This article by Russell Shaw on the Huffington Post really makes me angry.
He asks the question, “What if another terror attack just before this fall’s elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?”
Then he goes on to say that he “isn’t proud” of hypothesizing about this:
I am not proud of myself for even considering the notion that another terror attack that costs even one American life could ever be considered anything else but evil and hurtful. And I know that when I weigh the possibility that such an attack- that might, say, kill 100- would prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from dying who otherwise would- I am exhibiting a calculating cold heart diametrically opposed to everything I stand for as a human being. A human being, who, just so you know, is opposed to most wars and to capital punishment.
But in light of the very real potential of the next two American elections to solidify our growing American persona as a warlike, polluter-friendly nation with repressive domestic tendencies and inadequate health care for so many tens of millions, let me ask you this. Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history:
If you knew us getting hit again would launch a chain of transformative, cascading events that would enable a better nation where millions who would have died will live longer, would such a calculus have any moral validity?
Um…NO!
Shall we do evil so that good may result? By no means! (Rom 6:1-2 paraphrased)
I can see the point the guy is making, but when you condone evil to achieve good, you’re in bad company.
It sounds like this guy thinks a terrorist attack in america would cause people to vote for (i’m guessing) democrats. I think it would have the opposite effect.