By Tim Bloedow
A killer is scheduled to be executed in Virginia today.
The first reason God gave for authorizing execution is rooted in human nature – establishing it as a fundamental “natural law” principle, if you will – Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Until the nature of man changes, God’s requirement of execution, at least in cases of murder, remains in force.
Whether within Christianity or among non-Christians, principled pacifism and absolute opposition to the death penalty – or any other provisions for killing such as self-defense or military action – are extremely rare, both today and throughout history. (In a very regrettable part of the Church’s history, the Church erred in the other direction, becoming intertwined with the State and participating actively in decisions involving execution, too often even taking the lead in these decisions.) That, then, is not where I want to focus my comments in this column. I want to contrast a Christian perspective on justice and execution with Islam and Humanism.
Orthodox, or faithful, Christianity has always framed execution within the context of an ethical justice system, which includes a variety of principles given to us by God in the Bible. These are all part of a system that we today often call “due process.” (In this article I am not going to delve into the question of the erosion of true justice in Western justice systems.) The state is the institution responsible for implementing a jurisdiction’s justice system. As we learn very explicitly in Romans, chapter 13, God has given “the sword” to the civil magistrate. People must be tried and have a judge hear their case, examine the evidence and rule on it. We will come back to this as the main point of distinction I want to highlight between Christianity and both Islam and Humanism.
It is this orderly system and the idea that the state is responsible for meting out the death penalty that is so unique to Christianity. Just about everybody believes that it’s right to kill some people. Even Humanists, who pretend to be such sanitized and civilized people, support the killing of unborn babies, and demand government support, and social affirmation, for behavior that is very harmful and can even kill and sharply lower life expectancy, behavior such as homosexuality, active sexual lives with multiple partners, drug use and prostitution.
When it comes to distinguishing a Christian approach to justice, including execution and killing, from Islam and Humanism, there are at least three important points to make. Preoccupation with a false distinction – that Islam and Humanism endorse execution and Christiany doesn’t – undermines the opportunity we have to focus on important points that drive home the superiority of Christian justice over against Islamic and Humanistic alternatives.
Point 1. Christians might make the distinction that we believe in executing guilty people, whereas Muslims and Humanists kill innocent victims. I’ve said that before. But that perspective actually misses a more fundamental point. The reality is that Islam and Humanism are fundamentally different worldviews, and that means that their notions of who is guilty and who is innocent is very different. For example, many humanists treat pregnant women as victims and their unborn children as wretched oppressors of women’s freedom so they approve of the killing or execution of unborn babies to exact (humanist) justice on behalf of these women. When it comes to Islam, too many men see themselves as victims and women as the perpetrators of great moral offence. In these cases, bringing “shame” is the crime, and so-called “honour killings” are the remedy. So Muslims and Humanists think they are killing offenders on behalf of victims, but their concept of who is an offender and who is a victim is very different from that of Christianity.
Point 2. We should also note that Christianity advocates execution on a much, much smaller scale than Humanism and Islam. The fact that Christianity limits the number of sins that should be treated as crimes, from the outset, greatly reduces the number of offences for which capital punishment is deemed a legitimate or necessary penalty. I supposed this is another way of saying that, for Christianity, only the State has the authority to order execution, which is the third point I make in a moment.
Some humanists slaughter unborn babies. Some exterminated Jews and gypsies. Others tried to wipe out the “bourgeoisie,” educated and wealthy “classes.” And many just like to get rid of anyone deemed a threat to the state. Some Muslims kill Christians, others kill women who are deemed to have brought shame on their family. Other Muslims indiscriminately kill, and support the killing of, citizens as an act of terror and intimidation. In not inconsequential bodies of Humanists and Muslims, these are – and have been – considered legitimate acts of killing.
Point 3. The third point of distinction between Christianity and both Islam and Humanism when it comes to the matter of execution is the fact that Christianity limits this to a criminal penalty and, therefore, a punishment that can only be exacted by the state.
In discussing the previous point, I said that the fact that Christianity limits the number of sins that should be treated as crimes greatly reduces the number of offences for which capital punishment is deemed a legitimate or necessary penalty because execution is only a legitimate penalty for those offences deemed to be crimes. But even in that statement, I am referencing a way of categorizing offences that is different from the way Islam and Humanism view them.
Biblical Christianity recognizes several legitimate governmental bodies in the way God has ordered human society (what some of us call “sphere sovereignty”), specifically, the Family, the Church and the State, and these institutions have different spheres of authority and different roles to play in society. You don’t see this in Islam and so one of the most horrific characteristics of Islam is not simply that many people are killed by Muslims who we as Christians don’t think deserve death. It’s also the fact that most of these killings are expressions of what we call VIGILANTE “justice.” I’m not convinced that the concept of vigilante justice exists within Islam. In so many countries where Islam is dominant, political – and religious – leaders look the other way when Muslims kill and maim their non-Muslim enemies or their offending women. Family members, and this seems not necessarily to be limited to the father as “head of his home,” can pursue execution as a remedy for offences. And of course Imams, their religious leaders, can issue fatwahs, calling for people’s deaths. In fact, religious leaders seem to have greater decision-making roles than political leaders do when it comes to meting out justice, including executions.
Within Islam, there really is not concept of the separation of Church and State – or separation of Mosque and State – or for that matter, the separation of Family and State. All of life is subsumed under the Mosque. The Mosque governs every area of life and everyone is seen first and foremost as an agent of the Mosque.
You have the same problem with Humanism in jurisdictions where it is an increasingly dominant worldview and does not have to compromise with Christianity ethics. This was the case in fascist and communistic nations. Ordinary people weren’t necessarily given the right to kill their enemies, but these regimes tried to encourage people to spy on their neighbours and report back to the officials any troubling behavior so that these people could be quickly picked up and disposed of. In other words, the State expanded its influence throughout the society by extending its tentacles in various ways into the warp and woof of daily life.
Even in Western countries, as Christianity wanes and humanism dominates, we are seeing a growing amount of vigilante behavior. In some cases, it is simply indiscriminate cruelty by young people assaulting and killing random victims. In other cases it is homosexual activists and abortion forces threatening and intimidating peaceful protestors, and, as in the case of vigilante Islam, this is often with impunity. (If they do get prosecuted, it is because lawyers and other influential people stand up to fight for them. On the other hand, if homosexuals or abortion advocates are the victims of any harm, police forces and agents of the state will often go out of their way to try to prosecute the perpetrators of those offences.) And as homosexuals in particular continue to be given elevated and special social and legal status in various countries, the nature of their threats and violence seems to be getting more dangerous.
You even have humanists asking why Christians don’t engage in personal violence against those who offend us if we really believe what we do about the offensive nature of their behavior. Following the killing of U.S. abortionist George Tiller, that sentiment was raised twice on the pages of the National Post. And that really opened my eyes to the fact that Humanists have no concept of sphere sovereignty. They were expressing a logical implication of Socialism – political centralism – the notion that all of life is subsumed – not under the Mosque – but under the State. For Humanists, the State governs every area of life and everyone is seen first and foremost as an agent of the State.
Due to this mentality, logical Humanists also have no conceptual framework for understanding vigilante “justice”. As a result, they have no ethical framework for condemning and reigning in vigilante behavior. The Humanist ethic is “Might-is-Right.” Hence, if you have views that are offensive to the values of the Humanist Establishment, and somebody harms you over your views, then they did a good thing. Humanists can’t distinguish between ends and means: The ends justify the means. To object that an individual citizen doesn’t have the right to use force doesn’t mean anything to a logically consistent Humanist. He did the state a favour by putting you in your place, so he acted implicitly as an agent of the state in assaulting you so the state is interested in protecting him – at your expense. Why do you think leftists have such a “soft” approach to crime? There are other reasons too, but this is all part of their worldview and approach to ethics and justice.
(What I am laying out for you here is the logical Humanist approach to crime and offence. It is not the way that you see self-proclaimed Humanists dealing with crime and social unrest in most situations today because most Humanists are not logically consistent (most Christians aren’t either) and because Humanists don’t have total control over public policy. When a culture is in transition from the dominance of one worldview to that of another, changes take place gradually. But, only the blind can be oblivious to the fact that we are seeing Western societies, including Canada, move in this direction to a greater degree every day. The very fact of “hate crime” law and the special treatment of homosexuality is a huge leap in this direction and people take a public stand for what is right, including typically quite senior citizens in California who stood up for real marriage, know what it’s like to feel – face to face – the raw hatred and militant intimidation of homosexual activists who are confident that they won’t be prosecuted for their vigilante behavior. Tolerance of violent race riots at different times and places in the U.S. are also an example of this transition from Biblically-based real justice to Humanism’s Might-is-Right approach.
Contrary to the centralization of human social order within Islam – around the Mosque – and within Humanism – around the State, Christianity offers a decentralized model for ordering society. In this model, the Church has its legitimate sphere in which it is expected to exercise robust leadership and responsibility. And likewise, the State has its lawful sphere of jurisdiction where it should exercise a robust authority. Likewise for the Family. And there is also the realm and concept of self-government which plays such a central role in Christianity. But self-government is not libertarianism so it is not an excuse to ignore the legitimate jurisdiction that your parents, the Church and the State have over you. And parents, church elders and civil magistrates have no lawful right, Biblically speaking, to interfere in each other’s realms of authority. In terms of the issue before us, this limits the amount of death and carnage in society by allowing for the civil magistrate alone (in the normal course of life; e.g., excepting situations of lawful self-defense) to use the sword – only ordering execution for designated offences, and following a just trial and lawful conviction.
This is the only way to structure a civilized and free society in which justice can be exercised without killing all your enemies and without breeding a culture of suspicion and distrust among neighbors.
Islam and Humanism are wholly unsuited as foundations for civilized society. History bears that out, and the future will as well.
Virginia’s commitment to executing murderers – and specifically to executing this convicted killer – is wholly consistent with Biblical and historic Christianity, and it testifies to the marked differences in the concept of justice between civilized Christianity and uncivilized Islam and Humanism.
Public date: November 10th, 2009Categories: News
Tags: capital punishment, Christianity, execution, Humanism, islam
