News Did Robertson's Advocacy for Violence Contradict His Christian Teachings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter klusener
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Pat Robertson's controversial comments about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sparked intense debate regarding the intersection of religion and politics. Robertson labeled Chavez a "dangerous enemy" and suggested that the U.S. should consider assassinating him, which many perceived as a hypocritical stance given Christian teachings on love and forgiveness. Critics argued that such rhetoric undermines democratic principles, especially since Chavez was democratically elected and enjoyed significant support in Venezuela. The White House quickly distanced itself from Robertson's remarks, emphasizing that they did not reflect U.S. policy, highlighting concerns over the influence of religious figures on foreign policy. The discussion also touched on broader themes of free speech, incitement to violence, and the implications of Robertson's statements on America's global image. Many participants expressed outrage over the need for the State Department to address Robertson's comments, questioning the role of religious extremism in shaping political discourse. The conversation underscored a growing unease about the potential consequences of inflammatory rhetoric in an increasingly polarized political landscape.
klusener
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html

Is there anything more stupid the old man could do? He always talks about violence in the Quran and then turns around and issues a "fatwa" for Chavez's assasination. Where did the "love thy enemy" sentiments go?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Does anyone actually believe this man is a Christian?
 
Robertson, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, called Chavez "a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly."

"a dangerous enemy to our south"

Ok, i didn't know that south america (where i live) belongs to USA.

"controlling a huge pool of oil"

Againt, ist's all about oil...

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,"

He was a democraticaly elected president, he won with more that 50% of the votes, and he had win TWO, plebisites asking to stay or leave the presidency..
 
During his “700 Club” broadcast Aug. 22, Robertson lit into President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as an American enemy that needed to be done away with:
“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he [Chavez] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson told his audience. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.”
Not only is he preaching politics from the pulpit, it is very un-Christ-like and hypocritical. Talk about someone we need to do away with. The only good thing is if people like Robertson keep spewing garbage, mainstream America is likely to push them back under the rocks they crawled out from under when Bush was elected.
 
How much more twisted can this country get when the WHITE HOUSE has to apologize for a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT'S COMMENTS!

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

"White House dismisses Chavez assassination call
State Department: Pat Robertson comment 'inappropriate'"

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ANYONE?!?

WHY SHOULD THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVE TO DISMISS THIS MORON'S COMMENTS??

Do people just take it for granted now that religious extremists set the foreign policy of this nation?
 
MaxS said:
How much more twisted can this country get when the WHITE HOUSE has to apologize for a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT'S COMMENTS!

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

"White House dismisses Chavez assassination call
State Department: Pat Robertson comment 'inappropriate'"

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ANYONE?!?

WHY SHOULD THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVE TO DISMISS THIS MORON'S COMMENTS??

Do people just take it for granted now that religious extremists set the foreign policy of this nation?


These are the same religious extremest who put Bush into office. He could not have won without them. It will be interesting to see how the administration slips and slides around this one.

It will depend a great deal upon how much media coverage Robertson's statement gets. It could be a flash in the pan if the shrub damage control team does its job as they have in the past.
 
I can't believe that there are people stupid enough to listen to this man. He is a complete psychopath.
 
Manchot said:
I can't believe that there are people stupid enough to listen to this man. He is a complete psychopath.

more than half the country can't believe Bush was elected...
 
MaxS said:
WHY SHOULD THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVE TO DISMISS THIS MORON'S COMMENTS??
Probably the only reason was
But Venezuela's ambassador to the United States, Bernardo Alvarez, said Robertson was "no ordinary private citizen" and demanded the White House strongly condemn the remarks.
It may seem unnecessary to some, but I don't see why it's wrong of the US to do so.
 
  • #10
It is wrong because it has come to the point that other nations are afraid of what some American televangelist is saying.

What does that tell you of how the U.S. is perceived around the world?? Do you think we are seen as much better than the Taliban when things like this happen?
 
  • #11
He was a democraticaly elected president, he won with more that 50% of the votes, and he had win TWO, plebisites asking to stay or leave the presidency..

That is the ironic part, he talks about spreading democracy and then issues a death threat to a popular democratically elected president, whose last approval poll showed more than 70% of his nation backing him.
 
  • #12
Skyhunter said:
Does anyone actually believe this man is a Christian?
um, sounds about right to me.
 
  • #13
kcballer21 said:
SkyHunter said:
Does anyone actually believe this man is a Christian?
um, sounds about right to me.
That is really sad. :frown: :frown:
 
  • #14
Greg Palast or BBC has written a few reports on Robertson and Chavez. In my opinion they are excellent. His website also has links to BBC coverage of his reports.

Report on Robertson
http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=49&row=0

Report on why the Bush Admin is going after Chavez
http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=452&row=0

Related report on Rice's attack on Ecuador's elected president...similar to the attack on Chavez
http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=427&row=1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/23/chavez.gasoline.reut/index.html

Chavez offers cheap gas to poor in U.S.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
It's traditional to include information for what your link is about when you post it.. just a thought.
 
  • #17
MaxS said:
What does that tell you of how the U.S. is perceived around the world?? Do you think we are seen as much better than the Taliban when things like this happen?
I don't know if the US would be perceived much better regardless of this. This is a symptom, not a problem.
 
  • #18
Smurf said:
It's traditional to include information for what your link is about when you post it.. just a thought.

I aim to be non-traditional, it has been edited.
 
  • #19
Surely you remember he and Fall-Well making these statements?
 
  • #20
klusener said:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/23/chavez.gasoline.reut/index.html

Chavez offers cheap gas to poor in U.S.
I find it incredibly odd that the very last line of the article is
Chavez and Castro offered to give poor Americans free health care and train doctors free of charge.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: No other information, no details, no relation to the subject. Does this not deserve an article on it's own in the least?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
SOS2008 said:
Not only is he preaching politics from the pulpit, it is very un-Christ-like and hypocritical. Talk about someone we need to do away with. The only good thing is if people like Robertson keep spewing garbage, mainstream America is likely to push them back under the rocks they crawled out from under when Bush was elected.

America is well known for free speech...even if that free speech dooms reputations. I say, let him spew out the garbage, that way (intelligent and informed) Americans will have a better idea of what these religious "leaders" truly stand for.
 
  • #22
Smurf said:
I find it incredibly odd that the very last line of the article is :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: No other information, no details, no relation to the subject. Does this not deserve an article on it's own in the least?
Castro for President of the USA! Surely he can't do worse than the incumbent. :biggrin:
 
  • #23
Kerrie said:
America is well known for free speech...even if that free speech dooms reputations. I say, let him spew out the garbage, that way (intelligent and informed) Americans will have a better idea of what these religious "leaders" truly stand for.
It was just brought up on the BBC ... sure he's a private citizen and has a right to speak his mind however, he was also a private citizen in the running for the presidency and shares many of the same supporters who put and kept Bush in power.

It basically knocked the pegs out from under the administration that this 'religious leader' called for an illegal action on the world stage.

Many nations have stated this is a religious leader calling for an act of terrorism and they want to see if the USA is willing to apply their laws they are attempting to enforce on other countries.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Tuesday that Robertson has the right of any private citizen to say whatever he wants, but added that the televangelist's remarks "do not represent the views of the United States."

I lean toward as broad an application of the first amendment right as possible. But this case seems like incitement to violence. Isn't there a principal of law that such speech is not protected?
 
  • #25
jimmysnyder said:
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Tuesday that Robertson has the right of any private citizen to say whatever he wants, but added that the televangelist's remarks "do not represent the views of the United States."

I lean toward as broad an application of the first amendment right as possible. But this case seems like incitement to violence. Isn't there a principal of law that such speech is not protected?

I doubt it, if so, then the KKK would certainly have to be taken down. I don't see Robertson's words any better then the KKK having their marches through small towns. The KKK isn't well liked or respected by a majority because (we hope at least) American society has progressed beyond racism. Maybe someday Americans who support this kind of wrong religous garbage will question what it's worth and progress to religious tolerance as well. This sort of attitude is no better then what we accuse the religious terrorists of expressing.
 
  • #26
I don't understand how Roberston could still have any credibility or respect after he "concurred" with Falwell regarding 9/11 being God's punishment towards the U.S. because of the gays and lesbians.
 
  • #27
klusener said:
I don't understand how Roberston could still have any credibility or respect after he "concurred" with Falwell regarding 9/11 being God's punishment towards the U.S. because of the gays and lesbians.


i hope that our older (and much wiser!) readers won't take offense to this, but Pat R. is 75 years old, perhaps dementia might be setting in? or has he always been this outspoken about issues such as this? i remember a relative of mine had dementia and would say some really wild things that would leave you in shock if you didn't realize he had it.
 
  • #28
Most of his life Robertson has lived on and made a fortune on donations from fundamentalist Christians. He still knows how to pull their strings, even if it is accomplished by making outlandish statements. He has been doing it for years.

Ironically 30 years ago Christians especially southern Christians were predominately Democrats. In 1979 when the Reagan PR people convinced Jerry Falwell to head the "moral Majority", Robertson also had been considered for the job.

Robertson's ability to talk people into "giving" will probably be his last mental faculty to go. He is the con artist extrodinaire.

http://www.cbn.com/communitypublic/shake.asp
 
Last edited:
  • #29
jimmysnyder said:
I lean toward as broad an application of the first amendment right as possible. But this case seems like incitement to violence. Isn't there a principal of law that such speech is not protected?

Nope. Why do you think so many people get away with calling for President Bush's assassination (of course, no appology given)?

And I find it absolutely hilarious that people compare this to the Taliban. Last I checked, this guy didn't mastermind any aircraft hijackings... I guess sensationalism is the only way some people can get their shots in :rolleyes:
 
  • #30
Kerrie said:
i hope that our older (and much wiser!) readers won't take offense to this, but Pat R. is 75 years old, perhaps dementia might be setting in? or has he always been this outspoken about issues such as this? i remember a relative of mine had dementia and would say some really wild things that would leave you in shock if you didn't realize he had it.

When I get that old and if I have any power, I am going to say anything and everything! Intelligent design is scientific! 9/11 was a conspiracy! Canada is respectable!
 
  • #31
Pengwuino said:
And I find it absolutely hilarious that people compare this to the Taliban. Last I checked, this guy didn't mastermind any aircraft hijackings... I guess sensationalism is the only way some people can get their shots in :rolleyes:
Last I checked, neither did the Taliban. It was Al Qieda. :smile:
 
  • #32
Pengwuino said:
When I get that old and if I have any power, I am going to say anything and everything! Intelligent design is scientific! 9/11 was a conspiracy! Canada is respectable!
America's a Democracy ... Yeah, we get the message.
 
  • #33
The Smoking Man said:
Last I checked, neither did the Taliban. It was Al Qieda. :smile:
And last time I checked, neither did "Al Qieda." It was Al-Qaeda.

Just Kidding. :smile:

Edit: What a waste of my hundredth post...
 
  • #34
The Smoking Man said:
Last I checked, neither did the Taliban. It was Al Qieda. :smile:

Damn. Venture into this stupid thread and goof up like that. Last time I put my browser in places it doesn't belong.
 
  • #35
Archon said:
And last time I checked, neither did "Al Qieda." It was Al-Qaeda.

Just Kidding. :smile:

Edit: What a waste of my hundredth post...
Good sarcasm is never wasted. :wink:
 
  • #36
Pengwuino said:
Damn. Venture into this stupid thread and goof up like that. Last time I put my browser in places it doesn't belong.
Happens to us all. I made a mistake with some stats I was quoting to Russ. Hey, we ain't perfect. :biggrin:
 
  • #37
Archon said:
And last time I checked, neither did "Al Qieda." It was Al-Qaeda.

Just Kidding. :smile:

Edit: What a waste of my hundredth post...
One thing though ... since it is normally written in Arabic, who knows what the true spelling is ... It's kind of like the leader of Libya ... Col. What's-his-name.
 
  • #38
Pengwuino said:
Why do you think so many people get away with calling for President Bush's assassination
Name one.
Extra text added to satisfy a ridiculous criterion.
 
  • #39
Pengwuino said:
When I get that old and if I have any power, I am going to say anything and everything! Intelligent design is scientific! 9/11 was a conspiracy! Canada is respectable!
Oh don't stop there peng, you mind as well just go completely crazy and claim yanks have brains.
 
  • #40
jimmysnyder said:
Name one.
Extra text added to satisfy a ridiculous criterion.
Me... except you meant American right? Hmmm... that's tougher.
 
  • #41
Smurf said:
Me... except you meant American right? Hmmm... that's tougher.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you are not a U.S. citizen. If you were, perhaps you would be aware that the FBI takes such statements very seriously and investigates them very thoroughly. I asked you to name one because I assumed you would be unwilling to finger someone for such treatment.

I modify my question:
This case seems like incitement to violence. Isn't there a principal of U.S. law that such speech is not protected?
 
  • #42
Kerrie said:
I doubt it, if so, then the KKK would certainly have to be taken down.
I'm not talking about hate speech here, but rather incitement to violence.
 
  • #43
And I find it absolutely hilarious that people compare this to the Taliban. Last I checked, this guy didn't mastermind any aircraft hijackings... I guess sensationalism is the only way some people can get their shots in
Maybe not the current administration, but do you remember the departent of defence plans in 1962 to hijack civilian airlines, blow them up and then blame it on fidel castro so they can justify an invasion.

Operation Northwood

Page 10-11 of File (page 7-8 of Joint Chiefs report)

A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in Government/Northwood Documents/northwood_8.jpg

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in Government/Northwood Documents/northwood_10.jpg
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base: start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires – naphthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.

We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington

Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At the designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone.

The drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.
 
  • #44
If you want to see a coup from the inside, if you want to see how is it that the cia overtrow democraticaly elected goverments. Then you have to see: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised", it's an hour length documentary about the failed coup in venezuela, it has action, drama, and it's very informative., I highly recommend it, it's a must see...

Try "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" in some p2p program (Kazza, emule)
Try this link for bittorrent:
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2407/Chavez - The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.vcd-mpg(1

http://www.chavezthefilm.com/index_ex.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
The consensus at work here is that Robertson caught wind of a covert government plan to eliminate Chavez and made this announcement in order to warn Chavez and scuttle the plan.
 
  • #46
jimmysnyder said:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you are not a U.S. citizen. If you were, perhaps you would be aware that the FBI takes such statements very seriously and investigates them very thoroughly. I asked you to name one because I assumed you would be unwilling to finger someone for such treatment.

I modify my question:
This case seems like incitement to violence. Isn't there a principal of U.S. law that such speech is not protected?
It's kind of a grey area. Threatening a person with violence is a criminal offense (I think it's something like 3rd degree assault or similar). On the other hand, the threat has to have some kind of credibility.

Your kid makes a horrible mess and you make the comment to a neighbor "I could just kill him", it would be an extreme long shot that you could be convicted of assault.

A senile old man saying something like that isn't a credible threat. A senile religious leader saying that on TV to millions of fundamental Christians is about on a par with Osama Bin Laden's calls to incite other Islamic fundamentalists against Europe and the US. Incredibly enough, Pat Robertson has managed to cross the line from respected religious leader and former Presidential candidate to international terrorist!

Of course, senile is the key word. He's never going to actually be charged with a crime. However, he ought to be taken off the air, both for his own good and the good of the public.
 
  • #47
Burnsys said:
Maybe not the current administration, but do you remember the departent of defence plans in 1962 to hijack civilian airlines, blow them up and then blame it on fidel castro so they can justify an invasion.

How exactly is Pat Robertson responsible for actions taken by the DOD?

By the way, the only scenario in which Robertson could be found guilty of a crime here is if he had any pull whatsoever in what the US does on the world stage. His calling for the assassination of a foreign leader is vacuous because he has no power to order, or even to influence the order, of such an action. If being an idiot and making stupid, nonsensical statements were illegal, Robertson would have been put away a long time ago. As it stands, he's made a fortune out of being such a dolt.

One last thing: If one could really be prosecuted for the advocating the assassination of a foreign leader, imagine how many people would have to be prosecuted. Everyone that advocated the assassination of Saddam rather than military invasion would be locked up. We could never have an open discussion on whether or not assassination should be legal, as those calling for its legalization could be construed as advocating violent action. Heck, what about the millions of people out there that think we should be going to war with Iran or North Korea? Should we lock them up for incitement of violence? Don't be so quick to want to put someone away for simply being an idiot. It is their right.
 
  • #48
People can always be counted on to assert, with vigor, their God-given right to be stupid.
I don't know who said it, but I thought it apropos.
 
  • #49
[sarcasm]

Here's the problem people, everyone simply misunderstood the meaning of "take hime out". Good'ol Pat didn't mean assassinate, he meant to 'take him out' for tea and crumpets or an ice cream float. He mean 'take him out' shopping buy him a broach because a float and a broach would cost less than the 200+ billion being used in Iraq. See, Pat just wanted to be nice to Mr. Chavez like any good christian. Mr. Robertson was simply advocating a cheap date...

[/sarcasm]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
he meant...
[sing]
Take him out to the ball game... take him out with the crowd...
[/sing]
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top