THE BLOOM IS OFF THE ROSE
![Geno](http://hrforms.blr.com/plugins/DefaultAvatars/design/RedAvatar.jpg)
Conservative right-wing mouthpiece and Christian broadcaster/evangelist Pat Robertson showed his true stripes yesterday when he called for a Jihad against the president of Venezuela. It turns out that old 700 Club-Pat is no different (or better) than the militant radical Muslim mullahs.
Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying the leftist leader wanted to turn his country into "the launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism." Now that's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.
Talk about hypocrisy -- isn't there a commandment or something about this kind of thing?
Geno
Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying the leftist leader wanted to turn his country into "the launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism." Now that's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.
Talk about hypocrisy -- isn't there a commandment or something about this kind of thing?
Geno
Comments
Chavez has wrecked havoc in Venezuela since his attempted coup some years ago. He's a monster for what he's done to his country causing his people to plunge into poverty. If they were exploited before with previous presidents, they're downright hopeless now. Castro must be proud that his buddy Chavez has learned from him so well.
Cheryl C.
Again, I hear Joan Baez and think I just caught a whiff of hemp.
Yes, there is a commandment that is at issue here, but there's a lot more in that book, too:
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Remember that some of the bloodiest wars and most atrocious acts throughout history have been committed in the name of religion, both Muslim and Christian are not exempt- really when you get down to it - war is not ever really about faith -it's about power, money, and influence - faith is the pretty paper that it's wrapped in to sell it to the masses is all.
I'll spare everyone the personal commentary...except to say that this man's statements do not generally reflect those that Christians following the Word ought to be making or condoning.
Or, maybe what he really wanted to say is that the President of Venezuela should go sit in a corner and have a time out. Unfortunately, it sounded more like advocating a killing, but who am I to judge when someone says they've been misinterpreted? x;-)
Move over Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker, et al. Pat's on his way to share the bench with you.
The Osamas and Saddams of the world are extremely charismatic individuals who have managed to coordinate and enflame their followers to a fervored state. Their masses are led primarily by fear, anger, and devotion. History shows that when a society or army is led by either a charismatic leader or ideology rather than reason, and the source of that charisma/ideology is lost or proven to be false, that it tends to decay and pull itself apart. Doesn't take a crystal ball - just a few good history texts.
What Would Jesus Do? Hell if I know. It's not for me to speculate as to what someone might do. And for one to think they have a hard line on what HE might do suggests to me self-pious narcissism.
Pat Robertson said what he said. He was not misinterpreted. Actually, he had a great idea and while he wishes he had not expressed it, he was correct in his notion.
So, what's the deal with attacking Christianity or trying to bundle it all up into some 'gotcha game', meaningless attack of The Cross? Why not weigh the value or non-value of his suggestion rather than shout, "Aha! Look what the Christian said."
What if the same remark had been made by an athiest, a Buddhist, Larry Flynt, the queen of England or a goat farmer in Pakistan? The man just happened to be a Christian and the man just happened to be correct. It's really about the message, not the messenger.
PS: "One just picks the story which seems to justify a particular action rather than another which might argue the other way. By the same token, one can choose a story to either condemn someone or to rationalize the correctness of their action." That actually makes no sense and I've read it four times.