Thou Shall not Kill....... Maybe!?

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:12 am

I will never claim to be an expert on the Bible. Yes I have read it and yes k-2 was spent in Catholic school, my mom dragged me to church etc.. Dispite that I can not quote line and verse at the drop of a hat like one friend of mine can, but I am pretty sure there was this kind of master list of 10 basic rule, or commandments that most christian groups accept. Again correct me if I am wrong but one of the biggies on this list is "Thou Shall not Kill".
Do you think maybe I should drop Mr. Pat Robertsons and remind him about these 10 rules?

Any way it appears we have our own version of an religionous extreemist. So how do you differenciate between Robertson and the other extreem clerics around the worlds.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... son-_x.htm

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:57 am

I don't know what was going through his mind...as such, I can't defend him. The excerpts in the USA Today article seem pretty egregious.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:56 pm

I'm not sure what exact laws come into play, but is it currently illegal to say things that are meant to incite terrorism? How would Robertson's comments fit into that sort of thing?

If this was a Muslim guy calling for the execution of the leader of Israel in a public forum, what would the response be from our government, or is that stuff protected under the First Amendment?

I honestly don't know ... I losing track of what is legal and illegal in our new world.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:05 pm

I truly feel sorry for anyone that would look to Robertson for any type of guidance, moral or otherwise. And I am definatley a Christian

You are right BAC. Not a lot of differance in what he said and what we are arresting people and/or deporting them for.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:20 pm

at least DC is making the right call this time around. what a nut!

U.S. Dismisses Robertson's Call

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration swiftly distanced itself Tuesday from a suggestion by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson (search) that American agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (search), long at odds with U.S. foreign policy.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld (search), appearing at a Pentagon news conference, said when asked: "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."

Acknowledging differences with the Caracas government, and saying it should be promoting democracy in the Western Hemisphere, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate."

"This is not the policy of the United States government. We do not share his views," McCormack said of Robertson's suggestion that the United States "take out" Chavez to stop Venezuela from becoming a "launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism."

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

The Rev. Jesse Jackson (search) issued a statement denouncing Robertson's remarks as "morally reprehensible and dangerously suggestive."

Jackson, in a telephone interview, said Rumsfeld's criticism of the Venezuelan leader on a trip last week to Latin America had raised concerns.

Rumsfeld and other administration officials have linked Chavez with Cuban President Fidel Castro as destabilizing troublemakers in fragile Latin American democracies.

Last week, on the way home from Paraguay and Peru, Rumsfeld told reporters, "There certainly is evidence that both Cuba and Venezuela have been involved in the situation in Bolivia in an unhelpful way."

Backing Rumsfeld, the State Department said Venezuela was using its oil money to destabilize Bolivia and Ecuador.

In Washington, Venezuelan Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez said Tuesday, "We are concerned about the safety of the president." He said measures should be taken to guarantee Chavez's safety any time he visits the United States.

Chavez is expected to attend the special session of the U.N. General Assembly next month in New York.

Robertson, 75, is a founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a supporter of President Bush, who was elected twice with the solid backing of Christian conservatives.

"I would think that people around the world would take the comments for what they are," McCormack said. "They are the expression of one citizen."

The United States was believed in the past to have been involved in the assassination in 1963 of South Vietnam President Ngo Binh Diem and attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro of Cuba.

Political assassination was put off-limits by former President Gerald R. Ford in an executive order in the mid-1970s.

Rumsfeld said he knew of no consideration ever having been given to assassinating Chavez.

"Not to my knowledge and I would think I would have knowledge," Rumsfeld said.

McCormack said, "Any accusations or any idea that we are planning to take hostile action against Venezuela or the Venezuelan government — any ideas in that regard — are totally without fact and baseless."

The spokesman said the administration had urged Venezuela "to play a positive role in the hemisphere" and to have "an open, transparent and positive relationship that you would have between two sovereign states anywhere around the world."

SEARCH

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:39 pm

Okay, I'm not going to mince words on this one. Pat Robertson, you are a lying [insert favorite derogatory term here]:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 236D09.DTL

It would be nice if our government would come out with some stronger wording in response to this as well. Something that includes the word "condemn."

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:10 am

I really like his "back track" apology today as well. "I didn't say we should assassinate him."

No he said, "If we're planning on assassinating him, I think we should."

Yeah that could easily be confused.

Then there's the whole "take him out" talk too. ugh...

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:52 am

As the proprietor of CBN, as well as the founder of the law school my brother-in-law is attending, I like Pat Robertson.

On a political level, though, there's really no excuse for his comments.

As a politician and/or political pundit, he needs to know his limits and let the posters at BobcatNation make the comments on US domestic and foriegn policy. $\:D/$

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:12 am

Pat Robertson has not only shown that he is a hateful person but also a liar all in the span of about 24 hours. If he wants to be a politician fine but don't hide behind a cross and expect people to think you are Worldly or Godly.

This brings up a larger question I've refrained from asking in the other religious debates but her I go. Since when did Christianity become about saving society over saving individual souls ie. Billy Graham. I'm no bible scholar but the Christ I've read about was about saving individual souls and helping the poor and meek, NOT getting people elected or fixing all of society.

It's no wonder a number of people get down on religion, when Robertson, Jesse Jackson, Jim Baker, Swaggert etc. are our supposed spiritual elite.

But this is my opinion I could be wrong and probably am.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:22 am

To maybe put a period at the end of this thread, I thought I would share this (can be found at this link):

on 25 Aug, VodkaPundit wrote:First, let's get something out of the way:

Television evangelist Pat Robertson's suggestion that
American agents assassinate Venezuela President Hugo Chávez to stop his
country from becoming a "launching pad for communist infiltration and
Muslim extremism" provoked a wave of virulent condemnation Tuesday.
As if you didn't already know, Pat Robertson is an idiot. Not only that, but he's a hypocritical idiot. If we were so hot for toppling dictators, he really ought to stop making millions of dollars off them.

Not that there'd be much wrong with killing Hugo Chávez. If there's one thing Ayn Rand got right, it's this: No dictatorship has any right to exist; any free nation wishing to topple a dictatorship has the moral right (but not the moral obligation) to do so.

Failing that, knocking off the dictator certainly couldn't do any harm.

But Robertson is still an idiot. Do you know how tough it is to kill a country's ruler? Do you know the kind of backlash that thing can lead to, especially when said leader has been using petrodollars to buy popularity? And doubly so when that leader has also been using Cuban know-how to keep dissenters from dissenting? Do you know of our nation's awful history regarding South America?

Killing Chávez - even if it was possible - wouldn't probably by more bother than Chávez himself.

However, I don't expect facts to change Robertson's mind. Now, if Chávez were sitting on a pile of war diamonds rather than oil, that might be a different story.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 4:00 pm

I guess I never paid much attention to Robinson before (and I guess that's probably the right answer, if only everybody would agree to do so as well), but his greatest hits as laid out in this article show that he's not treading on new ground with his latest gaffe.

http://www.slate.com/id/2125106/

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:59 pm

BAC wrote:I guess I never paid much attention to Robinson...

Actually, BAC, his last name is Robertson--you know, with "ert," not "in."

Sorry, just had to tweak you a little...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:15 pm

I could say that was just further evidence that I never paid much attention to him ... but that would be way too convenient to be true....

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:36 pm

hokeyfine · Post by **hokeyfine** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:42 pm

Pat Robertson is a hypocrit, just like swaggert and oral roberts. their money has blinded them, and their followers are blind. People have gotten so lazy in their beliefs, they will follow or believe anything. that is why the fundamentalist movement is flourishing. We've become a nation of condemnation, there's no compassion. Love thy neighbor? we don't even know our neighbor anymore!