Skip navigation.

Political assassination

Pat Robertson called out for the Assassination of the democratically elected leader of Venezuela yesterday. I appreciated the remarks of the Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler on this topic when he said:

"What do we find in the Good News of Christ? We find love is expressed continually and unceasingly. The gospels admonish us to do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. We finds words in the gospels that define the mission of Christians as the elevation of the poor, freedom for those who are oppressed, salvation for the lost, and hope for the hopeless. Jesus says come unto me all of you who are weak and heavy laden and I will give you rest. He does not say come to me those who are looking for political expediency and I will show you who to and how to assassinate!"

I recall a few years ago when Orrin Hatch publically called out for the assassination of Saddam Hussein. I shuddered at the time that such a prominent member of our church was saying such things for the same reason the Reverend lists above.

I hope the Bush administration comes out in condemnation of this statement, especially since Robertson is such a close ally of Bush's.

Reverend Graylan again says: "Therefore, it is impossible to justify the comments of Pat Robertson. His comments are not of the gospel he claims to preach, nor of the teachings of Christ that any Christian claims to love. Instead what Robertson has to say is based on a paradigm from the most conservative voices in this country, and those voices have no God except themselves and no soul except their selfish point of view!"

For more on this story see the Reverend's complete comments here, or this New York Times story.

what?

"I recall a few years ago when Orrin Hatch publically called out for the assassination of Saddam Hussein. I shuddered at the time that such a prominent member of our church was saying such things for the same reason the Reverend lists above."

Meanwhile, back in Realityville, the rest of the church was reading stories of heroic assassins such as Ehud and Captain Teancum, and praying for the end of saddam hussein's tyrannical dictatorship.
I still cannot figure out why y'all scourn and disapprove of those who speak-out and act-out against such obvious evil--why pick on and 'shudder' for hatch's mere call for assassination?
-->saddam hussein was attempting genocide

...

when the US was supplying iraq in its fight against iran...it did NOT make saddam hussein any less evil..(i never said that)...btw...there is nothing immoral/amoral/wrong with using strategic allies to accomplish one's goals (even if said ally is not the banner example of righteousness -as in soviets during wwii-)

do we have to go over this again?!?!?!?!

"There is a difference between praying for the end of tyrannical dictatorship and praying for ending human life."

as my conscience as my guide...i see nothing wrong with praying for the end of the likes of osama, mugabe, saddam, etc etc--and frankly, the best way to rid the world of them...is to kill them (i do however see something wrong with people like you who somehow think there lives are of value--that just makes a mockery of the lives of the people who suffer and die under their reigns.)

"Where are all the pro-life proponents now?"

i am pro-life for the oppressed that live under the tyrannical dictatorships--

"And btw, in the real Realityville----
[Political and religious leaders continued to denounce Mr. Robertson today. The World Evangelical Alliance issued a statement saying, "Robertson does not speak for evangelical Christians. We believe in justice and the protection of human rights of all people, including the life of President Chavez."]"

you show me am official decree/statement given by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and i will reconsider my position...i don't care what the 'evangelical christian' alliance (or whatever) has to say on the subject

"And now please do not say that the "liberal" media forced the apology from Robertson!!!"

by saying this, it is apparent you feel the need to defend this possibility...and in doing so you acknowledged it and gave it a certain extent of validity via showing that it is on peoples' minds as at least possible...and likely probable (i had not even implied...said no such thing...etc)

So you are saying

that it is a good thing for Iranians and Iraqis to kill each other. That has traditionally been the train of thought among the US elite. We loved it when Suharto killed a million of his own and even supplied him names of people he should kill (communist sympathizers). We even called Suharto our kind of guy until just the year before he was asked to leave by us. Even Pol Pot's government received our support after the killing fields. We love it when others do the killing for us.
This however is not the same as the wicked killing the wicked. This is more like the brutal wicked killing the weak and oppressed. The wicked are supposed to kill each other without any effort on behalf of the righteous. Instead, we are still in bed with the devil in encouraging and bloodying our hands with some of the worst massacres in history.

Threat to our wives, religion and children

The problem as I see it is, JR seems to think we were literally being threatened by Iraq and that if we didn't go over and destroy their country and kill 100,000 people, somehow, our religion, wives and children would be in trouble. Perhaps if we could show him this is not true, he would withdraw his pro-war stance. However, somehow I don't think if will work. Maybe it's worth a try. So, JR, you really believe this don't you? You and much of the country were fooled into believing Saddam was out to get your mama, he was under your bed and you weren't safe until he was destroyed off of the earth. It seems like some enemy is always popping up that we have need to be scared of in spite of their being many bad men of the same caliber present on the planet at the same time.
It's interesting to see how we villified Aristide of Haiti and how we are trying to do the same thing in Venezuela currently in order to achieve our goals. We try to make them into a threat to us somehow even if it takes a lie. Bolton was one who tried to make Castro into a threat to the USA via Biochemical weapons. Huge lie discredited immediately. At least Bolton tried to make Castro scary. Now he's the UN ambassador!
So, what say ye, was Saddam a threat to our wives, religion and children?

"-->saddam hussein was

"-->saddam hussein was attempting genocide"
Courtsey WMDs supplied by us. Does someone become evil only when they kill us and they are allies and friends if they are killing others (Iranians in this case)?

Do we have to go through this again!

There is a difference between praying for the end of tyrannical dictatorship and praying for ending human life. Where are all the pro-life proponents now?

------------
And btw, in the real Realityville----
[Political and religious leaders continued to denounce Mr. Robertson today. The World Evangelical Alliance issued a statement saying, "Robertson does not speak for evangelical Christians. We believe in justice and the protection of human rights of all people, including the life of President Chavez."]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/national/23cnd-robertson.html?hp&ex=1124942400&en=fa0024e9f76fa1dd&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Enjoy!

----------

And now please do not say that the "liberal" media forced the apology from Robertson!!!

JR buddy

I was wondering where you disappeared to.

"when the US was supplying iraq in its fight against iran...it did NOT make saddam hussein any less evil..(i never said that)...btw...there is nothing immoral/amoral/wrong with using strategic allies to accomplish one's goals (even if said ally is not the banner example of righteousness -as in soviets during wwii-)"

We didn't make him less evil, we probably made him more evil along with ourselves.

Your moral compass is off a bit there JR. There is something very immoral/amoral/wrong with condoning dictators who murder so that we can make a few bucks.
For example, we didn't like Allende of Chile because we couldn't rape his national resources, so we had him assassinated and then upheld the terrible Pinochet who killed his thousands.
We upheld the terrible reign of Suharto so we could make bucketloads of money in East Timor and Indonesia at the expense of nearly one million lives.
There is something very off with your moral compass indeed.

"you show me am official decree/statement given by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and i will reconsider my position"

Would you be able to produce a decree/statement that says we don't?

The obvious evil

Hatch's call was support of the very terrorism we decry. No wonder Saddam didn't trust our intentions. We had similarly tried to murder Khaddafi of Libya (missed him, got his 4 year old daughter and 100 other bystanders), Castro of Cuba, and had succeeded in killing Allende of Chile.
Assassination of a leader of another state is expressly prohibited not only under international law, but under our own laws. Under Title 18 of US Code Section 1116, “whoever kills or attempts to kill a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person shall be punished.” Section 878 of the same title makes it a crime to “knowingly and willingly threaten” to commit the above crime.

Pro-life, Anti-evil

Put me down for Pro-life if it is an innocent child. Put me down to pro-death for evil tryannts that kill innocent children. As if those stances are incompatible!

Now more stimulators:
Assassination by a righteous man in the Book of Mormon: Any remember Teancum and his two assassinations?

The Nephites, especially under Moroni, engaged in pre-emptive attacks and pre-emptive capitol punishment for just refusing to support freedom.

The war against terrorism, now continuing in Iraq, is hardly pre-emptive though. Please stop pretending this. Witness, among others, the two attacks on the NY Trade Center during Clinton years, for which he made attacks in IRAQ, Afghanistan, and the Sudan. This is hardly a new thing.

But even if it was pre-emptive, the number of lives it saved may never be printed in a newspaper, but it is huge. And if you could see the effect on the people of Iraq to be safer and free, it seems sadistic to find reasons to leave them the way they were under Saddam.

Can you imagine someone trying to be diplomatic with the neighborhood rapist??? Just because he didn’t attack YOUR family (yet)? Thank heavens someone cares enough about the people of Iraq to do something about evil.

what?

"There is something very immoral/amoral/wrong with condoning dictators who murder so that we can make a few bucks."

we weren't after a few bucks in iran--we were fighting the bad guys--and we used what we presumed to be the 'lesser of the two evils' to help us do it...like i said, taking on strategic allies is not bad--this i not a matter of my moral compass, this is a time-tested pathway to victory
'let the wicked destroy the wicked' etc

"Would you be able to produce a decree/statement that says we don't?

1. no
2. so?--how then does that make your/yahoo's opinion anymore valid than mine?
3. we are supposed to do the best we can with our own judgment...and based on the fact that some of these guys ARE evil, and waging war on freedom/oppressing/murdering etc...i say we take after the example we have been given when it comes to dealing with such situations
Alma 51:34
"And it came to pass that Teancum stole privily into the tent of the king, and put a javelin to his heart; and he did cause the death of the king immediately that he did not awake his servants."

And Amalickiah was never a problem/never betrayed/killed/did evil again.

so...lets protect the villains all we can then...

we can thank gerald ford for that

Dang. Too bad Pat Robertson

Dang. Too bad Pat Robertson represents all conservatives. I guess my parents also want to kill Chavez. Too bad. I thought they were nice people.

gr8e

"Any remember Teancum and his two assassinations?"

This was during a war against the leader of an invading force. Definately different than Saddam's situation and Chavez's situation. A more valid comparison would be an Iraqi assassinating Bush since the invasion/war common ground is there.

"The Nephites, especially under Moroni, engaged in pre-emptive attacks and pre-emptive capitol punishment for just refusing to support freedom."

This was within the Nephite nation. No preemptive attacks were taken against another nation.

"The war against terrorism, now continuing in Iraq, is hardly pre-emptive though."

This is true. Bush has been bolder in making it official out loud, but we've adhered to this doctrine for a long time. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists until the war brought them there though.

"But even if it was pre-emptive, the number of lives it saved may never be printed in a newspaper, but it is huge."

Pure speculation. You don't have to speculate though on the number of lives the war has taken.

" Thank heavens someone cares enough about the people of Iraq to do something about evil."

And who would that be? Not Bush, the main reason he went in was for nonexistent WMD's. Freedom and democracy was the excuse he made after the deceit was exposed. If we care about democracy then why don't we leave the country per the wishes of the majority of the population? Why are we building permanent bases there in defiance to the wishes of the majority?

Actually JR

We were supplying both sides with weapons, the Iraqis openly and the Iranians covertly as was uncovered with the Iran/Contra thing. So I guess we were in bed with the devil in order to kill the bad guys in both nations?
My opinion is we wanted both nations to be weak and an 8 year long war did the job. I'd have to go with immoral/amoral/wrong on that one.
BTW, it would be nice if we stopped asserting that Saddam gassed the Kurds as there is considerable evidence the Iranians did it.
I'd have to say your Teancum/Amalikiah example doesn't fit the bill here. The difference is the Nephites were at war with the lamanites while we were not at war with the people we assassinated. On top of that, we have a law against assassination. You wouldn't want to break the law now would you?

which one?

Khaddafi was Reagan, Castro was multiple presidents and Allende was Nixon/Kissinger.

?

Sorry Sam that you had to find out this way. Seriously though, I think there are a lot of good people who support really bad things because they were lead to believe it was a good thing by decietful people.
Interestingly, Chavez, the guy some people want to kill, just announced a plan to provide free kerosine heating oil to poor areas in the USA! He also plans to provide free eye surgeries for the needy for the whole continent! Contact the Venezuelan embassy for details (no joke).

Lay off the hookah

Gr1nt,
There isn't a single example of pre-emptive war making in the Book of Mormon and it's dead wrong of you to attempt to drag a sacred book into your finite and partisan way of thinking. I defy you to name a single one. The truth is you cannot, because there is none. You are welcome to try, however.
Keep in mind that Bush does not represent our gospel and probably thinks we are headed to hell like the others of his ilk and faith.

Can't fool me!

Wrong on just about every count, I'll name a few.

One: The Book of Mormon has EVERYTHING in application to this war against terrorism and it is exactly right to use it to understand how important it is to fight evil. If you think you can leave evil alone and it will leave you alone, you missed a major lesson of the book. The Nephites always made temples and weapons. The war started in Heaven and goes on.

Two: Bush is very interested in the welfare of the Iraqis and is doing many things to help them against their enemies. Infinitely more than the so called "peace" movement which does little more than complain, slamming the helpers more than the terrorists!!

Three: When the Draft-dodger in Chief was in charge of America, "diplomacy" and impotence let Saddam kill over 300,000 Kurds with WMDs (that he supposedly didn't have). So much for speculation.

There are too many laughable factual fallacies to address them all, but the fruits speak for themselves: Saddam, himself a WMD, will not mass murder or mass torture again. Too bad Bush couldn't have come on the scene sooner and saved all those lives then.

technically

Since we're being techinal, this is not a war ON Iraq, it is a war IN Iraq FOR Iraqis. The war on terrorism (yes, that is what we are fighting here) is being waged on several fronts. By being in Iraq, though, we can also help them build a democracy. They love it so much! A recent poll indicates 88% are planning to vote in the next election. Yes, they love their new democracy!

peace at any price

Top 10 Reasons the pacifists did not prevail at the War in Heaven:

“Satan never attacked us!”

“We were lied to about Satan; he doesn't have any weapons, how could he hurt us?”

“Under the laws of love, it is an illegal war!”

“If we didn’t fight Satan, maybe he wouldn‘t hate us.”

“We deserve his attacks, after all, we caused his hate for us.”

“All Satan wants is our free agency! Is that so high a price to pay for peace?”

“We are so evil for fighting! If we just follow Satan, no one has to die! War can be averted! Satan's hosts are just defending themselves.”

“Michael got us into a quagmire when he attacked Lucifer. Look, we’re still bogged down in the conflict!”

"You don't actually know God's plan will save anyone, we could lose billions of lives! Besides, I don't think Satan really exists. Lucifer is a child of God too, you know."

And finally, the number 1 reason:

“I didn’t formerly oppose the war, but I didn’t know caffeinated drinks would be against the Word of Wisdom!"

.

it is my recollection from some of the lame history classes i had to sit through that it was during the ford admin that we finally agreed to stop assassinating the bad guys

...

"We were supplying both sides with weapons, the Iraqis openly and the Iranians covertly as was uncovered with the Iran/Contra thing. So I guess we were in bed with the devil in order to kill the bad guys in both nations?"

this sounds about right to me...except we weren't in bed with the devil doing so...i find it funny that y'all are so into letting the 'wicked destroy the wicked' until it actually comes into practice...then it is the US in bed with the devil while poor, innocent, (murderous, and tyrannical) little nations are paired against eachother.

"My opinion is we wanted both nations to be weak and an 8 year long war did the job. I'd have to go with immoral/amoral/wrong on that one."

lets keep the bad guys weak...why is that bad?
You have also argued the immoral/wrong stance about all wars though...(even WWII you said was only "supposedly just" implying you thought it wasn't)--so why should i care what you think is right v wrong when it comes to foreign policy and protecting the US, its citizens, and its interests?--if you cannot catch the obvious necessity of WWII--im not sure your judgment is to trust on other defense/military related issues

technicality

Technically we went to war with Iraq and fought against the Iraqi military. We declared an end to the war but still continue to fight against the resistance which by US military leader accounting, still consists mostly of Iraqi people, not foreign terrorists. The war on terrorism (the stupidest idea I've ever heard of, it's like saying your going to war with aerial bombing), was not a reason we went to Iraq since there were no terrorists in Iraq (however, now there are plenty).
As in the last election though, most people will probably turn out in hopes that the government they elect will kick out the Americans.

provojoe--defender of the faith

"Gr1nt"

a likely play on the word 'Grunt'--(a word used as a nickname for the GI's in Viet Nam)--used here to address gr8e -a CIVILIAN technition in IRAQ almost 40 years AFTER the Viet Nam conflict

--lame

"and it's dead wrong of you to attempt to drag a sacred book into your finite and partisan way of thinking."

and yet in the very next sentence you drag the BOM right back into the thick of things for your arguments' sake

"I defy you to name a single one (instance of preemptive warfare in the BOM). The truth is you cannot (find such things in the BOM -a book so sacred, that it should not be read/used by ANYONE provojoe deems as being a "finite" thinker)-, because there is none. You are welcome to try, however."

--weak

Try again

1. The book of Mormon and the war on terror, you're going to have to explain that one. When the Nephites were fighting against what you might call the terrorists of the BoM in early 3Nephi it was strictly forbidden for the Nephites to bring the war to the bad guys. 3Nephi 3:21, after the Nephites begged their leader to take them to battle against the bad guys in their own territory (kind of like JR and gr8e) Gidgiddoni said: "The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together and we will not go against them but we will wait till they shall come against us;; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands."

2. Your # 2 is not based upon reality.

3. pure fiction. The kurds were gassed in '88, during Reagan/Bush's tenure and there were probably around 10,000 killed, and the CIA says it was probably Iran that did it! If Saddam did it, he did it with weapons provided by yours truly.

The laughable fallacies are in your court my friend. You haven't printed a truth yet.

comic relief

Thanks for the comic relief Defender. However, this comment has little more value than that in this discussion. The war in heaven was probably a war of words and ideas and thus has little bearing here.

I wasn't trying to "fool"

I wasn't trying to "fool" you.

I didn't say anything about the war on terror. So I can't be wrong about that.

No, the lesson of the Book of Mormon is about fighting evil inside yourself. To the degree that a people do that, their enemies will not be able to penetrate.

You reminded me of a testimony I heard not long ago. Someone said, "War is an eternal principle". I suppose you believe that, too. Did you ever wonder why when Christ reigns, wars will cease?

I didn't say anything about Bush wanting to help or not wanting to help. I said he doesn't represent the true gospel or our church.

I didn't say anything about Clinton either (I assume that's who you meant).

You have failed to show how I was wrong on a single count. You also failed to show how the Book of Mormon exemplifies pre-emptive war.

War

JR, you ask me about WWII. Absolutely I agree we are justified in defending our homeland. That doesn't mean I like war. On both sides humans are destroyed, mutilated for life and killed. Grief is brought to the human heart that will never be resolved in this life.
Many who have experienced war firsthand know that it is the tool of fools and wicked men. As one WWI general put it, "war is a rackett." In my mind there are no good wars. How can you call something that kills indiscriminantly good? It would be good for those who are pro-war to spend time in a civilian hospital in a war zone. I'm sure it would sober up many quickly.
It is good to call my judgement into question. I often question myself. I think I am not very wise in many things. One thing that I come back to though is that war is not good. I can't seem to see a way around that.

We're waiting JR

Your biggest contribution to this discussion has been, "lame" and "weak". We're still waiting for the examples from the Book of Mormon you claim exist.

stop the press!!

Curtis!! You used an actual fact! It was machine-gunning and tank-rolling that killed many kurds and flattened their villages under Clinton's watch.

yup

My bad, mixed that up. But since Curtis already admitted Nephites used pre-emption and Teancum used assassinations but explained them away...just like the pre-emptive strike I mentioned in the Bible...so would the examples I could further give. Why so eager to discount the scriptures and make rules about who can use them?

In addition, if you can't see the care and the things Bush is doing to help the Iraqi people--the truth is not in you.

However, facts are important to me and so I apologize again for mixing that Kurd slaughter up. My crazy schedule lately is no excuse, I will be more careful when I'm so wiped out.