Blogcritics: Comments on White House, Religious Right Fail To "Condemn" Robertson's Fatwa

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:34:46 EDT

You must have been reading a different set of quotes from the self-serving pack of transparent lies I was reading. Dave

Comment by John

Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:28:32 EDT

Gee, I can see what it really shows is the depth of compassion that Hugo Chavez has for others and what a rational mind he has compared to the pathetic stupid excuse for a human being you appear to be. Thanks for pointing how what a sorry case you are :0

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:12:24 EDT

Thanks for the quotes from Chavez. Nothing points out what a paranoid lunatic he is better thann his own words. Dave

Comment by Zorro3

Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:04:47 EDT

On October 10, 2003, Pat Robertson suggested that the State Department be incinerated with a nuclear weapon. He said this in an interview with Joel Mowbray, regarding his book, 'Dangerous Diplomacy. How the State Department Threatens American Security.' The evangelist said after he read Mowbray's book, he thought, "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom [Washington neighborhood where the State Department's building is located], I think that's the answer," Robertson declared. "I mean, you get through this, and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.'" (Rumor has it that Pat Robinson conspired to have a prostitute with AIDS bump off George Bush. The conspiracy involved luring Bush to the streetwalker using a toy monkey stuffed with cocaine and a case of beer as bait)

Comment by Zorro3

Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:43:22 EDT

Hugo Chavez (Democratically Elected President of Venezuela): 2005 edition of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil: At the Forum, President Chavez listed attempts by the US to drive him out of power. "But we resisted, and now have gone on the offensive. For instance, we recovered our oil industry... In 2004, from the oil industry budget we utilized $4 billion in social investments, education, health, micro-credits, scholarships, and housing, aimed at the poorest of the poor, what neoliberals call waste of money. But that is not a waste of money because it is aimed at empowering the poor so that they can defeat poverty. He added that "that money before stayed out of Venezuela or just benefited the rich." "Privatization is a neoliberal and imperialist plan. Health can't be privatized because it is a fundamental human right, nor can education, water, electricity and other public services. They can't be surrendered to private capital that denies the people their rights." Chavez highlighted the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a proposal made by Venezuela in opposition to the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), and which emphasizes social and cultural exchanges above profit-based economic deals. "We can't wait for a sustained economic growth of 10 years in order to start reducing poverty through the trickledown effect, as the neoliberal economic theories propose." He praised the cooperation with Cuba, which, along with several Central American countries, receives Venezuelan oil at below market prices, in exchange for assistance in healthcare, education, agriculture and other areas. He highlighted that about 20.000 Cuban doctors work in Venezuela at free medical clinics in poor neighborhoods, and that Venezuela has used a Cuban literacy method approved by UNESCO that has allowed more than 1.3 million Venezuelans learn how to read and write. He said Venezuela is using Cuban vaccines, which now allow poor children to be vaccinated against diseases such as hepatitis." President Chavez criticized media distortions of alleged plans by him Castro to "spread Communism" in the Americas, "overthrow governments" and set up guerrillas', he said "after 10 years it seems like we haven't been very successful." "Cuba has its own profile and Venezuela has its own, and we have respect for each other, but we celebrate accords and advance together for the interest of our peoples." He said that any aggression from the U.S. against either country will have to confront all the Latin American countries, "because we are united in spirit from Mexico down to the Patagonia." Chavez said U.S.-Venezuela political relations are unhealthy because of "permanent aggressions from there". He criticized U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice who recently asserted that Chavez was "a negative force in the region." He said those relations will stay unhealthy as long as the U.S. continues its policies of aggression. "The most negative force in the world today is the government of the United States," he said. Look at Vietnam, look at Iraq and Cuba resisting, and now look at Venezuela." In reference to the recommendations of some of his close advisors, he said that "some people say that we cannot say nor do anything that can irritate those in Washington." He repeated the words of Argentine independence hero José de San Martin "let's be free without caring about anyone else says." "When imperialism feels weak, it resorts to brute force. The attacks on Venezuela are a sign of weakness, ideological weakness. Nowadays almost nobody defends neoliberalism." "Just look at the internal repression inside the United States, the Patriot Act, which is a repressive law against U.S. citizens. They have put in jail a group of journalists for not revealing their sources. They won't allow them to take pictures of the bodies of the dead soldiers, many of them Latinos, coming from Iraq. Those are signs of Goliath's weaknesses." "The south also exists... the future of the north depends on the south. If we don't make that better world possible, if we fail, and through the rifles of the U.S. Marines, and through Mr. Bush's murderous bombs, if there is no coincidence and organization necessary in the south to resist the offensive of neo-imperialism, and the Bush doctrine is imposed upon the world, the world will be destroyed," he said. Chavez warned of drastic global weather changes that would bring catastrophic events if no action is taken soon, in reference to uncontrolled or little regulated industrial activity. Chavez added that perhaps before those drastic changes take place, there will be rebellions everywhere "because the peoples are not going to accept in peace impositions such as neoliberalism or such as colonialism." He said all empires come to an end. "One day the decay inside U.S. imperialism will end up toppling it, and the great people of Martin Luther King will be set free. The great people of the United States are our brothers, my salute to them." "We must start talking again about equality. The U.S. government talks about freedom and liberty, but never about equality. "They are not interested in equality. This is a distorted concept of liberty. The U.S. people, with whom we share dreams and ideals, must free themselves... A country of heroes, dreamers, and fighters, the people of Martin Luther King, and Cesar Chavez." "Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But I'm also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington," he said.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:49:19 EDT

Hmm is it time to condemn me? Dave

Comment by Steve S

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:23:56 EDT

Are you calling for an assassination? I know not much will happen to hold Robertson accountable for his words. There's not much that can be done there. Christianity though, seems to have sufferred a massive pr hit, throughout the world. And not much can be done there either.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:53:55 EDT

>>and the fact that American Christians STILL don't do anything about it, contributes to the fact.<< Perhaps an evangelical hit squad should snuff him? Dave

Comment by Phillip Winn

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:13:59 EDT

Steve S, it's difficult, because Protestant Christianity lacks a central authority. Were Robertson part of the Roman Catholic Church, it's quite possible he'd be out of a job already. But Robertson is independent, and therefore under no authority whatsoever. All we Christians can do is not send the guy money or watch his show. But then, I've done that for years, since I've thought he shamed himself by getting involved in politics in the first place. I think we'll find in the coming months and years that more and more Christians withhold support from him, which will eventually lead to him cutting back on airtime. Then again, Christians are (or should be) know for forgiveness, so maybe they'll largely naively 'forgive' him and confuse that with sparing him repercussions. That would be a shame.

Comment by Steve S

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:40:38 EDT

Mark, your assumption that I don't feel the same about Muslim clerics is erroneous.

Comment by Steve S

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:39:37 EDT

Phil, I understand that. Perhaps condemned was the wrong word. I did ask, in general - to no one in particular, what 'condemn' meant. When I say he wasn't condemned, perhaps it's better to say there are no visible repercussions.

Comment by Mark the Sane and Sensible

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:35:09 EDT

"and the fact that American Christians STILL don't do anything about it, contributes to the fact." Christians will do something when Muslims put a muzzle on their clerics to STFU about killing Jews and Christians. The double standard put forward by you libbie pukes is just sickening.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:27:53 EDT

Dave N, Pat Robertson made a political statement, sure, but he did so within the context of a religious broadcast. Steve S, when you say "I would say that he has not been condemned by Christians at all," you are demonstrating that you haven't been paying attention. The outcry from all quarters of Christianity has been deafening. Warren has outlined just a fraction of the negative response here at Blogcritics.org. However, Robertson pays for his airtime, and my guess is that the stations carrying his show are afraid to run into issues related to free expression. I'm a Christian, and I've condemned him. Warren is a Christian, and he's condemened him. Warren also listed others, including card-carrying public figures who are members of the "religious right," who have condemned him. So your statement is simply false. If you mean that he's managed to stay on the air an entire week after making the statement, well, yeah. He's 70-something. I think most of us are hoping he'll retire sooner rather than later.

Comment by Steve S

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:14:27 EDT

Steve, Robertson's position on Chavez wasn't a religious statement - like many of his other lunatic statements - it was purely political. Dave, I understand everything you are saying. That is not my point. My point is that he is a Reverend. He is not a Reverend only when he is behind the pulpit. A Man of God is supposed to be a Man of God 24/7, so it does not matter if it was a religious statement or a political one. Many Christians say their faith is under attack. Well, what I am saying is that quit bitching that your faith is under attack if you allow it to be corrupted this way WITH NO REPERCUSSIONS. Period.

Comment by Steve S

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:02:22 EDT

Actually, Googletv is reporting that international communities are dropping the 700 club from their airwaves and are saying that the meshing of church and state that is happening here in America is foreign to them. Saw that on googletv. My point is this: Many Christians say they are unfairly demonized and ideologically attacked for their beliefs. Shit like this doesn't help, and the fact that American Christians STILL don't do anything about it, contributes to the fact. It's kind of hypocritical to portray your faith as being assaulted while this stuff goes on without any condemnation from you, you know what I mean? (generic 'you' there).

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:53:29 EDT

If the main response to Robertson is to be condemnation of Christians I don't think we'd see that immediately resulting in his disappearance from the airwaves. It would take a while for the 700 Club to lose significant revenues and the media certainly isn't going to ignore him just because he's become controversial - more likely the opposite. Dave

Comment by Steve S

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:43:38 EDT

Regardless, the fact that the man still is on the airwaves, and has suffered NO repercussions, I would say that he has not been condemned by Christians at all. I would say world sentiment seems to see it the same way, and that according to the international editorials I'm reading, by default the conclusion is that Christians support Robertson because of no repercussions. So Christians that think this problem is solved, do so to their own detriment. This makes Christianity seem evil and nothing's changed to indicate otherwise.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:17:26 EDT

Sensibly put in #78, Phil. >>So the condemnation that Robertson deserves should come from Christians upset at his betrayal of their core beliefs, not from right-wingers, many of whom probably share his opinion that political assassination should be an option.<< Just for the record, assassination as a political tool appears to be a method preferred more by the left than the right. Historically the right tends to go for military solutions, while the left picks assassination because it solves problems without resorting to the military. Dave

Comment by Anthony Grande

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:34:49 EDT

"Chavez is a human being." If Bush murdered his oponents like Michael Moore and Sheehan would you call him a "human being"???

Comment by Mark the Sane and Sensible

Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:27:22 EDT

"Chavez is a human being." Communist leaders are not human beings. They are totalitarian thugs who imprison and murder their fellow citizens who challenge their power base. They deny everyone but their ruling elite basic freedoms and liberties. Name one communist leader in history that didn't resort to these tactics.

Comment by Sergio Jablon

Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:07:26 EDT

Chavez is a human being. Robertson asked for KILLING him, thus, it was the same than asking for the killing a human being. That�s not right if your business is bringing other people's souls on God's side. Period.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:51:00 EDT

The demographics of the Republican party indicate that you pick your battles. :-) My point was that Robertson deserves condemnation because he has betrayed his Christian faith, and for no other reason. Therefore his repudiation should come from Christians -- and it has.

Comment by Steve S

Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:37:39 EDT

If I said right wingers anywhere on this thread, I meant religious right. But in my political battles, the overlapping is probably 80% or greater.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:32:25 EDT

I'm skipping the weird personal dynamics going on here in the comments, because it seems clear to me that most of you are driven more by personal animosity than any particular issues related to whatever article it is on which you're commenting. That said, I do think that there is a reasonable explanation of why the condemnation from "religious right" political organizations has not been as strong as some might like. Robertson said nothing that many other people haven't said about various political figures. The airwaves were full of people from different political parties suggesting that "we" assassinate OBL, for example. So why the outrage over Robertson but not over others? Because Robertson purports to be a Christian leader, and we all know that Christians shouldn't be advocating murder. So the condemnation that Robertson deserves should come from Christians upset at his betrayal of their core beliefs, not from right-wingers, many of whom probably share his opinion that political assassination should be an option. People seem to keep getting the two groups mixed up, which Robertson should expect after a lifetime dedicated to screwing up Christianity's reputation by dragging it into politics (or politics into it, whichever). But despite the understandable confusion, the outrage at his comments should come and is coming from Christians. Political organizations -- such as the Traditional Values [sic] Coalition, the Family [sic] Research Council and the Christian [sic] Coalition -- have nothing much to say in response to an expressed political opinion with which they might or might not agree. I hope that clears up some confusion. P.S. Robertson is an idiot, and a horrible representative of Christianity.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:23:21 EDT

>>In an Aug. 23 statement, ABC Family said the company was "contractually obligated to air The 700 Club and has no editorial control over views expressed by the hosts or guests." But that's a bogus statement -- in 2003, MSNBC fired controversial conservative talk show host Michael Savage after he referred to an unidentified caller as a "sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die."<< I overlooked this whopper earlier. 700 Club is essentially a paid advertiser on ABC Family. They have a contract which says they control the content of their paid time. That's completely different from the relationship of Michael Savage and MSNBC. Savage was a hired employee and could be fired at will. Dave