Defending the Indefensible

In First Samuel 26, David (not yet King David) finds himself in an awkward position. The prophet Samuel has actually anointed David to be king over Israel, but King Saul is still alive, and is clearly not going to abdicate the throne any time soon. In fact, Saul has seen the writing on the wall and realizes that David is going to succeed him, rather than one of Saul's own sons, and he isn't happy about it. In this passage, David is on the run, but Saul, and his soldiers, are hot on David's trail. At night, under cover of darkness, David manages to circle back and sneak into Saul's camp while Saul is sleeping. David could certainly have, at this point, killed Saul in self-defense, and it would be difficult for any man with any real sense of justice to find fault. But David not only refuses to so it, he forbids any of his men to harm King Saul; not because of any great love for Saul, but because Saul was made king by God, and David believes that when God is ready for David to become king, God will work out the details. David doesn't want to circumvent God's will by taking matters into his own hands.

It occurs to me that, usually, when one defends another person, then others have the natural reaction that the person doing the defending is taking sides. It is possible to defend another person without actually agreeing with them, but not agreeing with the situation or the methods being used against that person. John Grisham's non-fiction book, 'The Innocent Man' details the life of a man who was convicted of murder and served over ten years in prison before it finally became clear that someone else was guilty. To be honest, I have to take issue with the title of the book; the man may not have been guilty of the murder of which he was convicted, but he was far from innocent. To be honest, it's hard for me to drum up too much sympathy for the man that was wrongfully convicted: he probably should have served at least a good chunk of that time for other crimes that he did commit but didn't get convicted for (although in a mental institution, rather than a penal institution). On the other hand, the real killer was allowed to roam free for many years; it's a little surprising that he didn't kill anyone else.

Right is right, and it goes back to the sense of fair play that I talked about yesterday. There have been times when I have heard someone attacked, and I have kept my mouth shut, because I didn't want anyone to think that I was taking the side of the person that was being attacked; but, really, the attack was just plain wrong (even if the person being attacked was also wrong). The other night, I heard someone say that they couldn't believe anyone would vote for a Muslim for president ("this country was founded on Christian principles..." "the Muslims attacked us..."). I pointed out that there aren't any Muslims running for president, and he seemed genuinely surprised that I didn't think Barack Obama was Muslim; he responded that Obama certainly isn't a Christian. I almost told him that Obama is as much a Christian as anyone else in the race, but I didn't. To be honest, I was taken by surprise; I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the Muslim angle is propaganda touted by other candidates. Then he started talking about Obama's Muslim upbringing (not that Obama was raised as a Muslim, that's just more propaganda). I personally am not very fond of Obama (although I like his inexperience, I think that's a good thing--usually by the time a politician is 'experienced' enough to run for president, he {or she} is either corrupt, or completely out of touch with the needs of the American people). But, for the record, Barack Obama is a long-term member of a United Church of Christ church in Chicago. I'm not sure where his middle name came from, but I think that it's important to remember that when he was born, Saddam had not yet risen to power in Iraq, but Jordan had a benevolent king named Hussein.

As long as I am on the subject, let me point out some other things that I have heard that violate my sense of fair play. Some have suggested that Hillary Clinton should have gotten a divorce ten years ago. They say that the only reason she didn't, is because she felt that the divorce would work against her in her bid for the presidency. There is, of course, no real evidence to support that theory. Let's consider for a moment that divorce can be a traumatic event, particularly for the children, if there are children involved. I think we should at least give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt, that she may have done what she did to spare Chelsea. I realize that not too many unhappy married people practice that philosophy these days, but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to accept that theory. Don't misunderstand me, I think that the situation having been what it was, she had every right to file for divorce; had she done so, I would have supported her decision, but I also think that she had a right not to divorce, and so I support her decision.

Mitt Romney has gotten some flak about being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and Letter Day Saints (the Mormons). Two main things that have come up: 1) a lot of Mormons have some odd ideas about African-Americans, and 2) a lot of Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. First of all, just because a lot of Mormons are prejudiced, it doesn't necessarily follow that Mitt Romney is. This is, of course, why he has made statements recently about marching with his father in civil rights marches in the 60's. It appears that his memories are a little more grandiose than the actual events, but, in any case, it makes it hard to believe that he is a racist. Secondly, although I disagree completely that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, the idea that maybe Mitt Romney believes that, really doesn't bother me. I know a lot of brothers that don't have anything in common. If one were to consider Lucifer to be a son of God (as opposed to a creation of God) then he would definitely be the black sheep of the family. It seems to me that the Bible makes it pretty clear that Lucifer wasn't always evil. In point of fact, from what I understand of Mormon doctrine, the reason Satan was kicked out of Heaven was that he kept fighting with his brother...