![Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDG4xhsMn9o9J6nFVbJuaWEgUYVbxr7B9gbOXGZ3gwOu55lJg3q0Ev-z3MhLy29603_fkvvngkYmsTvRd4BATcVzZvVOhgkPSy-GIAuaFE0sCVBc_zcTW_d2mKKeCWhMxsZhAPyqXzymO/s1600/cicero-right-1024x603.jpg)
"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!!!
Oh, brother.
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.
Following my brief tweet, what I meant is: who is the we faced with this choice of convert or kill? And is there not a third choice? Is martyrdom not an option?
ReplyDeleteAnd is it the American government's job to convert them? Is it the church's job to kill them? Who is the "we" acting in his "we've got two choices" world? Can't the government consider just force while the church testifies to the gospel at the risk of their own lives simultaneously?
My guess is that the "we" when talking about war is the U.S. and the "we" when talking about converting ISIS/L is Christians (or Christians in the U.S.).
ReplyDeleteIs martyrdom an option? Well it's DEFINITELY an option for people living in Iraq! Can't say, though, whether they should PREFER that option. And since we did invade and leave Iraq it's hard to think that we (the U.S.) shouldn't consider helping to stop the onslaught. Surely it's a controversial move to tell the Iraqis: "Just accept martyrdom."
It's not America's job to convert them. I'm more or less a classical liberal and I don't think the federal government has a right to side with a particular religion.
Is it the church's job to kill them? Oooo...that doesn't sound so good.
Nope. It's the governments job (if a job it be).
Can't the government consider just force while the church testifies to the gospel at the risk of their own lives simultaneously?
Definitely! (And maybe Robertson thinks that too--dunno). But they are either going to be converted (fat chance but one can hope and pray) or they will keep killing unless they are stopped by force.
I'm saying "convert them or kill them" is not a real choice that many (any?) Americans are actually facing, so why phrase it that way?
ReplyDeleteThe US Gov't isn't interested in conversion (specific officers may be, but not the USG as a whole), so their choice is something like: ignore, confront militarily, confront economically, etc.
Local Christians or missions agencies can't respond militarily (leaving "should they" aside for now), so their choice is something like: flee (if they have that choice) or stay willing to defend/hide or stay willing to be martyred.
Phil's choice is not one that anyone actually faces.
"I'm saying "convert them or kill them" is not a real choice that many (any?) Americans are actually facing, so why phrase it that way?"
ReplyDeleteI'm probably not qualified to do proper Phil Robertson exegesis but perhaps what he is saying with that phrase was that there are two ways that the situation will improve: ISIS/L will make a radical change (by way of miracle) or they will be stopped militarily. One can choose to pray, support military intervention (or both, assuming his statement is expressing the "or" of disjunction).
"Local Christians or missions agencies can't respond militarily (leaving "should they" aside for now), so their choice is something like: flee (if they have that choice) or stay willing to defend/hide or stay willing to be martyred."
Well, local Christians could respond militarily if they had weapons. And Christians in the U.S. face the choice of whether to call their congressmen and support a military intervention or not; should support arming the locals or not. Not an easy choice for sure, but a choice nonetheless.