I wish BENNY to know...that I am not Pelican :)

Pelly... a ray of hope ? come come... surely the tone of our discussions has been fairly convivial lately no ?

I need to pick up young Benny on one point though.. any previous nick I've used has not been about avoiding bans. I was banned for a year..and I came back momentarily (in violation of the rules..yes) to correct an obvious misunderstanding that I was proxy.. then..I left again. I think I did 2 short posts.

I came back after my megaban of 12 mnths.. about 2 months after the ban ended. If I made any slippups.. humble apologies.

The reason for raising the Hampton killing and the subsequent Weather underground declaration of war.. was to explore the morality of killing outright, those who have done such things.
Weather underground....
a) Declared war
b) Embarked on a bombing campaign.

In my view.. the state should hunt the suckers down and terminate them on the spot..as it would with any avowed enemy of the state. If you wish Biblical justification for the "State" to do this... you will find it in Romans 13:1-7

Benny's paranoia about 'Right Wing Fundamentalist' stuff is just him needing his meds :)

If he wishes to avail himself of deeper counsel..I'm sure I can arrange a time.

Boronia Macca's Benny?

The local expression of the WeatherUnderground is the Socialist Alliance and Alternative groups. In their documents they have clear references to 'only by revolution' can capitalism be destroyed.
Seems pretty clear to me.
I think that's why Benny is so worried.. Watch it Benny, I understand Druids house is bugged :)

Al
'Ray of fope' was meant as a compliment. I do remember you applying that term to me at one point - and I know you would not want to be seen as hypocritical.

"In my view.. the state should hunt the suckers down and terminate them on the spot..as it would with any avowed enemy of the state. If you wish Biblical justification for the "State" to do this... you will find it in Romans 13:1-7"

Al frankly that sort of attitude worries me. How is that approach any different to those killing in the name of Allah?

Your reference to Romans reads:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

All talk of wrongdoers and establishment of authority by God not to be questioned. Sound familiar? Wrongdoing is often in the eye of the beholder. How do you know a coup is not the work of God? Too much potential for self-fulfilling man-made interpretation for my liking.

Dear Pelly.. (I might start calling you PALly :) I appreciate your enquiring attitude.

Your question is actually a most important one in regard to Church and State....

These are the points to note.

1/ The point about Romans is not that it suggests the State act in the name of "the Church" which is the Kingdom of God...but in the name of 'the State', with the interests of justice and peace and stability in mind.

2/ There is a grave temptation to associate or identify the State with the Church at times.. specially when the Church becomes 'big'.

3/ But Romans was written against a background of an idolatrous pagan Government, and it recognizes that when the State acts genuinely in the interests of justice and 'right'

verse 3 "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong"

verse 4 "for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

So, Romans 13 does not authorize a ruler to act in the name of the Church, but it does recognize that 'termination' of evildoers is an acceptable act in God's sight. (The old Testament provides ample evidence of this)

Paul, in Romans does not suggest that the State can ever be or should be "the Kingdom of God"... if that were the case, then Paul with his almost unparalelled learning could have stood for some high position within the Roman State (he was a Roman Citizen)

Notice however his statement in verse 8 which is directed specifically to the Church at Rome:

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.

Your last point "Authority of God/sound familiar" rates a separate post... I'm pressed for time right now.. I'll try later.

I am reminded of two well known sayings

George Orwell (supposedly)

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf?"

And then again, Pastor Martin Niemoller

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

On balance I feel the latter are the more appealing words.

When a state resists the expedient and acts with moral restraint and sense of fairness, despite the cowardly and odious creatures who challenge it, there is a small collateral risk to some from those who challenge the state with violence, like the weathermen or the British experience with IRA.

However, when a State allows itself to use assassination as a tool of government, no one is safe.

I note it was the Republican President, Gerald Ford, who enacted the directive, which outlawed the use of assassination as a political option by US government agencies.

We see the damage of murderous political/social anarchists and fellow travellers, the history of Europe and USA are littered with their carnage.

The problem with a murderous state organisation is the opportunity to cover-up the crimes, as was revealed when previously communist ruled countries were liberated by the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Of course, the situation of national domestic violence is entirely different to a state of declared war, where the elimination of the enemy has to be pursued absolutely by and with all means possible.

Stern,

I have to say I agree with you in the repudiation of state sanctioned murder.

Still pushing the ol' barrow I see, Boaz.

Your proposed justification for the State sanctioning murder of its citizenry would appear to be based on the fact that a group of them has "declared war".

>>Weather underground.... a) Declared war b) Embarked on a bombing campaign. In my view.. the state should hunt the suckers down and terminate them on the spot...<<

A small fly emerges from the ointment here: upon whom, exactly, would the State declare war?

Such a declaration, of course, would be absolutely essential in order to "legalize' their killing. Weather Underground, being merely a "movement" and not a Nation, would be singularly insufficient a label.

>>...as it would with any avowed enemy of the state<<

Well, not exactly. Not in any half-civilized country, in fact

The term "enemy of the State", you see, has frequently been used by dictatorial regimes over many centuries, to shore up their power base by force. It has become something of a synonym, in fact, for simple dissent, and is then employed in the oppression of views that are considered dangerous to the elite.

So pre-emptive strikes with intent to kill - as opposed to defending oneself vigorously - would not be at all appropriate.

But I do appreciate, as pelican has already noted, that you have finally confessed that your scripture, just like the Qur'an, can be interpreted as an incentive to murder.

"he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves"

Hmmm, tasty.

Your attempt at apologia is far from convincing, by the way.