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?



  • 18 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Yes there is. But he spoke what many have thought and wished for years.

    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.
  • Cheryl; thanks for a sensible, factual post. But don't waste it on Geno. He won't grasp it. Although Mr. Robertson probably got a little too fired up in his honesty, there's something to think about there. If that country does become a haven for muslim extremists, is it not practical to envision those extremists making their way north a few kilometers at a time and eventually waltzing right across the US border that so many of 'you' think we should not be concerned about protecting?

    Again, I hear Joan Baez and think I just caught a whiff of hemp.

  • A man of God advocating murder. Hmmm... the Allah of the Muslim extremists must be smiling over the press this little tidbit is getting.
  • Perhaps his defense will be that Jesus told him it was okay to advocate for murder. More likely he's gettin' on in years and said something he shouldn't have said. What's curious is how while the US State Department and Council of American Churches have condemned his remarks, the White house is silent.
  • Call to mind the troops in Afghanistan and many of our citizens, the victims of 911, our soldiers and those of our allies, how many innocent Iraqi and Afghani citizens would be alive today if a sniper had removed Osama, Saddam, and their advisors years ago?

    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.

  • Great post, Zen. I especially liked it when you quoted the lyrics to The Byrds' biggest hit. (I know, I know... it's Ecclesiastes). x;-)
  • The answer is zero, or maybe more would be dead, or maybe less. We'll never know and that's the problem with justifying actions based on a crystal ball. Personally, I think the "indispensable man" point of view is nonsense, unless you're talking about George Washington. Remember those cards that were printed up that functioned like an FBI "Ten Most Wanted" list? We captured a lot of those guys, but the insurgency goes on. If you're really in a war, does it matter so much if a General is killed? Is that how the US Army is set up? I find it very hard to believe that there's absolutely no structure to the terrorist organizations that would allow them to carry on in the event a key commander is killed. These are not stupid people. Barbaric yes, stupid no.
  • see the headline on cnn...Robertson stated that he was "misinterpreted".

    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.
  • I saw the tape of the comment. Seemed pretty unequivocal to me - don't see how it could be misinterpreted.

    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.
  • I agree with you that these are not stupid people and that there is structure to the terrorist groups. We are in agreement there. I do not believe that either Saddam or Osama would fall under the same category as US Army Generals. Our officers would be highly insulted to any such comparison.

    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.
  • I think that he forgot to reference his "What Would Jesus Do Manual"
  • Maybe taken a fistful of knotted cord and sinew and started lashing out with it, overturned an inappropriate capitalist market place, and kicked the idiots out of the place while in a state of extreme indignation and fury? You can bet that those actions were purposeful and they were very effective. WWJD?
  • That would be a better analogy if he had bopped over to a mosque and assassinated the money changers with a bow and arrow or suggested that it would be a good idea to do so.
  • The reference was not meant to be an analogy at all, it's merely a reminder that there's more to read and learn besides "turn the other cheek." Not all Bible lessons to be learned are warm, fuzzy, and politically correct - nor are all Christians, as Mr. Robertson has shown.
  • Oh, OK. 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. Got it.
  • The world is full of people who actually know nothing more of the Bible than the sound-bites they have read and memorized. The same people who seem to proclaim that Christianity is nothing more than a cult. The Forum has more than a few of them.

    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.

  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-28-05 AT 10:54AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Sorry.....double post.
Sign In or Register to comment.