Pat Robertson and the power of free speech

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Power
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Pat Robertson's controversial statements and their implications for free speech, religious influence, and societal reactions. Participants explore the nature of his comments, their historical context, and the potential consequences for communities and individuals. The conversation touches on themes of religious teachings, media coverage, and the intersection of politics and religion.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern over Robertson's claims of doom for those who oppose religious teachings, questioning the sanity of such statements.
  • Others speculate on the potential impact of Robertson's comments on residents of specific communities, suggesting that they may feel abandoned or unprotected.
  • A few participants note that Robertson has a history of making outrageous statements, with some arguing that his motivations may be tied to a desire for power and financial gain.
  • Some contributions highlight Robertson's past comments, including calls for violence against political figures, raising questions about the implications of such rhetoric.
  • There are inquiries into whether Robertson's statements have changed over time, with some suggesting that his tone has shifted since his presidential run.
  • One participant raises concerns about the mental health of Robertson, suggesting that his remarks could be indicative of a deeper issue.
  • Others challenge the idea of free speech in the context of Robertson's statements, questioning whether they could incite violence or be considered "thought crimes."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of Robertson's statements or their validity. Multiple competing views are presented regarding his mental state, the appropriateness of his comments, and the societal impact of his influence.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference historical statements made by Robertson without resolving the accuracy or context of those claims. The discussion includes varying interpretations of free speech and its limits, particularly in relation to incitement and public safety.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the intersections of religion, politics, and free speech, as well as those examining the influence of media on public perception of controversial figures.

  • #31
Manchot said:
So, if some other "religious nut" did decide to assassinate Chavez because of what Robertson said, how would that make him any different than bin Laden?
bin Laden recruits, trains, arms and funds terrorists. Before 9/11 he had special training camps, probably still does, although more discreet.

Robertson isn't doing any of that. If some nut decides to go through with what Robertson talks about, it still doesn't make Robertson a terrorist.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
It depends on how specific his statements are, but there is a law against "terroristic threats". Plus, if someone actually did shoot the President of Mexico and said he was "inspired" by Robertson, it could be possible to charge Robertson with a lesser charge of murder (not sure how that applies internationally).

But yeah - tough to call someone who is all talk a "terrorist".

And Penguino's point is valid - we've had quite a number of people here make suggestions/threats of violent acts. By your definition, Art, those people would be terrorists.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Evo said:
bin Laden recruits, trains, arms and funds terrorists. Before 9/11 he had special training camps, probably still does, although more discreet.
Robertson isn't doing any of that. If some nut decides to go through with what Robertson talks about, it still doesn't make Robertson a terrorist.

I know it's a little off topic but, evo, do you know who, recruited, funded armed and trained OBL and the mujaidin?
 
  • #34
Burnsys said:
I know it's a little off topic but, evo, do you know who, recruited, funded armed and trained OBL and the mujaidin?
If you are referring to US aid, it's common knowledge. I suppose you know it was to help them regain control of their own government, not to terrorize civilians of other countries. And you're right, it has nothing to do with the topic.
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
Plus, if someone actually did shoot the President of Mexico and said he was "inspired" by Robertson,
don't you mean venezuela?
 
  • #36
Smurf said:
don't you mean venezuela?

Well, if some nut killed the president of any country and claimed that Robertson incited him, Robertson could be charged if there was enough evidence. It's not an easy thing to prove, though, especially since Robertson didn't call for a follower of his to assassinate Mr. Chavez. He called for US covert ops to do it.
 
  • #37
i wonder if the secret service or the fbi visited pat Robertson and O'Reilly after advocating terrorism...

But we are sure they visited this schoolkid becouse he "had taken a photo of George Bush out of a magazine and tacked the picture to a wall with a red thumb tack through his head."
http://www.alternet.org/walmart/26503/

" The Secret Service questioned a 15-year-old boy last week and confiscated drawings he made depicting President Bush as the devil"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/28/national/main614193.shtml
 
  • #38
Smurf said:
don't you mean venezuela?
Yes, sorry. Anyway, here's the quote:
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...

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.
Anyway, I threw out that "terroristic threats" thing largely as a hypothetical. Since he doesn't threaten to do it himself and he isn't calling for his followers to do it, it doesn't qualify.
 
  • #39
Skyhunter said:
He always has on his television show, although he did change hhis tone when he ran for president.

He did? I seem to recall reading that he advocated instituting a 'prayer police' squad, where the 'cops' would 'pray' for guidance, and when 'God' responded to them to tell them that someone was doing something 'evil', they had full authority to arrest him.

EDIT: Can't seem to track down a source on that, so it may not be reputable.

Those people are the worst threat to rational thought on the face of the planet.

Pat Roberson Quotes
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
28K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K