CNN is reporting what Robertson himself said on the 700 Club. Robertson shot himself in the foot along with Christians on the right, whether they support him or not. That's probably not fair [to Christian non-supporters of Robertson], but it may be reality. Blame the source, not the messenger.

Here's a link to Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. Surprisingly he hasn't apologized or made much of an attempt to spin the remarks in a more positive light. Perhaps the "good preacher" is beyond the point of making even a minimal contribution to anything worthwhile.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050824a.asp

BTW: I'm sure you were jesting about exiling Robertson to Venezuela. As much as I dislike Robertson, it is fortunate that the constutution doesn't allow any of us to be exiled for exercising freedom of speech.

And that’s the blind eye we can’t afford to turn. As I’ve mentioned our opinions don’t really matter in this, it’s how the Muslim world and our allies will interpret his message. Imagine if a cleric in Iran, Iraq or Venezuela were to make similar remarks regarding Bush. I’m sure the headlines wouldn’t be “Nut case religious leader shoves both feet in his mouth and doesn’t really represent his followers”.

Here’s a sample response from Venezuela:

There should be repercussions of the heavy handed nature.

I can see the guy's mistake, and it makes some sort of sense. Robertson is the kind of man who grew up nowhere near the street. His language has no sense of the slang the rest of us have been exposed to, at least in R-rated movies.

So Robertson meant the literal sense of take him out, not the slang sense. Eh, it's still pretty sloppy English. He should fire himself and get a pro commentator. After all, the pro reporters of the AP keep misinterpreting what he meant to say all along, which was something different than what he actually said the first time, but if you truly believe, then it's what God wants him to say, and those were God's words there, and it's just that you AP guys can't listen worth a darn to the words of God.

Whew

It seems that ol' Pat is forgetful as well as bonkers.

In the context of the sentence, "take him out" has an obvious meaning. I think it will take a bit more wriggling for Pat to get himself off this hook.

Link

Well, it look as though the Good Reverend has appologized for his statements. Saying that it was "wrong to call for an assassination". So first he wanted Chavez dead, then he never said that, now he appologizes for saying it. And the Christy for Christian of the Year goes to...

CP

[quote=DaffyGrl,Aug 24 2005, 03:03 PM]
It seems that ol' Pat is forgetful as well as bonkers.
[quote]On Monday's program, he had said: "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think 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." LA Times[/quote]
In the context of the sentence, "take him out" has an obvious meaning. I think it will take a bit more wriggling for Pat to get himself off this hook.

[/quotes

ROBERTSON: Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should, quote, "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, but that happens all the time.
Now wait a minute Pat, you said take him out.
The man is obviously out of his mind, and should be taken off the air . I believe his day in the sun over ( he should take Farwell with him. We true consertives don't buy there garbage anyway.

Isn't that a bit of a loaded questions? There is no good argument against killing someone just because they don't agree with you, not in this society. It's really a question that tries to close the debate before it's opened, isn't it?

If we debate on the grounds that Robertson suggested perhaps there would be more of a fair playing field.

There is always a reason to assisanate a dictator, and usually reasons not too assasinate a dictator. For instance, Adolf Hitler would have been much better off having been assasinated covertly 10 years prior to WWII but we took the high road. Mercilessly killing a dictator can be better than leaving him in place only to have to suffer more damage later (i.e. 80 million dead due to Adolf Hitler's struggle for power), but usually it would just create more problems so the situation is left to be, provided we can assume that this person isn't looking to conquer whole parts of the world around him and is no threat to our country, but supposing that's the case, why would you want to fight that fight later and allow a dictator to grow stronger and afffect the world around us? As for worrying about whether or not the US would see retaliatory attacks or set a bad precedent... that's why it would be "covert". Then no one would know....neh? I have heard that this dicatator openly speaks about bringing all of the Americas under his leadership and toppling the US from within economically forcing us years down the road into is trap, why would I want to keep a man like that in power? We buy something like 80% of our nations oil from Venezuela, he's got a lot of power and I think that as long as enemies speak so dangerously we should always be trying to lessen our odds of down fall. Every nation probably does if they have the resources. Spying and covert killings aren't jsut Cold-War era scare tactics, tehy have always been used by nations and always will be, but to be diplomatic you don't openly talk about or condone it. It's just life. Heck, if I were the President I'd have my eyes and ears open to everything and probably even a few bad apples between the cross hairs.




Of course we should. He's no less a Christian for wishing a tyrant dead than any early Christian who wished Nero dead. If he's openly opposed to babies being killed why shouldn't he be open to killing a dictator? Sure he'll never be a great leader in this manner but we can still hold him in high esteem. I suggest that if anyone wants to really be a strong leader they'll hav eto look into these ugly possibilites, but never should they be openly spoken about, by anyone in real power.

JL

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?



johnlocke,

You may be able to make a case for “Christians” holding Robertson in esteem, but the question asked about “the American public.” I am a member of the American public with no preference for Christianity. I do not and there is no reason I should esteem Robertson as anything.

I believe that Sleeper wrote this earlier in this thread but it didn't catch on. How is what Robertson did really any different than a Muslim Cleric calling for the death of a head of state? If he were Muslim I'd bet dollars to donuts that he'd be quietly heading for Gitmo right now on terrorism charges. He is Christian so he isn't. I don't really see the difference - I do see the hypocrisy.

Also how is he "no less a Christian" for calling for the assassination of a leader? I'm not remotely religious but I certainly grew up around it and I can't recall any of the teachings of Jesus proclaiming assassination as a desirable way to resolve problems. In fact there is a whole commandment against it.

Your response reads more like a blanket defense of Robertson "just because" than a reasoned argument of why he was right.

I have to agree with Cube on this one. Muslims as well as christians are good people as a whole and at heart. We don't have a place for the extremes from any religion. If we are talking about deporting muslim clerics for hate speech, then Pat Robertson falls under the same blanket the radical clerics do.

There is a considerable difference between what Pat Roberston said and the Muslim clerics who preach hatred and encourage violence against America and Americans. The fact that some don't see any difference doesn't surprise me. In other cases it does surprise me, and frankly, disappoint me. But oh, that's just me.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?


Well, if we're going to assassinate someone, covertly is probably the best way to do it. Announcing that policy on the 700 Club probably isn't the best path to follow. In all seriousness though, I don't think we should be in this "business", and I don't think we are. Targeting enemies of the US is a different thing and we most definitely should be in the business.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?


I don't think they should or that they do. Obviously many here don't. Indeed beating up on Christians seems to be somewhat of an artform on unfortunately. Still though, he said what he said, there was no "error in context" to his comments and he has to live with it. Certainly isn't the kind of Christianity I practice.

We've now seen the Robertson story reach Sheehan-esque proportions in the media, and a concerted effort to tie Robertson to the Republican Party.
Granted, Robertson can likely be identified as a Republican, we now have Chris Matthews, not only calling him 'major leader' of the party, but claiming that he won the 1988 Iowa primary!

MSNBC
That Republican dominated media sure isn't following the script.

What Robertson said was idiotic, but if a Democrat such as Jesse Jackson (also a failed presidential candidate) made the same statements, would the media label him a major Democratic leader? And wouldn't the Democratic Party or its supporters have an issue with the reference and connection?

I was hunting for data on how much Robertson contributed to Bush’s campaign coffers, and stumbled upon this. (I'm still curious how deeply ol' Pat dug into his pockets for W).

I guess if you’re a Christian dictator, it’s a whole ‘nother ballgame for ol' Pat. (of course, this is MS Magazine...those husband-leaving, children-killing, witchcraft-practicing lesbians... )

I don't think it requires a "concerted effort" to tie Robertson to the Republican party - it's a well-known fact. He is a major contributor to both Bush's campaigns, and I'm sure many other GOP candidates (as long as their religious beliefs match his, I suppose)...if I could just find a darn link!! Hence, Bush's effort to distance himself as much as possible from Robertson now that he's made a horse's patoot of himself.


I think that is an unfair accusation. In fact, I’d assert the opposite is more likely true; that those who profess no “Christian” beliefs are derided far more viciously and far more often than Christians here on AD. I can’t speak for others, but I was raised Christian, and attended Christian school for 9 years, but am now agnostic, and I think agnostics and non-believers are more tolerant of other people’s beliefs in that they believe in live and let live. Those who adhere to a particular religion seem to be the ones who are less tolerant and more critical of those who don’t believe the same thing they do.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

They should never get involved with these kind of actions. It sets dangerous precedents and could result in major international conflicts.

b]And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?[/b]

Pat Robertson ... never heard of him before I read this article. This is clearly a dangerous guy. It doesn't matter if he is American or a man of God, this guy clearly should be banned from the public. People like that should be ignored as much as possible. It is a wonder that there are still people that esteem him as an evangelist at all.

Banned? By who Renger? Certainly not the government...right? The government isn't any more in the business of censoring than they are in the business of assassinating...So did you mean censored, or am I misunderstanding you?

CP

So when a preacher makes statements that we should “take out” a foreign leader he’s not preaching hatred and encouraging violence? That's laughable.


How naïve, a “likely” Republican. I think it’s fair to say that anyone who can influence millions of votes is a major leader “in” the GOP. Odd how his followers may have won the last election for Bush but he’s not a major leader once he shoves his foot in his mouth. It’s been covered quite well on this board how the last election was possibly won over “morals” and here you have one of the shining stars of the moral right and you don’t consider him a leader.


Not only has the media labeled Jackson a Democratic leader but also several on this board. I have two posts already in this thread and as hard as it was I intentionally didn’t mention his political affiliation in any of my responses. This isn’t a Red vs Blue issue, this is an American Religious leader who has just nicked an already thin international relations thread.

I can’t speak for the rest of the Democrat party, but if this had been Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, take your pick, I would be just as critical because as I’ve mentioned this is an American issue. Some of us have no problems criticizing our own, some obviously have major issues.

Please pardon my late entry here, particularly since I will be going back to the first page.

MrsPigpen said Chavez was unpopular, and I wanted to correct that. Since his election in 1999, Chavez has remained very popular - indeed, he enjoys approval ratings of around 70% right now. He has (very popularly) rejected the neoliberal trade practices that were starving the poor of Venezuela; he has instituted successful literacy programs; agrarian reform; in exchange for cheap oil for Cuba, some 20,000 Cuban doctors have been dispersed into the poorest areas of Venezuela. Chavez is the leader of a democratic revolution in Latin America. As usual, the US stands on the side of authoritarianism in the South; there seems to be nothing we hate more than South Americans getting elected and instituting democratic socialist ideals in their countries.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?


No one should be in that business. The only reason it is even morally plausible to some is because we already view the wholesale slaughter of foreign soldiers and civilians as "just." Why is assassination any more immoral than war? The fact is that both are reprehensible acts of terror.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?


Um, no? But Robertson is still a powerful force, one which extends far beyond the viewership of his show. He is the founder of the Christian Coalition, and has for some time had fairly unfettered access to powerful Republicans.

I completely disagree with this statement. For many (if not most) republicans, Mr. Robertson is an abomination to our cause. His zealot statements are plastered all over main-stream media as if he carries the flag of the GOP, while most of us have little or nothing in common with his "over-the-top" ideas.

Mind you, he's also said things such as;
"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"

"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that sanctifies the separation of church and state."
or even

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together."

Sure doesn't seem to embody the majority of conservatives in the US. I know that the media and some liberals automatically associate religious zealots with the GOP, but this just isn't the case.

I never said that Robertson's views were shared by the majority of conservatives. What I said was that he has had, for some time, "fairly unfettered access to powerful Republicans." This isn't an opinion, it really is a fact. Robertson has had several disagreements with Bush, and while I certainly agree with you that his beliefs are not indicative of most conservatives, it is an undeniable fact that Robertson does have access to many people at the top of the GOP.

Here's an example, in which we see Robertson's ties to George Allen:

transportation bill

Also remember that Robertson carried Washington state in the 1988 GOP primary, and came in second in Michigan and Iowa. He's hardly some nut that the GOP rejects out of hand.

I do wish the GOP would think of it the way you do; this man should be ignored. But they don't, and he isn't.

I would not want to abridge Pat Robertson’s freedom of speech, but agree with Rachael Maddow that freedom of speech does not give someone the right to spew hatred over the airwaves.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9073869/



Owners [sometimes with pressure from advertisers] can ban people from the airwaves, commercial and cable TV. In the case of Robertson, I don’t think this is going to happen. Christian Broadcasting Network was founded by its president Gordon Robertson, who just happens to be Pat Robertson’s son.

http://www.cbnworldreach.com/indexFrameset.asp?home=true

http://www.cbn.com/700club/showinfo/staff/...onrobertson.asp

Still, stranger things have happened. Years ago, another worthless radio preacher, the late Garner Ted Armstrong, and his son Herbert W. Armstrong had a parting of the ways.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garner_Ted_Armstrong

Likewise, Rush Limbaugh is carried in Fort Worth on ABC affiliate WBAP. ABC could boot Limbaugh at will, but I doubt their executives have the courage to do so.

http://www.wbap.com/abcprivacypolicy.asp

Quite frankly, I’d like to see both of them reduced to a megaphone and a street corner.

Actually, we’ve banned a lot of things. The link below list a number of songs that have been banned from the airwaves. One example that particularly galls me is Bob Dylan’s 1971 hit George Jackson

George Jackson Lyrics



Banned Songs

Not only did radio stations ban Dylan’s song, but Columbia records has not included it on any of the major Dylan compilations currently available. It was on Masterpieces and a Special Tour Edition of The Essential Bob Dylan. Both are out of print. I have been fortunate to locate a 45 that I purchased on the net for $8.00. Side A is the acoustic version of George Jackson, which got to #33 on Billboard’s charts in 1971. Side B is termed a big band version of George Jackson. I can remaster this rare gem and put it on CD thereby defeating three and a half decades of censorship.

Check the "Banned Songs" link above. If works of “art” by Dylan, Billie Holiday, Barry McGuire, John Lennon and Frank Zappa can be banned or censored, then certainly we can reduce, or ask that the stage size for hate mongers like Pat Robertson be reduced.

i think its been suggested, but the point that Robertson is using religion and NPO status to hide, enshrine, and promulgate his political speech is a very interesting point.

This is an update.

On Hardball last night David Shuster said that the International Family Channel, host of Pat Robertson's 700 Club, was owned by Fox Master Rupert Murdoch.

If Murdoch decided to pull the 700 Club off TV, it would not be an interference with freedom of speech, but removing Robertson's stage. It would be much like taking matches from the hands of a child.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9085862/

Another update:



As I stated earlier, not all countries can grasp secularism the same way we can. Those who supported Bush and religious leaders that are close to him are seen the same as political advisors and have a pull in the dealings of our governement. Chavez is no exception:



While most Americans dismiss Robertson's comments, it's obvious that his words have an impact elsewhere.
The Story

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

No, but we have in the past. Patrice Lamumba in the Congo is one example. Several attempts were also made on Castro's life by the CIA. There are other examples on the public record and probably still others not on the record. Activities like these together with domestic spying (and worse) on the dissident community were what the Church Committee hearings were all about and that subsequent legislation tried to prevent in the future. We have been busy tearing up these reforms since 9/11.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

Only a minority of the public has ever held Robertson in high regard, but he and others like him exert a powerful influence in the modern Republican Party. The real question is whether the general public should continue to support any Republican for high office who won't disassociate him or herself from such extreme supporters?

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

Of course not- but America, post WW2, has very rarely been "the good guy" - if at all - our list of evil doing is as long as Saddams in this case- considering the guys we have placed in power upon our "nation meddling" LOL- Pinochet- Shah of Iran, Saddam himself, Noriega and the list goes on- Chavez is a popularly elected official- easily as free and fair election as our own, so why is he now being called a "dictator" on this board? -

we don't have a very good track record in regards to foriegn affairs, so, in all fairness, the goverment that needs to "keep our mouths shut" would be our own

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

Well, Christians still do, obviously, the guy is making money and still on the air. Those that did not grow up in this kind of culture have no idea how close to the Taliban we, as a nation, really are in our religious dealings.

Without Pat Robertson, Reagan would have never been elected, nor Bush 1 or 2- no matter how much republicans try to distance themselves from him- there are two facts to this- GW needs Pat Robertson, and not vice versa. Without the Jerry Falwells, Bob Jones U, Pat Robertsons etc, there would be no Republican party as we now know it today. That is the reality. GW regularly uses this "base' to sway public opinion and use them against his enemies- remember GW and South Carolina, Bob Jones U and John McCain? We may very well have a president McCain instead of a GW if not for Bob Jones U and such.

If you ever go to a "fundamentalist" church, and believe me, your town or city has one, if not many, were, just like the schools in Pakistan, this kind of stuff is thrown at children every day. I still remember Falwell in a sermon right here in Anchorage saying "Gays would just soon kill you as look at you" - and all the "amens" that recieved. These churches are very heavily attended, and, in your city, may be the biggest church.

ADers aside, these televangelists are VERY respected and revered, and to say they are not is ignoring the reality of power politics- Pat Robertson and some of his peers OWNS the republican party, no doubt about it- every single issue that GW has made hay about is directly from the pulpits of folks like Robertson- i.e. - anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti this and anti that-

In fact, the republican caucus representitive for Alaska during the republican convention is a fella by the name of Jerry Prevo- basically a Fallwell/Robertson clone. Same hair even!

He will gain even more followers, not less, mark my words, for his "brave" ability to fight the "PC liberals" (an actual quote by some church members at my mom's house)

CruisingRam, I concur with most of what you posted. Chavez is a popular leader but so was Lamumba and Castro. The fear of communism was the obstensible reason for previous assassination attempts. Any such undertaking today would be nakedly for the control of resources. Anyone wishing to look at a backgrounder on Chavez devoid of the corporate slant of the American press can read this Guardian Article

So what do we think, folks?

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

Perhaps if we were in a declared war, this would be acceptible but ordinarily, this sort of behavior is a violation of U.S. law. So is Robertson advocating that agents of the U.S. government commit a murder? Is it illegal to advocate that someone commit a crime?
I wouldn't suggest placing Robertson under arrests because, he's obviously of somewhat diminished mental capacity, (perhaps due to his age), and because he has apologized for his comments (although at first he denied having said them).
Additionally, Chavez may not be acting in the best interests of the United States, but how will the rest of the world regard the U.S. if we go about assassinating leaders who are democratically elected. We would be sending a message to the world that says we favor democracy only if the resulting government works in our best interest.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

Not being a Christian, I don't think anyone ought to be esteemed as an evangelist. Although I do have some admiration for Billy Graham because I think he's sincere and seems to practice what he preaches.


[/quote]

What U.S. law? It isn't illegal to advocate murder, when last I looked: Robertson was a private individual who was still living on United States of America soil and could express his opinion in any medium he chooses.




This is a rather bizarre comment, I would be highly interested in reading any material you have to even hint a suggestion at Mr. Robertson's diminished mental capacity.




While I agree with that statement you must remember that a man by the name of Saddam Hussein was elected democratically in his homeland. How? Because he was the only name on the ballot. Democracy can be achieved by regulation- I think Iraq proved that pre-occupation. However, in today's society I do not think America really cares what the rest of the world thinks about the message we are sending it.




Well, the Bible (along with many other Christian texts) says that anyone who spreads the word of God and bring people to the faith is an evangelist. So, take that in addition to what I previously said about the faithful viewers of his show never letting him tarnish in their eyes.

This would be highly interesting if it happens - story:


But if nothing else Robertson has simply frayed what little diplomatic relations we have with Venezuela.

Should the United States be in the business of covertly assassinating foreign leaders who do not agree with us and won't keep their mouths shut?

No sovereign nation should be in the business or covertly assassinating leaders of other nations, local governments, religions or any other group. First off it violates international law to attempt to assassinate the head of state or other govt officials.

Second, those who do become no better than the ones they target regardless of their reasons.

And should the American public still esteem Robertson as an evangelist?

[/quote]

Definitely not.
This is not the first time Pat Robertson has put his proverbial foot in his mouth. In fact, he has a rather long history of such behavior. No self-respecting Christian in the world can justify these remarks he has uttered. As a professed Christian he should emulate Christ as the name implies. Instead his words run against the very teachings of Christ. I hope that his behavior has finally gone far enough to ruin him as a religious leader before his venom poisons honest God fearing people.

I don't believe so, as the "thou shalt not kill" command is hardly equivocal in any way. Mr. Robertson fails to understand that the morality of the social plight of people. While you can focus on personal and moral behavior behavior/choices, he neglects to realize that people like Hugo Chavez gain support when people have little say in the workplace, their health care, and overall participation in society when they are oppressed. You only get people like Chavez when you have had leaders before him who basically could care less about the people in the countryside and who were just busy taking the money for themselves and their patrician supporters.

Actually, the command in the Old Testament is mostly interpreted as "Thou Shalt Not Murder" by those who stick to the original Hebrew. I'm in a rush, but a comparison can be found here. Putting murderers to death is contemplated elsewhere in the bible, suggesting that "murder" is a better description of the fifth commandment. But Pat Robertson is still an idiot.

Just a thought - seems Hugo Chavez may have had even more trouble from the US even if Kerry were president today....

Heinz Calls on Venezuela to Give Back Seized Ketchup Plant