Norman Kember is calling for ‘all possible clemency’ to be extended to the murderous thugs who kidnapped him and his group of Christian workers in Iraq last year.
Leave to one side the fact that he has demonstrated more concern for this bunch of animals than for the brave SAS men and other officers who rescued him from their clutches. He failed to thank his rescuers, only doing so after a wave of criticism.
Is the man mad? So he wants these kidnappers out on the street to capture and kill someone else? Does he forget that one of his party, Tom Fox, was brutally murdered by these men? Norman Kember is a Christian, and if there is one thing he should know, it is this: forgiveness does not necessarily mean absolution for the consequences of one’s actions. Yes, he can forgive them ‘unconditionally’, as he claims, but that does not mean that the law should not act to punish them for their deeds. The purpose of a criminal sentence is two-fold, punishment and rehabilitation. One could also argue that in a case like this, there is also a compelling need to keep these men away from civilised society, to the extent that that still exists in Iraq.
Does Norman Kember think that the mere fact of his forgiveness is sufficient to turn these men into law-abiding members of society? He is a fool if he thinks that.
Norman Kember went to Iraq on a misguided mission, ostensibly out of concern for the Iraqi people. If he really cares about them, he should do his utmost to protect them from these men.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Absolutely right. Great point! Forgive if he wants, but punish all the same.
Another strong point (I believe) is that we are instructed to “forgive one another as God for Christ sake has forgiven us”. Well, how does He forgive us? “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us.”
In other words, forgiveness follows willingness to confess our sins. There is no expectation we forgive hard-hearted murderous scum-bags.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Exactly. Well said, OnxyStone. There is absolutely (as far as we can see) no evidence of remorse or contrition from these people, so what’s that all about?
What is the point of absolving people when they do not even recognise that they have done anything wrong? As you say, the forgiveness of God comes with acknowledgement of sin.
In any case, sin has consequences. Remember David and Bathsheba. There was repentance (see Psalm 51), and there was forgiveness. But there were still consequences of sin (the child died). Sometimes this happens, and Norman Kember should know that. Even if he forgives these men, they should still face the consequences of their actions. It is not, nor should it be, in his power to circumvent that.