I've mostly kept quiet about the comments which include some form of that statement.
Until now.
It is a horrible sentiment- one only suited for statists. Either religious statists, or statists who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions- not that there's any real difference.
First of all, I utterly lack a belief in any god/s, so I don't believe there is any sorting to be done. This life is it. Killing a person who is currently initiating force or violating property is one thing- the violator chose the path. That could even include those who choose to do this as an essential part of their "job". Killing anyone else is wrong. It is evil. It is what government militaries do. They call it "collateral damage", but it is murder. Anyone following their example is committing evil exactly like them. You can't "beat" the enemy by becoming indistinguishable from him.
You are ending a person's life pointlessly. Or maybe simply because you can't be bothered to discern between the truly guilty and bystanders. You are refusing to do your job of "sorting" and trying to place that burden on someone else- someone whom I am convinced doesn't even exist.
Now, if there were an "afterlife" which included consciousness and the potential for happiness or contentment, I can see where murdering an innocent could be considered not too horrible. But since I see such beliefs as completely unfounded, I see the murder of innocents as completely inexcusable.
"Kill 'em all" is the reality, "let God sort 'em out" is the fantasy by which the evil reality is "justified". If you want to kill everyone, just admit it and don't try to place your burden on your god.
I understand the frustration behind the statement- assuming it isn't coming from an agent provocateur. But frustration isn't a good reason for a shortcut- especially not so serious a shortcut where mistakes can never be rectified. The rabid statists will probably never be changed. The soft statists may be. Threatening to kill them when they aren't currently engaged in violating person or property probably won't help.
I don't care if you believe in gods as long as you don't use that belief to justify murder (or any other initiation of force or property violation). I know some believers I would trust to have my back. Anyone who says "kill them all and let God sort them out", and means it, is not someone I would trust.
If this offends the person I'm referring to, he is welcome to stop reading my blog. He is welcome to call me any names, or see any motives behind my post he feels appropriate. I won't ban him from commenting, nor will I say more about that particular phrase (unless something escalates). In fact, I'm not even angry at the sentiment being expressed.
It simply isn't my way, nor do I think it fits with Rightful Liberty in any way. Your mileage may vary.
.
Perhaps I need to clarify a few things.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, don't take me too siriusly.
Secondly, understand that my use of the word 'God' is a loose and somewhat generic definition. I use it in the context of as if to say to let THEIR god sort them out, whatever that may be to them. If I use bible verses or quotes from religious wars, it is simply because I like the way it was said.
Thirdly, the justification of it is based on the fundamental principles of gang violence. It is one answer to the overall question of how to correct the fact that an essential element of how humanity manages Earth is coercion and violence.
The inability for humanity to grasp the root problem, and thus the subsequent zealous unity to demand change for a righteous and peaceful existence, inhibits peaceful organized correction.
People are too stuck in their brainwashed alter-world happy slave warring reality and/or are too selfish or stupid to see the difference, and will thus continue to demand every increasing enslavement and violence upon the progeny of today's population.
If one person ______<--(insert violation here) your daughter. It is a violation of her rights, and fundamentally wrong.
If ten people ______<--(insert violation here) your daughter. It is a violation of her rights, and fundamentally wrong.
If one hundred people ______<--(insert violation here) your daughter. It is a violation of her rights, and fundamentally wrong.
If one thousand people ______<--(insert violation here) your daughter. It is a violation of her rights, and fundamentally wrong.
If one million people ______<--(insert violation here) your daughter. It is a violation of her rights, and fundamentally wrong.
If one billion people ______<--(insert violation here) your daughter. It is a violation of her rights, and fundamentally wrong.
If ten billion people ______<--(insert violation here) your daughter. It is a violation of her rights, and fundamentally wrong.
The inalienable right to forceful defense applies to all, IF peaceful resolution is not possible. Thus 'genocide' is an unfortunate and highly utilitarian contingent solution.
When the world at large will not accept your pointing out their organized violence against you and your family, when it rejects your peaceful solution, the natural inalienable right to use force in defense applies, regardless of numbers or ratios.
"Principles of Principalities"
Kill them all, let god sort them.
...is merely a thought.