August 24, 2005
Robertson and Moral Values
Pat Robertson, the famous televangelist, recently said that Hugo Chavez, the head of Venezuela, should be killed. This is the same religious extremist that claims he and his followers helped elect George W. Bush president by stressing “moral values.” Evidently, one of the “moral values” he believes in is killing. Many religious leaders have condemned Robertson’s statement. Officials in the administration, however, have been beating around the Bush about this. “Moral values,” indeed.
Before I go any further, let me make one thing clear. I am not bashing religion. I never do this because I believe every person has a right to figure out for himself what he believes about God. I am, however, dismayed by those who would force their religious views on others. And I am especially irritated by those who, like Robertson, preach one thing and do another.
Here is what the great religious moralist, Robertson, said with reference to Hugo Chavez:
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Does this sound like the statement of a Christian? Is this the way to love your neighbor? Or is it a way to turn the other cheek? After he was denounced by people all over the world, Robertson said on his The 700-Club program:
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time."
Poor guy. He was misinterpreted and it happens all the time. Maybe he meant kidnapping Chavez - and then killing him?
Now, this is bad enough. Listen to the reaction of a couple of people from the Bush administration:
DONALD RUMSFELD: "Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time. Next question."SEAN McCORMACK (State Department spokesman):
"I would think that people around the world would take the comments for what they are. They're the expression of one citizen."
George W. Bush, who was elected because he has "moral values" and is a man of faith, does not think it important to denounce Robertson, a prominent leader of the Republican Party when he makes such obviously immoral statements. All any other administration leader can say is that Robertson is a private citizen. Amazing, isn't it.
A good example of faith and "moral values" at work by an administration run by a guy that speaks to God every day. Bush's "moral values" are in the same class as Robertson's "moral values."
Posted by Paul Siegel at August 24, 2005 07:57 PMPat Robertson did not do anything wrong. He was just speaking the standard Republican Doctrine. Salvador Allende, the leftist President of Chile, was assasinated afterall. The US-Ally Augusto Pinochet became president and “Disappeared” 3,000 plus tortured 27,000.
This is the way Republicans Spread Freedom. Watch Iraq for a blow-by-blow example…
Posted by: Aldous at August 24, 2005 09:24 PM1. We could just hang Pat Robertson for exercising his free speech.
2. We could impeach President Bush for not restricting the free speech of Pat Robertson.
3. We could try to decide if politicians are under a different set of rules than the common American.
Lets look behind door #2: we find Chuck Hanrahan giving the top ten reasons why we should assassinate Pat Robertson. Not to mention 77 posts & probably 66% of them finding another reason to assassinate Robertson. Does the left fall under turning the other cheek or loving your neighbor, or is that just for Christians.
If you are not bashing religion, then what is your goal? You could care less about the morals of the president, his staff, or any other Christian. So why do you bring up this topic? If part of the job description of the president is to apologize for what an American citizen says. Then is it the president’s job to apologized for the left every time they insult a Christian or his beliefs?
Perplexed
After he was denounced by people all over the world, Robertson said on his The 700-Club program:“I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should ‘take him out.’ And ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time.”Poor guy. He was misinterpreted and it happens all the time. Maybe he meant kidnapping Chavez - and then killing him?
The really funny thing is, he DID say assassination:
ROBERTSON: You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, 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. But this man is a terrific danger and the United … This is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.Posted by: Jarin at August 24, 2005 09:34 PM
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508240005
if robertson was someone else, lets say….michael moore…
lets say MM suggests we assassinate a foriegn leader…
do you think the right and the christians would have spun themselves into an outraged fury?
i think we all know the answer to that.
perplexed: no it is not the job of a president to apologize for anything a private citizen says…however, this particular private citizen is deeply entrenched in the bush white house, has donated huge contributions to the republican party, is the leader and founder of the christian coalition, and has the ear of millions of americans…i’d say that does change things a bit.
those on the right yell and scream when some stupid celebrity says something you find un-patriotic or controversial…why is this any different? in my opinion, stupid celebrities don’t really have much power…jennifer tilly isn’t affecting foriegn or domestic policy…pat robertson could very well be, or at least, that is what he wants to do.
views,
“…stupid celebrities don’t really have much power…pat robertson could very well be, or at least, that is what he wants to do”
And your “stupid celebrities” don’t. They certainly made enough Kerry contributions to prove otherwise.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 24, 2005 09:59 PMYesterday, CNN had non-stop coverage of Robertson & his statement, all day long. If it were Michel Moore, I don’t believe we would even know he said anything.
Robertson founded the Christian Coalition but no longer runs it. Roberta Combs is the president of the CC. When someone of prominence on the left says something really radical, which democrat in office comdemns them?
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at August 24, 2005 09:59 PMPaul,
Should Pat Robertson have refrained from saying this? Yes. If it’s any consolation, he did apologize Though I readily admit it can’t be much consolation, considering it’s a pretty lame apology.
“George W. Bush, who was elected because he has “moral values” and is a man of faith, does not think it important to denounce Robertson, a prominent leader of the Republican Party when he makes such obviously immoral statements.”
Should Bush have made a statement staunchly disagreeing with him? Yes. Maybe he will yet.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 24, 2005 10:06 PMPerplexed,
“When someone of prominence on the left says something really radical, which democrat in office comdemns them?”
Good question. Mostly it’s the sound of back-slapping that we hear.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 24, 2005 10:08 PM
I was enjoying these discussions very much until
Perplexed came along and started spouting right
wing radical same-old same-old. I don’t know what
it will take to get these folks to admit that
the bushy gang has lied to us from day one.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Bashing Pat Robertson is not necessarily bashing religion unless one considers a fundamentalist cult organized with definite political objectives to be a religion, which I do not.
Pat Robertson has politicized what I perceive to be total nonsense and I will continue to bash everything this man represents as I would any political idea I do not support.
And only in the world of black and white simplistic thinking does that make me anything other than a patriotic American with an opinion.
OK - let me get this straight. A very visible leader of the Christian Religion says publicly that we should assassinate the leader of a country (live TV!) and all you guys can come up with is - “Yea, but if it had been someone on the left…”
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Can you guys please come up with something other than a lame passing of the buck.
Perplexed, Stephanie - come on. You are both intelligent people. Stay on point - if you think Robertson should get a pass on the scrutiny he is getting… tell us why? Make an argument? Something?
Personally - I could care less what Robertson has to say - he a brainless prat ‘coked’ up on his own ego. I would expect him to say something so stupid and anti-Christian. However, think about the rest of the world - the fragile shape the relationships between world religions are in - and tell me how anyone should not want to bitch-slap this moron.
Posted by: tony at August 24, 2005 10:25 PMGood post, Paul. Intelligent and well-reasoned as always.
Perplexed,
One of the problems with posting on blogs is that sometimes people can’t tell when you’re joking. As the contributor of reason #11 for “taking out” Pat Robertson, I confess - I was joking. I thought that whole thread was pretty funny.
Pat Robertson has the right to say whatever he wants.
You said:
We could try to decide if politicians are under a different set of rules than the common American.Now this is a very good question. I think those that want to be our leaders must be held to the SAME standard as all of us.
We were all brought up with a fairly simple set of rules: Don’t lie, cheat, or steal. Always keep your word. Help those who need help. Don’t behave like a bully. Be humble and respectful of others; listen to them, and heed their advise. In other words, treat others the way you would want to be treated yourself. Remember, we are ALL judged by how we behave, not by what we say. So, you can’t call yourself a “good guy” if you don’t behave like one.
And I don’t think advocating cold-blooded murder falls under ANY of the things I was brought up to believe. Were you brought up any differently? I don’t think so.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 24, 2005 10:32 PMPat Robertson is considered a prominant citizen in America and as such must be held responsible for his words and action for that is The Law of the Land. True, he has his right to Free Speech, but he does not have the Right to fuel the fire of terrorists and their cause against America. Because the last time I checked The USA was not an Oppressive Government.
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black, I think Mr. Robertson needs to reflect upon his ideology of being unalienable Right and allow those who know how to handle Chavez’s stupid allegations.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 24, 2005 10:44 PMDisgusted in GA:
You didn’t have time to enjoy much; I was the 2nd to post.
If the blind lead the blind, they will both fall in the ditch.
In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I disagree with probably 75% of Pat Robertson’s theology. I disagree with his statement about assassination & I believe this was his 15 minutes of fame. He does not represent all Christians.
Tony:
We were not the first to mention someone on the left. My statement was s response to the celebrity left..
dtom:
There are a lot of good Christian people who belong to the CC. It is not fair to classify them as a “fundamentalist cult”. The home page of the CC actually deals with the whole story of Robertson.
Elliotbay:
Good Lord man, what you just said is called the golden rule & it’s found in the bible. Actually, I was brought up differently, but with God’s help, I was able to come out of it
Henry:
If Robertson’s statements are fueling the fire of the terrorists, what does the statements of the left concerning the president & the war do?
Perplexed
We were here before, so I will repeat the same thoughts. Robertson is doing for Chavez (in a small way) what McCarthy did for Communists. It is always good to be persecuted by a buffoon. It allows you to draw attention away from your real failings and Hugo falls in that group.
This tempest will continue only because Chavez and lefties all over the place want it to go on in order to discredit the U.S. Everybody knows that Robertson’s fatwa carries no weight with anyone who might actually have the will or capacity to carry it out. It is a toothless dog that won’t hunt. But it will be quoted in order to compare the U.S. to terrorists by the moral equivalency school of anti-Americanism.
Robertson holds no position in the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration rejected Robertson’s statement. I wish there was a way to stop leaders from making such statements, but we all know the ACLU would reject this abridgement of free speech because it could be applied to others besides Christian Evangelicals.
I regret that America’s enemies abroad will puff this up all over the place because they don’t or won’t understand the nature of our decentralized, pluralistic society.
You guys know better.
Paul Siegel:
Does this sound like the statement of a Christian? Is this the way to love your neighbor? Or is it a way to turn the other cheek?
No Paul. It does not sound like Christian moral values. So what’s your problem? Isn’t that what the democratic party is after, the obliteration of anything which remotely resembles Christianity from American life?
Paul Siegel:
A good example of faith and “moral values” at work by an administration run by a guy that speaks to God every day. Bush’s “moral values” are in the same class as Robertson’s “moral
A good example of faith and “moral values” at work by an administration run by a guy that speaks to God every day. Bush’s “moral values” are in the same class as Robertson’s “moral values.”
Indeed, excellant examples of the secular humanist values (survival of the fittest etc) corrupting the nation. Then again, so is terrorism. So what i don’t understand is.. why are you all yelling and screaming when you are getting what you have asked for?
jo
Posted by: jo at August 24, 2005 11:17 PMPerplexed,
The “Left” as you call them is doing the same thing and that is what OBL is counting on. The old Child’s Game of playing both Parents against each other. In this way, him and his Rapitalistics friends believe that they can take the Middle Ground on the Global Market. However, by The Laws of Human Nature he screwed up.
After 9/11, if OBL would of surrenedered to His Elders for Judgment than today, America and Humanity’s Nations would be seriously talking about making every Citizen of Earth economically viable and financially independent. Why? Because it is found in The Laws of Nature and The God of Nature. So the position which Al Quada took about “The Poor” in their country was Right. The Problem arises when OBL’s Sages apply the Ancient Ayran Laws to the equation.
Hiding from the Facts of Life and learning nothing is not in the Nature of most Humans. Driven to prove their Righteousness at any cost crosses all lines and is why The Founding Fathers of America answered the Riddle of a Righteous Nation asked by The Ancient Ones of Civilization. And while President Bush is Constitutionally Bound to hold the position of The Beast of Nature “I the Corporation” over The Laws of the Land, it is “We the People” who most build a Nation and Society where Our Citizens have everything they need and want for that is The Law of Nature. However, for America to be truely Righteous, it is also Our Duty to build that world in a manner that the Beast of Nature “I the Consumer” can no longer eat. Hence since this Beast can only consume what is wrong than everything built that he can not consume has to be unalienable Right regardless.
However, I’m not sure OBL is ready to deal with the American Consumer when they don’t know how to eat at The Table of Life. For if you do not know how to consume properly, should you even be allowed to eat?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 24, 2005 11:42 PMGuys,
I posted this in the center collumn earlier.
Sorry, Christianity may be an ideal to strive for, but it is more than an attitude. Christians either live a life that emulates Christ or they don’t deserve to call themselves Christians.
You cannot steal from Peter to pay Paul on Friday, confess it on Saturday, go to Church on Sunday and expect that life is going to be different on Monday.
Look, in the stories about Christ, he was not perfect. He felt anger, and, if you belive the Gospel of Thomas, he felt lust.
If you want to be a Christian in the truest form of the word, striving to be a perfect Christian doesn’t mean cheating on your taxes, or keeping money that you were over paid or even speaking ill of those you dispise.
Christianity is a true commitment, not some half ass “I’m a Christian when I want to be” attitude.
Pat Robertson may have been a Christian once, but not any more. He has been corrupted by the power and the money, he has aquired.
Being a Christian doesn’t mean that you blame Sept. 11th on homosexuality, or women’s rights, and it certainly doesn’t mean that you can call for the asassination of a foreign leader, even if you dissagree with his policies.
You guys really need to remember your history. There is a reason why no one in South America is surprised about Pat Robertson’s call for murder. The US has a VERY long history of assasination and subversion in the region. Something the locals have never forgotten. They have also never forgotten that the most brutal Dictators were usually supported by the White House. Augusto Pinoche survived for over 20 years due in part to US support. Others who did not support the US but were NOT Dictators like Allende seemed to suffer from well-funded coup de tat’s.
The problem with Pat Robertson is that it reinforces the already perceived notion that this White House thinks GOD wants them to make war.
Did anyone else think “Al Queda wannabe” when they watched that 700 Club Broadcast? The appeal to God for success was especially amusing.
Posted by: Aldous at August 25, 2005 12:52 AMWhat i find most disturbing is that while the left is great at judging the so-called “Christian” Coalition as, in truth, not being Christian at all; they get all up in arms at the right for actually practicing what ‘progressives’ claim to hold near and dear— secular humanist values.
Face it, nature makes perfectly clear the ‘natural’ disposition of the weak, meek and non-aggressive… lunch. Trying to lug around the weight of the handicapped, sickly, old, etc is not beneficial to the species (unless you factor God into the picture).
i say to both sides, suck it up and live what you claim or sit down and shut up.
Posted by: jo at August 25, 2005 01:05 AMPerplexed,
I was just thinking. In addition to everyone named “Marion” and my more recent addition of everyone named “Hugo”, maybe we should add everyone named “Preplexed” to the list of people we should “take out”. Hhhhmmmm.
OK. Don’t break a sweat. I’m just kidding. “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death …” In fact, thinking about it further, I’m so often “preplexed” by what passes for contemporary politics that my name would probably go to the top of the list. So, as Hugo Chavez would say: via con dios, mi amigo. Your comments were thought-provoking, as always.
tony,
“bitch-slap this moron”That’s it? Give him a puffy face? It’s no wonder that the Right says that the Left doesn’t have the bullocks to govern. You would think that at least a short vacation in Abu Ghraib for a couple of “re-education” sessions might make more sense.
Jack,
“The Bush Administration rejected Robertson’s statement.”If that’s the case, don’t you think that it might be a good idea if Bush himself actually “rejected Robertson’s statement”? At least doing so might detract from the credible assertion in South America that George II wasn’t in bed with this lunatic. Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 25, 2005 01:30 AM
jo,
“Trying to lug around the weight of the handicapped, sickly, old, etc is not beneficial to the species”
Except it is the “Christian” thing to do.
Posted by: Rocky at August 25, 2005 01:46 AMRocky,
Isn’t that also the thing to do if you are Jewish, Muslom, or believe just believe in Human Nature. How and when did being Unalienable Right Regardless (ie God) belong to just one religion or person?
Henry,
“How and when did being Unalienable Right Regardless (ie God) belong to just one religion or person?”
You really don’t want me to answer that question.
ummm scratch that, that’s even too snarky of a thought for me…carry on
:-)
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 25, 2005 02:28 AMJo: So what’s your problem? Isn’t that what the democratic party is after, the obliteration of anything which remotely resembles Christianity from American life?
This mentality is so offensive to me. Why are some Christians so hell bent set on giving their undying allegience to the Republican party, all the while claiming everyone who is a Democrat must be some kind of humanist whose goal is to remove Christianity from America?
Jimmy Carter was a Democrat. Billy Grahm is a registered Dem as well, although he wisely does not reveal whom he votes for. Some Christians are not Republican because they don’t agree with their economic policies and feel they hurt the poor.
I worship the same God as you do, and I tend to vote Democrat, although no party fits Christianity perfectly. I question the party when they screw up, and you should be able to do the same. If the Republicans are going to attempt to sell themselves as “God’s Party” and the beacons of morality on earth, they are setting themselves up for a very high standard, and true Christians should challenge them when they contradict what they are preaching. You are hurting the faith when you put your politics first and claim the two are completely compatible. Why can’t you just admit Robertson was dead wrong without trying to deflect the criticism?
Posted by: Cameron at August 25, 2005 02:39 AMThis is from Wikipedia on Pat Robertson.
“Robertson’s attacks on feminism, homosexuality, and liberalism
Among his more controversial statements, Robertson has described feminism as a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” Robertson’s views mirror those of the controversial evangelical activist Jerry Falwell, who has made frequent appearances on The 700 Club. He agreed with Falwell that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were caused by “pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and the People for the American Way.” After public outcry regarding the dialogue, which took place only days after the attacks, Robertson stated that he had not understood what Falwell was saying during the interview, which was conducted via television monitor.
[edit]
Robertson’s personal wealth
His net worth is between $200 million and $1 billion USD according to the 2002 book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. Robertson has made a number of shrewd business deals. Probably the most lucrative was the purchase of a number of FM radio stations in the 1960s (when they were viewed by most investors as worthless technology) and selling them in the 1980s for massive gains. He also has interests in such diverse assets as a shuttered California refinery.
Through his ostensibly charitable organization, Operation Blessing International, Robertson claims to have spent $1.2 million bringing aid to refugees in Rwanda. His critics, such as Palast, claim the money was actually spent to bring heavy equipment for Robertson’s African Development Corporation, a diamond mining operation. He has purchased thoroughbred race horses, although he has stated on many occasions he is opposed to gambling. Robertson claims he bought the horses because he is “amazed by their athleticism”.”
Does this seem to be the Bio of a sane man?
Posted by: Rocky at August 25, 2005 02:49 AMBTW, if any of you feel the urge to ask me if my intention is to hit a man when he’s down, all I can say is abso-freaking-lutely.
This moron deserves what ever he reaps from this.
Posted by: Rocky at August 25, 2005 03:00 AMtony,
“Perplexed, Stephanie - come on. You are both intelligent people. Stay on point - if you think Robertson should get a pass on the scrutiny he is getting… tell us why? Make an argument? Something?”
Um…no I don’t think Robertson should get a pass, but neither should anyone else for spouting off this kind of crap. I’m giving Robertson no kind of pass. In fact, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of Robertson (though I do think, now that I’ve seen his picture, he was shown in the movie Contact), so I have no sympathy for a man for whom this is my first introduction.
Does that clarify things any?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 03:15 AMJust a question: Is calling for an assisination actually covered under freedom of speech? Though, I guess it would have to be considering rappers do it on a regular basis and don’t get jailed for that.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 03:19 AMRocky,
“Does this seem to be the Bio of a sane man?”
No. Taking him down in the way of Bakker seems like a fair deal though. Maybe keeping the 45-year sentence would help.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 03:30 AMOK, I am considered a Republican, although I’m more of a Libertarian in most areas, and I will say that what he said was stupid, wrong, and the man is full of shit.
Pat Robertson don’t speak for me.
Now, where is the criticism of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan (she called the insurgents who killed her son “freedom fighters”), and the other people in the spotlight who constantly bash President Bush, sometimes with threats?
Posted by: tomd at August 25, 2005 05:14 AMtomd,
What? You actually expect them to own up to their own?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 05:18 AMRocky,
While I will leave the Spiritual Unalienable Right of Humans to The Sages of The World, as a pirivate Layman American Citizen I have a Constitutional Duty and Right to live in an Unalienable Righteous Nation by The Laws of Nature and The God of Nature based on My Unalienable Rights endowed to me by “My Creator” and I’ll defend that Reason and Logic until the day that I die.
Mr. Roberts is just one of those Citizens that need to be introduced to the Beast of Nature “I the Consumer” so that he can learn what is Right by Nature. Than for punishment, we need to send him down and talk to Mr. Chavez.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 25, 2005 05:45 AMPat Robertson is a hypocrite, and, unfortunately, he influences many US christians.
No liberal I know of has called for the death of the leader of another country, and if they did, I would be the first to denounce them.
It may be difficult for many to accept, but secular humanism does have a moral code.
Posted by: Loren at August 25, 2005 08:22 AM—-
Now, where is the criticism of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan (she called the insurgents who killed her son “freedom fighters”), and the other people in the spotlight who constantly bash President Bush, sometimes with threats?
—-
Please show me a threat made by one of these people. Assassination? Murder? Anything violent?
Robertson publicly stated, on his Christian-based TV show, that we should assassinate a world leader. That’s the discussion.
I find the whining by some on this post as to ‘why don’t you guys on the left ever bash your own people’ a huge mound of crap! My 7 yr. old makes better arguments than that. She tried the ‘everyone else is doing it mentality once, didn’t get her anywhere…’ Maybe you guys need to go to your rooms for a time out.
Lame lame lame lame lame.
Posted by: tony at August 25, 2005 08:27 AM“Robertson publicly stated, on his Christian-based TV show, that we should assassinate a world leader.”
Why should any of us care about what he said?
1- He has the right to free speech, even if you disagree with what he has to say.
2- After spending some time reading about chavez, I too, wouldn’t care if “we took him out.”
3- It is up to his followers to decide what happens to him for saying that, not us. It affects us in no way.
lets say MM suggests we assassinate a foriegn leader…
Except that Moore never did. Robertson did. That’s absolutely the most lame-ass excuse I’ve ever heard.
Pat Robertson, a close friend, spiritual advisor, and confidant of the President of the United States, called for the illegal and immoral assassination of another head of state.
In the absence of a disavowal - and considering the US-sanctioned 2002 coup against the legally elected President of one of our biggest non-OPEC oil suppliers - it appears to some that President Bush is seriously considering Robertsons advice.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 25, 2005 09:59 AMPat Robertson’s recent assassination advocacy program is nothing new. Indeed, Pat Roberston just LOVES assassination, and always has. To wit:
“I know it sounds somewhat Machiavellian and evil, to think that you could send a squad in to take out somebody like Osama bin Laden, or to take out the head of North Korea, but isn’t it better to do something like that, to take out Milosevic, to take out Saddam Hussein, rather than to spend billions of dollars on a war that harms innocent civilians and destroys the infrastructure of a country?”
— Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 9, 1999
This, however, is my favorite Pat Roberston quote of all time:
“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.”
— Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992
And 1 million viewers actually enjoy listening to this waste of human tissue? No wonder why the gene pool is in a slump and the rest of the world hates us.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 25, 2005 10:03 AMDamn, Tony!
That last one was funny and you’re right-there has been some lame stuff this time around.
You know there are plenty of forums for bashing and you can used them on anyone; it doesn’t matter to whom it is directed.
But when people in the position of power and influence come out their face the wrong way, it is a hell of allot more than “an opinion.” If I say we should covertly kill some head of state, it might be good for a few giggles. But when PR says it, it is sure enough an attention getter because of his relationship to one of the most controversial Presidents this country has ever had.
And we aren’t exactly held in the highest esteem on the world stage these days (because of said President). So to cover up something like this under the guise of “free speech”, or this “Left vs. Right” BS is foolhardy.
I personallly believe that the world needs to see Bush denounce PR for his comments and help clear the air for all who actually might believe him.
Posted by: cnw at August 25, 2005 10:07 AMIt is amazing how a few guys like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggert can make millions of dollars using the name of Christ and fool good Christians into following them and what they say. Its no wonder they are Republicans. Most rich people are. My Bible says it will be easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to get to heaven. Guess we won’t be seeing those three Christians their? My Bible says that all lier’s will be cast in the lake of fire. Guess we won’t be seeing Bush their? Lying about reasons to go to war are grievous lies in my book.
Posted by: DougNTexas at August 25, 2005 10:45 AMPerplexed
“Yesterday, CNN had non-stop coverage of Robertson & his statement, all day long. If it were Michel Moore, I don’t believe we would even know he said anything.”
Okay the difference between this is that Robertson is a well known religious man. And I think this reason why this stirs up so much controversy is b/c what he said is basically double standard to his religion. These days people want to say they are a Christan and condemn someone who is not for having abortions or being gay whatever but it’s okay by basically stating a terrorist clam? That doesn’t sound very Christan like to me. You want to be part of something but you don’t follow it 100% that is why their is so much talk about this b/c this statement came from some proclaimed Christan. A sin is a sin is a sin it doesn’t matter if one sin seems lesser then another sin it’s all the same and that is what freaking frustrates me about religion these days the majority doesn’t follow it 100% and it disgusts me.
Separation of Church and State
While there are very likely a series of provisions in this foundation for government (ie the Freedom of Speech amemdment allows for the actual verbalization of thought, rights of publication, demonstration, etc.), the general intent of Separation of Church and State is :
Church
Religion of all varieties shall operate under their covenants, beliefs and practices without the imposition of laws, rules and regulations of the government. I am assuming that the Church is not free to break laws in pursuit of this freedom. The church should not expect to be granted special considerations by the government.
State
Government at every level shall not function, legislate, make appointments, etc. based on the religious beliefs of it’s representatives and/or be influenced in it’s decisions under promises of support by church leaders and followers.
Everyone in their own way has a belief or opinion about religion and, about the way government should operate. I would venture to say that all but the 100% committed and/or devout have done something that violates their religious beliefs or teachings and, have second thoughts regarding their support of government policies.
IMO it would be near impossible to elect an official who at some point in time would not be influenced by his or her religious beliefs. As well, it would be very surprising to attend a religious service or have a discussion whose main focus is religion without the business of government finding it’s way into the conversation.
Is it wrong for a religious group or, an individual with a large following (political or religious) to come out in support of a candidate and if not, is it wrong for a politician to accept that support.
In the case of Pat Robertson who seems to be very much opposed to homosexuals, feminism, liberalism among other things and, is quite open and expressive about it, what possible impact can he have on anyone? He is excersising his right to free speech. The real question is, will his followers buy into his comments.
Can any political figure or cause openly align himself with someone like Pat Robertson and, if they do, have they done themselves more harm than good.
As a conservative, I don’t buy into all of Robertson’s positions but, his recent comments may be a boon to Democrats and Liberals. Don’t complain about it, bask in it.
Posted by: steve smith at August 25, 2005 10:58 AMIt seems to me that the right exhibited more moral outrage over Janet Jackson’s tit than this. Really, what is the greater evil?
To all the fundamentalist Christians maybe Pat Robinson is the anti-Christ? Isn’t the anti-Christ supposed to be a false profit? I do not recall the exact description offered by the bible but I believe the anti-Christ was to co-opt the faithful. Calling for murder definitely fits the bill for me, it is in violation of a commandment, plus he seems to want to bring about the end of the world.
Correct you are, vague. But it wasn’t just the right that objected to Janet Jackson’s mocha chip speed bag. Most on the right and the left thought it was disgusting, reprehensible, and morally bankrupt. The right, no doubt, whined more, but the left acted a little over the top as well.
I completely agree with you that Pat Robertson should be the recipient of a lot more wrath than Janet Jackson ever was. But the unfortunate reality is that it won’t happen — for two reasons. One, Robertson is a supporter of Bush, and Bush does not amputate the intellectually atrophied/hypocritical hand that feeds him. Period. Second, the powers that be believe that a penis, vagina (or soft, friendly booby) are far more dangerous to our society and our children than the endorsement of cold-blooded murder.
Not too long ago, Hillary & Co. raked the makers of the video game Grand Theft Auto/San Andreas over the coals for including unlockable scenes of polygon people doing the old in-out-in-out. Sure, the game makers probably shouldn’t have included that stuff — but to access it, you had to download a patch over the Internet, then do all kinds of voodoo to see it. It required WORK to see it. Unlike the game Manhunt, for example, that straight out of the box includes wall-to-wall decapitations and the gruesome torture of innocent families (including children). To be fair, Manhunt did spark outrage, but nothing compared to the sex (which was not graphic; did not shoe genitalia) of the GTA game that you had to freakin’ UNLOCK in order to see.
Penises and vaginas all got us here. Hooray for the penis and vagina. But if you’re a politician (especially a Republican politician), the penis and vagina are almost satanic. And Pat Robertson…well, he was just talking, you know? He’s still a Christian at heart.
God help us all.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 25, 2005 12:02 PMAnyone claiming that Robertson’s comments are an example of free speech are grossly misinformed.
There are liberties associated with free speech. You cannot scream ‘Fire!’ in a crowded movie theater because that would incite a hysterical response. What Robertson did was incite violence and promoted hatred. He did so using public airwaves and so violated the tennants of his broadcasting license. Therefore, he and the CBN (who taped, edited and okayed the comments) should lose their broadcasting license.
i ask everyone to contact the FCC to say that Robertson should be taken off the air.
Posted by: lowercase_jt at August 25, 2005 12:27 PMOh good lord… Now Pat Robertson is the Anti-Christ? This whole blog is great! lol
Folks, this is one man who said something that he has every right to say. If you agree or not is your own call and the actual statement is worth debating but making such a big deal about who said it and where it was said? You’ve got to be kidding me!
This is being so overblown as an actual issue it’s actually comical. Were all of you this up in arms when George Stephanopoulos said we should assassinate Saddam Hussein. I personally wasn’t… Because it was one man’s opinion. My guess is that none of you on the left said one word about it back then. But now that its a “Christian” and a “republican” who states his personal views it’s suddenly newsworthy for days and days. Please, can we discuss something real here?
BTW… Bush is not and will not respond directly to this issue for the same reason he’s not meeting with Sheehan… Because he has better things to do. If the President responded to every request that the “left” wanted him to he would spend all day “responding” and no time doing what he should be doing. Running the country. We can debate on if he is “running it well” or “running it into the ground” all day and that is worth debating but this issue? Not so much!
Posted by: BradM at August 25, 2005 12:34 PMChuck
Jack,
“The Bush Administration rejected Robertson’s statement.”
If that’s the case, don’t you think that it might be a good idea if Bush himself actually “rejected Robertson’s statement”? At least doing so might detract from the credible assertion in South America that George II wasn’t in bed with this lunatic.
Actually, no. I think that Bush has gone through the proper channel. The lefties won’t accept anything he says and no good can come from getting personally involved. If he rejected it personally, next would be calls to apologize. If he apologized, then it would be HIS statement.
Is it wrong for a religious group or, an individual with a large following (political or religious) to come out in support of a candidate and if not, is it wrong for a politician to accept that support.
You know, every once in a while, Ronald Reagan would say something worth listening to. In a situation like that, steve, he once said something like, “I want your support, but you’re buying into my agenda, I’m not buying into yours.”
Unfortunately, (and I never thought I’d be able to say this about any US President) President Bush is no Ronald Reagan.
The lefties won’t accept anything he says and no good can come from getting personally involved. If he rejected it personally, next would be calls to apologize.
Wow. That’s a pretty flimsy causal contrivance there, Jack. I think, all we want to know is that President Bush - despite having PR as his close spiritual advisor - does not think assassinating Chavez is a good idea.
Pat Robertson makes a crazy statement and the left wants his head.
OBL makes crazy statements, threatens Americans, and the left says its our own fault, we must understand what WE did wrong.
Your right Brad, being a Christian AND a Republican is really what this is all about.
Posted by: kctim at August 25, 2005 12:53 PMFor the record I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, so I don’t believe in an anti-Christ. But if your faith involves a literal reading he fits the bill. Personally I’m agnostic, I believe that there is more than this life but I don’t know what it is. Still there are those, many of whom may support Mr. Robinson and a literal reading, they should think.
Posted by: vague at August 25, 2005 12:58 PMlowercase_jt,
I understand your free speech using the fire in a movie theater example since I have used it myself.
I think however there is a difference. In screaming fire in a movie theater you know what is going to happen. People are going to scramble for their lives and the result will be injury and possibly death due to this action.
Pat Robertson’s comments IMO are protected by free speech because his intent was not to frighten people into doing anything. It is not likely that anyone became hysterical over his comments and took any dangerous action.
I am not advocating that his comments were appropriate but do think that they are protected.
Posted by: steve smith at August 25, 2005 01:08 PMTim, make no mistake the left wants OBL’s head, but we also want to know what drove him and his followers to acts of such brutality. OBL was not a lone lunatic, he represents a large number of people and if the underlying cause of their anger is our foreign policy than a small change may yield great benefits. Think of it as a disease, you just want to treat the symptoms, we wish to know the cause.
Posted by: vague at August 25, 2005 01:10 PM>>
Pat Robertson’s comments IMO are protected by free speech because his intent was not to frighten people into doing anything. It is not likely that anyone became hysterical over his comments and took any dangerous action.
I am not advocating that his comments were appropriate but do think that they are protected.
Posted by: steve smith at August 25, 2005 01:08 PM
>>
Steve,
i think you’re missing the point of his CBN and the associated programming. Besides fund raising, they preach. They preach to their followers. Their followers do, in many cases, as Pat preaches; they pray (in some cases for the death of Supreme Court justices) and they vote the way that Pat asks them.
He is inciting and advocated an illegal action. That is prohibited by the FCC. Whether or not it’s legal or not, i suppose he’ll find out. But at the very least, he shouldn’t be allowed to preach hate and violence any longer.
How long do you think Al Franken would stay on the air if he said something similar about GWB or Tony Blair?
Maybe we should ask Pat Robertson, “Who would Jesus assassinate?”
George Bush displays his values by claiming that Robertson is a private citizen and entitled to express his views. But if a Palestinian who had his land stolen, house bulldozed and rights denied called for the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, would Bush call him a terrorist, or a private citizen entitled to express his views? What about an Iraqi who lost family members to US troops & called for Dubya’s assassination - is he a terrorist or a private citizen entitled to his opinion?
We ask Muslims to reclaim Islam from the terrorists. It’s also time to reclaim Christianity from the crusaders.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 25, 2005 01:41 PMOBL makes crazy statements, threatens Americans, and the left says its our own fault, we must understand what WE did wrong.
kctim, I don’t know which “left” you’re talking about. Certainly not Democrats.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 25, 2005 01:52 PMlowercase_jt:
The likes of Al Franken have said similar things about the president. Some have said worse & yet it is ignored.
“He is inciting and advocated an illegal action. That is prohibited by the FCC. Whether or not it’s legal or not, i suppose he’ll find out. But at the very least, he shouldn’t be allowed to preach hate and violence any longer.”
You never answered concerning “George Stephanopoulos said we should assassinate Saddam Hussein.”. You have no right to talk about Robertson if you can’t answer for George’s statements.
Do you advocate taking away Robertson’s 1st amendment rights?
Perplexed
Perplexed,
i think you’re mistaken about Franken. He has said many, many things but he has never said that we should take him out. You forget, that in the US, it illegal to threaten the life of the president of the US. That’s pretty black and white.
With regards to George (and anyone else that NewsMax is going to post in an effort to put noise in the mix), George said his statement through his column. He did not say it through his television show. If Robertson said this crap through some column, i’d have no problem with it. Ted Rall and Ann Coulter (on both sides) spew incendiary things daily and i don’t have a problem with it. Robertson did so through public airwaves. He’s only allowed to be on the air if he adheres to a code of conduct. Clearly he violated that conduct and should be forced off the air.
i’ve already addressed the freedom of speech issue. Much like someone can’t host is prohibited from hosting a show called “NAMBLA today!” and talk about ways to meet with young boys, Robertson can’t use the airwaves to promote and incite violence against another person (in this case, a democratically elected official).
Posted by: lowercase_jt at August 25, 2005 02:10 PMAP
Your right, not the Dems, the Liberals.
The left who is so willing to put Robertson in the same boat as OBL. Crusader? puleeze.
Robertsons words only mean something to those who follow him. If THEY don’t like it, let them deal with.
Getting riled up over anything the guy says is petty.
Okay Perplexed; it’s your turn.
I see lowercase_it’s point and I have to agree with it at this point.
Anyone else care to chime in???
Posted by: cnw at August 25, 2005 02:49 PMI’ll see your George Stefanopolous and raise you Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck.
Ann Coulter (the same Ann Coulter who argued that the only way to talk to a liberal is with a baseball bat) argued that the national debate during the Monica Lewinsky controversy should not have focused on whether President Bill Clinton “did it,” but rather “whether to impeach or assassinate” him. From her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery, 1998):
In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he “did it,” even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate.
Wrong wong radio host Glenn Beck talked about murdering Michael Moore. From the May 17 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could.Posted by: ElliottBay at August 25, 2005 03:17 PM
Steve Smith:
Are you kidding. I grabbed my pistols, ran out into the desert and spent the entire night awake. Because I didn’t wish to be shot, by a “Right-Winger” inspired by that religious zealot, inciting his followers to kill anyone that happens to disagree with the current Bushco Policies. I was scared to Death.
You realize That I am Just Kidding, But what if just 1 person in his flock(Robertson’s) took that request seriously, went to South America or anywhere else and killed those he had said needed to be killed. I’d be scared as hell if someone did that to Emporer George II, and Trickie Dickie were to Become The Actual decision maker. That is so SCARY, That even thinking about it gives me the chills and the longest case of Goose bumps I have ever had. That is such a scary thought I may not be able to function for the next 3 years. Ooohhhh Gives me the Willies just thinking about that…Think we have it Bad now?
Still recovering from the evil vision, Thanks for making me want to go back into the desert, Steve.
A very frightened,
Wayne
kctim,
Pat Robertson makes a crazy statement and the left wants his head. OBL makes crazy statements, threatens Americans, and the left says its our own fault, we must understand what WE did wrong.
Nope. OBL makes crazy statements, threatens Americans, and the Right says “It’s too darn hard to catch this crazy Muslim. Let’s go after someone easy like Hussein.”
Weak willed. Weak minded. Weak kneed. The Republican party.
Posted by: Burt at August 25, 2005 03:48 PMlowercase_it,
Whether or not Pat Robertson preaches things that are to your liking or not, his recent comments are protected by free speech. There is no way to know whether or not his followers would act in accordance with his message. You have no idea whether they vote the way Pat asks them.
That aside, if I read your response accurately what you believe he violated was FCC regulations.
If that is the issue, I would probably agree although I can probably quote examples very similar that went unpunished.
Posted by: steve smith at August 25, 2005 03:57 PMWayne,
I needed a little humor this afternoon, thanks.
I am a right winger and I would not do anything that my preacher or, any other preacher for that matter suggested that I do.
Whatever a person believes in religion wise, they are also wise enough to realize that their beliefs are personal. They take what they hear from the church/preacher and adapt it to their own needs.
Religion does not mean, blindly follow and obey.
I agree that using the TV to communicate inflammatory messages of any kind should be stopped.
Posted by: steve smith at August 25, 2005 04:05 PMSteve Smith:
Pat should be off the air.
If he wants to write an column somewhere and post his views about who should live and who should die, i have no problem with that.
But if he is going to be afforded the privilege of being able to broadcast freely on public airwaves, he should do so without preaching violence and hate.
should do so without preaching violence and hate.
I agree that christianity is under attack, but it is not under attack by the left. Cristianity is under attack by those within who would twist the tennants of a great faith to those that are the most sensationalistic. using sex, abortion, homosexuality, and the like to galvinize peoples mindsets against such “deviant” things while advocating or accepting things like killing, torture, and lying.
Cristianity must be reclaimed by those who truly aspire to be Christ like. Love thy neighbor, Be not righteous over much, these things are in direct contraditiction with the interpretation people like Robertson give.
God help us all
Posted by: Vex at August 25, 2005 04:29 PMGood article.
And good posts Elliotbay, Rocky, lowercase_jt, and Tony (Your second post was hilarious! Thanks.)
But it was Magoo who really nailed it with this:
“Robertson is a supporter of Bush, and Bush does not amputate the intellectually atrophied/hypocritical hand that feeds him.”
That’s it. That’s the reason Bush isn’t going to come out and denounce what Robertson said — once again, and despite the complete stupidity of it, with W. it’s all about LOYALTY.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 25, 2005 04:31 PMIt would be interesting to know how much financial clout if any Pat Roberston has with the FCC.
Posted by: steve smith at August 25, 2005 05:03 PMSteve Smith:
Sorry that I edited you post
I am a right winger and I would not do anything that my preacher or, any other preacher for that matter suggested that I do.
IMHO
First, the thing that I would like to ask you is this. Do you and I in Agree on this Statement: There are people in this world who are not as Strong or disciplined as you and I are? Would it be safe to say that there are some people in this world who take the Words of Some televangelists literally? I think we are in agreement on that subject. Am I correct with that presumption? So, I can presume that although our Ideology is 180 degrees apart we are in agreement on this subject, at least in principal?
Religion does not mean, blindly follow and obey.
I Agree emphatically
“I agree that using the TV to communicate inflammatory messages of any kind should be stopped”.
Glad to see that someone here agrees with me, and it just goes to show, People 180 degrees apart on the political spectrum working together can come to some sort of agreement. If they just sit down and rationally discuss matters at hand.
Thank You steve smith
Posted by: Wayne at August 25, 2005 05:28 PMWayne,
Wow, we agree on something.
I agree that there are people who would take the word of a televangelist literally in the same way I would believe that some people would take the word of a car salesman literally.
There are some people who are very gullible and in the follower rather than leader catagory.
Posted by: steve smith at August 25, 2005 05:56 PMBest commentary I’ve yet seen on this is at the URL above http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-gilroy/is-there-anybody-out-ther_b_6201.html
The answer from this seems pretty simple, no matter what they call themselves, people like Robertson and his supporters are not people of faith
Posted by: Emmauel Goldstein at August 25, 2005 06:42 PMSpeaking of assassination attempts:
Have any of you noticed the recent assassination attempt on the life of our own President? How do you feel about that?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 07:05 PM“Pat should be off the air.”
1.Tom Delay should be removed from office & imprisoned!
2.The vise-president should be impeached & sent to prison with anyone working at Halliburton!
3.The President should be impeached for any number of reasons, tarred & feathered, & sent back to Texas!
4.Judge Roberts should be removed from the bar!
5.The Attorney General & Secretary of State are only tokens, so they should be sent home!
6.John Bolton should be removed from the UN for being violent!
Have I missed anyone? I am sure I must have missed someone of influence.
None of these people deserve to be where they are because the President wasn’t really elected by the country. It was all a lie, it was done with mirrors. The democratic election boards controlling all the democratic strongholds in the country tricked the democrats into voting wrong & it was all done by mirrors.
Thank you Jesus for giving me a sound mind & allowing me to be on the whining side, I mean winning side.
Perplexed
Perplexed, I think tarring and feathering is too harsh, Roberts should not be disbarred, the AG and Secretary of state are complicit in the criminal actions of the administration and should not be sent home, if there ever is an impeachment, which I doubt, they should be prosecuted for treason and Bolton was only a recess appointment so if 1, 2 and 3 happen he is out.
Too bad you were being sarcastic.
I prefer people like Robertson spew their hate, it shows them for what they are. I just wish the right was as outraged as they should be.
OK - if Janet Jackson can get fined $500,000 for showing het tit on TV, surely you can knock Robertson up for a couple of Million$ for preaching assassination… right?
Posted by: tony at August 25, 2005 09:14 PM… and isn’t it against FCC regulations to use public airwaves for death threats or inciting violence? I’m pretty sure that is grounds for fines and loss of broadcast license. (Guess they weren’t pre-recording that 5 second buffer so they could edit out profanities of titties… OO INCITING VIOLENCE.
JESUS! Who does this thug think he is?!?! (OK, bad pun… sorry.)
Posted by: tony at August 25, 2005 09:28 PMwow…. I hate the way I type late at night… sheeesh.
Posted by: tony at August 25, 2005 09:29 PMvague:
I thought the goal of the left was to removed or discredit any person of infuence the president or the republican controlled House or Senate choses.
Is there anything, short of turning control of the government back over to the democrats, that would make any of you happy.
It’s not about war, its not about taxes, its not about abortion, its not even about gays, but it is about power. The democrats had control of both houses for about 40 years & what did you accomplish? What is the greatest thing the democrats ever did? SS, they robbed it blind & now it’s in trouble. Welfare, how many generations of people were made dependent upon the government? How many mothers with no breadwinner except the federal check each month?
You have lost both houses & the presidency. The last stronghold of the left is activist judges & you are about to lose that also.
You hope & pray (I’m sorry, forget prayer, you don’t believe in God) that you will get your power back. That is why running for office starts earlier & earlier. All the liberal news talks about is who is running for president next time & it’s over 3 years away. Sad, sad.
I feel sorry for you people. You have no hope, no beliefs, & no joy.
I will never change. I love my country, support the president & the troops & the war. I am proud that we have liberated a nation from a killer. The terrorists are our enemies & I would rather us fight them on their soil & not than ours. How does it feel to always be on the wrong side?
Life is good
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at August 25, 2005 09:29 PMWell said, Perplexed! Though, you don’t seem very perplexed at the moment. ;-)
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 09:43 PM—-
Seems to me - you have the best perspective. How does it feel?
How about the largest surplus in history… busted in less than a year of ‘tax breaks.’
How about Saddam being contained for 8 years… (What do you mean there were no WMDs!?!?!?!? You heard what screwball said?!?!?!)
Basically - you spouted some generalized statements… opinions… and lack of absolutely anything accomplished in the past 5 years. Life is good? Sounds blissfully….
Posted by: tony at August 25, 2005 09:56 PM“Seems to me - you have the best perspective. How does it feel?”
GREAT!
I am no economist, but even I know that a “surplus” is only a projection several years in advance.
Let me give you some more “generalized statements” & “opinions”:
I liked my tax cut & hope it is made permanent.
I just received a good pay increase & I retire in 16 months. Life don’t get any better.
I wake up in the morning & look in the mirror & start singing “Oh, Happy Days”
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at August 25, 2005 10:11 PMSorry if i was not clear enough for some people. i think what Pat Robertson said concerning ‘taking out’ Hugo was WRONG.
Furthermore i completely agree with those who have called for action to be taken against him as he has a history of not only suggesting the assasination of foreign leaders(Hussein) but a history of inflaming followers toward violence (abortion clinics). A FCC fine would be imo, a slap on the wrist. Because of its record and continued promotion of hatred and violence i think the 700 club should be marked as a terrorist group and it and Robertson’s assets should be frozen and used to fund our ‘war on terrorism’.
i confess i do not follow 100% Christ’s teachings. i try but often fail. While i suppose the most accurate label for me would be ‘independant’, i succumbed voting power block rather than my conscience for the first time in my life. Because of the democratic agenda and their actions toward imposing their beliefs on others even when ‘the people’ have repeatedly voiced and voted against their ideas, i betrayed my personal beliefs and left Ralph Nader just as the Green Party also did. i did not vote for Bush but against the Democratic (sic) Party. IMO, a war, even a protracted one such as Viet Nam, does not last as long or leave as indelible a mark on the collective societal psyche as does immoral, irresponsible ‘legislation’— from the bench, civic office or other venue.
And yes, i voted this way knowing that i was risking my own childrens’ lives who defend this country and our society. It is my personal opinion that the ‘progressive’ left presents a greater danger to our society with its subversion of the constitution (government of, by and for the people) and its balance of powers than both OBL or SH combined. Nevertheless, hatred and violence is not a Christian response.
While i have not encountered political or gevernmental topics that others seem to find as normal in theirs, i was pleased to learn that, in recently statement on leaving the National Council of Churches, my Church shares my feelings that frank dialogue, then withdrawal and disassociation are the correct response.
in part:
WHEREAS, several extreme positions that are both divisive and dangerous have emerged from so-called “Left-wing” and “Right-wing” Christian groups;
AND WHEREAS, the tenets of these extreme positions include, but are not limited to, support for same-sex marriage, support for abortion, support for ordination of women to Holy Orders, support for the concept of war which is “pre-emptive” or “justifiable”, and the labeling of other faiths and their leaders with hateful terminology;
…
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this General Assembly of … firmly rejects all extremist positions that are contrary to the teachings of the … Faith;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this … will not be affiliated with those groups that support and promulgate these extreme positions, …
*church identifiers removed as it is not my intention to inflict my faith on people whose values relegate faith to the closet and sex to the public square.
jo
Posted by: jo at August 25, 2005 10:54 PMjo,
I congratulate your church on its resolve. I hope all of its members are as supportive of that decision as you are.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 11:22 PMStephanie,
The resolution passed unanimously and was received by standing ovation.
jo
Posted by: jo at August 25, 2005 11:27 PMjo,
Glad to hear it! From what I’ve heard, a lot of churches are getting antsy about their membership.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 11:37 PMPerplexed,
So, hows the veiw from up there in the cheap seats?
Posted by: Rocky at August 25, 2005 11:53 PMFor those who have spoken about Robertson’s show and the FCC; it’s a cable show. The FCC doesn’t regulate cable tv. Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” was on free tv, and therefore is regulated by the fcc.
I’m a democrat, but I don’t see where any great problem has arisen from PR’s comments. Sure, it was wrong. He was wrong. But people say things all the time, and those from each opposing side jump up and down and wail every time.
It doesn’t matter if Michael Moore or Pat Robertson said anything. As long as nobody acts on it, and it’s not something that is illegal to say, we can’t do anything about it.
If I were Bush, I wouldn’t give the comments the dignity of responding to them, either. It would raise them up to more than they are.
I think that the overwhelming majority of Christians in this country (of which I am one) realize that what he said is wrong, and would not want our government to be involved in something like that. The right-wing christians are not a bunch of robot zombies that would immediately stand up, lock and load, and proceed on down to south america to shoot Chavez.
Those individuals that would do something like that have several screws loose, anyway, and would not need much encouragement from anyone to climb on the bus.
The only thing that this has shown us is that Pat Robertson has lost touch with reality. There are those kinds of people on both sides.
By the way, as a Democrat, I’m not that crazy about Michael Moore, either. I think he goes overboard. Kind of hurts our cause on the left, sometimes.
So it’s ok for you right-wingers to disapprove of PR.
Pat Robertson needs prayers, he is an old man that forgot his calling, you can’t hold a bible and rifle, and you have to pick which one. Spilling blood never brings peace, it only calls for more. Evil people hide behind a lot of things even bibles, People always say that God is on our side. But I wonder are we on God’s side?
Posted by: loz at August 26, 2005 05:48 AMI personally believe we should quit using all of this religious propaganda to make ourself sound better jesus himself quoted on the mount he said “love your enemies and pray for those that hate you” and that the peace keepers were the children of god himself jesus was a hippie but these conservatives want to make god in their image ive said all along the republicans use religion to gain more votes I probably have more moral values than bush these quote “religious icons” are selfish republican ,war pigs I dont like communism but chavez isnt hitler for godsakes pat robertson thinks he the president but hes not and it wont be long before bush is out of office if god could comment on what pat robertson said it would’nt be very nice these christian male white conservatives contradict theirselves talking about moral values one minute and then talking about killing people out come on man let people be and quit forcing all of this bs on the american people and the rest of the world peace , love and understanding
Posted by: Grey at August 26, 2005 05:59 AMRocky:
The seats are fine, but they did’nt come cheap.
cole:
I agree with you.
loz:
Of all the Chaplains George Washington had in his army, he love those of the Baptist faith best. He said, 1st of all he could trust them as patriots, 2nd they lived their convictions, & 3rd they were excellent shots with their squirel rifles.
Grey:
I’m having trouble following your train of thought.
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at August 26, 2005 07:07 AMCole:
You’re incorrect about Robertson’s being a cable show.
Locally, Robertsons’s CBN network show is aired on WPN 57. WPN 57 is available, free of charge, to all those without cable.
Posted by: lowercase_jt at August 26, 2005 07:59 AMWhy do you and many conservatives think that the left is “imposing their beliefs” on everyone? The left supports rights, look at the ACLU, if you rights to are infringed they will fight for that right. Pat Robertson had the right to say whatever he wanted. I just wish I saw an appropriate degree of outrage over it. The left is the side of freedom; I support the idea of free will. Why are so many on the right afraid of freedom? We are not anti-god, we are just against the fundies forcing their idea of god on everyone. We are not trying to control conservatives; conservatives are trying to control us. I might be against the war in Iraq, but I wish we supported the troops better than the Bushies do. Closing Military hospitals and under funding the VA hospitals, that is not support. Of the networks, which airs the raunchiest shows that liberals are blamed for? Fox, definitely not owned by a liberal.
It is like some alternate 1984 universe where repeating something often enough makes it true. War is peace War is peace War is peace War is peace War is peace War is peace War is peace War is peace War is peace War is peace
Robertson is a Christian Robertson is a Christian Robertson is a Christian Robertson is a Christian Robertson is a Christian Robertson is a Christian Robertson is a Christian
Damn I still don’t believe any of it.
—-
I liked my tax cut & hope it is made permanent.
I just received a good pay increase & I retire in 16 months. Life don’t get any better.
I wake up in the morning & look in the mirror & start singing “Oh, Happy Days”
—-
… and if you forget the words to the song… just sing LA LA LA LA LA LA… works best with your fingers in your ears… that’s what my 7 yr old does.
La la la la la ‘I can’t hear you’ la la la la ’ everything’s great’ la la la la la ‘I’m not listening…
you get the general idea?
Posted by: tony at August 26, 2005 09:08 AMvague,
How does posting the Ten Commandments in the public square control you?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 03:54 PMPerplexed,
It is amazing that whenever a conservative christian leader says something anti-christian (Assassination of Humans for example) that conservatives actually defend him. A conservatives favorite defense is YOU ARE ATTACKING CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION.
If Jesus was walking the Earth what do you think his comments would be about the horrific statements Pat Robertson made.
This great christian icon Pat Roberston doesn’t even have the humility to admit he was wrong. How many more sins will he not admit to, and ask for forgiveness. How CHRISTIAN is this guy if he doesn’t practice what he preaches.
Pat Robertson needs to retire and give the 700 club show over to his clone son; Unless his vanity and ego as the star of the show can’t let him do that. The sins keep growing….
Pat has done a lot of good in his life, he should not be remembered as an old man who lost his way and lost control of his tongue. Retire and keep your legacy Pat —— before you say something even the most hardcore christians can’t forgive you for.
JT
Posted by: John at August 26, 2005 04:17 PM
Pat Robertson, recognizing that he made a mistake, sinned if you will, following the teachings of his faith has already asked for and received foregiveness from his LORD and SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST.
If JESUS were walking the earth he would have forgiven him as he forgave those who crucified him.
Posted by: steve smith at August 26, 2005 04:33 PM“The left supports rights, look at the ACLU, if you rights to are infringed they will fight for that right.”
Not in Yelm, Washington. The city council forbids the mention of Wal-Mart or “box store” because they are tired of hearing about it. The ACLU wrote them a letter saying it was unconstitutional, but they don’t plan to sue.
Posted by: tomd at August 26, 2005 04:47 PMJT:
I have never defended the things Robertson said. In fact, in a past post, I said I believed he was wrong. He is not the first nor will he be the last who has stayed past their prime. The only thing I defended was his right to free speech. When it comes to Christian bashing, I believe the left waits for an opportunity such as this to let their true feelings of Christianity come out. You cannot tell me that the left on these pages do not bash Christians. I have read it for months. I read & posted on these pages for a long time & never let my Christian beliefs show until I was accused one day of sounding like a bible thumper. I don’t remember who said it & it doesn’t matter.
You expect Christians to be perfect & they are not. Only sinners saved by grace.
There has been entirely to much talk about Robertson.
What amazes me more than anything is that nothing has been more talked about and defended by the non-conservatives who post on Watchblog than freedom of speech. I have seen the most heinous acts defended here under the umbrella of free speech.
Now, because there is an Evangelical Christian involved who made comments that are protected by free speech, he is assassinated like nothing I have ever seen. If he is guilty of something, it may be using the airwaves to make his comments.
I see almost nothing about the real issue which should be should Pat Robertson be sanctioned for for violating FCC rules. Instead I see viscious attacks on everything he stands for and his alleged influence on the present administration.
Thank GOD he didn’t say anything about Cindy Sheehan.
Posted by: steve smith at August 26, 2005 05:35 PM
I agree there has been tooooo much talk on Robertson, and the majority of the left does like to punch the face of christianity —— and it is one of the liberals greatest downfalls because many liberals are christians.
No one is perfect - but when you are in a position of power over others as a President, CEO, Priest, Mayor, or Politician you have to be held accountable for your actions. You can see a trend in our society in the past several years where this is not happening.
Everyone has the right to free speech, and everyone must be held accountable for that right by an educated society.
“Whoever seeks to set one nationality against another seeks to degrade all nationalities. Whoever seeks to set one race against another seeks to enslave all races. Whoever seeks to set one religion against another seeks to destroy all religion”
Franklin Roosevelt
JT
Posted by: John at August 26, 2005 05:58 PM
Perplexed,
“You expect Christians to be perfect & they are not. Only sinners saved by grace.”
No, I don’t expect Christians to be perfect.
I do expect them to be honest
Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 06:12 PMPerplexed,
You said “You cannot tell me that the left on these pages do not bash Christians.”
OK, I’m game. Show me ONE quote from this thread where someone from the left bashed the Christian faith.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 26, 2005 06:26 PM—-
I see almost nothing about the real issue which should be should Pat Robertson be sanctioned for for violating FCC rules.
—-
I’ve been trying to discuss this issue… but no takers as of yet. I think it completely violates FCC regulations - death threats, inciting violence - and I believe calling for the death of someone is illegal use of public airwaves… could be on the phone, CB radio, TV… doesn’t matter, it’s illegal and the stations carrying The 700 Club should be brought up on charges.
Tony,
He should be brought up on charges and fined. However with a big ball of hatred being put forward by the current administration against Venezuela (Cuba’s best friend)), the best Pat and his club will get is a small fine. The current administration will burn you like Joan of Arc if you show your breast for 1 second on TV by accident - but if you call for World Leader Assassination and national violence against gays, lesbians, and feminism you get a special golden Willy Wonka GET OUT OF JAIL FREE TICKET.
OK… (and this will offend alomst everyone..)
Liberals: oppose wars and assassinations of foreign leaders.
Conservatives: oppose titties and BJs.
hmmmm, which side to I find myself leaning towards…
Posted by: tony at August 26, 2005 08:25 PMlowercase_jt (and steve smith):
You may be correct that CBN (700 Club)is not a cable channel, since it’s on WPN. But they define themselves as a cable network. This may be a grey area (at least for me), because the 700 club is provided to non-cable stations as well, according to what you are saying.
Quote from CBN website:
“In 1977, CBN started the nation’s first basic TV cable network with satellite transmissions of religious and syndicated family TV shows. By 1981, CBN Cable reached nearly 10 million homes.”
I wonder, if the local affiliate picks up a program intended for cable and offers it over the public airwaves, is it still considered cable, or does it then become public and subject to FCC regulation?
And then, who is liable for regulatory penalties? CBN or the local affiliate?
Then, of course, is this even a case for some sort of penalty? In reality, he only offered an opinion. He did not say, “go forth and kill the guy”. He said, … .”I THINK that we really ought to go ahead and do it. . ” “…We have the ability to take him out, and I THINK the time has come that we exercise that ability…”
That is not illegal, and is not contrary to FCC regulations. Perhaps he was wrong on a moral or ethical level, but not a legal one. He was speaking of the government or military committing this act. He knows that he does not have any authority over them. So he had no expectation that anyone would act on his opinion. Statements like this are made on television frequently, most notably by pundits on the Sunday morning news programs like Meet the Press and such. Those are clearly broadcast on public airwaves, and no one has ever been fined for such statements.
And to those who say that Christianity is being attacked; it’s about an idividual. Not a religion. Don’t take criticism of PR as condemnation of the entire religion.
Posted by: Cole at August 26, 2005 08:40 PMtony,
Do oppose the call to assassinate police officers? How doing so over public radio waves?
Why are rappers who incite people to break the law covered by free speech and yet self-professed Christians who do it aren’t?
Now, I’m not asking you these questions in defense of Pat Robertson. In fact, I think he should be taken off the air and prosecuted. But, I think people who suggest killing cops and raping women as good hobbies to have should be taken off the radio and prosecuted, too.
What do you think?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 26, 2005 11:06 PMStephanie -
I think that radio stations can be fined and loose their licenses for playing the songs you mentioned. Now, they find the completely ineffective ways to get around it by beeping out the particular words… which everyone listening to knows, so it’s dumb, but for some reason it gets by the law. “Cop Killers’ and other songs that promote violence to women should be kept from the public airwaves, if they are not. I’ve never heard one of those songs on the air.
For free speech and freedom of expression, these bands can press their trash onto CDs if they want to… but I’m pretty sure they can’t be played on air.
Posted by: tony at August 27, 2005 03:14 PMtony,
I hear them regularly being blasted out of car windows. It is certainly possible that theses are on cds, not radios. I don’t know. I don’t listen to rap regularly.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 27, 2005 08:01 PMStephanie,
I can’t see that anyone even inside the car would be able to understand the lyrics
Posted by: Rocky at August 27, 2005 09:10 PMRocky,
As far as I’ve been told (my brother likes rap), the point is more the bass than the words. However, I’ve heard some pretty offensive verses loud and clear. And then heard my eight year old repeat them to see if he got them right. He doesn’t do that any more.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 27, 2005 09:45 PMStephanie,
I have to confess that back in the late eighties I was an installer at a business that sold and installed those systems. I wore ear protection.
I am also not a big fan of rap.
Posted by: Rocky at August 27, 2005 10:07 PMI like some rap - I think Public Enemy was an amazing group… but they had a very solid message and talent. The Gorillaz are also good.
The T&A rap groups… bling bling… the ones that are all about their appearance & the booty they can call their own - I find that really obnoxious.
I would also want to separate out all those mentioned above from the ‘cop killer’ rap stars. As far as I’ve found, there are very few of those, and I think they barely fit into the protected speech category, but I guess one could make a case for it.. so I usually just ignore it.
It also seems like the ‘boomers’ are dying out… haven’t really noticed all that many lately. Who knows, maybe their cars just vibrated apart…
Posted by: tony at August 28, 2005 08:25 AMtony,
I have the same problem with Metal.
I think that this country has heard enough from the rude, vulgar, angry, rich, in your face, artists.
The music that had people pissed off in the Fifties, are nursery rhymes compared to this crap.
Posted by: Rocky at August 28, 2005 11:16 AMtony,
“Who knows, maybe their cars just vibrated apart…”
Well, pieces do tend to fall off those older beasts with suped up stereos.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 02:04 PMRocky,
“I think that this country has heard enough from the rude, vulgar, angry, rich, in your face, artists.”
As soon as people stop buying it, they’ll stop cranking it out.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 28, 2005 02:15 PM
