caught somewhere between real life, simple faith, & raw emotion
News I’m Hatin’ This Week
*Every week I delve into current affairs for 1 day. I try to let
the highlighted items speak for themselves. But they emphasize why I
believe the fundamental solution is limited government.
US agency report says healthcare overhaul will INCREASE costs even though it has coverage limits no one nows about.
6 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nice post,
Keep up the good work,
Thanks for bringing this up
“And I’m not sure what I would classify my political leanings as. I believe in limited government, family values, and a strong defense. What does that make me?”
In your case, it appears to make you a pretty decent guy. Others who might describe their beliefs in similar terms could be a different story. I really think personality and attitude trump statements of belief in these questions.
You and I might agree or disagree on policies, or whatever, but I don’t think that’s the most important point.
And, I should mention, that some of the “liberals” I see over on a blog I read opposed to the “religious right” (an undefined term if I’ve evre seen one – except it includes theocrats, and I don’t much like theocrats) – anyway, some of those “left” guys are among the most arrogant self-righteous bigoted fools It’s been my misfortune to encounter. No side has a monopoly on being asses.
The pro-torture guys were reacting o a poll that showed some high percentage of professing Christians supporting or opposed (I think supporting) the torture of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. This raised a heated debate, and the folks on this blog, as “conservatives” felt obgligated to stick up for their side. (Jack Bauer died for your sins? 🙂
And, nobody could read the story of the cleansing of the Temple (one of my favorites) and imagine Jesus as a total pacifist.
-Steve
Of course I understand the mental incompetence position. Although, one can never be sure what that really means from a distance like this. It reminds my of the whole insanity defense. Of course someone is insane when they kill someone.
I certainly agree with your assessment with regard to the conflict management aspect of those words of Jesus. But make no mistake, I do not feel compelled (Biblically speaking) to be a pacifist.
As for torture. I would never make the claim that my faith supports torture. But I think there are many different definitions of what torture truly is. Either way, this is a difficult gray area. I certainly think there are times that interrogation is necessary. But I would never justify it with Scripture. All aspects of life (like interrogation and the rules of war) aren’t laid out. Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.
And I’m not sure what I would classify my political leanings as. I believe in limited government, family values, and a strong defense. What does that make me?
Hi Jason,
I appreciate that you are not some guy who is out for vengance. The reason the robber went free is not because anybody thought he had already been punished and suffered enough. It is because the brain damage left him incompetent to stand trial. I’m assuming the laws on that in the UK roughly parallel what they are here, which is that to stand trial a defendant must be competent to understand the charges against them and assist in their own defense. Thus, for instance, somebody in a coma could not be tried. In a case in the news recently, a nine year old boy arrested in the gang rape of an eight year old girl was not tried as an adult under the same reasoning. Howeber one of the older boys (12 perhaps?) was “undergoing a process to assist him to become competent” to stand trial.
The issue of mental competence is seperate from questions of whether he had been punished already. This is a strictly legal point, and is pretty clear – separate from the moral and karmic issues which are less so.
As to the injunctions of Jesus to “resist not one who is evil”, “turn the other cheek”, “offer him your cloak also”, etc. – my own understanding of what He is saying here is somewhat separate from the question of forgiveness, although in a similar spirit. I understand Jesus to be advocating a style of conflict management which works by elevating the context of the interaction from narrow self-centeredness (“I want what you’ve got”, “No, you can’t have it, it’e mine and I’ll fight you for it”) to a context that emphasizes our common humanity (We’re here to help one another on our journey – let’s try to work something out”).
The above is made more complicated by those who feel merely a grudging sense of obligation to give to those in need (not what He meant), and those on the other side who will cynically play to that to get their beer money, or get help with the rent after they’ve smoked it up, or whatever.
In closing, I’ll note I have noticed a rage issue among some professing Christians who identify their faith with conservative political viewpoints. On one blog some even justied the torture of terrorist suspects as supported by their faith. Such a view is sadly understandable, but is clearly not supported by the Gospels – any more than “Islamic” terrorism is supported by the Koran.
-Steve
Steve,
I understand your point. I even want to totally agree, on an emotional level.
Of course, I embrace forgiveness. But just because Jesus (or anyone else) forgives, doesn’t mean there aren’t still consequences or restitution that needs to be made. For example, I can say sorry to my wife all I want, but if I never do anything to show it (and repair the damage to our bond), it means nothing.
The way I see it, forgiveness repairs on a relational level, while restitution repairs the actual damage done (to a person, relationship, society etc). There still has to be some sort of justice carried out or there is not justice at all.
While I think it was wrong for the victim to subdue the robber and beat him, he should not get time while the robber goes free just because the robber got brain-damage in the process. Applying that as punishment and justice enough is flawed.
By that same thinking, you should let the victim go too because he and his family were tied up, robbed, and threatened with a knife. Isn’t that punishment enough for him?
Justice is supposed to be blind.
Appreciate the comments, as always…
Not sure what your take is on the specifics of these articles, but I have to say I agree with the judge on convicting the guy who beat down the burglar.
Reading the story carefully, what the homeowner did is beyond the defense of self, home and property. He first fought the guy off, chased him down, and subdued him. The judge had no problem with any of that. I don’t either, although Jesus muight (“resist not one whio is evil”). But then he went above and beyond. After the robber was subdued he beat him savegely, causing severe brain damage (which is why the guy was unable to stand trial, and was set free).
This goes beyond defense into the realm of vengance and ounishment. Civil society reserves punishment of criminals to the Law, and probably rightly so. The Bible says things like “Vengence is Mine , saith the Lord” and tells us to return good for evil.
By either the civil or Cheistian standard, the homeowner was wrong. Not that this makes the burglar right. But if he was beaten, by his victim, so badly that the law was unable to further punish him – sounds like karma to me – or at least irony.
Being a victim is not a hunting license.
-Steve