Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Their enemy is our enemy

Time for another installment of Know Thine Enemy.

On Friday, terrorists murdered 79 Shiite worshippers in Iraq's Buratha mosque, and injured over 160 more.

Iraq is and has been a violent place. But don't let that stand in the way of your forming an opinion about the perpetrators.

Though they're targeting Shiites, they're indiscriminately killing civilians. Recall the Geneva Conventions:

The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property. Neither the civilian population as a whole nor individual civilians may be attacked.

  • Attacks may be made solely against military objectives. People who do not or can no longer take part in the hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and for their physical and mental integrity. Such people must in all circumstances be protected and treated with humanity, without any unfavorable distinction whatever.

What would you think of people who would deliberately do that at your church (or nightclub or university), just for not believing what they do?

I'm glad our armed forces are actively on the hunt for these monsters. May they hunt them down to the last sick scumbag.

Previously: The Enemy in Iraq.


Comments:

(Please keep in mind that each commenter's opinions are only his/her own.)



I'm glad our armed forces are actively on the hunt for these monsters. May they hunt them down to the last sick scumbag.

Rather venemous, don't you think?

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave the way open for wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord. - Romans 12:19
 


And I was wondering if "sick scumbag" was too soft.

Glad to see you're quoting Scripture!

But I'm left guessing a bit. Help me out:
1. "never avenge yourselves" means abolish all prisons, right?
2. Imposing your Christian beliefs (e.g., Romans 12:19) on Iraqis and everyone is good and right. Right? (How about Ephesians 5:18?)

Thus we head down the same agonizing road many of America's founding fathers traveled: how to be true to the Scriptures and craft a government. (They endorsed prisons and the death penalty.)

I (like they) distinguish between the personal ("never avenge yourselves") and the civil (prosecution, prisons, "hunting down," etc).

"... Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." - Romans 12:9

How do we know what is evil if we never talk about it? Isn't indiscriminate mass murder evil? (You didn't give me a yea or nay.)
 


Ohhhh...so by "hunt them down to the last sick scumbag" you really meant, "find and capture them all and lock them away in a prison". Right. Just like that psycho Pat Robertson, when he said we should "take Chavez out", he really meant "take Chavez out to the ball game", right?

Why wouldn't I be quoting scripture?

How you leap in Romans 12 from what is basically a "live a good life" passage to abolishing prisons, I have no idea.

Maybe I need to reread Romans 12, but I also don't get the impose your Christian beliefs on thy brethren bit, either. That would seem to contradict the "leave peaceably with all men" bit. That's just my opinion.

And what, in the world does Ephesians 5:18 have to do with anything?

You touch upon the crux of the issue of seperation of Church and State, I believe.

Let me wax on this a moment. Should one's own personal faith be a factor in politics? I don't see how it can't be. For example, I offer up (perhaps again?) the last Presidential campaign. I think we would both agree that Jesus, during his time on Earth, spent much, if not most of, his time with people that were considered the "outcast" of society (maybe you can come up with a better word). Basically, lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes, these are people we read about Jesus associating with.

Now, take that and place it in today's context. Who are the "outcasts" of society today? Although I don't personally agree with the assertion, I can see an analogy here being the gay and lesbian community. George W. Bush campaigned - campaigned - on further ostrosizing that community. He pandered to the basest of emotions - fear and hatred - of the far right and won.

This is why the seperation of Church and State is so vital. This very nation was founded by people who wanted to escape religious persecution and yet we propose laws and a way of life that accomplishes nothing more than easing the consciousness of the self-righteous.

Why is "Merry Christmas" so important? As a Christian, isn't Christmas a celebration of the upcoming sacrifice that God made on our behalf? Sure, it's also about spending time with family and friends, but isn't what really makes it important what it means to each of us, individually - what it means to our own personal faith with God?

And yet, there are so-called "Christians" in a righteous uproar every time they hear "Happy Holidays". Why is that?

Our self-righteous indignance, we, as Christians, embarrasses me. And we wonder why people consider Christians as hippocrites today. It's obvious why! We're acting like hippocrites!

I digress...my point is Christians today, by and large (I'm referring to the 'far right') behave in decidedly un-Christlike fashion. Jesus spent his time umongst the outcast of society and we're trying to pass laws so that we don't have to deal with them.

To your last response, yes, indiscriminate killing is evil. Did you think I would say it wasn't? However, I don't believe that we're as pure and innocent in that regard as you might believe.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. - John...something

(still impressed?)

Basically, in my response to your post I was trying to subtly say that I was disappointed. Seeing good Christian people lust after vengeance bothers me. Violence begets violence (is that a scriptural reference?).

And, "Violence Lies." - Bif Naked
 


So people mass-murder a group of worshippers and you turn it into an occasion to bash Bush, comment on "Happy Holidays" and make vague allegations about our military.

That's exactly the muddled thinking and morality I'm trying to pierce through (or expose).

...yes, indiscriminate killing is evil. Did you think I would say it wasn't?

I didn't think you'd bury it after 14 paragraphs of other stuff.

Ohhhh...so by "hunt them down to the last sick scumbag" you really meant, "find and capture them all and lock them away in a prison". Right.

Capture, try, then if convicted execute or life in prison. If they fight to the death resisting their capture, so be it. Clear?

Basically, in my response to your post I was trying to subtly say that I was disappointed. Seeing good Christian people lust after vengeance bothers me.

I'm not able to say "this is evil and the perpetrators stopped" without that accusation. Or, maybe you could show me how it's done.
 


So people mass-murder a group of worshippers and you turn it into an occasion to bash Bush, comment on "Happy Holidays" and make vague allegations about our military.

And you make it sound like I'm attempting to justify their actions. Point out to me where I did that. I don't think you can. My point is simply that violence begets more violence, and that we as Christians should strive to be above that. Your post almost sounded like you went back to justifying war.

Don't obfuscate the intent of my original comment by simply calling me a Bush-basher. I am and I freely admit it. The Bush bashing, however, was in response to your comment regarding the seperation of Church and State. So don't act like I just pulled it out of my ass. And as far as the "Happy Holidays" bit goes, I believe I stated myself that I was digressing...

As toward my allegations about our military, I don't think I was vague at all. I thought I was quite clear in expressing my opinion that it's quite likely that our own troops have caught civilians in the crossfire, which isn't the same as killing indiscriminately, granted, but also a pretty terrible thing.

I didn't think you'd bury it after 14 paragraphs of other stuff.

I was addressing your comments in the order that I read them. Sorry.

Capture, try, then if convicted execute or life in prison. If they fight to the death resisting their capture, so be it. Clear?

Really? Then you're in favor of giving the prisoners in Gitmo a fair trial? Great! I don't think too many Republicans are...


I'm not able to say "this is evil and the perpetrators stopped" without that accusation. Or, maybe you could show me how it's done.


Well, with a little less hatred, for one. I'd also recommend lots of prayer.
 


...you make it sound like I'm attempting to justify their actions.

More like ignore their actions.

...with a little less hatred, for one.

What about the verse I quoted?
 


Yeah. I'm ignoring their actions. You got me. It's just so easy when thier actions are plastered across the paper and on the news sites everyday. Please. Again, my original comment was expressing my concern for your response to their actions.

The verse you quoted? Romans 12:9? I think you're taking it way out of context. In a passage surrounded by things like "honor one another above yourselves" and "bless those who persecute you" you've managed to find something you can twist to justify your anger. Congratulations.

And if you want to get picky, the passage is "hate what is evil" not "hate those whom are evil". Or maybe that's just my translation... I don't think so, though or the whole chapter would be contradictory.
 


I'm considering your accusations of hatred and twisting Scripture, but your thinking in this thread has been so muddled it doesn't give your accusations much weight at all.
 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?