Communicating Through a Noose
The words "consistent ethic of life" and issues surround them have come up fairly frequently over the past many months. Wikipedia, the ever-burgeoning source of information helps to define these words as:
The Consistent Life Ethic is an ethical, religious, and political ideology with the basic premise that "all human life is sacred", and that this calls for "a coherent social policy which seeks to protect the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, the unborn, the infirm, the refugee, the homeless, and the poor." Thanks Wikipedia.
In addition to those listed in the above quote, death row inmates also fall under the proposed "protection" of a consistent ethic of life. This category of individuals muddies the waters a bit. Standing up for the "innocent" is much easier to support. I believe that we, instinctually and more often than not, support the cause of individuals that cannot defend themselves as we consider acts of oppression wrong, if not evil. But what happens when the oppressor is in the position to "receive his due"? I always like when Superman bests Lex Luthor, but I'm not sure I would enjoy he and Lois riding/flying off into the sunset with Lex hanging from the gallows in the foreground.
Today I read an article by Shane Claiborne that added a little fuel to the discussion. The article discusses the execution of Saddam (sa-dam, c.f. G.H.W. Bush) in the context of a consistent ethic of life. It's worth a read.
I'll be honest here: I'm not exactly sad that Saddam is gone. In the midst of my ignorance on global politics, I thought it would have been "best" if G.H.W. Bush had "finished the job" back in 1991. Yet, while I don't exactly mourn the loss of Saddam, I do not find comfort in celebrating his departure. While his death will prevent him from causing any new events of harm, it does not recompense all those who have been harmed by him in the past. Indeed the pain of an individual caused by past transgressions will fester long into the future unless he forgives Saddam. I do not mean to trivialize the difficulty and complexity of such forgiveness, but it is the only way forward into a life free of pain. Otherwise the hate and pain will never diminish, whether or not the transgressor is dead. This truth applies whether the transgressor is a murderous dictator, an abusive parent, or the kid who stole your baseball cards in the third grade.
So yeah, no answers here, just a complex situation of hatred, forgiveness, pain, politics, and an absence of love. Read Shane's article and let me know what you think.
Alot of the reason GHWB didn’t finish the job in the first place was that he and his team realized that the question of getting rid of Saddam required an answer of who would fill he void of power. Well, I guess we’ll never know what would happen if…oh, wait a minute…
Saddam’s execution was the type of revenge-hate filled situation that was exactly opposite of what would have been close to appropriate. Now, he has become a martyr for Sunni across the Arab world, as well as a martyr for any insurgenic Islamic outfit that decides it’s not happy with the government.
Not that some of these Islamist gropus are completley wrong in their issues. The governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and others are corruptions filled dictatorships that give no true rights or power to the people. The question, though, is why do we keep pushing democracy down peoples throats. I’m sorry, my argument is starting to skew way far form the original issue of your post.
I’m on the fence on the death penalty, and I hate sitting on the fence, but it is what it is.