The Repulsive Christian Celebration of Murder

[RealDealNeverstop]

Emotionally charged issues like the killing of bin laden do not carry a universal license affording Christians a vacation from our self-professed loyalty to God. While it is understandable some struggle with reconciling the murder of bin laden to Jesus' teachings, it should not be extended to an actual celebration in addition to large pockets of silence. What we did should be condemned because it was the pinnacle of anti-Christ behavior. In anticipation of the cacophony for crimes committed by bin laden as justification for the abdication of basic Christian principles, I direct attention to what Jesus instructed regarding response to enemies:

Mt 5:38
"You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right
cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

Jesus was not ambiguous in his instructions but out of a desire to be disobedient we invent ambiguity and construct facades of confusion purely for the selfish desire of avoiding guilt for actively and knowingly ignoring clear Jesus words. If we cannot even attempt to apply the Jesus path to our worst enemies we will never be able to take one step down the correct road. It gets much worse.

The secular justification is based on bin laden being responsible for killing innocent unarmed civilians and by extension this reasoning is used by many Christians to justify ignoring Jesus. If we wish to use that as a measuring stick we should remember the one we create is the one that will be used on us:

Mt 7:5
"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of
your own eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your
brother's eye."

Obviously bin laden would not be considered a "brother" but the principle lesson is applying equal standards of judgment. The crux of this matter is innocent people being killed, that is the wood being carved. Bin laden is responsible for the deaths of innocent people but so are we. Beginning with Desert Storm through the current date we are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Our plank is the tens of thousands who have died because we chose to bomb nations in to Islamic Theocracies for our own selfish foreign policy goals. The absurdity of counting the number of innocent dead is necessary for revelation of hypocrisy and nobody can successfully claim bin laden has killed more than we have.

The desperation in searching for justification is an acerbic stench found in arguments such as:

"But the difference between bin laden and the US is we don't target civilians and we try to avoid killing innocent civilians while bin laden purposefully targeted civilians."

My response is to ask: How is it possible to bomb nations that have no significant military without targeting civilians?

The mythical War on Terror has created the illusion that if we kill people it simply means we killed "enemy combatants" or "terrorists." When proof is requested the usual response is to say they are dead because if they were innocent we would not have killed them. This creates an impossible standard of accountability and forces us to believe our actions are infallible.

Celebrating the murder of bin laden and other civilians killed in the raid can be free of hypocrisy only if we do not complain the next time someone kills American civilians. Who are the Christians among us willing to proclaim they will remain silent after the next terrorist attack?

 

[Supreme]

Actually couldn't agree more. I do think celebrating bin Laden's death it in complete contradiction to the teachings of Jesus- I hardly think He would celebrate even the death of Judas.

America also cannot take the moral high ground in this, due to the tens of thousands killed in Iraq over the past decade in America's name in an awful and ill thought out foreign policy.

 

[Martingale]

Emotionally...ist attack?

we celebrated in my office. we celebrated after work, and we'll still toast his death.

 

[Lianthe]

Thank you RealDeal.

 

[Ton80]

I could not have said it better myself Neverstop. While I won't grieve for bin Laden, his assassination certainly is not celebration worthy.

 

[Brak]

Funny thing. I opened this thread up thinking it was going to be about the "repulsive" celebration of Jesus being murdered on the Cross. Instead it was about Bin Laden. I have no further point to make, just an observation....

 

[Martingale]

Funny thing. I opened this thread up thinking it was going to be about the "repulsive" celebration of Jesus being murdered on the Cross. Instead it was about Bin Laden. I have no further point to make, just an observation....

not a lot of activity on this thread, OBL apologists are still wringing their hands raw over his death.

that is, the ones who actually believe he's dead. with that crowd, its hard to keep score.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Funny thing. I opened this thread up thinking it was going to be about the "repulsive" celebration of Jesus being murdered on the Cross. Instead it was about Bin Laden. I have no further point to make, just an observation....

There is no observation or point in this post.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

not a lot of activity on this thread, OBL apologists are still wringing their hands raw over his death.

that is, the ones who actually believe he's dead. with that crowd, its hard to keep score.

Principles that are not blind to names are not principles at all.

 

[Martingale]

Principles that are not blind to names are not principles at all.

OBL have ouchie?

 

[Ton80]

Principles that are not blind to names are not principles at all.

Why bother RealDeal? You post a universal truth and in return you get baby talk.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

OBL have ouchie?

ObL has nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Why bother RealDeal? You post a universal truth and in return you get baby talk.

It's about planting seeds. There are times when it is better to not respond at all but that is only after sincere attempts have been made.

This is an emotionally saturated subject so I do not expect level headed responses but if people disagree with the OP it would be nice to see a counter-argument.

 

[jayem]

The secular justification is based on bin laden being responsible for killing innocent unarmed civilians

Not entirely. Bin Laden's elimination can be justified by the fact we were at war with AQ, and that he was the enemy chief executive. Let's not forget that AQ essentially declared war on the US and our allies. In 1998, a fatwa was issued, signed by OBL and Al Zawahri, with this language:

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

After 9/11, Congress passed Joint Resolution 23:

a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons...

I guess that strictly speaking, these aren't declarations of war in the traditional sense. Al Qaeda never was a sovereign state. But clearly, a de facto state of war existed between the US and AQ. And an operation to kill an enemy C-in-C is a accepted tactic of war. And, furthermore, such actions were authorized by a Congressional resolution.

Otherwise, I agree that we don't have to party like it's 1999 because we took out OBL. But this was unquestionably a tactical victory.

 

[Martingale]

Not entirely. Bin Laden's elimination can be justified by the fact we were at war with AQ, and that he was the enemy chief executive. Let's not forget that AQ essentially declared war on the US and our allies. In 1998, a fatwa was issued, signed by OBL and Al Zawahri, with this language:

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

After 9/11, Congress passed Joint Resolution 23:

a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons...

I guess that strictly speaking, these aren't declarations of war in the traditional sense. Al Qaeda never was a sovereign state. But clearly, a de facto state of war existed between the US and AQ. And an operation to kill an enemy C-in-C is a accepted tactic of war. And, furthermore, such actions were authorized by a Congressional resolution.

Otherwise, I agree that we don't have to party like it's 1999 because we took out OBL. But this was unquestionably a tactical victory.

there are numerous legal briefs on line showing the legal right of the US to kill OBL. this issue is as dead as OBL. anyone who thinks he was "murdered", so what? don't hold your breath waiting for "justice" for OBL.

I'll lay odds that none of the OBL apologists here spent a fraction of their worry time over the 911 dead as they have for OBL.

 

[Elife3]

You bring up some very good points. In addition, Proverbs 24:17 says, "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth." I don't think Jesus nor his followers would be joining in these celebrations. Ezekiel 18:32 says, "I have no pleasure in the death of him who dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." It seems like it would be Un-Christlike to celebrate bin Laden's death.

But, Proverbs 11:10 says, "When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting." Also, Psalm 58:10 says, "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked."

Those verses seem contradictory, saying that we shouldn't celebrate the death of a wicked person, and other verses indicate that we have a right to rejoice if a wicked person dies. This is leading me to believe that celebration would be okay IF and ONLY IF it's for the right reasons, which is the fact that bin Laden's wickedness is gone, NOT that he's dead and in hell. Is this true?

 

[Justa Guy]

there are numerous legal briefs on line showing the legal right of the US to kill OBL. this issue is as dead as OBL. anyone who thinks he was "murdered", so what? don't hold your breath waiting for "justice" for OBL.

I'll lay odds that none of the OBL apologists here spent a fraction of their worry time over the 911 dead as they have for OBL.

Who is posting as an OBL apologist? Recognizing that celebrating the death of an enemy is not a Christian act, in no way is an argument for the enemy.

 

[Martingale]

Who is posting as an OBL apologist? ...

I'll let you figure that out.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I'll let you figure that out.

Back up the claim or stop tossing false accusations.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Not entirely. Bin Laden's elimination can be justified by the fact we were at war with AQ, and that he was the enemy chief executive. Let's not forget that AQ essentially declared war on the US and our allies. In 1998, a fatwa was issued, signed by OBL and Al Zawahri, with this language:

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

After 9/11, Congress passed Joint Resolution 23:

a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons...

I guess that strictly speaking, these aren't declarations of war in the traditional sense. Al Qaeda never was a sovereign state. But clearly, a de facto state of war existed between the US and AQ. And an operation to kill an enemy C-in-C is a accepted tactic of war. And, furthermore, such actions were authorized by a Congressional resolution.

Otherwise, I agree that we don't have to party like it's 1999 because we took out OBL. But this was unquestionably a tactical victory.

None of this is related to the OP at all. I don't care if you change the specific secular justifications as it harnesses no gravity on the point of the OP. If you wish to discuss the legal status there are other threads on that specific topic.