As a supporter of individual liberty, I have little in common with Pat Robertson, but I can't help but conclude that the recent hubbub about him is overblown.
Pat Robertson has called for the assassination of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
The story has been framed by the media as "Christian leader calls for assassination." As such, it looks really bad. Christians shouldn't be, you know, killing people. Or advocating thereof.
But except for true pacifists, such as Jonathon or Pen, who among us hasn't advocated the use of violent force to defeat an intractable foe?
I don't know much about the situation in Venezuela, but I do recall that in the months leading up to the Iraq War that various anti-war voices said that we should simply assassinate Saddam Hussein instead of going through a costly and destructive invasion and occupation. Now that would have been a foolish course of action because it would not have achieved its intended consequence, but I don't recall anyone saying at the time that it would have been immoral to kill Saddam Hussein.
Really, if someone bumped of Chavez and the result was a democratic government for Venezuela, would that be a 'bad thing'? If so, why?
WWJD? Well, I think that he's hardly likely to go off invading countries. We could get into the whole pacifism vs. Just War Christian debate. But if you accept Just War as morally legitimate, how would the assassination of a brutal dictator (Chavez or anyone else) constitute an immoral act?
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
What I'm saying is that if Hypothetical Dictator is a murderous tyrant and if you buy into Just War Theory, how is it wrong to advocate his assassination?
Would it have been wrong to advocate the assassination of Stalin, Mao, or Castro?
I don't think that the analogy of advocating the assassination of Bush or Blair holds up. After all, they're not brutal dictators. If they were, then there would be a Just War argument for taking them out. And just because some people think that they're dictators doesn't make it true.
I am not so sure I buy into the "just war" anything. The only time that I think that is ever right to fight is when it is to defend. Sometimes, I am not even so sure it is right to defend.
Religion may be used as an excuse for war and violence, but the reality is that war is fought to gain resources or power and religion is just a smoke screen for greed.
For me, this issue isn't so much what he said but when said it. On his show, he is speaking not as an American wanting to defend his homeland, but as a Christian leader sharing Gospel.
Regardless of his politics, it is wrong and irresopnsible to use a platform for evangelsim and education to advocate violence. By saying it on the 700 Club, he is linking that political perspective with the Gospel- and that is why I am upset.
i just have a problem proclaiming pacifism.. however, i'm not a big fan of war or calling for the death of someone from the pulpit, even if the pulpit is in studio 3c.
Joel, if individuals can't decide who's a tyrant and who isn't, then how do you differentiate between Adolf Hitler and Jimmy Carter?
So then, following your logic, it would be immoral to assassinate Hitler pre-1939. Or even pre-1945. Do I have that right?
Jimmy Carter is a truly awful man who has disgraced himself repeatedly, but in no way shape or form can he be called a tyrant. That would be a label that has no basis in reality. It is possible, objectively, to determine right and wrong.
Curious as to how this fits with past comments you've made regarding Churchill... I believe at the time you were fairly offended by his claim that it might be appropriate for soldiers to kill their officers in some situations. I'm not saying this is exactly a parallel... but are you saying it's okay to use one's own moral judgment and prevent greater wrongs by assassinating a Chavez, but not by assassinating a sergeant?
For the most part I agree with you here, though. Sort of. I'm not a pacifist. And, yeah, even Bonhoeffer favored violence in some situations (as did Gandhi, as did King). I just think that THIS situation is not one of those situations. At all. What makes you call Chavez a tyrant? What makes you think the world would be a better place without him? Because the government that you usually don't trust says he's a "bad guy?" This isn't a strong arm tyrant, but a democratically elected official, who won by a landside, survived (with popular support) an attempted coup, and won a recall vote with a strong, strong majority. We can kill him just because we don't like him? Because he's not pro-American? Why would he be, and where does that kind of audacity come from?
Curious as to how this fits with past comments you've made regarding Churchill... I believe at the time you were fairly offended by his claim that it might be appropriate for soldiers to kill their officers in some situations. I'm not saying this is exactly a parallel... but are you saying it's okay to use one's own moral judgment and prevent greater wrongs by assassinating a Chavez, but not by assassinating a sergeant?
My memory is really fuzzy here. What have I said about Churchill?
For the most part I agree with you here, though. Sort of. I'm not a pacifist. And, yeah, even Bonhoeffer favored violence in some situations (as did Gandhi, as did King). I just think that THIS situation is not one of those situations. At all. What makes you call Chavez a tyrant? What makes you think the world would be a better place without him? Because the government that you usually don't trust says he's a "bad guy?" This isn't a strong arm tyrant, but a democratically elected official, who won by a landside, survived (with popular support) an attempted coup, and won a recall vote with a strong, strong majority. We can kill him just because we don't like him? Because he's not pro-American? Why would he be, and where does that kind of audacity come from?
Well, Chavez has stayed in power by rigging elections to his favor. He is therefore not a democratic leader. He has also criminally prosecuted his opponents and supported international terrorism.
Assassinating Chavez would be dumb. It would be counterproductive. But if someone knocked him off, it wouldn't be a tragedy, either.
Oh, wait -- you meant Ward Churchill, not Winston!
If you think that Jimmy Carter is a "truly awful man" while you defend Pat Robertson I'd say I have to wonder what you and I have in common. At the moment, I'm feeling, quite honestly, not much of anything.
I don't have a high opinion of Pat Robertson, either. But if Carter had said what Robertson had said, then I would respond in the same fashion. Where's the contradiction?
Again, who gets to decide whether someone is a tyrant worthy of assassination? Again, lots of people think Bush is a tyrant.
Lots of people think lots of things. To say that Bush is a tyrant has no basis in reality.
Joel, in an earlier comment, I asked you this:
"So then, following your logic, it would be immoral to assassinate Hitler pre-1939. Or even pre-1945. Do I have that right?"
I'd like an answer, s'il vous plait.
I would write more about Jimmy Carter, but it is off topic, and I think that it would only divide us.
Chavez is not close to Hitler. More of a wannabe Castro. That's why I think that Robertson's suggestion is a bad idea -- situationally.
That's the keyword. The US and Venezuela would suffer from such an attack.
In principle, however, suffer not a dictator to live.
It just seems to me that what you are advocating is anarchy -- each person deciding for themselves what right and wrong is and then implementing it on their own, as opposed to using and/or abiding by civil authority.
No, and neither was Robertson. He was suggesting that the US government attack Chavez. He was suggesting policy, not an act that he would personally carry out.
Post a Comment