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

  • Thread starter Thread starter klusener
  • Start date Start date
Click For 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.
  • #61
I can forgive him for mis-speaking but not for deliberatly lying.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
I can forgive him for making an idiotic statement, but not for being an idiot.
 
  • #63
loseyourname said:
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.
Actually, there's another way he could be found guilty of a crime.

Osama Bin Laden had no pull with any government capable of attacking the US. Bin Laden did have money and followers loyal enough to him to die for him.

Ultimately, it's the planning and funding of terrorist acts that makes Bin Laden guilty. Had he just had fanatical followers that would plan, fund, and carry out their own individual terrorist acts, it would be much harder to hold him personally responsible, legally. But, if he was able to achieve the same ends just by inspirational speeches alone - if local groups listened to him and were inspired to fly airplanes into buildings on their own (the idea didn't come from Bin Laden, although he funded it once the idea was brought to his attention), build and plant subway bombs on their own, and on a frequent and persistent enough basis, wouldn't we still have to act?

To be fair, Robertson never called on his followers to suddenly infiltrate Venezuela and start trying to assasinate Chavez - it was pretty clear that he meant the US military or CIA should. This particular incident falls way short of being a criminal act.

Still, Robertson, Fallwell, et al, do influence the behavior of a sizable group of people. There's things Robertson could say that shouldn't be protected as 'free speech' even if the average person could say the exact same thing with no consequences. It would fall under the exact same category as if some 250 lb guy in a black leather jacket and body piercings tells all the old people on the street "If you want to walk down my street without being in constant fear of being beaten and sodomized, the best thing you could do is pay me $50 a month -- in my opinion, of course".
 
  • #64
Jesus stopped Roberson's California refinery plans

During the california energy crisis Robertson purchased a non operating oil refinery. (With funds from his supporters) He also proposed building a power plant next to the refinery.

The plans came to a halt after successful protests by an local environmental group.
The leader of the environmetal activist group was JESUS Torres. :smile:



CBE Fact Sheet - Pat Robertson's Proposed Power Plant


Update on Pat Robertson's Power Plant in Los Angeles
Televangelist Pat Robertson has proposed a power plant be built on the site of a shut down refinery owned by CENCO Refining Company in Santa Fe Springs. The power plant would supply energy to the CENCO refinery. Robertson has served as president of CENCO and his charitable trust has been funding the company. Robertson recently met with City officials and is in discussions with the California Energy Commission about the idea.

http://www.cbecal.org/alerts/power/pPR070601.shtml

I doubt Robertson had any plans on giving the refined gasoline to the poor. I post this primarily as an example of how many pies this man has had his fingers in.
 
Last edited by a moderator: