Can we officially stop referring to Pat Robertson as “Reverend”? Because I’m pretty sure that Jesus didn’t say anything about political assassination as being in the purview of advice that his disciples should be handing out.
Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on “The 700 Club” it was the United States’ duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a “launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.”
[…] “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.”
[…]”We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,” Robertson said.
“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.”
Jesus wept.
UPDATE: Pat’s not, properly, a Reverend, according to his 700 Club bio. I guess that makes it okay, then.
UPDATE 2: I honestly don’t know enough about Chavez to know whether he warrents assassination or removal, and the debate over the geopolitical propriety (and possibility) of assassination is certainly one that bears some discussion. I’m just sorely irked that someone who portrays himself as a reverend Christian leader and great humanitarian is out there advocating assassination.
(heard it on NPR this morning, but Les linked to it)
Can’t we just refer to him as a Radical Cleric like we do for other other political religious types?
Well, if he could Cure Light Wounds, he’d be a lot more convincing.
I’d rather refer to him as That Goofball Pat Robertson. Then I can feel properly guilty for using an ad hominem label (even a justified one), and not get into a PC battle over whether he’s radical, is he actually a cleric, is he as bad as other radical clerics, etc.
Advocating assassination is not Goofball. Goofball would be a plot to hook him on Evercrack so that he’d have to give up the presidency.
Though I suppose the hit team could dress up like clowns. Or mimes.
Good point. Maybe “Radical Cleric” is a better choice. I like that. I think I’ll start using it more often.
Ginny combines both elements by referring to “Pat Robertson’s Latest Kooky Fatwa.”
The Tribune story today notes Chavez’ government accusing Robertson of terrorist talk. And if there were some Muslim cleric in, say, Pakistan calling for the assassination of George Bush, we’d be leaning on that government to crack down on him.
For what it’s worth, DoD and State seem to be keeping Robertson’s statements at 10-foot-pole length.
A swift perusal of Google News on Mr Robertson’s latest fox paw made me laugh unbiblically just now. Check the LA Times, NY Times, and MSNBC Live articles to get a sense of who’s backing away slowly. The remarks of the Venezuelan VP in the LA Times article are interesting:
“But Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said the U.S. response to Robertson would be a test of its anti-terrorist policy and that Venezuela was studying its legal options.
“The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country,” Rangel said. “It’s a huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those.”
Rangel called Robertson “a man who seems to have quite a bit of influence in that country,” adding sarcastically that his words were “very Christian.” He said the comments “reveal that religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times.”
Strictly speaking, Robertson isn’t espousing terrorism per se, the use of violence to intimidate a population into a particular action. Assassination is a wee bit different (though the lines can blur, and assassination can be used to terrorize in addition to or in lieu of removing a particular “problem”).
That said, it isn’t a strictly Christian attitude regardless of its purpose.