Also implying moral equivalence, Wallis decried that the “violence of terrorism, the violence of war, and even the violent reprisal against Osama bin Laden on Sunday should all push us to deeper reflection, and even repentance, for how we have allowed the seeds of such destruction to take root and grow in our hearts and in our world.” Wallis is a pacifist though he usually avoids full disclosure, lest he lose political viability. But ultimately, because he rejects all force, he cannot ethically distinguish between armed rescuers, armed victims, and armed victimizers, because all are somehow equally guilty of violating an imaginary pacifist ideal.
In a woeful vein similar to Wallis, United Church of Christ President Geoffery Black, in a typically detached fashion, lamented that “there were those in this country who felt a need for revenge that could only be satisfied by bringing bin Laden to justice, which in the minds of many meant killing him.” He further complained that while “many celebrate this event and feel that it has provided the nation with a fitting response to the horrific and brutal attack on citizens of the United States, there are others who see no reason to rejoice and instead feel a deep sense of disquiet and unease.” For more spiritually enlightened souls like the Rev. Black, “there is no joy in this moment for us, because first and foremost we understand ourselves to be the disciples of Jesus,” who “calls us in his teachings to do the difficult thing of loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us.” Does “loving our enemies” demand allowing them to continue mass murder? Is it not a mercy, not only to future victims, but also even to the killers themselves, including Bin Laden, to destroy them before they murder again, for which they will be held accountable before God?
More opaquely than Rev. Black, the National Council of Churches declared: “Just as Christians must condemn the violence of terrorism, let us be clear that we do not celebrate loss of life under any circumstances,” since the “ultimate justice for this man’s soul — or any soul — is in the hands of God.” The NCC urged: “Let us turn to a future that embraces God’s call to be peacemakers, pursuers of justice and loving neighbors to all people.” There was nothing from the church council about the justice of ending Bin Laden’s decades of slaughter, which begs the question of what exactly these nearly two dozen bishops and other prelates who endorsed the church council’s declaration meant exactly by “love” and justice.”
The Religious Left disbelieves or is profoundly uncomfortable with the teachings of their own Jewish and Christian tradition, which declare that there is human evil and that God ordained civil governments to repress evil where possible in a fallen world. Commonly the Religious Left confuses the church’s role, which is to offer grace and forgiveness, with the role of temporal authorities, which is to punish and deter wrongdoing. Adding to its confusion, the Religious Left disapproves of national loyalties, especially to the hegemonic United States, and instead dreams of a utopian world government that supposedly would better model God’s Kingdom. Naturally, the Religious Left rejects any pleasure over evil’s defeat, however imperfect, despite countless biblical celebrations, such as Miriam’s joyful song over the drowning of Pharaoh’s army during their pursuit of escaping Hebrews. And finally, the Religious Left is smugly elitist and remarkably stews over even the fleeting patriotic display of mostly liberal college students in Washington, D.C., New York, and Cambridge.
Elitist obscurantists like the Archbishop of Canterbury will continue to count imagined angels on needle-heads. But Religious Leftists’ inability to confront even an obvious evil like Bin Laden illustrates their moral inconsequentiality.
To get the whole story on why leftists are unhappy when Islamo-fascists like bin Laden get killed, read Jamie Glazov’s critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.
Pages: 1 2