Who Would Jesus Assasinate

[mburbank]

Pat Robertson calls for the assasination of democratically elected Chavez.




VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "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," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

...

"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," Robertson said.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Ah, I see. So you turn the other cheek, and when he thinks you're subdued, lay him out.

Pat Robertson is worthless.

[mburbank]

Worthless and almost certainly hellbound, but not without influence.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And, as expected, the Venezuelan govt. responds with alomst equally ridiculous hyperbole:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Robertson-Assassination.html?hp&ex=1124856000&en=0e6c6e070fefa882&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Venezuela was studying its legal options, adding that how Washington responds to Robertson's comments would put its anti-terrorism policy to the test.

''The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country,'' Rangel told reporters. ''It's huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those.''"

[ziggytrix]

If I were to stand on the street corner shouting "Assassinate <insert American politician>!" do you think I'd get arrested?

Assuming you say yes, do you think I'd get arrested for calling for the assassination of a British politician?

I don't think the Venezuelan VP's hyperbole is ridiculous at all, but I do think I'd get arrested in either of the above scenarios. Not that I think Robertson will get arrested or censured in any way, shape, or form. It's a relatively small hypocrisy, but it's hypocrisy nonetheless.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We are on bad terms with Venezuela, which is what makes Robertson's comments asinine. But the comment was targted towards an enemy state, led by a guy who just spent his weekend with Fidel Castro denouncing the U.S. as the biggest terrorist nation in the world.

It shows that Robertson is an idiot (which we knew), and that he lacks tact. it isn't the same however as a citizen of this nation saying we should, he should, or somebody should kill an American official. You'd probably be arrested, and then you'd probably get sent home if you made some random comment about a British diplomat, or someone.

However, this isn't the first time Robertson has done this, come to think of it. He also told CNN in 2004 that God told him Bush would win in a blowout. He told the press that Bush told him there'd be no casualties in the Iraq war. I think he said something about blowing up Saudi Arabia, or something. He called Islam a scam ripping off Jewish faith.

To put it shortly-- both comments were made by blowhards who like attention.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

MORE (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23560420.htm) fun quotables from Pat Robertson.

[sadie]

chavez himself was like, i don't even know who this person is and i'd rather talk about life.

i used to think pat robertson was a cool, grandpa-like guy. that was a long time ago.

[Big Papa Goat]

"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," Robertson said.

:lol

[Emu]

Great. Now if someone tries to assassinate him, they can put the blame on us and point to this idiot promoting it.

[Pub Lover]

Even without this everyone would still blame the US for the assassination.

[Emu]

Well, with Pat Robertson promoting it, when they inevitably do blame us, a bunch of redneck fucks are going to get into their rusted out Chevys and fire off their rifles in celebration, screaming "We did it, Gawd!" Even if we didn't.

Edit: It seems this is the biggest thing to happen in a while. Robertson's been on the TV all day.

[Geggy]

Robertson once declared that feminism "encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

lesbians are awesome.

[kellychaos]

Motherless lesbians undermining the foundation of our God-fearin' Amurika with chicken bones and tarot cards. >:

[Ant10708]

We really should be nicer to Chavez. He does have tons of oil and is way better to his people and Pat Robertson's people than the leaders of Saudi Arabia. Damn you Pat Robertson.

When I entered this thread I actually thought we'd be suggesting who'd we think Jesus would assassinate. :(

I'd go with Pat Robertson or Chris Tucker after reading the real intent of the thread.

[Ant10708]

"We don't need another $200bn war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he said.

"It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

The comments were subsequently reported by the Associated Press and other media outlets, but on the Wednesday edition of The 700 Club Mr Robertson said the remarks were misconstrued.

"I didn't say 'assassination', I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," he said.

"There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted," he added.

The US State Department said the comments were "inappropriate" and did not reflect the policy of the US.

"Any allegations that we are planning to take hostile action against the Venezuelan government are completely baseless," State department spokesman San McCormack said.

"We have been very clear that this is not the policy of the United States."

Venezuela is the fifth-largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States.


He wasn't suggesting to assassinate a foriegn leader. Just to kidnap him. :blah

[ziggytrix]

"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," Robertson said.

"I didn't say 'assassination', I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things including kidnapping," he said.

Somebody is telling lies lies lies lies.

[sadie]

lol. maybe he meant take him out to dinner.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

oops!

[Emu]

On the news this morning I heard him say that he got "misinterpreted, which happens very often." :lol

[Ant10708]

Does Pat Robertson Matter?
Many conservatives would say no. But it’s not that simple.

A number of conservatives and Republicans have criticized televangelist Pat Robertson for suggesting that the U.S. government assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. "What an offense that this man was a serious candidate for the presidency," wrote NR's Richard Brookhiser, referring to Robertson's 1988 run for the Republican nomination, in which Robertson defeated eventual nominee George H. W. Bush in the Iowa caucuses. "He was our Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton."


"It's ludicrous, ridiculous, irresponsible," said former Sen. Bob Dole, who ran against Robertson in that 1988 race. "I mean, whenever somebody makes such a stupid statement as Pat Robertson made, it's probably going to benefit, in this case, Chavez."

"It was an incredibly stupid statement and has no reflection on reality," added Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. And conservative radio host Blanquita Cullum said, "I think what he did is a terrible thing. I think it's a disgrace. And there's no way I can support what he said. I don't think any rational person can support that."

The condemnations made clear that Robertson's comments had absolutely no support anywhere. But they did not address another question: Just how influential is Robertson in today's politics?

The answer from many conservatives, especially those in Washington and New York, would be quick and clear: Robertson has virtually no influence at all. "I don't know anybody in the religiously conservative world who takes their nods from Pat," said one conservative who closely tracks the world of faith and politics. "He's just sort of had his day. Plus, you combine about three or four crackpot comments a year, and even your own constituents say you're nuts. He's worn out his welcome, even with his own people."

To many on the right, Robertson's most important role today seems to be as the maker of those crackpot comments, which give liberals the opportunity to hang the offending words — and Robertson himself — around conservatives' necks.

There is some truth to that, but there is also some evidence to suggest that Robertson is not quite as marginalized a figure as conservatives would like to believe. His main forum, the television program The 700 Club, is available in nearly all of the country on the ABC Family Channel, FamilyNet, the Trinity Broadcasting Network, and some broadcast stations. According to Nielsen Media Research, The 700 Club, aired each weekday, has averaged 863,000 viewers in the last year. While that is not enough to call it a popular program, it is still a significant audience. It is, for example, more than the average primetime audience for CNN last month — 713,000 viewers — or MSNBC, which averaged 280,000 viewers in prime time. It is also greater than the viewership of CNBC and Headline News.

"It's a pretty good audience," says John Green, a professor at the University of Akron who is also a fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "He is certainly a consequential figure." But Green and others point out that, even though Robertson has a core audience of supporters, his influence — which had a high point in 1988 and 1989, when he ran for president and founded the Christian Coalition — is unquestionably on the wane. Figures like James Dobson have eclipsed Robertson in political influence, and popular evangelicals like Rick Warren and Joel Osteen have surpassed him in the religious world. "They are more in tune with contemporary culture, while Robertson was more in tune with what was happening with evangelicals 20 or 30 years ago," says Green.

So these days, Robertson makes news only when he says something outrageous. And he has done that more than a few times. In early 2004, Robertson claimed divine inspiration as he predicted a Bush landslide in the presidential election. "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004," he said on The 700 Club. "It's shaping up that way."

In 2003, discussing a book critical of the State Department, Robertson said, "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer. I mean, you get through this [book], and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.'"

In 2001, shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Robertson nodded in agreement as fellow televangelist Jerry Falwell said the attacks were God's punishment for the sins of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America."

In 1998, Robertson warned the city of Orlando, Florida not to mark Gay Pride Month by flying flags downtown. "You're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you," Robertson said. "This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."

And now Robertson has advised the United States to assassinate the president of Venezuela. (He later released a statement saying that he didn't really mean Chavez should be killed.) Conservatives would like to dismiss him as a has-been and an embarrassment. To some extent, that's true — but not to all those viewers of The 700 Club.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The GOP revolution of the early 90's wouldn't have happened without the work of Pat Robertson. His campaign in '88 created a network of voters and resources that could make or break a candidate. It further secured the South, particularly the religious Right, for the Republican Party.

So yes, he has had his day, but he was very influential during it.

[Ant10708]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says US President George W Bush will be to blame if anything happens to him.

He was speaking after US TV evangelist Pat Robertson called for his assassination in comments the US State Department said were "inappropriate".

Mr Robertson later apologised saying he was frustrated at Mr Chavez's constant accusations against Washington.

A senior representative of America's evangelical Christians says he is trying to meet Mr Chavez to apologise.

Mr Chavez said on Friday that Pat Robertson "was expressing the wishes of the US elite".

"If anything happens to me then the man responsible will be George W Bush. He will be the assassin," the Venezuelan president said at a public event. "This is pure terrorism."

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says US President George W Bush will be to blame if anything happens to him........


....."If anything happens to me then the man responsible will be George W Bush. He will be the assassin," the Venezuelan president said at a public event. "This is pure terrorism."

Maybe Chavez will shoot himself to prove his point.

[El Blanco]

Ya, that'll show them capitalist pigs.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

I wish Robertson would shoot himself......the world would be a better place without him.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0509/03/D07-302335.htm

Evangelicals must rethink nationalism

By Fr. Robert Sirico


Pat Robertson speaks his mind on his television show "The 700 Club," often with an unpolished spontaneity that is missing from network news. But every now and then, this unvarnished approach causes an explosion that reveals more than we really wanted to know about the heart of evangelical politics in this country.

Thus did a firestorm of outrage greet Robertson's casual but sincere call for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Chavez, a sworn enemy of President Bush, often proclaims that U.S. officials are plotting to kill him. This charge, of course, is calculated to boost his flagging support within Venezuela, where his political power depends heavily on an anti-American posture.

There was not much room for misinterpreting what Robertson said: "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."

Blood for oil anyone? Must Robertson live up to every possible caricature that the left has made of right-wing preachers?

This all must have been music to the ears of Chavez, who follows Fidel Castro's model of bolstering his own dictatorship be whipping up public fear of the United States as the great Satan. Rightly or wrongly, Robertson is perceived as one of the most influential voices among evangelical Christians, a group that is widely believed to have vast influence on Bush's foreign policy.

Finally, facing enormous pressure, Robertson did repudiate his statement. "Is it right to call for assassination?" he asked. "No, and I apologize for that statement." He went on to explain that he was considering this as an alternative to war, as if killing one or killing many were the only choices we have in dealing with a bad foreign leader.

But something very important is missing -- a moral rationale for the repudiation. And the problem isn't just Robertson. He is symptomatic of a larger problem that I fear has crept up within Christian right circles. Some believe they have a friend in the White House who protects and guards their interests, and generally does the Lord's work in foreign policy.

There is no question that Chavez is a dangerous and ruthless man. I've been to Venezuela and visited his political opponents in jail. I've talked at length to opposition leaders and openly rooted for Chavez to be dislodged from power.

Assassination, however, is contrary to the long-run interests of freedom in that country. As an elected dictator, even dubiously elected, he enjoys more legitimacy than a dictator who rules by explicit seizure of power. The ideological basis for his rule is widely, if sadly, shared in that society. Foreign-policy violence should be used only as a last resort and only consistently with the principles of just war (defensive, proportional, limited).

Evangelicals need to reflect on the history of institutions such as cultural exchange, moral example, diplomatic pressure and free trade as tools of social and political change. These institutions have roots in the Christian moral order, which calls for justice but also extols the merit of peace.

It is true that Christian moral teaching does not rule out the idea of killing tyrants, but only after every other alternative has been exhausted, and with some assurance that the cure would not prove worse than the disease.

Robertson has defended the idea of trading with China -- a position that was not widely accepted within evangelical circles. He argues that Christian missionaries stand a greater chance of influencing a country through mutually beneficial trade than through trade war and belligerence. I agree with him on this, and suggest that we carry the model further. What applies in the case of China is equally applicable in Venezuela.

Robertson's comments shocked many people who worry the Christian right is losing its soul in its support for increasingly uncritical nationalism. What is needed here is a time of reflection. Christianity does not regard every enemy of the nation-state as worthy of execution. It prefers peace to war. It respects the right to life of everyone, even those who have objectionable political views.

Faith and policy Fr. Robert Sirico is president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids. Send letters to The Detroit News at Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226 or letters@detnews.com.