From here:
Consider the following scenario. A group of Irish republican terrorists carries out a bombing raid in London. People are killed and wounded. The group escapes, first to Ireland, then to the US, where they disappear into the sympathetic hinterland of a country where IRA leaders have in the past been welcomed at the White House. Britain cannot extradite them, because of the gross imbalance of the relevant treaty. So far, this seems plausible enough.
But now imagine that the British government, seeing the murderers escape justice, sends an aircraft carrier (always supposing we’ve still got any) to the Nova Scotia coast. From there, unannounced, two helicopters fly in under the radar to the Boston suburb where the terrorists are holed up. They carry out a daring raid, killing the (unarmed) leaders and making their escape. Westminster celebrates; Washington is furious.
What’s the difference between this and the recent events in Pakistan? Answer: American exceptionalism. America is subject to different rules to the rest of the world. By what right? Who says?
Tom Wright seems more interested in the process that leads to justice than the act of justice itself – a bit like a Dilbert cartoon that I had pinned to my office wall for a number of years saying, “We take pride in our processes”. Presumably Wright would have been more content to have bin Laden tried by due process, found innocent and released than be the recipient of a summarily delivered hole in the head.
Judging by his selective quotation of Scripture and inane view that cultural and national values are morally equal, it’s hard to believe that Tom Wright hasn’t allowed anti-Americanism to cloud his judgement.
Temporal justice is never perfect: Tom Wright’s version of it amplifies its imperfections to the point of vacuity.
Yeah, I’m huge fan of Tom Wright in many respects but was somehwat surprised by his comments frankly.
Several Christian perspectives (although not Anglican) can be accessed here.
I am disappointed by the lack of depth of Bishop Wright’s remarks.
First, he has stated that “American exceptionalism” is wrong without providing a systematic argument to support this idea. He doesn’t provide an argument against exceptionalism.
Second, he refers to the action of the United States as “taking the law into one’s own hands.” This is the most egregious idea in Bishop Wright’s article. The government of the United States is in fact the God-ordained civil authority in this realm. It is authorized by Scripture to execute judgement and vengeance upon the evildoer. It is quite impossible for the United States to take the law into its own hands. Apparently, the bishop would rather have the United Nations take the lead, but Osama bin Laden was the particular enemy of the United States. Surely Bishop Wright knows the difference between a legitimately constituted government (and its duly authorized military) and vigilantes, though he betrays his inability to distinguish the two in this article.
Finally, while the Lone Ranger was masked, he was still a Ranger, not a vigilante.
Bishop Wright’s article closes with words that seem to imply pacifism. If he wants to make a pacifistic argument, he shouldn’t muddy the water with denunciations of “American exceptionalism” which have no direct application.
Really? An argument to support that statement would be nice.
Kate, civil authority (aka, government) is ordained by God. Some supporting passages of Scripture are found in Romans 13 and I Peter 2. I also refer you to the Thirty-Nine Articles (quoted below).
XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.
The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted.
How does the civil authority of the US extend to Pakistan?It doesn’t, (unless you believe in “manifest destiny”)and that was Wright’s point. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 are not relevant to the situation being disucssed.
Furthermore – do you think Hitler was ordained by God? How about Stalin? They were civil authorities, and I would argue that it was the Christian’s duty to disobey them.
Hum… The above should probably read “…manifest destiny, expanded to encompass the globe”, since manifest destiny was just a belief that the Americans were destined to rule the North American continent.
Kate, Bishop Wright stated that the United States took the law into its own hands. That would imply that the United States isn’t the legally constituted government and is acting against the rule of law as a vigilante. I don’t believe the bishop’s remarks are logical or accurate.
Separate from any opinion I may have concerning the action that took out Bin Laden, I’ve found it very interesting to read the comments on T19 and SFIF concerning the statements made by Williams and Wright. My conclusion? For an issue like this, when it comes to the Bible versus the Constitution, there is no room for rational discussion in the US. Zero. Nadda. None. The Constitution wins every time.
He’s right, the US did take the law into its own hands. The US isn’t the legally constituted government of Pakistan, and Bin Laden was killed on Pakistani territory, without the knowledge of the government of Pakistan.
If you want revealant to the situation, true over the top Monarchists know that Queen Elizabeth is Queen of not only Pakistan but the so called United States of America and therefore the whole thing about who did what to whom, with what and how is a moot point.
I do hope this logical and accurate statement helps those floundering above.
Um…. Not too strong on history, are you Gawk?
Oh, I didn’t see the “over the top” part on first reading!
While I don’t support Tom Wright on this one, or seek to oppose those who criticise him here (or elsewhere), what he was suggesting – that the US behaved shamefully in protecting IRA terrorists, for many years – is quite true; in fact, hypocrisy, not exceptionalism, is the reality. One view of 9/11 is that it made America realise, for the first time, the reality of what we in Britain lived with for many years (1970s, ’80s, ’90s) – the indiscriminate destruction of many innocent civilians, its perpetrators often be resourced by (some) Americans (and also Gadaffi), and then protected by the US legal system. (Others say the Oklahoma bombing had already brought the reality home).