pageok
pageok
pageok
Jules Crittenden: "Psalm 9-11: Fear No Evil."--

Jules Crittenden, a journalist who was embedded with the troops in Iraq, has a deeply felt editorial in the Boston Herald: "Psalm 9-11: Fear No Evil":

Lullabies combat false monsters. Real monsters require something different.

Psalms, like lullabies, give comfort. But they don't mask or deny the threat. They embrace it, and show the way to strength and ultimately comfort from within. What might a psalm say to anyone whose 9/11 fears have been reawakened?

Strong, ruthless men and women go long hours without sleep for you. They do everything they can to keep you safe. They are your shield. They will kill for you, and die for you. You can take comfort from that knowledge and draw strength from their example.

But that is not enough. There is something you have to find within yourself. It may be that one day, our shield will fail, and the insidious foe that operates from beyond our borders and even within them will penetrate that shield and kill some of us again.

You must decide for yourself that you will not let them deter you from your path. If they rise against you, you must be prepared to meet them. Prepared to be ruthless in defense of what you love. It may mean that you will die. We all do someday. As a friend of mine who knew what he was talking about once said, it's not a matter of whether we will die, but how we will die. And when the time comes, the best we can hope for in this life, the one thing we might be able to control, is that we die well.

After discussing some brave souls on 9/11, Crittenden closes:

We honor them by endeavoring to live up to their example. It begins by repeating to ourselves the words from which others have drawn comfort in time of war and peril for more than 2,500 years.

I will fear no evil.

To see how these more intense passages fit into the larger essay (Crittenden begins by pointing out that the chances of being killed by a terrorist are extremely small compared to other risks), you would have to read the whole thing.

For background on Crittenden, see this post at Powerline.

Patty (mail) (www):
Thanks I had not seen that yet.
8.19.2006 8:12pm
RAB (mail):
The problem is those who "see no evil".
8.19.2006 8:50pm
JT Barrie (mail) (www):
There is a difference between "kill for you and die for you" and "kill in your name and die in your name". I respect the sacrifices of the people in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of them are acting in good faith. Some are rogues. They are not fighting for my freedom and safety - but that isn't their fault so they shouldn't be disparaged. My freedom and safety nor the freedom and safety of those in the Middle East enhanced by our illegal invasion of Iraq nor by the diversion of resources to overthrow the Taliban when we should have focused on capturing Osama Bin Laden and destroying as much of his criminal gang as possible.
I am especially disgusted by our leaders who hide behind the personal sacrifices and hardships endured by our uniformed people overseas. It is even more galling when those in power impugn those critical of their immoral and abusive policies overseas. It only adds to the insult when they fail to speak up when those in uniform serving their country come back without jobs and inadequate services to take care of all the physical and emotional damage done to them during their sacrifice. This kind of behavior is shameful!
8.19.2006 9:08pm
lemonade (mail):
Quoting another religious text; O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

Sounds like evil to me. Why are countless millions being spent to 'educate believers' on the text of the Qu'ran? A new era may be dawning, and we just might need the strength that is discussed in Crittenden's essay.
8.19.2006 9:22pm
AppSocRes (mail):
JT Barrie: You seem to have forgotten that Al Q'aida was based in Afghanistan. If we "should have focused on capturing Osama Bin Laden and destroying as much of his criminal gang as possible" that seems to suggest you favored our invasion of Afghanistan. Is that correct? Now that Bin Laden and Al Q'aida are hiding out in Pakistan do you propose an invasion of that country? If the answer to either question is "no", then exactly how do you propose we should have then and should now focus on capturing Bin Laden?
8.19.2006 9:26pm
Last Rational Man Standing (mail):
Someone has to contiue to mention that you (as a citizen) are more likely to get killed by a drunk driver, medical mal-practice, or an accident at home than you will by a terrorist. Where is the "war on deaths by living a normal life"? I guess there is no money for Halliburton in that.
8.19.2006 9:51pm
dick thompson (mail):
When the other drivers specifically set out to kill you, then we should have a war on deaths by living a normal life. Since I doubt very much that most drivers who cause accidents that result in death set out to cause those deaths specifically in relation to a cause, then the only war on deaths by living a normal life would be things like MADD or state police monitoring the traffic flow and trying to stop the careless drivers. There is a lot of money in that because of the speed guns and communications equipment and other special equipment for the police and there are companies just like Halliburton who make them and make a ton of money doing so.

And your point is???????
8.19.2006 11:29pm
lemonade (mail):
I think the point was that there are 1.2 Billion people who seem to be either actively, or passively supporting, or at a minimum not critizing a faith that produces gems like www.Ask-Imam.com, check it out along with the other 20,000 'judgements' it contains, its spooky:

'In short, permission to have intercourse with a slave woman was not something barbaric or uncivilised (sic); on the contrary, it was almost as good as a marriage ceremony.'

Excerpt of answer to question #14421 ('What is slave girls in islam?'), at www.Ask-Imam.com, as posed by a lady from the United States.
8.19.2006 11:44pm
James Lindgren (mail):

Last Rational Man Standing wrote:

Someone has to contiue to mention that you (as a citizen) are more likely to get killed by a drunk driver, medical malpractice, or an accident at home than you will by a terrorist.


Crittenden did just that, if you had read the essay.

And your snide Halliburton remark was taken apart by Dick Thompson.

That's 2 strikes.

Jim Lindgren
8.19.2006 11:48pm
Seth Edenbaum (mail) (www):
Crittenden isn't interested in moral responsibility he's interested in moral bluster. Given the disaster in Iraq and our government's responsibility for it this entire conversation is grotesque.
You're not defending the troops, you're defending your own fantasies. And the troops keep dying.
8.20.2006 10:59am