Comments on Getting Back to Basics

Go to Questions For a Christian Fundamentalist - Add a comment - Go to Getting Back to Basics

If Westwend's interpretation is correct -- "to take a life is not to be

done," then surely whatever action is necessary to enforce this rule is also justified? So when a murderer points a gun at an innocent person, in order for the innocent person to heed this rule -- to stop a life from being taken -- must not the innocent person shoot the murderer? No, says the pacifist, because shooting the murderer is killing and thus goes against the commandment. But NOT shooting the murderer also violates the commandment, because the innocent person allows a life to be taken -- his/her own. Surely a person is responsible for what he/she allows others to do, when he/she has the ability to stop it, as well as what he/she actually does.

Hence the pacifist fallacy: It necessarily requires a person to follow a contradiction. In other words, pacifism -- no killing whatsoever -- is a commandment that is impossible to follow in the only situation in which it would ever be an issue anyway. If no aggressor threatened anyone's life, then of course an innocent person could follow this commandment without contradiction. He would never be faced with the situation in which he will be responsible for a lost life no matter what he does.

But pacifism only works in a society free of aggression. This is the world of romantics, idealists, and utopians, one in which I would surely love to live and one which is surely never to exist as long as human beings are imperfect.

As long as we are imperfect, there will sometimes be aggressors. And when an aggressor is hell bent on hurting an innocent person, the innocent person and his fellow non-aggressors if they are physically and mentally capable of defending the innocent, are made responsible, either by commission or omission, for any loss of life that ensues. Since it is thus impossible to follow the "thou shalt not kill," it seems quite reasonable that the aggressor, the one with the most moral culpability, the one with evil intent, is the one whose life should be lost. The other option is the innocent life(ves) is(are) lost. Pacifism, followed in an imperfect world, will result in the latter, and thus loses any claim to moral supremacy.

posted by Dylan24 on October 24, 2004 at 10:45 AM | link to this | reply

actually i tihnk you're joking

you know leviticus
now let's see if the cons will give you proper answers.

posted by Xeno-x on October 22, 2004 at 9:11 AM | link to this | reply

one of the better questions circulating

check out MY TRANSLATIONS
for one -- the "thou shalt" is in italics, which means it isn't in the Hebrew/Chaldee from which it was translated --KJV insert -- secondly, "kill" means more than anything "take a life".
I think I render it, "To take a life is not to be done."
something like that.
humans seem to like to kill more than any other species. maybe that is why the commandment (precept)
but your issue is always good -- if we are as we say we are a "Christian Nation" than why don't we apply that commandment more.
all that you have pointed out -- very valid.
you just tried to invent a nonexistent author is all -- now we are going to start naming our kids Leviticus. The book is attributed to Moses, part of the Pentateuch, or The Law. There is a book called "Who Wrote the Bible" that explains the different authors of the books.
but the point should be the point you are making.
Christian Conservatives should be asking themselves these questions and honestly answering them, honestly searching for a resolution of the problems you raise.
personally, I agree with you. we have built a major segment of our economy on "defense", items used to kill.
we also allow our governments to execute, and what we are doing, actually pretty much against the spirit of Leviticus and the laws dealing with alledged murder, is allowing the government to be an arm of vengeance rather an instrument of legal protection of the accused's rights.
it's the spirit of the act that is suspect.
the act itself is still invalid. all that arises from executions is a "satisfaction" on the part of the families of the victims, which is reaching down to the basest human emotions and allowing free reign to a wish that is fully as evil as the act that brought the wish about.

posted by Xeno-x on October 22, 2004 at 7:50 AM | link to this | reply

It frustrates me to no end that most Bibles (at least, the ones I've read)

write the commandment as "Thou shalt not KILL" when the meaning of the verse, I believe, is "Thou shalt not MURDER." Not that I know anything about translation or scripture, but I do know the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament, which expressly permits killing, in contrast to Christ's New Testament pacifism. I don't see how the commandment could have literally meant no killing whatsoever -- that would have to include animals and plants, then, too, because it does not specify humans.

Putting that aside, I presume you are being...what is it Britons say?...cheeky, when you posit the question of how America behaves as a Christian nation. Many misguidedly believe that the U.S. is a Christian STATE or GOVERNMENT, when they say NATION, which is a term more generic so that the claim that we are a Christian NATION is vague enough to be understood as true or false depending on the opinion of the speaker. But whatever we are as a nation, we are not a Christian STATE. It disturbs me greatly when people appear to believe that we are, or should be, a Christian state, because this designation is offensive from both a secular and religious viewpoint. For the secular, the state is obviously not bound by religion. But even for the religious, the messy, corrupt, meddling affairs of state should not taint the sanctity of faith or turn religious practice into a political game where it ought to be a genuine exercise of faith. This is why the term MISGUIDED seems quite appropriate here to describe those who desire a religious state -- at the risk of sounding condescending, I honestly don't think such people understand the implications of what they are calling for! I think if an argument for the separation of religion and state had not been so thoroughly demagogued by the religious right and could be reframed as an argument amenable to believers and nonbelievers, we could convince some of those misguided people that a secular state is no threat to their religion.

Anyway, back to the question of killing versus murder. You can make a strong case against the death penalty -- that it is, indeed, murder -- because when you already have the perpetrator under lock and key, he/she is no longer a threat to anyone and so killing him/her is, well, overkill, pardon the pun. If on the other hand the perpetrator has not yet been captured and is pointing a gun at his potential captors, the captor is justified in shooting the perpetrator, killing him if necessary. I surely don't need to explain the principle of lesser evils. The same applies in fighting a war against, say, militant Islamists -- yes, it will be necessary to kill them to prevent them from killing many more innocent people than the U.S. government, for all its callousness, ever could. How many people would Al Qaeda kill if they acquired WMDs? Do you think they would have more compunction against killing than we would? I think not, so protecting innocent life -- that is, stopping murder -- will require deadly force. This is why the distinction between killing and murder is so essential, if tautological.

posted by Dylan24 on October 21, 2004 at 9:59 AM | link to this | reply

I have to somewhat agree with Witty.  Damon asked - what I thought to be - an interesting question, but no has tried to answer it.  Instead, you try to go around it and point out his faults.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."  Not totally applicable to this situation, but I think you get the point.

posted by roofpig on October 21, 2004 at 5:16 AM | link to this | reply

Oops, classic mistake - give a fundie a loophole and they'll jump through it like a lion through a hoop of fire.  Notice how the questions were oh-so-carefully ignored?  Anyway, for my part, sod Moses and his third book, this is an excellent post. (BTW, for future reference, Moses wrote the first five books - he used Word, that's why he did it so quickly).

posted by Witty_Woman on October 21, 2004 at 1:25 AM | link to this | reply

Damon, I'm with Justsouno on this one,

you do know that there is no person named Leviticus-right? Maybe you are confused with Levi; the 3rd son of Jacob? Or did you just not bother opening the Bible before you tried to talk about it?

posted by PastorB on October 20, 2004 at 9:16 PM | link to this | reply

Damon

I would be happy to answer your question; however, I cannot get it elementary enough for you to understand it. There is no Leviticus dude! Moses is the writer of the book you refer to.

posted by Justi on October 20, 2004 at 9:08 PM | link to this | reply