Thursday, September 11, 2014
Convert Them or Kill Them
"In this case, you either have to convert them—which I think would be next to impossible—I'm not giving up on them, I'm just saying either convert them or kill them. One or the other."
ISIS/L!!!!! Convert them or kill them!!! Did you hear that?! Robertson just said what ISIS/L said!!!
So let me just ask you this: What other realistic options are there when dealing with a radical militant group chopping off heads, taking over a country, and putting the option before people to immediately renounce their faith, pay an unjust faith-tax, or die?
Isn't it this: convert them to a religion that doesn't believe in cutting off the heads of innocent journalists by praying for a miracle (and I'm with Robertson in thinking there's good inductive evidence that ain't gonna happen) OR go to war against them which would in all likelihood involve killing some of them? RIGHT? So "convert them or kill them" does pretty much succinctly boil down the options. The other alternative would be to take the use of force completely off the table, i.e., pacifism, but there aren't any good arguments for pacifism.
Does that make Phil Robertson or any non-pacifist American thereby morally equivalent to ISIS/L? Of course not! For starters, Robertson hasn't given up all hope that they'll be converted and he's said nothing about converting ISIS/L by the sword. Presumably, he, like other non-crazy religious people, is praying for a miraculous coming-to-Jesus event. But provided that doesn't happen, arming other moderate forces in the area (if there are such moderate forces) or going back to war in some capacity are the only realistic ways to stop this army. The comparison with ISIS/L is sheer nonsense.
Or do you have an argument that military force used to defend unarmed civilians is morally equivalent to conversion by the sword, grabbing land that's not yours, and killing anyone who tries to get in the way? If so, let's hear it.