| permalink |
10 Responses to “[Robertson: U.S. should 'take out' Venezuela's Chavez]”
Leave a Reply
You can track future comments on this post via this RSS feed. You can trackback this post by pinging this URL. Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Whenever i run across the 700 Club on tv (thank you, ABC Family!), laser beams come out of my eyes and my pets run for cover. What Would Jesus Say, indeed! I feel as though American Christianity has officially drowned in political mud. It’s everywhere I look, no wonder I can’t commit to a church. And I’m still ready to punch someone over the Harding post you wrote last night.
I wonder, also, how Pat Robertson can all himself Christian and call for the murder of a fellow human being.
How can you love your enemies when you’re busy advocating their death?
My favorite quote from the CNN article:
Hmmm, you never know what those sneaky Muslim extremists are up to. Posing as Catholics, maybe. Yeah.
Man, I really hope the “project” I told you about gets off the ground. It will be the perfect platform for addressing THIS sort of thing, especially as it relates to Churches of Christ.
How is Robertson different to Al Quaeda? This guy is a worry.
Wait a minute. Robertson is saying, almost in the same breath:
a) We need to defend our country from Islamic extremists, because they want to kill us in the service of their ideological aims.
b) We should kill the leader of a sovereign nation in the service of our ideological aims.
So, let me get this straight. An Islamic leader who calls for the murder of others is a terrorist, but a Christian leader who does so is a patriot and a champion for the faith. Hm.
Not sure why the post appears below the comment box again. Weird. Doesn’t happen on any other posts.
I don’t condone what Robertson suggested as a solution, but however misled, I don’t equate it with terrorism. Terrorism is the taking of innocent lives in order to achieve notoriety for one’s cause. A justifiable political assassination (assuming for the moment that there are circumstances under which it could be justifiable) would kill one criminal leader in order to save many innocent lives. For most, especially when considering the assassination of someone like Hitler, this isn’t incompatible with Christian charity. Robertson is hardly a terrorist, and his suggestion—however misguided—is hardly a terrorist threat, though some, including the Venezuelan VP, choose to portray it as such.
It’s not widely reported in the mainstream media that Chavez is anti-American, and pro-Communist. In addition, since Venezuela is a major oil exporter, he’s able to disrupt the world economy by either whim or negligence. In this time of high oil prices and anti-American sentiment, it’s not surprising that Chavez threatens many. I hate to be guilty of ageism, but Robertson’s remarks sound like those of someone’s aging grandfather. The only difference is that most aging grandfathers don’t have TV shows. Their remarks are taken neither for terrorism or blasphemy, but simply for what they are: the uninhibited ramblings of an old man. When taken with a grain of discernment, some of these ramblings may even be instructive. All things considered, our shock and outrage would be better directed elsewhere (take your pick of tragedies and travesties).
THX-
I don’t see how killing Chavez would save any lives. Robertson himself didn’t even pull any punches - he said it was about oil and the spread of communism. That might have been a compelling argument before Vietnam, but we’ve been there, done that, and suffered immeasurably as a result.
A terrorist is someone who kills non-combatants to further their ideological goals. That’s what Robertson is advocating, which makes him a terrorist in the vein of al-Zarqawi. The fact that he’s been less successful at inspiring others to obey him doesn’t change his status, just as the fact that al-Zarqawi may not have killed anyone personally doesn’t mean he isn’t a terrorist.
Justin-
I don’t see how killing Chavez would save any lives, either, but in Robertson’s mind Chavez is a direct threat, not a non-combatant. (Personally, I can only see Chavez as an indirect threat.) I admit that this type of reasoning confuses the definition of terrorism in the same way that calling Robertson a terrorist does, though: perhaps al-Zarqawi and his ilk see innocents working in skyscrapers as a direct threat—that would relieve them of the terroist lable. Let’s not get confused.
It’s unfortunate that Robertson makes these kind of indiscriminate remarks as a high profile Christian leader, and it’s also unfortunate that the remarks have lessened the weight of the message of Chavez as a potential danger. I must say again, though, that Robertson is not a terrorist; he’s an old Southern man talking s**t. If we call every old man who’s talking s**t a terrorist, we’re simply s**tting ourselves, playing into the terrorists hands, and (IMO) sullying the memory of those who’ve died in real terrorist attacks.