From what I hear about the Iowa "debate," Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo defended his statement that we should be willing to bomb Mecca and other holy sites of Islam in order to deter terrorist strikes on our soil.
His argument is that as president his highest priority would be the defense of this country. President Bush has made the same claim, thankfully without the threat to obliterate sacred places. It's an erroneous and dangerous idea nonetheless. If safety really is the highest value to which our president must respond, then all other values can be sacrificed for the sake of safety. A person who values his own or others' safety more than he values justice would be willing to commit injustice for the sake of safety. Given the size and scope of power that the president wields, the degree of injustice capable of being committed in the name of protecting us from terrorists is frightening indeed.
Tom Tancredo's willingness to destroy a holy city and kill a large population of religious believers may not be a mainstream position, but it's not a new position in our history. The intended target of our atomic bombing of Nagasaki was the largest Catholic Cathedral in Japan, and I've known devout Catholics who have justified, in the name of safety, bombing the Blessed Sacrament and many innocent Catholic faithful. Russell Kirk said that raw power in our hands is just as dangerous as raw power in the hands of any other nation.
No amount of danger and threat to our safety justifies our entering into evil. Why am I hearing conservatives say otherwise?
Pages
