Friday, January 04, 2008
Coming to the aid of the victim...
Even if the South had abolished slavery by 1888, like Brazil, that would have left a whole further generation of people to grow up in slavery. Usually, if we see someone being assaulted or robbed or raped, and we are able to protect them from the attacker, it is our moral duty to intervene. We do not comfort ourselves that in time the attack will "naturally" end, and so everything will be all right. No, everything will not be all right. Every moment of the attack is more harm and more of a wrong done. It is our duty, if we are able to do so, to come to the aid of the victim immediately. - Kelley Ross, PhD, here
Could the argument hold true for victims of abortion as well? While a limited protest, amounting to praying on street corners, has it's place, is there a time, actually an imperative, when one must go to the protection of the unborn? If so, when?
Should violence be ruled out? Why? Is violence even morally wrong in this narrow instance? If violence was necessary - acceptable even - to sever our ties from Britain and to free slaves, then how much moreso should it be acceptable to protect the life of the unborn?
The report from the Evangelical Alliance says "violent revolution" should be regarded as a viable response if government legislation encroaches further on basic religious rights. The church is urged to come to a consensus that "at some point there is not only the right but the duty to disobey the state".- Christians ask if force is needed to protect their religious values by Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Sunday Telegraph 5/11/2006
The only leverage the State has to compel your obedience is the threat of violence. If "at some point there is not only the right but the duty to disobey the state," then is violence in the defense of principle a duty as well? Hmmmm. Our Founding Fathers certainly thought so...
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]