Menu:

When is it right to kill?

An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind. -- Ghandi

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 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.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. Matthew 5:38-40

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. -- Romans 12:19-20

Reporter: Mr. Ghandi, what do you think of Western civilization? Ghandi: It would be a good idea.

Today, May 16, 2001, Timothy McVeigh, murderer, was himself to be murdered. The murder has now been put off while attorneys review some evidence that was "accidentally" overlooked. The question is whether the government should be murdering at all.

There are Christians in this world, such as the Quakers, who believe that there is no such thing as a justifiable killing. All killing, they say, is murder, for once you start justifying killing it is a slippery slope that leads to all killing being justifiable. They take the lessons of Matthew 5:38-40 to an extreme. Quakers have been jailed, tarred and feathered, and themselves murdered for refusing to kill in this nation's wars.

Then there are "Christians" who appear to believe that Mathew 5:38-40 does not apply to them. Their "Christian" response to a murderer is "cut off his balls, burn him with a branding rod in public for 48 hours straight, then dismember him in the most painful way possible on public television."

Those are the two extremes. Where is the middle?

During my life I have wavered somewhere between, searching for the moral certitudes. I became convinced while teaching in the inner city schools in Houston that there must be a moral center to life, that there must be absolute moral right or wrong, or else all can be justified, including the sins of omission and commission that victimized these children every day of their young lives. Some thoughts:

1. All killing is murder.
2. Sometimes killing is necessary, for self defense, or to defend others. Thus it was necessary for us to kill in order to defeat Hitler's armies, because otherwise many more would have died.
3. Being necessary does not make it right. All killing is murder. All killing is a moral blasphemy against God and his creation. But we are, after all, mortal men, and we have biological needs for self preservation and defense of innocents built into us. I somehow doubt that we will burn in hell for giving in to those needs.
4. Killing for vengeance, without necessity, is the most blasphemous of all blasphemies. Romans 12:19-20 states that vengeance is reserved for the Lord, not for mere mortal men.

1. Is capital punishment murder? Yes, because all killing is murder.
2. Is capital punishment necessary for self defense or to defend others? No. Murderers can be locked away for the rest of their natural lives. This will adequately protect others.
3. Is capital punishment necessary in order to dissuade others from murdering? This is a harder question. I ask another question: Is it right to murder one person in order to alter the behavior of another person? This very notion violates every principle of fair play and individuality that this nation has ever stood for, where a man is to be judged and punished for his own crimes, not for the crimes of another.
4. Is capital punishment motivated by vengeance? You answer that question yourself. When you think of Timothy McVeigh in the electric chair, do you gloat and think "He deserves it for killing all those innocent children"? Do you honestly think that the pictures of those dead children were not in those jurors heads as they voted to murder Timothy McVeigh? But the Bible clearly says that vengeance is a blasphemy against God. What does this make capital punishment? I do not delude myself that I am God. I do not delude myself that I know the totality of God's word or wisdom. That seperates me from "Christians" who justify actions that directly contradict Mathew 5:38-40 by saying that they some how have a direct pipeline to God and a perfect understanding of God's word. I do agree with the Quakers, however, that all killing is murder. I disagree with them on the necessity of murder, but not on that simple truth. So I leave you with these thought:

   Is killing Timothy McVeigh, or any of the other several hundred men (and a few women) who will be murdered by the government this year, necessary for self defense?

   Is killing Timothy McVeigh, or any of the other several hundred men (and a few women) who will be murdered by the government this year, motivated purely by the desire for vengeance?

   We claim to be a Christian nation. If that were true, we would not be murdering where it is not necessary. Perhaps the "Pro-choice" people are right when they say "Christians" (those who claim to be Christians, but in reality are blasphemers of His word) care plenty about human life before it's born, but nothing about it after birth.

   One more question: If we fail to speak out against government-sponsored murder, if in fact we as a nation endorse it whole-heartedly, what does that say about the citizens of this nation?