Haha, indeed.
But even on a non-religious level I have a big problem with this type of thinking.
Even atheists will tell you they have a sense of right and wrong, and a morality. I don't think Richard Dawkins would treat me in an uncharitable way just because he's not Christian. (He CERTAINLY would be upset at the idea that it's fine not to warn others of harm or death).
I still don't understand the point being made, and it's probably a minor comment that we shouldn't discuss further, but it was really bothering me last night as I was trying to go to bed, that I came across this evil idea in this Christian forum, that it is ok to do evil things if the law doesn't compell you otherwise. I mean, the thought that such a thing is even in the minds of fellow Christians, and that it has some sort of legitimacy at all, to anyone, is repellant to me.
I mean what are we doing, repeating the ideology of Victoria Nuland? Why?
Are we just stating that water is wet? That the US does bad things? Uh ok I guess.
Does that need to be said?
You know, the phillosophical basis behind not using the Lord's name in vain, and not swearing, is that by saying evil words, you are on some level reinforcing them and justifying them. This was a strongly held belief of the 1700s American protestants. Even repeating things like "It's ok to kill your fetus if you want" is a dangerous thing to say, even if you are claiming "oh that's just what immoral people think (instead, one should speak truth, such as "A fetus should be honored and nurtured, as it will becoming a child of God"). So if we are merely repeating immoral talking points, why? (Particularly when they are so obvious that most normies would not challenge them)
Now I'm sure you would say "Oh but I don't mean that about myself, I mean it about others" .. well ok I guess, but I don't really feel any better. I could also make the argument that "Hey I think some child molesters are actually sexually attracted to a child and not to adults and therefore for them its normal to molest. Oh I don't mean me, I just mean them." Hopefully that would receive a WTF response, which is what I'm feeling now.
I don't like the idea of Christians positing evil justifications. And I think in this case this evil boogeyman we have created for the sake of argument is even more evil than the actual US government itself: I mean if you told Ned Price "The US is under no obligation to warn others if they find out about a terrorist attack" I think his gay cheeks would turn even redder and he would be very hesitant to agree with you.
And that's proven in the actual facts here: Not only did the US provide some type of warning but they sent condolences afterwards. So even they don't believe this evil justification for "sometimes it's ok to let good people die if we have a good enough excuse."
Basically, the idea that "it's ok to be the opposite of the good Samaritan" for ANY reason, moral, political, or religious, is one I STRONGLY and FIRMLY reject, wholeheartedly, every single time.
I've had a few instances in business where someone has brought up an action that our firm could take, though it would be wrong or unethical to do, but the law allows it, and I firmly reject those every time. And I'm not even coming from a religious justification, but just a sense that our firm should act ethically period, no matter the religion or beliefs of any of our workers. I would not accept such an argument that "Oh but the law allows us to do evil" in any scenario (and again, I don't understand this "there is no law" argument either because it's not as if the USG follows its own laws so whether there is a law about sharing terrorism information, (which would be a very bizarre and weirdly specific law to have), is irrelevant).
I hope that the reaction of most of us here, upon hearing that there is nothing that compels someone to share information about impending harm or death, is to immediately say "NO!!!! WRONG!!!!!!"
