The politics of assassination

Faith, you really do give your nick a bad name.Lessee, so far we have you on record as having warm fuzzy feelings for racist slavery deniers, and now murder-urging preachers?Is there any moral contagion you won't overlook as long as it claims the name of Jesus? Do you have any idea what a morally bankrupt, crankpot portrait you paint of yourself?Oh, and randman, really--it might be wrong? His real mistake was speaking like that in public? Sort of like Billy "Jew Baitin' for Jesus" Graham getting caught on tape in the White House?You two should get a room and a victim.Well, never stop--you both do more to expose the religous right's hypocrisy than your most eloquent opponent.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'll accept the Biblical account of Jesus as an accurate portrayal, in which case the reply is crsytal clear that, no, of course Jesus would not have shot Hitler--he would have performed an exorcism, or healed him of his madness.If your question to me is, assuming I had perfect knowledge of Hitler's Holocaust intentions, and the opportunity, would I have assassinated him to prevent that great evil?Sure, in that perfect test tube world, I would.Meanwhile, back in the real world, outside of test-tube moral thought experiments, the problem is that I don't believe in the assumption of perfect knowledge. By the time his intentions were truly clear, millions of people sought to kill him.Moral questions are not presented with the trappings of time travel and perfect knowledge of consequences: moral questions present themselves right here, right now, to imperfect people like Pat Robertson, Chavez, Faith, Ominivorous, and randman. I would (and have) intervene to defend a victim of violence. I would carry arms (again) for my country or its allies to repel an invasion.We are all imperfect creatures. Should each of us be armed with the moral right to kill another for a greater moral good? That is not a precept for a moral universe, it is the blood rule of a charnel house.What would a Christian do?Based on contemporary evidence, where Christians sort through the entrails of our Constitution and Bible to find justifications for murder, torture, and wars of aggression, I suppose a radical fundamentalist Christian would kill lots of people, since they embrace so much certainty, much like radical fundamentalist Muslims.Based on contemporary evangelicals' taste for a "more muscular" Christ, I suppose many Christians think Jesus would shoot Hitler, Saddam, Osama, and many other people, too.Preemptive murder is as outrageously immoral a notion as preemptive war.To act as judge and executioner requires a moral certainty to which none of us have any claim. To claim that certainty is to claim to be the Hand of God.On second thought, I believe Jesus would weep.

That's a fair question, Chiroptera, and the simplest reply is that it is a distinction I did not intend to draw.I suppose the phrasing is a remnant of a younger, more naive Omnivorous who saw the world as a simpler place, where alliances of democracies sought mutual defense arrangements against alliances of totalitarianism.I oppose any imposition of one people on another, through force of arms or any other means, including economic.More carefully worded, my willingness to oppose invasion/aggression would include Venezuala or any other people on or off the planet, as well as the creatures of the rain forest and the Artic circle via clear-cutting and environmental change.I would resort to violence only to oppose it. I recognize the paradox--though that paradox, like most, dissipates when it steps from the abstract into the light of day.