Pat Robertson

[McCulloch]

Pat Robertson said, "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him [democratically elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] , I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Suppose there is an internationally known mullah in the United States, who has a TV show watched every week by millions of faithful Muslims. He is as fundamentalist in his faith as Pat Robertson is in his and equally extreme in his politics. One day this mullah puts out a call on his TV show for Prime Minister Tony Blair to be assassinated. I have little doubt that this person would be branded a terrorist or someone inciting terrorism and arrested. By the definitions laid out by the United States, Robertson is calling for an act of international terrorism.

Given the preacher's ties to Bush's christian supporters, should legal action be taken against Pat Robertson? The Venezuelan government said, "This public call to assassinate a head of state, considered a crime by all modern legislation, is prosecutable by its very nature. That is what the civilized would is expecting of the U.S. authorities." Are the Venezuelans right?

[mrmufin]

Given the preacher's ties to Bush's christian supporters, should legal action be taken against Pat Robertson?

Regardless of his ties to anyone, Robertson should face legal action.

If his comments were made under the auspices, support, or benefit of a chapter 501(c)3 tax exempt [religious] organization, the exempt status should be reconsidered since using such an organization as a bully pulpit for political purposes is prohibited. Further, if similar threats were made against Robertson, I strongly suspect that he would request protection by government agencies.

Are Robertson's statements consistent with any of the teachings of Christ? Many Christians consider JC the "prince of peace" ...

Regards,
mrmufin

[keltzkroz]

Personally, I think that what Pat Robertson said is as extremist as terrorists (you know what I mean) calling for the death of Americans.

Should he be facing criminal charges? Though I disagree with what he said, I have to say no because in the USA, his freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

However, if someone actually takes action because of what he said, then I think it might be a different story.

[Chimp]

Terroristic threats don't have to have a result...the threat itself is against
the law. If the threat resulted in injury or attempted injury that is a
separate punishable offense.

[juliod]

the threat itself is against
the law.

A threat may be against the law, but what Robertson did could not reasonably be seen as a threat. He was really expressing a political opinion about actual military options.

Notice that the State department didn't condemn him, but merely said that his view was not the policy of the current administration.

No crime, but I note the muted response of the christian community to public calls for violence.

DanZ

[micatala]

He was not a head of state when he lead a coup in 92. That was attacking a soverign nation, by millitary means. I believe any nation would call this treason and/or terrorism. He was elected and immediately incapacitated the structure that elected him. I think all leaders could or would be looked at. And legal rulings about incitement will cause all leaders to face potential crime. It turns into a big riddle of name calling and such. My real feeling about it is that Robertson should be considered more of an idiot and less of a criminal for saying what he did.

I will confess I do not know too many details of Chavez' career, and so will not argue the point.

I would point out that whether a 'coup' is illegal or immoral is often anything but a clear-cut question. Witness the U.S. revolution. One could certainly make the case that we were nowhere near as oppressed as many other peoples whose revolutions the U.S. has condemned or worse (eg. the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua in 1979 or so).

[AlAyeti]

Truly, the amazing thing to watch in this topic is the amount of bigotry being leveled at Robertson by of course precisely the people that hated him and Christianity long before he made this statement.

Never a cry from these "proponents of peace and nonviolence" when communists and Muslims instigate death and torure on innocents (usually Christians) worldwide.

It's absolutely notable and typical.

[Chimp]

Robertson deserves the pounding. He has devoted his life to promoting
divisiveness and religious intolerance. Ironic, that he laments the loss
of Christian freedoms when in the same breath advocates denying freedoms
to others.

[MagusYanam]

Truly, the amazing thing to watch in this topic is the amount of bigotry being leveled at Robertson by of course precisely the people that hated him and Christianity long before he made this statement.

Never a cry from these "proponents of peace and nonviolence" when communists and Muslims instigate death and torure on innocents (usually Christians) worldwide.

'They do it too' is never a good defence, but it's one I notice you like to use often, Al. First, though, get your facts straight: those who speak out loudest against Christian extremism do also speak out against Islamic extremism - the voices most condemnatory of the Saudi regime have been (naturally) liberal ones. But that does not mean that either Islam or Christianity (or Socialism) as a whole are to be decried because of the actions or statements of a few radicals.

I don't see bigotry here against Robertson. What Robertson is wont to say is often dead wrong and anti-Christian in my opinion, but his opinions here are being opposed on their own grounds and not just because he said them. That's nor bigotry nor hatred.

[micatala]

AlAyeti wrote:
Truly, the amazing thing to watch in this topic is the amount of bigotry being leveled at Robertson by of course precisely the people that hated him and Christianity long before he made this statement.

Never a cry from these "proponents of peace and nonviolence" when communists and Muslims instigate death and torure on innocents (usually Christians) worldwide.

Magus:
'They do it too' is never a good defence, but it's one I notice you like to use often, Al. First, though, get your facts straight: those who speak out loudest against Christian extremism do also speak out against Islamic extremism - the voices most condemnatory of the Saudi regime have been (naturally) liberal ones. But that does not mean that either Islam or Christianity (or Socialism) as a whole are to be decried because of the actions or statements of a few radicals.

In addition to Magus' points, I would point out the it is a false and unsubstantiated implication that those who hate Robertson also hate Christianity. There are many Christians who find Robertson's views and lack of logic on many issues disturbing.

I disagree with Robertson precisely because I think he equates Republicanism with Christianity, and they don't fit. He lost me over 20 years ago when he supported the Nicaraguan 'contras', many of whom were thugs for the brutal Somosa dictatorship, and who wouldn' even have existed as a group without the CIA's leadership. And Reagan had the audacity to refer to them as the 'moral equivalent of our founding fathers.'

Never a cry from these "proponents of peace and nonviolence" when communists and Muslims instigate death and torure on innocents (usually Christians) worldwide.

This is also false and unsubstantiated. To the extent that Bush gets more criticism from U.S. citizens than Muslim mullahs, I think it is because Bush is ultimately responsible to us and the mullahs are not. It is absolutely our place, duty, and responsibility to speak out against the government when we believe it acts wrongly. Our founding fathers said as much.

[MagusYanam]

There are many Christians who find Robertson's views and lack of logic on many issues disturbing.

I disagree with Robertson precisely because I think he equates Republicanism with Christianity, and they don't fit.

Likewise, micatala. I'd be one of those 'Christians who find Robertson's views and lack of logic' disturbing, but in particular of those Robertson's audacity in assuming to speak for all Christians or even for God.

To the extent that Bush gets more criticism from U.S. citizens than Muslim mullahs, I think it is because Bush is ultimately responsible to us and the mullahs are not. It is absolutely our place, duty, and responsibility to speak out against the government when we believe it acts wrongly.

Yes, that's accurate, and I agree that it is our civic duty to speak out against leaders and policies when we think they are wrong. However, I think there's more to it than just that. To the world, Bush speaks for America and for Americans. And he makes it particularly difficult to justify ourselves in the eyes of our neighbours, even when we don't agree with him. I was in a seminar in China, and when asked, I would be sure to dissociate myself from the Bush Administration's policies and say that I disagreed highly with them. (I was not the only member of our seminar that did so.)

I get the feeling that pressure is even greater for Muslims in Western countries, especially reform- and moderate-minded Muslims, to dissociate themselves from the reactionaries that orchestrate and commit acts of violence and give the whole of Islam a bad rep the same way people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson give Christianity a bad rep.