"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."
On the Monday, August 23, 2005 edition of "The 700 Club," Reverend Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition who was also a 1988 candidate for the Republican nomination for president, said that Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, would make his nation "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent." And then he went on, inciting an international firestorm, with remarks that Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel called "terrorist statements."…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Doug Hannan
An interesting Jingoistic "might is right" rant Mark. You have a lot more in commmon with your enemies, however, than you might care to admit. For example you have adopted the Communust tactic that repeating a BIG LIE often enough will make it appear true. Your statement:
"we instead scrutnize one harmless Christian cleric for stating an opinion about a vile foreign dictator from a rogue Communist nation" is truly masterful in its mendacity. A call for his cold blooded murder is merely "stating an opinion". And a democratically elected leader is a "vile foreign dictator". (As opposed to those "vile domestic dictators" one wonders).
While its fun to sit here and trade barbs there are actually many people who have placed in significant danger by Robertson's comments. I am referring of course to his Missionaries in the field, who, while already regarded suspiciously, are now seen as fronting a religion that advocates the pre-emptive murder of its opponents.
27 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Doug: please don't forget that Hugo Chavez is a MARXIST dictator in a country where the "democratic" process is a farce. But you knew that, right?
Communist dictators deserve to be taken out. It's a shame that a bad law was passed in 1975 to prevent this from happening. But then, certain cowardly politicians have done everything they can to neuter our ability to engage our enemies in the world by voting against arms bills and other military related budgets.
"(As opposed to those "vile domestic dictators" one wonders)."
That they exist is a figment of your paranoid lib imagination, doug.
"You have a lot more in commmon with your enemies, however, than you might care to admit."
That's fine, I'll freely admit it. I can respect a qualified opponent. So we square off and fight until the last man is standing. Does the possibility that our nation faces that inevitability frighten you, doug?
28 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Americans cannot be expected to love America unconditionally when we have a responsibility to ensure that our nation remains one of the people, by the people and for the people.
Without the conditional love of the American people, America would stagnate, leaving us vulnerable to the sort of tyranny that demands unconditional love.
Mark the Sane and Sensible asked, "Are you suggesting that I should 'love' those that have pledged to kill me?"
Of course not (although that is what the Scriptures say), I only suggested that you write an article about the issues that are important to you.
It is not a matter of ego, but rather one of employing effective methods of dissemination, which reach far more people than the practice of "throw[ing your] brickbats from the cheap seats in the back."
But, if you feel that methodology serves your purposes sufficiently, I can only wish you luck in your future endeavors.
Have the so-called "real" Americans become so consumed with pride that they now think Exodus 20:13 does not apply to Americans, whether they are of the "real" variety or not?
Christian ideals include the Holy Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13, KJV) because our Father in Heaven commands us to value the lives of all of our brothers and sisters. And, being mere flesh, we are not fit to judge whose lives are more valuable than others.
Since "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18, KJV) it seems to me that pride would be a most cumbersome and unrealistic quality to manifest during wartime.
The secular version of that assessment is that arrogance clouds the good judgment and pragmatism that are essential to success on the battlefield.
29 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
"Americans cannot be expected to love America unconditionally when we have a responsibility to ensure that our nation remains one of the people, by the people and for the people."
How you think they can be separated is just baffling to me, as if you are unwilling to totally commit to your country, for fear of violating some egalitarian notion of being impartial or unfair to some non-American constituency.
Are you an internationalist?
Do you love your family unconditionally? Your husband? What is the difference in applying the same concept to your country? You want the same thing in both cases ... unity, which can only come by viture of unconditional love.
"The secular version of that assessment is that arrogance clouds the good judgment and pragmatism that are essential to success on the battlefield."
Ms. MRT, I seriously doubt you have a real idea what would ensure success in the battlefield. The best generals in our history were arrogant and prideful. George Patton is a great example. Douglas MacArthur is another.
" which reach far more people than the practice of "throw[ing your] brickbats from the cheap seats in the back."
I don't measure the success of the impact of my views based on how many people read them. The person that would sounds like a collectivist whose worth is measured by the estimation of others.
30 - Nancy
Loving someone or something, either spouse or child or country - doesn't mean tolerating & accepting vile behavior; in fact, if you DO love them, you have an obligation to do what you can to put a stop to it.
31 - Bob A. Booey
I didn't read any of these comments and I'm a little sick of the whole Pat Robertson thing already, but he did have one great insight which you quote:
"The Reverend often appears to be rather obsessed with homosexuals, whom he has called "self-absorbed narcissists who are willing to destroy any institution so long as they can have affirmation of their lifestyle."
This proves an insight that I've sort of had for a while about our culture and sexuality. We're all queer. I don't mean that jokingly. I mean if that's Pat Robertson's definition of "queer," our sexual attitudes, psychological narcissism, and lack of ethics beyond ourselves, our lifestyles and consumption patterns, make us all queer. And being a good capitalist is the MOST important part of what has made us queer and what continues to define our identity as queer.
Welcome out of the closet, my friends.
That is all.
32 - Doug Hannan
" "(As opposed to those "vile domestic dictators" one wonders)."
That they exist is a figment of your paranoid lib imagination, doug."
Actually you implied their existence by using the qualifier "foreign". I was merely poking fun at your redundancy.
This idea that by simply killing all your opponents everything will be peachy is so ridiculous it hardly deserves a response. Suffice it to say your bizarre apocalyptic fantasy that "we square off and fight until the last man is standing." is indicitave of a seriously disordered mind.
33 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
"Suffice it to say your bizarre apocalyptic fantasy that "we square off and fight until the last man is standing." is indicitave of a seriously disordered mind."
Suffice it to say your way of thinking is the thinking of a pathetic coward who would rather appease and capitulate to enemies and those that oppose our power and sovereignty rather than destroy them. You sound like the prototypical 21st century metrosexual, more concerned about feelings and other feminized qualities than asserting your masculinity. Do you still even have testicles or have you been already virtually castrated?
You wouldn't happen to be French, would you?
34 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
nancy post 30---
what you are describing is the very essence of unconditional love. Conditional love would be to deny any chance of forgiveness for the misdeeds of your spouse, children, etc.
35 - Doug Hannan
"You sound like the prototypical 21st century metrosexual, more concerned about feelings and other feminized qualities than asserting your masculinity"
Thank you for the complement. According to this article pehaps the US would be more effective it it became more "metrosexual" also.
The Metrosexual Superpower
The stylish European Union struts past the bumbling United States on the catwalk of global diplomacy.
According to Michael Flocker's 2003 bestseller, The Metrosexual Guide to Style: A Handbook for the Modern Man, the trendsetting male icons of the 21st century must combine the coercive strengths of Mars and the seductive wiles of Venus. Put simply, metrosexual men are muscular but suave, confident yet image-conscious, assertive yet clearly in touch with their feminine sides. Just consider British soccer star David Beckham. He is married to former Spice Girl Victoria “Posh” Adams, but his combination of athleticism and cross-dressing make him a sex symbol to both women and men worldwide, not to mention the inspiration for the 2002 hit movie Bend It Like Beckham. Substance, Beckham shows, is nothing without style.
Geopolitics is much the same. American neoconservatives such as Robert Kagan look down upon feminine, Venus-like Europeans, gibing their narcissistic obsession with building a postmodern, bureaucratic paradise. The United States, by contrast, supposedly carries the mantle of masculine Mars, boldly imposing freedom in the world's nastiest neighborhoods. But by cleverly deploying both its hard power and its sensitive side, the European Union (EU) has become more effective"and more attractive"than the United States on the catwalk of diplomatic clout. Meet the real New Europe: the world's first metrosexual superpower.
Metrosexuals always know how to dress for the occasion (or mission). Spreading peace across Eurasia serves U.S. interests, but it's best done by donning Armani pinstripes rather than U.S. Army fatigues.
36 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
"Put simply, metrosexual men are muscular but suave, confident yet image-conscious, assertive yet clearly in touch with their feminine sides."
I think I'm going to throw up. But if this really catches on, do we insist that women become commensurately more like men?
37 - Silas Kain
Ms. Toigo, this was a wonderful piece. Very well thought out, fact filled and chock full of truth.
Bob A Booey: This proves an insight that I've sort of had for a while about our culture and sexuality. We're all queer. I don't mean that jokingly. I mean if that's Pat Robertson's definition of "queer," our sexual attitudes, psychological narcissism, and lack of ethics beyond ourselves, our lifestyles and consumption patterns, make us all queer. And being a good capitalist is the MOST important part of what has made us queer and what continues to define our identity as queer.
Damn. Now I miss Queer as Folk. This is my world and welcome to it all you capitalist, self-absorbed, free thinkers of perverse sex. I guess, then, that in order to be 'queer' you have to be Republican, eh? My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of irony....
38 - ven
Marks comments regarding Quran are absolutely right on the spot. I have a Quran at my home (as well as a Bible). Quran says IQRA on it. Which means READ. So I say read it. Simultaneosuly read the Bible. I dont want to write an opinion about what I think about Quran lest I be accused of spreading hatred.
As I said do a comparitive study.
BTW, I am not a Christian nor a Muslim. So I cant be accused of one who is indoctrinated by teleevangelicals like Pat Robertson.
As I have written else where on these blogs I dont subscribe to any religion as it just manages to divide mankind. But Mark does raise very important issues.
Today the left in America is too sanitized by being politically and diplomatically correct that it can no longer see what the truth is. It is a pity that it cannot distinguish between a communist dictator, a terrorist, a teleevangelical and a common man on the streets.
Keep up the good work mark and educate the uneducated.
39 - Doug Hannan
"I think I'm going to throw up."
I cant imagine a more gratifying response to my post.
40 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
hey Doug, knock yourself out wearing that dress and sitting down to urinate. Get some fake breasts to stick in there and you'll feel right at home, I'm sure.
41 - Doug Hannan
I'm really finding it hard to decide which is more pathetic; your meglamaniac delusions of world domination by force or your perverse sexual fantasies.
42 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
hey Doug, it's MEGALOMANIAC, not MEGLAMANIAC.
I don't need to conjure sexual fantasies. I have a lovely wife for that purpose, but thanks for your concern.
43 - Doug Hannan
"hey Doug, it's MEGALOMANIAC"
I stand corrected. You're a megalomaniac, or, as you prefer, A MEGALOMANIAC.
44 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
"You're a megalomaniac, or, as you prefer, A MEGALOMANIAC."
Thank you, it's far superior to being some limp wristed coward something or another that rhymes with the word MAGGOT.
45 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
I challenge Margaret Romao Toigo to condem the Muslim clerics that issue these fatwas on a daily basis from mosques inthe Middle East:
"O brother believers, the criminals, the terrorists are the Jews, who have butchered our children, orphaned them, widowed our women and desecrated our holy places and sacred sites. They are the terrorists. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed, as Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them: Allah will torture them at your hands, and will humiliate them and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers...."
"O brothers in belief, this is the case of the Jews and their habitual conduct, and what happened yesterday, and has been going on for two weeks, and before that for many years, and which will be repeated in future years unless we stand up like men and unless we have the known Muslim position, [the position] of those who wage Jihad in the path of Allah, those who defend their rights and who sacrifice all that is dear to them."
I want to see if you Ms. Toigo have the courage to incure the wrath of radical Islam, because I know you don't fear a reprisal from Pat Robertson.
Let's see how courageous you can be Ms. Toigo when it comes to taking on a real threat to humanity.
46 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I have a different idea, Mark the Sane and Sensible. Why don't you "condem(sic) the Muslim clerics that issue these fatwas on a daily basis from mosques inthe(sic) Middle East" so that you can demonstrate your "courage to incure(sic) the wrath of radical Islam," since you feel so strongly about it?
Because I am not interested in your game and I do not wish to play it.
47 - nugget
as a spectator I see that Mark is a brilliant tactician and logician. he sounds like someone I've read with the initials NT.
48 - nugget
Margaret i think you are shying away from the debate. I think he makes a valid point.
49 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Hmmm, the best Ms. Tiogo can do is point out typographical errors and not address the real issue of softball targets instead of hardball ones. Pat Robertson is no threat to humanity. The Muslim clerics that have ON A DAILY BASIS FOR YEARS preached death to Jews and Christians are. How about it, Ms. Tiogo, how about using that intellect and taking on the more challenging threats to humanity, or do you have some vested interest in protecting a relationship with members of Islam, the so-called "religion of peace"? Or is it perhaps because you actually silently approve of the message sent those radical Muslim clerics?
50 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Indeed, Mark the Sane and Sensible makes a valid point about the menace of extremist Muslims and their connection to terrorism, but I do not wish to engage him because I recognize the trap that he has set for anyone who might be foolish enough to step into it.
Why don't you debate him, nugget? If you should choose to do so, I would advise that you read some of the rather inflammatory comments Mark the Sane and Sensible has entered (and under several other articles here at Blogcritics where Mark the Sane and Sensible is currently at the top of the "Top Commenters" list with 68 comments in the last 24 hours)
51 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Mark the Sane and Sensible, I am in complete agreement with you. Pat Robertson is definitely no threat to humanity.
Make all the empty accusations you wish, I will not take your bait.
52 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
For the record, I only provide inflammatory remarks to those that are contentious, vulgar, liberal/progressive in tone or sentiment, blatantly disrespectful toward our nation's leaders, and harshly critical of our national policy in the Middle East. I am also inflammatory toward those that offer unfounded criticisms of the State of Israel and the Jewish race in general.
Everyone else I get along with swimmingly. Any questions?
53 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
"Mark the Sane and Sensible, I am in complete agreement with you. Pat Robertson is definitely no threat to humanity."
Then why devote a whole blog to him when there are so many other REAL threats to deal with?
54 - nugget
"Why don't you debate him, nugget?"
This isn't my ballpark hun. Though I think he got a little reckless in the end, logically speaking, and forgive the following, he's on the "mark."
After rereading this thread I think you shouldn't have delved into his so-called trap simply because of its viscosity. Sun Tzu is very eloquent and understanding philosophy. I couldn't agree more concerning fairness and self-reproach. He pinpointed your naivete. Call it a personal attack if you want.
55 - nugget
also i'm not looking for the pendulum to swing. I think Mark has held his own just fine amongst the dissents. Just my 2 cents. hence, i hope it made sense. sorry i was on a roll.
56 - John Bill
Tony Montana has just issued a contract on Pat's head. Tony was quoted as saying "I want you to meet my little friend".
57 - Liberal
"A person who loves their country unconditionally..."
...und follows Der Fuhrer's orders unquestioningly. Vun who vill not think but vill simply obey.
58 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Leave it to a libbie puke to invoke Hilter, no matter if it is offensive to Jews that post to these blogs.
And I thought libbies are supposed to be so "fair and sensitive" to others. No, they aren't, they are as vicious and vile as those they inveigh against. They are fakes, phonies, and frauds, which is why I despise them and everything they stand for.
59 - Silas Kain
Is Leo Strauss back from the dead? We should have deported him while we still had the chance in 1938. Perhaps things would be far different today.
60 - Magnus
Mark, why is it that you insist on calling people names? "Libbie puke" - haven't heard that one before. Cute though :)
61 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
"Mark, why is it that you insist on calling people names? "Libbie puke""
magnus: because you asked me with respect and courtesy, I will repost this from last evening:
For the record, I only provide inflammatory remarks to those that are
contentious, vulgar, liberal/progressive in tone or sentiment, blatantly disrespectful toward our nation's leaders, and harshly critical of our national policy in the Middle East. I am also inflammatory toward those that offer unfounded criticisms of the State of Israel and the Jewish race in general.
To wit, I treat people as they treat me and the people that I respect. Treat me nice, I will be nice to you. If I detect you're being a schmuck, I am a schmuck right back, probably even worse. There is no advantage in life, as far as I can see, for taking the so-called "high road." I'm not out to win any humanitarian awards. I am out to expose liberals and liberal thinking for the fraudulent and harmful sickness that it is.
62 - Nancy
But MTSS, ANYBODY who doesn't agree w/you 100% is subject to vulgar remarks in your opinion, in that case. Does your wife "submit" to you like this? Like a mindless vacuum cleaner w/no opinions or rights of her own? Can't help but wonder.
63 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Better Leo Strauss than Howard Zinn or Noam Chumpsky.
64 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
Couldn't stay away, could you, nancy, like a moth to a flame, eh?
"Does your wife "submit" to you like this?"
Only when the whips and handcuffs are produced! heh heh.
65 - Silas Kain
Nancy, as Oscar Wilde would say:
66 - Doug Hannan
"Pat Robertson is no threat to humanity. The Muslim clerics that have ON A DAILY BASIS FOR YEARS preached death to Jews and Christians are."
At the risk of incurring the foam-flecked wrath of our resident self-professed megalomaniac I would like to ventue a comment on the above quote. ANY religious leader who uses his religion to preach death is to be condemmed. Christian or Muslim. You challenge the moderator to condemn Muslim clerics. I challenge you to condemn Pat Robertson for the harm his remarks are sure to cause on so many levels. Not the least of which is the complete loss of credibility and possible physical danger Christian missionaries now face around the world. If you poo poo this posibility, check the Christian Science Monitor which takes this eventuality very seriously.
67 - nugget
This has been an excellent thread and i must chime in.
Margaret, I can't help but think that throughout this discussion you have been playing "cool journalist" taking on a lackluster business not personal facade. I seriously doubt your intentions are objective commentary when you write 35+ paragraphs about something as trivial and negligible as Pat Robertson saying we should take somebody out.
Do you really attribute that much clout to the 700 club?? I thought that Pat Robertson was a joke to most pundits christian/non-christian alike.
Anyways, I have to agree with mark. Although the original intention of this thread seemed to pave roads for another blogcritic conservative hatefest, Mark, clearly some type of artist or creative person judging by the briskness and humor of his dialogue, swept in and starting breaking journalism syntax rules. I still think you are avoiding his challenges, and I think it's because you are at loss for words, NOT because he is spinning a web or biding his time.
68 - Mark the Sane and Sensible
"ANY religious leader who uses his religion to preach death is to be condemmed."
Robertson made a comment on a TV show which broadcasts on the federally controlled airwaves where First Amendment statutes protect his rights to say these things. A TV show is not a church or a mosque, Doug.
Learn to parse the differences here. You're grabbing at straws to nail some Christian holy roller that you despise.
69 - Silas Kain
Thanks for the tip, Doug. I went to the CSM website and read an interesting opinion piece. When I read your comment it hit me that you're right. Robertson did more to damage Christians around the world with what he said. Who needs Muslim fanatics for enemies? Christianity has plenty of its own within the confines of its belief system.
70 - Silas Kain
Do you really attribute that much clout to the 700 club?? I thought that Pat Robertson was a joke to most pundits christian/non-christian alike.
Actually, nugget, CBN reaches 96% of the television markets in the United States. In addition, the sale of the Family Channel included a very lucrative stipulation which preserved the clout of the 700 Club. Robertson may be viewed as wonderful man of the cloth but he is more a savvy businessman not unlike the money changers in the temple or Saul of Tarsus.
71 - nugget
"Robertson did more to damage Christians around the world with what he said."
Silas, Pat Robertson is not the single and founding member of Christs-r-us. he is one man that talks alot on one television show that hardly any one of intellectual significance watches. The only thing he damaged was his career and reputation as a Christian leader. I find it funny how people hyperbolize issues like these.
"Who needs Muslim fanatics for enemies?"
who needs them??? fool, we already HAVE them. They will hate us regardless of Pat Robertson's television show. The fire has been lit, throwing more fuel on it won't make it bigger or put it out. Pat is just wreckless and you are mistaken for thinking that this is even newsworthy.
72 - Silas Kain
Not mistaken at all, nugget. CBN and Pat Robertson wield a lot of power. At one point he controlled the third largest cable network in the United States. He was born into American aristocracy, maintains major political connections and is expanding his Christian broadcasting capabilities across the globe thanks to money that his organization got in the sale of International Family Entertainment.
73 - Doug Hannan
"Robertson made a comment on a TV show which broadcasts on the federally controlled airwaves where First Amendment statutes protect his rights to say these things. A TV show is not a church or a mosque, Doug."
Presuming this to be your reply to my challenge that you condemn Pat Robertsons remarks, I guess that would be a "No, I will not"?
Maybe I'm not "parsing the differences" here, but at what part of his religious broadcast on the "Christian Television Network" do the 10 commandments cease to apply?
74 - Margaret Romao Toigo
nugget, the irony here is that I actually agree with some of the statements Mark the Sane and Sensible has made here.
I have no arguments with him on several points, especially the assertion that Reverend Robertson's on-air remarks (for which he has since apologized) were nothing compared to the fatwas of radical Muslim clerics. I also agree that Mr. Chavez is a rather unsympathetic character in this particular melodrama.
I saw the trap being set when I wrote, in comment #6, "It is unfair and counterproductive to paint the entirety of any group with a broad brush, no matter the extremism of its fanatics nor the silence of its moderates."
And Mark the Sane and Sensible replied, in comment #7, "Tell that to the families of the Israeli women and children that have been carbombed by the PA over the years, you fraud..."
He called me a "fraud" because I spoke against the practice of painting the entirety of any group with a broad brush. I immediately recognized this as the set up for a nasty rhetorical trap.
If I had engaged him, any argument I submitted in defense of Muslims (or against bigotry toward them) would be met with accusations of my being a "Jew hating anti-Israeli" (which is what he called me in comment #7 "because [I'd] rather condemn one Christian cleric for his call to assassinate a vicious Communist dictator, the oppressor of millions, yet [I am] silent over the dozens of radical Muslim clerics who each day, call for the murder and destruction of Jews and their homeland")
At that point, I would have been caught in his trap, forced to defend myself against those allegations when there is no effective defense against them other than conceding that his prejudices against Muslims are righteous and justified.
No productive or satisfying debate ever emerges from such contests.
In comment #10 Mark the Sane and Sensible wrote, "Criticizing Robertson instead of the dozens of radical clerics spewing hatred against Jews clearly indicates to me where YOUR compassion lies, and quite possibly, your prejudices as well," which has been his main theme here on this thread.
Apparently, Mark the Sane and Sensible's primary contention with me is my choice of subject matter for the above article. He seems to think that the issue of "radical [Muslim] clerics spewing hatred against Jews" has not received sufficient coverage here.
I suggested -- several times -- that he write his own blogpost on this topic about which he feels so strongly. But he apparently prefers to "throw [his] brickbats from the cheap seats in the back."
What's really strange is that I did not criticize Reverend Robertson in my article, I just reported what other people had to say about the Reverend and this specific controversy. And the only mention I made of Muslims (except in the context of quotes from other people) in my article was how Reverend Robertson disagrees with President Bush's assessment that Islam is at heart a religion of peace.
I love a good debate and I am quite willing and able to defend my article, but I refuse to be sucked into pointless battles of wills with bigots.
75 - Doug Hannan
"At that point, I would have been caught in his trap, forced to defend myself against those allegations when there is no effective defense against them other than conceding that his prejudices against Muslims are righteous and justified."
Actually there is an effective defence.
He only wants you to condemn "radical [Muslim] clerics spewing hatred against Jews". That does not imply that: "prejudices against Muslims are righteous and justified." any more than prejudice against ALL Christians is justified based on the unconscionable remarks of Rev Robertson.
Mark the Sane and Sensible (and he has a certificate from the asylum to prove it too!) considers that mainstream Muslims do not vigourously enough condemn the hate speech of their extremists. As do I. The disturbing lesson learned this week is that Christians and their apologists (i.e. Markie here) are guilty of the same crime.
You can't have it both ways.