www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Pat Robertson Calls For An Assassination

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166478,00.html
I truly hope that Evangelicals are embarrassed by this.

Pat Robertson and his "Christian" coalition truly represent the hardcore faction of Protestant Imperialism and the economic power of the thrusts and corporations.

The problem they have with Chavez is related to oil, as his government has allied itself with companies whose owners compete with CC supporters.

Chavez' leadership, however, has been a huge dissapointment for Latin-America. At one point I thought he would be like a new Mussolini, but he's quite far from that.

Corruption withing his government has increased dramaticaly, burocratic procedures have become even more complicated (more and more bureaucrats occupy the offices) and this truly discourages the formation of elites and new enterprises.

One possitive thing, he has effectively disbanded all political parties in Venezuela and brought the "democratic" system to and end.

Please do not judge all evangelicals, or even all conservative evangelicals, by Pat Robertson.

I think Robertson and other televangelists appeal primarily to Bush's base, which I know very well, since I grew up in a rural area.
But that was long ago and I have outgrown the Republican party and its we vs. them, black/white style of reasoning. I recognize that there's always going to be gray area in life.

Don't worry, we won't. We have those such as you to set against the images of Robertson and his ilk...

Gaudior, wondering at the amount of time it seems to be taking ole Pat to consider an apology.

He issued a written apology on Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/

--tim

I am sure President Chavez can sleep better now.

Shalom,
Memo

Dear Lawrence,

First of all, Pat Robertson is not an televangelist. He does not get paid, but rather uses the immense fortune he has made by being the founder of the second cable network in this country; The Family Channel, (the first was HBO), in order to support the 700 Club and all it's vast charities throughout our nation and the world. These though are the things the liberal media will never say.

Years ago we did assasinate leaders that we felt were detrimental to our security. That changed when Pres. Kennedy was assasinated and it was thought that it was in response to our attempts on the life of Fidel Castro. It then became outlawed in this country.

Pat Robertson did not say something that many people have not considered. If we take into account that the world might have been destroyed during the Cuban missle crisis because of Castro...then surely an assassination would have been better.

Surely an assassination on Adolph Hitler, (and believe me it was tried by his own Generals) would have saved humanity a great deal of misery...not to mention one on Stalin. Unfortunately, evil men always seem to excape any attempt on their lives.

Today we have one ego maniac heading the nation of North Korea, something that might lead to a world catastrophy because he continues to develop nuclear arms. Let's not forget that Pres. Clinton paid quite a sum for them to stop, but he didn't and instead mocked our stupidity.

Today he wants the US to pay again, but Bush is not that stupid. Too bad it is against the law to assassinate him. Might save the world a lot of trouble in the end...if of course we were able to and were successful.

Somehow I agree fully with Pat Robertson. If the assasination of one stupid and evil man were to deter the deaths of millions of innocent people, then why not do it. Too bad though, it's now against the law. Oh well! We can always ask Israel to do it for us.

I think as far as Chavez goes, I don't know the whole situation, but it must have been quite serious. Maybe the rise of the price of oil would have thrown us into a world depression with millions of people starving. Pat Robertson said that rather than going to war out of necessity, an assassination would be better. Well wouldn't it?

You know I can't stand those, (and I believe most of them are homosexuals), that have nothing better to do than watch the 700 club in order to find something that they can 'spin' in order to denigrate a highly spiritual and truly outstanding person. Why? Because he will not say that their life style is morally acceptable.

Zenovia

Televangelist = television evangelist = Pat Robertson.

Televangelist is just a shorthand title for a TV preacher, and Robertson clearly fits the bill.

And, of course, there is solicitation of viewers for cash, like this:

https://www.cbn.com/giving/700club/option.asp?o=1&m=partnerindex


--tim

Hello,

No. The value of a human life is greater than the risk of depression.

The risk of depression does not morally justify either assasination or war.

An active homosexual violates the 6th commandment. An assasin, or one who makes an apology of assasination violates the 5th.

6th and 5th. On my scale of what is morally acceptable, these to individuals are next door neighbors.

Shalom,
Memo

Pat Robertson should have kept his mouth shut.

However.....

Don't think it hasn't crossed the mind of some CIA station chielf in Latin America that the Western Hemisphere would be better off without Hugo Chavez.

President my eye! Chavez is a dictator with his nose firmly ensconces up Castro's, well, you get the idea.

Dear Rodriguez you said:

"No. The value of a human life is greater than the risk of depression.

The risk of depression does not morally justify either assasination or war."

I say:

Then you are saying that preserving the human life of one depraved individual is worth the death of millions of innocent. I guess then you're against all wars.

You know in New Orleans the helicopters cannot land on the hospitals in order to save the patients, nor can the boats enter the city because they are being shot at. Now what do you think should be done to those doing the shooting? Should they be killed in order to save the patients and people, or should their lives be spared and the heck with the innocents that will die?

You seem to forget that a depression here will become world wide and mean the death of millions upon millions of people in third world countries....Not to mention, that many nations in order to keep their people from poverty and starvation end up attacking their neighbors. What do you think started Germany off during WW II.

Zenovia

Dear Tim,

The name televangelist has a bad connotation and it is used intentionally by some in the media for that purpose. People assume that a televangelist is making money off their broadcasting. Pat Robertson does not. Rather he gives money to the broadcast.

Let me tell you a few things about Pat Robertson, just to set the record straight. Frankly I can't stand slander and calumny in any form.

Pat Robertson was the son of a senator and went to Yale. He served in Korea and then went on to become an investment broker.

Shortly after he felt he had a calling and gave it all up in order to become a Minister in the Bedford Styvesant area in Brooklyn. He lived there with his wife and three young children. Mind you that was a dangerous area at that time, and he had three red headed children in a poverty stricken black area.

He considered buying a house that had been used for prostitution but decided to pray about it. During his prayers he sensed being told by God that he should not allow his wife and children to suffer there and to go to Virginia and buy a broken down radio station. He went with $75 in his pocket.

He did buy it and named his program the 700 club because he felt that if he had 700 viewers he would be able to carry his expenses. This went on for 15 years.

At some time he started the cable company and used his investment ability for the good of his ministry.

Pat Robertson founded the charity 'Operation Blessing', as well as the ACLJ which fights free of charge any infliction upon the rights of Christians. He is also the founder of the Christian Coalition, Regent law school and as far as I know has projects in other countries as well.

So let's start giving credit where credit is due.

Zenovia

Hello,


No. The "death of millions of innocent" you propose is theoretical, and only possible. In case of an assasination, the death of the individual is real and certain (by definition!).

And the action here is not about preserving a life, but the contrary, actually terminating one.

So I guess we are not talking about the same thing.

That the individual in question seems "depraved" to you, is irrelevant to the discussion of the objective morality of his suggested assasination.

Of course.

Some times war is inevitable. That doesn't mean I would not be against it.

The shooters must be stoped. If that requires them to be killed, well, that is an act of legitimate defense of another individual with a real, certain threat to his or her life.

This situation has little to do with assasinating a head of State just because you happen to disagree with his policies.

Sure, but this is only a theoretical possibility, not a real certainty. That is why it cannot morally outweight assasination.

And still, you are assuming the assasination of President Chavez would actually help the other situation.

I would not be so sure about it. It seems he does have significant popular support (it is pretty obvious he also has some popular opposition, Venezuela seems divided about him). However, if the US actually carried out an assasination attempt, I can guarantee you that some of his moderate oposition would oppose the US action very strongly and that means you could get your oil crisis precisely because of the action you intended to prevent it with.

And still: What part of "You shall not kill" are you having trouble with?

Shalom,
Memo

Dear Memo,

You are not a politician, nor are in a position of authority. Neither am I. It is easy for us to say we shall not kill. As a matter of fact, the worse thing that I could possibly foresee is having any member of my family in a position where they would have to kill an other person.

But the head of a nation must consider all the consequences of their action or inaction. To me an assassination is much better than going to war and having innocents killed and suffering. Now I don't know the situation in Venezuela, but I do know Pat Robertson. He is knowledgable politically and has integrity. He has not said anything that I have not thought of myself, or have heard from others.

If someone had assassinated Bin Laden, many lives would have been spared. Of course had that happened, no one would have known it because the tragedy of 911 would not have occurred. Just a thought!

As for a depression, we can only judge the consequences of past depressions, and the affect it had on the world. Certainly those in nations such as China would suffer dearly. If we were not in a position of strength, then she would probably attack her neighbors as a diversion for her people and their sufferings. As I said, we can only judge from the past.

Also the Muslim extremists would then have an advantage in a poverty stricken world, and start larger terrorist acts.

You know Memo, we in the U.S. will not starve if we find ourselves in a depression, but people in other nations will. It's a fact of life, and a terrible one. Do you realize that we have to buy, buy and buy in order for millions, if not billions of people to live.

If ever their was an opportunity for the anti-christ to come, it is now...especially with the way the economic system is set up. All he needs is for us to have some more calamities like the one on the gulf coast.

Zenovia