huge problem, there are no wars in history that meet the conditions of a just war. Also, many of the criteria for a just war are subjective or difficult to measure. How can you tell if a war is a purely just cause? How can you decide if the suffering caused is proportional to the good achieved? Is it contradictory to fight for peace? Furthermore, you can't have a reasonable chance of success if you are proportional. In order to win, you have to use more force than your enemy. As such, it is not a particularly useful theory and is kind of illogical. Humanists tend not to follow the just war theory as it was designed for Christians as a way of deciding whether they should go to war. However, many of the values behind it they agree with and think the criteria help someone use reason and logic to decide whether it is right to go to war. The next point on the spec is holy war. Now it is very easy to get just war and holy war mixed up or confused. Just war is a set of criteria for any war for a Christian to decide whether or not they should support it. A holy war is a war fought for religious reasons only. Not all just wars are holy, but all holy wars should be just. So a holy war is a conflict fought for religious causes, authorized by a religious leader, and believed to be commanded by God or for a divine purpose. So we have to notice three aspects of a holy war in that definition. One, it is fought for religious causes, e.g., to protect the religion or protect the right to practice the religion. Two, it has to be authorized by a recognized religious figure, for example the Pope. It can't be started by a person or group within the religion. Three, it has to be commanded by God or for a divine purpose. In history, 7% of all wars have been holy. So that's 23 out of 1763. Interestingly, holy wars are responsible for only 2% of casualties. So statistically, religion doesn't cause very many wars, and less people die in holy wars than any other type of wars. So when we say that religion is responsible for lots of wars, the evidence suggests otherwise. Anyway, let's look at some examples of holy wars. The most famous ones are the Crusades. These are a series of wars in the 11th to the 13th century issued by the Pope at the time to defend the Holy Land from Islam, which had been growing in popularity since it started 500 years earlier. So the Holy Land is Jerusalem and it's where Jesus was crucified and resurrected, so is very important to Christians. To be fair, Islam had been in Jerusalem for about 500 years before the Crusades. Another holy war is what is known as the Troubles in Northern Ireland, when a predominantly Catholic Republic of Ireland wanted a united Ireland, therefore removing the predominantly Protestant Northern Ireland away from British monarch rule. And Israel-Palestine, which we will look at in more detail in the second section of this episode on religion and belief as a cause of conflict in the contemporary world. We can also use David's fight with Goliath as part of the conflict between Israel and the Philistines, India-Pakistan. Also, if you study Islam, you can use Lesser Jihad, which is a holy war. For example, Muhammad's fight in Mecca to establish Islam. So there are some key holy wars that we can use in this topic. For many Christians, the term holy war is a contradiction. Holy means good, set apart and like God. And as such, because war causes pain, suffering, and death, it cannot be holy. We can use all the same Bible quotes as we've used before to support this. Do not kill, love your neighbour, love your enemies. We're made in God's image. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Turn the other cheek. Forgive 70 times seven times. However, other Christians think that if you are fighting for God, then this is okay, particularly as God instructed his people to fight in the Old Testament. With its focus on justice and standing up for what is right, then for some Christians protecting their right to practice their religion is acceptable. The problem with holy wars is that sometimes wars that are not religious are given a religious narrative to justify them. For example, when George Bush said God told him to go to war, this then gave the illusion of a holy war. But there is no proof that that is what God told him. And many people believe this war was actually to protect oil reserves in order to support the American economy. Second of all, while in the Old Testament God instructed his people to go to war, the teachings of the New Testament never show God giving this instruction, and all teachings in the New Testament seem to support a belief in love, forgiveness, and pacifism, a belief in peace. Humanists are unlikely to have a different opinion about holy wars than any other war. As such, they believe they are not ideal, but may sometimes be necessary if one group is taking away another person's right to practice their religion freely. Humanists believe in human rights, and this includes the right to freedom of religion and belief. If any one group is taking away someone else's rights, it doesn't matter that the motivation is religious, it's still wrong. The next section in the spec is religion and belief in 21st century conflict. The first thing we have to look at is religion and belief as a cause of war and violence in the contemporary world. Now we've already looked at holy wars, but we can only use conflicts that exist in the world today if we get this question. One we could use is Israel-Palestine, which I've mentioned before. Please be aware, this is a very, very complex conflict with a long history and it's very controversial. Please avoid talking about it or thinking about it flippantly, giving opinions about who is most at fault. But do please take note of the amount of human suffering it has caused. Just for context, Palestine is where Bethlehem is and where Jesus was born. Jerusalem is in Israel, which is where Jesus was crucified. In Israel-Palestine, there has been decades of conflict between a predominantly Jewish Israel wanting to eradicate Palestine and Islam from the country to allow it to be a fully Jewish country, which they believe was given to them by God. And then the Palestinian people are fighting for their right for a land and an identity. To understand this conflict, we have to go back thousands of years. When Abraham made a covenant with God, Abraham promised obedience and righteousness, and God promised him descendants and a land. That land was Canaan. Canaan is now Israel-Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza. The Canaanites who originally lived in Cana were polytheistic, but they eventually merged with the Israelites, and the area eventually split up into separate areas and subgroups. Over the 19th century, some Israeli people wanted to establish Israel as their land that God had given them. By this point, Islam was well established in the land. After the Second World War, the United Nations wanted to make up for the atrocities in World War II with the Holocaust. And so in 1948, they proposed dividing Israel into Jewish and Arab areas. This is called the two-state solution. Israel controlled most of the area, Jordan controlled the West Bank, and Egypt controlled Gaza. This created a lot of Palestinian refugees as their land and homes had been given to Israel. They wanted their own independent state of Palestine, not controlled by other states. In the 60s, Israel invaded the West Bank and Gaza. And while Palestine was granted power in these areas, it wasn't until 2005 that Israel withdrew from these areas. In 2007, Hamas took over Gaza, but Israel still imposed restrictions on the Palestinian people. Israel controlled its borders and imports. In 2023, Hamas invaded Israel and took hostages as a reaction against Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank, and the restriction of movement of and imprisonment of and violence against Palestinian people. Hamas killed a thousand people and took 250 hostages. Israel, supported by the US, retaliated by killing 72,000 Palestinians, destroying 90% of the infrastructure and restricting food, water and aid to the area. Israel then did a surprise attack ending a ceasefire that had been agreed. It is important to note that while there is fault on both sides, there is not equal fault if you look at the numbers of people on each side. Also, it is important to note that most civilians do not support what their authorities are doing. Most humanists disagree with this war due to the human rights which are being taken away from the Palestinians, i.e., the right to a home, an identity, to move freely, the right to food and water and health care. As such, the fact that there is a religious element to this conflict, Israel believes that this is the country God gave them, so the Palestinians have no right to be there, is not significant to many humanists. However, they may agree with the Palestinian people fighting back in order to fight for their right to exist and thrive in the land. Another point in the spec is weapons of mass destruction, which is one of our special topics, so we have to explain contrasting beliefs with reference to the main religious tradition in Britain, Christianity, and one or more other religious traditions. Weapons of mass destruction are any weapons that cause widespread, indiscriminate damage and large-scale uncontrollable destruction, typically including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. We will look at nuclear weapons in more detail next as it has its own point in the spec, but let's look at the other two first. Chemical weapons are things like chlorine and mustard gas used in World War I, nerve agents like sarin used in the 1995 Tokyo attack, and Novichok and herbicides like Agent Orange. These weapons are categorized into blistering, choking, blood, and nerve agents, depending on their effect on the human body. Chemical weapons are illegal in international law. As such, nearly all Christians do not agree with their use as they are called to obey the law. Also, they are indiscriminate. This means that they cause suffering and death to innocent people. It is therefore not loving, it breaks the commandment do not kill, and it is against the sanctity of life. Humanists have almost identical beliefs but argue from a point of international law in human rights and compassion for all living things. Both are against chemical weapons as they also destroy animal life and the environment. Biological weapons of mass destruction are microorganisms, so bacteria, viruses or fungi, or toxins deliberately released to cause widespread disease and death in humans, animals, and crops. Key examples are anthrax, the plague, and smallpox. You can use exactly the same arguments for biological weapons as you can for chemical. The problem is that there aren't really any contrasting beliefs about this topic. Anthrax letters were used by the US in 2001. They were used in the Syrian war 10 years ago, so there are clearly leaders in the world who feel it is acceptable to use these methods of warfare. But most human beings agree that such weapons of mass destruction have no place in a progressive society. So I would definitely use nuclear weapons if you get a question on contrasting views of weapons of mass destruction, as nuclear weapons are an example of weapons of mass destruction and there are contrasting views on them. So let's have a look at those now. So we have to know nuclear weapons, including nuclear deterrents. So let's first make sure we know what nuclear weapons are. Nuclear weapons are weapons based on either nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission is where you split open an atom. This causes a chain reaction of any atoms in the radius of the bomb to also split, essentially obliterating anything in the area. These are known as atomic bombs, and they were the ones used in World War II against Japan. Atomic fusion is where two smaller atoms are fused together to produce a bigger atom to create destructive energy. This is how the sun produces energy, incidentally. Modern nuclear weapons use both nuclear fission, so splitting the atom, and nuclear fusion, i.e. fusing the atoms together. Most Christians are against the use of nuclear weapons due to the loss of innocent lives. Due to the immense power of them, you cannot target small areas. You have to obliterate anything within a one to two mile area. Plus, they then cause damage up to 10 miles away. So this is against the sanctity of life, do not kill commandment, love your neighbour. They are also against the just war criteria as they are not proportional. If we think back to an eye for an eye, we can see that the Bible supports proportional retaliation. Nuclear weapons are more like an eye for an entire body. Also, the combined current strength of all weapons in the world would cause mutually assured destruction, so mad. This means there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire planet Earth. Furthermore, if you do theme B, we can apply our knowledge on stewardship. Nuclear weapons also destroy animals and nature, so on this basis, many Christians do not support the use of nuclear weapons. However, during World War II, we know the use of nuclear weapons brought victory to the UK and ended the war. It may be, therefore, that the use of nuclear weapons prevented conflict and therefore saved lives. However, the fact that they were dropped on Japan, an ally of Germany and not Germany itself, with whom the war was actually started, was controversial for many due to the number of innocent Japanese lives that were destroyed. Now let's look at nuclear deterrence. This means a country owning nuclear weapons in order to put people off from going to war with them. Please, please, please, please make sure you read any question about nuclear weapons carefully. There is a difference between using nuclear bombs and owning them as a nuclear deterrent. Most Christians are more accepting of owning them than using them. Many Christians believe the possession of nuclear weapons is a necessary deterrent to prevent major wars, for example the Cold War, and to prevent mad, so mutually assured destruction. This is evidenced by the fact that there has been no world wars since World War II where the first nuclear bomb was used. As such, owning nuclear weapons is an effective way of working for peace and protecting human life. Therefore, it is consistent with verses like do not kill and religious beliefs about the sanctity of life and stewardship. However, other Christians are against owning nuclear weapons as a nuclear deterrent for two main reasons. Owning nuclear weapons could antagonize another country, particularly as some countries are not legally allowed them. So only the US, Russia, UK, France, and China are allowed nuclear weapons. Countries like North Korea are not allowed them. This means they could develop them secretly, which would be a threat to global security. Furthermore, if we think about the Cuban missile crisis, this happened in the 1960s, so the US and the USSR were in an arms race, terrified that the other would have more nuclear weapons than them. On one particular day, intelligence came through that the US had deployed a nuclear weapon on the USSR. The USSR were about to strike back. If this had happened, there would have been a nuclear war, which would have created mad, mutually assured destruction. The US then got intelligence that Russia was about to strike back, so the US were poised with their finger on their own launch button. Thankfully, Russia double-checked their intelligence and realized it was a mistake. But then they had to try and convince the US that they were not going to strike. The US was skeptical of this admission and nearly launched an attack just in case. Thankfully they didn't. But this demonstrates the danger in having nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Furthermore, 3% of Britain's entire budget is spent on nuclear deterrents. That is£3 billion. Replacing them would cost£10 billion, so 10% of our national budget. And the total cost over their lifetime is£200 billion. Many people feel this money could be better spent on diplomacy and improving the day-to-day lives of British citizens to ensure more justice and less need for conflict. So, what Bible teachings can we use to support owning nuclear weapons as a deterrent? I think because it protects human life, the best one to use is that humans were made in the image of God and link it to a belief in the sanctity of life. And obviously love your neighbour, as a nuclear deterrent keeps humans safe, which is a loving action. Most humanists understand that owning nuclear weapons is effective in preventing conflict, however, are aware that the cost of them could be better used in diplomacy, justice, and peacemaking. Another idea we have to learn about is reconciliation. This means bringing people together after conflict. It is distinct from forgiveness, which we'll look at next, as it is the process of bringing people together. There is no guarantee of forgiveness. Reconciliation is a topic which is also in Christian practices, so you can use some knowledge from there, but you must link it to peace and conflict, not generally to reconciliation. It is based on Bible verses like love your enemy, do good to those who persecute you, love one another. There are also specific teachings in Matthew about if you are in conflict with your brother, go and be reconciled before you worship God. Jesus also said, if anyone says I love God, yet hates his brother, he is a liar, i.e., you can't love God and hate other people. After the end of apartheid in South Africa, a process of formal reconciliation took place. Under the guidance of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, thousands of black and white South Africans were brought together to talk about the inhumane treatment, torture, and imprisonment of the black South Africans at the hands of the whites. This means that blacks shared stories of their suffering in front of the whites who had perpetrated this and created opportunities for admission, repentance, and forgiveness. This did not always happen, but Desmond Tutu said, Unless we open up wounds and clean them, they will never heal. He was motivated by his Christian faith. Furthermore, Coventry Cathedral is a symbol of reconciliation. During World War II it was almost completely destroyed in the Blitz. And then, when they rebuilt it, they found two nails in a cross shape. The cross of nails is now a permanent symbol of reconciliation in the rebuilt cathedral. The next word we have to know is forgiveness. Forgiveness. Forgiveness means the act of letting go of blame and revenge. Again, it is really important that if you get a forgiveness question in theme D, that you relate it to peace and conflict. We are really thinking about the relationship between two sides in a war. From a Christian perspective, it is vital that they forgive any side they have been to war with. Let's look at all the verses about forgiveness that we know from Christian beliefs and practices. The Lord's Prayer says, forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. So if a Christian has been in war, they have to forgive their enemy so that God can forgive them. Jesus says, forgive 70 times seven times. So Christians have to forgive all people or their sins. When Jesus was being crucified on the cross, he said, forgive them, Father, for they do not know what they do. So the Bible is very clear that Christians are called to forgive their enemies, to let go of blame and revenge. This means that British Christians and American Christians need to forgive Germany, Japan, and Russia, and more specifically Hitler, the Nazis, and Putin. The next section I am putting together is peace, pacifism, and peacemaking. They are in different places on the spec, but it makes sense to do them together. Peace is the absence of war or violence. Two religious beliefs about peace are one, it is the ideal state. If we think back to the Garden of Eden in Genesis chapter one that we've looked at in Christian beliefs, theme B and theme C, God saw all that he had made and it was good, i.e. there was no conflict. There was no conflict between God and humans, humans and nature, we were vegan, and between humans. It wasn't until after the fall that conflict entered the world. Between God and humans, between humans and nature, God said, I will bring enmity between you, and between humans. So remember Adam and Eve's son Cain killed his brother Abel. This is the first murder in the Bible. Interestingly, Abel was a farmer, and if you study human history, the farming era was the first time we also see historical evidence for violence. If we also then think of heaven where there is no more death, this further supports the belief that peace is the ideal state. Our second belief about peace is that it is a gift from God. Jesus said, Peace I leave you, my peace I give you. So there are lots of quotes and references from the Bible we can use here, but I want to just point out two more that are really helpful this unit and which we've used in other points on the spec too. The first is from the book of Romans, and if we know much about the Romans, we will know why this verse was particularly relevant to them. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. So we learn from this quote that you should live at peace with everyone under two conditions. One, it is possible, suggesting it is not always possible, and two, as far as it depends on you, suggesting it is not always within your control. We will come back to this verse when we talk about pacifism, but this teaches us that sometimes peace is not possible. The other quote that we've used a lot from Pope John Paul II, who said, if you want peace, work for justice. So this tells you how to achieve peace. You're gonna have to make sure life is fair for everyone. If there is injustice, people are gonna want to fight. If we consider non-religious views about peace, many agree that it is the ideal state, that it can be achieved through working for justice, but that it is not always possible. Many non-religious people are pacifists, particularly humanists, who believe in empathy and have a concern for the happiness of humans. For the most part, this is the motivation for peace. However, you may sometimes have to fight for the happiness of humans if you are standing up against injustice. Pacifism is also on the speck, and ism is always a belief, and pax is the Latin word for peace. So pacifism is the belief in peace, but also the belief in using peaceful means to solve conflict. There are two types of pacifism, absolute and conditional. Absolute pacifism is the belief that you should never use violence to solve any problem. Conditional pacifism means you should avoid it where possible, but in some extreme situations, violence is needed to create peace. For example, as we said before, if we had not gone to war with the Nazis in World War II, there would never have been peace in Europe. Or if you need to use violence to defend yourself against an attacker, then this may be necessary. Most Christians are conditional pacifists. They believe in peace due to the teachings in the Bible, and we can use all our knowledge about peace from earlier. Peace is the state that the world was in before the fall, so therefore pacifism is a belief that this is the ideal state. Heaven will be peaceful. The Lord's prayer says on earth as it is in heaven. So many Christians believe they should try and create a peaceful world. God's gift to the world is peace. The Bible says live at peace with people, but remember it says, if possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. This is why many Christians are conditional pacifists, as it's not always possible to live at peace and it's not always up to you. Turn the other cheek is actually not as passive as it sounds. It doesn't mean let people hit you. At the time of Jesus, people would hit with the back of their hand to insult or demean you. If you turn the other cheek, they can't give you a back-handed strike, because it was always the right hand which would hit, the left hand was not used in public. So this is about taking away someone's power, not being passive. And the Bible says let justice flow like a river. Sometimes you have to fight for justice. As the Pope said, if you want peace, work for justice. This might involve conflict. Some Christians believe the only truly Christian view has to be pacifism. When Jesus was arrested, he did not fight back. He told Peter to put away his sword. He forgave those who tortured him. He taught love and forgiveness and non-judgment. As such, pacifism is Christ-like. When Jesus got angry, he did not hurt people. He just turned over tables and chased them out. Most humanists are also pacifists as they believe in the inherent worth of humans. They value empathy and reason. Many conflicts are unreasonable and show a lack of compassion for the other. However, humanists are ready to fight for justice if people's rights are being taken away. They would not fight to give one group more rights than another. Linked to this is religion and peacemaking in the contemporary world, including the work of individuals influenced by religious teaching. We have looked at peace, an absence of conflict. We have looked at pacifism, a belief that we should use peaceful means to solve problems, and now we are looking at peacemaking and peacemakers. Peacemaking is a verb, it is an action. It is putting your beliefs into practice. So if we are a pacifist, you may actively work for peace. So peace is a state, pacifism is a belief, peacemaking is an action. Peacemaker is a noun. We have already looked at quite a few Bible teachings related to this. In the Our Father, it says, Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. If God's perfect world was one of peace, it makes sense that many Christians want to make peace on this earth. The Bible says, make me a channel of your peace. So let's look at specific ways Christians could be peacemakers. If we remember that quote from the Pope, if you want peace, work for justice. One way Christians work for peace is by standing up for justice. This might be campaigning for human rights for all people, protesting for climate justice, or arguing for equality. Humanists would also agree that peacemaking could be done by working for justice. Jesus said, blessed are the peacemakers. So it is very clear that the Bible supports peacemaking. Christians may do this through reconciliation, so you can use your knowledge about that from Christian practices and from this theme. They can do it through evangelism as they are making peace between God and humans. So again, you can use your knowledge of Christian practices here. One thing we need to look at, though, is peacemaking work of the individuals influenced by religious teachings. I would definitely say the Quakers are a really good case study to use. The Quakers started in the 1600s as part of the Protestant movement. They were disillusioned by the corruption and hypocrisy of the established church. They wanted to access God directly and not go through an institution. Now they have four main values simplicity, truth, equality, and peace. So step. These are based on teachings in the Bible and lead them therefore to pacifism. They see violence as completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus, so have always been pacifists. They believe there is a part of God in everyone. They are not passive, but they are conscientious objectors. So they object to fighting in wars due to their conscience, but actively stand up for peace, including stop the arms. So stop the arms is a campaign to end the arms trade. Also, rethinking security, which is thinking about how else we can create security without military force. They run refugee camps in Palestine, so this links to the Israel-Palestine conflict we have covered. They engage politically, so they boycott products from aggressive states. They educate and they live this value in their lives. Because you do not have to believe in God to be a Quaker, many non-religious people are part of the Quaker tradition too. Finally, we have to look at religious responses to victims of war, including the work of one present-day religious organization. It is very easy to find a biblical basis for helping victims of war. Love your neighbour, the parable of the sheep and the goats. As such, charities like Christian Aid support victims of war in the following ways: short-term aid, like medical aid, shelter, food, and water, long-term aid through fundraising, trauma counseling, rebuilding infrastructure, and promoting peace. It has raised£27 million for Ukraine. They believe that helping victims of war is their Christian duty because of the teachings of Jesus and because of the value of human life which is loved by God. It is also a way of showing love to God because Jesus said in the parable of the sheep and the goats, whatever you do for the least of one of these, you do for me. For humanists, this is just about human rights. Nearly always the victims of war are innocent people who did not choose the war or the policies that caused the war. And it is often the most vulnerable in society that are the victims. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement, access to food, water and shelter, a right to be safe. As such, many humanists will support charities which help victims of war. Furthermore, it is part of the Geneva Convention to help victims of war. The golden rule motivates both Christians and humanists. Treat others the way you want to be treated. If you would want to be helped if you were a victim of war, then you should help others. So let's move on to some exam questions now. A one marker might be give one way in which religious believers help victims of war. You could just write, raise money, and that would get a mark. You don't have to write in detail, but you do need to be specific. Let's do a four marker on one of our special topics. So that could be explain two different beliefs in contemporary British society about weapons of mass destruction. In your answer, you should refer to the main religious tradition of Great Britain and one or more other religious traditions. So we're going to have to start with one Christian belief, because then we are naming the main religious tradition of Great Britain. And actually, we're going to talk about nuclear weapons as a weapon of mass destruction because that has a contrasting belief. So we could say nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, and one Christian belief is that they should be owned but not used. This prevents war, therefore saves human lives, which is important because they believe in the sanctity of life. A different Christian belief is that nuclear weapons should not be used because they go against the just war theory. This states that war should be proportional and using nuclear weapons is not proportional. So in this answer, we have two fully developed points. We have clearly named Christianity, which is the main religious tradition in Great Britain, and these are both different beliefs held in contemporary British society on weapons of mass destruction. For our sixth marker, let's take, explain two religious beliefs about forgiveness. Refer to sacred writings or another source of religious unbelief and teaching in your answer. Now, this is hard for two reasons. One, because it is a small part of the spec, and two, because many students will fall into the trap of talking about forgiveness generally and not relating it to theme D. We have to talk about forgiving enemies in a conflict in order to get full marks. And remember, we need two fully developed points with a sourced quote, and we have to apply that quote to the question. So here is my answer. One Christian belief about forgiveness is that it is an important part of being a Christian, as that is what Jesus did. So that's one mark for a simple explanation. This means that in a war, Christians must forgive the enemy. So I have developed that point and linked it specifically to war. This is shown in the Bible when Jesus said, forgive them, Father, for they do not know what they do. So I've got a relevant quote about forgiveness and I've sourced the Bible. This shows that, like Jesus forgave those who tortured and killed him, Christians must forgive people who kill in a war. So what I've done is I have applied the quote specifically to forgiveness in the question and specifically to peace and conflict. Another belief about forgiveness is that it can lead to peace and prevent war. This is my second simple explanation for my fifth mark. This is because if you have forgiven someone, you will not want to fight them. So again, I've applied forgiveness to peace and conflict as my development for my sixth mark. So this would get six out of six for two fully developed points, which both link forgiveness to peace and conflict. We have a relevant quote which is sourced, and we have applied the quote to the question, and we have clearly named our religion. Let's have a look at a 12 marker and let's have a look at war is never right. So, how would we approach this one? Our first paragraph would be from an absolute pacifist perspective. So we would mention all the verses in the Bible which talk about peace as the ideal, from the Garden of Eden before the fall to God's peaceful kingdom on earth. We would talk about how Jesus never used violence, told his disciples to put away their swords, that the Bible says do not kill, the sanctity of life, love your neighbour, all the Christian teachings that show that war is against the Bible and against God's plan. We could also bring in Quakers here in terms of their belief in pacifism and use all of these to argue that therefore for a Christian, war can never be right. However, we could judge this as a weak argument because morally we sometimes have to stand up and fight against injustice. So if we never went to war, dictators like Hitler would have conquered Europe. Also, we could argue that logically, while war is not preferable, sometimes it is necessary, so to say it's never right is too extreme. Our second paragraph would be to argue why war is sometimes right. For example, to fight injustice. Even Pope John Paul said, if you want peace, work for justice, and working for justice might include going to war. We could talk about the just war theory, which allows war in certain situations, although we must evaluate this theory by saying that the criteria for a just war is impossible to meet, as evidence shows no war has ever been just and can never be just, because you can't fight proportionately and have a chance of success. We could also bring in our knowledge of lesser jihadin here too, where Allah says to fight in the name of Allah but do not transgress limits, showing that war is sometimes right, and we could therefore link this to holy wars. We could mention holy wars in the Bible, showing that God thinks wars are sometimes needed. We could also use self-defense as a reason for war being in line with love your neighbour, as coming to the defense of a victim is a loving action. We could say this is a strong argument as it reflects the beliefs of most people and is supported by evidence from the Bible and religious leaders. So we have reasoned arguments in support of this statement, reasoned arguments to support a different point of view. We have referred to religious arguments, we haven't mentioned non-religious arguments, which we don't have to, but we could. So we could say that humanists are generally against war as they believe in compassion for all living things, but understand rationally that it is sometimes necessary. However, both sides must follow the rules of engagement issued by the Geneva Convention. So then we have to reach a justified conclusion. This means a conclusion that is consistent with our answer so far. And we have really clearly shown that arguments against the statement are stronger. So this really has to form the justified conclusion. So we'd have to say that most people believe war is sometimes necessary, and this is supported in Christianity and Islam. As long as rules are followed to manage the unnecessary suffering, like in the just war theory or Geneva Convention, then a war which fights for justice or who defends freedoms is a way that we can make the world a better place, and it is our moral duty. As such, war is sometimes right, and the argument to say it's never right is the weakest argument. So I hope this has helped unpack theme D and apply the content to exam questions. Next week I'll be looking at theme E, Crime and Punishment. This podcast is supported by ReimaginingEducation at reimaginingeducation.uk. My name is Louisa Jane Smith, and this has been the RE podcast. The podcast for those of you who think RE is boring, which it might be. But I hope it gains you the qualifications you need for your next stage of life. And thank you for letting me bore the life out of you.