I see what you are saying, but I can't agree with it. To me it inspires a society not unlike the Amish in America. Folks that mourn any act of violent defense, but who survive only because of the condemned activity. It isn't you that I worry about, it is our children's children who will be so sickened by doing the right thing they'll never, ever do it. We're almost there now, go read their blogs.

If life is to be celebrated, then those acts that are necessary to life should be accepted as worthy of celebration. In the religious context you cite, Jesus said openly that his ideology and presence didn't invalidate that of the old testament. If you look at it, you'll find a lot of rejoicing at the death of an enemy. There are times you have to 'shake the dust off your feet', and feel no remorse about it.

Folks that mourn any act of violent defense, but who survive only because of the condemned activity. It isn't you that I worry about, it is our children's children who will be so sickened by doing the right thing they'll never, ever do it. We're almost there now, go read their blogs.

I understand. That's why I wrote the article I did explaining that I am not a pacifist, but am sworn to nonagression. If someone comes into my home to harm myself or my family, I will absolutely, unblinkingly, do what needs to be done. And I hope my children will learn to do the same.

In the religious context you cite, Jesus said openly that his ideology and presence didn't invalidate that of the old testament. If you look at it, you'll find a lot of rejoicing at the death of an enemy.

Yes, and that is why what is right for me is not necessarily what is right for society as a whole. There is no question in Biblical context that, even when acting according to God's will in the context of a war, the act of war stains a man. This is why King David was not allowed to build the temple, but the task was allowed to his son, Solomon. We need priests as badly as we need warriors (although I am neither; just drawing the comparisons), and neither should despise the other for doing the tasks assigned to them.

While one tumor removed does not necessarily destroy the cancer, it sure helps keep the patient alive while the rest of the body is treated.

Since we live in an age where words such as 'Islam', 'Islamofascist', 'Islamophobia' and so on are bandied about by anyone and everyone, I've decided to do a little reading of my own, and come to some conclusions of my own, regarding Islam and Muslims.

The first thing I've learned, of any use, is this. Islam regards both Moses and Jesus as Prophets. Moses was a Prophet of Law and Righteousness - which is why the OT is composed mostly of narrations of Kings lives, the lives of Judges, and of procedural instruction in relation to ritual holiness. Jesus is regarded as the Prophet of the inner spiritual life, and of the love of God for man. Both received real revelations, and both revelations discuss only one aspect of God's relation to man. Muhammad, however, is regarded as the 'seal of Prophecy' because his revelation is regarded as the perfect synthesis of, and advancement of the argument of, the two Prophets who went before him, restoring the balance that is (deliberately) lacking in the previous revelations.

And such a view has merit: it's a reasonable way of pointing to the similarities and differences between the three different revelations and of commenting on them - particularly when one can see the two types of over-emphasis so clearly at work on this thread.

Gideon's insistence that his (principled) refusal to celebrate the death of this raghead murderer stems from God's revelation to him (Gideon) is perfectly of the type of inward looking personal holiness enjoined by Jesus. BakerStreet's emphasis upon community, necessary action in order to restore peace through judgement and unashamed punishment, is perfectly in accord with the Mosaic revelation of law and judgment - and the reason there will never be agreement between the two of them upon the issue is that both approach the question through the lenses of two completely opposed types of revelation.

I haven't read (or thought) anywhere near enough on the subject to be able to say with certainty what results from the Muhammadan synthesis of the revelations of Moses and Jesus, but after even the cursory reading I've so far undertaken something emerges as at least a possibility - which is this.

Muslims speak of 'Allah' (actually al-Ilah - 'the One God') as the all-Merciful and the all-Compassionate and at the same time are all too happy to celebrate the death of an enemy. The OT speaks of many occasions when God required the Israelites to exterminate peoples and raze cities to the ground, devoting to the Lord (which means the utter and complete destruction of) all that was in them. And in each case, this is seen as an outpouring of God's righteous wrath exercised in judgment: a victory for God, and only incidentally for the Israelites who were the instruments of that victory.

There is a divorce, in the OT, between the instrument and the One who uses it that leaves no room for a personal sense of threat or a personal sense of victory. The NT in contrast denies that there is any room for violence of any kind in the believer's life, asserting that victory for both God and believer lies in the defeat of evil through love and the turning of the other cheek.

For the Christian God is either the righteous King and upright Judge who uses the believer to impose an ethic of perfect justice, a justice which is apart from the believer, external to him; or the sacrificial Lamb that waits for slaughter secure in the knowledge that victory is his in another world, if not in this, and that 'love will save the day'.

The Christian who truly follows the revelation of Jesus in his own heart is to do nothing but suffer the contempt of evil men, and pray for their redemption and his own. The Muslim, meanwhile, having an ethic which includes both mercy and violent war exercised on behalf of of God by the believer, being righteous in God's eyes (he believes) both when he exercises mercy and kills his enemies, has the West at a psychological disadvantage - one exemplified by the disagreements on this thread.

We will never come to agreement with ourselves, never prosecute this war with the unrelenting ferocity and total commitment to the destruction of the enemy which it demands, while we have it in the back of our minds that a) such relentless ferocity belongs only to God and is to be exercised only under conditions of perfect justice (God may be perfectly just but we know ourselves to be anything but); and while we're hobbled (if unknowingly) by the belief that gentle Jesus meek n mild won't love us if we do what's necessary to overcome.

An enemy that can stand lightly balanced on both feet, fully prepared and willing to kill his opponent because he knows his God will love him for it, is always going to be at an advantage when confronting someone who can only stand on one foot, because not convinced that God's righteousness is his, and who has tied one hand behind his back in order to be 'merciful' in the application of a violence of which he is ashamed - because to turn to violence at all is to fail his God at the outset.

Wars are not won by missiles, planes, smart bombs and ultra high technology (though these things are good to have). They are won by people willing to die and to take many, many more of their enemies with them when they go. Certainly Muslims appear to possess that conviction and that committment. We, seemingly, do not.

I'll save my joy for someone who finds redemption, not for someone who finds destruction.

I so agree with you here Gid.

It must be quite sobering for someone to take a life even if it's for the most vile person on the earth. Even for my worst enemy I would not relish the thought of ending his/her life. I wouldn't hesitate, mind you, in self defense, but I wouldn't be dancing a jig either.

I believe our hatred for fellows like Zarqawi should be limited to what they represent, downright evil. I believe they have a force working inside their heart as I do in mine, just opposite ends of the spectrum. I believe the war is not physical at all. That's just what we see. I think we get too caught up in it, the physical that is.

Even God said, Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated. It wasn't his personhood, but what he represented that God hated.

It's a battle out there, but I do believe the battle belongs to God. Ultimately he's writing this whole script.

Many are going to sleep a bit more peacefully now that one less evil person is walking this earth. For that we can be thankful.

A chicken cannot be compared to a human being, for the simple reason "free will" determines the humanity of one and not the other. You can kill and eat your chicken, but the death of a huamn being must be a moment of reflection, even if you dislike that person/ideology. Did not someone say;Even the death of one diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind, therefore send not for whom the bell Tolls. It tolls for thee! Zarqawi might be an evil man, full of hate and violence and he met an end he deserved. There are other killers at large.

And Bender said:

"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones; it bones for thee. "

That's the episode where Bender is lost in space and becomes the god of the teeny people who get stuck to him, and then really meets God. An interesting crossreference given this discussion. The overall theme is "If you do things right, no one will ever know you did anything at all."

The fact is there is really no difference between the killing of a chicken and the killing of Zarqawi. Both are human necessities for life. If life should be celebrated, then its necessities should be celebrated, thus Zarqawi's death should be celebrated.

Just my 2 cents. IMHO, God did something to Zarqawi "just right", and we don't know that anything was done at all.

A chicken cannot be compared to a human being, for the simple reason "free will" determines the humanity of one and not the other. You can kill and eat your chicken, but the death of a huamn being must be a moment of reflection, even if you dislike that person/ideology. Did not someone say;Even the death of one diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind, therefore send not for whom the bell Tolls. It tolls for thee! Zarqawi might be an evil man, full of hate and violence and he met an end he deserved. There are other killers at large.

Bahu,

You hold your faith, and you are true to it. I hold mine and am true to it. I do not, and will not, believe that the death of evil individuals like Zarqawi diminishes me; in fact, it makes me stronger because of the countless innocents that have been liberated because of the death of the man that would be their murderer. Zarqawi's death, in my mind, was an unquestionable good because he was a vessel of pure, unadulterated evil. While I will not celebrate it, I will certainly not condemn it. It was something that had to be done, and we did it.

That's the episode where Bender is lost in space and becomes the god of the teeny people who get stuck to him, and then really meets God. An interesting crossreference given this discussion. The overall theme is "If you do things right, no one will ever know you did anything at all." The fact is there is really no difference between the killing of a chicken and the killing of Zarqawi. Both are human necessities for life. If life should be celebrated, then its necessities should be celebrated, thus Zarqawi's death should be celebrated. Just my 2 cents. IMHO, God did something to Zarqawi "just right", and we don't know that anything was done at all.

I LOVE that episode, Baker. Good reference.

Our difference is obviously a philosophical one, not a fundamental one. We can certainly agree that Zarqawi's death was ultimately for the betterment of humanity.

By the way, the knowledge that our soldiers offered Zarqawi medical care makes me proud. It is proof that we truly are a great nation when we try to save the lives of our enemies, even those who would readily have us killed, when the temptation to end his life with an extra bullet through his head had to have passed through the minds of more than one of the soldiers.

The fact is there is really no difference between the killing of a chicken and the killing of Zarqawi. Both are human necessities for life

I do not want to dispute BakerStreet on this one as my opinion, for what it is worth is known: But I would like to point out two aspects. First, the lead to track Zarkawi came from the Iraqis and their handtlers in the Jordanian network who were on the track of Zarqawi since the Hotel bombings. In fact the IOraqi Resistance wanted to get rid of Zarqawi because his kind of violence was just too much for the Iraqis to bear. Having tracked him down, the mole was asked to fit a tracking device which sent the coordinates to the command post in Bagdad which then had him killed. That Zarqawi was eil I do not think is under dispute: THe car bombs of Zarqawi and the cluster bombs of Bush ensure that there will be mayhem in Iraq. Fortunately one has gone. Second, the fear of sectarian violence has somewhat receded due to the killing. The USA at long last has become one more player in the chess boarsd of Iraqi politics.