Thursday, August 25, 2005

Robertson's Apology

Perhaps you're reading it here first (both of you), but Pat Robertson has apologized for suggesting that the United States should sponsor the assassination of Venezuala's President and Castro buddy, Hugo Chavez. The story on the apology appeared on page A3 of the Washington Post.

One wonders whether the Christian-bashers and/or Christian-bashers of the blogosphere will expend as much time an energy in publicizing the apology as it did in publicizing the faux pas. The story on his original comment appeared on page A2 of the Washington Post.

Naaah! No one doesn't.

16 comments:

Brian Patton said...

Bloggers should be talking about the apology because it was inadequate.

Considering this "faux pas" coupled with his other stunts, he should have resigned.

James Young said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Young said...

Thanks for visiting.

Now we know what it would take to satisfy you: Robertson's "resign[ation]" and, apparently, his withdrawal from all public life.

Now tell me, why should you have any influence on issues relating to him, i.e., why should he, or anyone else, listen to you on the subject of him?

I think Robertson was wrong, and have said so elsewhere in the blogosphere. But much like the usual suspects jumping all over Dan Rather's phony Texas Air National Guard story, your idea of proper atonement bespeaks another agenda. That agenda is, of course, barring Christians (at least, those who aren't far Left Christians) from the public square. And anyone who reads your comment should recognize that fact in considering its persuasiveness.

Brian Patton said...

You are welcome for my visit. I usually read your blog via RSS (Atom).

Why should I have any influence on issues relating to Robertson? I do not suppose I should, which is a good thing for him. I was just stating my opinion, like everyone else in the blogosphere.

As for barring Christians (or anyone else) from the public square, I believe everyone should have access to a public forum, unless they abuse it.

My opinion is that for someone to suggest killing world leaders in the manner Robertson did, regardless of religious preference, is improper. One also has to consider Robertsons' other offensive statements.

too conservative said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
too conservative said...

BP-
Most of what you are saying is irrelevant.
The real messed up thing here, is not Robertsons "inadequate apology" it is the fact that he had to make one.
I get so perplexed when the media, people like yourself, and the liberal/moderate bloggers have the back of a military dictator,who openly hates America, against that of an American loving minister.
You all need to pick your fights, and one against a man who has devoted himself to the Lord Jesus Christ shouldn't be one of them.
Liberalism=An excuse to do whatever you want, and have no morals.

James Young said...

TC -- Great comment, though I think Robertson was right to apologize. I think it was probably a bad idea (debatable, but bad) and he's certainly the wrong person to debate it.

'Course, if it is ever seriously considered as policy, public debate is a bad idea.

Brian Patton said...

TC,

Surely you do not really think I "have the back of" Hugo Chavez, do you?

As I said previously, I think what Robertson did was improper, just as I would think it was improper for any other public official/figure to call for the assassination of any world leader.

If Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan called for Bush to be assassinated, wouldn’t you be upset and want an apology or more? I know I would.

too conservative said...

Well, considering George Bush is my President, yes I would be mad.

Considering Hugo Chavez disslikes America, and controls an army, I am not.

Ben Kyber said...

I guess the "Jesus Christ" who Pat Robertson has dedicated himself to also advocated assassinating people for political and economic gain...

Do you actually believe for a second that Pat Robertson meant it when he apologized? Get real.

He has a history of saying ridiculous things because he believes ridiculous things. He is an extremist. I am a devout Christian and I'm ashamed that Pat Robertson considers himself to be the same. He is an embarassment.

Too Conservative: I assume you are, like me, pro-life. How the hell can you advocate the killing of anyone? It is unchristian, immoral, and wrong.
Religious Conservatism: An excuse to hide behind "Christianity" and try to carry out a far-right social agenda with no real regard to human life if it isn't unborn or American.

I don't think the commandment said "Thou shalt not kill Americans or people who love America." It doesn't say, "Thou shalt not kill the unborn, but everyone else is a potential target."

That is closed-minded jingoism at its worst...

So much for promoting a TRUE culture of life...

James Young said...

Blue, I gotta say, I'm entertained by your comments. But I'm also entertained by the Left's strategy, as represented by "Do you actually believe for a second that Pat Robertson meant it when he apologized? Get real." Gotta love you Lefties! Demand an apology, get it, and then question its authenticity when it's offered. Nothing like having your cake and eating it, too. But you gotta have those demons, don't you?

As for your comments about being "pro-life," I, for one, am pro-innocent-life, i.e., babies. When it comes to mass murderers, totalitarians, and other criminals against humanity, I am manifestly not pro-life.

And BTW, Blue, the Commandment did not say "Thou shalt not kill" anyone. It was "Thou shalt not murder."

Ben Kyber said...

No...i believe the KJV and NRVS versions of the bible say "Thou shalt not kill"...

I never demanded an apology from Robertson. Why would I? He apologized for PR reasons. I DO demand an apology from Republicans who accept that nutcase's money. Robertson, in the end, is at best just a poor old man who's gone a little off the deep end and, at worst, an extremist who people in the mainstream stopped listening to a while ago. Politicans accepting his money have no ounce of morality left in them.

too conservative said...

"He is an extremist. I am a devout Christian and I'm ashamed that Pat Robertson considers himself to be the same. He is an embarassment."

-Pat Robertson has personally helped me come closer to God.
-Also Yes I am pro-INNOCENT life.
Theres is a huge difference between innocent life, and military dictators.
-If you call someone who has expanded the membership in the Christian church, an embarrasment, thats sad sir.

Also on your other comments.
Many moderates, dissliked by the party have recieved money and his endorsement aka Connaughton.

-I disagree with you, mainstream Americans still listen to him. How can you say for Republicans who recieve money should apologize?
As a "moderate" yourself, you should then demand candidates who recieve money from the worst organization in America, the ACLU, George Soros, and NARAL apoligize for being left-wing anti-god organizations. You would also not support extreme pro-choice byrne.

I thank the lord above people like Pat Robertson are around to counter the commments made by socialist democrats.

Ben Kyber said...

Pat Robertson has given Christianity a bad name.

I'm glad he helped you find God, Too Conservative, its obvious he gave you a social agenda too.

You really should read "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis, an evangelical preacher with religion, and not political power, on his mind.

I don't get this "culture of INNOCENT life" crap. Its about morality, its about religion, and thats NOT what Jesus taught. Thats not what the commandments say.

If Jesus would have stood up for assassinating a tyrant, why didn't he advocate taking out caesar or Pontius Pilate?

Oh yeah, nevermind, i forgot for a second. That entire interpretation of Christianity is flawed and off-base.

Oh, one other thing:
The ACLU is the worse organization in America? An organization that exists to protect our constitutional rights (Yes...including the second amendment. I think that sometimes thats the only one you people realize exists.) is a little different than an extremist fringe-right Christian leader who has made money in a business partnership with the DICTATOR OF LIBERIA.

He wasn't so keen on removing him from power when the Bush administration talked about THAT. So I guess its only select tyrants that Robertson wants to "take out".

i.e. The ones who aren't giving him money.

James Young said...

Blue, if you don't think Wallis has political power on his mind, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. Perhaps it's just the naivete of youth, but you really should get over it. Wallis is no less sanctimonious than anyone else, and is, in fact, more so. Witness the title of his book, implying --- if not claiming --- that he has some special insight into God's politics. That's pretty arrogant, by any standard.

As for "what the commandments say," just because your translation is bad doesn't mean that I have to accept it. But I'm appreciate your superior understanding of "what Jesus taught."

As for the ACLU, I just finished (within the hour) a brief in which the ACLU is amicus on the other side, supporting the power of unions to force individuals to support their political agenda as a condition of having a voice in their unionized workplace.

Now, tell me again how the ACLU is "An organization that exists to protect our constitutional rights ... including the second amendment," when it: (a) stands up for forced unionism, which you yourself have said you oppose; and (b) has never challenged any gun control law?

Don't know if I'd call it "the worst organization in America" --- there's still NAMBLA and the AFL-CIO --- but I certainly wouldn't call it one "that exists to protect our constitutional rights." More accurately, one "that exists to advance a far Left and/or nihilistic agenda while posturing as one that exists to protect our constitutional rights."

Ben Kyber said...

Have you even read the book? I'm just wondering.

While we're at it. Have either you or too conservative ever read the bible? Can you find me the verse about killing people being alright if they're "bad" people...?

I wouldn't exactly call me the "looney left" by the way. I am, after all, a pro-gun, pro-LIFE (Not just innocent life, but life in general. Human life is sacred. We all have one ultimate judge. Lets let him make the decisions about who to remove from earth.) Democrat. I'm very religious. Faith is by far the most important aspect of my life. I'm not exactly Bill Maher. For my party i'm a bit right of center probably, if not right in the center of the spectrum.

Speaking of looney, did you just mention NAMBLA and the AFL-CIO in the same breath as the TWO worst organizations in America? Well, I agree with one of those, but I'm not sure labor unions quite fall to the level of pedaphilia.

You do know you represent the fringe-right I hope? Pretty much every Repub I know is somewhere to the left of you. Don't talk to me about being looney. You folks are way right of the mainstream.