If you simplify the concept of "preventive" or "pre-emptive" war to a dispute between two individuals . . .
John has a problem with Tom. Tom has made several extremely serious threats against John and his family, and John is ALMOST sure that Tom has purchased a handgun and "knows" Tom would use it.
So John decides that the only way he'll ever be safe is if he shoots Tom first, before Tom has the opportunity to harm John's family.
(If the immorality of John's decision isn't obvious - read on)
John then walks accross the street, aims the gun at Tom . . .
A. Tom is killed because he actually did not possess the suspected gun to defend himself - thus John is a murderer.
B. Tom is killed because he did own a gun, but wasn't fast enough to retrieve it - John is still a murderer.
C. Tom does own a gun, he sees John on his property, approaching with the loaded gun and shoots first. John is still morally at fault because Tom is NOW acting in self defense - John is the aggressor.
By going on the offensive John loses all claim to the moral high ground (thus the protection of God), and so do we as a nation. What then is John's solution? I think the answer starts in Alma 48:15.
1 comment:
Very good comment. Also, yesterday I was reading the BOM and found a verse that supports you. Anyway, read in Alma (23-29 was our lesson) where Ammon is talking about the other Nephite's attitued towards the Lamanites when they went on their mission (in 26?) The other Nephites make the comment that the Lamanites were mean... and that they wanted to take up arms to kill them. As I was thinking about that, they were always under constant threat of invasion, yet they only defended themselves, and never attacked-save the one time when they were wicked in Mormon and were soundly defeated. Interesting, but it pushed me even more towards your side. FYI
Post a Comment