Another story of mass murder is hardly the news it once was. We are growing accustomed to such stories in our country. However, the largest mass murder on a military base on U.S. soil is still a major event and without question a tragic event. How much did we know and when did we know it? When you first heard about it, did you hear the name of the shooter? If not, what were your thoughts about what might have happened? When you heard that the shooter's name suggested he was an Arab, what did you think? When you heard that he was a dedicated Muslim, what did you think? We all have our own theories even before all of the evidence is in; often we modify our interpretations with the revealing of new facts. Where do we go for our facts in an effort to become better informed and to bettet understand what happened? Probably we watch television coverage or go to news sights on the internet to secure the facts. What not everyone considers is that the facts come clothed in a story shaped by the broadcasters and commentators who interpret for us the facts. Seldom do we seek or find facts isolated from a narrative being composed by the network or editorial staff designed to interpret those facts for the listener or viewer.
Yesterday's tragic event is another example of vastly different narratives being shaped by idealogues at networks and newschannels. Within hours one could pick up on the contrating narratives being used to explain the event that had just occured.
NARRATIVE # 1 Hasan was a psychiatrist and had to deal with soldiers returning from staysin Iraqand Afghanistan. He witnessed men and women experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and other negative effects of their involvement in the two wars being waged by his government in Washington. In addition, since 2001, he and other Muslims in the military were experiencing harassment. Some called him a "camel jockey" which he found very offensive. He wanted out, but the military wouldn't let him because of debts he incurred through a free medical degree he earned from the government while in the Army. He became more and more disenchanted with the wars and their consequences being felt by the people of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the consequences being experienced by returning soldiers, as well as muslims in the military. As CBS News.com expresses it "Military officials say they are still piecing together what may have PUSHED(emphasis mine) Hasan...to turn on his comrades".
CBS NEWS.COM further explains that a cousin said "soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim" and that as a psychiatrist he "was traumatized by the stories he heard from returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder as he counseled them at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and later, at Fort Hood."
ABC NEWS ONLINE adds that as "Hasan was about to be deployed to Iraq, he was suffering from some of the same stresses he was trained as an Army psychiatrist to treat...his family says he had hired a lawyer to help him get out of the Armed Forces."
MSNBC goes further by presenting an article explaining that one of the reasons President Obama has been hesitant to send additional troops to Afghanistan is the fact that he is aware of the deterioration of the mental and physical health of our over-taxed soldiers who have been deployed over and over to continue these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "After many years of lengthy war zone rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Army personnel are experiencing record rates of suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other mental health problems, as well as worsening alcohol and drug abuse...The psychological toll on the all-volunteer force today is unprecedented, Army officials say, acknowledging that they do not know how much the Army can sustain before it breaks....making the health of the force a major consideration in President Obama's current deliberations over sending more U.S. troops to Afhanistan.
"It's unclear what motivated the Army psychiatrist who is thought to have opened fire on fellow soldiers Thursday, although it's clear he had worked in settings where the effects of combat stress were pervasive....A small but increasing number of soldiers undergoing the mental strain of repeated combat deployments are taking lives--often their own."
The article then points out that 75 soldiers at Fort Hood have commited suicide since 2003. Further 81 confirmed suicide deaths in the Army have occured thus far in 2009.
Now for a few observations on this narrative: (1) This account constantly refers to Nasan by his profession as a Psychiatrist. (2) This account emphasizes that he was himself traumatized by having to counsel with so many victims of the war who suffered from mental health issues. (3) Narrative # 1 focuses on the unfair treatment he received from his fellow soldiers. (4) This narrative seeks to make his story part of a bigger story that concerns the mental condition of all of the Armed Forces who are experiencing battle fatique from these prolonged war efforts. (5) At least the President is concerned about their health and that helps explain his hesitancy in sending additonal soldiers to Afghanistan. In this narrative the shooter himself becomes a victim of the Bush wars.
NARRATIVE # 2 This narrative focuses on Hasan's religion rather than his professional career as a Psychiatrist. Hasan is and always has been a muslim. Fox News highlights the comments of retired Colonel Terry Lee who prior to his retirement was a colleague of Major Hasan. Colonel Lee points out that Hasan had made several comments suggesting that he admired the suicide bombers in Iraq and Afhanistan. He also expressed his opposition to the U.S. war effort in these two countries. Apparently Major Hasan had expressed on a blog his admiration for suicide bombers.
This scenario leads us to believe that Hasan was a radical religious extremist who saw himself as part of a jihad against America. Some say he acted alone and thus cannot be a viewed as a terrorist because as far as we know at the moment he was not part of an organized effort. Is the definition of a terrorist "a member of a group" or "one who seeks to produce and does produce terror by his comments or actions"? If he was a fanatic terrorist then we may need to strenthen our military and prepare them for future battles. If he was psychologically impacted by the overwhelming stress being experienced by the military then maybe we need to find a way to excuse ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible. Do we see how these two narratives are fueled by political ideology as much as they are by the facts.
Factors that may or may not be explanatory are introduced to help support one narrative or the other. For instance the MSNBC story was supported by statistics concerning a growing problem of suicide on military bases across the country. Of course suicide is a growing problem among the non-military population just as it is among military personnel. Also it is interesting to note that the suicide rate in the general population is considerably higher in the 20 to 24 age group then any other age group in America. Many of our soldiers are in that age bracket. Also of note is the separation of families produced by military duty that would help account for more depression and higher suicide rate. In other words to extrapolate from the statistical data concerning suicide rates among the military that its all due to repeated deployments to the warzone is beyond proof from current data, but when weaved into a story about Hasan, the Psychiatrist, it helps explain his actions as a depressed and stressed soldier and helps reinforce the view of those who would like to see our soldiers disengage from combat.
Its probably too early to decide between these two narratives, but it illustrates the politicalization of news stories. There may emerge a third narrative that includes elements of both numbers 1 and 2 above, or it may be totally different. Our world view often provides the framework for our interpretation of facts presented to us by events. Political correctness and anti-war views make some individuals and news sources seek for data that can reinforce such positions. With others anti terrorism is a higher priority than anti-war views. With anti terrorists, terrorism is always a distinct possibility and its not the last possibility to be considered.
Our lesson is to remember that facts present themselves in multiple contexts (religious, political, family, personal etc.) and which if any explains the events can be determined only by following where the evidence leads. While our world view usually determines our initial responses to facts, our ultimate conclusions must be determined by the evidence. We probably all have our tentative conclusions at the moment, but before we can speak with certainty, we must await the arrival of further evidence.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Promise of Civil Discourse
My last blog discussed the need for civil discourse. One of the appeals of candidate Obama was to bring to Washington change that would include civil discourse rather than a politics of destruction. He promised to sit down with those across the isle and listen to them and engage in constructive give and take. I think many Americans were tired of heated rhetoric and longed for a day when our representatives in the branches of government would transcend party talking points and address our country's problems like grown ups should. Candidate Obama's demeanor seemed to suggest that he might be better at that then candidate McCain and at least a percentage of Americans who voted for Obama did so with the promises and appearances of Obama in mind.
Now, I wonder if those who endorsed him for the above reasons still endorse him for those reasons. Some red flags have appeared and no pun is intended with the color "red". However, one does have to take note when the President's White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn informs a group of students that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung, the communist dictator of China who was responsible for the Communist takeover of China. That concern is increased when she acknowledges that the Obama election team used a strategy of dealing with the media that was designed to control the message that the media had access to. Mao was leader of one of the bloodiest campaigns ever launched against human beings. Jean-Louis Margolin, European historian, has estimated that deaths during Mao's reign of terror were between 44.5 million and 72 million. Dunn quotes favorably Mao's "you fight your war and I'll fight mine". I might also add that Mao was famous for his statement that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". For the sake of the students to whom she was speaking and for the sake of those who want to believe in President Obama, it would be better in the future if she could find another political philosopher to admire rather than Mao Tse Tung.
Since his election President Obama, cabinet and advisors have refused to appear on Fox network because the news channel is so critical of him and his administration. That the network is far more critical of Obama then the other news networks, as well as ABC, NBC, and CBS should be evident to a five year old. However, that these others were far more supportive of Obama than McCain in the campaign was also quite evident. The other networks were also far more critical of Bush than was Fox, however, Bush never ceased to appear on those networks that were critical of him. A president is expected to stay out of the kitchen if he can't handle the fire. A President should know that the oval office is in the center of the kitchen and therefore one is in the wrong line of work if he can't handle criticism and debate.
I must confess that it concerns me when officials in the administration admit that they set out to control the media and from all appearances were quite successful. It concerns me when an administration sets out to isolate and marginalize their critics. It concerns me not just from the concern for freedom of the press, but it concerns me that the American people may lack the facts they need to form opinions and determine their votes. In fact, Anita Dunn complains about the fact that the last administration official to appear in a discussion format on Fox News had their comments "fact checked" by Fox. Some of the comments were found to be false, but her complaint was not that the official was exposed, rather it was that a network news organization would dare to "fact check" an administration official. She said she had never seen that before and apparently neither she nor the administration appreciated being "fact checked". Excuse me, but I believe most Americans want no less from the media and in fact, one of the primary criticisms of all media today, Fox included, is that they have an agenda that trumps truth.
One hopes that the administration's treatment of Fox will not be the first salvo of an assault on all communication that challenges the prevailing view of the administration. There have been a number of friends of the administration who have talked about bringing back the "fairness doctrine" that would force radio station owners to provide free time for any politican criticized on their station. Such would force stations to discontinue talk radio. I have mixed emotions about much that talk radio produces, but I do realize that for the most part they represent a legitimate voice of millions of Americans whose voices will never be represented in the major news outlets of America other than Fox. It is never healthy in a free society to silence one side of a debate. In America today, most polls show that our people are split almost down the middle between two political views. In free societies efforts should not be made to silence the view with which we disagree.
The history of Christianity has been a history that involved trying to silence those with whom we disagree. State churches have been responsible for encouraging the execution of those who were critical of the views of the State Church. In America the first amendment was introduced to prevent such religious domination in our country. Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims , Protestants etc. are allowed to express freely their views provided they do so without trampling on the freedoms of others.
There is legislation in Congress that may pass this year that could silence churches with reference to discussion about homosexuality. If encouraging people to think of homosexual behavior as a sin can be treated as hate speech which is what legislation before congress is advocating, then preachers and churches who read scripture that suggest such can be charged with hate speech.
All efforts to triumph over our critics by silencing our critics rather than taking them on in serious discussion and debate are incongruous with a free society. Seldom is one side of a debate totally void of truth or error and only through open dialogue will a conclusion be reached that is better than either view alone.
Now, I wonder if those who endorsed him for the above reasons still endorse him for those reasons. Some red flags have appeared and no pun is intended with the color "red". However, one does have to take note when the President's White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn informs a group of students that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung, the communist dictator of China who was responsible for the Communist takeover of China. That concern is increased when she acknowledges that the Obama election team used a strategy of dealing with the media that was designed to control the message that the media had access to. Mao was leader of one of the bloodiest campaigns ever launched against human beings. Jean-Louis Margolin, European historian, has estimated that deaths during Mao's reign of terror were between 44.5 million and 72 million. Dunn quotes favorably Mao's "you fight your war and I'll fight mine". I might also add that Mao was famous for his statement that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". For the sake of the students to whom she was speaking and for the sake of those who want to believe in President Obama, it would be better in the future if she could find another political philosopher to admire rather than Mao Tse Tung.
Since his election President Obama, cabinet and advisors have refused to appear on Fox network because the news channel is so critical of him and his administration. That the network is far more critical of Obama then the other news networks, as well as ABC, NBC, and CBS should be evident to a five year old. However, that these others were far more supportive of Obama than McCain in the campaign was also quite evident. The other networks were also far more critical of Bush than was Fox, however, Bush never ceased to appear on those networks that were critical of him. A president is expected to stay out of the kitchen if he can't handle the fire. A President should know that the oval office is in the center of the kitchen and therefore one is in the wrong line of work if he can't handle criticism and debate.
I must confess that it concerns me when officials in the administration admit that they set out to control the media and from all appearances were quite successful. It concerns me when an administration sets out to isolate and marginalize their critics. It concerns me not just from the concern for freedom of the press, but it concerns me that the American people may lack the facts they need to form opinions and determine their votes. In fact, Anita Dunn complains about the fact that the last administration official to appear in a discussion format on Fox News had their comments "fact checked" by Fox. Some of the comments were found to be false, but her complaint was not that the official was exposed, rather it was that a network news organization would dare to "fact check" an administration official. She said she had never seen that before and apparently neither she nor the administration appreciated being "fact checked". Excuse me, but I believe most Americans want no less from the media and in fact, one of the primary criticisms of all media today, Fox included, is that they have an agenda that trumps truth.
One hopes that the administration's treatment of Fox will not be the first salvo of an assault on all communication that challenges the prevailing view of the administration. There have been a number of friends of the administration who have talked about bringing back the "fairness doctrine" that would force radio station owners to provide free time for any politican criticized on their station. Such would force stations to discontinue talk radio. I have mixed emotions about much that talk radio produces, but I do realize that for the most part they represent a legitimate voice of millions of Americans whose voices will never be represented in the major news outlets of America other than Fox. It is never healthy in a free society to silence one side of a debate. In America today, most polls show that our people are split almost down the middle between two political views. In free societies efforts should not be made to silence the view with which we disagree.
The history of Christianity has been a history that involved trying to silence those with whom we disagree. State churches have been responsible for encouraging the execution of those who were critical of the views of the State Church. In America the first amendment was introduced to prevent such religious domination in our country. Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims , Protestants etc. are allowed to express freely their views provided they do so without trampling on the freedoms of others.
There is legislation in Congress that may pass this year that could silence churches with reference to discussion about homosexuality. If encouraging people to think of homosexual behavior as a sin can be treated as hate speech which is what legislation before congress is advocating, then preachers and churches who read scripture that suggest such can be charged with hate speech.
All efforts to triumph over our critics by silencing our critics rather than taking them on in serious discussion and debate are incongruous with a free society. Seldom is one side of a debate totally void of truth or error and only through open dialogue will a conclusion be reached that is better than either view alone.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Need for Civil Discourse
As christians we need to view our fellow man as "the image of God" even when we disagree with him, he deserves respect. I realize that humans can become so barbaric that we find nothing to admire in them, but those are not the individuals I have in mind. This past week a number of events have transpired that have caught my attention. Joe Wilson the congressman from South Carolina who violated congressional decorum by shouting out "you lie" in the midst of President Obama's address to congress embarassed himself and hopefully those who would probably share his views on the issue in question. Yesterday former President Carter expressed his view that Wilson was a racist.
This morning driving to work I was listening to the Mike Gallagher radio program. He is a conservative talk host. He was bemoaning the fact that Joe Wilson had been rebuked by congress for his behavior. A caller, who happened to be black, identified himself as a soldier who had served during some of our recent conflicts and that he had turned his back on his parents views in becoming a conservative. However, he still was inclined to believe that some of the criticism from people like Wilson might be race inspired. Gallagher responded by suggesting that the caller was really not a conservative and even hinting that his military service was probably a hoax. He demanded the caller provide evidence for his assertion that Wilson might have been motivated by race, yet every time the caller tried to speak, Gallagher would talk over him.
Just as dangerous as big government is the danger of extreme polarization that can lead to civil conflict and even anarchy. Conservative talk show hosts do a service when they provide information to the public that the mainstream news media refuse to provide. However, when they become entertainers seeking an audience by slandering everyone who disagrees with them, they are as much a threat to our freedoms as those who are their polar opposites. Our goal should not be to out-shout our opponents. The goal should be to challenge them to rise above their hostility toward us and reason with us. Allow the argument to prevail rather than the emotions. Public discourse, when polluted by anger, becomes its on terror.
James Davison Hunter in his book CULTURE WARS launched an effort to understand the polarizing tendencies in our culture. He argues that the wars are a power struggle to define America. He explains that public discourse today is"divisive and inflammatory. But what makes contemporary public discourse even more inflammatory is the appeal to sensationalism...sensationalism and exaggeration, regardless of the party and the object of disfavor, always foster fear, mistrust and resentment."
Dialogue and debate are healthy for society, but is such possible in today's environment? Radio talk show hosts are concerned about winning the ratings competition and giving callers time to articulate a disagreement may hinder winning. Sensationalism and inflammatory rhetoric may be more successful. Politicians are concerned about solidifying their base and participating in real dialogue or debate may be a threat to their goal. Television is more concerned about advertising and time constraints than they are about public discourse so it is easier to promote their own political views then to provide a forum for genuine discourse. Any way who would listen to public debate? After all we Americans are busy. What we want is for someone to assure us that our gut instinct is right. We don't have time for that academic kind of talk that might call for us to use our minds and reason. So on we go, with some listening to Jimmy Carter and saying "amen", while others listen to Mike Gallagher and say "thats the way to tell him". Meanwhile ignorance, anger and fear continue to grow and our social fabric becomes more and more fragile.
This morning driving to work I was listening to the Mike Gallagher radio program. He is a conservative talk host. He was bemoaning the fact that Joe Wilson had been rebuked by congress for his behavior. A caller, who happened to be black, identified himself as a soldier who had served during some of our recent conflicts and that he had turned his back on his parents views in becoming a conservative. However, he still was inclined to believe that some of the criticism from people like Wilson might be race inspired. Gallagher responded by suggesting that the caller was really not a conservative and even hinting that his military service was probably a hoax. He demanded the caller provide evidence for his assertion that Wilson might have been motivated by race, yet every time the caller tried to speak, Gallagher would talk over him.
Just as dangerous as big government is the danger of extreme polarization that can lead to civil conflict and even anarchy. Conservative talk show hosts do a service when they provide information to the public that the mainstream news media refuse to provide. However, when they become entertainers seeking an audience by slandering everyone who disagrees with them, they are as much a threat to our freedoms as those who are their polar opposites. Our goal should not be to out-shout our opponents. The goal should be to challenge them to rise above their hostility toward us and reason with us. Allow the argument to prevail rather than the emotions. Public discourse, when polluted by anger, becomes its on terror.
James Davison Hunter in his book CULTURE WARS launched an effort to understand the polarizing tendencies in our culture. He argues that the wars are a power struggle to define America. He explains that public discourse today is"divisive and inflammatory. But what makes contemporary public discourse even more inflammatory is the appeal to sensationalism...sensationalism and exaggeration, regardless of the party and the object of disfavor, always foster fear, mistrust and resentment."
Dialogue and debate are healthy for society, but is such possible in today's environment? Radio talk show hosts are concerned about winning the ratings competition and giving callers time to articulate a disagreement may hinder winning. Sensationalism and inflammatory rhetoric may be more successful. Politicians are concerned about solidifying their base and participating in real dialogue or debate may be a threat to their goal. Television is more concerned about advertising and time constraints than they are about public discourse so it is easier to promote their own political views then to provide a forum for genuine discourse. Any way who would listen to public debate? After all we Americans are busy. What we want is for someone to assure us that our gut instinct is right. We don't have time for that academic kind of talk that might call for us to use our minds and reason. So on we go, with some listening to Jimmy Carter and saying "amen", while others listen to Mike Gallagher and say "thats the way to tell him". Meanwhile ignorance, anger and fear continue to grow and our social fabric becomes more and more fragile.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
just wondering?
When George Bush was asked "who his favorite philosopher" was, he answered "Jesus Christ". When President Obama was asked if he could choose but one person to have dinner with, who would it be, he answered Muhatma Ghandi. Thought the answers were enlightening and can't help but wonder what significance, if any, can be found in their differing answers to somewhat similiar questions. How would you have answered either of those questions?
Wonder why the mainstream news networks did not think the video of ACORN employees advising people on how to set up an illegal prostitution business was worth airing. I guess they assumed no one would have found the video or story interesting, yet I can't help but wonder?
My niece is undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer and in the process has received a shot that cost $7,000.00. Wonder if we had government insurance, would someone my age(66) find such shots available. If yes, who would have to pay for it and if no, who would want it? Just wondering.
If five years from now, China should require us to pay our debt, I wonder how much would be left for national defense and national health care. I guess as long as we have enough left to keep our printing presses running, we can just create money out of trees. Is it that simple? I'm just a simple man and just wondering.
I hope no one tells the government of my "wonderings" because such might become subject to a luxury tax to help fund the subjects of my wonderings.
Wonder why the mainstream news networks did not think the video of ACORN employees advising people on how to set up an illegal prostitution business was worth airing. I guess they assumed no one would have found the video or story interesting, yet I can't help but wonder?
My niece is undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer and in the process has received a shot that cost $7,000.00. Wonder if we had government insurance, would someone my age(66) find such shots available. If yes, who would have to pay for it and if no, who would want it? Just wondering.
If five years from now, China should require us to pay our debt, I wonder how much would be left for national defense and national health care. I guess as long as we have enough left to keep our printing presses running, we can just create money out of trees. Is it that simple? I'm just a simple man and just wondering.
I hope no one tells the government of my "wonderings" because such might become subject to a luxury tax to help fund the subjects of my wonderings.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
I received an e-mail discouraging me from discontinuing my blog. If you've read any of my recent blogs, please comment "yes" and that's all you need to say. I will mull over what to do.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
"Concessions and Smiles"
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said that "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles.
Britain and Scotland's release of mass murderer Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is a classic example of "concessions and smiles". He is responsible for the death of 270 people who were blown up in a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Due to bad health, it was decided he should be released and returned to Libya, his home country so that he might join his family for whatever time he has left. Don't you think the families of the victims of the bombed plane wish they had some time with their loved ones. Did the little children who died deserve their fate? Why should he receive a privilege that he denied to hundreds of others?
Why was he released? Was it strictly for humanitarian reasons? Do we suppose he's the only prisoner to develop a terminal illness while in prison? Do we really think all such prisoners are released? We're not that naive! So why does a man who killed 270 men, women and children earn such favor? Some sources in Britain have documented communications between Britain's government and Libya that suggest the release was demanded by Libya in order to receive their approval for a large deal releasing oil for Britain. If this is so, then this act of mercy was just a condition to be met in order to acquire oil from a terrorist Gadafi. Is there any wonder that the West is having a hard time defeating terrorism?
As Thomas Sowell has pointed out in a column today, a Scotsman of 250 years ago, Adam Smith wrote that "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent".
The "concessions and smiles" diplomacy is not just an unjust policy of the Scots and Brits, it is a policy embraced by many in America, including many in high places. We now believe we can sit down and talk with Iran and Hamas. We will surely be able to persuade them through kindness and reason to give up their terrorist ways. They will be glad to talk so long as we follow a "concessions and smiles" strategy. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Our "concessions and smiles" policy leads to investigating CIA interrogators with a view to possibly filing charges against those who were trying to secure information about future terrorist plans.
Paul writes in Rom. 13:3ff. that "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong...if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant...an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.."
I think governments of the West, including our own, would be well served to consider their responsibility to the good before they embrace "concessions and smiles" toward the evil. I would hope that terrorists would fear "the terror of rulers" when they kill the innocent (whether one person, 270, or 3,000).
We are reaping the results of a moral vacuum where we have lost the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Often the right to do evil is defended more than the doing of good. Christianity and care for the good and innocent are met with charges of "judgmentalism and self righteousness" while terrorists must be forgiven because our western values and culture "made them do it". Ultimately America is accused of being the breeding ground of terrorism. Don't blame Islamic extremism, but blame American arrogance and self righteousness.
How may we conquer terrorism? Will it be by "concessions and smile" or by doing whatever is necessary to protect the innocent and administering justice toward the terrorists??
Britain and Scotland's release of mass murderer Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is a classic example of "concessions and smiles". He is responsible for the death of 270 people who were blown up in a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Due to bad health, it was decided he should be released and returned to Libya, his home country so that he might join his family for whatever time he has left. Don't you think the families of the victims of the bombed plane wish they had some time with their loved ones. Did the little children who died deserve their fate? Why should he receive a privilege that he denied to hundreds of others?
Why was he released? Was it strictly for humanitarian reasons? Do we suppose he's the only prisoner to develop a terminal illness while in prison? Do we really think all such prisoners are released? We're not that naive! So why does a man who killed 270 men, women and children earn such favor? Some sources in Britain have documented communications between Britain's government and Libya that suggest the release was demanded by Libya in order to receive their approval for a large deal releasing oil for Britain. If this is so, then this act of mercy was just a condition to be met in order to acquire oil from a terrorist Gadafi. Is there any wonder that the West is having a hard time defeating terrorism?
As Thomas Sowell has pointed out in a column today, a Scotsman of 250 years ago, Adam Smith wrote that "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent".
The "concessions and smiles" diplomacy is not just an unjust policy of the Scots and Brits, it is a policy embraced by many in America, including many in high places. We now believe we can sit down and talk with Iran and Hamas. We will surely be able to persuade them through kindness and reason to give up their terrorist ways. They will be glad to talk so long as we follow a "concessions and smiles" strategy. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Our "concessions and smiles" policy leads to investigating CIA interrogators with a view to possibly filing charges against those who were trying to secure information about future terrorist plans.
Paul writes in Rom. 13:3ff. that "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong...if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant...an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.."
I think governments of the West, including our own, would be well served to consider their responsibility to the good before they embrace "concessions and smiles" toward the evil. I would hope that terrorists would fear "the terror of rulers" when they kill the innocent (whether one person, 270, or 3,000).
We are reaping the results of a moral vacuum where we have lost the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Often the right to do evil is defended more than the doing of good. Christianity and care for the good and innocent are met with charges of "judgmentalism and self righteousness" while terrorists must be forgiven because our western values and culture "made them do it". Ultimately America is accused of being the breeding ground of terrorism. Don't blame Islamic extremism, but blame American arrogance and self righteousness.
How may we conquer terrorism? Will it be by "concessions and smile" or by doing whatever is necessary to protect the innocent and administering justice toward the terrorists??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
