I was listening to Nicholas Berg's father today on the Michael Medved show, and was disconcerted. It's ok that he is a pacifist and that he deplores people killing people, any time for any reason. Now, I admire a man who, based on principle, chooses to refrain from the use of violence in self defense or the defense of others. Of course we understand that this means that he would also deplore violence being used in his own defense (or that of his son) by anyone else. This kind of commitment to non violence is laudable, and is ideally the stuff of which conscientious objectors are made of.

There is a problem here, though. The problem is not that he personally believes that people killing people is wrong. Hell, I deplore people killing people. The problem is that Mr. Berg’s kind of pacifism demands of others that they forego or foreswear the natural right to defend themselves as best they can. He demands that America not use force in defense of her citizens. He is in essence telling me that, should my family be attacked, I have not the right to use violence to defend my them.

I categorically deny that anyone has the authority to tell me that may not defend myself, my family or may country using any and every means at my disposal. On the contrary, it is my duty to defend not only me and mine by any means, but to defend any who are in need of defense. I don’t get to walk away from acts of injustice, regardless of who perpetrates them on whom.

Nicholas Berg’s death was a disgusting horror, and I deeply regret his loss and condole his family in their sorrow. Were Mr. Berg’s policies to be implemented Nick Berg would be at the narrow end of a growing cataract of blood that would wash away Judeo-Christian civilization . . . for starters.