Christian Duty To Murder.

[dirtius maximus]

from the BBC

Henry Dearborn, de facto CIA station chief in the Dominican Republic, wrote: "If I were a Dominican, which thank heaven I am not," I would favour destroying Trujillo as being the first necessary step in the salvation of my country and I would regard this, in fact, as my Christian duty."

The article is about one of the person who assassinated Trujillo, who apparent was a very bad person. But the statement from the CIA Agent is quite interesting. Can there be a "Christian duty" to murder? I am not speaking of Nephi, who by all accounts was told by God to kill. I am not speaking of soldiers either. I am speaking of a civilian who kills because they determine it is their Christian duty. Do you think there is difference in murder for power and murder to stop abuses of a Dictator. Once again, this would be about a civilian not military personnel engaged in for lack of betters words lawful military action.

[thesometimesaint]

dirtius maximus:

Just make them accountable to the fullest extent of the law, and all will be well.

[BCSpace]

There is no Christian duty to murder. But this example does not appear to be a murder.

[Mordecai]

If you're protecting your family/people from a monster, it's potentially morally justified. I think this is only under certain circumstances, e.g. if you don't have an organized gov't and legal means to deal with the situation. That said, if your motive is rage, you may be in trouble. If there is a god-complex involved, you're not remotely justified. If you do it for fame and power, you're not justified. I suppose God will judge our hearts ultimately, to determine if such an action is murder or not.

[Bond...James Bond]

from the BBC

Henry Dearborn, de facto CIA station chief in the Dominican Republic, wrote: "If I were a Dominican, which thank heaven I am not," I would favour destroying Trujillo as being the first necessary step in the salvation of my country and I would regard this, in fact, as my Christian duty."

The article is about one of the person who assassinated Trujillo, who apparent was a very bad person. But the statement from the CIA Agent is quite interesting. Can there be a "Christian duty" to murder? I am not speaking of Nephi, who by all accounts was told by God to kill. I am not speaking of soldiers either. I am speaking of a civilian who kills because they determine it is their Christian duty. Do you think there is difference in murder for power and murder to stop abuses of a Dictator. Once again, this would be about a civilian not military personnel engaged in for lack of betters words lawful military action.

It might be morally justifiable during times of war for America to assassinate the leader of another country, the problem in this case is that Americans were in no danger. Trujillo was the prototypical "strong man" in Latin America. America backed other Latin American strong men with similarly deplorable human rights records (such as the Somozas in Nicaragua) and basically regime change via coup or assassination was the main means of political change in Latin America, where America didn't trust democratic elections due to the fear of voting in Progressive (aka Leftists!) elements.

America carefully oversaw regime changes such as the one in the Dominican Republic led to the assassination in question. More often than not more than simply the leader's human rights record was examined. Answering questions like "was he hospitable to American business? Did he back the U.S. Governments policies in the Caribbean/Latin Region?" in a way harmonious to the U.S.A. were important for a Latin American strong man leader to keep his job (and life). If he didn't dance on America's strings he often was eliminated.

A calculated regime change in which a brutal leader is replaced with a more malleable leader who also is brutal doesn't excuse murder, unless they decide to rationalize it, whether by political ideology or religious belief or whatever. An argument can be made that the Americans were defending Dominicans from a brutal dictator, but America was very uneven in its defense of human rights in Latin America as well as the fact that many dictators were allowed to remain in power for decades, with regime change coming long after human rights violations were knowledge. In the end I guess it's left to the reader to decide if Dearborn's rationalization via religion is acceptable, but "thou shalt not kill" is difficult to overcome.

[3DOP]

If anyone has a legitimate duty to kill someone, it would be inappropriate to define it as murder. Murder is the illegitimate taking of life which is prohibited by the Commandment. "Thou shalt not kill," cannot be a prohibition against every taking of life. It is obviously legitimate to kill animals for food. It is less obviously legitimate to take human life for self defense. So we see that a literal interpretation of the Commandment which prohibits all taking of life is inadmissible. Most Christians and virtually every society makes a distinction between the legitimate and illegitmate taking of human life. We must look at the underlying causes to determine the possibility of legitimacy. If it is a legitimate duty, it is not murder. There can be no such thing as Christian duty to murder.

[MelvinCJohnson]

Some good points have been made. A situation to consider: assassination of a Milice leader Ernest Jourdan in Voiron, April 1944. However, the killers also executed his mother in her eighties, the wife, the 10-year-old son, and the daughter of 15-months. Are the assassins guilty of murder of the family members?

[bluebell]

Some good points have been made. A situation to consider: assassination of a Milice leader Ernest Jourdan in Voiron, April 1944. However, the killers also executed his mother in her eighties, the wife, the 10-year-old son, and the daughter of 15-months. Are the assassins guilty of murder of the family members?

I would say so.

[3DOP]

Some good points have been made. A situation to consider: assassination of a Milice leader Ernest Jourdan in Voiron, April 1944. However, the killers also executed his mother in her eighties, the wife, the 10-year-old son, and the daughter of 15-months. Are the assassins guilty of murder of the family members?

One would have to know the interior dispositions of the killers to determine the answer for certain. I am unfamiliar with any details at all. I've peeked around enough to learn that "the Milice" was the Vichy equivalent of the Gestapo. It seems plausible that the elimination of Jourdan could be justified, and possibly even the old mother and the young son (maybe they would identify good guys to the bad guys? I'm just shooting from the hip, trying to defend the accused.), but It seems difficult to imagine a good self-defense argument in regard to a 15 month old. If a baby was actually assasinated, it seems reasonable to suspect that other innocents were also targeted out of "malice against Milice". That would qualify as murder as I understand it.

3DOP