I'm writing this in response to Dr. Alan Snyder's article "The Appropriate Response to the Death of Bin Laden." http://ponderingprinciples.com/2011/05/the-appropriate-response-to-the-death-of-bin-laden/
It's unbelievable how the Chair of a Historical, Legal and Leadership Studies department in a major University can arrogantly justify murder and revenge by denigrating pacifism, outright dismissing the teachings of Christ and appealing to covenant promises of covenants currently not in existence. A person in a legal department should have a minimal amount of understanding of what a covenant is all about, yet Dr. Snyder seems not to understand how covenants and treaties work either biblically or in modern politics.
In all state law, and the Old Covenant was no exception, an eye for an eye is the sole basis of justice. When one is wronged he has legal redress to demand equal repayment for the wrong suffered. American law is based on this as is any civilized legal system in the world. A government must be fair and show no favoritism to either party in a legal matter. It is wrong to judge less harshly or to judge too harshly than fairness permits. If a government consistently shows unfairness in either direction chaos will break out and the people will revolt. An eye for an eye is the only just and fair way any legal system can function.
Now when Christ came along he addressed the attitudes of individuals. He said the law requires fairness, and an eye for an eye and when wronged a person has legal redress to demand just payment. Jesus said, "but I tell you..turn the other cheek". A person can demand just payment but the pure heart forgives instead. If a person has wronged another and he is required by law to give repayment, Jesus said the pure heart repays more than is legally fair. If a person is legally obligated to work a given amount, Jesus said work double, one portion out of obligation and one portion from the heart. The law allows a person to be discriminate about his property. Jesus said, share with everyone. Love should never be limited by any law based one an eye for an eye.
The Sermon on the Mount was not written for the state. The state must operate on the principle of an eye for an eye. The Sermon on the Mount was written for individuals who what to practice love for their neighbor beyond what the law requires. Dr. Snyder doesn't seem to understand this. He understands that Christ's teaching do not apply to the state and he gives an example of how the Quakers in Pennsylvania attempted to do so to dire consequences. But instead of understanding the differences between state and individual behavior advocated by Christ, Snyder dismisses Christ's teachings altogether in having any relevance beyond a strike on the face. He shows no understanding of Christ's teachings at all nor their appropriate context.
Siteing the Quaker error of misapplication of the Sermon on the Mount to the state government and Indian attacks was on target but he then fails to mention that after the Quakers relinquished control of the government to others, the government took it to themselves to break every treaty made with the Indians and practically exterminated them. A fact of history conveniently unmentioned, by the Chair of the History department. The the credit of the Mennonites, Amish and Quakers, if they error, they error on the just side of the application of scripture and will be rewarded for it.
But now that the love and compassion and purity of heart that Christ emphasized is conveniently neutered, Dr. Snyder goes on to discuss God's Old Testament practices. He sites that Israel under God's leading destroyed civilizations. This is true, but he fails to mention any covenant stipulations or promises God might have been obligated to keep. The promise to Abraham and to Israel in the Old Covenant was to "bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you." If any nation rose up against Israel God was obligated to respond with force to defend them. Nations that had no contact with Israel were left alone.
Snyder rightly mentions that the destroyed civilizations "had completely defiled themselves with child sacrifices and other horrors" but nowhere in the article does he show Islamic culture or indeed that Bin Laden himself practiced child sacrifice or other undefined horrors. If any country is guilty of child sacrifice it is not an Islamic one. The United States sacrifices it's unborn children to the tune of about a million a year. Would that qualify for God's punishment? Who is charging who with "moral depravity"?
From there Snyder moves on to the justification of government force. He contends that the United States is on the side of good and that Bin Laden was on the side of evil. He attacks his detractors by saying, "they don’t seem to think that one side is actually more evil than the other, and they equate mass murder of innocent civilians (September 11, 2001) with a legitimate response to exact justice upon the evildoers." His argument is that 9/11 was an attack against "innocent" people, but by who's definition? Certainly not Bin Laden's and certainly not by most of the Islamic world although their governments might defer to say so.
What was the origin of the idea that we can divide civilians from military persons and assign one side targetable and the other side untargetable? I'm not saying it was a bad idea. I happen to be a civilian. Snyder cited the destruction of Old Covenant civilizations but he didn't seem very concerned about the "innocent" people in those societies. Biblically speaking there has never been any distinction between civilians and the military. When God judged societies they were judged as a whole and everyone was targeted, not just that countries military.
Was it not in the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949 that civilians first became protected under international law during times of war? Although all of the middle eastern countries are members there are no provisions for individuals like Bin Laden. To Bin Laden who operated outside of any country or it's treaties, all Americans were targets simply because all Americans were held to be guilty by what their representative government does. A law professor should know that a law is only in force when all parties to the law agree and sign a covenant. One cannot arbitrarily judge Bin Laden by "our" laws anymore than he could arbitrarily judge us by any "law" of his choosing. Snyder seems to think that everything must be judged by our laws and our perspective without any discussion of the other parties perspectives. He defends the rank celebration by Americans over Bin Laden's death on the premise that there is no "moral equivalence". That presupposition needs to be challenged.
And where does the United States think they can take the high ground when it comes to targeting civilian targets! Do not the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind even a little bit? The blood of innocent victims of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan cries out against our nation, not to mention all the rest of the innocent blood we've shed. The hypocrisy runs deep. How convenient it is for Americans to have short memories. The disease of denial is thriving in our country and there has never been any apology for the bombings. You can't condemn Bin Laden for targeting "innocents" and pat yourself on the back for the atomic bomb atrocities at the same time, and look at the difference in scale.
Bin Laden is considered a hero by many around the world. He was a freedom fighter. The only thing that separated him from other freedom fighters was the fact that he targeted so called "innocent civilians", but like I said, that's a matter of perspective that needs to be discussed.
Another thing that needs to be discussed is did Bin Laden have legitimate grievances? Was American presence in the middle east and in particular in Arabia justified? These concerns are being ignored by most of our congressmen with the exception of Ron Paul and other libertarians. It is evident that 9/11 was caused not by someone who hates the U.S. because of our freedoms but blowback for the freedoms the U.S. denies other peoples in other countries. Dr. Snyder makes no mention of this issue at all. Not one word.
Once Jesus' teachings about forgiveness and restraint are tossed aside and one appeals to eye for eye justice but asserts that only "his eye" was injured than any so called justice is bound to be unfair, one sided, hypocritical and degenerates into revenge.
Dr. Snyder finishes his article by discussing who should get the credit for Bin Laden's demise, Bush or Obama. He says that "humility" is "sorely lacking in the president." Well humility is lacking, but it's not about who should take credit but should we take credit at all! It was the United States foreign policy and it's blowback that got us into this situation in the first place. The entire nation should be bowing their heads in humility not jealously seeking recognition for the kill and certainly not dancing in the streets. The arrogance turns my insides out.
