Mary Mostert
Anti-American Anglican archbishop says terrorists have "serious moral goals"
By Mary Mostert
A lead story this week in the London Telegraph by religion writer Jonathan Petre reports the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, “urged America to recognize that terrorists can have serious moral goals.” In a speech at the Royal Institute for International Affairs, Williams on Tuesday Williams said “It is possible to use unspeakably wicked means to pursue an aim that is shared by those who would not dream of acting in the same way, an aim that is intelligible or desirable."
In expanding his new doctrine of morality-in-terrorism, Williams went on to say “no government should act as its own judge on whether to launch military action against a rogue state. "Violence is not to be undertaken by private persons," he said. "If a state or administration acts without due and visible attention to agreed international process, it acts in a way analogous to a private person. It purports to be judge of its own interest."
If that doesn’t seem to make much sense to you, that is because it doesn’t make any sense either practically or theologically. This is the same man who told a conference of Lesbians and Gays that “If we are looking for a sexual ethic that can be seriously informed by our Bible, there is a good deal to steer us away from assuming that reproductive sex is a norm, however important and theologically significant it may be.”
“We are LOOKING for a sexual ethic?” How about the Ten Commandments for starters and perhaps the Sermon on the Mount for further research?
Now, I am not a theologian and don’t ever intend to become one, but it appears to me we have a growing problem with folks who claim to speak from a religious perspective while, in fact, doing nothing more than fomenting contention. We saw this a couple of weeks ago in Salt Lake City Utah when a handful of hatemongers claiming to be “Christians,” including one Baptist minister, tried to infuriate 100,000 Mormons attending their semi-annual World Conference by desecrating garments held sacred by the Temple going Mormons. In front of Salt Lake Temple the “Christians” were pretending to use the garments as toilet paper and yelling insults at the people filing into the Conference Center to hear their leaders speak. In what can only be called remarkable restraint, only two of the nearly 100,000 Mormons in the vicinity tried to rescue the garments, for which they were promptly arrested while the agitators continued their abominable behavior. What other City government in America would allow such harassment of people attending a Synagogue, Mosque or even a Baptist Church?
What occurred in Salt Lake City was nothing less than verbal terrorism in hopes of creating havoc. Williams seems to be moving towards the same kind of behavior. Only in an era in which people haven’t a clue as to what was taught by Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, could such behavior go almost totally unchallenged. Where in the Scripture, for example, can any justification be found for Williams’ statement that “terrorists can have serious moral goals?” What exactly DID Jesus teach concerning the responsibility of individuals compared with the responsibility of government? In effect Williams, who was an anti-war activist picketing against the United States prior to becoming Archbishop, is saying that the United States government should never use force to defend this nation against terrorists but should, instead, “understand” the terrorists’ “serious moral goals.”
As I recall, one of the complaints that the Pharisees and other leaders in Jerusalem had against Jesus Christ was his refusal to attack the Roman government hierarchy. His teachings, instead, taught commandments concerning PERSONAL behavior. Like, for instance, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despitefully us you and persecute you.” (Matthew 5:43-44)
So, let’s apply that principle to the Archbishop and the verbal terrorists on a Sunday morning in Salt Lake City recently. Who is hating and despitefully using and persecuting whom? In Iraq, which group of people have blessed the Iraqi citizenry of late? Who brought in food and water to the Iraqi people in the past six months and rebuilt their electrical power systems that were destroyed, not by the Americans, but by Saddam Hussein’s minions? And who caused the disappearance of an estimated 300,000 people, many of them now being found in mass graves?
Jesus also told his followers, who wanted him to lead a revolution against the Roman occupying government, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21) Or, we might say today, responding to terrorism is the role of the government, not the archbishop. The individual personal behavior of the 100,000 Mormons, perhaps minus 2, on the other hand was to “do good” to their persecutors by quietly walking past them and allowing them to continue to rant and rave.
Another Christian principle, articulated by Jesus Christ, in Matthew 7 is “Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. …Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are revening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?”
What would be the “fruits” of the Archbishop’s philosophy that gives his blessings to the terrorists’ goals? What moral goal was accomplished by killing 3000 people in America on 9-11? What happens to the right of self-defense in the Williams doctrine that “no government should act as its own judge on whether to launch military action against a rogue state?”
In effect Williams has said the goals of the terrorists are “moral,” i.e. “good” whereas America’s defense of itself is “immoral,” i.e. evil, which brings another Scripture to mind, from Isaiah 5:20: “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
Or, to put it in modern English, “People who claim terrorists have moral goals are troublemakers who don’t seem to know the difference between good and evil.”
© Mary Mostert
A lead story this week in the London Telegraph by religion writer Jonathan Petre reports the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, “urged America to recognize that terrorists can have serious moral goals.” In a speech at the Royal Institute for International Affairs, Williams on Tuesday Williams said “It is possible to use unspeakably wicked means to pursue an aim that is shared by those who would not dream of acting in the same way, an aim that is intelligible or desirable."
In expanding his new doctrine of morality-in-terrorism, Williams went on to say “no government should act as its own judge on whether to launch military action against a rogue state. "Violence is not to be undertaken by private persons," he said. "If a state or administration acts without due and visible attention to agreed international process, it acts in a way analogous to a private person. It purports to be judge of its own interest."
If that doesn’t seem to make much sense to you, that is because it doesn’t make any sense either practically or theologically. This is the same man who told a conference of Lesbians and Gays that “If we are looking for a sexual ethic that can be seriously informed by our Bible, there is a good deal to steer us away from assuming that reproductive sex is a norm, however important and theologically significant it may be.”
“We are LOOKING for a sexual ethic?” How about the Ten Commandments for starters and perhaps the Sermon on the Mount for further research?
Now, I am not a theologian and don’t ever intend to become one, but it appears to me we have a growing problem with folks who claim to speak from a religious perspective while, in fact, doing nothing more than fomenting contention. We saw this a couple of weeks ago in Salt Lake City Utah when a handful of hatemongers claiming to be “Christians,” including one Baptist minister, tried to infuriate 100,000 Mormons attending their semi-annual World Conference by desecrating garments held sacred by the Temple going Mormons. In front of Salt Lake Temple the “Christians” were pretending to use the garments as toilet paper and yelling insults at the people filing into the Conference Center to hear their leaders speak. In what can only be called remarkable restraint, only two of the nearly 100,000 Mormons in the vicinity tried to rescue the garments, for which they were promptly arrested while the agitators continued their abominable behavior. What other City government in America would allow such harassment of people attending a Synagogue, Mosque or even a Baptist Church?
What occurred in Salt Lake City was nothing less than verbal terrorism in hopes of creating havoc. Williams seems to be moving towards the same kind of behavior. Only in an era in which people haven’t a clue as to what was taught by Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, could such behavior go almost totally unchallenged. Where in the Scripture, for example, can any justification be found for Williams’ statement that “terrorists can have serious moral goals?” What exactly DID Jesus teach concerning the responsibility of individuals compared with the responsibility of government? In effect Williams, who was an anti-war activist picketing against the United States prior to becoming Archbishop, is saying that the United States government should never use force to defend this nation against terrorists but should, instead, “understand” the terrorists’ “serious moral goals.”
As I recall, one of the complaints that the Pharisees and other leaders in Jerusalem had against Jesus Christ was his refusal to attack the Roman government hierarchy. His teachings, instead, taught commandments concerning PERSONAL behavior. Like, for instance, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despitefully us you and persecute you.” (Matthew 5:43-44)
So, let’s apply that principle to the Archbishop and the verbal terrorists on a Sunday morning in Salt Lake City recently. Who is hating and despitefully using and persecuting whom? In Iraq, which group of people have blessed the Iraqi citizenry of late? Who brought in food and water to the Iraqi people in the past six months and rebuilt their electrical power systems that were destroyed, not by the Americans, but by Saddam Hussein’s minions? And who caused the disappearance of an estimated 300,000 people, many of them now being found in mass graves?
Jesus also told his followers, who wanted him to lead a revolution against the Roman occupying government, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21) Or, we might say today, responding to terrorism is the role of the government, not the archbishop. The individual personal behavior of the 100,000 Mormons, perhaps minus 2, on the other hand was to “do good” to their persecutors by quietly walking past them and allowing them to continue to rant and rave.
Another Christian principle, articulated by Jesus Christ, in Matthew 7 is “Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. …Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are revening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?”
What would be the “fruits” of the Archbishop’s philosophy that gives his blessings to the terrorists’ goals? What moral goal was accomplished by killing 3000 people in America on 9-11? What happens to the right of self-defense in the Williams doctrine that “no government should act as its own judge on whether to launch military action against a rogue state?”
In effect Williams has said the goals of the terrorists are “moral,” i.e. “good” whereas America’s defense of itself is “immoral,” i.e. evil, which brings another Scripture to mind, from Isaiah 5:20: “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
Or, to put it in modern English, “People who claim terrorists have moral goals are troublemakers who don’t seem to know the difference between good and evil.”
© Mary Mostert
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
