My 8-year-old son saw the news reports about Osama bin Laden’s death buzzing Monday on our TV.
He took particular note of scenes of cheering crowds: flag-wavers in Times Square and at Ground Zero in New York City, baseball fans in Philadelphia, patriots in Boston, enthusiastic students on college campuses. All were clapping, smiling and chanting in response to the news that U.S. Navy SEALs had cornered and killed the world’s most wanted terrorist.
My son wondered about the cheering, concluding that it was OK because “this man killed thousands of others.” His questions gave us an opportunity to talk about war, terrorism and, most importantly, justice.
Perhaps many Christians shared my son’s initial uncertainty since hearing of bin Laden’s demise. Surely it’s a good thing that he no longer is able to lead murderous schemes. But what exactly are we cheering about?
Hadn’t my 8-year-old heard me talking little more than a week before, on Good Friday, about forgiveness?
Perhaps he was trying to connect the dots between the cheering on TV about a man’s death and his Sunday school teacher’s words about turning the other cheek. His mother and I have tried, on occasion, to teach our son to pray for his enemies (which, in second grade, usually means the boy who broke your Legos).
And yet the success of American forces in finally ending this particular man’s reign of terror is an act of justice that even a child can recognize.
Western civilization is heir to a rich “just war” tradition of wrestling with the morality of war. This tradition can help us navigate these kinds of sentiments.
The idea of a just war recognizes the legitimacy of using military force to respond to injustice when ordinary political means aren’t available or effective. The Christian doctrine of just war brings moral principles to bear on decisions about when and how to wage armed conflict.
For example, military action must be waged by a proper authority. It must have a reasonable probability of success. And it must distinguish between combatants and civilians.
A just war also is one undertaken with the right intention—not hatred or revenge, but justice.
These and other principles of just war arose out of Christian convictions about the value of human life, social order and the rule of law. They track with the biblical responsibility for governments to punish wrongdoers and administer justice. Scholars of the doctrine point out that, when appropriately used, armed combat aims to bring about a peaceful and just social order for both sides of the conflict.
Bin Laden long undermined these goals and standards of justice. He recklessly ignored the value of human life. He organized terrorist attacks on American citizens and institutions, among many others. He called for jihad in the name of revenge and religious hatred. He targeted innocent civilians.
Ideally, established political means would enable the U.S. government to respond to these injustices. But in the absence of such means, the tradition of just war views armed conflict as an appropriate way to resist evil, protect innocent lives and restore just social relationships.
I didn’t go into detail about all these principles with my 8-year-old son. Nor did I have enough knowledge of the raid in Pakistan to apply them point by point. But knowing the tradition enabled me to help my son sort out his reactions to bin Laden’s death.
I was able to remind him that acting out of vengeance or hatred is wrong, but that we are called to seek justice. The cheering in our home is not gloating over someone’s death. Rather, it is celebrating the fact that a terrorist’s murderous acts have been judged wrong, and he won’t be committing them again.
Justice has been done. May it continue to guide the actions of America’s citizens and government both at home and abroad in the face of evil and injustice.
Ryan Messmore is the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage Foundation.
May 3rd, 2011 | 3:40 pm
Perhaps the most important aspect for this particular thing is protection of society, a consideration that comes into play when determining when capital punishment (which this wasn’t, at least not technically) is justified. I believe the death of OSL was necessary to protect others.
May 3rd, 2011 | 4:12 pm
Spot on, Mr. Messmore.
May 3rd, 2011 | 5:07 pm
[...] Cross-posted at FirstThings.com [...]
May 3rd, 2011 | 5:57 pm
Amen.
May 3rd, 2011 | 7:34 pm
“The cheering in our home is not gloating over someone’s death. Rather, it is celebrating the fact that a terrorist’s murderous acts have been judged wrong, and he won’t be committing them again.”
By “our home” do you mean our country or your particular household?
Because if you’re making the claim about our country, it’s very presumptuous and in many cases wrong.
I am deeply concerned about the jubilation over the death of this man, while I simultaneously agree it is good that he is no longer drawing breathe and committing evil. I teach high schoolers, and in the course of our discussions on this issue, I can say there are a good many that are “rejoicing” in hate and quite sinfully. Several asked if it’s wrong to wish someone is burning in hell, then were fine with sinning when told that it was.
“By your fruits you will know them…” and “bless them Father, they know not what they are doing” are not particularly encouraging passages right now, when viewing the ugliness of some Americans’ attitudes.
Our response to the evil man should be that of Jesus–stop him certainly–but ask the Father’s forgiveness in place of that evil man’s ignorance. But if Osama managed to plant a seed of hatred in the hearts of so many, his actions were more profound, damaging, and widespread than in the lives lost an on 9/11.
May 3rd, 2011 | 7:43 pm
That was OBL earlier.
May 3rd, 2011 | 7:46 pm
Self defence is allowed in Catholicism, as is a just war. And those who lament the death of murderers too often forget the tears of the victims.
I mean, the same Vatican who lamented the deaths of Osama (and Saddam) is the same Vatican who welcomed Mugabe to the Beatification last week, so don’t ask me to pretend they have much credibility. And many of those criticizing the action in the “peace and justice” wing of the American church have a spotty record in who they condemn…
Take your son: What do you do when he is confronted by bullies?
Tell him that if he wants to be a Christian he has to “turn the other cheek” and see him beaten to death? (which is what these pacifists would do).
Or would you call the cops and have the bullies arrested? (Which the US did to Osama).
So where is the Christian in all of this? How would a saint react? Well, Pastor Wilkerson just died, and his response was to walk into the slums and preach to the bullies, and convert them. His church continues to work with addicts and the forgotten, and he is not the only one who risked his life opposing the drug gangs while trying to save their souls.
So when those condemning when justice is done actually go to Afghanistan to preach the gospel to the Taliban, instead of sitting in posh apartments in cities with police forces that protect them, maybe I’ll listen to them.
May 3rd, 2011 | 7:54 pm
Violence used under just war theory is only used because all other options have failed. Like 15:7 discusses rejoicing in heaven when one sinner repents which is the acceptance of mercy and not the over the meting of justice.
May 3rd, 2011 | 8:03 pm
While I understand your point, isn’t there a certain kind of sadness that we, as Christians, should feel that another one of God’s created children died without hearing AND believing the Good News of the gospel? It is easy to justify, and perhaps rightfully so, but I think we need to temper our rejoicing over someone’s death who will spend eternity apart from the presence of God.
May 3rd, 2011 | 8:51 pm
@MikeJ,
Scripture most definitely does discuss rejoicing in heaven over the meting of justice:
“After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out,
‘Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
for his judgments are true and just;
for he has judged the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth with her immorality,
and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.’
Once more they cried out,
‘Hallelujah!
The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.’”
Revelation 19:1-3 (ESV)
May 3rd, 2011 | 9:35 pm
I agree with those who are voicing concern over the rejoicing:
1) we may never rejoice in the violent death of one of God’s children (God doesn’t, after all– cf. Ezekiel 18:32)
2) many of those rejoicing are doing so specifically in the name of vengeance and/or nationalism
On “justice” being done: OBL’s death was not justice in and of itself. Rather it was the unfortunate byproduct of justice being done. Justice demanded that OBL be prevented from doing further harm. If in our attempt to apprehend him, he threatened the lives of those sent to arrest him and they used lethal force to defend themselves, tolerating his death is morally permissible. His death is accepted as a product of double effect because the only type of blow that would incapacitate him ultimately proved lethal. However, I believe most people hear “justice has been done” to mean “he killed people and now we have killed him.” That is vengeance, not justice. We must recognize that his death was an evil but morally permissible byproduct of the action of taking him into custody. But obviously it would have been morally preferable to take him alive. His death prevents the possibility, however remote, that he might repent of the evil he has done and receive salvation.
May 3rd, 2011 | 11:10 pm
While we should never celebrate anyone’s death, it’s rather difficult to imagine, an individual who has caused more harm, to other humans, than bin Laden. He was given the option, to drop his weapons, and surrender, but chose to go on fighting.
I’m reluctant to support the death penalty. I believe that, if a murderer is captured, he can be held for the rest of his life. But if a murderer cannot be safely captured, and safely held, prisioner, he should be killed, for the good of everyone else. (I agree with Pope John Paul, the second, here).
May 4th, 2011 | 3:30 am
Vincent
St Thomas draws a distinction between a private individual, acting in self-defence and those acting on behalf of public authority. The latter may, according to him, directly intend to kill. The principle of double-effect applies to the former case, not to the latter.
“It is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defence, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in theminister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. (ST II.II. q 64, 7)”
May 4th, 2011 | 7:25 am
Michael PS,
True, but just because St. Thomas said something doesn’t make it right. For example, Thomas taught that it was just to execute heretics. (ST II.II.q 11, 3).
Thomas’ position on direct killing by legitimate authority is very much disputed in Catholic moral theology today. For instance, Germain Grisez has argued that direct killing is never morally permissible.
May 4th, 2011 | 9:16 am
Jesus said that we should love our enemies. Matthew 5:43-48. This is an irrational, radical, and new idea. Loving your neighbor and hating your enemy was the way things were done before Christianity. Even the gentiles/pagans/tax collectors could love their neighbors and hate their enemies. Chesterton discussed the radical and contradictory nature of the uniquely Christian theological virtue of charity in Heretics: “Whatever may be the meaning of the contradiction, it is the fact that the only kind of charity which any weak spirit wants, or which any generous spirit feels, is the charity which forgives the sins that are like scarlet.” So what does this teaching mean? That we should really love people like Bin Laden? Is it okay if we just love our nice enemies? Certainly we should be happy that a dangerous person can no longer hurt anyone. Aren’t we rejecting the very foundation of Christianity if we rejoice in this man’s death?
May 4th, 2011 | 9:27 am
To qualify as just, our war effort needs to be far more sober and sacrificial than it has been. If you love and pray for your enemies even as you kill them, something that is profoundly difficult to imagine but which Augustine nevertheless taught is possible, and which is the movement of soul at the root of just war theory and history, then you will proceed in a way that is self-effacing, humble, and penitent. Revenge cannot part of your playbook. That includes not only the soldiers in the field, but also, in a republic, the comportment of the (tax-paying, voting, and theoretically conscriptable) citizens at home.
In the comments above, Gregory K. Laughlin suggests that in scripture the heavens do rejoice over the fall of the demonic, and that is true, but that chorus has an eschatological perspective, they are a choir of the redeemed in heaven. A mere republic of citizens does have to exercise judgment about justice and act, and it should be proud of itself when it is virtuous, but it is unbecoming to confuse our penultimate perspective with the one in Revelation. And if we do identify with the performance of justice in this one act (Osama’s death), we should also take responsibility for the carnage and collateral damage we created over the last decade to get us to this point, a perspective which is lacking in Ryan Messmore’s original posting.
I close with a long quote from today’s Guardian, the liberal UK newspaper. I am no Guardian fan and, in particular, I often want to argue with this columnist. But today he offers chastening words which, despite their source, all Christians should reflect upon:
(full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/03/bin-laden-death-us-patriot-reflex)
But to suggest that “justice has been done”, as President Obama did on Sunday night, seems perverse. This was not justice, it was an extra-judicial execution. If you shoot a man twice in the head you do not find him guilty. You find him dead. This was revenge. And it was served very cold indeed.
Given the nature of the 9/11 attacks a popular desire for vengeance in the US is a perfectly understandable and legitimate emotional response. It is not, however, a foreign policy. And if vengeance is a comprehensible human emotion then empathy is no less so.
Americans have a right to grieve and remember those who died on 9/11. But they have no monopoly on memory, grief or anger. Hundreds and thousands of innocent Afghanis, Iraqis and Pakistanis have been murdered as a result of America’s response to 9/11. If it’s righteous vengeance they’re after, Americans would not be first in line. Fortunately it is not a competition, and there is enough misery to go around.
But those who chant “We killed Bin Laden” cannot display their identification with American power so completely and then expect others to understand it as partial. The American military has done many things in this region. Killing Bin Laden is just one of them.
If “they” killed Bin Laden in Abbottabad then “they” also bombed a large number of wedding parties in Afghanistan, “they” murdered 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha and “they” gang-raped a 14-year-old before murdering her, her six-year-old sister and their parents near Mahmudiyah. If “they” don’t want to be associated with the atrocities then “they” need to find more to celebrate than an assassination. Vengeance is, in no small part, what got us here. It won’t get us out.
May 4th, 2011 | 10:11 am
Jim N.,
Jesus also said “Those who curse father and mother must be put to death”, Matt 15:4-5.
In those days “cursing” might just include lack of taking care (feeding) of them. Without the support of children, parents could literally starve to death. This is indicated later in the chapter.
May 4th, 2011 | 10:13 am
Chris Roberts
First, I want to clarify a point with you: because they used two shots on bin Laden, does that make it “vengeance” as opposed to a single shot? Just want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you.
To your other points, you confuse matters, and therefore your conclusion is confused.
Bombing wedding parties: tragic mistakes, not deliberate attacks. (If you see a large group of people firing small arms into the air near your plane, it’s safe to assume they’re shooting at you and not merely celebrating.) Perhaps in some cases the pilots were precipitous in their actions, and if that’s the case there is usually a hearing and perhaps punishment if that’s found to be the case.
Haditha: It looks increasingly like the “murder” accusation is politically motivated. There was a fight, and some civilians were killed, but the investigation so far has cleared every Marine involved except one, and his case is still pending. Don’t believe everything you read in the paper.
The gang rape and murder in Iraq: the soldiers involved were arrested, tried, and punished. Don’t mistake the rogue actions of some for the sanction of the whole.
Finally, your use of judicial terminology is wrong. This is a war, not a crime scene. Bin Laden was an enemy military leader and therefore as much a legitimate target as Hitler would have been had we gotten him in our sights.
May 4th, 2011 | 10:21 am
@Gregory,
In Luke, Jesus is speaking about an actual person. In Revelations, John, is talking metaphorically about the Whore of Babylon.
Will there be rejoicing about the final defeat of good over evil? – you bet. Will there be rejoicing over the justice of 99 righteous entering heaven (or, as I interpolate, one sinner getting hell)? Jesus says no.
May 4th, 2011 | 11:33 am
This was a military operation. Not a law enforcement operation and not an evangelization opportunity. This hand-wringing and wailing is getting ridiculous.
May 4th, 2011 | 12:24 pm
Brian English, AMEN. The only thing that bothers me about OBL’s death was that it wasn’t slower and more painful.
May 4th, 2011 | 1:35 pm
“This was a military operation. Not a law enforcement operation and not an evangelization opportunity. This hand-wringing and wailing is getting ridiculous.”
Boo-hoo, boo-hoo. I have a complex mix of emotions over the death of Osama bin Laden, and part of this mix is grief and regret that Osama bin Laden, with a marred image of God, but bearing the image of God nonetheless, is reaping what he has sown.
Boo-hoo, boo-hoo. See me wail with grief and regret and satisfaction that justice has been done.
May 4th, 2011 | 2:15 pm
C. S. Lewis:
“The idea of the knight — the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause — is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you are ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the Services of something they have a right to, something which is a natural accompaniment of courage — a kind of gaiety and wholeheartedness.”
Mere Christianity at pg. 119.
May 4th, 2011 | 3:09 pm
@MikeJ,
First, you and I have different views of what is described in Revelation: you take it as metaphor for the defeat of evil; I take it as describing the action destruction of wicked human being who perpetuated evil. I any event, what of the imprecatory psalms, such as Psalm 58:
To the choirmaster: according to Do Not Destroy. A Miktam of David.
58:1 Do you indeed decree what is right, you gods?
Do you judge the children of man uprightly?
2 No, in your hearts you devise wrongs;
your hands deal out violence on earth.
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb;
they go astray from birth, speaking lies.
4 They have venom like the venom of a serpent,
like the deaf adder that stops its ear,
5 so that it does not hear the voice of charmers
or of the cunning enchanter.
6 O God, break the teeth in their mouths;
tear out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord!
7 Let them vanish like water that runs away;
when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted.
8 Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime,
like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.
9 Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns,
whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!
10 The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 Mankind will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
surely there is a God who judges on earth.”
With all due respect, yours is a simplistic approach. You seem to embrace the injunctions to love our enemy, but to reject the verses that favorably treat the rejoicing over God’s serving of justice. We are commanded not to add or subtract from Scripture. We may not, like Marcion of Sinope, accept some passages of Scripture and reject others.
We are commanded to love our enemy and we are also presented again and again with rejoicing by God’s people when wicked men are destroyed and with prayers for justice. How to reconcile these two? I reconcile them by understanding that I am not to personally hate my enemies, but to trust God to mete out justice and pray that they may repent before He does so. When He does mete out justice, either directly or through the sword of the state, then I should rejoice, not for the death of a man per se, but because God has dispensed justice.
We rejoice not because a man is dead per se, but because God has applied His perfect justice. His justice is not an inferior attribute to his mercy, grace and love; it is an equal one. He is to be praised for displays of His justice just as much as He is to be praised for displays of His mercy, grace and love.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact