Wulfie's Wurld
An island of questions in a sea of confusion.Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Commentary: Christians and Killing
Let's face it, I live in a Christian country. In the last election here, people were not voting with their minds toward the issues, they were voting with their Bibles.
One of the Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt not kill." Of course, I've heard all the counter arguments that originally it meant "thou shalt not commit murder" or "thou shalt not shed innocent blood," etc. So I can't help but wonder, how does any Christian country justify either the death penalty or going to war?
Death Penalty: One can argue that the person being executed is not "innocent," and therefore it isn't murder. But this raises several questions.
1. If non-innocent blood can be shed, WHAT, on the continuum of "guilty blood," warrants the death penalty? If I steal an apple, my blood is no longer innocent, and therefore killing me would not be murder, right? Who among us is totally innocent of everything? The standard Christian answer is "only one." Does that mean it's open season on the rest of us?
2. If this is a divine injunction, why are civil governments taking over responsibility for deciding who should or should not be killed? Shouldn't all such cases be sent to priests and whatnot who have a direct link to God for deciding which people are eligible as exceptions to the commandment? Doesn't this mean that some form of government similar to what many of the Arab nations have would be more appropriate?
3. Who bears responsibility for those executed by mistake?
War: What is war, if it is not the wholesale shedding of innocent blood? Are all the soldiers who died in all the wars deserving of being executed anyway? Are all the civilians equally deserving of it? Was the bombing of Bagdad, Hanoi, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Pearl Harbor nothing more than cleaning out nests of people who were awaiting execution? If not, some questions are raised along these lines as well.
1. Who bears the responsibility for innocent blood shed in war? The soldiers who pulled the proverbial (or literal) trigger, the officers who gave the orders, or the presidents and prime ministers who dragged their nations to war?
2. There are many nations who no longer have the death penalty, yet still go to war. How do they reconcile the two?
I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how Chrisitians can justify their killing, and I'm having a hard time seeing how government sanctified killing is rationalized, given the apparent contradictions. Is there some kind of divine "get out of jail free card" somewhere? I must have missed that passage in the Bible.
It kind of makes me glad I'm not a Chrisitian and not really part of the gubmint.
Let's face it, I live in a Christian country. In the last election here, people were not voting with their minds toward the issues, they were voting with their Bibles.
One of the Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt not kill." Of course, I've heard all the counter arguments that originally it meant "thou shalt not commit murder" or "thou shalt not shed innocent blood," etc. So I can't help but wonder, how does any Christian country justify either the death penalty or going to war?
Death Penalty: One can argue that the person being executed is not "innocent," and therefore it isn't murder. But this raises several questions.
1. If non-innocent blood can be shed, WHAT, on the continuum of "guilty blood," warrants the death penalty? If I steal an apple, my blood is no longer innocent, and therefore killing me would not be murder, right? Who among us is totally innocent of everything? The standard Christian answer is "only one." Does that mean it's open season on the rest of us?
2. If this is a divine injunction, why are civil governments taking over responsibility for deciding who should or should not be killed? Shouldn't all such cases be sent to priests and whatnot who have a direct link to God for deciding which people are eligible as exceptions to the commandment? Doesn't this mean that some form of government similar to what many of the Arab nations have would be more appropriate?
3. Who bears responsibility for those executed by mistake?
War: What is war, if it is not the wholesale shedding of innocent blood? Are all the soldiers who died in all the wars deserving of being executed anyway? Are all the civilians equally deserving of it? Was the bombing of Bagdad, Hanoi, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Pearl Harbor nothing more than cleaning out nests of people who were awaiting execution? If not, some questions are raised along these lines as well.
1. Who bears the responsibility for innocent blood shed in war? The soldiers who pulled the proverbial (or literal) trigger, the officers who gave the orders, or the presidents and prime ministers who dragged their nations to war?
2. There are many nations who no longer have the death penalty, yet still go to war. How do they reconcile the two?
I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how Chrisitians can justify their killing, and I'm having a hard time seeing how government sanctified killing is rationalized, given the apparent contradictions. Is there some kind of divine "get out of jail free card" somewhere? I must have missed that passage in the Bible.
It kind of makes me glad I'm not a Chrisitian and not really part of the gubmint.
posted by Cynewulf # 8/15/2006 06:32:00 AM 
Archives
October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 February 2007
