The politics of assassination

That is such a crock. America is the biggest all time giver of aid of every kind to the rest of the world, both as a government and as individual citizens.

Please follow the context. I was answering an accusation. It has nothing to do with what Robertson said. I answered that long ago.

It was a dumb question. Of course he asks donations. Or at least I assume he does. I haven't watched the 700 Club in ages. Your insinuation that that's somehow evil makes me practically speechless.Check the post I was answering to find out what I was answering.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-26-2005 12:10 AM

They learned it from us. You're all so historically challenged it's pathetic.

I'm off this thread now. I wanted others to discuss this, not me as I wasn't up on any of it. But it's turned into a bash thread and I'm gone. Apologies to whomever it may be required.

I believe it is more true of America in the past than it is now, but it is true that historically America has always been the leader in aid to the entire world of every sort. I believe it comes out of our previous identity as a Christian nation and was modeled on the missionary work that was also a big American project though done by individuals and churches and not the government.Over the last few decades the nation has deteriorated morally in many ways (and I expect God's judgment of the nation for this), and I certainly agree with you about the general greed and wastefulness as a characterization of American life, but your accusation of Pat Robertson is unwarranted and uncharitable to say the least. How on earth does he deserve even a 10th of the vilification that has been heaped on him here in the last couple of days? What's that about throwing the first stone? Is everybody here so righteous? Sure sounds like most of you think you are.

OK, it's true I haven't kept up with all the things he is reputed to have said, it's just that I can hardly believe the condemnatory attitude here. I'll have to check up on those allegations.

Oh man he trots out the old Treaty of Tripoli argument. Washington was making the literal point that America was not a Christian nation, as were the European nations for instance, in that America does not have an established Church. Period. His aim was to dissuade Muslim pirates from kidnapping and enslaving American sailors on the ground that America was Christian and Christians were fair game for kidnapping and slavery according to the Koran. Some obvious ways America WAS nevertheless thoroughly Christian have to do with Congress opening with prayer in the name of Christ, adjourning for religious services, honoring the Sabbath by closing, and so on.I am coming to believe that the founders may very well have betrayed their predominantly Christian constituents with the ambiguities of the Constitution they wrote, although an honest understanding of the thoroughly Christian nature of the America they lived in might convince you the revisionist dogma you subscribe to is in fact wrong.

Obviously this hinges on the meaning of the term "murder." Some killing is just and not prohibited but even commanded by God, such as the execution of murderers and other violators of His Law. These days people have things so upside down about the commandment not to kill that they indignantly object to executing murderers, which is a rebellion against God's commandment and tramples the rights and honor of the murdered innocents.You also confuse God's commands to the individual to "turn the other cheek" with His clear commands about how to run a nation. And please tell me how it is loving one's neighbor to justify the guilty and ignore the claims of the innocent who are oppressed by the guilty? There are many reasons he is taking heat and yours is just another to add to the collection. However, it is you who are in violation of the Ten Commandments if you refuse to support the execution of a violator of those commandments according to God's own Law.{EDIT: I don't have a clear opinion about assassination myself, or any particular assassination yet either, I'm merely making a general point here.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-26-2005 01:30 PM

The Calvinist Christianity of the vast majority of Americans at the time of the founding is what the nation should follow. It was they who thought the Constitution supported their interests and protected their religion, they who supported the First Amendment because they thought it promised that kind of protection and support. In fact they were the source of the very idea of religious tolerance, poor betrayed people.

God called for the execution of violators of His Laws, but today's prissy Christians turn God's laws upside down and call it a violation of His law to execute violators of His law. They insist that "thou shalt not kill" prohibits the state from the just execution of the GUILTY, that is, violators of the Law, rather than a command against the murder of INNOCENTS. It seems obvious to me but people seem to be so attracted to their false idea of mercy as tolerating every kind of evil thing, and they even impute that to Jesus.

If God commanded it, and I don't know since I'm not sure what you are talking about, but if He did then it is justice, as God does judge nations on this earth. It isn't for you to decide who is innocent or guilty in that case, God decides that, and your own personal innocent or guilt will also eventually be judged when you face Him on Judgment Day. Perhaps we should just ask you which of His laws you've broken in your life. You will be judged on your breaking of any single one of them on Judgment Day, including your daring to judge Him.

You asked a simple question, I gave a simple answer. YOu are now asking a completely different question. Times are different now. I've discussed this sort of thing before but it's way off topic on this thread and I'm not interested in discussing it again at this moment.

Start another thread if you would like to discuss these things. It is off topic here.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-26-2005 05:20 PM

Nobody said Chavez deserved death. The topic got moved from the particular case to the accusation that Pat Robertson violated the commandment against murder in calling for his death. I took it into the general question of what "Thou shalt not kill" means. We've agreed that Robertson was wrong to say what he said. I don't have any idea about Chavez, what he deserves or doesn't deserve, but I do know that if it's justice it's not murder.