So Pat Robertson is causing a big stir with his surprising and very nonChristian sounding comments to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

On the surface, the outroar is very appropriate in my opinion. Christian leaders calling for the assassination of political leaders they don't like just doesn't go for me.

On the other hand though, he does have a point. Not about Chavez in particular-I think that Chavez not liking us and having a lot of oil is far from a capital offense ("ooo, they might not sell us their oil-let's kill him!"). I don't think Communism is a big threat to us nowadays, and I'm not sure where the Islamic terrorist link is supposed to come from.

In general though, Robertson does have a point about killing a leader vs. starting a war. I'm still undecided whether Christianity completely forbids any kind of violence/killing including military action (which, if it does, would definitely contradict Robertson's notion). But if you do allow that Christianity allows military action under certain circumstances (self-defense perhaps, or protecting innocent lives), then, should such circumstances arise and a choice present itself between starting a war and merely taking out an evil leader, then the latter seems by far to be the lesser of two evils. A policy of assassination is not a good idea generally, but if it is a choice between killing one person and starting a war that will kill hundreds or thousands and cause lots of other suffering and cost lots more etc, then just taking out the one actual bad guy at the top seems like a relatively good idea.

It is interesting that, of all the people that such an argument could actually apply to (there are lots of dictators and bad rulers out there causing tons of suffering to their people and others), Robertson chose to aim this assassination doctrine at Chavez, who was popularly elected and whose main crimes are that he says bad things about the US gov and threatens to cut off oil. Makes you wonder about our priorities.