Extremist Christian Mullah issues Fatwa against President of Venezuela - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

filtherton · 08-23-2005, 05:52 PM

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.

samcol · 08-23-2005, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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.

smooth · 08-23-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Just because you don't speak out against something, doesn't mean you automatically condone it.

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...

Charlatan · 08-23-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

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.

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.

Stompy · 08-23-2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Personally, as someone who calls himself both a Republican and a Christian, I would watch The 700 Club about the same time I would download the Howard Dean/Hillary Clinton sex tape.

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

Quote:

Something I though when I heard about this: what if Venezuala takes this seriously?

If someone in Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Venezuala for that matter, were to make such a statement about our president, the US government would immediately demand that person be turned over.

If Chavez were to do the same, what would our government do?

Just something to toss around.

Good call.

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

Ustwo · 08-23-2005, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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.

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.

Lebell · 08-23-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Excellent contribution to the discussion, Smooth.

Lebelle, I lost confidence in wikipedia when Politico and I debated partial birth abortion. When I searched PBA, wikipedia gave an unbelievable small number of PBA's per year, given that the proponent of the procedure claimed to do 1,200 per year. I fear that this is the weakness of an open source encyclopedia given that anyone can post anything to it. Do you have another source for your assertions?

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.

martinguerre · 08-23-2005, 08:59 PM

i don't know that anything more important in this thread has been said than zen tom's summation:

Quote:

he makes the point that here is a popular religious leader, publicly calling for the assassination, by the government, of the leader of a sovereign nation. I remember seeing a post in here a few weeks back that was calling for the West to militarily move in on foreign religious leaders because they were daring to complain about Western foreign policy - and here we have a prominent American doing exactly the same thing with apparent impunity.

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.

Ustwo · 08-23-2005, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

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.

highthief · 08-24-2005, 03:21 AM

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.

maximusveritas · 08-24-2005, 03:58 AM

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".

highthief · 08-24-2005, 05:06 AM

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.

Charlatan · 08-24-2005, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

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.

highthief · 08-24-2005, 05:20 AM

dbl postie

filtherton · 08-24-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

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?

Yakk · 08-24-2005, 07:42 AM

Quote:

3. The United States is not going to invade Norway. Or Iran. Or any other country in the next, say, ten years. Bush will be long gone before the next invasion could even conceivably occur.

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

now who has the larger audience? robertson or stern? we need to know this or we will get nowhere.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

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).

Quote:

Spoiler: 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.

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.

vautrain · 08-24-2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/08/index.html#007492

Is it just me, or was Pat Robertson's call to break out the hit squad something of a subtle dig at the Bush Iraq policy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Robertson

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.

As you may recall, Robertson claims he was assured by the president before the Iraq War that the invasion wouldn't cause any casualties, a prediction that didn't turn out so well. Clearly that experience has caused Robertson to rethink his views somewhat on the general desirability of invading and occupying medium-sized, oil-rich nations, something I can only wish more people would do. Of course, it's hard to see what actually assassinating Hugo Chavez would accomplish. Nor does it seem wise for the United States to be engaged in removing democratically elected leaders from power, even when they turn out to be apostles of the dread "illiberal democracy." And Robertson's loose talk is going to be a boon to Chavez and, therefore, a fiasco for American interests in South America. Besides which, advising people to kill other people is an odd thing for a Christian to be doing.

--Matthew Yglesias

stevo · 08-24-2005, 10:12 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

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.

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.

Yakk · 08-24-2005, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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

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?

08-24-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Show some moral fibre.

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

The question raised is, are we principled or not?

highthief · 08-24-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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.

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

Elphaba · 08-24-2005, 11:07 AM

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

host · 08-24-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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.

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"!

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2001/120901.asp

The article available at the link above was removed by the author of this post because it was mistakenly posted as a legitimate white house press release.
I have posted an apology on this thread at the beginning of <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=93796&page=3">page 3.</a>

Quote:

http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/leadership.cfm
Pat Robertson >
President & Chancellor

"Regent University is an academic environment where Christian leaders are taught to discern and respond to the times."

Quote:

http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/
About Regent University

The nation's academic center for Christian thought and action.

It's more than a description of Regent University - it's a way of life. As America's premier graduate school dedicated to combining quality education with biblical teachings, Regent continues to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world.

Just a glance at the world class institution makes a lasting impression. Regent has more than 3,000 students in nine academic schools, two campuses and distance education reaching around the globe. From the gleaming beauty and technological sophistication of its facilities to the accomplishments of students and graduates, there's much to be proud of at Regent.

The 31,000-square-foot Student Center on Regent's Virginia Beach Campus, opened in 2003, offers a central location for campus and student services. The building houses the University Bookstore, student organizations and meeting rooms, a cafe/coffee shop, computer lab, student lounge, and offices for the Registrar, Admissions and Financial Aid. The 135,000-square-foot Communication and Performing Arts Center, opened in 2002, includes film and animation studios in one of the most technologically advanced communication buildings on the East Coast.

More than a collection of buildings, Regent produces students who excel in their fields. Recent student accomplishments include the School of Law's victory in the Best Brief in the Nation competition (out of 120 teams) at the ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition and the Students in Free Enterprise team's regional SIFE championship in competition among 30 colleges and universities. The Regent Moot Court Team also claimed a title, becoming the first school in Virginia since 1988 to win the prestigious William B. Spong Jr. Moot Court Tournament at the College of William and Mary.

All of the many accomplishments and physical presence of Regent in Virginia Beach and its Washington, D.C. campus near the Potomac River are even more impressive considering the school was founded only 25 years ago.

Dr. M. G. "Pat" Robertson, founder and president of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), had an inspired vision to establish a graduate-level institution that would train men and women for the challenge of representing Christ in their professions. In 1978, Robertson's vision materialized, as 70 students began classes.

Quote:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...174331&tref=po
CBN donors are growing as fiscal core of network

By STEVEN G. VEG, The Virginian-Pilot
© March 5, 2005

VIRGINIA BEACH — It’s not unusual to find Pat Robertson, evangelistic founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, on the air mixing prayer with pleas for donations during his show, “The 700 Club.” In telethons that are a CBN tradition, he calls for God’s blessing and smoothly segues into a familiar pitch for pledges. “We want you to go to your phones right now.”

CBN’s reliance on donations has grown since 1997 , when they accounted for about a third of the revenue that sustains the organization’s operations at its Virginia Beach headquarters.

That dependency could spell trouble for CBN if contributions hinge on the continued on-screen presence of Robertson, the longtime host of the network’s flagship television program. The organization is well aware that donations slumped in 1988 when Robertson left to run for president.

CBN officials say they are not worried about another such financial disaster. They say today’s donors are responding not just to Robertson’s personality, but to the ministry’s expanded services and the charisma of Gordon Robertson , Pat’s son and “700 Club” co-host.

Direct donations from the public accounted for 71 percent, or $132 million, of the network’s stated revenue of $186.5 million during the year ending March 31, 2004 , according to the financial statement that CBN must file with the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt organization. The ministry provided the filing to The Virginian-Pilot late last month.

The second-biggest boost to the ministry is the airtime it is guaranteed on the ABC Family Channel under a provision that dates to the 1990s. Although CBN doesn’t receive any money from the deal, it counted the free airtime as revenue worth $46.8 million that the organization would otherwise have had to pay to get the same time slots currently filled by “The 700 Club.”..........

Quote:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o.../21valdez.html
As president, Bush misuses faith

By LINDA VALDEZ
Published on: 10/20/04

The draft report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says this: "President Bush does not speak about civil rights initiatives often, but when he does he promotes the faith-based program more than any other. He has presented the [faith-based and community] initiative as an end to discrimination against religious organizations, using terms such as 'remove barriers,' 'equal access' and 'equal treatment,' which convey that such programs have civil rights relevance. In reality, the program does not remove barriers to discrimination. On the contrary, it allows religious organizations that receive public funds to discriminate against individuals based on religion in employment."

Bush did this, not through the legislative process, but with a series of executive orders. With one of those orders, "the president repealed civil rights policy in existence since President Johnson which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." With a stroke of his pen, Bush made sure that protection "no longer applies to religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies that receive federal contracts."

Bush has also unsuccessfully supported legislation that would have facilitated using federal tax money for religious indoctrination, according to the report. No wonder the Republican members of the commission voted to delay discussion of it until after the election.

(It's on the Web site, though, at www.usccr.gov.)

Quote:

http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News...?oid=oid:86467
Know Your Fundamentalists
Are they: a) moral b) God-centered c) caring d) intolerant e) anti-intellectual f) homophobic g) all of the above? Next: A look at the voting bloc that may give George Bush another four years in the White House.

by Rob Weir - October 21, 2004

....For Democrats and liberals the broader bad news is that Republicans have moved from being cynical opportunists to becoming, so they claim, true believers. National figures such as senators Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), Tom DeLay (R-Texas), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) wear their born-again credentials on their sleeves, as do Attorney General John Ashcroft, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and a certain sitting president named George W. Bush.

An Alabama-based group calling itself the League of Christian Voters (LCV) is busy raising money and registering voters for the 2004 election, with a three-fold goal of electing "Bible believers" to office, supporting "pro-life, pro-family activist candidates," and restoring America's "Judeo-Christian roots." Needless to say, most of those candidates are Republicans.

The LCV has already had some success in Massachusetts. In a special runoff state Senate election last March, LCV candidate Scott Brown upset Angus McQuilken, an aide to Human Rights Campaign head Cheryl Jacques. The LCV and groups like it are even taking aggressive pro-Israel positions to make inroads among Jews, whom they seldom inform that their position is rooted in Christian apocalyptic beliefs and the hope that Jews will be "completed" through conversion to Christianity.

I f one is looking for illogic, it abounds. Despite their obsession with "family values," born-again Christians are more likely to get divorced than mainstream Christians or atheists; 27 percent of born-agains are divorced as opposed to 21 percent of Lutherans, Catholics, and non-believers (in this connection it's worth noting that Ronald Reagan was the nation's first-ever divorced president).

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell continue to make statements that ought to give Christians pause. Most recently, Robertson came out in support of Liberian dictator/mass murderer Charles Taylor, while Falwell blamed terrorism on the public school system, abortionists, feminists and the American Civil Liberties Union. He even ventured to remark that 9/11 was "probably what we deserve" for coddling immorality.

None of this may matter. Until liberals and Democrats learn some God-talk, they have ceded the moral high ground to Republicans. In 1994, the GOP exploited President Clinton's lax morality to capture both halves of Congress. They continue to dismantle the old Democratic coalition while busily building their own: anti-abortion Catholics, fearful (and often racist) white suburbanites and Southerners, nativists, anti-feminists, media moguls and free-market traders. Godspeak is the glue that holds it together. Don't believe it? Name the highest-grossing film of 2004. If you guessed The Passion of the Christ, go to the head of your Sunday school class.

Elphaba · 08-24-2005, 11:37 AM

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

cyrnel · 08-24-2005, 11:44 AM

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.

Quote:

"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."

Tough to misinterpret.

Yakk · 08-24-2005, 11:52 AM

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.

Charlatan · 08-24-2005, 11:55 AM

What he meant was *character* assassination...

Sorry for the misinterpretation Mr. Roberston.

cyrnel · 08-24-2005, 12:03 PM

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)

stevo · 08-24-2005, 12:08 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osama Bin Laden

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

And some blowhard on TV saying this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Robertson

"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."

There is a difference, equating the two is rediculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

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"!

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.

Elphaba · 08-24-2005, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

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.

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.

politicophile · 08-24-2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

This mighty institution, which under Dr. Robertson's stern guidance has so successfully protected America from all manner of smut-peddlers, Jesus-killers, lesbos, fetus-murderers, faggots, and Darwinists, is of course the same one that was so gloriously responsible for installing both my father and myself in the Executive Branch. For all these things, we are eternally grateful - which is why today, it is my pleasure to return the favor by appointing Dr. Robertson to the highly compensated position of General Manager of the Afghan Children's Fund.

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.

Charlatan · 08-24-2005, 12:23 PM

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:

Quote:

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'."

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

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".

08-24-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

There is a difference, equating the two is rediculous.

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?

highthief · 08-24-2005, 12:34 PM

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).

stevo · 08-24-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

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?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlatan

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.

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.

08-24-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

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.

stevo · 08-24-2005, 01:24 PM

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.

ubertuber · 08-24-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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

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?

Charlatan · 08-24-2005, 03:09 PM

That's good to hear.

Elphaba · 08-24-2005, 03:36 PM

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?

08-24-2005, 03:21 AM	#50 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	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. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

08-24-2005, 05:06 AM	#52 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	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. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

08-24-2005, 05:20 AM	#54 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	dbl postie __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum. Last edited by highthief; 08-24-2005 at 05:21 AM.. Reason: double post

08-24-2005, 11:07 AM	#62 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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 Last edited by Elphaba; 08-24-2005 at 11:35 AM..

08-24-2005, 11:52 AM	#66 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	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. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

08-23-2005, 05:52 PM	#41 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	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.

08-24-2005, 03:58 AM	#51 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	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".

08-24-2005, 11:37 AM	#64 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Robertson is now claiming that he was misinterpreted. How could we have all been so mistaken in what he said.

08-24-2005, 11:55 AM	#67 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	What he meant was character assassination... Sorry for the misinterpretation Mr. Roberston. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-24-2005, 12:03 PM	#68 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	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) __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

08-24-2005, 12:34 PM	#74 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	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). __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

08-24-2005, 01:24 PM	#77 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	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. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

08-24-2005, 03:09 PM	#79 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	That's good to hear. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-24-2005, 03:36 PM	#80 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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?