Ben Shapiro’s essay, We Have Nothing Left Holding Us Together, says it well. Read the whole thing below (emphases added). Despite what they say, liberals/progressives/the Left are not pursuing unity.
On Friday, a South Carolina high school stopped students from bringing American flags to a football game against a heavily Hispanic rival school. Why? The principal was presumably worried that waving the flag might offend the Hispanic students. According to the principal, “This decision would be made anytime that the American flag, or any other symbol, sign, cheer, or action on the part of our fans would potentially compromise the safety of all in attendance at a school event.”
This isn’t the first such situation. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that a public school in California could ban students from wearing a shirt emblazoned with an American flag on Cinco de Mayo thanks to fears over racial conflict at the school. The lawyer for the children complained, “This opens the door for a school to suppress any viewpoints that are opposed by a band of vocal and violent bullies.”
Meanwhile, has-been San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has been widely praised in the media for refusing to stand for the national anthem during football games. “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” explained the man earning an average of $19,000,000 per year for sitting on the bench. He continued: “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
We’re watching the end of America in real time.
That doesn’t mean that the country’s on the verge of actual implosion. But the idea of America required a common definition of being American: a love of country on the basis of its founding philosophy. That has now been undermined by the left.
Love of country doesn’t mean that you have to love everything about America, or that you can’t criticize America. But loving America means understanding that the country was founded on a unique basis — a uniquely good basis. That’s what the flag stands for. Not ethnic superiority or racial solidarity or police brutality but the notion of individual liberty and equal rights before God. But with the destruction of that central principle, the ties that bind us together are fraying. And the left loves that.
In fact, the two defining philosophical iterations of the modern left both make war with the ties that bind us together. In President Obama’s landmark second inaugural address, he openly said, “Being true to our founding documents … does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way.” This is the kind of definition worshipped by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has singlehandedly redefined the Constitution. He said, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
But this means that liberty has no real definition outside of “stuff I want to do.” And we all want to do different stuff, sometimes at the expense of other people’s liberty. Subjective definitions of liberty, rather than a common definition, means a conflict of all against all, or at least a conflict of a government controlled by some who are targeting everyone else. It means that our flag is no longer a common symbol for our shared definition of liberty. It’s just a rag that means different things to different people based on their subjective experiences and definitions of reality.
And that means we have nothing holding us together.
The only way to restore the ties that bind us is to rededicate ourselves to the notion of liberty for which generations of Americans fought and died. But that won’t happen so long as the left insists that their feelings are more important than your rights.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM
The following was posted in January, 2008, and alas (!), political correctness still runs amuck and in ever widening circles. It’s sort of like the vampire that won’t die. We really need more people to shine the light of rationality and common sense more frequently in order to truly put the stake into the heart of this abomination. Too much damage has been, and is being done by this false philosophy.
One of my favorite words in classical Hebrew is that translated “vanity,” particularly in Ecclesiastes 1:2, “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” It is the word hebel, pronounced heh’-val (for those who really want to know, the middle letter is beth without a dagesh, thus it is pronounced as a “v” rather than the hard “b” which requires a dagesh…and if you have no idea what I’m talking about, you aren’t missing anything germane to the main point of this post…this factoid is just an exercise in my pedantic desire to provide more information that you really wanted to know; but then, it is my blog…). The word literally means “a breath or vapor, a puff of air,” and thus came to designate anything insubstantial and lacking in reality or substance – in other words, our word “vanity.” But “vacuity” would work just as well.
The heart of political correctness (PC) is the demonization of anyone who says or does anything to offend any of various and sundry sensibilities of those holding to this ideology, often taking up offenses, or creating offenses, when none truly exist.
Point Number One: To offend is defined in the Oxford University Press dictionary supplied with WordPerfect as “1. to cause to feel hurt or resentful, 2. to be displeasing to, or 3. to commit an act that is illegal or that goes against an accepted principle.” This is admittedly a concise dictionary, but it seems correctly modern in that it does capture fairly well the nuances of the PC position. The first two deal specifically with feelings, and the third can easily be fit into such a subjective framework if the principle is itself subjective in nature, for example, “Thou shalt not make anyone feel bad or uncomfortable with anything they are saying or doing.”
Compare this definition, which I would consider all too subjective and thus insubstantial, to that of Noah Webster from 1828 (and as an aside, note the nature of the examples):
OFFEND’, v.t. [L. offendo; of and fendo, obs. to strike, hit, meet, or thrust against. We use the simple verb in fend, to fend off, to fence.]
1. To attack; to assail. [Not used.]
2. To displease; to make angry; to affront. It expresses rather less than make angry, and without any modifying word, it is nearly synonymous with displease. We are offended by rudeness, incivility and harsh language. Children offend their parents by disobedience, and parents offend their children by unreasonable austerity or restraint.
The emperor was grievously offended with them who had kept such negligent watch.
A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city. Prov 18.
3. To shock; to wound; as, to offend the conscience.
4. To pain; to annoy; to injure; as, a strong light offends weak eyes.
5. To transgress; to violate; as, to offend the laws. But we generally use the intransitive verb in this sense, with against; to offend against the law.
6. To disturb, annoy, or cause to fall or stumble.
Great peace have they that love thy law, and nothing shall offend them. Psa 119.
7. To draw to evil, or hinder in obedience; to cause to sin or neglect duty.
If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out – if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off. Mat 5.
1. To transgress the moral or divine law; to sin; to commit a crime.
Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all. James 2.
In many things we offend all. James 3.
2. To cause dislike or anger.
I shall offend, either to detain or to give it.
But this phrase is really elliptical, some person being understood.
3. To be scandalized; to be stumbled.
If meat make my brother to offend – 1 Cor 8.
4. To offend against, to act injuriously or unjustly.
Nor yet against Caesar have I offended any thing at all. Acts 25.
5. To transgress; to violate; as, to offend against the laws of society, the laws of God, or the rules of civility or propriety.
We have offended against the Lord already. 2 Chr 28.
Note that, while the subjective aspect is present (and I do not deny that there is a subjective element), there is a significant increase in objectivity in this entry: the emphasis is more on the violation of principles and laws external to the one offended rather than simply their hurt feelings because someone disagrees with them.
Thus, my first point as illustrated by these definitions is simply that political correctness is vacuously empty because its primary basis is the most fickle and insubstantial of human responses, the emotions. While consistent with liberal multiculturalism with its denial of objective truth, this aspect of man is so easily manipulated and distorted that to base one’s responses on it is just plain stupid.
Point Number Two: The vacuity does not stop there, but continues in the double standard that renders the entire concept of political correctness illogical and irrational. As applied by the PC, the only offenses that are offensive are those committed by conservatives who hold to objective truth, particularly truth originating in the Judeo-Christian value system on which our country was founded. The problem is, even amongst liberals there are mutually exclusive ideologies, so you can’t avoid giving offense to someone if you stand for anything. There are as many opinions on most topics as there are people in the universe. So to attempt to hold a position that “offends” noone in this ambivalent wishy-washy way is logically impossible; what of those who are offended by wishy-washiness?!?
Someone has rightly observed that if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. Vacuity offers no resistance, but has no substance. Oddly enough, Paul’s description in Ephesians 4:14 comes to mind as an apt summary of what these people are truly like: “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”
Political correctness: an idea whose death is long overdue. May it find its grave in 2008. [Well, how about 2015?!?!]
Originally posted in September of 2007 in response to a specific study that became “all the rage” for a moment, particularly in the liberal media. It serves an another example of how there is a lack of critical thinking in the MSM.
You may have heard by now that another study has been published that alleges, if the MSM were to be believed, that there is further proof that the liberal mind is…um…better? That is, of course, not what they say outright, but one can almost see the gloating faces of the LA Times as they report on the study, and while the study authors themselves are appropriately demure about their conclusions as befitting “objective scientists” (Dr. Amodio, the lead author, is quoted in the LA Times article as cautioning against concluding that their results are to be interpreted as indicating the superiority of one over the other), the words chosen to discuss the data and conclusions are sufficiently suggestive that there is little question what was on their minds.
The full reference is Amodio, et al., “Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism,” Nature Neuroscience (2007), 10 (10): 1246-1247. Here’s the [annotated] abstract:
Political scientists [Politics is a science? Hmm. Does that mean we are the experiment?] and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles [translation: conservatives are troglodyte stick-in-the-muds], whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty [translation: see how smart and flexible and innovative we are?]. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity [and we can use big words! (OK, that’s not quite fair; it is a neuroscience journal after all, and they seriously should expect the reader to have some knowledge of the subject. Sorry about that.)], suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern [we’re more sensitive and responsive than conservative oafs!].
Then in the introduction, the paper’s authors state (again, with [annotations] as an aid to translation):
Across dozens of behavioral studies, conservatives have been found to be more structured and persistent in their judgments and approaches to decision-making [inflexible neanderthals] as indicated by higher average scores on psychological measures of personal needs for order, structure, and closure [See how paranoid those troglodytes are? The babies need order, structure, and closure!] Liberals, by contrast [See?! We’re different!], report higher tolerance [Yeah! We’re tolerant (of everyone except conservatives)!] of ambiguity [See how secure we are?] and complexity [and we’re smart, too!], and greater openness to new experiences [Wow! Bring it on! We can handle it!] on psychological measures.
Then in discussing their conclusions:
This association suggests that a more conservative orientation is related to greater persistence in a habitual response pattern, despite signals that this response pattern should change [those dummies can’t learn from experience or admit when they’re wrong, but we can].
Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts [conservatives are insensitive and can’t deal with conflict; liberals can].
I have reposted this multiple times in the past around the 9/11 anniversary, so the timing of my reposting of this particular essay from my “Best of…” series is very apropos.
In 1923, the world was still reeling to recover from the horrors of the trench warfare of World War I as the seeds of ideological conflict were being sown in the fertile soils of this country. The Bolshevik Revolution had just gotten a foothold in Russia, so the future focal point of liberal socialism/communism was still in its infancy. Part of the liberal vanguard here consisted of the theologians, whose slow but steady progress into the minds and hearts of the new preachers of the day eventually overcame the efforts of the likes of J. Gresham Machen and his cohorts at Princeton, much to the detriment of our present culture. However, in his book Christianity and Liberalism, (Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1923), this godly man made an astute observation that is most relevant for today (emphases added):
At this point is detected one of the most obvious lines of cleavage between Christianity and the liberal Church. The older evangelism, says the modern liberal preacher, sought to rescue individuals, while the newer evangelism seeks to transform the whole organism of society: the older evangelism was individual; the newer evangelism is social.
This formulation of the issue is not entirely correct, but it contains an element of truth. It is true that historic Christianity is in conflict at many points with the collectivism of the present day; it does emphasize, against the claims of society, the worth of the individual soul. It provides for the individual a refuge from all the fluctuating currents of human opinion, a secret place of meditation where a man can come alone into the presence of God. It does give a man courage to stand, if need be, against the world; it resolutely refuses to make of the individual a mere means to an end, a mere element in the composition of society. It rejects altogether any means of salvation which deals with men in a mass; it brings the individual face to face with his God. In that sense, it is true that Christianity is individualistic and not social.
But though Christianity is individualistic, it is not only individualistic. It provides fully for the social needs of man." (page 152-153)
Dr. Machen then goes on to explain briefly how Christianity provides for the social needs of man, showing conclusively that Christianity addresses both the individual and the group. While not ignoring the group, it is this value placed upon the individual that separates true applied Christianity from the cultural ideologies of the day that, though claiming to meet the needs of the individual, do so through the individual’s association with the group to the exclusion of considerations of the individuals that comprise the group.
This is not God’s way. God expresses His concern, oversight, and omniscient care over His creatures in a multitude of ways through Scripture. Let me suggest one such.
Concerning the divisions of the porters: Of the Korhites was Meshelemiah the son of Kore, of the sons of Asaph. And the sons of Meshelemiah were, Zechariah the firstborn, Jediael the second, Zebadiah the third, Jathniel the fourth, Elam the fifth, Jehohanan the sixth, Elioenai the seventh. Moreover the sons of Obededom were, Shemaiah the firstborn, Jehozabad the second, Joah the third, and Sacar the fourth, and Nethaneel the fifth, Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh, Peulthai the eighth: for God blessed him. Also unto Shemaiah his son were sons born, that ruled throughout the house of their father: for they were mighty men of valour. The sons of Shemaiah; Othni, and Rephael, and Obed, Elzabad, whose brethren were strong men, Elihu, and Semachiah. All these of the sons of Obededom: they and their sons and their brethren, able men for strength for the service, were threescore and two of Obededom. (1 Chronicles 26:1-8)
Chances are you’ve never heard of any of these men before. Why, you ask, did I just bore you with this obviously obscure passage of Scripture? There are many such passages listing names in the Old Testament. Those are the ones you usually speed read, or skip over entirely. Yet, if all Scripture is profitable (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and written for our admonition (1 Corinthians 10:11), what is God trying to communicate with these lists of names? Let me suggest that at least one reason these are included is because He knows each one of these people as individuals. He knows them by name and, in His omniscience, He knows all about them (just as He knows all about you, dear reader), their strengths and weaknesses, their joys and fears. God truly cares for the individual, and so should we.
The Ideology of Group
In contrast to this, the observations of Dr. Fred C. Schwarz in his book, You Can Trust the Communists (To Be Communists), regarding the historic fruit of the Marxist/Leninist ideology that is the basis of what we call liberalism today are stark (emphases added):
The record of Communism is one of recurrent fratricide and genocide. Their contempt for individual human life has known no bounds. Whether the life to be sacrificed was that of friend or foe appears to have been immaterial. The Communist Party of Russia devoured its own creators. Stalin put to death a majority of the original Bolsheviks. The Communists destroyed not only landlords and Capitalists, but peasants and workers, Kalmucks and Balts with equal ferocity. In spite of knowing this, the allegiance of many educated, apparently cultured American Communists has not been shattered. Many people are amazed that they do not turn from Communism in loathing and repulsion when confronted with its unutterable barbarism, brutality, and intellectual prostitution.
To the dedicated Communist, however, these are but the temporary necessary sacrifices which the glorious future demands. To wipe out the residual Capitalist debris is not murder but social science. Since any individual man is a mere historic accident, an undergraduate beast, it is stupid to regard him as of infinite value. It is the species and the class that are important. The Capitalist class has been rejected of history and must be destroyed.
Here is a fundamental reason why Christianity remains diametrically opposed to so much of the leftist policies that are being foisted upon Americans today by the liberals who have been allowed to permeate our country and culture. It is the value of the individual that, as a basic principle of biblical Christianity, forms the bedrock of our very government. The founding fathers constructed a government that has granted the maximum amount of freedom for individuals while acknowledging the need for associations of individuals into groups and seeking to provide appropriate boundaries for both while maximizing the potential for the prosperity of both. It was a monumental task that, amazingly enough, has succeeded to date. Our country has been one of the most free and prosperous nations on the face of the planet since history began.
And returning to Dr. Machen:
Only – and here emerges the enormous difference of opinion – the Christian man believes that there can be no applied Christianity unless there be “a Christianity to apply.” That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God. (page 155)
The Ideology of God
The Judeo-Christian ethic places not just a high value on the individual, but also on individual responsibility, and asserts that principle throughout the Bible. Responsibility goes hand in hand with privilege. Privilege in God’s sight does not lead to coddling. Each individual is responsible for his own choices, and will be held accountable for them by a holy God. Here we see a two-fold basis for the opposition of the liberal to biblical Christianity. Not only do they not like the emphasis on individual responsibility, let alone the individual himself, but individual accountability to a transcendent Being is not to be tolerated. The herd is much more impersonal, and gives him so many others to blame for his actions.
But this herd mentality causes a dependency on the group that is unhealthy and irresponsible, so that when disaster strikes, paralysis ensues, multiplying the death and destruction. Since no one is responsible, everybody assumes somebody else is responsible, and nothing gets done. The clearest example in more recent history is the stark contrast between the school buses under water in New Orleans compared to those bussing people out of Texas during the Katrina debacle.
Machen makes another interesting observation regarding the social institutions established in biblical Christianity:
The most important of such institutions, according to Christian teaching, is the family. And that institution is being pushed more and more into the background. It is being pushed into the background by undue encroachments of the community and of the state. Modern life is tending more and more toward the contraction of the sphere of parental control and parental influence. (page 154)
These ideas of the individual and the family group are connected, because it is in the family that the individual receives the best nurture as an individual that will fit him for the social. Dysfunctional families produce dysfunctional individuals which significantly diminish the society in which they participate. This is why God tells His people, “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” (Deuternomy 6:6-7)
Thus, an ideology that would diminish the individual and promote the group must attack the family, and that is one of the battlefields of the culture wars today. It really does not take a village to raise a child, just the complementary input of a mother and a father, but liberals really don’t believe that, and don’t want you to do so either.
Why 9/11 Has Had Such a Visceral Impact
This Judeo-Christian ideology/anthropology of the individual provides us some insight into why 9/11 has had such a diverse impact on the psyche of this country. I would submit that it revolves around which side of the individual versus the group concept you embrace. The Islamofascists see themselves as a group, and their victims as the opposing group. Compassion for individuals is completely foreign to their mindset. Leftists in this respect are the same. They see the victims as a group (especially a group they can exploit, but that is another post) and thus we can hear outrageously hateful and hurtful tripe comparing the people who were in the Twin Towers to “little Eichmanns” simply because they worked there.
But the majority of Americans, whether they are Christians or not, still have the Judeo-Christian value system in their practical daily living, and do not see those who lost their lives as a collective to be pitied or used, but a set of individuals to be known and mourned and avenged. Each body that hurtled through the air to avoid a fiery death, or that was crushed in the tons of rubble, was a unique human being created in the image of God and had an intrinsic value all their own.
And that is why we must remember 9/11. That is why we should see those horrific images on a regular basis. Until the ideology of hate that engendered that and so many other barbarisms in the world is ground into the dust bin of history, we must not forget these individuals, nor those fighting to protect us all from further such atrocities. Until those individuals who embrace this ideology of hate are reformed by truth or exterminated by force, they will not relent, and neither can we.
We must not forget. God won’t, and neither should we.
Originally posted June, 2007, this analysis still produces clarity at a high level. It is a longer read than some posts, but well worth the effort to do so, especially given the feckless response of the current administration to ISIS and its subsidiaries. We are seeing even now the accuracy of the thoughts outlined below in our current events. Note that what Ms. Phillips calls Islamist is what I call Islamofascist. Six of one and half a dozen of another.
I don’t know if I should be disappointed or relieved. Having somewhat addressed the internal conflict we face in this country relative to our leftist Marxist comrades in previous posts, (e.g., here and here) including the finale of my Amusing Ourselves to Death series, [sorry, not reposted yet] I’ve been collecting information specific to the external (and sometimes internal) conflict we currently face with the Islamofascists to present a more detailed analysis thereof. And then I find that, not one but two people have written up concisely what I’ve found and essentially what I wanted to say!
The first writer, Melanie Phillips, hails from Britain, a country considerably further along in its capitulation to Islamofascism, and she is the author of Londonistan, so there is probably a reason for her to having beat me to the punch. Her posted essay so clearly states what should be obvious that it is worthy of a full verbatim reposting here, which can be found below with [my humble comments] to place emphases and [my own thoughts] alongside Ms. Phillips. Hopefully this synthesis will prove enlightening to whatever readers stop by. The original can be found here. (Again, remember that the author is British; thus some of the spellings below are the English version of the words, not the American.) There are no emphases (bold) in the text of original; all such emphases are added by yours truly.
Liberalism versus Islamism
Posted By Melanie Phillips On May 18, 2007
Presentation at Neo conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 11 May 2007
First of all, let me define my terms and say what I mean by Islamism and liberalism. Islamism is the politicised version of Islam which mandates jihad, or holy war against the infidel and conquest of the non-Islamic world for Islam. I’m well aware of the argument that there’s no difference between Islamism and Islam: that’s a theological argument for others to have.
[My second author will have more to say regarding this argument, and as a Persian himself, probably has a better perspective. See upcoming post.]
By liberalism I mean the commitment to a free society, founded above all on the separation of secular government from religious worship — from which follow the concepts of equal respect for all people, freedom of conscience, tolerance and the rule of law.
[I think this must be what Dennis Prager means when he says he is a liberal. In the odd twisting of our language, this actually now describes a more conservative position that what we usually consider the liberalism currently in vogue, which is permeated by leftist Marxism.]
Originally posted May 2007. The observations made and concepts discussed still ring true.
I don’t know about you, but I find myself increasingly dismayed and astounded at the antics and shenanigans of the liberal Left and the so-called Democratic Party (if truth in advertising were to apply to party names, we should really call this the Socialist Party; and yes, the Republicans should probably be called something like the Spineless Wonders given their recent history). But when alleged leaders such as Harry Reid can bluntly state that if a general gives him an eyewitness report that he doesn’t like, he won’t believe it, well, I think it entirely justified to question their grasp on reality, let alone their patriotism. I’ve recently pointed to Bill Whittle’s essays on Seeing the Unseen, an excellent effort in three parts, of which we have only two to date. In part 1 he shows how one applies the ability to think critically to the canards of Bush Derangement Syndrome, blowing them away in the process, and in part 2 he likewise shreds conspiracy theories with Occam’s Razor. (Part 3 he says will be on global warming, and I can hardly wait to see how he deals with that globaloney.) Now, it is great fun watching him present the relevant facts and data that destroy these fairy tales, but there are some additional thoughts that he briefly pursues to which I’d like to turn at this juncture.
Given the way the facts so oppose the aforementioned canards and conspiracies put forth, how can a rational person embrace them with the fervency one all too often sees on the left and in the Democratic side of the aisle? At one point in part 1, Mr. Whittle says,
Seriously now, there are millions and millions of people on this planet who will torture logic and reason to mind-bending extremes in order to believe monumentally ridiculous ‘theories’… theories drawn from an emotional need so warped and debased that you are catapulted beyond anger and disbelief directly into pathos and the desire to call 911 before these people hurt themselves.
Then in part 2 he concludes,
But these denialists – the Moon Hoaxers and the 9/11 ‘Truthers’ – these are a different breed. And they are cut from precisely the same cloth. That is to say, they suffer from the same disease: an unwillingness to face reality and its consequences.
Originally posted on the Townhall Interface blog on November 6, 2006. See Part 1 for introductory comments.
Setting the Stage, Act 2
In Part 1, we saw how liberals will attempt to shut down criticism of their positions by quoting Jesus’ admonition to not judge. We also saw that they could only do so by ignoring both the context of the passage and several other relevant verses that require a different understanding of the original verse. Here in Part 2, we will see the same strategies being attempted again with the same invalid and even more disastrous results.
Resist Not Evil?
As this was more of a side point, there is less to quote from our liberal commentor on this topic. However, what is said is clear enough and is, indeed, representative of one of the major tenets in the philosophy of liberalism.
As for the war/peace; I am aware that war is part of the human condition. Does that make it right? There is a good reason that Jesus said for us to resist not evil. Because it is in our attempts at resisting evil that we begin to emulate evil. And then we lose our souls.
Your soul is more valuable than your life, and you should behave thusly. It is better to submit to God’s will, to trust in God, than it is live a long life. Better die than to kill.
Jesus did, indeed, tell us to "resist not evil," (Matthew 5:39) but was He saying we are not to resist all evil? Context is again the key, in this case, just the rest of the verse would be sufficient, but here’s the whole thing:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. (Matthew 5:38-42)
What evil was Jesus saying we should not resist as defined by the context? Let’s see: someone slapping you on the cheek, someone suing you for your clothing on your back, someone forcing extra effort on your part without pay and for their benefit, and someone asking a loan from you. Did anyone see there anything about someone wanting, not to slap your cheek, but to separate your cheek from the rest of your body? Jesus is clearly talking about personal revenge, not self defense, or even national defense.