The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

Pacifism and the Bin Laden Killing

By on 5.16.11 @ 6:07AM

The absolutist convictions of today’s neo-pacifists may never again face such a test.

The U.S. military raid that killed Osama bin Laden presents a test case for the growing neo-pacifist wing of evangelical, oldline, and Roman Catholic Christianity. If the pacifists hold true to their convictions, then they must say that the strike against Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, cannot be justified. On the other hand, if they share the instinctive popular sense that, in the words of President Obama, “justice has been done,” the pacifists will be forced to reassess the biblical interpretations and moral judgments that led them to their absolutist stance of non-violence.

So far most prominent Christian pacifists have ducked the question. They acknowledge that Osama bin Laden had much innocent blood on his hands; however, they do not say how he might otherwise have been held accountable.

The pacifists have expressed discomfort along all sorts of lines tangential to the main question regarding the just use of force. Popular author Brian McLaren, for example, wrote of his distress at seeing televised images of “American college students reveling outside the White House, shouting, chanting ‘USA’ and spilling beer.” Many others have echoed similar misgivings about celebrating the death of an enemy that Christians are called to love.

But would the pacifists have been satisfied if they could have been assured that the crowd outside the White House was rejoicing at the end of the al Qaeda leader’s crimes, not the end of his life? Of course, the two are practically inseparable, and mixed motives are inevitable in any crowd of people. The harder question is: Did the Navy SEALs who shot bin Laden do a good deed for which their countrymen could be grateful in some fashion?

Many pacifists (and others) have expressed the wish that bin Laden could have been captured alive and put on trial. It is the Church’s godly prayer that every sinner have further opportunity to repent rather than perish. But the SEALs storming the fortified compound had to act quickly under fire, risking their own lives as well as bin Laden’s. Again, the question presses: If lethal force was the only way to stop him, was lethal force justified?

Many pacifists have also noted that bin Laden’s death will not end the threat of terrorism. Undoubtedly, there were be further cycles of violence. But if bin Laden’s death was the appropriate payment for his crimes, and if it would diminish al Qaeda’s abilities and appeal, was it not right for the U.S. military to bring about that death?

Jim Wallis of Sojourners tried to slip past the question by portraying the Abbottabad operation as a mere police action that pacifists might support — “a very focused effort to bring one perpetrator to justice, rather than just another act of war.” But, on the contrary, the raid on the bin Laden compound was an unambiguous act of war. Heavily armed U.S. troops entered a property in another country, without permission from that country’s government, and opened fire. Osama bin Laden had declared war against the United States, and our nation was finally able to bring the war to him. Would it have made any moral difference, from a pacifist perspective, if the uniformed men with guns blazing had been police rather than Navy SEALs?

The crucial question for the neo-pacifists is whether Romans 13:1-7 — written by the apostle Paul during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero — applies to the U.S. government today. Does our modern democratic state rightly “bear the sword” as “the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer”? The bin Laden situation would seem to offer a straightforward case of the U.S. government acting in precisely that manner. The al Qaeda leader was harming, and threatening to harm, large numbers of law-abiding U.S. citizens. It was the government’s duty to stop him — by lethal force, if necessary.

This has long been the mainstream church interpretation of the Romans passage. Even classical Christian pacifists recognized the state’s duty to defend its citizens, although they felt that as Christians they could not participate in the use of force. But more recent neo-pacifists, influenced by Gandhi, champion non-violence as the best strategy for the state to pursue. They leave no room for any actor to resort to force under any circumstance.

Would non-violence, however, have been the best strategy for dealing with Osama bin Laden? If the absolutist neo-pacifist stance fails in this one case, then it needs to be reassessed from top to bottom. Are the neo-pacifists right in taking Jesus’ commandment, “Do not resist an evildoer” (Matt. 5:38), as a prescription for U.S. foreign policy? Or are they taking that verse from the Sermon on the Mount out of the larger context of Scripture? Is it possible that the commandment was given to Jesus’ disciples in the Church, not to the officials of the state? Is it possible that the state has a distinct divinely imposed duty — that God not only allows but requires governments to resist the evildoers?

The neo-pacifists may also have to re-evaluate their contention that “War is not the answer.” Sometimes, unfortunately, war is the answer to a particular injustice. It does not solve all problems. It does not solve problems permanently or perfectly. It does not solve the deepest problems of human sin. But sometimes — as in the case of Osama bin Laden — a wise application of force does bring a certain measure of justice.

Today’s neo-pacifists would not be the first forced by history to reconsider their absolutist convictions. World War II similarly tested the pacifists of an earlier generation. Some held firm in their opposition to any use of force, while others — such as the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr — decided that justice sometimes did require the state to take up arms against a great evil. There will probably always be a pacifist current in the Christian community. But it will likely always be a side current, as the mainstream retains the larger biblical and historical view of the state’s responsibility to see that “justice has been done.”

About the Author

Alan F.H. Wisdom is Vice President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and author of the monograph “Is Marriage Worth Defending?”

Letter to the Editor View all comments (63) |

David W| 5.16.11 @ 9:03AM

Based upon what I believe to be the stance of the pacifists, they would stand by as a woman is raped, as a child is beaten, as someone robs another, because to do anything else would be anti-Christian. Would even reporting the incident to the police be anti-Christian? After all, the police may have to commit violence to stop the action or to actually arrest the criminal (sorry, lost soul who doesn't have enough empathy to understan that what he is doing is wrong).

At some point the pacifists will have to realize that there is no moral equivalency between a cop knocking down a criminal to arrest him and a criminal knocking down an innocent person to rob him.

As Christians (and Jews) we should be called to fight evil. I can't think of anything more evil than islam - it destroys the bond between the real God and humans and establishes bondage between the false god and muslims. The only problem then becomes how to determine what is evil (and what Osama did and what muslim purists are doing certainly qualifies).

richard ryan| 5.16.11 @ 12:29PM

I don't think taking out Bin Laden is even worthy of discussion, our leaders made a reasonable decision, and it's done. What bothers me about the OBL killing is that it is counter to every position this administration has taken with regard to handling terrorists. No waterboarding, but a bullet to the head? that's fine. To determine whether or not evil exists in our enemies is impossible. How do we know what is in the heart of OBL, Ghadaffi, Hitler, or anyone else. If their actions harm or threaten our citizens, action against them is justified to protect this nation. Whether or not it is prudent-that's a different story entirely and requires a broad understanding of the risks and benefits of any given action (what the BHO administration fails to demonstrate).
I acknowledge that reasonable Christians can debate the moral and religious considerations of violence and reach different conclusions, but the fire bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities would lead to a more useful discussion than Osama's killing. May have saved lives, especially American, but a much more difficult moral argument.

D. Singh| 5.16.11 @ 9:11AM

Sir

Mr Wisdom observes:

‘But more recent neo-pacifists, influenced by Gandhi, champion non-violence as the best strategy for the state to pursue.’

Then the neo-pacifists must be daft.

Gandhi was a trained lawyer well-versed in the values of English common law which in turn is based (or was based) on Judaeo-Christian values.

He knew that an absolute pacifist stance would intercept and defeat British strategy before the Anglo-American press.

His strategy paid off.

Had he tried, as a Hindu, the same strategy, standing before atheist Soviet or the forces of the ‘Prophet of the Moon’, then, on the balance of probabilities, he and his movement would have been terminated forthwith.

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 6:47PM

No offense but this is apples and oranges. Gandhi was not a terrorist, nor did he consider Britain to be a terrorist country.

big bob| 5.16.11 @ 9:20AM

I have taught Romans for several years. It is such a complex book, yet worth the time to dig into. I could only say that I continue to find new truths as I teach it, (as most honest teachers will admit: they learn more than their students!). In fact, Romans 13 is very clear about the responsibility of government. And it does not restrict such responsibility to "Christian" governments. I remind everyone what was extant at the time Paul wrote this in the late 50s A.D. It was not exactly a republic or monarchy. And it was a mess. The problem most pacifists have is not with the violence, (even though that is their vocal objection!). In fact, their problem is the unwillingness to acknowledge true evil. Once they are forced to admit someone like Obama is pure evil, then their discussion of the consequences, ("it won't stop terrorism"...) are no longer relevant. No one SAID it would stop terrorism...but it WILL stop HIS terrorism. Paul tells us that government wields the sword, not because it will STOP evil, or wrong-doing, but rather because it will stop the wrong doing of one being punished.
Furthermore, those who try to apply personsal admonitions in the Bible to government "ethics", do so at their own peril. Or in other words, they risk severe disappointment! God never intended personal accountability to be applied to governments. This was one of my main problems with GW Bush. He confused many of the the personal admonitions with his responsibility as Commander in Chief.
Finally, our government is unique in its existence as a republic. Our elected officials work for US!!! Not vice versa. This is overlooked far too often, with serious consequences. Our relationship with our elected officials means they should be answering to us. Of course, law enforcement is not elected and holds evil at bay. But this is huge point of misunderstanding, and I am thrilled you have brought it up. Now let's see how others respond!!

big bob| 5.16.11 @ 9:23AM

I note a Freudian slip in my post. I did not mean to identify Obama as evil, we were discussing Osama's killing. I am not a fan of Obama, but he is not the topic here. My apologies.

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 12:20PM

But, put this discussion on another foot. What if one believes Obama is evil? Does that justify his assassination?

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 1:18PM

Not unless he murders people. Duh.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:41PM

The problem with what we did with Obama is that we DIDN'T torture the crap out of him for information before we killed him by drowning him in lard.

We were nice.

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 6:38PM

So if someone finds out he has murdered someone, then its ok?

Booger | 5.16.11 @ 1:20PM

Shut up Wayne.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:42PM

Dear Booger,

I concur. Shut up, Wayne, you blithering nincompoop.

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 6:50PM

So, you are saying that I served this country so Occam's Tool can tell me to shut up?

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 8:26PM

Essentially..yes. First ammendment.

JKS| 5.16.11 @ 2:08PM

Hi Booger,

Long time no read. I've missed your posts and your wit.
I too concur, shut up Wayne. We don't need another martyr for the left.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 4:59PM

Hi Boogly woogly.
LTNS. :^).

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 5:03PM

And we don't assasinate people in the U.S.
We bring them to justice in a court of law.
But murdering terrorists?
We "hunt 'em down, smoke 'em out, and bring 'em to juuustice". ~G.W. Bush

calvin | 5.16.11 @ 2:48PM

Hold the phone, Big Bob; you make a grand statement in presuming we all would know what you were thinking when you painted Pres Bush with broad strokes. What exactly do you mean when you state that he confused his duty to the people with his duty to God?

big bob| 5.16.11 @ 6:18PM

Actually, in the context of the discussion I thought I was fairly clear. A bit terse, maybe, but clear. I explained personal admonitions vs. governmental responsibilities. I thought I covered all the bases. Then I explained that GW followed a path several in this thread are discussing, where they take the "turn the other cheek", (personal) and confuse it with someone in authority charged with protecting the United States, for example, as President. I thought I covered that??? guess not.

PJ| 5.16.11 @ 9:41AM

The problem with the neo-pacifists is that they are moral relativists. They do not know the difference between good & evil. During these past couple of weeks I have been reading the reactions on European news websites about the death, not just the articles but the reader comments. I am appalled with their common cowardice in the face of evil & at their collective ignorance: the willy-nilly of biblical quotes, lack of knowledge of recent (10 yrs) current events, & the interjection of political nonsense.

Doing good is killing OBL so that he will never create videos to incite & order the slaughtering of innocent people. This man is almost if not as evil as Adolph Hitler. Why can't people comprehend this?

Bin Laden could never have been taken alive because he would mock through his lawyers any judicial system that his trial would take place in as we see in our country with the continuing saga of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Bin Laden would use his court appearances as a propaganda tool to urge on more untold violence. How do I know this? This is what terrorists do.

An example, the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, continues to stir violence behind prison bars. How many deaths is he responsible for since his incarceration?

Obama made the right decision by ordering the death of Bin Laden. By milking it to the extreme for political advantage is bad.

Harry the Horrible| 5.16.11 @ 10:22AM

Pacifists are a bunch of parasites that sit around decrying the actions of rough men who make it possible for them to hold their perverse beliefs.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 8:31PM

Let me add to that. And twist and abuse religious doctrines to justify their cowardice. Please remember these people are differeent than C.O's. There are people who can not bring themselves to kill but gladly serve and support the war effort in non-combat ways.

D. Singh| 5.16.11 @ 10:42AM

Sir

PJ| 5.16.11 @ 9:41AM

Brings into sharp relief an interesting moral dilemma for governments:

‘[H]e might mock through his lawyers any judicial system that his trial would take place in’.

This was the same dilemma that Lord Oliver Cromwell had to resolve with holding as prisoner the defeated King Charles I in 17th century England. Of course the result was a trail where the King was found guilty, convicted and executed.

It was the same for Roosevelt who wanted the Nazi leaders tried whilst Churchill thought it would be better to take them into the backyard. The result was the Nuremberg trials.

Of course whether men are killed, captured, convicted and executed is unlikely based upon ‘absolutist pacifism’.

PJ| 5.16.11 @ 11:54AM

The killing of Bin Laden should not be viewed as a moral dilemma as your 2 stated scenarios might be.

I think our Conservative & Orthodox Jewish brethren are very wise on how they view Bin Laden's death:

"Conversely, one of the best-known rituals of the Passover seder is spilling 10 drops of wine when mentioning the Ten Plagues to symbolize a lessening of our own joy in the face of Egyptian suffering. In Sanhedrin 39b, God admonishes the angels for rejoicing when the Egyptian soldiers drown in the Red Sea, saying “The work of My hands is drowning in the sea, and you want to sing?”

“I don’t think we ‘celebrate’ a death,” explained Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly, the professional association of Conservative clergy.

In the case of bin Laden there is, she said, “a sense of relief, an affirmation of God’s justice has been carried out.” Such an event, however, “is a time for sobriety, not celebration.”

Nevertheless, Schonfeld added, one needs to distinguish between an ideal, religiously inspired response and the reality of human nature.

“Sept. 11 was a day of tremendous trauma,” she said, and the raucous street celebrations can be viewed as a kind of catharsis. “What we’re seeing is a reminder of how personally people were affected. It’s an understandable human response that we as Jews are blessed to elevate to a Jewish response.”

Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America, the professional association for Orthodox clergy, also distinguished between the ideal and the real.

“In an ideal world, we serve God because we want to do His will, not because he rewards us or we fear punishment,” he said. “But we’re human, we’re not angels. We live in a world where people need reinforcement, need a sense that it’s all worth it in the end.”

The Jewish way is not to gloat, Herring said. It is appropriate to rejoice when evil doers get their just reward, but the rejoicing should be because we are witnessing God’s power and justice. It shouldn’t come, he said, from “a self-satisfied smug sense of ‘Yes, I’ve been proven right.’

“It’s an affirmation that God is not just an abstract idea, a Creator, but part of our lives,” Herring continued. “God cares. God loves us. That’s an essential article of our faith, that God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked. We rejoice because our faith is borne out.”"

C Smith| 5.16.11 @ 10:44AM

The Wicked Witch is Dead

A celebration continues outside the White House; Osama bin Laden was killed today. Similar revelry, no doubt, is occurring at night spots across the country. Message boards are percolating with tasteless exuberance at the announcement. And the president and his aides are rushing to claim credit for the assassination. But something does not seem right.

It is right to affirm the covert assault force, who risked their lives to protect our own. It is right for the one who cursed Israel (cf. Genesis 27:29), himself be cursed this day: Yom Hazikaron L'shoah U'l'gevurah (Shoah Remembrance Day). But is it right to "delight" in the death of another?

"... Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you..." (Mathew 5:44). Yet this must be reconciled with His other words: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Genesis 9: 6).

"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth" (Proverbs 24:17).

"... I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Ezekiel 33:11).

If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, should we?

http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.....-dead.html

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 1:19PM

"... I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." (Ezekiel 33:11).

He hates to see them go, but they must.

Bill| 5.16.11 @ 11:45AM

On the issue of exulting over the death of an enemy, what do you think the Hebrews did when God parted the Red Sea for them to cross, then allowed the waters to come back together when Pharaoh's army was pursuing them? Do you think they regretted the passing of so many fine men?

Bill| 5.16.11 @ 11:49AM

How about when the Battle of Vienna stopped the Muslim incursion into Eastern Europe at the cost of tens of thousands of Muslim soldiers?

Or the slaughter of thousands of Muslims at the Battle of Poitiers?

Should Christians regret those deaths?

alice moore| 5.16.11 @ 8:35PM

When reading of these historical events I have a new appreciation for these men and the unsung soldiers of those times in the Western World. The more I see of radical Islam the more convinced that we must have a world wide Charlemagne Day.

As Christians we must pray that the mass of people under Islam use the intelligence God gave them to evaluate the support they are giving these evil groups such as al qaida and the plo.

Drunken Sailor| 5.16.11 @ 11:51AM

Pacifist are sheep that only want the sheepdog to protect them when the wolves are present. Until then they prefer the sheepdog sleep on the porch and they will pretend that he does not exist.

Pacifism and Utopia are both nice in theory but they never work in reality. Human nature will not allow it.

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 12:18PM

I am a veteran as was my father and uncles. Fighting to defend the US was never a problem. Killing and unarmed man in cold-blood is. It has Nothing to do with pacifism and everything to do with morality.

Padoux| 5.16.11 @ 1:10PM

What about the strategic bombing in Japan and Europe in WWII, when thousands of "unarmed" innocent civilians were killed? Do we now condemn the commanders who ordered the missions and the flight crews that carried them out? I think not.

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 6:42PM

Its not those who obey the orders, but rather those that make the orders. In this case, Obama made an illegal order.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 8:42PM

Please explain..what illegal order..how and according to what infraction of what law.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 5.16.11 @ 9:00PM

Wayne: I can't stand President Obama, and can't wait to help make him a one-term-President, but, this "illegal order" as you term it, was the best thing he's ever done in Office, by far!! Kudos Mr President!! He ordered the capture or killing of a douche-bag murderer, and by killing him instead, saved us Billions by not having to try this schmuck in a predetermined trial, which would've wasted our time, and only served as a soapbox for this scumbag.

During WW-II, Germany and Japan deserved every bomb dropped on them, and the Heroes who dropped them, or ordered the dropping of them, slept every night with a clear conscience, and the thanks of a grateful Nation, and the entire peace loving World!!

And you're a Vet? You don't sound like one!! An unarmed man you say? Where you in the room at the time? Are you part of Seal Team 6? Did you see what they saw? Have you ever even served in a Combat Zone? Do you even remember 9/11? I'm glad you ETS't, we don't need whiners like you questioning the morality of our Troops or their actions in this ongoing War.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 8:40PM

What would you have prefered? The seals send him a warning their coming and give him a chance to grab his gun out of good sportsmanship? Killing and unarmed innocent man in cold blood for no reason is immoral. Killing a man that is not innocent (armed or unarmed at the moment) and is a cold blooded unlawful combatant and proudly confessed mass murderer in a war is a duty and an act of morality.

RCV| 5.18.11 @ 10:13PM

Before they entered the room where Bin Laden was, the Seals had already been engaged by guards and shot at in the compound. There was no reason for them to believe they weren't targets when they opened that door as well.

Ron| 5.16.11 @ 12:54PM

The dubious nature of "absolute pacifism" can be seen in the difference responses of Bonhoeffer and PiusXII. Bonhoeffer risked his life; PiusXII's policy of "neutrality" stated in 1940 was clearly an effort to save a Christian institution.

Clearly Osama wanted infidels dead.

Padoux| 5.16.11 @ 1:05PM

The opinions pf Pacifists are irrelevant to me "neo" or otherwise. To think that violence is never justified, even in self defense or to save a loved one is a repulsive belief and contrary to our innate instinct for self preservation.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 8:46PM

It is also repulsive to almost every religion on the earth and most moral codes. The battle cry of the David and the Israelites was, "for your daughters, for your wives, for your children' like most cultures.

Dave Williams| 5.16.11 @ 1:43PM

OBL's actions placed him outside the pale of humanity. He was a mad dog, and we put him down, as we should with ANY mad dog. Anybody who tries to finesse the situation otherwise is not living in reality.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:44PM

Ghandi was dealing with the British. To see how he would have turned out under the Germans, read Turtledove's masterpiece of alternate history.

Kristal| 5.16.11 @ 2:41PM

When Osama bin Laden died, he was met at the Pearly Gates by George Washington, who slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"
Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."
James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"
Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Osama with a long cane and snarled, "It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence."
The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the terrorist leader.
As Osama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Bin Laden wept and said, "This is not what you promised me."
The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?"

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.16.11 @ 7:30PM

Kristal,
That was a good one!

alice moore| 5.16.11 @ 8:38PM

ROFLOL :-)

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 9:01PM

That was AWESOME!

GENE HAUBER| 5.16.11 @ 5:36PM

REVENGE BY AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE BIBLE, HOWEVER THE USE OF LETHAL FORCE TO PROTECT INNOCENT LIFE IS PERMITTED.

THE STATE, THAT IS, ESTABLISHED LEGAL GOVERNMENT CAN IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY AS DID OUR BRAVE SEALS.
CASE CLOSED.

big bob| 5.16.11 @ 6:19PM

Amen. Agreed 100%.

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 6:43PM

This was not about protecting lives. It was about revenge.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 8:58PM

Really. how did you determine this. Did Osama turn over a new leaf and become a pacifist? Did he announce his attentions to move to Hollywood and join the antiwar liberal left there? Did he abandon all future plans for terrorism and start thinking of opening a bicycle shop in lower Manhattan?

GENE HAUBER| 5.17.11 @ 5:25PM

f.u. wayne for being soooo stupid.

GENE HAUBER| 5.16.11 @ 5:36PM

SHARKS GOTTA EAT TOO!

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 8:54PM

Ghandi's pacifism was based on the idea that the opposition (the British) was essentially moral and could be shamed into doing the right thing given non-violent resistance and non cooperation in economic activities that sustained the oppression. It does not work on societys who have abandoned traditional ethical and moral underpinnings and have relaced them with new and modern fascist dogmas that claim superior status.

Dee See| 5.16.11 @ 10:21PM

MEANWHILE, in their own words

"We are using MASSIVE third world immigration
(largely muslim) to destroy British culture once
and for all ----forever."
-TONY BLAIR
(Daily Mail cited by ALAN WATT)

"Understand folks, you're in Afghanistan
and Pakistan to secure resources ---for RED China."
-ALAN WATT

Glancing down to our own southern border---

for more than 6 decades the Ford Foundation
has been paying for ALLLLL Mexican school
text books. In those books the principles of
'Reconquista' and 'La Raza' are central.

Elsewhere on the cultural subversion front the Rothchild/Rockefeller 'EUGENICS 'R' US' bunch are behind, almost exclusively, keeping
the 'Plan of San Diego' alive and kicking.

This plan, first introduced as a subversion op. by
Germany in WWI was designed to incite Mexicans to grab California
as rightfully part
of Mexico.

AS the long pre-meditated, MIT engineered
police surveillance grid is laid down upon
the American people ----we thought you'd like
to know.

HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012

March on the New York offices of the ILLEGAL
'Federal' Reserve and capstone 'benny violent'
TAX FREE foundations and NGOs this July 4th.

--------------TELL EVERYONE!

D. Singh| 5.17.11 @ 3:03AM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:44PM

Excellent point. Pacifism does not triumph before an evil enemy.

The first duty of government is to protect its citizens.

The SEALS under the order of the Commander-in-Chief did that.

Bravo!

Richard Baker| 5.17.11 @ 8:14AM

Pacifism is only possible when Orwell's "Rough Men" have made it safe to be pacifistic. Mindless cowards use pacifism as a refuge for their fears.

Elizabeth Harris| 5.19.11 @ 12:48PM

Mindless cowards use pacifism as a refuge for their fears.

Yes, cause it takes a real coward to stand firm in their beliefs and love for people, to go so far as to not fight back. The real hero and courage is the one who grabs a bigger gun and kills more, right? That is so ignorant and incorrect

Mark30339| 5.17.11 @ 4:17PM

Christ centered non-violent confrontation is still CONFRONTATION. The first non-violent response to 9/11 should have been a conversion to natural gas fuel and an end to significant US oil imports, thereby collapsing the market that feeds terror. Another would be to intensify exposure of state terror on its own citizens with air-drops of twitter ready devices and wifi band boosts along borders. Another would be firm US support for opposition groups committed to non-violent confrontation via worker strikes, civil disobedience and general non-cooperation. Instead we marched into wars that have led to at least 150,000 deaths so as to compensate for 3,000 killed in America. Americans show no appreciation for the hugely disproportionate pain we caused in reaction to our own pain. It is precisely these kinds of death multipliers that Christ is calling us to stop, for Christ's sake.

Leaders of Christian nations have concluded in the past (and no doubt will continue to conclude in the future) that it is a necessary evil to deploy deadly force to carry out objectives -- and in such events, Christians should see the deployments as a serious human failing, and express regret for the resulting bloodshed -- even if Christians concur on the necessity of the deadly force. Recently, intelligence handed America a trump card for turning the world away from war and toward peace; orders should have been given to take Bin Laden alive AT ALL COSTS and to detain him at Guantanamo for the remainder of his natural life. Instead we proudly announced the use of kill squad tactics that no doubt are to be deployed ever more vigorously by our friends and enemies alike. The seeds we have sewn with this act not only set us back as Christians, they set back all of humanity.

simon templar| 5.17.11 @ 6:09PM

Once in a while someone writes a comment out here that is such a load of ignorant, twisted, pious sounding, inaccurate, propagandistic crap that you really just do not know where to begin. Yours Mark00000 is such.
For the sake and respect for truth I am going to only address two of your statements.

The first:
Recently, intelligence handed America a trump card for turning the world away from war and toward peace; orders should have been given to take Bin Laden alive AT ALL COSTS and to detain him at Guantanamo for the remainder of his natural life.
So, keeping Bin Laden alive would have turned the world to peace? That is beyond sophmoric....perhaps a sign of serious immaturity or perhaps mental illness...definitely intellectual dishonesty.
Second:
Americans show no appreciation for the hugely disproportionate pain we caused in reaction to our own pain.
Really. You were in a coma when for the last century whereby we not only financed out of our treasury the rebuilding, feeding, and clothing of all of Europe through the Marshall Plan of an enemy that really did not deserve a damn dime. The financial investment and aid given to multiple enemie countries and countries in civil war from Vietnam to Korea to Japan just seemed to pass right by you. The millions of refugees from conflicts all over the world welcomed to our shores and taken care of by our nation. The nation rebuilding and financing of Iraq and Afghanistan out of our treasury to the point of bankruptcy. The billions of aid to countries that would soon as spit in our eye if we were in trouble seemed to escape your notice. Yeah, we are SOB's. You are a sick M.F. Guess what abbreviation that is...if you are so ashamed of and hate your country to this level of delusion then I suggest you pack it up and find the utopia you are looking for.
Now, as far as the Christ thing. Please do not use his name or anyone else. It is sickening that you freaking liberal trolls and lefties love to trot out the Christ on these issues while the rest of the week he is sitting in a jar of urine.

Mark30339| 5.19.11 @ 1:19PM

The point of Mr. Wisdom's article is to address Christian "pacifism" and the apparent lack of a pacifist response to the Bin Laden kill squad. Clearly it offends you that I responded on point, so much so that you abandon the profound and gracious dignity embodied by your namesake. Why are you so rattled? I do not expect non-Christians to agree (and you will be shocked to see my May 12 post at http://tinyurl.com/3vtjy4f that partially agrees with you on the Marshall Plan). But let's be very clear, it is you dumping the Gospels -- particularly chapter 5 of Matthew -- into a jar of urine. It is my sincere and good faith wish that your post leads others to see just how disproportionately offensive Americans and America can be.

GENE HAUBER| 5.17.11 @ 5:28PM

B.S. ...BEFORE COMMENTING.........GROW A BRAIN PLEASE!

todayshotnews | 5.17.11 @ 11:14PM

there is no osama, how can they kill people that don't exist..curious..

Elizabeth Harris| 5.19.11 @ 12:27PM

‎"But would the pacifists have been satisfied if they could have been assured that the crowd outside the White House was rejoicing at the end of the al Qaeda leader's crimes, not the end of his life? Of course, the two are practically inseparable" not true...his crimes ended a few years back (violent that is since he was still running from the law). He had lost his "power" long ago. The Muslim extremists were polled and most of them said they thought he had lost his power and no longer saw him as a leader. Al Queada is not dead. Terrorism is not dead. It never will be as long as we are here on earth. Are we to just keep killing all of our days? Or should we maybe try a different approach since that never seems to solve the problem and love, like Jesus said to?

‎"But if bin Laden's death was the appropriate payment for his crimes, and if it would diminish al Qaeda's abilities and appeal, was it not right for the U.S. military to bring about that death?" That is never our judgement to make, the Bible clearly states that. I don't care what Americans or the world would call justice, God is the ultimate judge and He says we are not to judge, nor kill.

‎"Do not resist an evildoer" (Matt. 5:38) That's pretty clear to me, no way to misinterpret that and say that we have a "right" to kill. God is just and all knowing, but we never trust Him to be, we always take matters into our own hands so that "justice will be served" never allowing God to work.

"that God not only allows but requires governments to resist the evildoers?"Where in the Bible does it say this? Americans have their own interpretation of the Bible and what they think is right in their own mind, but we need to look at the Bible from an unbiased and unselfish point of view and see it for what it is, not for what we want it to be.

‎"Today's neo-pacifists would not be the first forced by history to reconsider their absolutist convictions." I beg to differ. I will always have the same convictions because God comes before country and people. I am a Christian first and foremost in everything and I am to obey His word no matter what I think, or what the wisdom of this world tells me to think.

More Articles by Alan F.H. Wisdom

More Articles From A Further Perspective

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

May 22, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Flatten the IRS

May 20, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

May 17, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Pick Obama’s Brain

May 16, 2013 | Paul Kengor

What Is It About Benghazi?

May 15, 2013 | Andrew B. Wilson

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/16/pacificism-and-the-bin-laden-k

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|147 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|84 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|31 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 9:33PM

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 9:12PM

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.