If you are a follower of any religion, then you most likely believe that God gave us free will. Even if you don't adhere to any specific religion, you most likely agree with the concept that everyone has free will, the ability to decide between two options without any outside influence. This free will gives us the ability to choose between right and wrong, good and bad, and in the context of this week's events, between killing and not killing. Now I will pose a question, if man has been killing or been condemning other men to death since the beginning of time, does that make it right? Does the continuity of an action carried out by man throughout the ages make it acceptable or even greater instill within us the "right" to do such? I posit that just because we are able to choose to kill another human being, it does not inherently give us the "right" to do so, it is merely a choice between two options. Some may say that the killing of one human being differs greatly from the killing of another based upon circumstances. I personally disagree and would say that any who chooses to kill another regardless of circumstances should be held accountable. Before getting into the religious aspect of this, I would like to further this line of thought by being even more unpopular; if our military can carry out attacks that result in "collateral damage" or the killing of innocent civilians, why do they not have the right to be held accountable. Granted, there are a few circumstances where they are, but for the most part, they act with impunity and if innocents are killed for the greater good, so be it. How can we hold others accountable for their actions when no one can hold our military accountable for theirs? (I know its not a perfect world and our military has the greater strength, but still...)
Now to delve into the religious aspect of killing and free will. It was suggested that I might be naive for separating myself from the idea of killing Bin Laden as being O.K. yet adhering to Catholicism which has over the years killed millions in the name of religion. I do not believe that I am being naive by adhering to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. There is no where in the doctrine of the Catholic Church as formed by Jesus Christ that says it is O.K. to kill another human being. Men throughout the ages, many in high ranking positions in the Church have felt that it was necessary to kill in the name of religion, but that is man's fallibility, free will. If they had adhered to the doctrine of the Church, they would not have killed in the name of religion. By saying that I am naive for aligning myself with a religion that has killed while saying that killing is not ok, is the same as saying Jews are naive for aligning themselves with Judaism and saying that killing is not ok. Man has free will, without a doubt, and man has killed for a variety of reasons both for and against religion, but man is not the church. The moment we take any human, raise them up as divine and better than any other human, we take ourselves away from the fundamentals of any Church. In my mind, to be a Catholic is to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not man's interepretation of them. Therefore, I can squarely align myself with the Catholic Church, knowing the atrocities they committed, and not be naive because the atrocities were committed by man, not God, and I am not following man's actions. Jesus was condemned to death, not by his followers, the apostles, the founders of the church, but by Jews who viewed him as a threat. Therefore, Catholicism was not based upon the condemning of a man to death, but it was founded on his life and teachings.
Throughout history, man has repeatedly taken scripture and teachings of a variety of religions and twisted them to suit his own needs or means. Some will follow saying that since this person interepreted a passage saying it was ok to kill, then it must be ok. Others will look past the fallibility of man and see the truth beneath the actions and condemn that very same man as a heretic. Views on religion vary widely and some will say that without man to interepret and guide us along a path of virtuosity, we can not hope to gain the true understanding of the scripture. I happen to disagree. If you look at the base scripture and teachings of any religion, most were written in a way that anyone can understand and anyone can follow. For Jews, it is the ten commandments, one of which is "Thou shalt not kill", for Christians and Catholics, it is the beatitudes, one of which is "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, give him your left". To me these are fairly straightforward edicts guiding us on which is the correct path to follow. For someone to say that we need a "holy person" to interpret this is naive in and of itself. So then, what are priests, rabbis, and imams there for? I believe it is to assist as with questions that we may have and to help those that need it to attain greater spiritual clarity and understanding. At the same time, if what they say does not follow scripture, then we should question them, because after all, they are man with free will and prone to fallibility.
I do believe that steps need to be taken in prevention of terrorism and its continued expansion, however, prevention and the tracking of individuals can be taken a number of ways. Simply because I say that we should gain intel, track individuals who promulgate terror, and attempt to prevent further attacks, does not mean that I believe we should kill them. Some of the latest terrorist attacks that were prevented did not result in the death of those who were attempting to perpetrate them. I suggest that capturing an individual to gain further intel is much more valuable and moral than killing him for being a terrorist. In that sense, I still adhere to my previous statement that if it was possible to take Bin Laden alive, we should have (which some sources are now saying was possible and that he was unarmed). The amount of intel we could have gained from him would be far more valuable than just taking him out. By gaining intel, I am not advocating torture in any way and would never do so and by locking someone in solitary confinement for years is not the same as killing him. That person will day a natural death some day. If they are alone and die or with others and die, what is the difference besides access to amenities that make that life more comfortable. Killing is not right regardless of the circumstances in my mind. You can find any number of reasons for justifying the killing of another human, but that still does not make it right.
No comments:
Post a Comment