Do unto others...

Remove all ads!

I was reading through the CNN online edition when I came upon this, and it's quite the laugh (in a despairing way)... an avid Christian calling for his government to murder someone. Does someone take that guy seriously?


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html

I'm at a loss for words. This guy is considered a Christian broadcaster?
Not to mention that Communism and Islamic extremism simply don't mix. One or the other, maybe, but both together? Mr. Robertson considers Chavez quite the able guy, apparently.

 

It's pathetic. Now I don't know what Christian denomination Robertson subscribes to, but I think all of them follow the commandment "Thou shall not kill." His comment is indefensible - not just because of his position, but just because he is a person. The Christian thing to do here would have been to look for a way to make the situation better, and possibly even work to getting him removed, but killed? That seems extreme.

EDIT: Who is this guy anyway? Other than the Venezuelan President. Is he threatening anyone? His own people perhaps? If anything, it sounds like a human rights issue more than anything.

 

Hugo Chavez talked about not selling oil to the US anymore, thats his big 'sin'.

As I said in the 'Hypocricy' thread, what do Americans really have against Castro and Chavez?

 

Not all Americans hate Castro (most are ambivalent toward him and would prefer Cuba be opened again for another vacation spot). I know of very few Americans who even know of Chavez, let alone hate him enough to want him dead. Robertson does not speak for America.

I've never cared for Robertson. He went way over the edge this time -- he's made stupid comments like this before, he will do it again in the future.

 

The government certainly hates Chavez, and usually that is good enough for most people. Also a news site WPXI has support calling for his assassination (31% of voters)

Isn't Robertson some crazy TV Evangalist?

I did read about the US funding a coup against Chávez in 1992, but this people gave enough support, to restore him as president.

Hes not such a bad guy, having free health care for the poor, and subsidized grocery stores offering discounts of up to 50% (also supporting local small farmers). Sounds more Christian than, what Mr Robertson is preaching lately.

For more Pat Roberston fun, check out the 'A controversial public figure' section from Wikipedia

[ August 23, 2005, 16:11: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

Robertson is pretty crazy. He seems to be a "christian" to profit from it. Not someone to be taken seriously.

 

For what I've come upon, Chavez seems pretty much a socialist. By this I mean someone more to the left than an average European social-democrate, but not a communist either. He's running a welfare state economy, not really oriented towards global market trends - but then again, he has enough oil to bring in decent revenue anyway. There might be some pressure on political opposition, according to HRW, but (if true) it is still noticeably below the level of Cuba or a tyhpical junta.
What washington might consider crimes are his support of Cuba and Castro, his efforts to create a regional organization excluding the USA and possibly leftist, verbally anti-USA tendencies in an oil-rich country.
Still, despite the rhetoric, a few cars in Texas are running on venezuelan oil, so the hard words are unlikely to interrupt business.

Anyway, back to the topic: does Mr. Robertson actually support more "christian" causes, or is he basically a political figure who uses religion for his goals?

 

Here's my one fifth of a dime...

Robertson is a TV personality, not a political figure per se - though his influence over evangelical christians is certainly certainly gives him much political clout; his views have sway over a large chunk of our population (more specificly, our voting population). He has nothing to do with our government officially. He's little more than a televangelist, in truth. But his considerable influence is why his saying something so ignorant and stupid - which, let's be honest, is exactly what he did - ends up on every cable news channel and website the rest of the day (which it did, much to my surprise). When he opens his pie hole, people listen. That he actually be educated on what he's talking about isn't a priority to most of his listeners, I've noticed. He's considered a spokesman of sorts for like-minded folk, so him saying it is like all evangelicals saying it. After all, God told him He chose Bush to be President.

Other extreme conservative ... ahem ... media personalities (I was going to say barking lunatics, but thought not), such as Ann Coulter and Michael Savage have said much worse in the past, but haven't been given the time of day. It's really become expected from their likes, because they're all about shock value. And Robertson has said some pretty dumb things in the past - like that 9/11 happened because of gay people - but this one crosses the line into the truly stupid because it's so dangerous, and because his audience is so much larger (which unfortunately gives his words more weight). Many people here agree that Chavez is bad for the U.S. and probably his own people as well - myself included. But come on.

Given, Chavez announced he isn't taking this seriously, and nor should he. But it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. He'll probably apologize and say he was taken out of context or something. In all fairness, he probably did just go overboard in one of his tirades - which we all do from time to time. I can give him the benefit of the doubt. But I personally think he should be punished somehow. I know we have free speech and all - but you can't openly threaten the life of a world leader on such a large scale like that and have it go unpunished...

Can you?

Bottom line is - yes, he's a TV personality. But since he's held in such high regard by the President's supporters - and by the President himself, in fact - that if the administration doesn't come down hard on him and at least demand an apology from him it's going to appear as though they agree with his statement. Which will serve no purpose other than add to a long string of poorly chosen outbursts that make my country look bad and create unnecessary international tension.

[ August 24, 2005, 02:05: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

This seems to be part of a growing trend of tagging of the threat of Muslim extremism to otherwise unconnected claims and arguments to make them sound more powerful or add a fresh spin. Pat Robertson's claim is astonishing. Not even Afghanistan at its conflict-ridden peak managed to be both a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism" – at least not at the same time.

 

This guy deserves nothing but scorn. He's a perfect example of why I and many others no longer accept the moral authority of religious figures as a matter of course. He obviously doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about, except that (1) he doesn't like Chavez, and (2) he seems to modelling his comments after Joe McCarthy, although with a slight update.

I guess he's gone along with reinterpreting "do unto others" to finish with "before they can do unto you". This is an incitement to violence, and that cannot be defended - and certainly on such ludicrous grounds as Robertson is presenting. The guy knew what he was doing and should be dealt with accordingly; advocating the pre-emptive murder of political leaders is never acceptable.

Unfortunately, as DR has pointed out, if people believe the crap this guy's spewing and won't question it, it almost doesn't matter how wrong he is. It's stuff like this which makes it harder to believe in the US as a noble country, when so many of its people will not even scoff or raise an eyebrow at such suggestions by influential media personalities. I know they're not representative of the whole country, but that's what others see and base their opinions on.

[/AmericaBash]

 

@NonSequitur

You come to some questionable conclusions here.
1. You claim that Pat Robertson is an influential media personality. What are you basing that on?
2. You claim that "so many of its people will not even scoff or raise an eyebrow". Again, what are you basing that on?

Finally, you say that "that's what others see and base their opinions on". If you want to base your opinion of America/Americans on the spewing of Pat Robertson, that is on you.
Not to worry, I won't be basing my opinion of Australia on Jocko, Paul Hogan, or Yahoo Serious.

 

Well, the fact is he is a TV evangelist with a sizable following. While I agree with most of your other points, it is hard to argue he's not an influential media personality because hundreds of thousands of Americans actually listen to this moron on a weekly basis.

 

How many people must be influenced to be considered influential?

We're not talking about Walter Cronkite in the 60's here. Pat Robertsons "influence" is minimal. That was my point. I think NS was being a bit hyperbolic.

Anyway, the crackpot is back pedaling faster than a responsible parent from Neverland: "I was misinterpreted"

It's so hollow it's funny.

 

I have managed to ignore Robertson for many years but I have a feel he has a large following. His wealth is estimated at between 200mil and a billion US$. Exactly how this set up I don't know. It may simply mean he has control over that amount of money.

I always thought he was an idiot and a hypocritic, this just enforces that belief.

 

Robertson, and the Christian Coalition (which he founded) are widely credited as almost single-handedly reinvigorating Bush's 2000 campaign. And I guarantee you if he hadn't given Bush his endorsement, we would have someone else as President today. The endorsement of one man makes or breaks a Presidency with a very significant chunk of our population.

I consider that pretty damn influential.

 

@ Jack, dmc:

Fair call, I think upon reflection that I can see how my comment at the end might be seen as going too far. I don't consider my comments hyperbolic - the fact that this statement made the papers in Australia indicates that it's at least newsworthy, which means that Robertson is a sufficiently high-profile figure (or his comments sufficiently idiotic) to warrant that coverage.

The comment was actually meant to avoid being a blatant USA-bash and draw attention to what I saw as a problem - that anyone would even consider making such a public statement. I'm glad that people are responding with appropriate anger to his comments. That someone who holds a position of relative moral (the irony is not lost on me) and political influence within a section of the US public, as Robertson does, would feel comfortable making such deliberate comments is what scares me - and I'm glad to see him back-pedalling in the face of a public backlash.

Jack,

You can base your views of Australia on whatever you want - it doesn't bother me a bit. We're not all like Steve Irwin or Mick Dundee, and I don't assume that all Americans are like Robertson and his followers. Ultimately, however, people will base their assumptions on what they see and hear; since I don't have cable, I can't get US news, and like many I only get snippets of what's going on. Those snippets tend to be the more sensational stuff, like this story. I can't be the only one on SP who's in that position, either.

I'm not branding all of the US, merely stating that things like this undermine my faith in it when powerful figures are willing to say such things. As I've stated many times, I don't mind being wrong about things like this - and it appears I might be.

dmc,

I wasn't trying to tar and feather the whole country over one man's idiocy (I thought I did make that point). Instead, I was attempting to point out that for a political environment to exist where Robertson would come out with such statements, and had a platform to do so, is somewhat disturbing. My "loss of faith" is not because I think everyone agrees with Robertson; it's because the people who support this man represent a considerable proportion of the voting population, have a strong political influence and are advocating the abandonment of basic human principles while claiming to be the "moral majority".

I won't pretend for a second that they are representative of the US citizenry, or that Australia is much better, but when I see people in positions of relative power making such statements, I get worried. As you said, the statement appears to have been deliberately crafted so as not to be illegal. In my opinion, that's prima facie evidence to support my concerns - it doesn't seem to be an off-the-cuff, throwaway comment. I'm glad to see that there has been considerable uproar about this statement and that people still find such suggestions - even the mention of them - utterly abhorrent.

 

@NonSequitur: Your are not the only one to be concerned. I am very concerned. This man is influential. However I rejoice at the fact that he has been forced to down play his statement. I went back and reread his statement. It certainly sounds to me as if the news reported it correctly. He can't be stupid to have gotten where he has. It sounds to me as if he has a swollen head. Or since he is 75 yrs old maybe his brain is going. (Being within sight of that age I can say that. )

@Tal: Terror strikes me at the thought. The repercussions on the USA would be horrific.

[ August 25, 2005, 03:38: Message edited by: Nakia ]