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?

[StephS]

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?

Personally, while I don't necessarily advocate criminal charges against Pat Robertson, I feel that he should issue an apology to Chavez that goes far beyond the clarification that he posted on his website. I hate Saddam Hussein, but I would never call for his death until he had gone through the legal process and been judged one way or the other.

I don't know that much about Chavez to say whether I like him or not, but I think he is right to be angry; after all, he just had his life threatened. I do believe, though, that bringing Pat Robertson up on criminal charges for words that were most likely spoken out of frustration is taking things a wee bit too far.

[McCulloch]

Personally, while I don't necessarily advocate criminal charges against Pat Robertson, I feel that he should issue an apology to Chavez that goes far beyond the clarification that he posted on his website. I hate Saddam Hussein, but I would never call for his death until he had gone through the legal process and been judged one way or the other.

I don't know that much about Chavez to say whether I like him or not, but I think he is right to be angry; after all, he just had his life threatened. I do believe, though, that bringing Pat Robertson up on criminal charges for words that were most likely spoken out of frustration is taking things a wee bit too far.

Would your answer be the same if the religious leader had been Muslim and the political leader had been Blair?

[AlAyeti]

Can you name a Muslim who has apologized for killing Americans or Israelis?

Robertson "said" something reprehensible.

But is anyone giving him credit for feeding and clothing a lot of poor people?

Interesting the selective blindness of the garden variety anti-Christian and of course the political left.

[Cathar1950]

McCulloch wrote:

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?

We have some problems here in the good old USA. I would think to any observer the Venezuelans have a perfect justifcation for any complaint. We have to hold ourselves to our standards. Of course this is unlikely to happen. But pat does not make policy even if he suggest it and may even share it with the right and the present administration. The question is what policies do we want and Who's?
Who will stand up and say we are wrong? So nothing will be done to pat. What should we do that we shouldn't do to a whole way of culture. I am not sure we are much different then our enemies. Is it the struggle of life masked with religion? Is it religion? Or is religion just one more labeling of the enemy?

AlAyeti wrote:

Can you name a Muslim who has apologized for killing Americans or Israelis?

Robertson "said" something reprehensible.

But is anyone giving him credit for feeding and clothing a lot of poor people?

Interesting the selective blindness of the garden variety anti-Christian and of course the political left.

What does he said have to do with a Muslim or an Israeli? Maybe we are all Terrorist as nations. It almost looks like the difference is that nations hire armies to do there work. Do you not think that they all are defending something?
Why should he get credit for all his good works? Don't you think he has got credit and expects to get more when he is gone?
Shouldn't we list everyone that does good works and give them credit? How about all those people who send in their dollars so pat can do all his good works that he is getting credit for doing in the name of Jesus for his further reward in heaven? How much credit should he get?
What I don't understand is the silence of the "garden variety anti-Christian and of course the political left". The blindness and hyporacy of the right I find amusing and scary.

[AlAyeti]

Please list the blindness and hypocrisy of the religious Right?

That I would enjoy seeing.

Abortion is anti-Christ. Giving the poor welfare checks when they're on crack is anti-Christ. Giving the poor more money per illegitimate child is not in keping with any sound thinking. Taxing anyone to pay for social programs is not justice either.

Marching in anti-war rallies is cowardice if done in comfortable cities. Why not picket in Zimbabwe, Nigeria or China? You know, like Christian missionaries do.

Please, oh mighty enlightened one, list away the grasping of sins of the Right?

While the religious left legalizes sodomy and pimps stump for Democrat politicians, please let's reason together.

Oh and Pat? He needs to repent and be restored. Like all of those leftists that have killed 45 Million unborn children in America and care nothing for the innocent people suffering in countries all over the world.

A list please?

[Cathar1950]

Read the news. Fox news is a good start.
I am not giving a list if it is anything like yours it would be labeling people you include. Pat is my first example for your list. You mean those welfare cheats that are pretty much children? If I say they are blind how would they see it if I made a list, oh wise one? My major point is no one is really saying much about his statement or doing anything about it and yet we declare enemies those who say similar things. Then he is defended by people with a straight face. Like I said he has lot of credit already.

[AlAyeti]

Pat Robertson's statement was condemned by me on the radio and many other Christians.

Muslims do nothing about their genocidal maniacs making up so much of Islam. Heard about Bali yet? As in today? Where are all of those peace promoting voices from the left on bombings by Muslims? Where is the op/ed outcry page one?

Robertson was the issue of every major newspaper outlet in the world for weeks.

How many Democrats like Fienstien or Clinton will even look at an abortion or at least a third trimester abortion? How many people denounce the reverends Sharpton and Jackson as immoral men of the cloth? Jackson is a "baby's daddy" and Sharpton as this Christian Minister is jettisoning his wife. Where is the call to silence from the Liberal Leftist Christians???????? Or at least a call of repentance. A word with all of the response of a Cross to a vampire when directed at a Liberal.

How many Democrats still keep electing Ted Kennedy? He at least commited manslughter. But of course we're talking about Massachusetts voters. Death of the family is common order in that commonwealth, so bumping off a pregnant girlfriend is little fare.

I would like a list of intolerable cruelties embraced and promoted by the "Religious Right?

No cop out.

Come let us reason together . . .

[micatala]

Please list the blindness and hypocrisy of the religious Right?

Although this is off-topic (since the topic is Pat Robertson), it is a legitimate question.

Item 1: This is an old one, but is courtesy of Pat himself, as well as Ronald Reagan. Both Pat and Ronald in the 1980's, although claiming to be supporters of democracy, instead supported the Contras in Nicaragua. The Contras were largely run by the CIA and ex-thugs of the former Somosa dictatorship. Somosa and company had ruled Nicaragua with a brutal fist for some 50 years prior to the Sandinista Revolution. Reagan had the audacity to call the Contras "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." THis has got to be one of the most blatantly hypocritical political statements of all time.

Item 2: Many in the religious right have supported the war in Iraq, and have done so regardless of the rationale that has been offered for it. They have also done so despite the fact that a large number of innocent civilians have been killed. It is arguably hypocritical, given the teachings of Jesus, for a Christian of any stripe to support war.

Item 3: The religious right is all over homosexuals for deigning to suggest they should be allowed to get married. They cite Biblical passages like those in Romans. They conveniently forget that the passages mentioning homosexuality in the New Testament all (check me on this, but I believe it is ALL) mention a multitude of other sins. Most of the other sins are given little if any mention, and no one seems to be pushing for laws to regulate them, except murder. Is it not hypocritical to single out homosexuals for special legal treatment and not the other sins, especially when there is little if any Biblical justification for making religious beliefs have the force of civil law and apply it to believers and unbelievers alike?

Item 4: The religious right has a significant 'prosperity message' that tries to get believers to buy into the idea that 'rich is good'. Sadly lacking is Christ's teachings about the poor and the warnings against being rich. This preaching often amounts to little more than a way to extort money out of gullible believers.

Item 5: The religious right cries foul every time somebody takes issue with a government endorsement of Christian religion, conveniently ignoring that Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S. and that Christianity deserves no more special legal protection than any other religion.

Item 6: Many in the religious right demonize their fellow believers who do not happen to share their political views. This is contrary to scriptural teaching as presented, for example, in Romans Chapter 14. "Who are you to judge another man's servant, to his own master he stands or falls?" When Christians of whatever stripe try to deny the Christianity of fellow believers simply because they believe evolution is a perfectly reasonable scientific theory, or because they vote democratic, or because they don't believe we are truly in the 'end times', they are taking unto themselves judgments that only God has the purview to make.

Is that enough for now?

[AlAyeti]

Please list the blindness and hypocrisy of the religious Right?

Although this is off-topic (since the topic is Pat Robertson), it is a legitimate question.

No it is not off topic. It is square in the middle of a guy like Robertson. It IS the issue.

Item 1: This is an old one, but is courtesy of Pat himself, as well as Ronald Reagan. Both Pat and Ronald in the 1980's, although claiming to be supporters of democracy, instead supported the Contras in Nicaragua. The Contras were largely run by the CIA and ex-thugs of the former Somosa dictatorship. Somosa and company had ruled Nicaragua with a brutal fist for some 50 years prior to the Sandinista Revolution. Reagan had the audacity to call the Contras "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." THis has got to be one of the most blatantly hypocritical political statements of all time.

You answered your own question. This was a blatant "political" statement. The Sandanistas were rat bastards too. You can't have it both ways. Either there is seperation of church and state, or have the government fund evangelicals to go into countries and set up revival meetings. It sure seddled down America. Or maybe would should let wars go on or arm both sides and let the horror ensue? Which do you choose?

Item 2: Many in the religious right have supported the war in Iraq, and have done so regardless of the rationale that has been offered for it. They have also done so despite the fact that a large number of innocent civilians have been killed. It is arguably hypocritical, given the teachings of Jesus, for a Christian of any stripe to support war.

The religious right support the actions of the goverment. Isn't that what you are wanting them to do on same-sex marriage? Rumsfeld was part of a government that armes Saddam Hussien and seems the perfect person to disarm have disarmed him. Even the UN had many problems with Saddam. But, the terrorist states that make up so much of the UN sat idle. Muslim's are killing Muslim's because they have a wrong Jesus. Again, send government endorsed Christians into Iraq and spread the words of the Prince of Peace. But you won't support that. You seem clear that Christians should be peaceful and non-judgmental. They sound like perfect ambassadors to me.

Item 3: The religious right is all over homosexuals for deigning to suggest they should be allowed to get married. They cite Biblical passages like those in Romans. They conveniently forget that the passages mentioning homosexuality in the New Testament all (check me on this, but I believe it is ALL) mention a multitude of other sins. Most of the other sins are given little if any mention, and no one seems to be pushing for laws to regulate them, except murder. Is it not hypocritical to single out homosexuals for special legal treatment and not the other sins, especially when there is little if any Biblical justification for making religious beliefs have the force of civil law and apply it to believers and unbelievers alike?

Christians can only support marriage between a man and a woman. Christians that believe in God that is. You are right there. You seem to forget that Jesus clearly defined marriage as "a man leaving his parents and joining unto "his wife," the two becoming one."

You do not need any other Biblical texts against same-sex marriage and the heresy of supporting it. Jesus is quoting the Jewsih Bible. Known as the Old Testament by Christians. Homosexuals are the ones demanding special legal treatment. Same-sex marriage has never been outlawed because it has never been legal. Do the math. Christians know all too well that same-sex marriage will outlaw Christianity the day it is legalized. AND let us not forget the definition of "family" is ,or has always been immutable in every cultute and country that has ever existed! Christians are no more bigots the Aborigines or the Greeks of old.

Item 4: The religious right has a significant 'prosperity message' that tries to get believers to buy into the idea that 'rich is good'. Sadly lacking is Christ's teachings about the poor and the warnings against being rich. This preaching often amounts to little more than a way to extort money out of gullible believers.

This is an inhouse issue. The Religious Right have opposed the Word of Faith (Prosperity) message consistently. Now, believing that by doing the right things, you will attain success, you had better look at the Chinese and Arabs, and Jews and Christians for complete agreement. BUT selling the Doctine and the Gospels? I couldn't agree with you more on that. Also, they all believe that the family as husband, wife and children is the key to success. Very Biblical.

Item 5: The religious right cries foul every time somebody takes issue with a government endorsement of Christian religion, conveniently ignoring that Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S. and that Christianity deserves no more special legal protection than any other religion.

No one outlaws any other religion in America. The ACLU demanded that the Cross be removed from the Los Angeles city flag but had no problem with the Goddess Pomona being left on. There is an anti-Christian agenda in everything the Left is doing. Christians are using their Constitutional Rights to protect the on-slaught of bigots passing anti-Christian laws.

Item 6: Many in the religious right demonize their fellow believers who do not happen to share their political views. This is contrary to scriptural teaching as presented, for example, in Romans Chapter 14. "Who are you to judge another man's servant, to his own master he stands or falls?" When Christians of whatever stripe try to deny the Christianity of fellow believers simply because they believe evolution is a perfectly reasonable scientific theory, or because they vote democratic, or because they don't believe we are truly in the 'end times', they are taking unto themselves judgments that only God has the purview to make.

You read the New testament very selectively though that comes as no surprise. You serve either of two Masters. Jesus was clear that those that do not follow Him are doomed to Hell. If "Christians" teach anti-Biblical and anti-Christian teachings ONLY other Christians can oppose them. And should. Every single book of prophecy or every book in the New Testament canon is challenging liars that call themselves believers or calling heretics and sinning Christians to REPENTANCE. I see the religiuous Right promoting Promise Keepers and they are on TV every day calling people to repent. The Left either refuse to repent or claim they were born with inalienable rights to do the wrong thing. A Christian is told by Jesus to go to his brother with grievances against them. If they will not listen, then go before the Church. If they still won't listen, then go to court!!!

The Religious Right look like they are following good advice.

Is that enough for now?

No!

Let us continue to reason together.

[micatala]

If anyone wants to accuse me of 'piling on' I will certainly accept the criticism, but given Robertson's recent comments, I couldn't resist.

It seems Pat has declared that Ariel Sharon's stroke is divine retribution for his unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/05/robert ... index.html

A couple of quotes from the CNN article.

Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to the United States, compared Robertson's remarks to the overheated rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

According to The Associated Press, Robertson spokeswoman Angell Watts said of people who criticized the comments: "What they're basically saying is, 'How dare Pat Robertson quote the Bible?'"

"This is what the word of God says," Watts told the AP. "This is nothing new to the Christian community."

She is referring to the idea that 'God gave the land to Israel.'


If we can't arrest Robertson, or take away his broadcast license, what can we do?

(Warning: Sarcasm ahead)

I know. I'll start praying now for God to smite him, and then when he dies, whenever that happens (he is 75 after all) I can say that my prayers have been answered.

(You are now leaving the sarcasm zone: Resume normal speed)


A little more seriously, though, I wish Pat no ill will. I just don't understand this mindset.


To further explore the idea of God intervening to cause death or disaster in order to punish certain people, I started a thread to address the issue in Random Ramblings