What a loving god.

1000 years later and the Crusades are just warming up

interesting. what does he say about assassination?

I doubt if Mr. Warren would do anything on that nature himself. Might get his loafers soiled.

...of that nature...

Weird. I view much of what Rick Warren espouses as evil. Just what is he trying to tell me?

I know Warren hates gays but a-sissy-nation???

a sissy nation? well then.

Having actually read what he said now, I'd love to see a citation for that one. That's one really farked up view.

Newsflash for ya, Ricky: Islamic fundamentalists say THEIR book of fairy tales says it's okay to kill ANY non-believers, not just their leaders.

/WTF is this? a "My god can kick your god's ass" argument?

And here is the video

Yes, he really said it, yes it is in context. The right wing has gone insane, regicide (because there is no modernized term for it) is not a valid answer for dealing with leaders that we don't like.

Agree with me or I'll kill you! How very Christian.

What's this? A bible thumper twisting the gospel to fit their own nutballery? Who would have thunk it...

"Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped.... In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers."


Ah yes, the Simpleton's Creed...

Lundah: Newsflash for ya, Ricky: Islamic fundamentalists say THEIR book of fairy tales says it's okay to kill ANY non-believers, not just their leaders.

/WTF is this? a "My god can kick your god's ass" argument?

Actually, that analogy doesn't exactly work. Fundamental Islamic terrorists say their bible says it's ok to kill non-believers. Rick says his bible says it's ok to kill evil-doers.

Now, having said that, I think both of them are nuts.

Wow.
Say ... isn't it illegal to openly and seriously talk about murdering a specific person? Why isn't that piece of shiat Sean Hannity behind bars? I mean, am I wrong here? I thought freedom of speech stopped at incitement of specific violence and murder?

DeCypher44: Now, having said that, I think both of them are nuts.

That was my point, I just completely failed at articulating it properly.

The religion of peace strikes agai- hold up, I'm so confused...

OK fellow US Christians, I have duct tape, who has a closet we can stick him in?

chemical_angel: Wow.
Say ... isn't it illegal to openly and seriously talk about murdering a specific person? Why isn't that piece of shiat Sean Hannity behind bars? I mean, am I wrong here? I thought freedom of speech stopped at incitement of specific violence and murder?

Hannity is an idiot, but talking about taking someone out and actually planning it are two very different things.

keylock71: "Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped.... In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers."

Ah yes, the Simpleton's Creed...

Yeah, well, the bible also says it's okay to stone your wife, sell your daughter into slavery, and hiring a prostitute is better than fapping.

Crosshair: OK fellow US Christians, I have duct tape, who has a closet we can stick him in?

You are aware that him and people like him make up the majority of your religion now, right?

Code_Archeologist: And here is the video

Yes, he really said it, yes it is in context. The right wing has gone insane, regicide (because there is no modernized term for it) is not a valid answer for dealing with leaders that we don't like.

Yeah. That's what forming coalition governments is about.

And this is why I consider myself a Christian, but don't belong to a "Church".

Out of curiosity, for people who oppose assassination on moral grounds...

Why?

Crosshair: OK fellow US Christians, I have duct tape, who has a closet we can stick him in?

You don't have any closets? How about a tool shed or old outhouse?

This is way theocracies self destruct and why our Founding Fathers established a secular nation. Thanks for the reminder asshat.

It's not murder. It's self defense.

Frightening.

Isn't it a bit "above his pay grade" to determine who deserves to be killed? I know we all have the moral imperative to judge what is good and evil in our own lives, but is any mortal vested the moral authority to judge who is evil enough to die?

There's part of my problem with the death penalty.

Mr. Warren? When the Secret Service come knocking, I hear they like bundt cake. So make sure to have one ready for them.

*reads TFA*

woops, he wasn't talking about AMERICAN leaders.

/that makes it okay then.
//no it doesn't.
///why don't more actual christians publicly disavow morans like this?

DamnYankees: Out of curiosity, for people who oppose assassination on moral grounds...

Why?

Um, I know this one...Because it's not nice to kill people?

Oh, and I think it says a lot that this comment is assumed to be directed toward Barack Obama, rather than who it was directed to, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

dahmers love zombie: Um, I know this one...Because it's not nice to kill people?

That's not really a good answer. Is it wrong to kill him because you want a pacifist government? Or because he hasn't had a trial?

Born2late: This is way theocracies self destruct and why our Founding Fathers established a secular nation. Thanks for the reminder asshat.

I don't see how we're very far from a theocracy. The God shiat is on our money, the official pledge and deeply imbedded in thousands of state credes. The leader of the country obiously MUST be a Christian. We saw that with Obama. The very accusation of him being a Muslim was damning.
GWB invoked God hundreds of times .. especially with respect to his wars and declarations of enemies.

As long as it's a purpose-driven assassination, eh Rick?

Would it have saved millions of lies if Hitler were assassinated in 1938? Pol Pot in 1962? Jack Bauer in 2002?

They should be arrested for endangering the lives of Americans.

Code_Archeologist: And here is the video

Yes, he really said it, yes it is in context. The right wing has gone insane, regicide (because there is no modernized term for it) is not a valid answer for dealing with leaders that we don't like.



/misunderstands

I read that as talking less about assassination per-se, and more about invading the country to topple the regime, like we did in Iraq. I'm pretty sure that's even worse.

DamnYankees: dahmers love zombie: Um, I know this one...Because it's not nice to kill people?

That's not really a good answer. Is it wrong to kill him because you want a pacifist government? Or because he hasn't had a trial?

As a society, we espouse compassion, freedom, equality. War and battle are certainly in the best interest of our society when we are clearly in danger and is an obvious REaction. The covert and deliberate killing of a foreign leader for ANY reason is against international law. So that makes it wrong. according to the our society the beliefs of our culture and society it's wrong. It's also wrong from a more general standpoint. How can there be any standard of justice among us when it is known that a person can be taken out for disagreeing with our leaders?

chemical_angel: The covert and deliberate killing of a foreign leader for ANY reason is against international law. So that makes it wrong.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Killing isn't immoral because its illegal, is it?

chemical_angel: How can there be any standard of justice among us when it is known that a person can be taken out for disagreeing with our leaders?

Well, isn't this more of a practical, realpolitick problem than a moral one?

/against assassination, just curious why others are as well

DamnYankees: Out of curiosity, for people who oppose assassination on moral grounds...

Why?

If one harms a single man, it is as if he has harmed all men. And if one has harmed all men then he has harmed himself. Why would one harm himself to harm one man?

To simply identify a person as evil we fall into the simpleton's trap and risk doing true evil by justifying murder and spreading suffering. Standing by as evil is done is in and of itself evil, but destroying a single person committing these acts does not address the reason why the evil acts were originally committed. If one wishes to stop a person who spreads suffering one must address the reason that this person acts as they do and remove it. Only then can we be truly assured that our actions to prevent suffering and stop evil will truly be successful.

In short, killing one person does not solve the problem, it simply gives everybody under them a promotion.

Hope the Secret Service has a sharp weather eye on this guy and his followers.

DamnYankees: Out of curiosity, for people who oppose assassination on moral grounds...

Why?

Die!

you random son of a biatch!

And I'm sure that no retaliation would ever come from someone getting assassinated. I mean, its not like say...a World War could be started or pushed with that action.

DamnYankees: Out of curiosity, for people who oppose assassination on moral grounds...

Why?

Because they hold the shocking view that killing people is wrong, even when the person is clearly an evil asshole?

DamnYankees: Out of curiosity, for people who oppose assassination on moral grounds...

Why?

Wow. I don't know if I have the space here or if I have thought through this systematically recently enough to articulate it well, but here goes.

I think that Jesus is God incarnate and I think that, as a result, he has the best subjective frame of reference to make truth claims. (I can discuss that, as well, but I have to start somewhere close to the point or we'll never get to it.) Because of Jesus' privileged frame of reference, I think that any claims in the Bible need to be filtered through Jesus to understand the main points properly. Jesus actually argues for the opposite position that Warren argues for in this clip. He (Jesus) says that evil should not be resisted. There's that whole thing about "if someone strikes you, let them strike you again; if they force you to walk with them one mile, walk two" thing. This does not mean that Jesus is in favor of injustice or evil. His entire corporeal existence happened to overcome evil. He did it, however, not by any sort of violence on his part, but rather by standing between the oppressor and the oppressed, the powerful and the marginalized. In the end, such efforts cost him his life. I would argue that we must also work to establish justice, but whenever possible, to do so by interposing ourselves between the perpetrator and the victim and confronting the evil actions of the perpetrator. This may end up costing us deeply, maybe even our lives, but that is the best way to seek justice. In general, the use of violence simply results in different injustices than those which would otherwise happen.

Are there ever exceptions? I would argue that there are, but they all stem from earlier failings to act in love and in recognition of human dignity. The best example I can give is that of WWII. After Germany invaded Poland and undertook the Holocaust, I cannot think of another intervention that would have been effective. The fact of the Holocaust is what fully tips the scale in my mind. It demonstrated that the military of the Third Reich had reached the point at which cold-blooded mass murder was considered acceptable. That said, if at the end of WWI the Armistice had not been so oppressive, it is unlikely that Hitler would have come to power and the whole question would have been moot.

I guess I haven't specifically addressed the question of "assassination", but since it is a subset of "violence" I hope that my position is clear.

So what's this righteous government suppoed to do when it's God who is evil?:

Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. _{2 Samuel 12:11}

Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it._{Jeremiah 6:19}

Then again, maybe he just overlooked this proverb:

Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee._{Proverbs 20:22}