Tag: morality

America’s Moral Obligation to Defend the World and Attack Iran

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

I can remember discussions with my father when I was young and learning to form and assert my own opinions. In one of those, he brought out the argument that America had a responsibility to police the world because the US was the premier power of righteous morality (or something to that effect) and if we didn’t keep things in order, the world would soon end up in a chaotic maelstrom of Communist rule, headquartered in Moscow, Russia. At the time, as I recall, the Viet Nam war (Domino Theory) was still in full swing and, due to his experiences during WW21, it is understandable why he might be of that opinion.

Just the other day, a local chat group I participate in blew up into an intense, mildly rancorous debate because one of the members said that Donald Trump had to attack Iran and the main reason given for the “required” action was that 40, 000 Iranian citizens had been killed in the recent street protests. Needless to say, his viewpoint was severely questioned and the argument raged for some time with no clear resolution of the issue. Given that “Jeff” is a conservative Christian Zionist, it is understandable why he might think that way.

The US had a responsibility to make the world safe. The US had to attack Iran to stop the government there from killing its own citizens. These are nearly identical positions which bespeak that America has some (nebulous, unproven) God-given duty to ensure that the rest of the world behaves itself and to “straighten it out” if necessary, like a young boy facing a whipping for some misbehavior. Fifty years apart, they only prove that deeply held beliefs across a wide spectrum of society take a long time to change.

That line of thinking is dying out in America and it is fairly evident that most of the rest of the world has kicked it to the curb. Today, the US is widely seen, not as a shining knight on a white steed administering justice, liberty, and the American way, but as an overbearing, monstrous, murderous bully, intent only on getting its way, pushing its way into arguments which do not concern it, and beating the living daylights out of small, weak countries. Because, we can. Because, as Donald Trump famously said when asked if there were any limits on his actions as President, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. I don’t need international law.” Because, his Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth openly states about the war, “Death and destruction from the sky all day long…This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.” Because, as Michael Ledeen put it twenty some years ago, “Every now and again the United States has to pick up a crappy little country and throw it against a wall just to prove we are serious.”

“I define my own limits.” “Kick them while they’re down.” “Beat up somebody smaller and weaker than you are so others will notice.” These are the attitudes which rule American foreign policy today. Morally righteous behavior has nothing to do with it. God-given authority has nothing to do with it. In fact, the current administration has made it quite clear that it will no longer be held accountable by the standards and norms (internationally accepted) which ruled the interactions between countries. Supposedly ruled, I should say, since strong countries like the US have always forced the issues and never hesitated to use violent force whenever it was deemed “necessary”. From here on out, it’s the Law of the Jungle, and woe betide anyone who gets in the way of the rampaging 800 pound gorilla. Power exercised for the sake of power, and the collateral benefit is that great wealth is gained thereby.

As professing Christians, believers in the gospel of Jesus the Christ, disciples of His teachings, obligated to follow and obey His commands, it should be apparent that waging war by an ungodly State (US) goes against everything we are expected to adhere to, especially when said war is in the “service” of an anti-Christian, atheistic, murderous regime (Israel) which is absolutely opposed to Christian belief and actively persecutes those Christians (along with believers in other religious orders) who live within its jurisdiction. There is nothing Christian at all with the popular policy that “We have to kill them over there, so that we don’t have to kill them over here.”

For those who would disagree with this (and they are legion), I ask this. Where is it written that we MUST employ violent force to destroy anyone who gets in the way of “national interests”? Where is it written that “service” to our country overrides our obligation to the Prince of Peace? Where is it written that we are given the option between the way of the world and the narrow way to life? Where is it written that the US is an exceptional nation simply because we have been blessed materially with a scope of riches and power which history has never seen before? Where is it written that we can, like Donald Trump said, do whatever we want. Where is it written that we will never be called out for our behavior and reap the consequences of our actions?

In the current situation, there is a blatant hypocrisy which causes extreme discomfort and cognitive dissonance in those who refuse to face the truth. Enormous outrage is vented against Iran for killing 40, 0002 people, its own citizens, and action is demanded to impose “justice”. Yet, nary a peep is heard from these same people about the ongoing genocide in Gaza which has demonstrably and visibly slaughtered at least 75, 000 persons, most of them women and children. In addition, nothing is ever mentioned about the “sanctions” imposed on the Palestinians (Iraqis, Cubans, etc.) which have (and will) result in the deaths of many, many more due to lack of food, good water, and adequate health care. In fact, many of those who express anger at the Iranians for their “crimes against humanity” often, at the same time, profess to believe that the State of Israel, as the chosen people of God must be supported, idolized, and excused without restriction or accountability.

The teaching of Jesus simply does not matter in our world and can be relegated and confined to the weekly show known as “church” which passes for holiness today. “Thou shalt not kill” is relative. “Love your enemies” is conditional on how we feel about them. “Do good to those who hate you” means that we do “good” to them, but do it first. Kick them while they’re down.

Where is the concept of sacrifice for others out of a spirit of love, as exemplified by Christ and taught in the New Testament? How can we square the order of the true Commander-in-Chief3 with the way we live according to our own word? When will this change to better conform with what we profess to believe? Why do we continue to hold onto this contradiction and refuse to acknowledge it, except that we, again like Donald Trump, cannot bring ourselves to admit we are wrong and to repent of our sins?

Think about it.

  1. He was stationed on a light cruiser, USS Helena, which was sunk somewhere in the South Pacific. Incidentally, he and all four of his brothers were in active combat operations and all of them came home without serious injury. I take that as a REAL blessing of God. ↩︎
  2. This is an unproven claim which has been broadcast widely by the mainstream news, but is almost certainly inflated from the real number. It has been reported that many of the deaths which occurred, both civilian and law enforcement, were due to random sniper fire at riots which may have been orchestrated by Israeli (Mossad) and US (CIA) intelligence. ↩︎
  3. Not Donald Trump, BTW, who only holds that title as relates to the military. It does not transfer over to civilians. ↩︎

Can Moral Obligations be Mandated by Law?

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

I’m going to give Donald Trump a little respite and breather in this post and address something more philosophical and germane to human nature.

I hardly ever watch Fox News and if by some chance I do, it is for never more than a moment or two before I quit, usually out of disgust by whatever clap the commentator is waxing eloquent about. Self-determined and proclaimed moralism is not just a religion of the Left, the so-called conservative Right is also shot through with it.

Nevertheless, a few days ago, I sat down with my wife and watched a segment of news, Laura Ingraham’s interview with Holly (last name unknown), as she was recovering from a severe beating she had endured at the hands of an out-of-control mob in Cincinnati, Ohio. The resultant bruises from the blows she had received were still quite visible, although it appeared that she was well on the road to physical healing.

Holly exuded an air of calmness and patience, and I did not notice any display of anger or rage on her part, which might have been justifiable considering everything she had been through. In fact, she openly expressed an interest, not in revenge and punishment, but reconciliation and understanding to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to another person. This is an admirable stance. I respect her for it and I said something to that effect to my wife when the segment was over.

“I like her. She is already famous and this will benefit her immensely. The black mob and the Cincinnati officials have not done themselves any good, but Holly will become an important, highly sought-after person, perhaps running for political office or accepting an offer to become a TV news personality of her own.”

Or something like that. As I said, it was a few days ago and my memory is not what it used to be.

There was, however, something that Holly said which I disagree with and it has to do with the moral responsibility of the onlookers, many of whom were actively taking videos, but did not call 911 or the legal authorities to intervene to bring the melee to an end. In essence, she said that this practice ought to be illegal and these people punished according to law. Philosophically, I think she is wrong and, on this, I am going to invoke Walter Block, he of “Defending the Undefendable” fame (infamy?) While it is certain that the inactions of the many people who watched Holly take a “beatdown” were reprehensible and morally despicable, they should not be considered criminal and punishable.

“Every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime.”

I have my own differences of opinion with Walter Block, among them his favorable treatment of abortion on demand and his shrill, unwavering support of the nation of Israel, despite the undeniable fact that the ones who suffer the most (unborn babies, already born babies in Gaza) are destroyed outright by people who are more powerful than they are. In these, I find his position on libertarianism and the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) inconsistent and untenable, and I have written numerous times about his position on abortion. See here and here for examples.1 Still, I find his arguments about people who are repugnant and despicable to be compelling and I cannot, to be consistent with my own philosophy, find any good reason to overturn it, at least, legally. There are moral arguments to be made here, but they ought to be presented to those who are the “active sinners” and not against Block, et alia, who only defend their right to live in such a way.

As it relates to Holly and the mob, numerous questions arise.

  1. Did certain people refuse or neglect to call 911?
  2. Was this refusal/inaction morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and/or selfish?
  3. Should people be punished because they are morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and selfish?
  4. If so, what charges should be brought against them? What should be the prescribed punishment? Would these be based on principles of reason and truth or pure emotion, public will, and political pandering?
  5. Could prosecution under the law ever be considered as running afoul of a person’s religious beliefs, i.e., that everything is pre-ordained and to interfere is going against God’s will, therefore, personally detrimental? Does civil “responsibility” ever trump spiritual submission to one’s higher power? If so, what would it look like and where are the limits, if any?
  6. Etc., etc., etc…..ad infinitum.

More importantly, this argument falls into the philosophical arena known as “positive” law, which basically seeks to make people good by virtue of legislation. I am strongly opposed to the notion as I understand that only God can make people good and that only through the personal acceptance of Jesus Christ and the life-altering influence of the Holy Spirit. Confession of sin, repentance, and change for the better cannot be legislated nor made mandatory, ordered, and enforced, it must be voluntary and freely sought. The first sentence in the description of positive law in Wikipedia (yes, I am citing Wikipedia) describes it quite well and flows with my own version.

“Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action.” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

In our relevant case, Holly would like to see a government mandated ordinance which obliges and specifies an action, such action being that people who see someone being beaten would be compelled by law to make an attempt to correct the situation in some way. Whether this means getting physically involved as Holly did or simply dialing 911 and alerting the officials while maintaining a safe distance really does not matter. The important thing to remember is that action MUST be taken under threat of punishment, i.e., “You will DO good, dammit, whether you want to or not. It is The Law. Doing nothing is not allowed. After all, your brother’s (sister’s) life, health, and well-being are at stake.”2

With all due respect to Holly and the millions of like-minded people around the world, whether to become involved or not is a moral issue, one to be decided solely within the conscience of an individual who knows what is right and what is wrong. It is not, ought not be, a legal issue with sanctions imposed for lack of activity in the event of a traumatic event. To attempt to make it a legal matter would only open up a subjectively interpreted can of worms and do nothing at all to change human behavior.3 “Love your neighbor as you love yourself…” is the operative phrase here which carries the thought of personal self-sacrifice on behalf of your neighbor, even at the risk of your own life and Holly’s action showed this explicitly. However, this is not the same as loving your neighbor under compulsion because you are afraid of the trouble that a disinterested third party might inflict on you if you don’t. The two are worlds apart.

What is really astounding to me are the vast numbers of people (finger-pointing is not necessary, you know them) who are willing to castigate and condemn the bystanders in Cincinnati, yet who do or say absolutely nothing to stop the aggressive actions of the Israeli State against the impoverished, helpless population of Gaza. Where is the outcry from those who think that ‘There outta be a law’? Why do we laud and support Holly in her drive to make human inaction illegal, yet criminalize human action (anti-semitic speech, BDS, street protests, etc.) when it infringes on our own pet issues? The only answer I can come up with is that people are, generally speaking, driven by emotion, but recoil at the thought of applying consistency of thought and action, i.e., reason and repentance, to their own daily lives. The fact that the current situation in Gaza is shot through with religious overtones does nothing to alleviate the situation and, in my opinion, actually makes it more difficult to resolve through rational discourse. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Only it doesn’t. The beatdowns continue, and will, until morally upright people from all walks of life stop expecting someone else to solve these problems via brute force and become actively involved in them personally, abandoning the idea that man-made laws can overcome and correct the evil-ridden apathy which afflicts human nature.

  1. BC (Before Covid), I was writing essays and articles on abortion, an issue about which I have strongly held beliefs. For instance, I would have no problem at all with prosecuting the “doctors and nurses” who perform them, charging them with first-degree murder and punishing them severely if convicted. I am ambivalent about bringing such charges against women who abort for various reasons which are too numerous and complex to mention here. You can access the postings here. When Covid hit, I made the decision to focus on that as I believed it was the greater and more pressing threat to our lives and liberties. Now that Covid is receding into the rearview mirror (not necessarily over), I may again pick up the thread to preserve innocent, unborn human life. ↩︎
  2. This brings to mind the tragic case of Kitty Genovese, a young woman who was stabbed numerous times and raped as she lay dying in New York City in 1964. At the time, the New York Times claimed that 37 people had witnessed the incident from their apartment windows but did nothing to stop it with the exception of one man who shouted, “Leave that girl alone!”, but did not go to her aid. The Times assertion has since been debunked and it is not known how many (few) people actually witnessed the crime, but the story stuck and still resonates today. The incident resembles what is known as the Bystander Effect and was a strong impetus to the development of the 911 system we have today. ↩︎
  3. Given the prevalence of mobile smart phones today, it would be possible for a zealous prosecutor to geo-locate every single phone which was in the vicinity at the time, identify who owned the phone, and charge them with the crime of “not calling 911 in an emergency”. Untold numbers of people could have their lives turned upside down and wrecked under such a scenario, especially if the prosecutor was prone to using these instances as stepping-stones to higher office, which many are prone to do. ↩︎