[mj anderson]

but his analysis was dead on. It is frustrating that the bigger point--the threat of Chavez --is lost while hand-wringers pretend that Robertson is the menace. Lots of email after this article (See URL) hit net--BUT none worried about China, only Pat Robertson! Chrisitians divided on whether Robertson should be corked--we ought to let him say waht needs to be said, since he now has press' attention. One minister noted that after all, David was sent to slay Goliath because the latter was threatening Children of Israel.

MJ Anderson

[w1andsodidwe]

I don't think he should have said it, but this stuff is consistently said by the leaders of another faith and the outrage is just not there/

[T.L.Sink]

Robertson gave an opinion that he apoligized for later. It should be noted that historically Christians have in extreme circumstances advocated and condoned the assassination of particulary heinous and demonic leaders. For example, the widely acclaimed theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by the NAZIs because HE HIMSELF was involved in an attempt to gun down Hitler. Chavez, of course, is no Hitler but I think that Robertson's ethical impetus was that one death would save countless lives. It was the lesser of much greater evils. Many forget that to be a Christian shouldn't be equated with pacificism -- which many great theologians,such as Niebuhr, have pointed out results in much greater suffering, catastrophe, and death than resistance to massive and monstrous evil. The point is that many theological systems justify such action in the most extreme and dire historical circumstances. The reason U.S. law rejects this position is a matter of political expediency not for truly ethical reasons.