• Why government assassinations are wrong

    Earlier this week we had the revelation that British military forces had targeted two citizens of this country in Syria and killed them using a remotely controlled drone.

    I’m aware of some concerns being expressed by the usual suspects – ie lefty guardian-reading knit your own sandals people who can be relied upon to object to such action. However, I’m also aware that such such action is also wildly popular in the country. Indeed, there are reports that the action is backed 2 to 1 by the general public.

    At that point, the Prime Minister might feel that he can sit back and relax, job well done. He has removed a perceived threat cleanly and without any great risk to British military personnel and he is backed by the British people. In any case, the opposition in parliament is in disarray – Labour electing a new leader, the Liberal Democrats annihilated by their inability to be seen as liberals and the SNP famous more for playing musical chairs in parliament than anything of any substance.

    However, it seems to me that whilst the views of the moderate UK majority are interesting they are certainly not the only views that need to be thought about. I’m not particularly thinking of those whose knees jerk like mine to oppose the military action either.

    I’m more concerned with those who are our opponents.

    I don’t believe that we can necessarily defeat religiously motivated terrorism by military might. I think we have to defeat it with ideas too. And by persuading people, constantly persuading people that the rule of law, expressed in a democracy is a better thing to live under than any other system of government. If we dare to think that the rule of law can become legitimately blurred on the edges of our jurisdiction (not sending people across the Syrian border but sending a drone is as blurred as it could get) then we start to find our own legitimacy more easily questioned by those who are opposed to our freedoms.

    To put it bluntly, I think we are better than this. Or at least I did. I think we need to be a society which does not allow its government to assassinate its citizens without a fair trial. Yes, I know there is “intelligence” and I also know that intelligence can be wrong. Remember Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone?

    If we become a society in which such behaviour is normal, how are we going to win any argument with those who currently live amongst us who have some sympathy for the ISIS cause, who are tempted to throw in their lot against the freedoms that the west possesses? If, in their minds, Britain can cross borders with weapons and wipe someone out arbitrarily, why shouldn’t they?

    Why shouldn’t they? That’s a real question that not nearly enough people have been asking this week.

    The actions of the Prime Minister in ordering this action brutalise our world and will make our opponents better able to recruit people who believe soft UK targets to be legitimate.

    To whom shall we be compared? Shall we be like them or are we better than that? Is it true that Putin’s Russia, sent out state assassins to kill Alexander Litvinenko on the streets of London? If it is, are we any better by targeting Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin in Syria.

    I believed we were better than this. I still think that should be our aspiration.

7 responses to “The Archbishop, the gays and their sins”

  1. fakepete Avatar
    fakepete

    Nicely put, he seems to feel entitled to freedom from criticism. It’s a censorious attitude that I thought the CoE put behind it when most of us learned to laugh at the Life of Brian and it is contradicted by the church’s own call to participation in democracy.

  2. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    The poor old Arch. He really is an old school establishment man who cant really understand where the deference has gone. The Green Report, the other Reports on the ‘future’ of the Church of England and the ‘Conversations’ all speak of a deeply controlling man who is deeply frustrated that there is no control to be had any more. When the split comes he will probably want to make what is left into a more confessional and defined group (the evangelicals have always wanted that) but I suspect the Church that will emerge will be more liberal than he likes even if it is outwardly more evangelical and enthusiast than the Church of England has been for a very long time

    1. fakepete Avatar
      fakepete

      @Andrew I’d switch that around. Justin Welby is someone who does not show deference to what has in Western society become The New Orthodoxy (definitions on a postcard please), this is why he provokes such puzzlement, and thus consternation and anger.

    2. Daniel Berry, NYC Avatar
      Daniel Berry, NYC

      Andrew, I don’t see how that can be, really: he hasn’t the pedigree to be “an old school establishment man.” He’s a late vocation who had been a high-power figure in the corporate world–meaning he’s undoubtedly accustomed to having the last word.

      As to his attitudes toward gay people, I’m disgusted with him and the many others who accept the natural sciences’ contradiction of bible, but just can’t bring themselves to the same place with the behavioral and social sciences, and even with medicine itself–ignoring along the way that homosexuality is found in upward of 450 animal species besides our own. Otherwise they seem perfectly comfortable with dispensing with the savagery found in much of “holy scripture.”

  3. Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert Avatar

    I love the line “who am I to judge them for their sins, if they have sins” makes us seem angelic compared to those who have children. Only one problem we, according to the bible commit sin just by being together. Does this mean that he is disagreeing with orthodoxy, and we are not sinning by being together.
    God bless all and may his words of love bring more, troubled, souls to him.

    1. JCF Avatar
      JCF

      “Only one problem we, according to the bible commit sin just by being together.”

      I *think* you meant “according to false translations/interpretations of the bible…” (or should have meant).

      “Being together”: can we call sex, “sex”? If not, why not? [And can we call marital sex (same- or opposite-sex) “marital sex”?]

  4. Daniel Berry, NYC Avatar
    Daniel Berry, NYC

    best line for me:

    You say that stuff and you are going to get people observing that there’s a lot more archbishops who claim that gay people are their friends than gay people who claim archbishops are their friends.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Keeping the Feast

    Well, we kept the Feast of Corpus Christi yesterday with a wonderful celebration last night which seemed to be hugely enjoyed by the congregation. It was an augmented congregation too for they came from the East (Dundee) and from the West (Dunoon) to sit down in the kingdom of God. As has been my experience…

  • Flower Petals

    Flower petals for the Corpus Christi procession can be handed in at the Cathedral Office (3 Napiershall Street) today or handed in just before the service tonight, which starts at 7.30 pm.

  • Corpus

    We are celebrating Corpus Christi on Thursday and it will be the first time we’ve celebrated it with a Choral Eucharist in a long time. I noticed about a year ago that we were doing better at keeping the more introspective and gloomy feasts than the glorious. We were doing well at repenting of our…

  • UnGlee

    Anyone else think that last night’s documentary on reliquaries, though glorious, was no substitute for Glee on a Monday evening?