After more than 25 years of holding onto his IDF-issued gun, Moshe Grosberg was surprised to learn from the head of security in Ofra, the Samarian settlement where he lives, that he had to give it up.
"I haven't killed anyone with the weapon," said Grosberg, who notes that he lives close to Palestinian areas and needs the gun for protection when he walks or drives outside of the community.
Still, like 50 others in Ofra, he handed in his gun last week.
That was a mistake. I'd have reported it lost or stolen.
Disarming Jewish civilians. Now there's an idea. And this time, it's being done by their own people.
So much for "Never again."
The fools.
[Via cycjec]
32 comments:
"Never again" has become "maybe sometime".
There is no accounting for suicidal tendencies.
"Disarming Jewish civilians"...
Hmmmm....
Now, where have I seen that before?
Amazing! Of all the stupid things imaginable. You'd think the Israelies would have fully learned their lesson. I guess liberalism is making inroads there.
Dependancy is a horrible thing. Should have owned his own gun.
But, isn't it "wrong" to lie to the government and tell them your guns have been lost or stolen.
Yes Kent, it is wrong to lie, and not just to the government. It is wrong to lie — period. Like Anon said though, he should have owned his own gun.
I can understand David's suggestion, but it is the government's weapon, and they can take it back whensoever they want.
I simply think it is suicidal. Of course, Olmert and company are bent on collective suicide. Remember, Olmert is the guy that declared last year that he and his ilk in Israel were tired of beating their enemies, they were tired of winning (I simply cannot imagine such a thing — tired of winning, what a concept!). So you do have to understand who we are dealing with here. (Isn't that deck supposed to have 52 cards?)
The big question is how Olmert and company stay in power.
Anyway, my 2¢
I disagree, Paul--it is not wrong to lie to an aggressor bent on hurting you or your loved ones.
And there is no government property--only plunder.
These settlers were there because it was government policy for them to occupy that area, and also government policy to arm them--in exchange, they provided day to day security, and a buffer zone for greater Israel.
Now the government is changing its policy after they have committed their lives to the area. To leave themselves defenseless while they wait for permits to buy their own guns--a situation totally controlled by the government--would be, as you say, suicidal, that is, self murder.
Had the government expedited their getting their own weapons, or created some kind of window where they could transition would be one thing--but to just take them away is an act of deliberate indifferent endangerment--and with talk of ceding more "land for peace," there's an agenda at work and these people are pawns.
Every one of them should have refused to surrender their weapons.
This is admittedly an extreme example I'm about to present, but you were the one who maintains it is always "wrong to lie-period."
Tell me it would be wrong--if someone had a gun to your head and demanded to know where your family was with the intent of doing them harm--for you to steer him on a false course that would allow them to escape. You owe someone who would harm you and yours no truth. You would be committing a far greater evil by being truthful and allowing him to find them.
I don't mean to delay. I have an errand to run and will reply as soon as I return.
You deserve a good reply.
Did Germans of good conscience commit a sin of lying when they would not reveal their knowledge of which of their neighbors were Jewish? If they did, then God is wrong.
And we know He never is.
If I must be judged as to the sin of telling an untruth, I prefer He judge me on the higher moral imperatives of protecting His greatest gift, life.
I posed my question because I once posted a blog declaring that it is right to lie to government and its agents in many cases. I stand by that. When government asks you a question, the truthful answer of which could harm people, you should ALWAYS lie to them. Don't forget; THEY are the bad guys, to whom you owe nothing but contempt.
NOTE: This reply is very long and I have taken the liberty of posting the entirety of it on my blog. You will have to go there to read the rest of it unless David insists otherwise. — Paul W. Davis
I know David, you think you’ve got me. That’s all right. However, my reply will not be short, as you require a decent, proper answer to your assertion.
To begin, the commandment of the LORD God is very plain:
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matthew 19:16-19)
Moreover, to lie, is to follow after the father of lies, the Devil:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)
Thus, lying is not an option as it directly disobeys the express command of God. Thus, it appears that we are left between a rock and a hard place by your scenario. However, there are some things that are beyond our limited understanding, but not beyond the understanding, scope and power of the LORD God.
Now, I will not tell you that one must blindly believe and trust the LORD God for the outcome for such situations as that would be superstition. The LORD does not operate through, nor does He acknowledge superstition. Instead, one must operate by the instrument of faith.
You may read the rest of the reply here.
Paul, once someone begins his argument with "The Bible says," all reason for further discourse is over--you will not listen to anything I have to say that contradicts your faith or what your interpretation of the book tells you. And I remain unpersuaded.
The commandment forbids bearing false witness. That is qualitatively different from lying, in that attesting to something implies there are consequences that harm the person you are testifying about. One does not commit perjury or falsely damage the reputation of another. One does not commit fraud or lie for gain.
Sorry--the distinction seems clear--along with "Thou shalt not kill/murder." Damn right I will do lie, cheat, steal and kill if I need to in order to save myself or a loved one. But I would never do it to someone who was not a threat to me or mine because that would be wrong.
You could leave me alone with the crown jewels and they would be as safe as in a vault--at least from me. But if I need to break into the enemy supplies to steal food or weapons or blankets or fuel, well, they shouldn't be my enemies and we wouldn't have a problem. And the only way they'll be my enemies is by attacking.
As for the alternative options to lying you provided, none of them will save my family. If I tell their pursuers they headed north when I know they headed south, I have the advantage of setting the pursuers on a false trail that may save their lives. No option you gave me does that.
But God himself does--as witnessed by moths that blend into trees, that is, a lie, as is the very concept of animal camouflage--deception--tricking your enemy-- is part of what Nature's God has employed in the grand design--and all for the purpose of self preservation.
If you eschew lies completely, even those told in defense of self and others, then if you are ever in a fight you must obligate yourself to never feint--that is, pretend you are going to do one thing with the intent of tricking your opponent into moving into a position where you plan to attack him. You must forego killing any enemy, or taking his supplies and making them your own. That is, if consistency matters.
There is a qualitative difference in lying to cause harm, and lying to prevent harm.
David,
The difference lies in that I am looking at it specifically through the mind of Christ and what He requires of man. From the LORD’s point of view, which is the Scripture, a lie is a lie. The LORD God does not lie (God that cannot lie...Titus 1:2). To a child of God, this world is not all there is, and this world will not continue, it will be destroyed.
Obviously, that is not a point of view you are even willing to look at. You are evaluating things by evidence that is corrupt, as this world is a fallen, wicked, and sinful place that is not as it was created. I am sorry that is the way you have chosen to look at things. I had hoped you would begin to look at the whole issue from a different point of view — through the eye of faith.
Paul, would you personally have turned in your Jewish neighbors in Nazi Germany, when asked if you knew which were Jewish?
Just yes or no is all the answer I need.
Paul, don't tell me I am not willing to look at a point of view that I just looked at--just because I am not persuaded does not mean I did not look at it.
And I'm sorry you're disappointed. I'm disappointed that I addressed some of your points but you addressed none of mine. But as I said, there can be no basis for discourse if one position is "The Bible says..."
SA,
Actually, it is not a "YES" or "NO" answer about turning in Jews in Germany. Since we are roughly 65-70 years after the fact, that is considerable "Monday morning quarterbacking." I don't care how much you swear you will or will not do something, all evidence in man's history indicates that, until crunch time comes, you have no real guarantee of what you will do. I’ve read too many first and second person accounts, and talked to quite a few combat veterans who attest to the fact that the bravest before the battle often froze, or were scared to death to the point of being useless when the shooting started. On the other hand, I also have read a number of Medal of Honor citations of individuals where the individual was known as a quiet, shy and unassuming person who no one thought would stand up, yet in the heat of battle, they did what no one else would have thought of doing.
That being said, if you read the entire article, you know there are 5 options available, not merely two. Of the 5 available, the last three are the ones I would pick from. The last option is the best as far as I am concerned — preach the gospel to the Nazi’s, and if they kill me, then they kill me.
However, I will remind you that as the Nazi’s were carting off Jews, they were carting off every out-spoken preacher of the gospel too. Many never made it to the camps, but were either beaten to death, or shot. Would I turn in the Jews? No. They are God’s chosen people. To touch them is to touch the apple of God’s eye. Would I protect them? In as much as I could. However, I will tell you that many Jews were told to leave Germany, and they refused to as they did not believe what was coming (shades of Israel today). Would I turn in anyone else? No. However, if I choose to die standing for the gospel, that is my choice.
I leave you with this thought SA. It is from Josef Tson, a Baptist preacher during the time of communism in Romania:
He was to meet an officer from the secret police in the restaurant of a nondescript Romanian hotel. The communist officer had pledged to do what previous secret police officials had failed to do: silence Tson’s ministry by offering him a secular job in exchange for a promise that he never again preach the Gospel. Turning down the job spelled at least hard time in a prison camp. It might very well mean execution.
Tson met with the man and without flinching turned down the job.
“I told the man, ‘Now I am ready to die,’” Tson said. “‘You said you were going to finish me as a preacher. I asked my God and he wants me to continue to be a preacher. Now I have to make one of you two angry and I decided [it is] better [to] make you angry than God.
“‘But I know you, sir; you cannot stand this kind of opposition and you will kill me in one way or another. But I accepted that and you should know that I have even put everything in order and made ready to die. But as long as I am free, I will preach the Gospel.’”
The communist officer was equally unflinching in his response: He told Tson to go and preach the Gospel.
“He [the officer] made up his mind that if I was ready to die for it, then I should have it,” Tson said. “And for another four years until they exiled me, I continued to preach with nobody disturbing me because that man, a key man in the secret police, decided I should be free to preach because I was ready to die for it.”
I think it IS a "yes or no" question that has to do with your moral principles.
That I, an atheist, recognize that it would be against my moral principles to tell the truth to government enforcers if it causes harm, should be a wake-up call.
David,
By the term "look at" I mean study it out. I don't mean just read it — study it out. I know that you looked at it in the sense of reading it, and judged it by what you know.
As for some of your points, you have better challenges than the vast majority of theologians. Answering your questions from the Scripture, which you know by now is the way I am going to answer them, would take a little time.
To address one certain item, you stated:
“The commandment forbids bearing false witness. That is qualitatively different from lying, in that attesting to something implies there are consequences that harm the person you are testifying about. One does not commit perjury or falsely damage the reputation of another. One does not commit fraud or lie for gain.”
You compared this to the interpretation of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” being understood as a commandment to not murder. This interpretation is well established by various parts of the Scripture. However, what you interpret “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” as, is not well established in Scripture. The best example that applies to the situation you have posited above is found in Jesus’ answer to the Jews:
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. (John 8:54-55)
Plainly, if Jesus denies He does not know the Father, He says that He will be a liar, like the Jews who claim to know the Father. Undeniably, this is an exact parallel to denying where your family (or Jews in Germany, etc.) are hid, or whether your neighbors are Jews, etc. Obviously, I can now place this squarely with Titus 1:2 which I partially quoted above, wherein it is stated clearly that God cannot lie. The Lord Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, so I can bank on His example being authoritative.
You also stated “You owe someone who would harm you and yours no truth.” Yet, the Jews that challenged Jesus were very much intent on harming Him as previous to this they had set about to kill Him:
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. (John 7:1)
Apparently, Jesus saw the need to tell them the truth, no matter how much they wanted to kill Him as the incident in chapter 8 happens after He knew the Jews tried to kill Him.
Of course, of the other three options I suggested, two have precedent in Scripture, and one specifically from the Lord Jesus:
And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. (Matthew 27:11-14)
Obviously, to Almighty God silence is better than lying.
Kent,
I agree that it does depend upon what one believes to be moral. My point about a strict "yes" or "no" is as I explained about playing monday morning quarterback.
We are not (yet) in the situation people had to deal with in Nazi Germany, and hypotheticals about it are just that — hypotheticals.
Sorry Paul, you flunked. And yes, I know what I would do. I have been tested before, and I never failed myself or my belief in my response.
I have, on occassion lost, but never because I didn't fight.
It was a yes or no question. That you do not understand that is very disappointing to me. All those other words were camouflage covering your lack of commitment to your beliefs.
At least, that's the way I read it now. I sincerely hope I am wrong.
If you had tried an honest answer of yes or no, you could have substituted Christian ministers, or homosexuals or political activists, or gypsies and answered whether or not you would fated them for a 40 and 8. That you tried to dilute the question and answer by listing others who had suffered the same fate as the Jews speaks to your uncertainty in what you claim to believe.
Paul, the question I posed to you involved no "Monday morning quarterbacking":
Tell me it would be wrong--if someone had a gun to your head and demanded to know where your family was with the intent of doing them harm--for you to steer him on a false course that would allow them to escape.
Your answer is evidently "no," and you have passages you can cite to back up your conviction--which is your right.
I will choose a different course.
And if by "study" you mean I need years of Bible study to understand all the connections in order to get an answer to a straightforward question based on your interpretation of said passage, with Titus thrown in for good measure (whew), no sale.
Please don't worry about my soul--that is my task. You're the one in the above scenario who just sacrificed your family to your faith--I somehow think focusing on my standing before God with some 'splainin' to do in all this is a bit off the mark.
Even Jesus who "knew God" wanted the cup passed before he resolved himself to his purpose on earth. And yeah, his purpose, to choose for himself. Not yours to choose for another because you refuse to "lie" to monsters. And even he didn't give a straight answer when his inquisitors asked him flat out if he was divine--without going back to the actual passage--and making sure it's a translation you don't think is tainted--it was something to the effect of "That's what you say."
I'm sure you can now cite numerous texts in both Old and New Testaments, but this is not a Bible study group.
I deal in the worldly and secular and crude and corrupt. I also deal in humanly possible ways to elevate ourselves from that as much as we can.
I understand you believe that will never be enough. I never pretended it was.
WarOnGuns is but one modest brick in much greater wall. I never intended it to presume to be more.
SA,
What part of this is not clear:
"Would I turn in the Jews? No. They are God’s chosen people. To touch them is to touch the apple of God’s eye. Would I protect them? In as much as I could."
All that I prefaced that with was an acknowledgement of human fraility. If you are so assured of yourself that you guarantee future behavior in time of crisis, then fine. I am not so brash. I make my decisions and do my level best to stick to them. If you are disappointed in that, there's not much I can do about it.
David,
The "monday morning" remark belonged to SA's "Jews in Germany" scenario. Please look at the context.
As for your hypothetical which you repeated: obviously remaining silent, telling them flat out that you will not say, or preaching to them are not good enough answers for you.
As for whether or not I stand up for what I believe — you seem to forget who was, and still is in the trenches fighting for Wayne Fincher.
I know the quarterbacking comment was addressed to SA--I was commenting on the fact that you have still not directly given me a "yes" or "no" on a question I posed earlier, and to keep bringing up new trains of thought without addressing earlier ones is not how I do things here.
Paul, no they are NOT good enough answers for the simple fact that they are responses to something I did not ask. You still have not answered a direct question with a direct answer.
I will repeat my question one last time:
"Tell me it would be wrong--if someone had a gun to your head and demanded to know where your family was with the intent of doing them harm--for you to steer him on a false course that would allow them to escape."
Just "Yes, it would be wrong" or "No it would not be wrong" will suffice.
As for your Fincher comment, not sure why it's addressed in the section under your response to me. I never raised it.
Matter of fact, I'm going to share with you an email reply I sent to a reader who asked me if I'd seen your blog post on this:
Yes--I corresponded on it with Paul. He's a good man--he has done much for Wayne Fincher.
He approaches life from a Baptist worldview and would like to see me saved--can't fault him for that, I AM pretty rough around the edges.
I never insist my friends agree with me.
By the way, I posted my rebuttal on my blog in comments to the article he links to.
I think his reference to his work on behalf of Mr. Fincher was a response to my questioning of his commitment to his stated beliefs.
Which, by the way, is to be lauded. But my problem is this. According to what he has so far stated, if Mr. Fincher were to gain his release from custody and a hit team were dispatched to dispatch him, if Paul was asked where Wayne was, he would tell them, if he knew.
I seriously think he is wrong about what he would do. I do not believe he could do it. He has too much character to do so. I am going to believe he would do the right thing in spite of what he thinks the right thing is, being in error.
For Paul this seems to be an intellectual and spiritual exercise without having had the benefit of having to physically fight for his life or the lives of others. I will pray that he never has to do so. But that is a perspective that is invaluable in clarifying one's duty to preserve and protect life, one's own or others.
I think as spiritual a man as Paul is he would not betray God's greatest gift to us, life. Even if it meant he would need to ask forgiveness to attain Heaven. Whichy is the only way any of us will get there, anyway.
David, SA;
I appreciate your comments — very much.
Actually, I have been shot at, and had guns pointed at me. It did not set well with me — especially since I was unarmed in every case.
To answer the situation directly David, No, I will not betray my family, friends or loved ones. But I will not lie either. And SA, it's not because I would have to ask forgiveness to get into Heaven either (I already did that at age 33 - once for all). I am secure in Christ and there is nothing that will ever change that. I will go to heaven, even if I did deliberately lie.
Allow me to explain what Wayne Fincher did to Wade Vittitow and the Federal agents that came to arrest him and seize his guns. Please note, Wayne would never knowingly lie — end of story.
Wade Vittitow demanded of Wayne the key to his gun safe. Wayne politely refused and told them "I'm not going to help you break the law."
Wayne was told, "Mr. Fincher, if you do not tell us where the key is we will have to blow the vault." (which was in the dining room of the house - you can imagine the damage it would do)
Wayne replied "I don’t care. If you want to break the law, I’m not going to be a party to it. I refuse to help you break the law."
This situation went on for almost an hour. The Feds finally gave up and got a locksmith to drill out the lock. They never did find the key and Wayne knew exactly where the key was all along.
Wayne never lied, and he never compromised. Can I do less?
Refusing to answer a lawbreaker’s demand for information is never lying. On the other hand, answering such a demand in the affirmative is to accede to the demand as if it were legitimate. That I cannot do.
If, on the other hand, you lie to them, they expect that. After all, they are liars as they have lied about the law and who is actually in authority. They believe that everyone is just like them. Hence, when you lie, they will then treat you as no more than a common criminal. Being just like them legitimizes their unlawful, irrational behavior. That I cannot do either.
I’m sorry if that is not satisfactory. I cannot lie, and I cannot help or legitimize the actions and beliefs of a lawbreaker.
BTW David,
Your question as put:
"Tell me it would be wrong--if someone had a gun to your head and demanded to know where your family was with the intent of doing them harm--for you to steer him on a false course that would allow them to escape."
Is really no better than: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Please answer YES or NO."
You are allowing no other options, no other considerations, and as a hypothetical, it is guaranteed to trip someone up. You were forcing me to compromise my beliefs no matter which way I answered. I cannot do that.
Paul, it's not the same question at all.
I did not give you a scenario I would not answer myself, and the beating your wife question is not comparable, nor was the situation you described with Wayne and the key.
If I could save innocent life by lying to aggressors, I would. Even if you knew that innocent life would die, you still would not lie to save them.
It is what it is.
David,
You have so narrowly tailored your hypothetical situation that you will not allow any other answer or consideration.
In 4000 years of recorded human history you are going to tell me that lying to someone who is threatening your life and the lives of your loved ones has never been tried before?
Why do you think that torture rarely ever yields any information of value? Only an idiot would ever believe someone who told them anything under duress.
Of course, if it were the communists, they would simply blow your brains out and continue searching.
I don't think you want another answer. All you want is to say that I must give them the answer they want or lie. In reality, I have many more options than that, which would perhaps yield better results than lying.
You have your answer. I will trust the LORD for the results — all life is in His hands anyway.
Oh come on, Paul. I gave you a specific example, but only to illustrate a broader principle. I could create a hundred examples and hardly strain.
You don't like that one? Here's another.
You're the Supreme Allied Commander in charge of the D-Day invasion of Normandy.
Do you execute a disinformation campaign, making the Germans think you have armies, armament and capabilities that don't exist? Do you strategically let slip fake attack plans on targets you have no intention of attacking, maneuvering and manipulating the enemy into dispatching resources that will weaken the front where you will attack? Do you conduct fake landings elsewhere? Etc.?
Do you deceive, that is, lie to your enemy?
You were in the military, Paul. Had your CO, authorized by his command, told you to send out a fake transmission, a LIE to whoemever was intended to receive it, would you have refused the order?
Well, if it's all "in His hands anyway", we may as well just hand in our guns and sit and watch American Idol and let God protect our families. It was nice being humans while it lasted.
Post a Comment