Blurred Lines: Why So Many Killers Confuse Terrorism with Justice

 

        The recent shooting at a Mormon chapel in Michigan is part of a disturbing trend: the growing justification of violence. A Catholic church was recently attacked, Charlie Kirk was assassinated, and the murderer of a health care CEO is treated as a romantic figure because of his looks. Even Lori Vallow, the “doomsday mom,” defended her killings by invoking Nephi’s slaying of Laban.

        These examples reveal how dangerously blurred the moral line has become between justified violence and terrorism. Increasingly, those who commit crimes are excused, while ordinary law-abiding people, working unglamorous jobs in average towns or simply attending church, are painted as guilty of society’s ills and, in some eyes, worthy of death. Such thinking only makes sense when guilt and innocence are determined not by individual actions but by membership in a group.

        This logic can be traced through intellectual traditions that divide the world into two hostile camps: the oppressors vs. oppressed of Marx, or the colonizers vs. colonized of Frantz Fanon. Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, praised by Jean-Paul Sartre and Cornel West as a revolutionary manual, has become particularly influential. Its vision of collective struggle and sanctioned violence echoes today in the defense of Hamas atrocities, the celebration of political assassinations, and even in some strands of leftist Mormon thought.

        This post examines Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth to show how violence is sanctioned when individual responsibility is erased and why Just War theory provides a much needed moral antidote.

Violence

        The Wretched of the Earth both justifies and minimizes intense violence. The first line of the book said, “decolonization is always a violent event” (1). Then, “decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives” (3). Fanon warned of a “human tide” that sounded like the French Reign of Terror (13.) Fanon says the colonized are filled with “blood feuds” and “fratricidal blood bath(s)” (17, 21). “It is clearly and plainly an armed struggle” (42). “For the colonized, this violence represents the absolute praxis” (43). And finally, “For the colonized, life can only materialize from the rotting cadaver of the colonialist.”

        His theories result in a Manichean view, his words, that erase individual moral virtue and justified murder. Because if a colonized person kills colonizer cops, he is a hero. As Fanon wrote “If the act for which this man is prosecuted by the colonial authorities is an act exclusively directed against a colonial individual or colonial asset, then the demarcation line [between right and wrong] is clear and manifest (30).”

Minimize Western Religion and Values

        When he does quote Christian teachings, he either invalidates or perverts them. According to Fanon, the teachings of love and harmony (3) are simply part of the “confusion mongers” that make exploitation easier (4).  Fanon said, “The last can be first only after a murderous and decisive confrontation” (3).

        Fanon says Christianity is the white man’s church, “as we know in this story, many are called but few are chosen” (8). After he told story of rebel that killed colonizers Fanon said it was a “baptism by blood” (46).

        He ignored Western values the same way. Without evidence he asserted that “government agents use the language of pure violence” (4). Discussions of Western values cause the natives to tense their muscles and grab a machete and sharpen their weapons (8). Fanon said the West wages a war in values, that the people don’t care about. All they care about is land appropriation and blowing the colonial world to smithereens (6).

Putting It All Together

        All the above matters because the Western values that he diminishes, which were often promulgated by Christian thinkers, established guardrails against the kind of bloodbath Fanon justified and unleashed and provides moral correction against the abuses that supposedly justify the violent outbursts of the colonized.[1]

        Salamanca school scholar Francisco Suarez wrote that revolt is only violence is just only “if essential for liberty, because if there is any less drastic means of removing him it is not lawful to kill him…always provided that there is no danger of the same or worse evils falling on community as result of the tyrants death.[2]

        Early modern scholar Hugo Grotius wrote about the same right to revolt if the king alienates his people, but also warned potential usurpers that it would lead to gory factionalism and “dangerous, bloody conflict.”[3]

        In similar language, Mosiah recognized the danger of revolt when he argued for the end of the monarchy: [Y]e cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood (Mosiah 29:21).

        In contrast to Fanon, Christian writers espousing what eventually became notable Western values recognized the same danger in revolution and warned against slaughter. At the same time, they recognized the rights of the oppressed and just war often became a catalyst for reform. Fanon dismissed the talk of rights as the “erstatz,” or fake struggle of the elite for the people “insipid humanitarianism” (28). Yet those supposedly insipid beliefs according to Fanon, or beliefs that are insufficient according to multiple LDS scholars,[4] are stronger than any of Fanon’s theories because they clearly address the morality of revolution.

        Despite being minimized by Fanon as abstract values that don’t matter, the Salamanca school scholars advocating for human rights of natives, the Grimke sisters arguing for abolition, the missionaries arguing for abolition, and the Christian missionaries that reported the abuses in the Belgian Congo suggest religion was often a reforming counter agent to colonialism. A focus on individual morality instead of collective guilt promoted by Fanon noticed the stark differences between the philosopher that opposed colonization compared to the politicians that wanted it, the ministers that built roads and bridges and the rapacious tax collectors, and the leaders of the Western Concession in Shanghai that shielded dissidents.

        Using collective accusations that erases individual moral responsibility is why we end up with Hamas apologists. Cornell West said the Palestinians most embody the “spirit of Fanon” (xii), so when they killed, they were simply part of the colonized oppressed and their actions turn them in to “heroes.” I quoted this earlier, but it is worth repeating what Fanon wrote regarding the morality of violence against the colonizers, “If the act for which this man is prosecuted by the colonial authorities is an act exclusively directed against a colonial individual or colonial asset, then the demarcation line is clear and manifest.” Even though their violence was a barbaric campaign of mass slaughter and rape against innocent families, the ideas of Fanon made all Jews guilty and all terrorists innocent.

        That is why Americans witnessed the bizarre spectacle of liberal groups making gliders their logo. (Gliders are how the terrorists travelled to the massacre at the Nova music festival.) And this confused moral logic led to tweets which argued the barbaric savagery of Hamas was “what decolonization looks like.”

        This collective guilt theory is why so many rationalized away the assassination of health care CEO Brian Thompson. (The other reason was the killer’s attractiveness.) He never killed anyone and arguably worked to provide health care to millions. But he was part of a hated industry, attacked for killing thousands. Thus, the nominal morality that opposes murder held less sway for the masses of morally confused. It’s true that the health care system really stinks but relying on collective guilt to indict one person as guilty and worthy of death and justify murder by another, is a dangerous slope and signals a dangerous erosion of clear moral standards.

Bad Categories Escape Morality

        In short, the problem was summarized from my post about the Visions of Glory. As I wrote about Visions of Glory, once a person starts labelling yourself as part of a righteous group, and their opponents as zombies, it becomes easier to justify killing them. When Fanon described an event as naturally violent (1) and a population existing in an “atmosphere of violence” (31) it’s natural to strike out.[5]

        The antidote is not to invent new theories or indulge in vague moralizing, but to return to the clarity of Just War principles and the wisdom of earlier thinkers. As both Christian tradition and the Book of Mormon warn, revolution comes only “through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.” That is not a license to glorify violence but a sober caution to resist collective guilt and hold fast to individual responsibility.

        We are judged by our own sins, not by the accidents of class, race, or category. If we truly wish to resist the age of blurred lines and confused morality, we must recover the values of love, harmony, and conciliation that Fanon dismissed, and recognize that peace is found not in collective vengeance, and random shootings, but in clear moral standards rooted in justice.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or purchase one of my books linked in the top left. 

********

---

[1] Morgan Deane, To Stop a Slaughter: Just War and the Book of Mormon, (Arsenal of Venice Press, 2024,) 104-106.

[2] Andre Azevedo Alves, Jose Moreira, John Meadowcroft, The Salamanca School, (Bloomsbury Academic Pro, 2013), 53. 

[3] Grotius , 73-76. Grotius also placed limits on potential usurpers that included another warning that it is difficult to determine the morality of a rebellion. He suggested that individual shouldn’t take it upon themselves to decide a question on their own, which involves the whole people.

[4] Patrick Q. Mason and J. David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 135. Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed: An LDS Perspective on War (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015), 223. Boyce states “modern just war framework…makes no explicit use of scripture…it seems obvious that it cannot be sufficient to address the concerns of Latter-day Saints.”

[5] There is an absurd double standard here as well. When conservatives do something as simple as enforce immigration law, they are attacked as evil for creating a “climate of fear.” But when a third world nation is on the verge of a horrific orgy of violence they honor scholars that call that violence natural, necessary, and heroic.

Just War: Common Complaints

        Through 25 years of writing and thinking about war, I keep running into the same mistakes. People either treat war as always immoral, or they toss the term ‘war crime’ around as a catchall. This post explains the common misconceptions about just war, show how medieval and modern theorists actually enlarged moral protections for civilians, and argue that force, in narrowly defined circumstances, can be a needed last resort to prevent slaughter.

War is clearly wrong

        Who watches the destruction and heart ache on the evening news and believes that God wants that? Yet just as quickly one might remember the abject slaughter of the helpless and we must ask, what happens when the absence of force results in even greater evil than war? Yazidi sex slaves, kidnapped Ukrainian children, cartels sex trafficking immigrants, to the slaughtered innocents on October 7th, and those still tortured and starved by Hamas in captivity all show us the evil that men do. If the Good Samaritan happened upon the beaten traveler in the middle of the attack and not after, he would lift the sword to protect his neighbor. Like the Good Samaritan, we should love our brothers enough to raise the sword in their defense. The need for force and God given desire to “deliver the poor and needy” (Psalms 82:4) then becomes a good thing, because it stops or prevents abject slaughter.

        While no one wants war, because you need to stop a slaughter, many people recognize the tragic need for war on an intuitive level.

Anything I don’t like is a war crime

        People believe, like Paul Ramsey described, that civilians are roped off from harm like the ladies at a medieval tournament.[1] So, any time civilians are killed, churches struck, or some other tragedy occurs it must be a war crime.

        But real war crimes require actual laws of war. Augustine, the first just war theorist, talked about right intention including a desire to restore a just and peaceful order.[2] The medieval thinker, Gratian in the Decretum named protected groups like pilgrims, clerics, women, and unarmed peasants.[3] Salamanca school scholar Francisco De Vitoria wrote that indigenous people can’t be slaughtered simply for not being Christian. He said: “War is no argument for the truth of the Christian faith.”[4]

        Civilian deaths are tragic, but not every tragedy is a war crime. Intent, environment, and proximity to combatants all matter. Terrorists like Hamas exploit this by hiding behind civilians. The laws of war are clear: using civilians as shields is a violation; unintended strikes, even on churches or those that kill children, are not. That tragedy remains awful, but Hamas chose it when they launched terror attacks and then hid beneath hospitals, schools, and churches.

        Some use every tragedy to reject force altogether, but that simply guarantees victims will be slaughtered. Pacifism often implies it is better to let atrocities continue than to risk civilian harm. Outrage over an accidental strike can overshadow the deeper outrage that started the war but it shouldn't. 

Moroni was militaristic and not a source of peace

        Moroni has been cited for militaristic means. During my mission in Texas, I visited compounds with pictures of Moroni on the wall. But closely reading the text we see that Moroni repeatedly brought peace to such a degree that the Lamanites rebelled against their king rather than take up arms.

        In the face of an implacably murderous ideology, Moroni showed that battlefield defeat discredits that radical ideology that led to war and produced peace. He was such an expert peacemaker that he converted committed fanatics during battle numerous times. Based on those battlefield covenants he arguably converted more people than the missionary preaching and the self-sacrifice of the Anti-Nephi Lehis. As recorded in Alma 47:2 and Helaman 4:3, those that didn’t make that covenant were still inclined towards peace years later. His actions didn’t result from or instigate a cycle of violence but led to long eras of peace and more peace, defiance of cultural stereotypes, and generosity than produced or showed by Ammon and his brethren. The righteous example of Moroni suggests a path to peace that comes from decisive victory we must recognize and apply, regardless of how uncomfortable his example might make some people.

Anyone I don't like is a simp for war 

        This is usually wrapped up in insults like I’m an insane, warmongering anti-Christ that hasn’t met a war criminal I won’t simp for. These insults contain multiple ironies.

        First, I’m old enough and have been studying history long enough I remember wanting actual war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic and Uday and Qusay Hussein locked up and executed.

        Second, it’s always the least educated people I met, those with limited education and no publications, who insult my intelligence, education, and publications.

        Third, Augustine warned “the passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit” leads to war.[5] But I see this war like spirit every time I explain basic ideas about just war, defend Israel, and simply disagree with a pacifist. I’m the “war monger,” but they show more passion for war by their cruel thirst for insulting me.

        Aside from all that irony, I’m pro war to the extent I’m anti genocide and mass rape. When Putin launches the most nakedly aggressive war of my lifetime (and I’m old enough to have lived through the Soviet Union), it’s easy to stand against it. When I see the worst holocaust since the Holocaust, I must stand against it. Just war grounds me in the conviction that I am aligned with God’s justice, and equips me to answer objections without fear. (Though, I'll confess, not without annoyance.) 

Just war only justifies war

       Just war has always critiqued governments as much as it has supported force. I already mentioned the concern of the just war theorists towards civilians but there is more. Vitoria criticized Spanish policy towards colonials he and his fellow scholars led to reforms.  This was during the age of discovery and conquistadors. So, what many people consider the worst abuses of the West were being critiqued and changed by just war theorists.

        Decretalists in the Middle Ages and those like Gregory IX increasingly moved society from settling disputes by combat to settling them by lawsuit and the rule of law.[6] They did this by aiming just war principles at wars of aggrandizement. For example, they argued that losses in wars of dubious morality, such as the armor and horses of a lord’s knights, could justify a legal claim requiring the lord to provide reimbursement. Since arms, armor, and horses were costly to replace, this made war far less profitable and thus discouraged campaigns unless there was a strong justification, such as repelling a rival king’s invasion, defending against robbers, or fulfilling duty to the crown. Again, during what many people consider a darkened age of unrestrained violence just war theorists were using a careful reading of religion and the law to limit the bloodshed.

        Far from sanctioning violence, just war thinkers used theology and law to restrain war and promote peace. Their concern for civilians laid the foundation of today’s laws of war. The irony is that medieval scholars had a more nuanced and devout grasp of thorny issues regarding war and peace than many modern critics who dismiss them.

Mormons have the restored truth, why bother with medieval Catholics?

       If you’ve read this far, you already know medieval Catholics were serious thinkers wrestling with the very questions we still face. Just war theorists like Aquinas, Vitoria, and Grotius have addressed revolution, civilian casualties, war crimes, and complex questions of law centuries before us. Their work still sharpens debates today. Duane Boyce’s argument about preemptive war, among others, could have been much sharper had he relied on the criteria of Hugo Grotius. Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher could better understand scriptures like Moroni 7:26 by using just war principles. Mark Henshaw could find additional material about just peace from those medieval Catholics.

        Mormonism is young. We don’t yet have a systematic theology, let alone our Augustine. Much of our debate unintentionally echoes older Christian conversations, only with different proof texts and less rigor. To dismiss their wisdom while boasting about “restored truth” is more chauvinism than confidence.

        As Brigham Young counselled: 

Whether a truth be found with professed infidels… it is the business of the Elders of this Church to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation…and bring it to Zion.[7]

This war seems politically motivated and grey

        I call this the bio lab defense.[8] When Russia invaded Ukraine, everyone suddenly became an expert on history, NATO, and bioweapons labs, muddying the waters until it felt acceptable to doubt the justice of the war.

        The same thing happened with Israel after the October 7th attack, the worst slaughter of Jews since WWII. People brought up radical Israeli terrorists from the ’90s or questioned the Jewishness of the victims.

        Many other good people, who are generally inclined to help, are left confused and like Joseph Smith, they hear a war of words and tumult of opinions and don’t know which side is correct. But just war is no simpler than this: do you feel genuine sadness and a desire to stop the injustice? That is love and compassion. Then ask: do you love your neighbor enough to act, or do you follow distractions—NATO, labs, space lasers—that let you ignore that call? 

       A country’s history may be imperfect, its leaders questionable, and the issue complex, yet there can still be an unmistakable duty to stop a slaughter. Jesus chose a despised ethnic rival and bitter enemy, a Samaritan, to show the kind of love we should have for our neighbor.

Conclusion 

        The lessons of just war theory are not just historical curiosities or sophistry. They are tools for moral clarity in our own time. Study the thinkers who wrestled with the limits of force, the protection of civilians, and the pursuit of peace. Reflect on scripture, history, and contemporary events, and ask yourself whether your compassion compels you to act. Challenge your assumptions, weigh difficult moral questions, and let a spirit of just peace guide your words, your judgments, and your actions. True moral courage comes not from avoiding conflict, but from confronting injustice thoughtfully, decisively, and ethically.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or by purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] Paul Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, (Rowan and Littlefield, 2002),145.

[2] Contra Faust. xxii, 69

[3] On the poor: D. 86 c. 21; On windows and orphans: D. 21 d.p.c. 5 and C. 15 q. 8 c. 4.

[4] Principles of Politics and International Law in the work of Francisco Vitoria Antonio Sera ed. (Madrid Edicicues Cultura Hispania 1946), 68.

[5] Contra Faust. xxii, 74

[6] Frederick Russell, Just War in the Middle Ages, (Cambridge University Press, 1975), 148, 153, 174-177, 212.

[7] Doctrines of Brigham Young, 248.

[8] The Ukrainian biolab worked to decommission large quantities of Cold War Era biological weapons.

Captain Moroni: The Just Warrior

 

        In the annals of the Book of Mormon, Captain Moroni stands above all other military leaders. Though not without controversy, he stands as a paragon of righteous military leadership. Naturally, we should examine his leadership in the light of just war. His actions and decisions provide a framework for understanding the principles of just war, demonstrating that warfare, when conducted with moral clarity and divine guidance, can be a force for good.

Reluctance to Engage in Battle

        Moroni's reluctance to engage in battle underscores the principle that war should be a last resort. Alma 43 through 45 repeatedly contrast the Nephite’s “better cause,” and simple desire for defense of their lands, liberty, and church with the Lamanites desire for aggression, plunder, and slaughter (Alma 43:29-30,45; 44:1). Once the Lamanites attacked the Nephites and the latter were faced with that massacre, they had a duty to love their neighbors enough to stop their slaughter. This is summarized in what is one of the most important verses in the Book of Mormon since it describes the duty and burden of a peaceful heart forced to wield the sword.

        In Alma 48:21–23, we read:

"Now they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God."

        This passage highlights that the Nephites, under Moroni's command, were compelled to fight reluctantly. Their sorrow was not rooted in fear but in the moral weight of taking life. Moroni's leadership was characterized by a deep sense of responsibility and a desire to avoid conflict whenever possible.

Mercy and the Pursuit of Peace

        Even in the heat of battle, Moroni sought opportunities for reconciliation. In Alma 44:1, after a significant victory, he addressed the Lamanite leader Zerahemnah:

"Behold, Zerahemnah, that we do not desire to be men of blood. Ye know that ye are in our hands, yet we do not desire to slay you."

        When he infiltrated the city of Gid he could have slain the drunken Lamanite warriors but he “did not delight in murder or bloodshed” (Alma 55:19).

        These statements reflect Moroni's commitment to mercy and the pursuit of peace. Latter Day Saints praise Ammon for offering the king mercy. But Moroni offered entire armies mercy shortly after the heat of battle. He offered the enemy a chance to make a covenant of peace, emphasizing that the Nephites' goal was not to destroy but to defend and preserve life.

Transforming Enemies into Allies

        Moroni is often attacked and dismissed as too militaristic. But Moroni's approach to warfare was not merely about defeating enemies but about transforming them. After battles, he allowed Lamanites who accepted the covenant to live in peace. This act of clemency not only reduced the number of adversaries but also integrated former enemies into society as peaceful tributaries, fostering long-term stability and unity. It can be called the Nephite version of the peace dividend.

The Danger of Overzealous Militancy

        While Moroni's actions were largely characterized by restraint and righteousness, there were moments when his fervor for justice led to harsh words. In his letters to Ammoron, he threatened severe retaliation, including the possibility of a war of extermination (Alma 54:12). These instances serve as a reminder of the fine line between righteous indignation and overzealous militancy. It should be remembered, however, that these are just words. While he threatened blood for blood, when given a chance a mere chapter later he spared Lamanite soldiers. Perhaps he knew Ammoron only responded to force and that weakness would simply encourage him to walk away from negotiations. While most people see anger, his letters contain sophisticated arguments and rhetorical skill.

Strategic Preemption Against Threats

        This item is rarely noticed. But Moroni recognized the imminent danger posed by Amalickiah and took proactive measures to neutralize the threat (Alma 46:30). The standard interpretation of Nephite thought is that they were exclusively defensive. But the Book of Mormon is replete with preemptive action, and when meeting the criteria, it aligns with the just-war principle of ensuring security and peace despite its controversy. The rest of the war chapters support Moroni’s concern. Moroni asked, where will this lead, and his foresight in addressing potential threats before they materialized demonstrates strategic wisdom and a commitment to the safety of his people.

Mormon's Endorsement of Moroni

        Despite all his flaws, Mormon, the record keeper, provides a powerful endorsement of Moroni's character and leadership. In Alma 48:17, he writes:

"If all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men."

        This statement underscores Moroni's exemplary nature and the righteousness of his actions. While modern audiences might chafe at its militarism, and pacifists dislike his message. Mormon's praise indicates that Moroni's leadership was in harmony with divine principles. War itself is rarely as neat as we would like it to be. And when tragically faced with tough decisions, Moroni made them and brought peace. His leadership should be studied as a model of just conduct despite its flaws.

Conclusion

        Captain Moroni's life and leadership offer profound insights into the principles of just war. His reluctance to engage in battle, attempted preemption, pursuit of peace, and transformation of enemies into allies exemplify a righteous approach to conflict. While moments of overzealousness serve as cautionary tales, and people will always nitpick, the balance of his conduct aligns with the just-war tradition, demonstrating that warfare, when guided by moral clarity and divine principles, can be a force for good.

The Samaritan’s Sword: Where to Start with War and Peace

 

        You’re watching the news of something awful. The world trade towers collapsed, Israel suffered the worst holocaust since World War II, and through your tears you think of what you should say and do next. What scriptures came to your mind?

        Latter-day Saint discourse on war gravitates toward a small set of proof texts which mirror the broader Christian tradition. From the Sermon on the Mount, we read Christ’s injunction to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39). From modern revelation, we repeat the Lord’s command to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16). These two generally drive what seems like an obvious command towards LDS pacifism and nonviolence. From Captain Moroni’s leadership we recall the charge that “ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).  And we are told that we can't let our wives and children be massacred (Alma 48:24). This drives what seems like an obvious command towards the use of force.

        Even though they are used as such, scriptures are rarely intended to function as a set of disconnected slogans. Each verse gains meaning and moves from proof text to proof in conversation with the others, and the interpretive challenge lies precisely in holding them together.

        The analytical key to resolving this tension lies in the just war tradition. First articulated thousands of years ago and refined over the years, the parable of the Good Samaritan provides a simple but commanding answer. As described by Jesus (Luke 10:25-37) as the epitome of Christ like love, the Samaritan's first impulse, even to those that were his ethnic rivals and looked down upon him, was to heal. After being set upon by bandits, the Good Samaritan gave the beaten traveler oil and wine, and provided for the injured man’s recovery. He did not act from vengeance or national loyalty, but from compassion across ethnic and religious boundaries. As described in chapter one of my book, To Stop a Slaughter: Just War in the Book of Mormon, this, is the peaceful heart we should cultivate.[1]

        Yet there is a narrative gap in the parable. The bandits vanish offstage after committing their crime. But what if the Samaritan happened upon the beaten traveler amid the attack, or what if they had returned while the Samaritan was binding wounds?[2] To use a modern phrase, what if this was a dangerous neighborhood and the threat was ongoing? Would compassion mean turning the other cheek through silence and inaction? Would the Samaritan offer peaceful, conciliatory words as the traveler is attacked? Or would love compel him to stand between the victim and his assailants?

        This simple, logical, profound, and commanding answer is that the Good Samaritan would feel morally compelled, out of love for his neighbor, to intervene. This is precisely the spirit that Alma attributes to the Nephites under Captain Moroni:

They were compelled reluctantly to contend with their brethren, yea, and were brought to the sword in defense of their lives. … They were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood…Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, (Alma 48:21–24).

        Here we see verses that refute a simple slogan. We are commanded to renounce war, to seek peace, and to cultivate the Samaritan’s compassion. Yet we are also commanded to defend our families, our faith, and the vulnerable. We are commanded to avoid what Thomas Aquinas called an “evil peace” that stands idly by while others are slaughtered.[3] What emerges from reading all the scriptures, instead of embracing some and minimizing or ignoring others is what Just War theorists from Augustine onward have called the tragic necessity of defense: war may be waged, but only with reluctance, never delight.³

        LDS scripture does not hand us bumper stickers, as much as we might hear those slogans in online discourse. Instead, we are handed something far more complex, but understandable and enriching. When you see disturbing news, and have a gut instinct about what to say and do, hopefully that gut is something that embraces an ethic from strong and interlocking ideas, and not limiting proof texts. We must renounce war and proclaim peace, cultivate a peaceful attitude that turns the other cheek, but love our neighbor enough to intervene against robbers, and defend them unto bloodshed.

        Bits and Bobs: You can find me on twitter @DeanOnWar. And my new fiction, Blister City: Ride Until Dawn, is releasing soon! 

        Ride through a city where the only stars are neon, and survival is the only dream left...Gritty, fast-paced, and quietly powerful, Blister City: Ride Until Dawn is a cyberpunk novella about burnout, pain, and the fragile spark of hope when all the lights go out.

        If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or by purchasing one of my books linked within this piece or in the top left. Thanks for reading! 

************

---

[1] Also see Morgan Deane, “Greater Portion of the Word: The Decisive Book of Mormon in the Debates on War and Peace,” in Defending the Book of Mormon: Proceedings of the 2023 FAIR Virtual Conference, Scott Gordon, Trevor Holyoak, Jared Riddick, (FAIR Press, 2025), 117-127.

[2] Paul Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, (New York: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, 2002), (New York: Scribner, 1968),143.

[3] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 40, article two, answer to objection 4. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm (Accessed September 2nd, 2025.)

New Publication: Blister City, Ride Until Dawn

 

        I’m proud to announce that I’m branching out into fiction. Here is the blurb of my new book, releasing September 19^th:

Ride through a city where the only stars are neon, and survival is the only dream left.

In the brutal sprawl of Blister City, Kid is a motorcycle thief posing as a courier, carving narrow escapes between glowing billboards and gang-ruled streets. Fast, skilled, and invisible, he survives by never getting attached. Until a stolen glimpse of greenery cracks his armor.

When he's hired to escort a pregnant girl to a high-security hospital, it seems like a rare honest payday. Until she looks up at him with pleading eyes full of something this city no longer has a name for. Then she runs.

Now, with the city closing in and choices shrinking fast, Kid must decide if he's just another gear in the machine or something more. Maybe even someone who could save her.

Gritty, fast-paced, and quietly powerful, Blister City: Ride Until Dawn is a cyberpunk novella about burnout, pain, and the fragile spark of hope when all the lights go out.

        The genesis for the story came from the news. A couple of future parents insisted that their surrogate abort their baby. I thought that was rather dystopic, so the story of a girl who runs and the rider that helps them was born.

        I needed a strong motivation for the driver. So, I remember one of those slide shows that passes as news stories. It showed a single tree, surrounded by about 4x4 feet of grass, which was in turn surrounded by a fence. I thought about what it would mean to a person to live a despondent life and suddenly see a garden. That was the “inciting event” for the main character. I couldn’t find the picture but this link is close enough.

        I laid the groundwork for his temperament by looking at another dystopic picture, the concept of “cage apartments.” These are in places like Hong Kong where housing is so expensive people rent cages, stacked on top of one another and barely bigger than a dog kennel.

        On the way back from seeing that green, the main character has a moment like that in Tale of Two Cities. In book 2, chapter 5, Syndey Carton, feeling sad and weighed down with unfulfilled promise, looks out over the city and imagines a better life. It was so beautiful that every time I read it I put the book down and weep. So my character has a similar moment that establishes the effect of that grass and primes him to help.

Waste forces within him, and a desert all around, this man stood still on his way across a silent terrace, and saw for a moment, lying in the wilderness before him, a mirage of honorable ambition, self-denial, and perseverance. In the fair city of this vision, there were airy galleries from which the loves and graces looked upon him, gardens in which the fruits of life hung ripening, waters of Hope that sparkled in his sight. A moment, and it was gone. Climbing to a high chamber in a well of houses, he threw himself down in his clothes on a neglected bed, and its pillow was wet with wasted tears.

        Finally, I don’t mess around with fluff or waste your time. I thought about making the change more gradual. Like the Mandalorian, our main character drops off his cargo, agonizes, and eventually decides to steal the child.  But if everyone knows that will happen anyway, why wait? I’ve already showed the Kid’s is primed to help, so I make it happen. You'll find this book gritty and fast paced. 

        The final ingredient was the movie Apocalypto. Fundamentally, it’s a chase movie. I don’t spend much time on side characters or superfluous fluff. I get the main characters running and I keep the chase going. I don’t let up. But I still find moments of character development. I’ll admit at one point I wrote them into a corner, both literally as a writer, and figuratively for the characters. But I thought it through and found an excellent way for them to get themselves out of it.

        I think the story is great, both at that moment and overall. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoy writing it. It’s extremely difficult for books to gain attention. I hope you’ll take a moment and at least share the link to this article or go to the book’s landing page and share it. It will help me a great deal.

        One final note: I’m considering a push to strengthen my online presence. So, you might see more posts here, covering material that you’ve probably read already. I’ve got 15 years of blogging experience and I think it’s time to draw upon that and use better strategies to highlight my writing. Be on the lookout for that material starting later this week or next.

        Thanks for reading! 

Moral Clarity on the Anniversary of the Atomic Bombings

Reposted yearly as a much needed part of the conversation. 

        August 6th marks the dubious day in 1945 where America became the only power to use a nuclear bomb. This continues to spark controversy. From 1945 to 2005 American approval of the bombings has dropped from 85 to 57 percent. And a record low number of Americans are proud of their country. This is somewhat understandable as societal attitudes change and there is a great deal to critique over the decision. But it might also be what the editors at the National Review recently pointed out is part of the crisis of self-doubt gaining traction in America and what Wilfred McClay called a deeply unserious country that doesn’t believe in itself. Yet a proper study of the history surrounding the decision to drop the bombs and an examination of ethics finds the bombing was both justified and necessary.

        During the war both sides held a great deal of racial animus towards one another, which suggests the bomb might have been more willingly used because of racism.[1] Though, the bomb wasn’t ready in time to end the war against Germany so that is hard to gauge. Using an area effect weapon that didn’t distinguish between civilians and military targets invites condemnation.[2] The lack of military targets in Hiroshima and the dubious effectiveness of the bomb makes some people say this was terrorism.[3] After all, the Strategic Bombing survey revealed that the trains ran normally a mere two days later and this was often considered a way to stun the Japanese into surrendering and impress the Russians with the viability of the program.[4] (Though it should be noted that both cities had important military components. Both cities house important military garrisons as well as critical war industries, and Nagasaki was a foremost military shipping depot, and thus remained valid military targets.) Plus, there were supposedly peace feelers from the Japanese that made this completely unnecessary.

        As I will show below, these are all extremely flawed arguments that don’t accurately reflect the historical context and seem like excuses to blame American and undermine moral confidence today, instead of understanding the tragic but justified decisions of the past. Most importantly, every moral argument against the bombing fails because every blood soaked alternative was worse! 

        The strongest criticism regards peace overtures from Japanese officials. Who doesn’t want the war to end early? This theory argues that the Japanese were ready for peace and only block headed, blood thirsty, and maybe even racist generals kept the war going. These were detailed by a revisionist historian, Gar Alperovitz and thus come long after the fact when it became more fashionable to search and promulgate these theories.[5] More importantly, this theory cherry picks some information and leave out much more important events that shows these peace feelers were completely impotent and U.S. officials were correct when they disregarded them.

        The best evidence against this theory comes after the Japanese emperor’s decision to surrender. After America dropped the bombs and the emperor wanted peace army leaders challenged and almost reversed the decision through a military coup. Up until the dropping of the second bomb Japanese officials thought a defense of Japan could produce favorable peace terms that at times included conditional surrender, voluntary reduction (but not elimination) of their military, and protections from war crimes tribunals.[6] The peace overtures before the dropping of the bomb were impotent, and dropping the required of unconditional surrender ignores the many other conditions that Japanese officials favored until the second atomic bombing.

        Let me stress, even AFTER America dropped atomic bombs significant factions in Japanese leadership wanted to keep fighting. Peace was not possible before the bombs were dropped. The idea is an ahistorical fantasy used by modern pundits to attack America. Moreover, American willingness to negotiate before the bombs dropped would have emboldened the Japanese and aggressive army generals to think that more fighting would have secured more concessions.

        Other critics quote leaders who sound authoritative but really aren’t because these quotes also ignore historical context. One example comes from Eisenhower who said: [I believe] that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…[7]

        With all due respect to Eisenhower and other leaders cherry picked for opposing nuclear weapons, he was thousands of miles and away and was not privy to the intelligence and decision-making councils that led to it. It would be like Admiral Nimitz second guessing Eisenhower’s decision to stop at the Elbe. Eisenhower is a particularly odd choice for opposing nuclear weapons since his New Look military relied so heavily on nukes and spooks.[8] Those that blanche at the use of nuclear weapons and hate the national security state should probably avoid quoting a general that as president, threatened to use nuclear weapons in the Taiwan Strait crises, and unleashed CIA sponsored coups on democratically elected governments in Iran and Guatemala that still reverberate today.

        Other military critics were vocal against nuclear weapons not because of moral principles, but because of parochial rivalries. The bombs were delivered by bombers, and this helped Curtis LeMay argue for the creation of an independent Airforce. In turn, this would take resources and prestige away from the Navy and Army chiefs, who were incredibly territorial, had differing strategies and demands, and wanted the air corps assets divided between them.[9] Thus it isn’t surprising to find that admirals would elevate the role of commerce raiding in the defeat of Japan and minimize the “barbaric” “toy” dropped by the budding air corps. Their opposition had little to do with the moral concerns of the time and are especially dissimilar from modern antiwar sentiments. In fact, the admirals and generals used as props against nuclear weapons respectively preferred a blockade of the Japan that would have slowly killed millions, or an invasion that would have also killed millions (see below.)

        The sad truth is that the Japanese would not surrender without the atomic bomb dropping or millions (of Americans, Japanese, and Chinese) dying from an invasion. The East Asian victims of Japanese aggression are often forgotten in Western centric debates over the war. But the Japanese launched the Ichigo offensive in late 1944 which was comparable in size and scope to the German invasion of the Soviet Union.[10] Nationalist Chinese leader Kiang Chai Shek had seen a great deal of bloodshed but called this period the worst of his entire life. By 1945, an estimated 200,000 Chinese a month were dying. Many more on both sides would have died in fighting on the Japanese homeland. 

        

        The various estimates are disputed, often based on ideological preference, but General Marshall estimated 300,000 to 1,000,000 casualties (later updated to 1.2 million). Secretary of War Stimson estimated that 400,000 to 800,000 Americans would have died, (including 100,000 prisoners of war that were set to be executed upon invasion), and 5 to 10 million Japanese would have died from an invasion.[11] If the war only lasted another six months to a year that, the heavy combat and conventional strategic bombing campaign would have resulted in 1.2-2.4 million Chinese deaths. The estimated deaths for all combatants (American, Chinese, Japanese) without dropping the bombs would have been between 6.5 million and 13.4 million. But somehow shallow sermonizers against the bomb would have us believe that was the better choice. 

        The U.S. could have blockaded the country. The admirals at the time and later scholars argued that the U.S. had already destroyed much of Japanese shipping and merchant marine by August 1945,[12] and this may have been what Eisenhower meant by already defeating Japan, but then America would have to wait for the country to starve to death. That would have caused more deaths and in a slower manner, arguably worse than two nuclear bombings. Its effects would have been unevenly felt across the population. With the elites that caused the war suffering far less than the population that fought it. It also would have given the Japanese army in China more time in their genocidal war against China and again, it would have been more deadly for all sides than the two atomic bombs. 

        Even then, any peace offering from the emperor would have likely faced a coup just like the surrender after the atomic bombings. Moreover, starving the population as a tactic is a war crime. The admirals who argued for this arguably unjust and criminal course didn't object to the morality of using the bomb, their objection was simply the result of petty inter service rivalries. Yet they are drafted, out of context, into modern, post hoc debates regarding the morality of using atomic weapons. 

        The quick end to the war had the felicitous effect of forestalling a Soviet invasion. The first atomic bomb was dropped literally the day after Stalin finalized plans to invade Japan and Stalin invaded a day after the second bombing. The Soviets treated Eastern Europeans to show trials, mass deportations to the gulags, and they stood by while free Poles died in the Battle of Warsaw. (Stalin was so petty he didn't even let allies use his airspace to drop supplies.) It was obviously a benefit to end the war quickly and prevent the negative effects of Communist rule seen in East Germany and Eastern Europe even today. 

        After looking at the other options and strategic context in late 1945, the decision to drop the bomb was moral and justified. In fact, ending the war for mere hundreds of thousands of lives lost compared to the abject blood bath and tens of millions of deaths is why the allied leaders considered this weapon a godsend. Even though Michael Walzer opposed nuclear weapons, he also said that ending a war swiftly with a minimum of causalities is the greatest kindness a leader could offer.[13] Secretary of State Henry Stimson exemplified the latter idea when he said: My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man, in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.[14]

        In short, every other option was worse than using atomic weapons! Taken in a vacuum, of course nuclear weapons are horrific. It sounds authoritative to declare their use immoral and it makes a nice bumper sticker to sarcastically assert that Jesus would nuke people. But that weapon wasn’t used in a vacuum. It was used against a horribly aggressive regime and it prevented other options that would have killed millions more. The argument about a regrettable use of a shocking weapon to quickly end the war doesn't make a convenient bumper sticker, but its correct and morally superior to the alternatives. 

        It is both unfair and shallow to blame America for their barbaric use of atomic weapons while ignoring the context of that fierce war which compelled and justified their use. I bet that many of the pacifists today are descendants of servicemen and women that came home and had babies instead of dying because the atomic bombs prevented so much needless bloodshed. Many of the Japanese and Chinese people today are descendants of those that didn't die because of the millions of deaths the bombs obviated. And all of those people have lived, loved, laughed, hugged, and created beautiful works of art because the war ended without a horrific bloodbath. 

        Americans and members of the church must rightly hope to avoid the tragedy of ever having any conflict. But Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the genocidal campaign of Hamas sadly remind us that the specter of war can never be vanquished with hopeful thoughts. Americans can recognize that war, particularly defending life against the most genocidal regimes of the 20th century, was necessary, and the atomic bombings were a necessary and justified choice in World War II. Every American should strive to have the knowledge and tools to properly judge the morality of the past, which in turn provides the moral confidence to justly proceed in the present.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or buy one of my books linked in the top left. If you're attacking me somewhere online about this post, please use the code word: war plan orange, to let me know you've actually read my argument.

*****
[1] For a good overview, see John Lynn, Battle: A History of Combat and Culture, (New York: Basic Books, 2009), chapter 7.
[2] Micheal Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, (New York, Basic Books, 2015), 250-260.
[3] Howard Zinn, “Breaking the Silence.” ND. (https://web.archive.org/web/20071201172331/http://polymer.bu.edu/~amaral/Personal/zinn.html Accessed August 6th, 2021.)
[4] The United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report: 24. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effect of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 6. https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=rwu_ebooks
[5] Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, (Vintage Books: 2010). https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth
[6] Richard Frank. Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire, (Random House, 2001), 97.
[7] Julian Borger, “Hiroshima at 75: Bitter Row Persists Over US Decision to Drop the Bomb, The Guardian, August 5th, 2020, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/04/hiroshima-atomic-bomb-us-japan-history (Accessed August 6th 2021.)
[8] Gordon H. Change, He Di, “Eisenhower’s Reckless Nuclear Gamble over the Taiwan Strait,” American Historical Review 98 (December 1993), 1502-1523.
[9] Keith McFarland, "The 1949 Revolt of the Admirals" Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College Quarterly. XI (2): 53–63.
[10] Morgan Deane, Decisive Battles in Chinese History, (Westholme Press, 2017), chapter 12.
[11] Frank, Downfall, 340.
[12] Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report, 11.
[13] Michael Walzer, Just Wars, quoting Moltke the Elder, 47.
[14] Henry L. Stimson, as quoted in The Great Decision: The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb (1959) by Michael Amrine, p. 197