BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment

Subject: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:27 PM

Pat Robertson

"On Monday, Robertson said on the Christian Broadcast Network's The 700 Club: "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,' he said of the democratically elected Chavez.

'It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.'

U.S. critics of Robertson said they were deeply troubled by the evangelist's remarks.

'It's absolutely chilling to hear a religious leader call for the murder of any political leader, no matter how much he disagrees with such a leader's policies or practices,' said one of them, Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State."

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:57 PM

Doesn't that count as incitement to terrorism? Just as it would if anyone were to make the same suggestion about Bush.

Isn't your "Patriot Act" supposed to mean that anyone talking like that is liable to have their collar felt?

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:03 PM

Well, the Venezuelan government certainly thinks it counts as incitement to terrorism.

But the "Patriot Act" only applies to people the Bush adminstration doesn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:05 PM

I think that all the liquor Pat Robertson "guarded" during the Korean War has caught up with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:16 PM

And a good Christian gentleman he is, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:22 PM

He gives Christians a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:43 PM

If its cheaper to murder a president than have another $200 billion war then...


btw

is there any truth to the rumor that the Bush daughters have joined the Alabama National Guard and they too have not been seen since?

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:47 PM

How this man can call himself a "Christian" is beyond me. He more than amply demonstrates that he hasn't a clue!!

(Bloodthirsty bastard!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:52 PM

Well, I agree with him that it might be cheaper in many ways to assainate someone rather than fighting a war. Think of Hitler, for instance.

But not because of what they MIGHT do or because you disagree with them. Nossir. If that went I'd start packin' a gun, because we'd be back in the wild west of the movies.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:18 PM

If the implication that taking him out was a murderous act and not a political one then he is no Christian! Does someone have the actual quote from him please?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: curmudgeon
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:23 PM

We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:26 PM

"We have the ability to take him (Chavez) 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," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

"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," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:35 PM

It goes beyond anything political, Georgiansilver. Robertson is advocating killing a democratically elected president of a sovereign nation because that president is thinking about selling oil to other countries besides the US, and Robertson believes that the US has a right to all of Venezuela's oil.

Robertson has, in essence, said that it is permissible, within the framework of his belief system, to kill people in order to take whatever they have that you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:37 PM

I thought Janus-the-two-faced Divinity was a Roman deity, not a Christian one. Which cult is it he is in charge of?? I forget...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:46 PM

Christians per-se are required by the word of God (the Bible) to support their government/managers etc but to pray that they make the right decisions in every area of their power. Anyone who advocates violence or causing the death of someone in power shows little of the Christian virtues that God expects. However, who am I to judge such a person...and what should I do about him anyway? Food for thought eh?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: PoppaGator
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:47 PM

I disagree with the (supposedly) "Reverend" Mr. Robertson about almost everything, but I'm with him on the general idea this time. (Not with his choice of target, necessarily, but with the methodology.)

Warfare is stupid and wasteful, and huge numbers of more-or-less innocent people lose their lives over political and governmental differences. Why kill thousands of civilians and young soldiers when it's the leaders, heads-of-state, etc., with whom you have a disagreement?

Certainly, the current "war on terrorism" would make a lot more sense if Al-Quida leaders had been targeted by elite assassination squads, rather than Iraqi cities pummelled by saturation bombardment.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:00 PM

You don't have to do anything about it, Georgiansilver. Not even judge him. But it is possible to protest his behavior without judging him personally, if one is so inclined.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:02 PM

PoppaGator, do you think the US has a right to interfere with the governments of other countries in order to secure access to oil?

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:20 PM

I seem to remember Bush warning that any government which tolerated terrorists and provided a safe place for people who preach terrorism were going to be treated as enemies in this war in terror he was promoting.

So, if it fails to go after this Robertson character, the government of the USA would appear to fall into that category, and can expect to be treated as an enemy regime by the government of the USA.

This is getting complicated...

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:21 PM

Carol C..one cannot protest someones behaviour without making some kind of judgement on the person or their words. God is the judge not me or you or anyone else....we all make choices...if we are right..all will be O.K if not...who knows?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:39 PM

It is most certainly possible to make a determination that a behavior is unacceptible without judging the person who engages in the behavior. And sometimes it is necessary for us to stand up to behavior that we find unacceptible. For instance, during the period of segregation here in the US. If some people had not decided that segregation was unacceptible and decided to stand up to it, it might never have been done away with. All changes in any societal context begin with people determining that some behaviors are unacceptible, and then doing something about them. It is not necessary to judge the people engaging in those behaviors in order to decide not to tolerate the behaviors themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:40 PM

I take it this is the same Mr Robertson who in the 1990s tried to arrange a deal between his organisation and the Bank of Scotland.

Account holders protested en masse and the bank was forced to withdraw.
Mr Robertsons views were obviously acceptable to the bankers but not to the Scottish people.

Political assasination should not seem outlandish to Americans, given the number of times Fidel has been targeted by the US .

It does look as if something is happening politically in most of South America...A new way of government concentrating on equality.
Lets hope Its given a chance to flourish...could be the beginning of the end for "bloody capitalism"..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:47 PM

I've just watched that piece on the news. To me, it is clear that the man was talking about an assassination. How anyone who professes to love God can make comments like this is beyond me.

It will be interesting to see what is done by the authorities, if anything. If he is not taken to task in some way the Bush government is going to be shown up, once again, for the hypocritical farce that it is. But what will he care? He hasn't got to worry about being re-elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:50 PM

One cannot accept that behaviour is unacceptable without making some kind of judgement. Sorry but that is a fact. Not for me or you to judge really.....or is it?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 07:03 PM

You need to consider the difference between judging the behavior and judging the person, Georgiansilver. There really is a difference. And of course it is for me to judge the behavior, if my conscience tells me to. If you saw someone in the process of murdering someone else, would you just stand by and watch, telling yourself that it's not for you to judge the behavior? Or would you do something to try to intervene?

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 07:03 PM

From CNN.com:

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."

"His comments are inappropriate and, as we have said before, any allegations that we are planning to take hostile action against the Venezuelan government are completely baseless and without fact," McCormack said.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 07:04 PM

Yes. We must all judge or what is the point of the vote and democracy. We have choices based on our judgement. Do you vote? Then you have made a judgement on the policies you wish to support.
Then again, like so many Christians, you may have stood and watched Hitler's rise and said..I can't judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 07:06 PM

Robertson has the right of any private citizen to say whatever he wants
Then can someone explain the point of the patriot Act?

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 07:10 PM

That's nothing the least strained about that distinction Carol is making there. Pretty standard religious doctrine in fact. "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner" and so forth.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 07:35 PM

As I understand it, in Dante's Inferno (which I admit I have not read in its entirety), the lowest level of Hell is reserved for those who maintain a "colorlessly neutral"—those who do not wish to get involved. In short, those who are unwilling to judge the behavior of others, especially when that behavior is reprehensible.

Rather than "judge not, lest ye be judged," it is far more courageous to judge, and be prepared to be judged for the judgments you make.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 08:20 PM

It is a far different thing for Mister RObertson to speak his mind as a citizen than it is to speak it as the leader of a million-viewer televangelism club. He is posing ads a spiritual leader. Politically or militarily, killing one man might be brilliant compared to invading a nation and killing thousands. But oddly enough both Bush and Robertson think it is the business of CHristianity to opt for killing in general, despite their verbal assurances that they belong to a cult which honors the commandments "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" as divine instruction; both these men profess faith and adherence to this cult. How does one explain, then, this proclivity for wishing death on others?

We used to have a word of condemnation, hypocrisy, for this kind of duplicity. It is smarmy, covertly destructive, the mark of the jackal and the carrion-eater. But hypocrisy is considered by our sophisticated population as an inevitable part of living. The ideals of simple honesty, integrity, having a "word" which was reliable and so on, are quaint notions now.

Maybe they always were, but they were once at least given better lip-service than they are today.

Is it possible for someone like Robertson to stand still and speak out of both sides of his face at once, saying "Yes, I am devout and Christian, but murder is sometimes the most Christian thing I can think of doing..." ?? I do not htink so. I think he must squirm in a sort of blackened self-loathing, and I expect he enjoys good drink in fairly good quantity when he needs to be alone for any period of time and run the risk of noticing what he is really doing.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: GUEST,know all
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 08:54 PM

Who is right and who is wrong? You tell me!

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 08:57 PM

God may have to forgive me for it, but there is no way on earth that I can even pretend to myself that I love Pat Robertson. If I had known whether to take the "late" Martin Gibson for what he presented himself to be, I think I could have come closer to mustering a small amount of respect for "him" than I can for Robertson.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Truthful Commentary
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 08:59 PM

Don Firth, you never read ANY book in it's entirety.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: GUEST,know all
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 08:59 PM

Blessed be the peacemakers for they shall inherit....and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Cluin
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:34 PM

Pat Robertson is an inbred spooky little nutjob that nobody should take seriously.

He also watches too many movies and TV shows if he thinks some sort of supercommando force exists out there, perhaps led by Stallone or Swartzenegger or Norris. If they exist, why weren't they utilized in Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran or Libya or... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:47 PM

Yeah, I can't remember anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus talked about takin' folks out???

There was a time when I liked Pat, but he has gone well over the deep end...

This is too much!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:48 PM

If McCormack says Robertson has the right as a private citizen to speak his mind, then Donuel shouldn't have to end his statement in a fog of implication.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:56 PM

The State Department is probably pissed off at Robertson for stupidly blathering about an event they were seriously considering.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 11:05 PM

The problem with hyprocital idiots like P.R. is that he would be horrified if other countries publicly expressed the same sentiments about taking out The US President... oh, wait on... must be OK then...


"Blessed be the peacemakers"

Pax Americana!


"some sort of supercommando force exists out there"

That's the Australian Special Forces, mate!

"why weren't they utilized in Afghanistan or Iraq"

They were, mate!

"or Iran or Libya or..."

Shhh! They're not 'official' yet, and Little Johnny with his new 'USA Psuedo Peace Award' doesn't want to let the cat out of the bag yet!

What? Me Paranoid?

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 11:13 PM

Don:

I think we need to 'ware the slippery slope there.

Judgement is a requirement for effective action, and judgement on the decisions and actions of people whose live intersect with yours is a necessary thing; we can only hope for wisdom and insight.

But being judgmental toward individuals just on general principle is spiritually toxic, the posture of gossips and busybodies and book-banners. The old Indian saying about walking a mile in another's moccasins comes to mind. This sort of non-judgemental view is very different from silence based on fear or the inability to assess and decide matters. The two should not be confused.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 11:36 PM

If I called for the killing of an American leader I would be arrested.
(believe me, I've had to deal with the Secret Service before)
If I call for the murder of a foriegn leader - I might be praised but not arrested.

What if:   If Chavez is killed then Robertson could very well be charged with the conspiracy to murder...but I doubt if the administration will allow his extradition to Caracas.

Bill Mahre: "Robertson is a urine soaked idiot with a bull horn and squeegee yelling on the street corner to listen to him. If TV religion hadn't paid off so well he might well be spouting his urine soaked rhetoric on the street corner instead of a multi million dollar Christian network.

All in all Pat Robertson makes a good case for unintelligent design.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 12:36 AM

LOL, GUEST,23 Aug 05 - 10:56 PM. I suppose I should thank him then.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 12:58 AM

No particular confusion here, Amos.

In normal day-to-day existence, I am not at all judgmental. Live and let live. As long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, whatever turns somebody's crank is okay with me.

But when someone says or does something that is so blatantly wrong, especially if what that person says or does could influence others, I feel that one is ethically and morally remiss not to make that judgment and speak out.

Don Firth

P. S. And whoever or whatever that bit of static up above was, I average about a book and a half a week—all the way through—and have done so since I was a teenager. That works out to well over 2,000 books. All the way through. Fiction, non-fiction, I'm a generally omnivorous reader. I do, however, follow Nancy Pearl's (Book Lust) principle that if a book hasn't captured my interest in the first fifty pages, I might just set it aside and pick up something else. The walls of our apartment are lined with bookshelves, several thousand volumes of various kinds, most of which I have read, others are reference, which I consult often.

I can read fairly rapidly because when I read, I don't have to move my lips.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: PoppaGator
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 01:04 PM

PoppaGator, do you think the US has a right to interfere with the governments of other countries in order to secure access to oil?

Sorry not to have responded sooner ~ there are two current htrreads on this topic, and I didn't remember the (rather generic) title of this one.

No, of course I do not think the US (or any nation-state) necessarily has a right to interfere with other governments. However, most nations have done so at various times, by waging war.

Anyone who understands the message of Jesus Christ the way I do believes that it is wrong to kill people for any reason, certainly not for any political/ideological/economic reason. Sadly, however, far too few of us share that understanding. Most members of established Christian religions (including the leadership) seem to believe that mass murder is perfectly OK when mandated by the secular ruling class.

As I tried to make clear earlier, I almost always find myself in disagreement with Pat Robertson, and certainly disagree with his choice of targets in this instance. HOWEVER: in a situation where political/economic "reality" seems to mandate that violence be perpetrated towards some deisred end, a "surgial" strike against one or two overprivileged individuals seems to me to be infinitely preferable to the mobilization of thousands of young recruits to commit widespread mayhem against the lives and property of an entire rival nation.

It is beyond me that the destruction of multiple lives and acres of property (i.e., people's homes and workplaces) is somehow more acceptable than the assassination of an "enemy" ruler or two. If you believe in anyone getting killed over money and politics, that is...

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: GUEST,Zadok
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 01:31 PM

I suppose there is something to be said for assassination as an alternative to a war of aggression. But it might be more appropriate to think in terms of assassinating the leader planning the war of aggression, rather than the leader of the country he was planning to attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 02:59 PM

As I just noted in the "Kill the President" thread: Robertson now says he was misinterpreted, and that "take him out" could mean any number of things, such as kidnapping. I guess a man who knows that a substantial number of people are dumb enough to send him large amounts of money could be expected to get the idea that people in general are gullible totally and without limit. It really does beg belief, though, if he thinks he can get "off the hook" with that follow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:20 PM

"Take him out" - of course it might just have meant take him out for a slap-up meal.

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:23 PM

Except for the part where he says, "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"

Subject: RE: BS: Hmmm.... Noted Without Comment
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 08:24 PM

I don't often find myself agreeing totally with Donuel, but on this one he's right.

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

That really is a wonderful piece of reasoning.

I think you're trying to buy me a car, so you ought to go ahead and do it...