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?

[MagusYanam]

It was a women author who wrote a book on Wicca's rise, who appeared on his show.

Not a caller. It proved Robertson was correct.

So just because she wrote a book proves that Robertson's correct? Sorry.

If you want to argue this point, show some evidence, not just hearsay. In other words, put up or shut up.

Taxation proves the communism of the Left.

Fact.

Here's a real fact for you. Taxation is far older than communism, and is implemented by all governments, from absolutist monarchies to parliamentary democracies. If you knew the first thing about how countries are run, you'll know that they require money.

Where can they get that money? From the people and organisations they govern. That's taxation: an exchange of money by the people governed for services and protection from the government.

Nothing communist about it.

Fact.

[micatala]

Chavez is a scumbag. The Left tries to cover that up with their barrage of Anti-Chritianism.

Leaving aside the scumbagginess of Chavez, what does that have to do with Robertson's behavior?

Secondly, do you have actually any evidence that 'the left' is trying to cover up the scumbagginess of Chavez, or is this just another in your long string of 'just made up' assertions with no substantiation?

It is absurd to press charges against an older man like that. I say take him off the air, and let him retire in peace. If he were a young guy, I would want the Attorney General to review the situation, but at this point he's just beyond the point to where he can speak effectively.

At some point it'll happen to all of us if we live long enough. Have some mercy.

I'm not sure if there is legal justification to take him off the air without pressing criminal charges against him. Aren't these somewhat different legal arenas? Terrorism would be under the jurisdication of homeland security, FBI, Justice Dept, etc. and I would think his broadcasting behavior would be under the FCC.

Yes, the call for mercy is appropriate I suppose. I confess it is hard for me to be too sympathetic, given my impression that he is far from merciful, and often untruthful, in his comments about those he disagrees with.

I would allow that Al has a good point that Robertson does not 'practice' terrorism, and it is probably fair to say he has not even indirectly insighted terrorist acts (I honestly don't know if he has condoned or winked at abortion clinic bombings or not).

However, we have heard a lot from conservative columnists like Bill O'Reilley, and even from the Bush administration, criticizing journalists for publishing or seeking to publish information that might inflame people (eg. fanatical Muslims) into rioting or attacking U.S. troops or American's abroad. The Koran down the toilet report is one case in point.

The problem with these calls is that it is often pretty hard to predict what is going to set people off, and it is not really fair to blame journalists for how people might react to news, as long as the journalists act professionally and report as accurately as possible. In the case of the Koran flushing report, that report was cleared through the Pentagon before publication, so if anyone deserves blame for the aftermath, the Pentagon deserves as much as anyone.

One could certainly make the case that Robertson's comments had the potential to create violent reactions, albeit less likely than in the aforementioned example. Fortunately this does not seemed to have happened, at least to this point. However, it seems to me that if conservatives are willing to jump down the throat of the NY Times for their piece, they should not be silent with respect to Robertson's comments. I do note that at least one conservative columnist (Kathleen Parker as mentioned in a previous post) has not been.

[AlAyeti]

It was a women author who wrote a book on Wicca's rise, who appeared on his show.

Not a caller. It proved Robertson was correct.

So just because she wrote a book proves that Robertson's correct? Sorry.

If you want to argue this point, show some evidence, not just hearsay. In other words, put up or shut up.

///

Silencing Christians is what it is all about huh?

http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/displ ... 0877881988

Wicca's Charm
Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality
Written by Catherine Sanders

Category: Religion - Cults, Demonism, the Occult; Body, Mind & Spirit - Witchcraft & Wicca
Publisher: Shaw
Format: Trade Paperback, 256 pages
Pub Date: September 2005
Price: $20.99
ISBN: 0-87788-198-7

Notice the Category. . .!

I doubt I'll ever shutup.

Oh yeah and this: "Hundreds of thousands of people practice Wicca and other forms of modern Pagan spirituality in America today, and journalist Catherine Edwards Sanders wanted to understand why such belief systems are rapidly attracting followers. "

Hundreds of thousands.

Now sanders said that with the rise of feminism, came the rise of Witchcraft. Thus, proving Robertson correct.

[MagusYanam]

Silencing Christians is what it is all about huh?

Were that the case, rest assured I myself wouldn't be so verbose.

Notice the Category. . .!

Says more about Random House than it does about the book itself. Never judge a book by its cover. Or its dust jacket.

I doubt I'll ever shutup.

Fine, so long as you put up first.

[AlAyeti]

I give you facts and you get upset and tell me to put up or shut up. I want you to go on and learn the truth.

You certainly handle a lie very deftly.

Robertson was wrong about violence and correct about feminism. 45-million slaughtered babies correct sadly enough.

Dislike me all you want but at least someone is challenging the overwhelming secular voice on "debating 'Christianity . com"

I am more than willing to give specifics, but it falls on obstinent and hedonistic, cocky and proud ears that do not want to see nor hear.

Look what you did with the Clinton quote.

Google is just as easy for me to use as anyone else. They just don't want to.

[MagusYanam]

I looked at your Random House site. There was nothing in the book description about feminism, for one thing - only about Wicca. And it said nothing about abortion. You haven't drawn the line that connects the three - to me they still appear to be three separate phenomena. For example, my sister is a feminist but she's no Wiccan and she's no pro-choice activist.

I am more than willing to give specifics, but it falls on obstinent and hedonistic, cocky and proud ears that do not want to see nor hear.

Pot. Kettle.

Look what you did with the Clinton quote.

It's a little trick I like to call putting it in context.

[AlAyeti]

Unless you speak out against evil, you are complicit. That is another Christian fact. That is from the New Testament. Read James. Or, John. Or, Peter.

I threw in abortion as another reason why Christians should present the truth to a hurting world. A world you want to "let live." (Although it is dying.)

On Clinton, America is embracing evil and Liberals are the leaders in that movement. Spin it all you want but Biblically, this country was founded by godless people and we are reaping what they sowed. And now men can "marry" men and women can "marry" women in Eastern States.

Satanic. The demons of Bin Laden know what they are talking about.

We are Christians right? We can talk about the truth I hope.

[juliod]

Ooh, oooh, Let's discuss the topic.

I'm not sure if there is legal justification to take him off the air without pressing criminal charges against him.

Yes, there is. In the old days, TV stations and networks were regarded as public servants. They got license to use the airwaves in exchange for a committment to work for the public good. So a "bad" show can be forced off the air.

But of course, that was before all stations became owned by a couple of giant mega-corporations that pour money into political campaigns.

So they could put actual pressure on Robertson, but they won't. I mean there wasn't any partial nudity on his show.

DanZ

[MagusYanam]

Unless you speak out against evil, you are complicit

That's why I speak out against the war in Iraq and against Bush's domestic policies.

I threw in abortion as another reason why Christians should present the truth to a hurting world. A world you want to "let live." (Although it is dying.)

Well, forgive me for wanting God's will to be done yet a little longer on Earth as it is in Heaven. The world shows no signs of dying anytime soon, so I'll show no signs of giving up on it.

On Clinton, America is embracing evil and Liberals are the leaders in that movement. Spin it all you want but Biblically, this country was founded by godless people and we are reaping what they sowed. And now men can "marry" men and women can "marry" women in Eastern States.

This country was never mentioned in the Bible, firstly, to the best of my knowledge. Secondly, America may be embracing evil, but it's doing more so now that Bush is in power than it did when Clinton was. That a person can now 'marry' someone of the same gender is of less concern to me than the war is or than the environment is. I don't see why it's such a big deal.

Satanic. The demons of Bin Laden know what they are talking about.

Complete non sequitur. If you want to start talking about the truth, start making sense and start telling the truth.

[juliod]

That a person can now 'marry' someone of the same gender is of less concern to me than the war is or than the environment is.

Here's a question.

Who would be judged more harshly:

1) A person who marries another of the same gender out of actual love.

2) A christian soldier who shoots and kills someone in Iraq.

DanZ