Pat Robertson

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:46 pm

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?

youngborean · Post by **youngborean** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:47 pm

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).

That's a great point. Violence and murder has become relative to the proposed Morality of a cause. That relativism could then be equally applied to supporting the assination of a leader of a rogue nation. This relativism is only what I am trying to point out. Most people will support violence and killing when it is to there benefit. Yet Robertson never lifted his hand against anyone, nor is there evidence that anyone from his camp has attempted to do so. To me, I support neither violent revolution or idle threats and consider both to be horrible realities of the history of humanity. But if we are going to point fingers, then all people with microphones in front of them should be under the gun.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:53 pm

I have noticed besides whining his supporters will start talking about how bad the guy is so his stupid remarks are justified.
youngborean wrote:

I would say that Robertson should face charges.... and so would Chavez in a perfect world. Chavez's charges should be more severe since he has engaged in direct warfare against a soverign nation. He is a violent and scary man in my mind. Especially considering this gem of an idea to consolidate power:

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.

It's absolutely notable and typical.

Two examples above. I am sure you will be hearing repeats of these themes.
AlAyeti wrote:

I called a leftist/liberal radio program Monday morning to say that Robertson should apologize and repent. I am a "Born Again Fundamentalist."

He (Robertson) has apologized. He was wrong.

It is all better now.

Cup of hypocrisy anyone?

Yes good old Pat. He prayed for the hurricane to skip his state, But not the other ones.
He said 911 was because of liberals, fems, abortionist, and Gays did that and taking prayer out of the schools.
He apologized too.
remember when Jimmy Swaggert got caught with his pants down?
Oral Roberts said he had a vision that jimmy had a female demon on his back with her claws in his back.
They have to pay more for that.
Chimp wrote:

Pat might be violating the Patriot Act...

You think? It is good for him that he is white and republican.
MagusYanam and micatala your both are right and to kind.

youngborean · Post by **youngborean** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:04 pm

I never justified Robertson's remarks, I only suggested that in the name of objectivity all remarks and actions on both sides should be looked at with the same accusatory nature. I have never supported Robertson in any way and think that your reductionist labelling is simple at best.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:09 pm

I wasn't being reductionist I was just touching the surface.
youngborean wrote:

I only suggested that in the name of objectivity all remarks and actions on both sides should be looked at with the same accusatory nature.

What is the other side?
I like simple.

youngborean · Post by **youngborean** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:19 pm

The other side would be that if we are going to try people for saying inflammatory remarks, then all people who say inflammatory remarks should be tried. Including Robertson and Chavez. Simple equitable solutions to getting rid of people that unnecessarily incite hatred.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:29 pm

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.

What an absurdity. This is an absurd absurdity.

The US government is currently holding thousands of muslims (and others) without charge, trial, or even accusation. Let's ignore for the moment the accounts of large-scale abused and systematic mistreatment.

And we are being "bigoted" against Robertson?

Where did your Jesus person say "Blessed are the war-mongers, for they shall kill whom them desire" ?

DanZ

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:34 pm

You mean they should all be given equal time?
He is a Christian Materialist.
He is one of the people that make all religions look bad.
Well enough of him. I am sure it won't be the last time he says something really stupid and His kind of American.
juliod wrote:

The US government is currently holding thousands of muslims (and others) without charge, trial, or even accusation. Let's ignore for the moment the accounts of large-scale abused and systematic mistreatment.

And we are being "bigoted" against Robertson?

Yes but some think we should torture them so we can get some possible information out of them that might save a life.

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:23 pm

Do what you want to to Robertson. I Think he broke a law or two.

But his non-Christian assassinination-stance is equal to any "Christian" that wants to believe in things that are not "Christian." Abortion, same-sex marriage, murdering people by assassination . . . just a few non-Christian beliefs held by people (uhh Christian?) that are wrong.

He did apologize. Now he needs to repent. After his sentencing, if he's found guilty of breaking a law, he can be reunited with his fellow-Christians.

Now, let's hold all of those Muslim's and abortionists and those sexual deviants to an equal judgment. And, if they repent . . .

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:48 pm

just a few non-Christian beliefs held by people (uhh Christian?) that are wrong.

We are very releived that you feel Robertson has done somthing wrong.

He did apologize. Now he needs to repent.

But did he apologize? His "apology" compared Chavez to Hitler. There is no sense of remorse in him. At best it was a "political" apology, intended to kill press stories. Robertson and his supporters will continue to believe the US should murder at will.

DanZ

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:12 pm

Juliod,

No "we" won't.

Robertson needs to further clarify his statement and repent.

There is nothing in the Gospels that can support his views any more than the murder of innocent children for convenience offered by abortion or the unjustifiable redefinition of marriage embraced by some anti-Biblical "Christian denominations."

But you see many people promoting these abominations and claiming they are "good Christians."

The good reason for seperation of church and state is not to silence Christians like liberals want to do, it is seeing what involvement with Roman ways are still polluting the church.

America's hedonism and wealth have a way of polluting a good person. So much like the beginning of the church in involvement with Roman leadership.

Robertson should do the right thing.