[plschwartz]

latimes.com
advertisement
Adblock
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...track=morenews
Pat Robertson Calls for Assassination of Venezuelan President
From Associated Press

9:05 AM PDT, August 23, 2005

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson has suggested that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

An official of a theological watchdog group today criticized Robertson's statement as "chilling."

"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."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"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."

Today, critics objected to Robertson's statements.

"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 the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

David Brock, president of Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group, said the remarks should discredit Robertson as a spokesman for the religious right.

Robertson, 75, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.

A Robertson spokeswoman, Angell Watts, said he would not do interviews today and had no statement elaborating on his remarks.

Chavez was believed to be in Cuba, but his whereabouts were unknown and no media access was announced.

In Caracas, pro-Chavez legislator Desire Santos Amaral accused Robertson of shedding his Christian values.

"This man cannot be a true Christian. He's a fascist," Santos said. "This is part of the policies of aggression from the right wing in the North against our revolution."

Santos said she thinks U.S.-Venezuelan relations could still improve but comments by "charlatans and fascists" like Robertson only get in the way.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

[teengeekgrrl]

I heard that this morning on Today and thought the same thing. I'm thinking, "Hello, Christian speaker? 'Thou shalt not kill'?"

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by teengeekgrrl

I heard that this morning on Today and thought the same thing. I'm thinking, "Hello, Christian speaker? 'Thou shalt not kill'?"

Hi teengeekgrrl

It's doubtful 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' means anything to Robertson as he is a Fundamentalist and the 6th Commandment reads to him.....'Thou Shalt Not Murder'.

That difference in interpretation allows him to suggest the death of anyone, so long as it's with in the laws of a government.

I often wondered how he rationalized imposed slavery in his mining concerns in Africa.

[teengeekgrrl]

Ahh... the Bible is free to be interpreted. but I still see it as "Thou shalt Not Kill". Government, schmovernment-killing is murder. POlitical correctness aside.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by teengeekgrrl

Ahh... the Bible is free to be interpreted. but I still see it as "Thou shalt Not Kill". Government, schmovernment-killing is murder. POlitical correctness aside.

[teengeekgrrl]

Originally Posted by Stoner

[jiml8]

Originally Posted by teengeekgrrl

Ahh... the Bible is free to be interpreted. but I still see it as "Thou shalt Not Kill". Government, schmovernment-killing is murder. POlitical correctness aside.

OK. Let us look at some cases.

You are backed into a corner and are being attacked by a big, tough guy who quite obviously intends to rape you. You have a gun (never mind how you came by it; you have it). He is not intimidated by you when you threaten him with it. Do you kill him? if you do, is it murder?

How about this case. That big, tough guy who has you backed into a corner is high on PCP and he has a knife. He has already cut you once and you have substantial reason to believe that he intends to not only rape you but kill you. You have the same gun. Do you kill him? If you do, is it murder?

How about this case. You are a mother. You have gotten out of your car to put gas in it. Your child is in the back seat. A thug jumps into your car and starts to drive off, taking your child with him. You have a gun and a clear shot. Do you kill him? If you do, is it murder?

Now, WRT Robertson, let us give him some credit (but not much) for being hyperbolic rather than literal. Nonetheless, his statements provide a very clear reason why Church and State must be kept separate.

Because the truth is that every religion, without exception, is violent.

[angelize56]

Paul: I posted this very early this morning in the Pat Robertson thread! You can't beat "Angelize Live at Five"!

[WarC]

Religion isn't violent, nature is.

Violence is a fact of life we must contend with. There are people who want you dead, no matter who you are, what you do, or what you believe. There are people and animals on this planet that would take your life for merely being in their presence at the wrong time. Either through instinct or mental defect.

Animals and people kill eachother or plants for sustenance. Organisms must feed on other organisms to survive.

Is killing an animal different than killing a man? Is killing a plant different than killing an animal?

"Thou Shall Not Kill" is an impossible ideal, even for someone who has never touched another person in anger.

[angelize56]

Yep WarC...."Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a toughie in our world!

[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by WarC

Religion isn't violent, nature is.

Violence is a fact of life we must contend with. There are people who want you dead, no matter who you are, what you do, or what you believe. There are people and animals on this planet that would take your life for merely being in their presence at the wrong time. Either through instinct or mental defect.

Animals and people kill eachother or plants for sustenance. Organisms must feed on other organisms to survive.

Is killing an animal different than killing a man? Is killing a plant different than killing an animal?

"Thou Shall Not Kill" is an impossible ideal, even for someone who has never touched another person in anger.

I think that Christ believed that we had another nature beyond our animal one.

Robinsons plea does sound like a fatwa doesn't it.

[Stoner]

You are backed into a corner and are being attacked by a big, tough guy who quite obviously intends to rape you. You have a gun (never mind how you came by it; you have it). He is not intimidated by you when you threaten him with it. Do you kill him? if you do, is it murder?

How about this case. That big, tough guy who has you backed into a corner is high on PCP and he has a knife. He has already cut you once and you have substantial reason to believe that he intends to not only rape you but kill you. You have the same gun. Do you kill him? If you do, is it murder?

How about this case. You are a mother. You have gotten out of your car to put gas in it. Your child is in the back seat. A thug jumps into your car and starts to drive off, taking your child with him. You have a gun and a clear shot. Do you kill him? If you do, is it murder?

Interesting defense to rationalizing killing in general by examining an accepted exclusion...self defense. Perhaps the issue should be to kill in self defense, or kill for self defense. One may be the result of self defense and the other judgement of the act. Sometimes hard to distinguish the difference.

Now, WRT Robertson, let us give him some credit (but not much) for being hyperbolic rather than literal.

I am unaware of Robertson's leanings toward exageration...lieing, yes.

Because the truth is that every religion, without exception, is violent.

I agree that there are leaders that weaponize 'religion' and often to their advantage.....either for leadership or material gain. Robertson seems adept at combining the two.

his statements provide a very clear reason why Church and State must be kept separate.

Yes, indeed.

[Stoner]

Religion isn't violent, nature is.

Haven't read Falwell, eh? ....

[teengeekgrrl]

Originally Posted by WarC

Religion isn't violent, nature is.

Violence is a fact of life we must contend with. There are people who want you dead, no matter who you are, what you do, or what you believe. There are people and animals on this planet that would take your life for merely being in their presence at the wrong time. Either through instinct or mental defect.

Animals and people kill eachother or plants for sustenance. Organisms must feed on other organisms to survive.

Is killing an animal different than killing a man? Is killing a plant different than killing an animal?

"Thou Shall Not Kill" is an impossible ideal, even for someone who has never touched another person in anger.

I believe the whole thing was somewhere stated in the Bible as something like " Thou shalt not kill THY FELLOW MAN", distinguishing between killing an animal for food and killing a person.

[teengeekgrrl]

Originally Posted by jiml8

OK. Let us look at some cases.

You are backed into a corner and are being attacked by a big, tough guy who quite obviously intends to rape you. You have a gun (never mind how you came by it; you have it). He is not intimidated by you when you threaten him with it. Do you kill him? if you do, is it murder?

How about this case. That big, tough guy who has you backed into a corner is high on PCP and he has a knife. He has already cut you once and you have substantial reason to believe that he intends to not only rape you but kill you. You have the same gun. Do you kill him? If you do, is it murder?

How about this case. You are a mother. You have gotten out of your car to put gas in it. Your child is in the back seat. A thug jumps into your car and starts to drive off, taking your child with him. You have a gun and a clear shot. Do you kill him? If you do, is it murder?

1. Scream, shoot him in the arm that's holding the knife, knock him in the head with the gun, and run like Marathon.

2. See above.

3. Shoot one or both tires, and call the police. I don't want to shoot; what if I miss? I'm terrible at aiming and my kid's in the car too!

Of course I can say anything sitting here; I don't know what precisely I'd do if I was really there.

And honestly I don't know if I'd have the courage to even squeeze the trigger. I'm terrified of weapons.