Rather than confronting Hitler directly, those opposed to his ideologies, such as Bonhoeffer, could have embraced more effective options. The initial plan of leaking military intelligence to the allies was the best option since it would have given the enemy a chance to overthrow his government. Notably, Hitler had the best intelligence. Therefore, trying to assassinate him was an exercise in futility. In this case, the prosecutor was acting on Hitler’s orders; he was supposed to apply any available option, including quoting the scripture, simply to sentence the accused.
Although he never believed in the holy scripture, he used it to justify the action against the former pastor. Given the prevailing conditions, this was a laudable tactic on the side of the Nazi regime because it won the hearts of the majority who believed the government was fair. Legally, however, the move cannot be justified because the country was not governed by the Christian laws; it had a well-structured constitution to be followed.
The separation of the church from the state in 1648 marked a new error in global politics. Mostly, many people find themselves torn between following their country’s constitution and being obedient to their faith. Recently, the American president announced that his country was a God-fearing nation and social evils such as prostitution, homosexuality, and abortion would not be allowed to go on. Interestingly, some states had passed laws and ratified policies legalizing some of the issues.
The actions of pastor Bonhoeffer are similar to those of the extremists in the Middle East. The only difference, in this case, is that his action was meant to benefit the majority of his people. The challenge to lawmakers is that what is considered religious may be unconstitutional while a legality might be deemed unreligious. The above case involving the pastor presents exactly that.