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?

[micatala]

THanks PP. I wasn't sure exactly what you were referencing in the first link, though.

I liked this passage from you second link.

Sacrifice to feed the poor: Qurbani
Qurbani means sacrifice, al-Udhiyah being the ritual sacrifice of an animal. The festival of Eid ul Adha is remembrance of the great test placed upon Prophet Ibrahim (Alaihisalaam) to sacrifice the life of his son Prophet Ishmael (Alaihisalaam) by the command of Allah. When Prophet Ibrahim (Alaihisalaam) fearfully carried through his command, he found the miracle of Allah had spared the life of his son and replaced him with a sheep.
After the Prophet of Allah (saw) migrated to Madinah this remembrance became an annual Islamic festival, the festival of Al-Adha.

Muslim Aids Qurbani programme reaches out to those most in need, distributing fresh meat on the days of Eid al Adha in 42 countries around the world. Working to ensure that sacrifices are performed within the local communities, our programme not only supports local industry but also empowers communities to provide for the poorest people in their area.

The distribution of Qurbani also conveys an important message of brotherhood around the world. Maalim Shoshi, of Malindi district in Kenya, described the important message that the giving of Qurbani brings. When receiving his Qurbani, the father of 10 said, "This is a gift from Allah. The long distance from London to Ngomeni village shows how far the Muslim brotherhood reaches".

We see here not only Muslim's long standing committment to providing for the poor, but also an important area of commonality between Christianity and Islam, namely its deep roots in the Hebraic history and tradition.

[Cathar1950]

micatala wrote:

We see here not only Muslim's long standing committment to providing for the poor, but also an important area of commonality between Christianity and Islam, namely its deep roots in the Hebraic history and tradition.

I don't call them the big three for nothing.
They have more in common then they sometimes like to admit.
This would include the idea of the elect and future rule.
There sense of social justice and commitment to the poor is the beauty of their belief systems.
Despite their infighting and fighting each other, they have had a history of fighting oppression , at least in theory. This maybe largely do to the prophets as a political counter to the kingship or rulers.
Keep in mind they all find it hard to separate religion and politics.
I belive this is also built into their belief system. This sense of religion and politics being one has had some devastating effects depending on who was in power and who survived.
I tend to think that Islam maybe closer in that it appears that in the beginning
there was contact with the ebonites which goes back to Jewish roots of Christianity. They also so themselves as relatives of the Hebrews.
Christianity seems to have lost some of it's Hebrew roots with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem and seems to have picked up some ideas from both the Greek and mystery religions.
i find the stuff interesting. Ok back to poor old Pat.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I wasn't sure exactly what you were referencing in the first link, though.

It was supposed to be the Crusades. Couldn't really find a decent link.


Anyway, the point being (in reference to Al's post) that there are many Christians that sport the "kill all unbelievers" mentality. I do not think it is fair therefore, to criticize the 0.1% of Muslims that call for a worldwide purge without recognizing the Christians that think likewise.

[micatala]

Sorry for my denseness .

I was looking for 'Muslim apologies.'

I would agree, we should realize that small radical subgroups are not emblematic of the whole.

[AlAyeti]

Is there a majority cry from the Muslim worldwide community for Muslim's to stop killing non-Muslims? Any Al Jezeera commentaries about "diversity" and the need to let people be free to believe what thyey want to?

Is there even a minority cry?

I was on the airways the next day about Robertson, denouncing in the strongest language, what he "said."

And I support many, many things the 700 Club does.

[micatala]

Is there a majority cry from the Muslim worldwide community for Muslim's to stop killing non-Muslims? Any Al Jezeera commentaries about "diversity" and the need to let people be free to believe what thyey want to?

Is there even a minority cry?

I would have to say I don't access broadcasts from the Muslim world or Muslim sources so I don't know. I certainly have, on occasion, heard individuals from the Muslim world speak forcefully and eloquently against fundamentalism and religiously inspired violence. I think it is fair to say there is at least a minority cry. However, we probably do not hear much of it in our area because the U.S. media tends to focus on the 'splashy stories' provided by the 'big media' form the Arab world.

I would agree that the more voices of moderation we have in the public discussion, the better. I am certainly disappointed and concerned about voices of extremism, whether they be Pat Robertson or a Muslim Imam.

My point would be it doesn't really help to respond to hatred, vitriol, and calls for violence with the same.

I would also say it is irrelevant whether the killers or the victims are Muslims. Civilized people everywhere should be concerned whenever innocent people are killed, whatever the politics or religions of either the victims or the perpetrators.

I was on the airways the next day about Robertson, denouncing in the strongest language, what he "said."

Good for you.

[AlAyeti]

"I would also say it is irrelevant whether the killers or the victims are Muslims. Civilized people everywhere should be concerned whenever innocent people are killed, whatever the politics or religions of either the victims or the perpetrators. "


Adherents of Islam have been killing innocent people worldwide for as long as I can remember.

Certainly not an irrelevant fact.

It is time for them to stop. Only they can do it.

[micatala]

Adherents of Islam have been killing innocent people worldwide for as long as I can remember.

Certainly not an irrelevant fact.

It is time for them to stop. Only they can do it.

That people kill people is not irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is the religion of the people.

Adherents of Christianity have been killing innocent people worldwide for thousands of years.

Yes, it is time for the killing to stop, I agree.

How are we going to help make that happen?

[Cathar1950]

Maybe more killing will stop it.
Don't forget the founding religious ancestors of christianity and Islam, Judaism also had a history of killing others. Sometimes it was kings killing rivals, prophets killing rivals or groups killing other groups.
The reforms that took place as described in the bible(OT) always seems to involve some killing of the evil ones.
God is seen as a killer in many of the stories. 1000's at a wack.
Joshua was suppose to have killed all the inhabitants of the promise land.
Man, women and child, and sometimes their beasts. Of course there is on evidence that that took place. But when the stories were written down they were used to justify expansion and conquest. Why did they want a king after Joshua died to protect them from all their enemies that Joshua was suppose to have destroyed? They were still there because he didn't do it. Look at apocalyptic writings. God is going to kill every one except a few elect.
At least Pat go his prayers answered. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has made room for God's work thru his man GWBush.

[micatala]

My apologies for the rather long quote, but I thought you all might find the following commentary interesting.

Robertson's comments merely echo administration
by Mark Klempner
SojoMail 8-31-2005

It was with a curious sense of dj vu that I listened to reports of Pat Robertson's outrageous comments calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez by the United States. "We have the ability to take him out," Robertson said, "and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another 200 billion-dollar war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator." Even as I read his dubious clarification the next day in which he argued that to "take him out" could mean many things, I was sure I'd heard it all before. An Arnold movie?

I was still trying to remember as I perused Robertson's eventual "apology," which was actually one sentence of apology followed by six paragraphs of justification. And then it came to me: Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for President Bush.

In October 2002, as the Bush administration was beating the drum for war in Iraq, Mr. Fleischer was asked about a Congressional Budge Office estimate that a war to topple Saddam Hussein might cost as much as $9 billion a month. Fleischer replied, "The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than going to war." When such blunt talk of assassination prompted criticism, he clarified his position by stating, "Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes."

That was my real moment of outrage. Before my very eyes, the spokesperson for the President of the United States of America was "welcoming" the murder of another country's president, albeit a dictator. After the Clinton sex scandal, I had been supportive of Bush's stated resolve to restore dignity to the office of the Presidency. Why then was his press secretary talking like a mobster?

I thought at the time that our society had become so inured to violence that even high government officials now expressed themselves in these terms. True enough, but in the intervening three years it has become clear that the problem isn't only with our culture of violence. This particular administration divides the world into "us" and "them" and considers its perceived enemies to be almost subhuman. By propagating a way of thinking about its alleged foes as inhuman, it has lowered the bar of human decency, and that has had definite consequences. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay are but two stark examples.

However, the consequences have also been more subtle. Robertson, though over the top, is not an original thinker. He simply recycled callous attitudes that were already in circulation. We're all living downstream from the White House, and it is to be expected that extremists of various stripes will adopt President Bush's attitudes and run with them. Though back in 2002 neither Bush nor Fleischer overtly stated that the U.S. intended to assassinate Saddam Hussein, is it any wonder now, after nearly two thousand lives have been lost and nearly $200 billion squandered, that some Americans feel that we should have? In this atmosphere of frustration over a mission not accomplished, it is not surprising that a loose cannon like Pat Robertson would call for the United States to "take out" some other supposed enemy.

Jesse Jackson, Jim Wallis, and others have implored Bush to disavow himself from Robertson's comments, but, even if he did (which, to date, he has not), it would be like the parent who says, "Do as I say, not as I do." Bush has shown himself to be a man who prefers force over diplomacy, violence over negotiation. It will require a regime change at home if we are to truly restore the dignity of the office of the president, and cease providing the American people with a model of inferior leadership that homegrown extremists will imitate.

Mark Klempner is a historian and author of the forthcoming book, The Heart Has Reasons: Holocaust Rescuers and Their Stories of Courage (Pilgrim, 2006).

Obviously one difference between Fleischer's comments and RObertson's is that Ari was suggesting the Iraqi's handle the assasination, while Robertson suggested we do Chavez ourselves. I'm not sure how much better this makes it.

It is certainly worse in my book that the President's Press Secretary is making the comment and not a private citizen.