Pat Robertson is certain. That is why he issued his fatwa earlier this week.
He evidently believes that the United States is somehow "God's nation" and that anything the nation does to protect its self-interest is acceptable. His recent statement about Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez was startling.
Robertson told his 700 Club audience, speaking of Chavez, "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think 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."
Nice one, Pat.
So, let's see. A Christian minister and founder of the powerful Christian Coalition, the ultra-right wing and amazingly influential political action organization, advising murder as a viable diplomatic remedy for handling a neighbor with a different political and economic theory, while expressing what appears to be a higher concern for oil than human life.
Robertson claims that his concern is prompted by Chavez's leftist political and economic posture that would transform Venezuela into "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism. 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 dollar war to get ride of one, you know, strong arm dictator."
Hmmm.
What is he after here, Christian jihad?
Is this his suggested response in a day when we are trying to combat and neutralize terrorism? Wonder why so many other nations consider the U. S. a nation of hypocrites? Talk about playing into the hands of Al Queda!
Has this guy ever read a word Jesus ever said?
The 700 Club boasts an audience of one million viewers or more. Why on earth would anyone tune in again?
But, be assured, many will. Scary fact.
Many Christian organizations quickly denounced Robertson.
But, you know what is frightening? Many did not, including the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition.
Headlines in Wednesday's national newspapers could have read, "Fundatmentalist, Terror-Prone Cleric Calls for Jihad-Like Assassination."
How is Robertson different from a Muslim extremist set on "taking out" one of our highly placed leaders?
So, what has this to do with the cities of our nation?
Just this: an extremely influential and well-organized subset of our culture views life and faith through the same lens as Robertson. The view is not only extreme, it is thoroughly un-Christian.
This viewpoint finds charity relatively easy to perform. Robertson's television ministry has touted its various works of compassion in order to raise millions.
But people who think like this usually want nothing to do with justice, the establishment of comprehensive civil rights and liberties, systemic social change or class uplift. No wonder such "thinkers" applaud every cut back in public initiatives designed to accomplish just these things among our urban poor.
There is a connection here.
For Christian people life should be all about values and how we understand Jesus.
Pat Robertson doesn't get it.
But be sure of this, as hard as it may be to fathom and in spite of his forced apology, he knows exactly what he is doing and saying.
13 comments:
I realize that I have been a (unwanted) voice of dissension on this blog, but I must agree with Larry and his take on Robertson.
As a politically conservative individual, I want to distance myself from what he said. Please know that Robertson is not the voice of the conservatives any more than Martin Sheen is the voice of the liberals.
Note to Todd: a question. I am aware that Martin Sheen has been an activist, speaking out against the war, and occasionally even protesting to the point of being arrested. But, has he ever called for the assassination of an individual? If he has, please inform me. If he has not, then your reference reveals part of the problem: to compare a hypocritical madman who calls for the assassination of another human being with an outspoken anti-war activist is a very uneven parallel. Randy Mayeux, Dallas, Texas
You're correct, it is uneven. I was merely trying to make an example of two celebrities who speak without authority on behalf of their political party. I doubt all democrats agree with Martin Sheen just as not all republicans (or conservatives) agree with Robertson. Perhaps Michael Moore or Nicholson Baker (author of "Checkpoint," a book that discusses various ways to assassinate President Bush) would have been a better example?
It was not a strawman that I proposed. It was one that Todd used. To call him on it, and then to accuse me of introducing the strawman, is simply a deflecting tactic.
This was a very real attempt by Todd to equate two very dissimilar voices. He made the comparison, I did not. And he made the comparison in the context of a true story of a "Christian spokesman" who called for the assassination of another human being. I do think that it was an outrageous comparison.
I have nothing against Todd. But I think such a quick comparison, which is not parallel, is a cheap shot. This entry by Larry was not about who represents whom. It was about a very real story, which the people of Venezuela, I assure you, are taking very seriously.
On a blog with such wonderful and deep Christian roots, I believe that we ought to be more disciplined in our argument choices.
Randy, I was responding to Larry's post the way I did because I felt (perhaps incorrectly) that he was saying that everybody who opposes "social justice" agrees with Pat Robertson.
Just this: an extremely influential and well-organized subset of our culture views life and faith through the same lens as Robertson. The view is not only extreme, it is thoroughly un-Christian.
This viewpoint finds charity relatively easy to perform...
But people who think like this usually want nothing to do with justice, the establishment of comprehensive civil rights and liberties, systemic social change or class uplift. No wonder such "thinkers" applaud every cut back in public initiatives designed to accomplish just these things among our urban poor.
Randy, my intention was not to make a cheap shot. As I stated, my intention was to highlight two celebrities. I recognized that my selection was inaccurate and I apologize for my carelessness.
Todd, please understand, you are most wanted! What we are doing here--you and I and everyone who is involved--is promoting democracy. The conversation is rich because there are differing points of view. Please keep posting!
A stitch in time saves nine. What if killing Chavez prevented a war that cost thousands of Venezuelan and American lives? Would it be okay to assassinate him? What if deposing Saddam Hussein would ultimately make the world safer? What if we could have stopped Adolf Hitler when he was just a welter weight political bully? What if destroying two Japanese cities would save a million more Japanese lives and nearly a million Allied lives? Would it be okay?
Thankfully, those aren't my decisions to make. I have the comfort of sitting here at my desk and hypothesizing about all sorts of possible outcomes with no real responsibility for any of it.
Now, anyone read Nehemiah lately? If our president is seeking God's will... Wasn't David described as a man after God's own heart?
Michael, you actually make a point that is troubling. Robertson comes at this issue from a very Old Testament prespective. The questions you ask are fine. Thank God Robertson is not in a seat of authority. He claims to be a minister. He represents a constituency. Frankly, both facts are troublesome .and frightening Further, to compare Chavez to Hitler, Sadaam, etc. is amazing. You quote Ben Franklin's folk wisdom, Nehemiah and David. Is our world the same today as any of theirs? Does God speak to Pat Robertson directly as the Bible claims he did to Nehemiah and David?
Todd and anyone else I've disagreed with in these comments, please don't ever think I'd rather not hear and know your opinions. Not that a visitor's opinion matters as much as the host's, but if it does, there ya go.
Michael, why are those the only 2 choices? You're telling me there's no choice other than an assassination or a war? I can understand Bush probly has access to information none of us have, but is Robertson in the same boat?
Charles,
It's not a question of war or assassination? It's the question: Is it ever right to go to war? If so, when? Why? Can God still move nations to war to accomplish His will? If so, then could this war in Iraq and Afghanistan be God's will? Clearly, God doesn't have any trouble using war or even genocide when it suits His purposes.
I believe that Bush is seeking God's will and prays for God's guidance everyday. Can't God still direct our nation into war? Can't God still work in the political framework of these united states?
I'd like to be more certain that it's the Baathists or the jihadists that have filled their cup of iniquity and not us having filled ours but I believe God can use or direct war to His purposes still today.
Or, do we just pull ourselves completely out of government and the only involvement we have is "rendering unto Ceasar?"
Michael
This is my first posting to this blog. I always try to read the strings of comments to see which way the wind is blowing. I'm impressed by the heartfelt, well spoken comments of those participating. I like what "Ibreakcellphones" said. I think Pat Robertson's comments were over the top. Advocating the death of another is most definitely UN-Christian; but it's not UN-American.
I watched, as the world watched, Hugo Chavez, standing before the United Nations, calling our president SATAN, and insisting he could still smell the sulfur of his passing. Sound familiar? Yes, that's the same terminology used by radical Islamists to define and validate their terror of the world's innocents and non-combatants.
I watched with sick fascination a documentary called Obsession. It related to radical Islam and its work to indoctrinate the Islamic young to Jihad. Very scary. These extremists are growing their successors, the people our young will have to fight in order to preserve our identity as a people, as a culture, and most importantly, as a faith. Make no mistake about this, fellow citizens, we are at war. War has been declared against us and we have to decide how we are going to defend ourselves. I say to Ibreakcellphones, yes, we do not initiate violence, but if violence has already been initiated against us (America) do we respond or do we talk?
I write this on the morning after the midterm elections. Our nation has decided to change leadership. Like it or not, it is democracy in action. I celebrate my franchise!
Speaking as one who strives every day to live the life I've been given, I feel that we are moving towards a point in history where we are going to have to make some pretty big choices. Do we survive as a people and a culture.....or do we become assimilated?
Post a Comment