April 14, 2007

Is there an unforgivable sin?"

Wretchard writes:

The AP reports that "a car bomb blasted through a busy bus station near one of Iraq's holiest shrines Saturday and killed at least 56 people, police and hospital officials said. The bus station bombing occurred about 200 yards from the Imam Hussein shrine in Karbala, where the grandson of Islam's Prophet Muhammad is buried — one of the most important sites for Shiites."

Implicit in the enemy use of these tactics is the presumption that its political target has a moral sensibility -- that it somehow cares about the threat to kill innocents unless it bends to their evil will. Otherwise it would not be affected. Blackmail is useless against those who don't care for the victims because there can be no assault on the sensibility of the insensible. Pity and virtue are treated as weakness -- but only by evil -- by those who hate pity, and hate it from pride.

But still more evil than terrorists are those who help them in projecting a moral inversion. For terrorists are themselves fully cognizant of the difference between innocence and guilt. It is this fine sensibility that allows terrorists to design one outrage greater than the other; that teaches it to seek out the child that they might mutilate it. Lucifer would have been a poor devil had he not the memory of an angel. But their apologists have no sense of evil; and are in some way morally inferior to the terrorists themselves. They have no memory of Paradise Lost. Darkness and light are all the same to them; or rather darkness is light and night their shade of preference. For the apologists of terror, the victims themselves are "little Eichmanns" and those who try to defend the victims blamed instead of the murderers. And not only do they believe this but will try to persuade anyone who will listen of its truth. The phrase "lost soul" is not just a metaphor but a diagnosis.

How can anyone leave the field to such evil? Or think that we could, by giving it victory, escape it ourselves?

"...and are in some way morally inferior to the terrorists themselves." Exactly. It's a weird thing, and something I've been trying, awkwardly, to get at. The people who leap to give cover to terrorist monsters, while salivating over any chance to criticize those who defend the innocent—you know who I mean: peaceniks, Democrats, Quakers, Euros—are morally inferior to the killers themselves.

The sinner, no matter how wicked, can repent. But one cannot find The Answer unless somewhere inside you there still exists The Question. Or so I suspect. And the strange and maddening problem is that the terror-apologists don't have The Question. If I ever met Osama bin Laden I could argue with him, tell him that what he is doing is evil, and he would understand exactly what I was saying! (Presumably he would disagree.) But I can't argue with the "peacenik." It's like punching the Pillsbury Doughboy. Nothing happens.

I know; I've been trying to argue since November of 2001, and it's never happened. I'ver gotten sneers and complaints galore, but never a principled argument, with core beliefs laid out and defended. (Of course this is a minor blog, but I've been watching a great many more important Web loci, and I haven't seen it happen anywhere.) This seems to me much more significant than mere wars and battles and deaths�we are all doomed to die soon enough. We have "lost souls" who are more lost than mass-murderers. In the political and social sense, the question is, "Is there hope for us, when so many people have had their brains turned to mush?" In the religious sense, the question is, "Can the peacenik be saved?" (Similar to the question I remember from my youth, "Is there an unforgivable sin?")

A good man would rather know his infirmity, than the foundations of the earth, or the heights of the heavens.
      --Lancelot Andrewes
Posted by John Weidner at April 14, 2007 8:06 AM
Weblog by John Weidner