Kill to Stop Killing? Dead is Dead
October 2, 2006
Kill to Stop Killing? Dead is Dead
When on the receiving end... Dead is DEAD - We have become so utterly intoxicated with the game of social, political, and moral debate we have all but forgotten the victim.
It does not matter if I am killed by a bolt of lightning... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by E. coli bacteria... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a speeding bullet... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a psychopathic killer... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a dutiful policeman... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a trigger-happy policeman... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by an axe murderer... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a terrorist... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a drunk driver... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a negligent doctor... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a West Nile infected mosquito... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a heart attack... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a hot dog lodged in my throat... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a lethal injection... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a Smart or Dumb Bomb... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by state sanctioned hanging... I am dead.
Dead is Dead. Lost in rhetorical debate, have forgotten this most basic fact?
To the Dead... Dead is Dead.
The living find it easy to ignore the Dead. The Machiavellian philosophy, "no man, no problem" is alive and well in our declining western "civilization."
Americans are increasingly creating more sophisticated ways to kill and more sophisticated rationale for killing. I find the most unsophisticated rationale for killing is the ancient "eye for an eye" idea. But then who am I but a dead man? Why listen to me... I am Dead. Why listen to a dead man? No man - no problem... Right?
“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”
Mahatma Ghandi
Mahatma Gandhi.... when asked what he thought of Western civilization, "I think it would be a good idea."
Horrific crimes naturally make us furious with the perpetrator(s) of those crime and extremely sad for the victims and their loved ones. It is entirely natural to be angry. But is it entirely natural to kill and expect the reactive act of revenge killing to prevent subsequent killing? If ever an oxymoronic and self-perpetuating cycle existed, the conviction or rationale that killing with an expectation that the reactive act of killing will prevent subsequent killing, capital punishment is certainly the cycle of all cycles.
Billions of human beings have been killed in the name of ridding human civilization of evil-doers. The results of this age-old approach slap us in the face day by day. Yet, we keep insisting we kill to show our children killing is wrong. Punish crime? Yes. But why not trouble shoot? I truly wonder if society had been as eager to study the minds of criminals, especially cruel and violent criminals, as its been to kill them if we might be better prepared to identify and prevent heinous acts like happened today in the Amish School in Pennsylvania? Why not study and learn how to help the criminal and simultaneously learn how to better identify and prevent others from committing cruel and violent acts.
In my mind, when we kill criminals or our enemies we reward their hate with hate. When we diminish ourselves to the level of the criminal we validate their hate in the silent, observant minds of others who may be wrestling with hate. When we diminish ourselves to the level of the criminal we validate their hate in the silent, observant minds of our children. Pity.
Charles Carl Roberts, killed himself. Did he administer his own punishment or did he avoid punishment? Did he appease those who would have killed him or did he further infuriate them? Does it matter? If our government killed Charles Carl Roberts would the act bring back those innocent young girls? Would it ease the pain of those girls' loved ones if a policeman or a hangman killed Charles Carl Roberts. Some would argue yes. I can only ask why... why do you say yes?
Most of us have been told by society since old enough to hear, we must have capital punishment if we are to have a safe, law-abiding country. Naturally, if from childhood, we hear a mantra long enough and often enough we tend to believe what we hear. But is it true?
If killing is punishment why did Charles Carl Roberts kill himself when it was the world he said was seeking to punish? Roberts even told his wife, "I cannot take it any more." Why then, did he kill himself if punishment of the world or even himself is the goal? It appears, in Roberts' mind, living was greater punishment than dying. So is killing the killer really punishment? Does not the illogical nature of capital punishment at least warrant consideration? Killing a criminal, in my mind, is more akin to mercy killing than to punishment. Killing a criminal, in my mind, is more akin to exacting that which is God's, revenge. Killing a criminal, in my mind, is more akin to appeasing the hate of the hurt than an administration of justice. I know this last assertion may make one's blood boil. I do understand the emotion. Humans, of faith, are supposed to believe we are something more than animal, something more than a bundle of emotional reactions, something more than instinct.
My faith teaches, I am human and made in the image of God. God made possible our development of brains that allow us to think as well as feel. It is when we exercise one and not the other that we find ourselves in big trouble, individually and/or collectively.
Thinking is not limited to but necessarily includes the prioritization of our emotions. There is hate and there is love. How our thinking prioritizes these emotions determines our position on capital punishment.
I am expecting today's horrific crime at the Amish school in Pennsylvania to re-ignite the endless national debate on capital punishment. I see today's event as a new test case. I am bracing myself for the conservative Republicans to use this tragedy (as they are known to use tragedies) to divide our populous for political gain. I hope our voters are, by now, savvy to the tactics this administration uses to tease out the most votes it can get. We'll see how savvy our voters are, I suppose, in November.
Should this tragedy ignite a new national debate, I wonder what will turn out to be our top priority? Love? Hate? Think about it.
We must face that we will never stop killing, not as long as we have those who accept the circular logic that killing is a valid and effective means to stop killing.
Whether street thug or president of the most powerful nation on earth, those embracing killing as a valid tool to prevent killing will continue the revenge driven oxymoronic practice of capital punishment.
There is no crime in loving our enemies... my faith, in fact, commands me to do so. Yet, many of those of my own faith allow emotions of personal pain and anger cause them to salivate for revenge, in total disregard for some of their most basic commands. My faith teaches, "it is of no particular merit to love those who love you." True obedience to the command to love happens when one loves the unlovable. My faith teaches that loving the lovable is easy and expected. Loving the unlovable is the standard by which God says we will be judged. Society praises us for loving the lovable. Our worship of "lovable" celebrities and even our own "lovable" children demonstrate this clearly. But this is a hollow virtue.
I have heard countless forms of rationale for killing to prevent killing. I do not possess the logic that allows me to accept any rationale heard thus far. But then I should remind those who rely on human wisdom or logic to rationalize killing to prevent killing... my faith commands me not to kill, period. Remember, "Thou Shalt Not Kill?" Remember when Jesus said, "Love your enemies..." I think that implied, as the bumper sticker says, "I think he meant, Don't Kill Them." In the final analysis, the truly faithful don't question God with human logic.... but ya know what? If we do apply logic as perfectly as humanly possible and in a spirit of unconditional love... we can only come to conclusions God has already concluded.
Thou Shalt Not Kill.
Kill to Stop Killing? Dead is Dead
When on the receiving end... Dead is DEAD - We have become so utterly intoxicated with the game of social, political, and moral debate we have all but forgotten the victim.
It does not matter if I am killed by a bolt of lightning... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by E. coli bacteria... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a speeding bullet... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a psychopathic killer... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a dutiful policeman... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a trigger-happy policeman... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by an axe murderer... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a terrorist... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a drunk driver... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a negligent doctor... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a West Nile infected mosquito... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a heart attack... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a hot dog lodged in my throat... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a lethal injection... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by a Smart or Dumb Bomb... I am dead.
It does not matter if I am killed by state sanctioned hanging... I am dead.
Dead is Dead. Lost in rhetorical debate, have forgotten this most basic fact?
To the Dead... Dead is Dead.
The living find it easy to ignore the Dead. The Machiavellian philosophy, "no man, no problem" is alive and well in our declining western "civilization."
Americans are increasingly creating more sophisticated ways to kill and more sophisticated rationale for killing. I find the most unsophisticated rationale for killing is the ancient "eye for an eye" idea. But then who am I but a dead man? Why listen to me... I am Dead. Why listen to a dead man? No man - no problem... Right?
“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”
Mahatma Ghandi
Mahatma Gandhi.... when asked what he thought of Western civilization, "I think it would be a good idea."
Horrific crimes naturally make us furious with the perpetrator(s) of those crime and extremely sad for the victims and their loved ones. It is entirely natural to be angry. But is it entirely natural to kill and expect the reactive act of revenge killing to prevent subsequent killing? If ever an oxymoronic and self-perpetuating cycle existed, the conviction or rationale that killing with an expectation that the reactive act of killing will prevent subsequent killing, capital punishment is certainly the cycle of all cycles.
Billions of human beings have been killed in the name of ridding human civilization of evil-doers. The results of this age-old approach slap us in the face day by day. Yet, we keep insisting we kill to show our children killing is wrong. Punish crime? Yes. But why not trouble shoot? I truly wonder if society had been as eager to study the minds of criminals, especially cruel and violent criminals, as its been to kill them if we might be better prepared to identify and prevent heinous acts like happened today in the Amish School in Pennsylvania? Why not study and learn how to help the criminal and simultaneously learn how to better identify and prevent others from committing cruel and violent acts.
In my mind, when we kill criminals or our enemies we reward their hate with hate. When we diminish ourselves to the level of the criminal we validate their hate in the silent, observant minds of others who may be wrestling with hate. When we diminish ourselves to the level of the criminal we validate their hate in the silent, observant minds of our children. Pity.
Charles Carl Roberts, killed himself. Did he administer his own punishment or did he avoid punishment? Did he appease those who would have killed him or did he further infuriate them? Does it matter? If our government killed Charles Carl Roberts would the act bring back those innocent young girls? Would it ease the pain of those girls' loved ones if a policeman or a hangman killed Charles Carl Roberts. Some would argue yes. I can only ask why... why do you say yes?
Most of us have been told by society since old enough to hear, we must have capital punishment if we are to have a safe, law-abiding country. Naturally, if from childhood, we hear a mantra long enough and often enough we tend to believe what we hear. But is it true?
If killing is punishment why did Charles Carl Roberts kill himself when it was the world he said was seeking to punish? Roberts even told his wife, "I cannot take it any more." Why then, did he kill himself if punishment of the world or even himself is the goal? It appears, in Roberts' mind, living was greater punishment than dying. So is killing the killer really punishment? Does not the illogical nature of capital punishment at least warrant consideration? Killing a criminal, in my mind, is more akin to mercy killing than to punishment. Killing a criminal, in my mind, is more akin to exacting that which is God's, revenge. Killing a criminal, in my mind, is more akin to appeasing the hate of the hurt than an administration of justice. I know this last assertion may make one's blood boil. I do understand the emotion. Humans, of faith, are supposed to believe we are something more than animal, something more than a bundle of emotional reactions, something more than instinct.
My faith teaches, I am human and made in the image of God. God made possible our development of brains that allow us to think as well as feel. It is when we exercise one and not the other that we find ourselves in big trouble, individually and/or collectively.
Thinking is not limited to but necessarily includes the prioritization of our emotions. There is hate and there is love. How our thinking prioritizes these emotions determines our position on capital punishment.
I am expecting today's horrific crime at the Amish school in Pennsylvania to re-ignite the endless national debate on capital punishment. I see today's event as a new test case. I am bracing myself for the conservative Republicans to use this tragedy (as they are known to use tragedies) to divide our populous for political gain. I hope our voters are, by now, savvy to the tactics this administration uses to tease out the most votes it can get. We'll see how savvy our voters are, I suppose, in November.
Should this tragedy ignite a new national debate, I wonder what will turn out to be our top priority? Love? Hate? Think about it.
We must face that we will never stop killing, not as long as we have those who accept the circular logic that killing is a valid and effective means to stop killing.
Whether street thug or president of the most powerful nation on earth, those embracing killing as a valid tool to prevent killing will continue the revenge driven oxymoronic practice of capital punishment.
There is no crime in loving our enemies... my faith, in fact, commands me to do so. Yet, many of those of my own faith allow emotions of personal pain and anger cause them to salivate for revenge, in total disregard for some of their most basic commands. My faith teaches, "it is of no particular merit to love those who love you." True obedience to the command to love happens when one loves the unlovable. My faith teaches that loving the lovable is easy and expected. Loving the unlovable is the standard by which God says we will be judged. Society praises us for loving the lovable. Our worship of "lovable" celebrities and even our own "lovable" children demonstrate this clearly. But this is a hollow virtue.
I have heard countless forms of rationale for killing to prevent killing. I do not possess the logic that allows me to accept any rationale heard thus far. But then I should remind those who rely on human wisdom or logic to rationalize killing to prevent killing... my faith commands me not to kill, period. Remember, "Thou Shalt Not Kill?" Remember when Jesus said, "Love your enemies..." I think that implied, as the bumper sticker says, "I think he meant, Don't Kill Them." In the final analysis, the truly faithful don't question God with human logic.... but ya know what? If we do apply logic as perfectly as humanly possible and in a spirit of unconditional love... we can only come to conclusions God has already concluded.
Thou Shalt Not Kill.
posted by Duane Short | 10/02/2006 10:37:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home