Pat Robertson - Aren't you glad he's on ABC Family?

[flippyshark]

I usually tend to shy away from political and religious discussion unless asked, but I can't imagine too many people think this little rant of Pat's is a good thing. He's asking the government to carry out an illegal assasination, for Pete's sake.

Anyway, at this link, there is video of Pat in action, and a link allowing those interested to express their concern to ABC Family. (They're contractually obligated to air 700 Club.)

Pat Robertson has lost his WWJD bracelet

[€uroMeinke]

So, ethicly speaking there shouldn't be an issue of someone assasinating an advocate of assasination - it's just a corallary of the Golden Rule right?

[Gemini Cricket]

So, this whole assassination thing...

:scratching head:

it's not very Christian, is it?

This should be the part where the followers of the 700 Club and other Christian groups speak out and say that he doesn't represent them 100%... But I have a feeling we won't be hearing that...

[Prudence]

I'm sure there will be some sort of "eye for an eye" justification. It amazes me how many fundamentalist groups trot out OT rules when it suits them, but when the rules are inconvenient exclaim that Jesus said the OT rules were no longer required. Big fans of having cake and eating it, too, they are.

[Monorail Man]

Ugh. I always catch "700 Club" when I leave "Whose Line?" on for too long. Glad I don't have a Nelison box.

[Stan4dSteph]

That guy is a NUTJOB!

[TigerLily]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

it's not very Christian, is it?

I'm not sure. Do christians only follow the new testament?...if so then probably not, but in the old testament god did order the people to go into the land of milk and honey (??...what is that anyway??) and kill every man, woman and child. I think they only follow the "big" stories of the old testament now......either way i agree the guy is over the top...

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by TigerLily

but in the old testament god did order the people to go into the land of milk and honey (??...what is that anyway??) and kill every man, woman and child.

He can come talk to me when he's got video of a burning, talking bush (and I don't mean an efigy of our President with a digital voice recording)

[Not Afraid]

When I was growing up Fundie, I learned all about both testaments but the key difference was that Jesus Saves in the Newbie Testie and, those poor souls of old didn't have Jebus. So, anything God said goes.

[Name]

After reading a bit of the site, Thanks FlippyShark, ran across this bit, found it funny...

From http://mediamatters.org/items/200508190011

Pat Robertson bears false witness against Sen. Boxer

Pat Robertson's 2004 book The Ten Offenses (Integrity Publishers, January 2004) devoted a section of a chapter titled "Tell the Truth" to "The Ninth Commandment and the Media." On page 183, Robertson described a "flagrant" violation of the Ninth Commandment:


Just a few days before I finished writing this book, Les Moonves, the president of CBS Television, pulled from the lineup a so-called documentary about former president Ronald Reagan that demeaned the reputation of this great president. ... [H]e was shown as a bumbling dolt saying something that he had never said in his life. ... While this aged man is suffering from Alzheimer's disease in the twilight of his life, a film producer bears false witness against him, puts words in his mouth that he never spoke, and seeks to destroy his legacy and reputation. A more flagrant violation of the Ninth Commandment would be hard to find.

Two pages later, Robertson explained just how serious such a violation is:


[T]hose who spread falsehoods against others ... are acting like the devil himself. Those who break the Ninth Commandment are in essence taking on the very nature of the devil.

It's clear, then, that Pat Robertson is strongly, deeply opposed to depicting a public figure "saying something that he had never said in his life" -- he considers such an act the work of the "devil himself."

Or does he?

On August 15, Robertson appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, where he said of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), "I'm absolutely appalled at what she had to say. I don't know if you read all the transcripts. ... But she says first, 'I've got to wait on Ralph Neas of the People for the American Way to see what he says about it.' She's supposed to be a senator from the biggest state in America. And then she says, 'I'm going to follow the lead of Chuck Schumer. I trust him.' And he's the senator from New York, of course."

There's only one problem: Boxer never said those words in her life, as Media Matters revealed Robertson was apparently relying on a post on the weblog Radio Blogger, which purported to offer a "translation" of Boxer's comments. The "translation" was actually an obvious gross distortion of Boxer's comments -- but Robertson put Radio Blogger's words in Boxer's mouth.

Surely, then, Robertson quickly atoned for his sins and rededicated himself to faithfully following the Ninth Commandment?

Nope.

On the August 18 edition of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, Robertson again falsely quoted Boxer as saying "I've got to consult with Ralph Neas to see what stand to take on this nominee [John Roberts]." Robertson also claimed that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is "without question the most doctrinaire left-wing radical in the United States Senate. ... he is a radical leftist who is now proven to be a puppet of Ralph Neas of People for the American Way."

Leahy, the "most doctrinaire left-wing radical in the United States Senate"? That can't be right, can it? Well, no -- not according to the Christian Coalition of America, anyway. The coalition -- which, incidentally, Robertson founded -- argues that "[w]e must see the political tide of this nation continue to turn away from liberalism." To that end, it produces "scorecards" that rate senators' voting records. The coalition gave Leahy a score of 16 in 2004. That's low, to be sure -- but 29 Senators got a zero, including Leahy's fellow Vermonter, independent Jim Jeffords, and that noted left-wing radical Joe Lieberman. Far from being "without question the most doctrinaire left-wing radical in the United States Senate," according to the Christian Coalition's most recent ratings, Leahy isn't even the "most doctrinaire left-wing radical" among senators from Vermont.

But what's a little rhetorical excess to make a point? Surely there's nothing wrong with Robertson's tiny little exaggeration; overstating Leahy's supposed extremism is well within the bounds of reasonable discourse, right? Let's turn to page 181 of Robertson's The Ten Offenses for an answer:


Falsely labeling a public figure "hard right-wing," "an extremist," or "an intractable obstructionist" when those descriptions do not clearly fit violates the [Ninth] commandment.

Looks like Robertson needs to read his own book.