"Although I've never been able to find independent corroboration, someone once told me that the catholic philosopher Simone Weil had said that the death penalty was necessary for some crimes, but that, to be done in a christian way, it should be done totally impersonally, without exultation, or feelings of anger and revenge and without taking pleasure in the punishment. In a way, this is almost chillingly cold - so that by comparison cheering on the death of your enemies seems a little more human - yet, it is at least an attempt to solve a difficulty..."

Don't get me wrong, I don't like ignorant hate. I don't like a mob mentality, but I think the kind of clinical attitude you describe is far, far more evil than hate. If we rely upon our minds AND emotions, there are checks and balances. Our brains can tell us that this person should die, but our hearts can temper that.

On the other hand when it is all brain, there's no hope of compassion. Compassion is imperfect, and emotions can betray you, but to me the inherent flaws are outweighed by the benefits. Nazis were cold and calculating. Any Nazi that looked into the eyes of a child with their true emotions couldn't keep themselves from hesistatating.

It's when ideology or calculated philosophy outweighs our emotions that compassion dies. I can honestly say that no part of me would wince if I had to preside over the execution of Zarqawi. I find that rage to be far, far more honest than someone who used the legal equivalent of a slide rule to see if the punishment fits.

So, I guess what I am saying is that real justice can't be blind. It can be fair, and it can be unbiased by ignorant hate, but in the end for it to truly be justice the heart has to have as much to do with it as the head. That's why I think our Justice system will always be flawed. As far as I am concerned, if I can't bring myself to hate someone, I have no business promoting their killing. Anything short of hate is just convenience or machiavellian self-service.

It's killing me, and I can't remember it exactly, and google isn't helping. I remember a quote from somewhere that went like "Without the heart, there can be no discourse between the head and the hands."

I don't think I have that right, but I can't find it. Well, the heart to me is the part that holds the final veto. No one is going to be moved by their intellect to kill or spare anyone based upon their own feelings. When it is your head that does the deed, you are basing the act more on programming than your personal ideals.

If I am in the defendant's seat someday, I'll gladly accept the chance of unreasonable bias if I can be sure that all twelve people are weighing in their hearts the act of killing me. I believe there is a lot less chance of being crushed under the wheels of blind justice.

I think the kind of clinical attitude you describe is far, far more evil than hate.

Those who know about Simone Weil are often extraordinarily enthusiastic about some of her ideas, while finding other elements of her philosophy difficult to cope with. She died in exile in England during WW2, and, although she was in very fragile health, she refused to eat any more than what she imagined her compatriots in German-occupied France were able to eat. For this reason, I believe her cause of death was actually registered at the time as suicide.

It's killing me, and I can't remember it exactly ... ... a quote from somewhere that went like "Without the heart, there can be no discourse between the head and the hands." ... I don't think I have that right, but I can't find it.

Doesn't matter. Under this perfectly acceptable version it can go into the Dictionary of Quotations under: Bakerstreet, 2006, cited in: Joeuser.com, based on an unknown original source.

Some insightful replies, which I will think about...

I second that motion, or thought, rather.

www.durante-vita.net

There is no place for morality and moral disputes over such issues. AL Zarqawi was responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis in pursuit of his goal of pitting the Sunnis against the Shiaas, and he was not an Iraqi or even an Arab Nationalist. His death will make it easier for the Resistance to work together in the long run, but in the short run there is no doubt that the USA has scored a major goal.Please read my anaysis on the same topic.In dealing with the machtpolitik of the USA or the blood politics of the Insurgents it is better to suspend moral questions.

There is no place for morality and moral disputes over such issues.

In dealing with the machtpolitik of the USA or the blood politics of the Insurgents it is better to suspend moral questions.

At last! Thank you!! Something that this wishy-washy "on the hand... on the other hand" type can wholeheartedly disagree with!!!

Of course it's about morality. You actually admit it yourself. Phrases like 'machtpolitik' and 'blood politics' are absolutely dripping in an implied moral viewpoint...

... your outraged cynicism is moralism written in 18 FOOT HIGH LETTERS...

Morality, and its lack or inversion, is exactly what the whole thing is all about.

See, I think you misunderstand if you think I don't see the necessity of killing Zarqawi. I do. This was a stain on the human race that needed to be killed before he killed more.

But my philosophy on killing is that which I teach my children: there are only two reasons to kill ANYTHING: for food and for self defense. This falls into the category of the latter. But just as I wouldn't celebrate the slaughter of a chicken, I won't celebrate the slaughter of zarqawi. We did what we had to do, and any joy we might feel over his death should be balanced with somber reflection over the fact that his death WAS necessary to save the lives of many.

I'll save my joy for someone who finds redemption, not for someone who finds destruction.

So you'd be unhappy to eat a chicken dinner because a chicken had to die?

No, not unhappy at all. It's part of the whole life process.

Some things, some people, Gid, deserve to be hated. The chicken-Zarqawi comparison isn't valid because the chicken wasn't trying to kill YOU.

While I know you don't hold Christian beliefs, at the heart of Christian belief is the concept that we should love those whom we would normally be inclined to hate. Does zarqawi deserve to be hated? Certainly, and for a nonChristian, it is wholly appropriate to hate him. It doesn't fit in with my ethic.

The chicken comparison was made because I see the two as being similar on one level. Just as with slaughtering a chicken, we should be unhesitant and unrepentant about slaughtering vermin like Zarqawi. We should go about the process under the understanding that it's something that we have to do (part of process), nothing more, nothing less. We should kill these creatures with no more hesitation, and no more excitement than we would don a pair of trousers. But for me, at least, while I will breathe a sigh of relief everytime a bomb strikes the heart of one of these beasts, I would hardly call my mood "celebratory".

I think we lost something when we stopped celebrating the death of a chicken for our supper. I differ greatly with your attitude, Gid, because it makes the necessities of life 'wrong', if not in action at least in vibe. It's a dour attitude to mourn the very processes that give us life.

That kind of self-loathing, to me, is what is undercutting us, and why we can't win against people like Zarqawi. When they kill us, they dance in the streets. When we kill them, we have to feel bad about it. Surely you can see the pavlovian dynamic that sets up. Eventually, we dread victory because it makes us feel bad.

They won't feel bad, and the children they raise to cheer our deaths will actively seek our deaths, while our children will grow up just as we have, avoiding victory as much as possible. It may be morally admirable, Gideon, but it most certainly isn't evolutionarily viable.

while our children will grow up just as we have, avoiding victory as much as possible. It may be morally admirable, Gideon, but it most certainly isn't evolutionarily viable.

The attitude of avoiding victory as much as possible is a poor one to teach our children, I agree. Just as I would want to completely eradicate my home of roaches or of mice, we should want to completely eradicate the world of beasts like this (I won't call them animals; I think too highly of animals).

I don't see my point of view as particularly admirable, or even desirable. It is simply my point of view, and it is based on my personal philosophy regarding life. We certainly need people who will celebrate the death of these individuals, because it is the anticipation of such celebration that drives them to complete their task. In other words, I am not saying that celebration of the death of Zarqawi is wrong; simply that it is wrong for ME, based on who I feel God has called me to be.

But it is the very culture of death in which these Islamofascists live that foments vermin like Zarqawi. Because their children and their children's children will be taught to hate us and that dying in the course of killing us is the highest goal, we will live as long as their sick, twisted mentality lives. I want my philosophy to be as completely removed from the culture of death that has poisoned the minds of these twisted souls. And I don't think that celebrating the death of anyone, however heinous they may be, will help me in achieving that end.

I'm not saying that I am right or I am wrong on this one. I am just saying it is who I AM. Make sense?

I see what you are saying, but I can't agree with it. To me it inspires a society not unlike the Amish in America. Folks that mourn any act of violent defense, but who survive only because of the condemned activity. It isn't you that I worry about, it is our children's children who will be so sickened by doing the right thing they'll never, ever do it. We're almost there now, go read their blogs.

If life is to be celebrated, then those acts that are necessary to life should be accepted as worthy of celebration. In the religious context you cite, Jesus said openly that his ideology and presence didn't invalidate that of the old testament. If you look at it, you'll find a lot of rejoicing at the death of an enemy. There are times you have to 'shake the dust off your feet', and feel no remorse about it.

Folks that mourn any act of violent defense, but who survive only because of the condemned activity. It isn't you that I worry about, it is our children's children who will be so sickened by doing the right thing they'll never, ever do it. We're almost there now, go read their blogs.

I understand. That's why I wrote the article I did explaining that I am not a pacifist, but am sworn to nonagression. If someone comes into my home to harm myself or my family, I will absolutely, unblinkingly, do what needs to be done. And I hope my children will learn to do the same.

In the religious context you cite, Jesus said openly that his ideology and presence didn't invalidate that of the old testament. If you look at it, you'll find a lot of rejoicing at the death of an enemy.

Yes, and that is why what is right for me is not necessarily what is right for society as a whole. There is no question in Biblical context that, even when acting according to God's will in the context of a war, the act of war stains a man. This is why King David was not allowed to build the temple, but the task was allowed to his son, Solomon. We need priests as badly as we need warriors (although I am neither; just drawing the comparisons), and neither should despise the other for doing the tasks assigned to them.

While one tumor removed does not necessarily destroy the cancer, it sure helps keep the patient alive while the rest of the body is treated.

Since we live in an age where words such as 'Islam', 'Islamofascist', 'Islamophobia' and so on are bandied about by anyone and everyone, I've decided to do a little reading of my own, and come to some conclusions of my own, regarding Islam and Muslims.

The first thing I've learned, of any use, is this. Islam regards both Moses and Jesus as Prophets. Moses was a Prophet of Law and Righteousness - which is why the OT is composed mostly of narrations of Kings lives, the lives of Judges, and of procedural instruction in relation to ritual holiness. Jesus is regarded as the Prophet of the inner spiritual life, and of the love of God for man. Both received real revelations, and both revelations discuss only one aspect of God's relation to man. Muhammad, however, is regarded as the 'seal of Prophecy' because his revelation is regarded as the perfect synthesis of, and advancement of the argument of, the two Prophets who went before him, restoring the balance that is (deliberately) lacking in the previous revelations.

And such a view has merit: it's a reasonable way of pointing to the similarities and differences between the three different revelations and of commenting on them - particularly when one can see the two types of over-emphasis so clearly at work on this thread.

Gideon's insistence that his (principled) refusal to celebrate the death of this raghead murderer stems from God's revelation to him (Gideon) is perfectly of the type of inward looking personal holiness enjoined by Jesus. BakerStreet's emphasis upon community, necessary action in order to restore peace through judgement and unashamed punishment, is perfectly in accord with the Mosaic revelation of law and judgment - and the reason there will never be agreement between the two of them upon the issue is that both approach the question through the lenses of two completely opposed types of revelation.

I haven't read (or thought) anywhere near enough on the subject to be able to say with certainty what results from the Muhammadan synthesis of the revelations of Moses and Jesus, but after even the cursory reading I've so far undertaken something emerges as at least a possibility - which is this.

Muslims speak of 'Allah' (actually al-Ilah - 'the One God') as the all-Merciful and the all-Compassionate and at the same time are all too happy to celebrate the death of an enemy. The OT speaks of many occasions when God required the Israelites to exterminate peoples and raze cities to the ground, devoting to the Lord (which means the utter and complete destruction of) all that was in them. And in each case, this is seen as an outpouring of God's righteous wrath exercised in judgment: a victory for God, and only incidentally for the Israelites who were the instruments of that victory.

There is a divorce, in the OT, between the instrument and the One who uses it that leaves no room for a personal sense of threat or a personal sense of victory. The NT in contrast denies that there is any room for violence of any kind in the believer's life, asserting that victory for both God and believer lies in the defeat of evil through love and the turning of the other cheek.

For the Christian God is either the righteous King and upright Judge who uses the believer to impose an ethic of perfect justice, a justice which is apart from the believer, external to him; or the sacrificial Lamb that waits for slaughter secure in the knowledge that victory is his in another world, if not in this, and that 'love will save the day'.

The Christian who truly follows the revelation of Jesus in his own heart is to do nothing but suffer the contempt of evil men, and pray for their redemption and his own. The Muslim, meanwhile, having an ethic which includes both mercy and violent war exercised on behalf of of God by the believer, being righteous in God's eyes (he believes) both when he exercises mercy and kills his enemies, has the West at a psychological disadvantage - one exemplified by the disagreements on this thread.

We will never come to agreement with ourselves, never prosecute this war with the unrelenting ferocity and total commitment to the destruction of the enemy which it demands, while we have it in the back of our minds that a) such relentless ferocity belongs only to God and is to be exercised only under conditions of perfect justice (God may be perfectly just but we know ourselves to be anything but); and while we're hobbled (if unknowingly) by the belief that gentle Jesus meek n mild won't love us if we do what's necessary to overcome.

An enemy that can stand lightly balanced on both feet, fully prepared and willing to kill his opponent because he knows his God will love him for it, is always going to be at an advantage when confronting someone who can only stand on one foot, because not convinced that God's righteousness is his, and who has tied one hand behind his back in order to be 'merciful' in the application of a violence of which he is ashamed - because to turn to violence at all is to fail his God at the outset.

Wars are not won by missiles, planes, smart bombs and ultra high technology (though these things are good to have). They are won by people willing to die and to take many, many more of their enemies with them when they go. Certainly Muslims appear to possess that conviction and that committment. We, seemingly, do not.

I'll save my joy for someone who finds redemption, not for someone who finds destruction.

I so agree with you here Gid.

It must be quite sobering for someone to take a life even if it's for the most vile person on the earth. Even for my worst enemy I would not relish the thought of ending his/her life. I wouldn't hesitate, mind you, in self defense, but I wouldn't be dancing a jig either.

I believe our hatred for fellows like Zarqawi should be limited to what they represent, downright evil. I believe they have a force working inside their heart as I do in mine, just opposite ends of the spectrum. I believe the war is not physical at all. That's just what we see. I think we get too caught up in it, the physical that is.

Even God said, Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated. It wasn't his personhood, but what he represented that God hated.

It's a battle out there, but I do believe the battle belongs to God. Ultimately he's writing this whole script.

Many are going to sleep a bit more peacefully now that one less evil person is walking this earth. For that we can be thankful.