Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong?

                I saw a bumper sticker the other day.  It read, “Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong?”   I copied it down and put it into Google to see what I could find, and sure enough, lots of people have “liked” it, and lots have not.  I’ll be another who does the second.  Quite simply, the bumper sticker is nonsense because in this simple sentence, the word ‘kill’ or ‘killing’ is used incorrectly in place of two different words.  The two words are ‘execute’ and ‘murder’, and when we substitute them for ‘kill’ in the obvious way, the bumper sticker loses its meaning.

                Assuming that the “we” in “Why do we…” is society and not some vigilante, person or group, the first meaning of ‘kill’ is “execute.”  Our society goes to great lengths to protect the rights of people accused of killing others – rights to a fair trial, to a competent defense attorney, to a jury of one’s peers, to confront one’s accuser, and to appeal and appeal and appeal.  Many say that the whole judicial process is so bogged down in protecting those rights that by the time a convicted murderer is finally executed, justice has been denied.  But justice is more flagrantly denied when murderers are permitted to live out their natural life.  Then we are saying that the victim’s life is of so little worth that the highest punishment we will permit is the loss of freedom for as long as the murderer shall live. 

                Many in our judicial system hold to the view that it is proper to allow many murderers to go free in order to make sure than no innocent person is executed.  This may seem like an admirable position unless one considers the value of the life of the victim.  Then a more appropriate goal would be to make sure that only guilty people are punished and all innocent people are set free.

                The second time ‘kill’ is used it’s in the phrase, “killing people,” and here the dishonesty or foolishness of the statement is plain for all to see.  Killing people can take many forms: self defense; killing by a soldier in war time; a traffic accident not caused by negligence; also mechanical failure of an airplane, automobile or other vehicle that leads to accidental death.  Let’s not forget the execution of a convicted murderer – this too is killing a person.  There are many instances of “killing people” that do not result in a murder conviction and a sentence of death, and there should be.  Murder, in fact, is the only sort of killing for which our legal system in many states reserves execution. 

                Murder is never, by definition, justified.  Murder is planned, deliberate, unjustified taking of another person’s life.  If someone is convicted of murder, and the evidence holds true after many appeals and reexaminations, and if it took place in the right state, then we properly execute them precisely to punish them for murdering someone and also to show that murder is not permitted in our society.  We also execute them for two other reasons: to prevent them from doing it again, and to make clear to persons contemplating murder that they could forfeit their life if they proceed with their evil plans and are found out and convicted of murder.

                As a Lutheran pastor, I teach, among other things, Luther’s Catechism to youth and to adults.  The Catechism begins with a discussion of The Ten Commandments, and the other day we were reading about the fifth commandment, which, the way Lutherans count them is “You shall not murder.”  This command, coming from God through Moses the Lawgiver, clearly prohibits only one sort of killing:  murder.  This prohibition leads us to turn our attention to the final misuse in the bumper sticker of the word ‘kill’.  That is the phrase, “…killing people is wrong.”  Killing people isn’t always wrong unless it’s murder.  And not all killing is murder as indicated above.  Remember?  We have only to think self-defense, accidents and, yes, execution of a murderer.  

                Murder, though,  is always wrong, and as such it is completely appropriate for murderers to be punished – including being executed.  Here’s the bumper sticker again:   “Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong?”  Now make the substitutes:  “Why do we execute people for murdering people to show that murdering people is wrong?”  Now we have a question that is not ambiguous, and  the answer is obvious.

                At least that’s my opinion.  What is yours?

DON'T SHOULD ON ME

            The word ‘should’ has become something of an all-purpose word these days.  Only from the context can we know whether it is being used to express moral imperative, community agreement or individual preference.  One thing is certain though.  People seem to be using ‘should’ more and more.  Even when the word isn’t used, the meaning can be smuggled in.

            What do you do when someone “shoulds” on you?  Ask a question.  Asking a question is almost always a better strategy than making a statement.  Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason ministry calls the strategy of asking certain questions “The Columbo Tactic, in honor of Lieutenant Columbo of the T.V. series of the same name.  (read his explanation here:  http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6879 )  He recommends it in many circumstances as a way of keeping the temperature down in an otherwise likely-to-be-heated conversation.

            Confronted by someone’s announcement that you should (or should not) do something, here’s the Columbo question:  “What do you mean by that?”  In asking the question that way, you’re indicating that you don’t understand which meaning of ‘should’ is being used.  Is the person saying it’s morally wrong to do that?  Are they saying it’s illegal to do it?  Are they saying it’s unwise?  Or are they merely expressing their personal disapproval of your action?

            Once you know which usage of ‘should’ is being employed – whether your critic considers you action to be immoral, illegal, foolish or personally offensive – you are able to continue the conversation with more precision.

            Occasionally, a friend who tells you that you shouldn’t do something actually has your best interest at heart.  They really care about you, and care enough to risk your friendship by telling you something you need to hear.  Even as you seek to avoid being “should” on by others, it is wise to keep your ears and heart open to those occasions when someone does so because they love you.  Friends like that are rare, and should be cherished beyond measure.  

            Oops!  There’s that ‘should.’

BRINGING YOU THE WEATHER

            This may seem an odd topic with which to begin a blog on religion and other issues, but read please before you make up your mind.  I’ve been bothered for a few years now by the change in language from our weather reporters here in Los Angeles, trying to decide if the new language is deliberate or not.

            I’m speaking about the evolution in the meaning of the phrase, “bringing you the weather.”  Back when Dr. George Fischbeck, a fellow Lutheran by the way, used to bring us the weather, what he was bringing was clearly the weather report.  He was reporting what meteorological findings indicated the weather was most likely to be – tomorrow, the day after, and even for the next week.  He was bringing the report.

            But that was then and this is now.   Now the dapper weather man Dallas Raines on Channel 7, or the attractive weather babe, Jackie Johnson on Channel 2, appears to take personal credit for the warm and delightful weekend we’re about to have, and even for the 60% chance of rain we so desperately need.   In recent years, “We’re bringing you a warming trend,” has been replaced by “We’re warming up the weekend for you,” or similar claims to control what we cannot yet control.  It may seem a subtle difference, but the difference matters.

            The weather is caused by a variety of meteorological circumstances completely beyond the control of meteorologists’ manipulation.  Weather reporters report the weather; they don’t make or bring or change it.  They simply don’t have that power.  The Bible tells us that God does have that power.  Though he usually appears not to directly intervene, whether it’s Jesus calming the storm or God sending a tempest to stop Jonah from running away from his prophetic assignment at Nineveh, controlling the weather is God’s province, not ours.

            So when the reporting language changes from “bringing you the weather” to “warming up the weekend” or “bringing us much-needed rain,” it seems like one more slide toward taking credit for things over which we have no control.  I’m not asking for weather reporters to give God the credit – or blame – for tomorrow’s weather.  I’m just asking them not to take it themselves.

            And when we say our nightly prayers, let’s thank God for today’s beautiful weather and ask God, not Johnny Mountain, for a nice beach day tomorrow.  I still haven’t decided if there’s some deliberate co-opting of God’s area of responsibility going on, but I’m still thinking about it.  I hope you now are too.

                                                                                     -- Pastor Mees