Re: Josh, #26

It also strikes me as the product one would expect of a mindset so thoroughly secularized in its outlook as that which dominates the Left.

The obvious downside to “kill[ing] enemies, quickly, openly, proudly, without regret” is the same argument often made against capital punishment: namely, that some innocents are also bound to get killed in the process, as cases of mistaken identity, collateral damage or what have you. Once upon a time this was considered an acceptable risk, for the simple reason that if you were in fact innocent, getting killed merely sped you on your way to your eternal reward in heaven – which also served as motivation for your surviving loved ones to carry on in the hopes of being reunited with you there someday.

Of course, none of this holds much water in a culture that doesn’t believe in (or at least doesn’t acknowledge or take into account) the existence of heaven or hell in the first place. By that outlook, death is the absolute end of one’s existence, and it follows that everyone experiences death the same way regardless of their innocence, “protection status” or lack thereof (i.e. with no salvation, damnation or anything else awaiting them on the other side). It also follows from this outlook that taking a human life is the absolute worst thing one human being can do to another, period. Since this secular outlook is part and parcel of the Western Leftist worldview, is it any wonder that they would be so squeamish about deadly force, be it in war, law enforcement, private self-defense or whatever?