Let me guess, John. You were dismissed right away.

Naw. I had to jump up and shout, "He's guilty! Our gallant boys in blue wouldn't have arrested him if he hadn't done something!"

Seriously, what really bugged me is that I would make an excellent juryman on some technical civil case. I could listen to expert witnesses testify about soil subsidence or accounting fraud all week without losing interest. And I'm knowledgeble enough to understand but not enough to pre-judge.

But I'd be a poor criminal juror, because both the cops and the robbers are boring to me. I'd probably fall asleep while listening to officer O'Grady tell what he saw and did...

But you can't choose your court.

Jesus indeed wept, but not, I think, at those poor confused women. <g>

But I found myself wondering what a seasoned Quaker man would have done, and that, I think, would have been to refuse to leave. Of course, it's very likely it would have done no good, but the small chance of such non-violent resistance and selflessness reaching the killer (for it would certainly, at the very least, derail his plans momentarily, leaving a possible opening for God) would likely have been a part of a Quaker's moral calculus.

Now, such an action is foolishness to most people, although, as Paul points out in 1 Cor. 1:25, "the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." And I'm certainly not, at this point in my conversion, claiming that I could do such a thing. But I personally know a number of men who, I am almost certain, would have done just that, and without hesitation.

And if, by grace, I were to be empowered to such love and witness, the reason why might go something like the following, from the blog of an interesting young Mennonite, who put it this way:

"The victory of God over the powers bought with Jesus’ blood assures us of victory. This means that we can now live dangerously; we can afford to live against the ways of this world. We can now love all our enemies. We can turn in our weapons of war and partake, even now, in what God has in store for those that love him. The Kingdom of God is the new order that is becoming more and more real in this world. The Kingdom of God reflects the future of the world. What we have today will one day be all there is."

Dave,

I'm sorry if this sounds snarky-- I certainly don't mean it this way, but.....

Those who refuse to wield a sword in their own defense may still die upon one.

And my view of human nature is such that, if I found myself under assault by someone wielding a firearm, I would rather rely on Smith & Wesson for my defense than God-- I would be more likely to survive the encounter that way. (Like it or not, Dave, God helps those who help themselves.) Yes, my assailant may not survive the encounter, but then he didn't have to assault me, either.

Yes, it would be awful to have to answer to God for having taken the life of my fellow man. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd want to face Him for having thrown His gift of life to me back in His face through refusing to defend myself when attacked.

"Pacifist: a dead Quaker." -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Hale, I don't perceive you as being snarky, and you're quite right: those who refuse to wield a sword in their own defense may still die upon one. Quakers (and members of the other peace churches such as the Brethren and the Mennonites) understand that, and feel that they are called to endure that if necessary rather than take the life of another human being. To Quakers, it is not throwing his gift of life back in his face, it is obeying his commandments: "Do not violently resist evil" and "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly."

He also said "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear him rather who can destroy both body and soul in hell."

And "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy; But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those whose persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?"

And finally, Hale, nothing even close to "God helps those who help themselves" can be found in the Bible. In fact, it's quite un-Biblical:

Jer 17:5 (NIV) This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD."

Prov 28:26 (NIV) He who trusts in himself is a fool...

(It's thought that this proverb entered American thought by way of Benjamin Franklin, but it goes way back.)

Dave,

I have no problem with loving (or, at least, not hating) my enemies, or doing good to those who hate me. I don't want to wind up as bitter and twisted as they are, and "keeping score" (trying to keep track of whom to hate or to whom I should give raw deals) is not the way to live one's life.

As for God helping those who help themselves, it's not a quote from the Bible, but simply an observation of the way the world works. If one conducts one's affairs prudently (pulling one's socks up and getting on with the job; or saving for a rainy day; or "packing heat" when one has to go into a bad neighborhood), one is far more likely to obtain a good result (get the job done; or keep a roof over one's head; or avoid winding up wounded or dead in a gutter) than those who trust in the Lord, however virtuous such trust might seem. I know that's theologically incorrect, but that's the way the world works. Ignore that at your peril.

I am reminded of a science-fiction short story.... the title and author escape me.... it was only about three pages long, and the title was something like "Gandhi meets Keitel". The setting was a 1942 in which the British had suffered disastrous reverses in the Middle East, with the result that the Wehrmacht and the SS rolled into India. Gandhi calls out his followers, and many tens of thousands of them answer his call, confronting the lead elements of a German division. After some words are passed back and forth, with Gandhi calling for the Germans to leave, and the Germans telling Gandhi and his followers to disperse, the German commander (Keitel?) loses patience and gives the order to drive forward, and to give no quarter, not even to women and children.....

My point, Dave, is that evil exists. Sometimes it can be cured by love. Sometimes the only cure is a .357 slug between the eyes. If it comes down to "me or him", I'm sorry-- I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. God didn't put any of us (not even the Quakers) on this Earth to be fodder for psychopaths.

As for the bit of Scripture: "....For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?", perhaps I lack insight or imagination, but it seems nonsensical. I have, as a reward, the love of those people who love me. As for those who don't (because they WON'T) love me, why bother? Why waste the mental and emotional effort on them, when, by definition, there will be no reward? Each of us only has so much time and energy in this life. That, certainly, is not a justification for HATING people. But the most that can be justified is a certain neutrality, a default state of behavior: a willingness to extend courtesy and respect to one's neighbors in the expectation of the same treatment in return. And if that leads to friendship and love, that's great. If it leads to friction, well, there's no great loss, and you know who to keep an eye on.

One last thought, Dave, before I shut it down for the night (I'm on Eastern Time).

You write, in connection with "God helping those who help themselves" being un-Biblical: "Prov 28:26 (NIV) He who trusts in himself is a fool...".

I suppose that's kinda along the same line as the old saying, "He who represents himself in court has a fool for a client." :)

More seriously, though.... Yes, we should trust in God, but really..... How can He help one if one is so stupid (or trusting in God?) as to not even bring a knife to a gunfight? Better still to not look for gunfights, but sometimes gunfights come looking for you.

I hope that made sense...? It's 3 AM. Zzzzzzzzzz

The short story you refer to is by my friend Harry Turtledove.

"God helps..." may be the world works, but it is not the way the Kingdom of God works. The reason why we can't agree is that you're arguing from a wordly viewpoint, and I'm arguing from a specifically Christian viewpoint. (Read my comment to the wonderful poem John posted above.) As a Christian, I'm called to be in the world but not of it. Instead, I'm to live in the peaceable Kingdom "which is coming and now is." And I see a big difference between the prudence of fixing your roof and the prudence of being prepared to kill your fellow man.

The problem is (and here I, like you, do not intend to be snarky) is that you are fundamentally not willing to trust in God's promises. There are things worse than death ("fear not him who can kill the body..."), but we're told that we have nothing to fear from them if we truly love and are in Love.

Really, it comes down to the old question, much abused by fundamentalists, of "what would Jesus do?" And no matter how hard I try, I can't see Jesus with a .357 magnum in his hand.

Trouble is, "what would Jesus do" is also abused by leftists and pacifists. I think He would value a saint or your "seasoned Quaker man" most of all, but for second place I think he would approve of a Christian knight or a brave centurion over the lefty appeasers who strive to make people weak and passive clients of their bureaucracies.

And many of the world's "benevolent organizations" and churches have morphosed into marshmallow leftism, and their positions are now indistinguishable from moveon.org or AI or the Intl Red Cross or the Democrat Party, and they use Jesus as a cover for Euro-socialism Lite. Quakers? I don't know but I have my doubts...

Also, I think Ghandi was perfectly aware that his tactics could work because he was dealing with the Brits and not various others. I'm just reading the memoirs of General Slim (who lauded the coming of the AFS to the Burma Front, by the way) and he is dealing with Aung San, who had led the Burmese puppet army for the Japs. San demands a place in the new government, and Slim says "How can you dare come to me like this?" and San say, "Beause you are a British officer! [and had given him a safe-conduct.]

Quakers, too, approve of those who choose to serve in the military, insofar as they are following the promptings of their measure of the Light. They just don't approve of the methods they've chosen to oppose evil.

And I don't consider it germane that many Quaker positions are similar or identical to positions taken by MoveOn, Amnesty International, and other secular organizations. Many people in those organizations are also following the promptings of their measure of the Light, and to argue that the organizational source of those positions disqualifies those positions from being considered sincere is simply ad hominem argument. I admit that I've fallen way too often into the same trap as regards many right-wing figures--that's one of the unpleasant things shown to me by the scrutiny of the Inward Light. The Testimony of Integrity is not a comfortable one!

Gandhi was certainly aware of the advantage of dealing with the British, but I don't think it would have made any difference to him--which is what makes Harry's story so powerful. Remember that he said that it's easier to make a pacifist from a warrior than from a coward.

And although I can't speak with certainty as to the virtues of any Quakers but those I know personally, those seasoned Elders I referred to (some of whom are younger than I--Elder is not necessarily a chronological title) are definitely not cowards. One of the most attractive things about them is their aura of quiet fierceness: utter peacefulness with no hint of compromise. And I have to believe that if there are that many in my Meeting, they can't be all that uncommon elsewhere.

Not only did all the men leave, but none of them went out to his car, got a gun, and came back, which is what Americans tend to do.

"..to argue that the organizational source of those positions disqualifies those positions from being considered sincere is simply ad hominem argument."

I argued no such thing. I argue that those organizations have been "hollowed out," and their original mission replaced by leftism. It's not that they are insincere, it's that they are no longer the organization they pretend to be.

From the link above, here's an example: "...The Anti-Defamation League is dedicated to opposing hatred, particularly hatred of Jews. Its recent activities include support for abortion and gay rights, backing the effort to remove Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore from the bench in the Ten Commandments case, and opposing school vouchers in Washington, D.C."

We see this all the time. One of our reasons for our becoming disgusted with the Episcopal Church was noticing how "greed" became an American problem worth of sermons once a Republican got into the White House. Nobody mentioned this horrid American "greed" during the dot.com bubble! (And of course the Reagan years were the "decade of greed.") The minister I'm thinking of was probably perfectly "sincere," but nonetheless his faith had been replaced, partly or wholly, by Leftist malware, and when he thinks "morality," out pops the lefty argument of the day.

You are the same way. I'm sure that you are perfectly "sincere" in your cockamamie stuff about the US becoming a fascist nightmare, but you are in fact robotically repeating what every other lefty in the world is saying. And if Kerry had won the election, you would have started noticing that the skies are bluer, the air is cleaner, and people seem to be more caring and kind these days...

Easy, John, easy. I don't care for some of Dave's politics, either, but it doesn't make for civil argument if we forget to use tact. I sympathize with you-- I don't suffer foolishness gladly, either-- but sometimes it's not the other person who is the fool. (Though that's hard to remember in the heat of argument.... [wry smile] )

Amen about the Episcopal Church. I'm a fallen-away Episcopalian, myself, hardly ever setting a foot in church since 1980 or so. My congregation in rural Pennsylvania mananged to hang onto the 1928 Prayer Book until about 1980, when the 1976 Prayer Book was forced on us by the Diocese. What a disappointment. The language of the '28 PB had a snap, a crackle, a MAJESTY that forced one to pay attention to the words and their meanings. With the '76 PB, the services became rather leaden.

For anyone who has an appreciation for language, "Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, maker of all things, judge of all men: We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we from time to time most grievously have committed" has a lot more "oomph" than "Most merciful God, we confess that we have sinned against thee" does. I clearly remembered the old version, and had to pester Google for the new version, which is plainly not as memorable.

And the shift in the language was uneasy-making. My late father continued to worship in our church for some years after 1980. He had a deep, distinctive voice, which carried well throughout the church, easily heard above the voices of the rest of the congregation. In the '28 PB, the Nicaean and Apostolic Creeds began with "I believe...." In the '76 PB (at least, the copies we had), the Creeds began "We believe....", along with some other subtle changes in wording. While the other worshippers would recite the 1976 version, Dad would boom out with the 1928 version. Someone asked him why he insisted on reciting the 1928 version, and he replied, "I know what *I* believe. I can't speak for my neighbors."

I think the Church over the last generation or two has dumbed-down the service, and I think the change in wording in the service reflects a taste for collectivism on the part of the Church leadership. And I think that's borne out by the pastors you're seeing, John.

Yeah, we Adamses are a difficult bunch. :)

I should be more tactful, to be sure, but I get so frustrated, because life has become like one of those movies where people get taken over by alien zombies, and you don't know who you can trust. For instance, the League of Women Voters, famous for being non-partisan and educational, has become a left-leaning advocacy group!

It's so sneaky and slippery, and it means there are a huge number of institutions you can't rely on as in the past. They are never honest, they keep pretending to be the same old group, but it's a lie.

The good thing about conservatives is that we are pretty much all open about what we are. We never pretend to be non-partisan public interest groups or such.

And anyway, this is my universe here, this little blog. Everywhere else I'm the most soft and tactful of souls, and if you ever met me you would think me meek and insipid and a general push-over. But here within these pixel walls, I'm in my kingdom, and if people don't like it, they may just click themselves to elsewhere...

"Can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? Or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?"