Posted on by Abe Austin

Us vs Them- The Danger of Virtue

An Unbalanced Scale)

In my last post I described my shock at the gleeful, public praise for the murders of Brian Thompson and Charlie Kirk, as well as the support for continuing assassination attempts against Donald Trump, as well as the deriding of members of the LDS church after the shooting of their congregation in Grand Blanc, Michigan. I was particularly shocked by the cases of Brian Thompson and the LDS church massacre, where the victims seemed to have not been chosen because of any personal offense they had committed, but because of their appearance, association, or presumed beliefs.

I have realized the very real possibility that I might be crossing paths with people who have unashamed murderous intent against me, even though they don’t know me on a personal level, simply because I have some characteristic that they have determined is worthy of death. Perhaps because I am White, or male, or Christian, or traditionally conservative. They might be able to look at me and immediately identify me as their sworn enemy, but I will have no idea that they are mine.

And that is the terrifying imbalance that the virtuous and the principled have to contend with. Those of us that still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty, that believe that individuals are individually good or bad, and that you do not know which are which until they show you, we are put at a disadvantage where we cannot pick out our enemies so quickly as they can pick out us. They can kill us before we even know that we need to defend ourselves from them.

The Temptation)

If the threats and the killings continue in our society, there will be many of the virtuous and principled who begin to waver. They will look for patterns in those who are targeting them, and they will not be content to live at a disadvantage to them. They will start to adopt the same sort of “us vs them” thinking where they paint an entire swathe of people “bad,” and they will go to war with them. There will no longer be any regard for the individual, only for the collective.

There is a reason why wars tend to divide on simplistic lines. It is hard and it is dangerous to treat everyone as an individual. It is easier to condemn an entire nationality, race, or religion. To point at them as a whole and say, “that is my enemy, all of them are my enemy, and I can kill any of them and know that I am furthering my cause.”

That is the easier path. The pre-emptive path. But I think anyone who still has an inkling of conscience, knows that it is also the wrong path. We know it is unjust to assume evil in others, even if it seems more strategic. Tomorrow, I would like to use my last post in this series to talk about how to be faithful in dangerous times such as these. How do we keep our souls, even when it might cost us our lives?

Posted on by Abe Austin

Us vs Them- The Breaking Point

A Shocking Realization)

One of the most horrifying things of the past few years has been to witness the open enthusiasm and support for symbolic murders. In December of 2024, when Brian Thompson was killed in the streets by Luigi Mangione, it was not in response to any particular action or policy that the CEO of United Healthcare had enacted. Certainly, people had their criticisms of the company and the broader industry as a whole, but there was nothing particularly anti-consumer about Brian Thompson. Indeed, he had only been CEO for four years, and critiques of his company long predated his tenure and will continue long afterward. He was killed simply because of what he represented: the entire healthcare system.

It is safe to say that virtually no one in America had even heard of his name before his death. None of us knew his politics. None of us knew his morals. None of us knew what sort of husband or father he was. None of knew whom he had helped or hurt in his personal life. None of us knew if he was ultimately a good man or a bad. And yet, thousands of voices came out on social media to praise and celebrate his killing. Nothing about the actual man mattered, all that mattered was his job title.

This was when the mask came off and I was horrified to see the monsters that lurk in our daily society. The murder itself was terrible, made even worse by masses who approved of it, made worse by the fact that those masses felt absolutely no inhibition in crowing about it in public. There was absolutely no fear of social ostracization, of real-world consequences, of meaningful rejection. People saw absolutely no downside to cheering on a murderer like they were cheering on a football team.

Then came the assassination attempts against Donald Trump. Mainstream celebrities made light of them and even called for further attempts. Then there was the successful assassination of Charlie Kirk. People publicly called for the rest of his family to be slaughtered next.

It hasn’t just been violence against political or public figures, either. On a more personal note, members of my own church were slaughtered during their services last year in Michigan by a man who openly professed his hatred of the LDS faith. While there has not been large social support for what he did, many so-called Christians used the opportunity to ensure others knew we didn’t believe in the “correct Jesus.” Once again, there was no hesitation for public derision of murdered innocents. It is this open and blatant disregard for propriety that has so shocked me.

Scary New World)

Of course, we have always known that there were monsters hiding in the closets. But they were supposed to be exceedingly rare. Only the clearly and seriously broken in the world would be so depraved, and I guess I never realized how many people there are today that fit that category. And also, the monsters were supposed to be in hiding, constrained by social pressure from stepping into the light in their hideous forms. Now they march out boldly and without apology. When what is said in the public square is already inexcusable, what does it say for society’s darker secrets?

One clear takeaway is that “us vs them” thinking is alive and well in our culture, and that it is deadly serious, too. There are people who are willing to kill others just because of select characteristics, and others that are willing to publicly support it.

It is nothing new to think that you know what the problem in today’s world is. To think you know what ideas are causing harm. To think you know which people are driving the detriment of society. But it is an extra leap to then decide, “and everyone of that group is culpable and worthy of death.” To not deal with people as individuals, to not see them as potentially redeemable. To see the world as only able to improve with the violent removal of that category.

Of course, these developments put immense fear into the hearts of those who most often hear themselves vilified in the public square. We become weighed down with the knowledge that anyone around us might be a potential killer. We start to view everyone, especially those different from us, as a potential threat. And this, of course, leads to “us vs them” thinking in the opposite direction.

I want to delve into that shift tomorrow. How a population that is willing to talk out their problems becomes radicalized towards violence instead, and the dangers that loom ahead of us if we do not have a powerful course correction now.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 21:12-14

12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

We now transition to laws of murder and capital punishment. Verses thirteen and fourteen makes a clear distinction between manslaughter and murder. The description of a man not lying in wait, but having another delivered into his hand by God, is generally understood to mean killing another by happenstance, not by malice aforethought.

We will read later how a man guilty of manslaughter could still legally be executed, but there were certain cities of refuge he could retreat to where it would be illegal to kill him. Thus, he was a man with a foot in two worlds, not entirely guilty but not entirely innocent, and the law was designed to reflect that nuance. But if the man was guilty of premeditated murder, not manslaughter, then there was no question what his outcome would be, the Lord commanded that such a man should be put to death.

This covers two of the most common forms of killing, but not all. What about killing another man in self defense? Verses 18-19 of this chapter, and also verses 2-3 of the next chapter, will give some more details on lawful and unlawful killing, but nothing concrete on self-defense. From the verses in the next chapter it seems like a man might have been justified in slaying an intruder who came into his abode during the dark of knight (when murderous intent was more likely), but not during the day (when thievery was more likely).

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 20:13

13 Thou shalt not kill.

A very brief and succinct commandment, one that speaks to the sanctity of life, and the immense evil when one takes it from another. Of course, though the words here are simple, there is some nuance that applies to this commandment. For while the Israelites had been ordered not to kill, they were also going to be commanded to go to war with the Canaanites, and thus would kill tens of thousands of their enemies. And they were also commanded to kill animals at the altar as an offering to the Lord. How can these commandments coexist with one another?

The confusion goes away when we consider the original Greek word that has been translated to our English word “kill.” In fact, there are two Greek words that get turned into “kill” or other variations of that word in the English translation.

One of them is שָׁחַט (shachat), which is used elsewhere in Leviticus 14:13 as it describes how the priest will kill the offering that is being made in the temple.

The other one is רָצַח (ratsach), which is used elsewhere in Numbers 35:16 as it describes how a man who kills another with an iron weapon is a murderer.

So there is a word for “to kill,” and another word for “to murder.” And the word used here in the 10 commandments is the second one: רָצַח (ratsach), which is “to murder.” We could consider the English translation of this verse to be more accurate if we rendered it as, “Thou shalt not murder.” And now we see how the Israelites could be commanded to go to war against the Lord’s enemies, and to slay animals in their offerings, because both of those would be examples of “killing,” but not of “murdering.” If the distinction between those two does not matter to some, it does apparently matter to God.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 1:15-19

15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:

16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

In today’s verses the actions of the Pharaoh become even more horrifying. Not only did he subjugate and oppress the Israelites because of an unfounded fear, but now he seeks to commit mass infanticide! Seeing that he spoke to only two women, we must assume that they were overseers for all the other midwives, and it was expected that they would carry out their miserable orders by compelling the many under their care to do the terrible deed for them.

Of course what Pharaoh was asking was morally wrong, and also directly against the chief function of a midwife, which is to safely preserve the life of the child and mother through the birthing process. All that being said, by giving this command the Pharaoh had shown he was willing to kill even the most innocent to achieve his ends, so why not the midwives if they failed to obey him? Thus, Shiphrah and Puah showed great courage in defying his commands. The excuse they bring back to the Pharaoh is obviously false, and I find it hard to believe that he was fooled in the least. If so, these two women had just put their own lives on the line in place of the Hebrew sons.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 37:18-21

18 And when they saw him afar off, even before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him.

19 And they said one to another, Behold, this dreamer cometh.

20 Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into some pit, and we will say, Some evil beast hath devoured him: and we shall see what will become of his dreams.

21 And Reuben heard it, and he delivered him out of their hands; and said, Let us not kill him.

Even if it seems unfair that Jacob showed a clear favoritism towards Joseph, or if it seems imprudent of Joseph to have related his dreams to his brothers, there is no earthly justification for what these brothers conspired to do. They were contemplating murder, and their derision that they will then “see what will become of his dreams” is shockingly callous.

I do wonder which of the brothers were the primary instigators of this plot. Simeon and Levi had already shown their willingness to kill, though that was as a retaliation for the rape of their sister. Here they are discussing the death of an innocent. Fortunately, not every brother was as bloodthirsty as the others. Reuben interceded in Joseph’s behalf, which we will get more into with tomorrow’s verses.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Genesis 4:8-10

8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.

All it took was one generation for mankind to find out the deepest depths of what sin one can do to another. To murder a fellow-person is contrary to our very nature, but Cain had found out how to break that barrier inside of him, and having introduced the idea it would now be repeated many times over.

The first instance of murder, and also the first account of lying. Adam and Eve may have hidden themselves in shame, but when God called for them and asked what had happened they told the truth. Telling the truth is a natural instinct for each of us, and to lie also requires another breaking of something inside. But Cain was able to do that as well, denying knowledge of what he had done, and then following it up with a most damning statement of cold indifference.

I wonder if Cain really thought that God could be deceived. Did he not realize that every soul was in God’s hand, and that “not a single sparrow falls to the ground” without God knowing it? In fact, God’s omniscient awareness and compassion is the one encouraging note in all this story. Cain had opened Pandora’s Box, and this first murder has been followed by an unfathomable number ever since. But while we as a people may have become desensitized to the act of killing, it is good to know that God knows and mourns each and every one.