Editorial

Kelly R Piercy, Editor

Mahatma Gandhi

A few months back I was responding to an article in a Florida Newspaper. Normally, I make my point, sign with name and contact information, and then move on to other work. This time, I was engaged by a person who claimed to be retired military and another who signed herself 'proudmarinemom' (Proud Marine Mom.)

Having a large part of my psyche formed by my experience as a United States Marine, having served two combat tours in Viet Nam, I stuck around to see what this pair might have to say.

The particular article contained a reference to me and quoted a statement I made to the reporter. It also included the fact that I am blind and survive on disability. 'proudemarinemom' wrote that she certainly hopes that she was not paying any of my disability. I noted to her that indeed she was. Some of her taxes were going to pay for medical services I receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs for my service connected blindness suffered while serving as a United States Marine. Somewhere in our exchange, her knee-jerk hatred became blunted and she logged out of the conversation.

The retired military gentleman continued to argue. He based his argument on his perception of 'right' and 'wrong', and how he had served to protect American Society.

He eventually lost his thunder when I reminded him that he had taken an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and showed him how an over-reaching registry certainly violated the intent of the Constitution, if not the letter of the Constitution.

That was two wins, two people who realized that their vengeance based hatred was wrong in the face of reality.

Two wins is something, but not enough. As is too common, many who commented added a platitude at the end of their comment based on their faith. In fact, I have never seen more people quote and mis-quote the Bible, in and out of context, than I do when it comes to this issue.

What was disturbing was the comment of one individual:

"When he gets to heaven, God can forgive his soul, but for now, his body is mine! I say we kill him and let God decide what to do with him."

The entire eye for an eye concept seems specious when it is placed in context. The first occurrence of this 'commandment' is in Exodus, Chapter 21, later in Leviticus, and finally in Matthew. Exodus 21:20-27

20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
22 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26 If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye.
27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

It would seem that if we are to take Messianic Law as justification for vengeance, we must take it literally. Of course this goes directly against the grain of our society. In the first place, the 'eye for an eye' command does not apply except in the instance of either an unintended consequence of an otherwise allowed fight between two men or the case of a rogue bull. Moreover, it does not apply in the case of a slave or indentured servant. In any case, the commandment clearly says that punishment must be proportional. Notice it does not say a life for an eye. It also says that if the injury is recoverable, then the limit of the punishment is a fine and that is further limited to what a court will allow. It is interesting that the passage goes on to set the value of an injury to a son or daughter less than the injury to a free adult male.

I think, even taken in context, our system of law, considerations of equality, and constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law has serious conflict with this 'Levitican' code.

Looking deeper into this concept of 'an eye for an eye', we find that it changes. We find that a new interpretation is given that stands with what we have been taught America is:

Matthew 5:38-48

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I can editorialize for the rest of the year. I can point those who choose to quote out of context to the actual passages. What I cannot do it to say it any better.

It appears we have lost more than our American sense of justice and fairness. It appears that the majority of this nation that claim to be Christian have lost their Christianity.