[Previous entry: "I feel like this sometimes. Don't we all?"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "I'm younger than that now"]

03/22/2004 Entry: "Not seeing the funny side"

I'm as flippant as the next man. Probably more so. But I can't be persuaded that the death of anyone, even if they are the spiritual leader of terrorists, should be treated as a joke, even if it's a clever one. Call me a killjoy. I just don't think it is a laughing matter.

Pen reminds us that Israel killed 243 Palestinians between the beginning of the current intifada and June 3, 2003. Of these, 90 were bystanders, 31 were children. What sort of twisted moral calculus can justify the slaughter of one lot of innocents on the basis of another?

Update: Josh says I'm misrepresenting the joke. You decide.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn @ 03/23/2004 12:11 AM GMT

Speaking of controversy... Richard, what's your spiritual understanding concerning the Methodist minister in Ellensburg Washington who is being validated in their ministry by the other Methodist ministers of the area? Please keep in mind that this woman is an admitted lesbian and just married her lover in Portland Oregon.

However, back on thread... I REJOICE at the removal of this evil amongst the sons of man. I do not rejoice at his death but find that he recieved the same mercy he offered to others. Will he recieve eternal damnation? I do not know. What do you think? God tells us His opinion;"...I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: (EZK 33:11). I do know however that he was intellegent in his evil and was 66 at the time of his death. Therefore, he had many many years to ponder what he wanted his life to stand for: Peace and Life OR Terror and Murder. He made his decisions and accomplished them to the best of his ability---as we ALL do.

Posted by Larry @ 03/23/2004 04:32 AM GMT

I wouldn't have seen this if you hadn't linked Richard and I'm rather sorry I went over.
Should we be grateful derision and mockery is in the open?
It is sobering to see the desensitization in the post and in the comments below by followers of Jesus Christ. This is His church speaking?

Hilarious. Witty. Clever. Ha ha.
Are they drunk?

Posted by Bene Diction @ 03/23/2004 06:15 AM GMT

Larry - I don't know much about what's happening in Ellensburg, and don't really have the energy to find out. The Methodist Church in Great Britain isn't part of the UMC so I'm not really qualified to make a comment. There are others who might, though... Pen? Ivan? Any takers?

Josh - Last week I'd have found a joke about his resemblance funny. I accept that you intended the joke to be only about his likeness, but the fact is he had just been killed in a missile strike. Even without the words, the proximity in time inevitably links the joke about likeness to his death. But the words were The great leader of the dark forces, Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Saruman, has fallen under the sword. The Hobbits of the Middle East Middle Earth will rejoice.
Tell me if I'm missing the point by all means, but that sounds to me like a joke about violent death - and a death that could lead to even more bloodshed to boot.

Posted by Richard @ 03/23/2004 09:38 AM GMT

Just so there's no confusion, I am glad that he's dead and I think the killing is completely justified. But it's still a serious matter; he's responsible for the deaths of hundreds upon hundreds of people, so it's no laughing matter.

However, his resemblance to Saruman in more ways than one is a parody that's quite funny.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn @ 03/23/2004 12:51 PM GMT

There's more than a physical resemblance here! Both Saruman and Sheikh Yassin are (were!) monsters. Being in God's image, we have a good and holy appreciation for justice, which is precisely what happened when this terrorist was justly killed.

I think Josh's comparison is quite insightful.

What sort of twisted moral calculus can justify the slaughter of one lot of innocents on the basis of another?

What sort of twisted moral calculus sees no distinction between the accidental death of bystanders in a just action of self-defense, and the deliberate slaughter of civilians?

The "Palestinian" terrorists target civilians, including women and children. Israel targets terrorists, and sometimes kills innocent bystanders. There's not a lot of similarities.

Paul says that civil government exists to reward good and punish evil. That's precisely what happened in Israel the other day. Good for them!

Posted by Robert Williams @ 03/23/2004 02:28 PM GMT

Yeah, I thought it was in pretty bad taste myself when I saw it yesterday. One of those things that just...wasn't funny. I don't sympathize with the guy, but at the same time, getting blown to bits by a missile while you're sitting on the curb in your wheelchair is hardly a dignified way for a creation of God to meet its end.

Also, it's instructive to note that this seems to be INFLAMING the terrorist cause against Israel, rather than removing it. So much for the myth of redemptive violence...

Oh, and Robert...how about we amend your description slightly, and say that Israel lobs large amounts of explosives in the general direction where terrorist leaders are rumored to be, nearly always killing signifigant numbers of innocent bystanders, and occasionally getting lucky and taking out a terrorist as well. That would be a bit more accurate.

Posted by Jonathan @ 03/23/2004 02:37 PM GMT

Couldn't have put it better myself, Jonathan.

Posted by Richard @ 03/23/2004 02:45 PM GMT

I think it's hilarious. Maybe y'all just don't have a sense of humor?

Posted by Kevin Bousman @ 03/23/2004 02:55 PM GMT

When I saw it, I snickered over the resemblance. There was no thought given to anything political ... no celebration of this guy's demise.

Whether or not it was smart for Israel to wack this guy is a legit topic for debate ... though I personally am more inclined to want to see terrorists such as Ahmed Yassin assumed room temperature than not.

Whether or not Josh went over the top on his on blog is at least for me a bit to close to removing the mote from his eye for my taste. Unless we are total 'misraelites,' we all have some off-colour things we snicker at.

Posted by Mean Dean @ 03/23/2004 03:01 PM GMT

This game of moral equivalence is itself evil. It is the result of a virtue which requires nothing, but allows it's proponents to flatter themselves for their kindness.

If the Palestinians laid down their weapons today the killing of palestinians by Israelis would stop. The reverse would not be so.

To mock the death of a man who preached hate and death and racism and suicide bombs is not nearly as evil as refusing to take a stand against such a person. To equivocate is to encourage.

Posted by Greg Marquez @ 03/23/2004 03:01 PM GMT

Dean, I take your point about motes. But surely the point of blogging (or at least one point) is to link to posts which have attracted attention whether with approval or disapproval. All I said was that this wasn't a laughing matter. If that crosses the line, then Josh has my apology but I'm along way from convinced that will be necessary.

To Greg and others: all I can say is that it seems to me perfectly possible to take a stand against terrorists without approving of the kind of action that the Israelis have taken. If you think that whacking people from helicopter gunships and encouraging terrorism are the only alternatives, then I beg to differ.

One purely pragmatic question - is there any evidence that this kind of action leads to a reduction of terrorism? Because if there is, I haven't seen it.

Sooner or later, someone is going to have to break this cycle of revenge. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

Posted by Richard @ 03/23/2004 03:56 PM GMT

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1080015295063

Posted by 61% for attacking Israelis @ 03/23/2004 04:17 PM GMT

Yes, I suppose the Israelis should try appeasement, instead. That always seems to work. [/sarcasm]

So Palestinians *deliberately* targeting innocents on buses and in cafes is equivalent to Israelis *unintentionally* killing innocents while trying to take out terrorists. (Never mind these oh-so-brave terrorists love to hide amongst innocent bystanders. After all, a few innocents killed while trying to get a terrorist always makes for good PR for the Palestinians.)

Apparently, they were able to take out Yassin without killing any innocents. I'm glad for that. And I'll admit it, I'm *glad* they took this terrorist out. As far as his demise being "undignified" goes...well, he lived by the sword and he died by the sword.

Josh was making a joke about the resemblance, not the terrorist's demise. It seems that some are just grasping at things to get offended at.

Posted by susan b. @ 03/23/2004 05:50 PM GMT

Not at all Susan. I'm not in the slightest bit offended, and I don't *think* I've written anything to suggest otherwise.
At the risk of repeating myself, all I've done is suggest that a joke was inappropriate. Apparently that amounts to appeasement, or support of terrorism. Shame on me.

Posted by Richard @ 03/23/2004 05:56 PM GMT

"Apparently that amounts to appeasement, or support of terrorism"

Welcome to the USAmerican veiwpoint, Richard. We've managed to move beyond that silly, old-fashioned business of shades of meaning and rational discourse and thought. We've discovered that black-and-white is much better, especially when we're always conveniently in the white.

In the words of our Commander-in-Chief, you're either for us or against us...and you'd better not waffle on the "for" part, either...

Posted by Jonathan @ 03/23/2004 06:50 PM GMT

Welcome to that post-modernist viewpoint that says that everything's relative. If a guy is busy killing innocent people, we can "condemn him in the strongest terms" but we certainly wouldn't want to do anything about it. That would be too much like taking a moral stand.
I'm thrilled the guy is dead. He's clearly responsible for the deaths of hundreds (if not thousands) of innocent people who did nothing more than take the wrong bus at the wrong time. (etc.)
So now hamas is threatening to *really* work hard at killing innocent people - as if they weren't already doing that.
I think the resemblance to Saruman is hilarious and I'm glad he's dead.
I could go on and on here making arguments about just war and all of that but if you don't understand why I would be glad that a known and active terrorist is dead then you're not going to get it no matter what.
-Jim.

Posted by JD Mays @ 03/23/2004 07:15 PM GMT

Glad to see I wasnt the ONLY one who posted their belief that Josh was being inappropriate, and more seriously the impression (since corrected by Josh) that he was rejoicing over a death. But I am surprised by the request for both me and theconnexion to 'correct' our posts.

Actually Josh goes onto say he WAS glad that the man had died, and so I think that we were not too far of the mark.

By all means make the comparison, but the whole tone of the post is in my view inappropriate.

There is all the difference in the world between killing your enemy when trying to capture them (eg Sadaam's sons), and using a helicopter gunship to take out someone who may not even have had guards with him.

I am just so glad that the Americans didnt do what the whole world expected them to do and blast Sadaam out of the ground when they found him.

Justice is best served by capturing criminals and trying them. I know a life in prison seems to many too weak a punishment, but I am sure many would prefer to die than experience that.

I am not 'weak', but I draw the line and condoning this kind of violence without even an attempt at capture.

Posted by Adrian Warnock @ 03/23/2004 07:58 PM GMT

JD Mays: "Welcome to that post-modernist viewpoint that says that everything's relative. If a guy is busy killing innocent people, we can "condemn him in the strongest terms" but we certainly wouldn't want to do anything about it. That would be too much like taking a moral stand."

What? Did you actually READ Richard's reply?

On which planet is the only alternative to capitulation squashing them mercielessly and committing murder?

Posted by Wood @ 03/23/2004 08:29 PM GMT

Proverbs 11:10 When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, And when the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.

I don't think there's anything ungodly about being joyful that this wicked man has perished.

Posted by Robert Williams @ 03/23/2004 10:58 PM GMT

Hey Wood:

Nice to see you again!
Joshua Claybourn has genuinely gone out of his way to state his intent. I'd hate to think he may risk the perception of "I think he doth protest too much."

How or why Joshua chooses to respond to those who didn't admire his personal 'humour' in his post is entirely up to him.
I agree with you.
I think any of the deviations in this thread require reading and hearing what Richard is saying. An us/them viewpoint isn't going to cut it, is it? Blog on!

Posted by Bene Diction @ 03/23/2004 11:04 PM GMT

Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?' (Ezekiel 33:11)

Trading texts is fun Robert!

Posted by Richard @ 03/23/2004 11:39 PM GMT

You know, the resemblance if the late, apparently lamented around here Sheik Yassin to Saruman (at least as portrayed in the recent films by Christopher Lee) is not exactly Mr. Claybourn's invention -- it was noted by others quite some time ago.

In any case, you are getting your panties in a bunch over a very common observation.

Posted by Andrea Harris @ 03/24/2004 03:02 AM GMT

Out of curiosity, since Biblical verses and phrases like "followers of Jesus Christ" are being bandied about, whatever happened to "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"?

Now, obviously that's not part of the Israelis' belief system (though, unless I'm mistaken, "Thou shalt not kill" is), but a lot of Christians seem to approve of such actions, despite what seems to be quite a conflict with Christ's teachings.

Posted by Jeff @ 03/24/2004 03:46 AM GMT

Andrea, it was noted by me quite some time ago as well. (which is, by the way, further proof that it was not put up solely to mock his death, even though I believe his death to be 110% justified).

Posted by Joshua Claybourn @ 03/24/2004 03:48 AM GMT

Some of us just didn't find the timing and tone of your parody funny Joshua.
So now what?

Posted by Bene Diction @ 03/24/2004 05:19 AM GMT

Out of curiosity, since Biblical verses and phrases like "followers of Jesus Christ" are being bandied about, whatever happened to "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"?

Now, obviously that's not part of the Israelis' belief system (though, unless I'm mistaken, "Thou shalt not kill" is), but a lot of Christians seem to approve of such actions, despite what seems to be quite a conflict with Christ's teachings.

There's a difference between interpersonal relationships and a government's responsibility to protect its citizens. But things are easier when they're black and white, right? I think I heard that earlier in this thread...

Posted by Bobby A-G @ 03/24/2004 03:26 PM GMT

There's a difference between interpersonal relationships and a government's responsibility to protect its citizens.

Remind me, how many non-government Christian Americans publicly forgave the terrorists after 9/11? And how many called for revenge?

Posted by Jeff @ 03/24/2004 06:07 PM GMT

What are the differences between revenge and justice?

Posted by Joshua Claybourn @ 03/25/2004 07:23 AM GMT

It's a good question, Joshua.

The problem is, the boundaries are blurry, aren't they? Only God has a perfect grasp of justice.

The question I have to ask, though, is: Is there always only the one route by which justice may be achieved?

Posted by Wood @ 03/25/2004 09:44 AM GMT

Thanks Josh - a great topic for another post!

Posted by Richard @ 03/25/2004 01:51 PM GMT

Wood, I think most everyone would agree that there is not only one route by which justice may be achieved.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn @ 03/25/2004 02:07 PM GMT

Funny, because that isn't the impression I'm being given here.

Posted by Wood @ 03/25/2004 02:44 PM GMT

Wood, what're the multiple routes of justice you think are possible? Because I only seem to notice one coming from you.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn @ 03/25/2004 07:05 PM GMT

..and what would that be?

Weird. I don't remember making any suggestions at all.

Posted by Wood @ 03/25/2004 08:31 PM GMT

I have heard this response to Jesus words on turing the other cheek, carrying the pack the extra mile etc before:

"There's a difference between interpersonal relationships and a government's responsibility to protect its citizens"

I am a little confused by it. Why do we see Jesus words as only refering to our private relationships?

Posted by Phil @ 03/27/2004 02:15 AM GMT

Because it suits us?

Posted by Richard @ 03/27/2004 08:54 AM GMT

Phil and Richard: Please look up some good books on Christian Just War Theory. If you wish, you can start with St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The most recent work with which I am familiar is "Just War Against Terror" by the University of Chicago's Professor Elshtain.

Posted by Paul Stinchfield @ 03/28/2004 03:48 AM GMT

Paul,

How do you see the 'just war' theory as responding to this question?

Posted by phil @ 03/28/2004 08:50 AM GMT