Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuela's president

[Mrs. M.]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006

:eek: I am no lawyer, but wouldn't that be considered incitement?

From the August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club:


ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

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.

[hockeybrat]

If citizen of another country had said that about our president, would they be arrested or charged with some sort of terrorist activity?

[fuzzy]

Oh, come on guys! He was misinterpreted (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html) ! Everything was taken out of context!! And everyone knows "take out" doesn't really mean assassinate!

Damn those dirty, rotten pot-smkoing liberals! And damn the liberal media!

[lawyerlee]

He's a total psycho. :(

[ee_chick]

Okay, so I just read the article Fuzzy linked, and I just have to wonder about this

...I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping;...

1. You did say assassinate

2. You backpedal from assassination with kidnapping?

He's a peach :rolleyes:

[hockeybrat]

Whether or not he said "assassinate", "kidnap" or whatever, it still comes out like a threat against another person.

[kiddo]

Ugh, this guy makes me sick. Whatever happened to "Thou shall not kill". :rolleyes:

[ee_chick]

I'm sorry, evidently the :rolleyes: wasn't effective at conveying my sarcasm.

[hockeybrat]

I'm sorry, evidently the :rolleyes: wasn't effective at conveying my sarcasm.

ee_chick, my response wasn't aimed at you. It was more aimed at fuzzy's remark.

Sorry!

[Mrs. M.]

..if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.

If he was misinterpreted, what exactly does he mean by "do it" then?

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

If he was misinterpreted, what exactly does he mean by "do it" then?

C'mon, don't you know what "do it" means? I'm kind of surprised Pat's suggesting that, but there you go. Not assassination- just sex. ;)

[hockeybrat]

C'mon, don't you know what "do it" means? I'm kind of surprised Pat's suggesting that, but there you go. Not assassination- just sex. ;)

So taking him out just meant he wanted to date the guy, right? I get it now! ;)

[Mrs. M.]

He does say "we ought to go ahead and do it", so he wants to do it with Chavez and some others, eh?

[camberne]

Man, I hate this man. We're right around the corner from CBN/Regent University. Pat Robertson is such an ass. I dislike him as much as I do PETA... and if you know me, that's really saying something!! See, I'm an equal-opportunity disliker! :P

[hockeybrat]

Seriously, I still find it hard that someone who considers himself a Christian could say something that resembles a threat to another human being. That just seems to go against the whole idea of Christianity, no?

[wander_woman]

Looks like Pat could use a WWJD bracelet.

[dionysia]

Looks like Pat could use a WWJD bracelet.Bwahahahaha!!! :D

Di

[Sandie78]

Here are my thoughts.
1. As a US citizen he has the Freedom of Speech.
2. Why is this even news?

[wendalah]

Cuz he's a Christian and nutty Christians are fun!

[Sandie78]

Cuz he's a Christian and nutty Christians are fun!
:p You made me chuckle.

[lawyerlee]

Here are my thoughts.
1. As a US citizen he has the Freedom of Speech.
2. Why is this even news?
Because he's a high profile individual and publicly said a very ignorant thing. Freedom of speech is best accompanied by good judgment. Just because you *can* say something doesn't mean you should.

[DiscoDiva]

What Pat Robertson said is highly offensive and I can't think of a single Christian who condones what he said. All I hope is that his ignorant, idiotic comment doesn't start a whole new round of "Christians are all hypocritical" rhetoric. He does not, and did not, speak for Christians when he said what he did. He spoke for himself and spoke like a fool.

He said that killing Chavez, an ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, would be "a whole lot cheaper than starting a war," Robertson said. He said, "I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war," Robertson said during Monday evening's broadcast of "The 700 Club," his Christian news-talk television show. "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

Hey Pat, have you heard of the 6th Commandment?

[wander_woman]

Most of us know that Pat Robertson's a nut. Most of us know that he doesn't represent what most American Christians believe. But not everyone knows that. He is considered to be one of the most influential evangelican Christian leaders in the U.S. His comments have now been broadcast all over the world. A simple google search reveals that newspapers in practically every country in the world have run stories on what he said. Here's an example from The Arab News: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=69003&d=25&m=8&y=2005. The problem is that most people outside the U.S. do not necessarily know that Pat is considered a bit of a laughing stock here. They see a major Christian leader and friend of the President make comments that sound very similar to the types of comments made by fanatical Muslim imams. How can the U.S. condemn speeches by imams calling for the killing of U.S. leaders when a mainstream American cleric whose show is watched by millions endorses the exact same thing? His comments absolutely play into the hands of those who argue that the U.S. is only interested in the Middle East for its oil and that greed is the motivating force for all U.S. actions. At a time when dislike of the U.S. is at an all-time high around the world, Pat's comments are extremely damaging. That's why this is news. And that's why the President should issue a stronger condemnation.

[funky$meg]

Well said, wander_woman !! ITA!

-Meg

[msnicolea]

At a time when dislike of the U.S. is at an all-time high around the world, Pat's comments are extremely damaging. That's why this is news. And that's why the President should issue a stronger condemnation.

Exactly!

You know, whenever a leading cleric in the Arab Worls issues death threats against Americans and American leaders, they are called "terrorists." What's the difference here?

[Mrs. M.]

ITA, wander_woman !

[greenbunny]

I think it would be fantastic if the media played up his "take him out" comments to mean dating, because I'm betting a nutty right-wing religious guy is a big homophobe, too.

[lawyerlee]

I think it would be fantastic if the media played up his "take him out" comments to mean dating, because I'm betting a nutty right-wing religious guy is a big homophobe, too.
That's what they were saying on Air America radio yesterday, and I couldn't stop laughing. :D

[msnicolea]

Sojourner's Response to Pat Robertson:

Pat Robertson: An embarrassment to the church
by Jim Wallis

Pat Robertson is an embarrassment to the church and a danger to American politics.

Robertson is known for his completely irresponsible statements - that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were due to American feminists and liberals, that true Christians could vote only for George W. Bush, that the federal judiciary is a greater threat to America than those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center Towers, and the list goes on. Robertson even took credit once for diverting a hurricane. But his latest outburst may take the cake.

On Monday, Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Robertson is worried about Chavez's critiques of American power and behavior in the world, especially because Venezuela is sitting on all that oil. We simply can't have an anti-American political leader who could raise the price of gas. So let's just kill him, the famous television preacher seriously suggested. After all, having some of our "covert operatives" take out the troublesome Venezuelan leader would be cheaper than another $200 billion war, he said.

It's clear Robertson must not have first asked himself "What would Jesus do?" But the teachings of Jesus have never been very popular with Robertson. He gets his religion elsewhere, from the twisted ideologies of an American brand of right-wing fundamentalism that has always been more nationalist than Christian. Apparently, Robertson didn't even remember what the Ten Commandments say, though he has championed their display on the walls of every American courthouse. That irritating one about "Thou shalt not kill" seems to rule out the killing of foreign leaders. But this week, simply putting biblical ethics aside, Robertson virtually issued an American religious fatwah for the murder of a foreign leader - on national television no less. That may be a first.

Yesterday Robertson "apologized." First he denied saying what he had said, but it was on the videotape (it's tough when they record you breaking the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus). Then he said that "taking out" Chavez might not require killing him, and perhaps kidnapping a duly elected leader would do. But Robertson does now say that using the word "assassination" was wrong and that he had been frustrated by Chavez - the old "my frustration made me say that somebody should be killed" argument. But the worst thing about Robertson's apology was that he compared himself to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German church leader and martyr who ultimately joined in a plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler.

Robertson's political and theological reasoning is simply unbelievable. Chavez, a democratically elected leader in no less than three internationally certified votes, has been an irritant to the Bush administration, but has yet to commit any holocausts. Nor does his human rights record even approach that of the Latin American dictators who have been responsible for massive violations of human rights and the deaths of tens of thousands of people (think of the military regimes of Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala). Robertson never criticized them, perhaps because many of them were supported by U.S. military aid and training.

This incident reveals that Robertson does not believe in democracy; he believes in theocracy. And he would like governments, including our own, to implement his theological agenda, perhaps legislate Leviticus, and "take out" those who disagree.

Robertson's American fundamentalist ideology gives a lot of good people a bad name. World evangelical leaders have already responded with alarm and disbelief. Robertson's words will taint and smear other evangelical Christians and put some in actual jeopardy, such as Venezuelan evangelicals. Most conservative evangelical Christians are appalled by Robertson's hateful and literally murderous words, and it's time for them to say so. To their credit, the World Evangelical Alliance and the National Association of Evangelicals have already denounced Robertson's words. When will we hear from some of the groups from the "Religious Right," such as the Family Research Council, Southern Baptists, and other leaders like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson?

Robertson's words fuel both anti-Christian and anti-American sentiments around the world. It's difficult for an American government that has historically plotted against leaders in Cuba, Chile, the Congo, South Vietnam, and elsewhere to be easily believed when it disavows Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez. But George Bush must do so anyway, in the strongest terms possible.

It's time to name Robertson for what he is: an American fundamentalist whose theocratic views are not much different from the "Muslim extremists" he continually assails. It's time for conservative evangelical Christians in America, who are not like Islamic fundamentalists or Robertson, to distance themselves from his embarrassing and dangerous religion.

And it's time for Christian leaders of all stripes to call on Robertson not just to apologize, but to retire.

[daydreamer]

A Robertson apology was in my local newspaper today - just to let you know.
He's scary in my opinion.

[Mrs. M.]

What Paula Zahn of CNN had to say...

Has controversial christian broadcaster pat robertson finally gone too far, or is he onto something?

(I heard it here (http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/headlines/index.jhtml) )

Now THAT is scary.

[DiscoDiva]

He apologized, but he's still an idiot.

[guinevere]

I also heard he apologized. He really needs to be more responsible for what he says on the air.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Woo!
Jack Van Impe (of all people) put the smackdown on Robertson:
Via Media Matters: From the August 30 broadcast of Jack Van Impe Presents: (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508300007)
VAN IMPE: And right now, the National Association of Evangelicals informs us that this man has done damage, and it could actually take the lives of some of the missionaries in South America because the news media in South America is bombarding this thing across the airwaves around the clock. God forgive him.

[...]

Not only that, but Mr. Robertson, you are pro-life, and yet you wanted the members of the Supreme Court to die last year, and now the president of Venezuela. We believe this book: Thou shalt not kill; Exodus 20, verse 13. And my Bible says that this is wrong, and I want to challenge you right now to change your ways. Because we as Christians do not need an Osami [sic] Bin Laden leading us.

[heather 8^)]

Eh, I dunno. Chavez is a nutcase; and depending on who you believe, it's possible that we *did* try to "take him out". (Remember how quick the US supported the group that ousted Chavez for a whole day before he came back to power and made us eat our socks? Also wonder why the WH only called Robertson's statement "irresponsible"?)

On the one hand, I agree that this is not a very Christian attitude, and it's probably not good policy to suggest knocking off foreign leaders. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who think Chavez is a Saddam in the making with a government run on corruption. If it makes more people look at this guy and what he's doing, then that could be good. Then again, agreeing with his statement doesn't make it right for him to say it, just as disagreeing with it doesn't make it wrong.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Yeah, but there are a lot of people worldwide who think Bush is a nutcase as well. Does that mean we think it's cool beans for religious leaders in other nations to suggest such a thing for Bush? If it's radical and ridiculous when clerics from the Middle East issue fatwas against Americans and American leaders, isn't the reverse true as well?

[wander_woman]

As an aside, Venezuela has offered aid to the U.S. in the wake of Hurricane Katrina: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050829/pl_afp/usweathervenezuelaoil_050829234840.

It's ridiculous to compare Chavez to Hussein. Chavez has done plenty of undemocratic things and his administration is quite corrupt. I'm not saying he's a good leader. But comparing him to Hussein? Give me a break! He's not gassing his own people, he's not invading his neighbors, he's not engaging in large-scale torture and killing of his opponents. It's not an apt comparison at all.

[hockeybrat]

Yeah, but there are a lot of people worldwide who think Bush is a nutcase as well. Does that mean we think it's cool beans for religious leaders in other nations to suggest such a thing for Bush? If it's radical and ridiculous when clerics from the Middle East issue fatwas against Americans and American leaders, isn't the reverse true as well?

I agree, it goes with that saying of "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander".

[heather 8^)]

It's ridiculous to compare Chavez to Hussein. Chavez has done plenty of undemocratic things and his administration is quite corrupt. I'm not saying he's a good leader. But comparing him to Hussein? Give me a break! He's not gassing his own people, he's not invading his neighbors, he's not engaging in large-scale torture and killing of his opponents. It's not an apt comparison at all.

Fair enough. I didn't say that I personally think he's like Hussein, but you're right to say that it's not a fair comparison. It takes all varieties of good AND rotten people to make the world go 'round. :)

And it's an interesting question regarding who can say what and in what context. I can sit here and say Bush is a saint/moron, and nobody would care either way. Put me on tv, and some people would care. Put me on a stage in Europe, and lots of people would care. Make me the leader of a nation, and almost everybody would care. But the right to free speech carries with it responsibility, and there is no magic formula that says when you can express your true opinion and when you should censor yourself.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

there is no magic formula that says when you can express your true opinion and when you should censor yourself.
There's no magic formula, but there are definitely speech writers and image consultants available for those folks who have more people listening (e.g., Pat Robertson). ;)

[heather 8^)]

Ooh, I wish I had more people listening so that I could have an image consultant! Maybe an image consultant could also hook me up with a wardrobe consultant... wouldn't that be nice? :D