Ladies and gentlemen,it's been a long time since we last had an intellectual intercourse.I must admit I am to blame.Tijan M.Sallah's short story in the beautiful anthology,Encounters From Africa,provides the first part of our title.
Samwel Koranteng-' Pipim, Ph.D,a Ghanaian thinker and preacher,through his tough moral questions in the compilation dubbed Faithful Unto Death inspires the second part of the title.Dr.Pipim,speaking to a largely Christian--but wholly religious--group posed the question below:
An international war-crime tribunal has established beyond reasonable doubts that the dictators Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and others are guilty of genocide (i.e, the deliberate and systematic murder of millions of people belonging to some ethnic groups and races). As punishment for their crimes against humanity they have been sentenced to face capital punishment. These war criminals themselves acknowledge that the trial was fair, and the verdict was just. Under these circumstances would you approve as morally right the execution of these mass-murderers?
YES NO
As the rest of us were listening to Francis Atwoli's hoarse voice on Labour Day,the American intelligence wheel was quietly plotting the end of Osama Bin Laden's labours here on earth.And so we woke up on May 2nd to the news of the decade--if George W. Bush and co.are to be taken seriously.What followed were celebrations and cheers.CNN covered the celebrations in excruciating detail.
One of my good friends on(and off ) Facebook read my thoughts on the events of the hour(s):
The Parsifal Mosaic:Ludlum
Obama may have 'killed' his way to a second term..
Too bad he wasn't captured alive,the In Tray at The ICC would've been interesting..
So,his late evening text was predictable in the wording:
Bwana Consulate,are you celebrating Osama's death?
The question was pointed and accusatory.Can we,as human beings,really celebrate someone's death?More specifically,what can the Christian(and largely spiritual) world do in the face of events like those of May the 2nd?
I always have a problem separating the human being from his belief system.We are owned by what we believe in and feed on.
This is also my point of convergence with the Ghanaian,Dr.Pipim and Sallah.Allow me then to elaborate.In this age and time,should violent force and terror be accepted fully as means and tools of peace?
Can we,to entrench innocence and peace,summon the aid of the Gun,the Bomb or the Drone?
And,is it finally time to lay to bed that old maxim:When diplomacy fails,force prevails and birth another idea:When force fails,concerted force prevails.Is there something called 'necessary violence' and does it 'gather grapes of thorns,or figs of thistles'?(to borrow a phrase from the Holy Writ).
This is the moral predicament.For example,Roman Catholics had riveted their attention on the 'beatification' of Karol Jozef Wojtyla but would it have surprised you(the Roman Catholic) if the Pontiff had sent congratulatory messages to the American body politic and intelligence chief,Mr.Leon Panetta?Of course the Peruvian President was a bit clearer.
Alan Garcia attributed the divine intervention to newly beatified pontiff John Paul II.
"His first miracle has been to rid the world of this incarnation of evil, this demon of hatred and criminality," the Peruvian leader said, referring to the al-Qaeda leader.
Tossing aside the obvious theological blunders by Mr.Garcia,can it really be the boast of Christians that their God has 'rid' the world of a blood-thirsty man like bin Laden?
And can that be part of a believer's prayer request so to speak:'Slay so-and-so ...Amen.'?
Most people style themselves as moralists--even the American President(that's right Trump,American)
considers himself a moral man.Is it acceptable that to address a menace like Osama the order is 'Kill Geronimo' or 'Capture Geronimo'?.Of course the other side of the coin begs to be heard:Is Caiaphas reasoning a sound policy?(Caiaphas reasoning again is borrowed from the Holy Writ,the gospel according to John,11.49,50,
And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
Though Caiaphas spoke for totally different reasons and the death he discussed infinitely more purposeful,the reasoning is the same.Can we use 'all means necessary' to maintain peace?If we are to make the decision that leads to one's death,can we,like Barrack Obama,look around and say,'Guys,we are on.'?
No comments:
Post a Comment