[...] A further observation on the rather tired “celebration of the death of OBL” question. [...]

Well, just for whatever edification, here's the fuller context:

. . . I imagine somebody will say, 'Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy's acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?' All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives for ever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or a hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it... Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves - to wish that he were not so bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. This is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

Other material on same themes at http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/why-shouldnt-we-celebrate-osamas-death/238424/

hunting after him for years and then executing him was a sign of respect for bin Laden and his teachings.

CK MacLeod wrote:

Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves – to wish that he were not so bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. This is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

changed for accuracy in a different way than usual

@ Scott Miller:
You don't need to hate people to make war on them. In fact, it's recommended against. Hatred throws off your aim or leads to poor decisions.

Here's what CS Lewis thought was possible and moral:

Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves - to wish that he were not so bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. This is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

Now, the above easily converts into something very "not nice" at all, a ready excuse to kill anyone who doesn't believe in the right way, though that wasn't CS Lewis' belief.

It touches on a discussion we've had before: The emotions felt by the soldier, or for that matter by the entire people engaged in war, are in principle irrelevant, except when they're a problem, or can be channeled effectively, but they in principle have nothing to do with justifying the military operation or the larger war.

@ CK MacLeod:
I believe in it, yes. Could I be trusted to follow through with a pacifist action as people around me were being gunned down? It might not go so well. My meanness might get the best of me. But in respect to advocacy, I believe that hate always swallows the hater no matter how justified the hating may be. Positioning ourselves for peace is the only way to give peace a chance in my opinion. I don't believe we can position ourselves well and believe in the power of hate, so, in theory, I am willing to be a sacrifice for peace if necessary. In theory, I would rather be killed than kill to protect myself if that's what you're asking.

@ Scott Miller:
If you consider having to deal with pseudo-real pseudo-life stuff non-demeaning but mean, then, yeah.

I don't accept, however, that thinking about the belief system of those who support actions like the hit on OBL, taking it on its own terms and exploring alternative moral contexts, is demeaning.

I'm not a believe in absolute pacifism. Are you, actually?

What? You'd rather be like me--not demeaned, which is to say still mean?

@ CK MacLeod:
Let it be known that I, Scott Miller, believe CK MacLeod to be fully aware of irony and tragedy. I enjoy your awareness of irony and tragedy beyond measure and have on countless occasions stated that fact. If I weren't such a meanie I would just go into that truth further in respect to the present post, but I can't help relating things back to self-esteem. You know I'm your biggest fan. You know I credit you for having an unbelievably great awareness of irony and tragedy, but it hasn't sunk in because you're too busy taking pride in things that demean you and since my criticism counters everything I've tried to put forth in previous comments, here I am again, not helping. Is that ironic or tragic, or both?

@ Scott Miller:
You're also neglecting the fact that Bring Me the Head hardly expresses unambiguous joy in vengeance or in being a tool of vengeance. You're always giving me credit for all sorts of things I may or may not deserve credit for. Give me some credit for awareness of irony and tragedy.

@ Scott Miller:
It was just a little loose-written hyperbole, and a little metonymy, and some other stuff, you paranoid meanie, kind of making up for having expressed sympathy for your position, repeatedly. In other words, just a shorthand for "people who take Scott's position."

"Low self-esteem"? Only by your definition. Different concepts or constructions or estimates of self and esteem.

@ CK MacLeod:
I'm not the boss of you, but you danced around the fact there that you made me an island unto myself. "Prior to any determination of the rightness or the wrongness of the mission, everyone except Scott already takes pride, already is happy to see him- or herself reflected in the society that could produce Seal Team 6 (if that’s really what they’re called) and send them safely to smite a villain many thousands of miles from home."
Now, you've indirectly corrected that statement. Millions of people do not take pride there. And here comes the New Age meanness:
People who do take pride in it have low self-esteem. Granted, there are lots of people with low self-esteem.

@ miguel cervantes:
I checked out the link, Miggs. Sounds like a good book. One thing I would say about the Gandhi quote about pre-war German Jews and about CK's reference to God "always criticizing us for something or other" is that non-violence must always be adjusted to the present. If CK is right and this killing leads to closure and a new day, great. We are always in need of moving on from the violence. If Gandhi was wrong about the Jews and the efficacy of non-violence in that situation, fine. We move on. And as far as God goes, I've been meaning to suggest this book for a few days and this a good time. I highly recommend "Tattoos on the Heart" by Father Gregory Boyle. The whole point of the book is to help us relate to life in context of God loving us. Far from relating to the idea of God as being critical of us, Boyle wants us to see how wonderful life is when we relate to the Divine as something that loves us as we are in this moment. In this moment, we are not being violent with each other or promoting violent ideas. Is it possible for us to stay there, recognizing each other's need to be loved and to be the one who fulfills that need?

@ Scott Miller:
Believing we should react soberly, especially as regards the act itself rather than all of the other things it happens to represent or carry with it, is one thing. Condemning all military action or violence is another. The former may very well be an overwhelming majority position. Even some of the impulsive celebrants may come to acknowledge it. The other is the position of a tiny minority. That doesn't make it wrong, of course. But having "millions" who agree with you in a country of 300+ million doesn't say anything either. Millions of people believe... all sorts of stuff.

http://books.google.com/books?id=TiUoAQAAIAAJ&q=Nazis;+Gandhi&dq=Nazis;+Gandhi&hl=en&ei=UdrCTZmEDIfDgQes47CIAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ

Fortunately, I am not anywhere close to being alone in my beliefs. That was the whole point in posting the MLK quote, which still stands as a countering of the perspectives voiced here again. I understand that your perspective is nuanced. Mine-not so much. It goes along completely with what MLK and Gandhi taught. These are not fringe characters in the human drama. You error in your attempt to marginalize the perspective. Millions of people in this country alone see things as they did.