I'm just sitting here wondering where all the christian outrage is. It seems to me that the vast majority of christians, by not publicly expressing their disapproval of robertson's assassination call, are in fact giving implicit approval of said assassination call.

Does it matter where the christian outrage is? Why do all these self appointed christian leaders get to speak for everyone. Being a christian does not mean you automatically give approval to the call for assasination, or anything else Bush and the neo-cons say. Just because you don't speak out against something, doesn't mean you automatically condone it. :rolleyes:

Thank you, samcol. I hope this rational perspective is extended to liberals in the future in analogous situations...eg, whether they actually "support" saddam or islamic terrorists...or extended to moderate followers of islam when they "failed" to speak out against the fundamentalist segments of their religion...

...I sensed some frustration (rightfully) in your post and hope that you now have a notion of the frustration others have felt for the past few years when equally absurd insults have been hurled at them when they didn't explicitly rail against people and ideologies that seemed ludicrous that they would support (as happens in the cases when liberals are accused of supporting terrorists or dictators)...unfortunately, this is the kind of us v. them I feel comments such as "if you aren't with us you're against us" produce...

I will have to file this one away the next time someone on the right starts talking about liberal conspiracies and asking why liberals don't stand up and tell ***insert fringe wacko here*** that they are wrong and out of line.


There should be Christian outrage because this man, who has a very large pulpit, is a leader of the Christian right. Christians should stand up and denounce him for the wacko he is. Shout him down. Make it clear that what he says is wrong.

As a Christian leader, hell as a Christian, what he is saying *is* wrong. You should be offended to the core of your belief system that someone is sullying the good name of your religion.


In this silence I trust that the irony that Robertson sounds a lot like a mullah calling for a fatwa is not lost on you. That your silence is not all that much unlike the silence of muslims of good consience who do not speak out.

Personally, I'd watch the sex tape. You'd have to, because curiosity will eat away at you. You know you would!

Good call.

I thought the same thing. I seriously hope they demand we turn him over so they can have their way with him.

I wasn't going to bother posting here anymore, personally I was sick of some of the double standard BS, but this is really a masterful bit filterton.

As soon as young christians strap bombs to themselves in the name of god and start to blow up public places in Venezuela you will even have a good analogy. Unless word is accompanied by deed, they are just words.

I've really got some other important things I'm working on, so I'll have to pass on looking for something else. As far as I know, their information is correct. If you have something that refutes it, I'll take a look.

i don't know that anything more important in this thread has been said than zen tom's summation:
Calling for the death of anyone is not Christian practice as far as i'm concerned, and to do so publicly and for purely political reasons is crassly sinful, an open defiance of God's demand that we love one another as Christ has loved us.

i think some of the leftists are taking the wrong tack here, however. in politics, as in many things...i believe that silence says a great deal. while it is never fair to assume that one person speaks for an entire group...a failure to refute or confront a self-appointed spokesperson can be a troublesome thing. If there are excesses in our own house, we must be the first to be honest about them...imo.

So you are saying give the attention whore known as Pat Robertson attention?

Pat Roberston is powerless, no one is going to kill themselves at his bidding. I see no problem ignoring the Pat Robertson's of the world. Sometimes you give someone more power by attacking them, than by ignoring them. This concept is used by such fine organizations as the KKK and Peta.

As was pointed out earlier, the White House itself feels the need to respond to Robertson's evil and senile rantings - it ain't the posters of the TFP we need worry about giving attention to old Pat.

Let's not forget, Robertson got 3 million people to sign up to volunteer on his presidential campaign back in 88. He might've been president if he hadn't lied about his military service in Korea.

Also, Robertson has had several private meetings with President Bush. You don't get to do that unless you have some sort of power.
As John McCain said, "George W. Bush is a Pat Robertson Republican".

Agreed. While I understand the President needs to be seen meeting with prominent religious leaders, politically I hope he'll pick more moderate conference mates.

I can agree with this to a point. I do think it is important within this forum that we have found some sort of concensus on Robertson's words. What happens here isn't going to amount to much in terms of giving Robertson more power by attacking him. But it does show that we can agree on *something*.

However, I think it is time that high ranking Christian leaders openly condemn Robertson for his words. In the Christian doctrine, what Robertson has asked for is evil. I don't think there is any way to refute this. If there were enough that were willing to stand together and say, "What this man says is wrong" I think it would go a long way to pointing out how extreme Robertson's posistion is...

Whether someone will act on his words or not is entirely besides the point and I am disappointed that some of you can't see this.

dbl postie

Ask the secret service how they feel about words versus deeds.

I don't need suicide bombers for a good analogy. It stands on its own.

I doubt that any christians will personally take it upon themselves to assassinate a foreign leader. What robertson is advocating is embracing a foreign policy that allows for the assassination of democratically elected foreign leaders. You think that's okay? You think that's a good representation of christianity?

The US has had the docterine of having force readiness for two minor wars in two seperate theatres at the same time.

...

What I'm wondering is, is it legal in the USA to advocate the assasination of a foriegn head of state? Or hell, anyone? You'd think it would be covered by "death threat" laws.

Secondly, while Pat may not speak for every right-wing christian, where is the condemntation of his speech? Shouldn't the right-wing christians who find such speech to be evil and unchristian be condemning him and distancing themselves from him? Where are the right-wing ministry leaders calling Pat a heretic, misguilded, wrong or just plain evil?

Stevo, you say "Pat doesn't speak for me, and I think we went to far in this case". How about "Pat is a hate-mongering evildoer?"

That is the standard upon which the Islamic comminity is being held to. When someone with a huge following within your religious group makes hate speech, and you do not condemn them, you support them by being part of the group that supports them, or so goes the logic...

How many, out of each of their audiences, consider the speaker to be spewing jokes?

I'm betting more people take Pat Robertson's advocation of assasination more seriously than Stern's boobie and potty jokes.

No, don't give him attention. He has the eyeballs of millions of Americans right now, he has tonnes of attention. This isn't some poor insane street corner preacher that nobody listens to. This is someone at the centre of a mass media empire, one of the more prominate faces of American Christianity on the world stage.

I am not talking about giving him attention. Condemn him. Call him a heretic. Expell him from the Republican party. Say "there is a line I will not cross, and Pat Robertson represents it". Show some moral fibre.

Edit: I was rude below. I apologize. Text spoilered-out, but left (I blacked out rather than deleting).

Spoiler: And I'm well aware of the historical Republican southern strategy regarding the KKK and other fine southern institutions. I'm surprised anyone would show pride in it.

My apologies Ustwo. I saw "ignore the KKK", and got angry. I should not have responded like I did.

I think it's a form of terrorism, really. That kind of policy tells other people that "we can destabilize your government, and, therefore, your country and your lives, anytime we feel like it." Which is really the position that OBL has taken.

Switching gears, I read some analysis today that asserted Robertson's statements also contained a thinly-veiled attack on the war in Iraq. It's an interesting idea.

I'm pretty busy today, and didn't have the time to post, but I just can't resist.

The White House spoke out against it - the guy who lives there is christian
The State Department spoke out against it

Pat Robertson is not a religous leader. he is a broadcaster. He is not on the same plane in the christian community that mullahs are in the islamic community. There is a difference. There's no christian outcry because 1) Many christians do not consider him as a spiritual leader 2) Robertson suggested a state policy, he didn't "issue a fatwa" or "call his followers to arms" or tell people to strap bombs to themselves and kill as many people and create as much destruction and mayham as possible.

Anyone that cannot see the difference needs to really ask themselves which side they are on.

Possibly you do not understand what mullahs are.

Mullahs are people who are the koran-educated religious leaders of islam, who interprit the holy scripture and law and tell others what their interpritation is.

Just like Pat Robertson, but he interpritations the Bible, and broadcasts his beliefsto millions of followers.

Pat Robertson claims he is a religious leader. Look at his website if you don't think so. He has his doctor of divinity. He has written multiple best-selling religious books.

So yes, Pat Robertson qualifies as a christian mullah.

I'm on the side of truth.

I assume I can ask you questions you ask of me.

So, what side, exactly, are you on?

Hear hear Yakk, that's what we're talking about here.

The question raised is, are we principled or not?

Guy, that's really weak. "He's a guy on TV, not a religious leader"???

There was an article by the LA Times in this morning's paper that states that Robertson "provoked a storm of criticism Tuesday, triggering condemnation from fellow religious leaders and international outrage, while the Bush administration said he was a 'private citizen' whose remarks were 'inappropriate'."

Inappropriate?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Lebell, my views on socialist style government vs. a capitalistic style can be
found here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=47
I see a "pattern" that indicates that where multinational corporations enjoy an undue influence in third world countries, the infant mortality rates tend to be above 25 per 1000 live births. CIA Fact Book shows Venezuela with 22 per thousand, and Cuba with less than 5.....lower than in the US, in fact. It seems similar to the disconnect in logic that I see when discussin Iraq. Those civilians who were killed in "Op Iraqi Freedom", are not "better off" than if Saddam's regime had not been toppled. "Killin' 'em" to "Free 'em", seems hard to defend..........

stevo...your argument seems poorly researched......Robertson's CBN received $132 million in donations in 2004, he is also founder and president of a college that boasts 3000 students. Bush is on record as endorsing his "ministry", being aligned with him politically, "spiritually", and philosphically. These folks are "corporatists" to a man, IMO. Chavez represents everything that they oppose....politically and economically..... Bush "plays" up to the Christian mullahs in the US in a disturbingly similar way to "secular" politicians in places like Iran do, to their "mullahs"!

Robertson is now claiming that he was misinterpreted. How could we have all been so mistaken in what he said. :rolleyes:

Initially I had only read the first part and thought it was more a snide reference to the monetary costs of war, but reading the entire quotation tells me he's gone off the deep end. You don't work in broadcasting as long as he has without developing a healthy sense of self-censorship.

Given his age I can't help but think there might be a medical condition involved. If not it could be an effective scapegoat for his retirement.

Tough to misinterpret.

host, whitehouse.org is a parody website.

If you where unaware of this, you should be more careful.

If you where aware of this, including a parody website article at the head of a bunch of other articles does nothing but destroy your credibility.

What he meant was *character* assassination...

Sorry for the misinterpretation Mr. Roberston.

Never mind. I just spent a few minutes going over old Robertson quotations. He's said this kind of thing before, from killing foreign leaders to nuking D.C.

Less time should be spent on this single incident and more on a psychological examination. But maybe that ruins the horse-race.

If nothing else this gives hope for my dreams of television fame. (sarcasm)

The difference I'm speaking of is the difference between a mullah or sheikh saying this:

And some blowhard on TV saying this:

There is a difference, equating the two is rediculous.

none of that matters. he's not calling his followers to war, he was farting out a political fantasy.

This whole thing is rediculous. I'm not defending the man, but to equate robertsons remarks to those terrorist spokesfucks is retarted.

I was just reading the first article with my mouth hanging open in shock. They did a fairly decent job of copying the true homepage for whitehouse.gov. :lol:

Host, if you are planning on making all of us read through your ridiculously long quotations, I respectfully ask that you read through them before posting and make some very basic effort to verify their authenticity. This quotation is so obviously fraudulant that I can't possibly believe you actually read the article.

Stevo you are right. They are not *exactly* the same but they are in same ball park. Different degrees of harshness but the same content -- religious leaders calling for the death of someone.

If what Elphaba says is true:
I see this as a good sign.

I do not expect the White House to play this any other way. They are politicians after all and cannot affort to *completely* repudiate Robertson as his base supports them. They just need to put some comfortable distance between themselves and him.

I would like to see more coverage of the "condemnation from fellow religious leaders".

If it is so ridiculous, then it should be easy to explain on what principle it is fine to advocate murder in one instance, and evil to advocate murder in another?

The biggest difference between the 2? One has an audience of millions on his own broadcast company, the other preaches to hundreds of people in a public square (in general - yes, there are clerics who have some access to television).

I would like to go back to Charlatan's post a few up...

I stated earlier that robertson is not part of the solution, but part of the problem. he's a religious extremist, I see that point. I also never said it is fine to advocate murder, where did you get that I did? All I said was equating roberts statement to osama's (or any islamofacist leader) call for a war against the infadels is bologna - B O L O N E Y. Why the hell would I want to defent an ass like robertson? But equating what robertson said to what terrorists say is an insult to those killed by terrorism and to their families.

It seems like there's a little crowd out in TFP land that just needs to argue against robertson, no matter who it is with, so they put words in my mouth and act like I'm his biggest contributor. get a life.

Now hold on - I didn't say you supported what he said, I asked you to explain in more detail what the difference is between them. You have replied, stating that the difference is that people have actually done what Osama asked them to do, while Robertson so far doesn't have the pursuasion skills to actually get anyone to do his bidding.

But it's still not a principle is it?

Equating one man calling for the death of another, to another man calling for the death of someone else seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are the same thing. I completely condemn both of them by the way. Both are morally reprehensible. But they are also exactly the same thing.

I have not insulted anyone who was unlucky enough to be in the WTC on 911, or anyone who was in the Bali bomb, or at any of the Iraqi checkpoints or on a London tube. Please calm down and look at the issue from a reasonable, factual perspective.

Robertson is WRONG, Osama is WRONG - they are the same. It is a matter of principle.

sure-they're both wrong. but they're not exactly the same. One called for his followers, actually every muslim in the world, to follow his orders, while the other suggested the US government follow his advice. There's still a difference, they're not the same. But I'm done with this. I don't think there's anything left for me to say.

From this NY Times article:

"Political and religious leaders continued to denounce Mr. Robertson today. The World Evangelical Alliance issued a statement saying, "Robertson does not speak for evangelical Christians. We believe in justice and the protection of human rights of all people, including the life of President Chavez."

On Tuesday, Mr. Robertson's comments were denounced by both the State Department and by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld."

And from this one:
The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, released a statement saying Mr. Robertson should "immediately apologize, retract his statement and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law."

The Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals said he and "most evangelical leaders" would disassociate themselves from such "unfortunate and particularly irresponsible" comments.", "The Rev. Jesse Jackson called for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate", and ""ABC Family strongly rejects the views expressed by Pat Robertson."

I included Rumsfeld and the State Department because they seemed noteworthy. I think at this point it is safe to say that there has been some outrage expressed by the Christian community leaders. And remember, this is 10 minutes of looking on one website. I'm sure there's more. Anyone disagree?

That's good to hear.

When I googled Robertson earlier in the day, there were pages of reports of outcry from both religious leaders and the international press. I wonder if Robertson may have succeeded in destroying his reputation even among his own flock?