Mainstream Christian Leaders Speak Out on Extremist Statements of Pat Robertson

Excellent post FP.

My great grandfather, T.J. Bach, was an early missionary to Venezuela. When I read the comments of Sam Olson (and others), I can't help but think of those who have carried on the work, and all of the additional obstacles they face in light of Robertson's comments.

As a conservative, Bush supporting Christian, not only do I think Robertson's comments were foolish, but very few of my other conservative Christian friends support him either.

Robertson's "Operation Blessing" ministry has done a lot of good and many have come to Christ through his ministry, but Pat needs to learn to not say stupid things.

It is interesting how Robertson's earnest and effective "Operation Blessing" ministry to the poor is totally overlooked by Jim Wallis and others who disagree with Robertson's politics. OB has been doing a lot good for ove 20 years, but all these "progressive" Christians find to say about Pat seems to be related to Pat's foolish political comments.

It's enough to make you wonder if the progressives are biased or something.

My biggest frustration with this whole bruhaha is that while the media was so quick to pick up Pat's statements and plaster it all over their broadcasts, the only denouncement of it they've really covered was to give a few small soundbytes to the Bush administration. Meanwhile, religious leaders on the left and right are denouncing it, but no one is hearing about it.

Like everything else, the media only cares about religion when they can sensationalize it. Religious folk acting with rationality are of no interest to them. This is why its so hard for there to be effective national dialogue on religious issues.

Maybe we ought to thank ol' Pat for helping with his own discrediting, long overdue: how could he hold any allegiance except from the illiteracy of the biblicistic millinerian & dispensationalist crowds? Such "leaders" (sic) as he cast incredulity & a pall throughout Europe & the world and by implication & a "rub off" association on the sanity of the U.S., both religiously & politically. I just fielded many questions from Brits from my two weeks there, and I certainly gave a 'no holds barred' reply since there is NO credulity in the electronic church, cultic sectarianism & funDAMentalism of ANY sort. Many years ago I'd sometimes watch The 700 Club for entertainment & laughs, but now we should consider it(them) as nothing less than a "sleeper cell" & act accordingly, as they threaten us abroad as well as at home. The calls for a 'theocracy' [according to their verbal literalistic dictates, of course] documents that funDAMentalism is political first, religious never, & IRS enforcement against the misuse of their charitable status is long overdue. It is nothing less than a national disgrace to allow these types impunity, under the guise of whichever Amendment under whose shadow they lodge. Any good which he(they) might do is tangential at best, nonexistent in its mediocrity & hipocracy. Just desserts are in order, in spades.

Real & historic Christianity is always damaged by these & their efforts: cut them loose once and for all, and let them float adrift to their own perdition (a euphemism their literalism will hardly comprehend).

KSM

Progressives are opposed to the inflammatory comments of Robertson, and the harm they cause to those professing the Christian faith. Are you opposed to these comments? You label these comments "foolish" and say that Robertson should learn 'not to say these things,' suggesting that it is OK to harbor these thoughts, as long as they are not mentioned. You, yourself, do not say that these comments are wrong, or that his calls to kill a popularly elected official should be rebuked. Instead, you point to "Operation Blessing" (whose airplanes have been used to further private diamond mining business in Zaire) to suggest that those who criticize Robertson must be biased. Why sow division within your comments?

I only wish that you could bring yourself to say that making these statements or harboring these thoughts is simply wrong. But I guess that would demonstrate bias in your book.

Yes, RJ, you are right on! Operation Blessing gave him cover as Robertson supported war criminals in Liberia who helped him amass his personal fortune in mines, etc!!

From Christianity Today article cited above:

Robertson's real power

Television and televangelism usually work through viewership. A show with few viewers won't stay on the air: On commercial television, no advertisers will buy space. In religious broadcasting, no donations will come in. But Robertson hasn't needed viewers for almost a decade. He has contractual obligations.

Many people have complained about the 700 Club to cable channel ABC Family, which airs it. But ABC Family has no choice. It is obligated under contract to air it. (The FCC may not be able to do anything, either)

In 1988, Robertson sold the Family Network to Fox for $1.9 billion. Not bad, when you consider the channel was originally launched in 1977 through the donations of viewers who had been promised a Christian alternative to "secular" television, then taken public in 1992. CBN got $136 million from the sale. Robertson's Regent University got another $148 million. Robertson personally received $19 million, and the rest went to the Robertson Charitable Remainder Trust, which will fund CBN after Robertson and his wife die.

But the money wasn't the biggest part of the deal: Fox Family was required to air The 700 Club three times a day—and, if Fox sold the network, the obligation to air The 700 Club had to be part of that deal, too.

Cable World reported in 2001 that Robertson turned down hundreds of millions of dollars to renegotiate. Largely due to frustration that the 700 Club had disrupted its programming, Fox sold the network to the Walt Disney Company in 2001 for $3 billion and $2.3 billion in debt. Now ABC Family is obligated to air the program three times a day.

Robertson could go on his program and call for the assassination of Michael Eisner and ABC Family couldn't pull it. He could have zero viewers and ABC Family couldn't pull it. The ABC Family airtime has an estimated value of $46.8 million a year.

Earlier this year, Virginian-Pilot religion reporter Steven Vegh noted that Robertson's CBN had depleted the proceeds from the Family Channel sale, but that the ABC Family airings had led to more donations: "[CBN President Michael D.] Little said that financially, The 700 Club is to CBN what the offering plate is to a typical church. 'In our case, the collections are five times a day,' he said."

Donations have increased from $84 million in 1998, the year of the sale, to $132.1 million in 2004. Even more notable is Vegh's note that donations were only a third of CBN's 1997 revenue, but 71 percent of 2004 revenue.

That's partly because CBN has had trouble with its business holdings, including a real estate subdivision, a hotel, and internet site Christianity.com—all sold off over the years.

But it's a mistake to see CBN as Pat Robertson's only source of income. CBN was not, for example, part of Freedom Gold Limited, Robertson's mining operation in Liberia (incorporated in the Cayman Islands with Robertson as president and sole director). Nor was it part of his Creative Energy Co., an oil refinery company. Nor of Robertson's horse-racing interests.

Robertson is willing to fight for these interests. He may call for the assassination of Chavez, but he'll brook no criticism of his business partners, even former Liberian president Charles Taylor. "How dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down,'" Robertson said after Taylor was indicted for war crimes.

National sovereignty isn't the only principle Robertson is willing to compromise for business purposes. While trying to negotiate a CBN presence in China, Robertson defended the country's one-child policy.

The Fredericksburg, Virginia, Free Lance-Star today quotes Mark Rozell, head of George Mason University's master of public policy program, talking about attending a conference of evangelical scholars.

"I remember the conference director said words to the effect that Robertson is one more nutty comment away from becoming irrelevant," Rozell said. "Since then, Robertson has made a number of such comments—on China's one-child policy, about wishing for a nuke to take out the State Department building in D.C., among others. It's as though he can't help himself. Often times his comments anger his own supporters the most."

But Robertson's financial holdings are relatively permanent and multinational. He is impervious to your criticism. He doesn't need you. He doesn't need your money. He doesn't need America.

Even if Robertson's 700 Club TV show could be yanked off the air, I don't think that would be a good idea. Do we really want this nincompoop seen as some kind of martyr for free speech? Let Robertson keep talking, let him continue proving himself both a moron and a maniac, and may the mainstream press continue publishing his insane comments. I'm sure the IRS is looking into revoking his tax-exempt status and that the FCC is monitoring him pretty closely. Perhaps Robertson will be the next Jim Bakker and go to prison.

FP---
Right on to your listing of monied interests & holdings! So much for traveling with only the shoes on your feet & clothes on your back, eh? But you need to monitor the Sports pages occasionally to glean an improbable interest too: his son took some of that money & invested in the Philadelphia Wings of the professional Box Lacrosse league! No doubt the justification would be to support a Native American contribution to our national sports inheritance! I now have something else to boycott without even looking for it: touche!

Your encyclopaedic list was complete enough without my adding another to it, however.

I think the thing that frustrates me the most when I look at comments like Robertson's is not the fact that he made them, but that he refuses to be held accountable for them. He said in his "apology" that "taking him out" [in reference to Venezualan president Hugo Chavez] could simply mean CIA operatives going covertly and kidnapping him, which is, in my mind, (how do I put this gently), patently disingenuous. What he needed to do to avoid all the criticism leveled at him by both evangelicals and progressives (and everyone in between) was to step up, be a man and say, "I was wrong. I said something I had no right to say, and even though I cannot now take it back, I do apologize. I recognize that Jesus would never endorse killing anyone for any reason, and I repent of my error".
I bring that up because the "apology" Robertson proffered was not an apology. It was merely a self-righteous justification of his extremism. As such, it wasn't an apology, and it frustrates me. My frustration comes from the fact that as a well-known Christian leader (for better or worse), he is highly visible to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, that visibility comes with a price: people will think that he's representative of Christianity as a whole, and possibly discredit it because of what he's said. That possibility means that people are closing themselves off to the lifechanging truths of the Gospel just because of one nut case. Surely that isn't what Jesus intended at all, and I think Jesus must have wept when he heard Robertson's statement. I know I did. Robertson doesn't speak for me---can he claim to speak for Christ?

Rev. Prof. Arden C. Hander –

Your disdain for fellow Christians (you call them funDAMentalists) is sad. I can understand that you disagree with them politically and probably to some degree doctrinally, but is it really necessary to denigrate them and ridicule them? Would Christ do that? Is this any way to heal and build up the Church of Christ? That is your goal, right?

r.Johnson –

I am opposed to inflammatory comments from anyone, conservative or leftie. I want to discover and propagate the facts. Part of that process requires analyzing the source of information for hidden agendas.

I have heard conflicting things about Chavez. Until I investigate further, I ought not to state an opinion about whether I personally am glad that he is in power or not. Some people liken him to Castro and say that the elections were not honest. If that is accurate, I would like him out of power before he can do the damage to Venezuela that Castro has done to Cuba. Some people say he’s a good ruler. If so, more power to him!

Without my uncovering more clearcut facts, I cannot say whether or not Robertson should think thoughts that resemble what he spoke. But I feel pretty sure that it was irresponsible and unconstructive for him to voice those thoughts the way he did.

Can you suggest any links that shed more light on Chavez and the allegations against him?
Your claim that Operation Blessing assets have been misused – can you give me some links on that?

FP –

Can you give me links on your statement “Robertson supported war criminals in Liberia who helped him amass his personal fortune in mines”?

If Robertson is guilty of misbehaviors, I have no problem condemning those behaviors. But he has also been used by God to lead many into the Kingdom – far more that I probably ever will. His book “Shout it from the Housetops” inspired me as a young Christian in a decidedly anti-Christian environment.

Whatever his faults, I do respect the good things that God has done through him (though it doesn’t give him a “free pass” on other things), and I hope that you do to.

Allie –

I agree. When one apologized one should not waffle, or use waffle words such as “If I have offended anyone….” when one knows darn good and well that many people were offended.
It sounds like Robertson’s apology was as poorly done as Dick Durbin’s. That would be sad indeed.

KSM,

Good for you for wanting to discover the facts, but what facts do you need to discover before deciding whether or not it is wrong to call for the assassination of a democratically elected official? You still seem to argue that Robertson's comments 'might have offended some' by 'voicing those thoughts the way that he did' but you yourself do not say that they are wrong.

And does it matter whether you support Chavez or if there are 'conflicting things' being said about him? Is killing 'ok' if we don't like the person and wrong if we do? Just imagine how many people would be calling for the assaination of Bush if that were the standard!

For a better understanding of US policy vis a vis Latin and South America, take a moment and read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." It does not concern Chavez, but it forms the background for part of the current situation. After that, email me and I will send you plenty of articles on Chavez. As to Robertson and Operation Blessings, here is one article. http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/467/2013161.html Note the defense of the policy by pointing to all of the good that Robertson claims to have done, just like you do here. Plenty of other articles have been written on Robertson's African Development Company, his connections to Charles Taylor, etc.

I hope you find the reading enlightening.

The sincerely intelligent Chritian finds the rhetoric and hatred of so called Christian "leaders" such as Pat offensive and personally insulting and degrading. Thank God we look to Jesus and not to men like these for guidance of our hearts and deeds.

Your sister in Christ!
Serenity

KSM - Rather than " being used by God to lead many to the Kingdon," Pat Robinson has used his position as a religious broadcaster to preach hatred and intolerance. He has made multi-millions of dollars preying on peoples' fear and ignorance. He is no man of God and certainly no Christian.

Re: Charles Taylor, War Criminal

Wash Post

..... the subject of today's column, and the basis for this humble question: What, pray tell, does the Good Lord make of Pat Robertson's gold-mining venture in Liberia with Charles Taylor, international pariah and one of the most ruthless, greedy and terror-producing heads of state in all of sub-Saharan Africa?

What? He didn't know?

Well it probably slipped Robertson's mind, busy as he is in getting people to send in those checks, money orders and love offerings to support his cause. How the reverend found time to hook up with Taylor, I'll never know.

But in May 1999, Robertson, through Freedom Gold Limited, an offshore company registered in the Cayman Islands but based at CBN headquarters in Virginia Beach, signed an agreement with Taylor and key cabinet members allowing the for-profit Freedom Gold to explore and receive mining rights in southeastern Liberia, where gold is believed to be in the ground.

It's a great deal for Liberia, which is now an economic basket case thanks to the long civil war and Taylor's corruption. It's also good for Freedom Gold, which was formed by Robertson in 1998. Liberia -- and for all practical purposes we're talking Taylor -- gains 10 percent ownership of Freedom Gold.

As The Post's Douglas Farah reported in January, huge amounts of the country's funds have been siphoned off by a small group of Taylor's associates and relatives. Taylor "has his hand in everything and gets a cut of everything," a businessman told The Post. Other Liberians, probably Taylor's gang, are entitled to buy at least 15 percent of Freedom Gold's shares after the exploration period.

In a phone interview on Wednesday, Joe Mathews, Freedom Gold's vice president for finance and administration ("actually I'm acting as managing director," he confided), said the company is currently in the exploration stage but "there is little activity at the moment because it's monsoon season."

He said gold has been found, but whether it is a viable venture has not been determined. Mathews confirmed reports that Freedom Gold is committed to spend $15 million during the exploration phase, but he said it has yet to spend anything close to that amount. The deal with Liberia gives Freedom Gold exploration rights for five years, and an additional "20 years to mine it," Mathews said. Liberia is currently collecting exploration and rental fees from Freedom Gold; the government also will pocket royalties and rental fees once production gets underway.

Yesterday Fisher also faxed a letter stating that the company has shown it is "a responsible corporate citizen." He cited company-built wells and pumps for safe drinking water, a free medical clinic that serves 1,000 patients a month from surrounding villages and the construction of roads and bridges to reach the area. "Freedom Gold has done more for the people in this region in the last two years than any other company over the last thirty years," he said, adding that the company intends to contribute even more.

Taylor needs the cash. His country is in ruins, though he and Madam Jewel Howard Taylor live well, thanks to sales of Liberia's precious resources and concession fees from foreign investors such as Freedom Gold.

Monrovia, the country's capital, is the pits: sporadic running water and electricity, hungry and malnourished children. And the countryside, where illiteracy is up to 70 percent and fighting still rages, is worse off.

The United Nations finally got its back up. Fed up with Taylor's complicity in helping rebels in neighboring Sierra Leone market diamonds to finance terror against their government, the U.N. Security Council slapped sanctions on Liberia: no international sale of diamonds; an embargo on foreign travel by senior Taylor officials. The United States has imposed economic sanctions, too.

And why not?

The U.S.-educated but Libya- trained Taylor is a menace to all that's decent. Ironically, it was Christmas Eve 1989 -- (get that Mr. Robertson) -- when warlord Taylor and his band of rebels launched their bloody invasion of Liberia. They took on a despot in then-president and former sergeant Samuel Doe. But Taylor's crowd turned out to be no better. Twelve years later, with tens of thousands of Liberians slain, hundreds of thousands displaced throughout West Africa, a generation of young Liberian boys ruined by their conversion to child soldiers, women raped and mutilated, his country is in absolute ruins and is ostracized by the world community -- except for hustlers, mercenaries and the preacher/entrepreneur from Virginia Beach. Taylor presides over a near corpse.

Finding himself in the tightest of spots, Taylor the Intimidator weighed in this week on America's side in the fight against terrorism. But his real hope lies with deep-pocketed foreigners and their unquenchable thirst for a buck.

What a marriage. Can't you see it now? Robertson, fresh from his latest condemnation of sin, prediction of world collapse and visions of Liberian gold, sports his best "aw, shucks" smile, throws his arm around a grateful President Taylor -- who ought to be standing before a war crimes tribunal -- and coos: "C'mon, Charlie, what's a little human rights between friends?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7124-2001Sep21

ans see:
Pat Robertson and the War Criminal
In the days since Pat Robertson said he'd like to see Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez whacked by the US, I've heard a few commentators mention connnections between Robertson and former Liberian president and notorious war criminal Charles Taylor. I was curious to learn more, so I started poking around and quickly found a CBS News story from 2003 in which Robertson slams Bush for asking Charles Taylor to resign. (Taylor is now a fugitive in Nigeria, hiding from the UN Tribunal he deserves.) Here are some snippets from that story:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson accused President Bush of “undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels� by asking Liberian President Charles Taylor, recently indicted for war crimes, to step down.
“How dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down,'" Robertson said Monday on “The 700 Club,� broadcast from his Christian Broadcasting Network.

“It's one thing to say, we will give you money if you step down and we will give you troops if you step down, but just to order him to step down? He doesn't work for us.�

(snip)

Robertson told The Washington Post in an interview published Thursday that he has “written off in my own mind� an $8 million investment in a Liberian gold mining venture he made four years ago, under an agreement with Taylor's government.

“Once the dust has cleared on this thing, chances are there will be some investors from someplace who want to invest. If I could find some people to sell it to, I'd be more than delighted,� he said in the article.

(snip)

A U.N.-backed tribunal indicted Taylor on June 4 for war crimes in neighboring Sierra Leone.

Robertson told the Post that the war crimes indictment “is nonsense and should be quashed.�

Want more? Read this Washington Post piece about the Pat Robertson/Charles Taylor connection.

Lesson learned: if you subscribe to the Pat Robertson School of Thought, it's okay to support a world leader who's an indicted war criminal when you've invested in gold and diamond mines in his country. But if another world leader sticks in your craw and you haven't invested millions of televangelism dollars in his country, you can send a hit squad after him.

Pat Robertson's ethical compass points only in one direction - at himself. -andy
http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/acarvin/view?PostID=5587

FP

Hey, guys and gals, (especially FP) this has been one of the most educational links of Pat Robertson that I have seen in a long time. Thanks so much for the info.

I must agree with KSM about attacking funDAMentalists. Let's stick to the facts and avoid the silly name calling.

FP -- Thanks for the tons of info. I knew Robertson was bad news, but I never knew how truly corrupt he was.

Amem! Stand up and be counted progressives!

While doing research on Chavez & Robertson I decided to hit the 700 Club website & see what they had to say. Nothing like original sources, you know.

The following article from the CBN site is a mile wide and an inch deep, but that in and of itself doesn't mean it is unfactual. It clearly presents primarily one side of the arguement, though it does at least acknowledge Chavez's work for the poor.

Read it for yourself:

"CBN.com – CARACAS, Venezuela - His name is Hugo Chavez. He is the president of oil-rich Venezuela. Mr. Chavez has decided that America is his enemy, so he is building up his army. He has forged an alliance with Fidel Castro, and many think he is going to make trouble for the United States.

Chavez believes he is in a fight with the devil. But the devil that Chavez fights does not reside in Hell. Chavez believes that the devil resides in Washington.

Chavez has actually been on a collision course with Washington for years. But for the most part, Washington was not paying attention. It is now.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld toured South America recently, trying to fight back against Chavez’ growing influence, but Washington’s concern comes very late in the game, and now a new Cuban-Venezuelan alliance, bankrolled by oil profits, threatens to create a block of anti-American states across Latin America

But Washington's concern has been too little too late, and now some fear that a new Cuban-Venezuelan alliance has a plan to create a new block of Leftist-run, anti-American states across Central and South America.

Internally, Chavez has already rewritten the constitution, stacked the courts and begun throwing political opponents into jail. And some say he is now looking beyond Venezuela's borders. With billions of dollars in oil profits, Chavez is buying advanced Russian fighter planes and helicopters, dramatically increasing the size of his armed forces and integrating it with Cuba's.

Meanwhile, Chavez laughs all the way to the bank. He sits atop one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Venezuela owns CITGO. And as America's fourth largest oil supplier, he believes he has the U.S. by the throat. And he just might.

Chavez calls this revolution "Bolivarian," named after the South American liberator, Simon Bolivar. But for his opponents, this revolution has been anything but liberating.

Maria-Corina Machado, opposition leader and mother of three, faces prison time for simply taking grant money from the National Endowment for Democracy, a program of the United States Congress.

"This is a country where anyone who dares to think and speak differently from the government,” said Machado, “is seen as an enemy."

Machado's group Sumate used the money to educate citizens in democracy. But the Chavez government accused Machado of plotting with the U.S. to overthrow it.

Machado commented, "I have three kids and I tell my kids that their mom could go to jail because of conspiracy, treason to my country, rebellion. These are the kinds of charges put against us."

Opposition figure Enrique Capriles has already spent four months in jail. He told CBN News that he was only released because the street protests over his jail sentence had become an embarrassment to the government.

And at the TV channel Globovision, TV talk show host Leopoldo Castillo has had to learn to keep his acid tongue in check. There is a new censorship law against insulting President Chavez.

Castillo remarked, "David Letterman, every day, in tonight's show, he makes fun of President Bush. Nothing happens. Here, with a new law, if you make fun of the president, of the senior officer of the Supreme Court, of any minister, you can go to jail.”

But if you travel to the barrios of Caracas, you hear a different story. Because here you get the feeling that Chavez is the revenge of the poor on a society that before never seemed to care about them. Many living in grinding poverty believe Venezuela's brand of corrupt capitalism is the reason they are poor. Chavez means hope. Here, he is no dictator.

This Chavista, or follower of Chavez, says he hopes Chavez rules forever. What they say in the USA is a lie," he says, "because Chavez is not a dictator. Chavez is a president who has decided to govern on behalf of the poor."

Last year, Chavez spent four billion dollars in oil profits on social programs, like a sewing co-op, which also includes political indoctrination every morning. State money also funds neighborhood food programs.

Young Chavistas, we were told, "belong to the revolution." And if this is starting to sound to you like Cuba, that's just what a lot of Venezuelans have been thinking, too.

Adolfo Taylhardat should know. He used to be Venezuela's ambassador to Cuba.

Taylhardat said, "…So I'm very much familiar with the internal situation in Cuba. And what I see is that Chavez slowly has been introducing all the elements of the Cuban regime, Cuban system into Venezuela. He wants to make Venezuela be as similar to Cuba as possible. And he wants to present Venezuela as a victim of U.S. imperialism."

In this typical diatribe, Chavez compared capitalism to Count Dracula, Frankenstein, Jack the Ripper and the Boston Strangler, but then added that Capitalists are much worse than those monsters.

Not a single poor person we talked to, no matter how much love they expressed for Chavez, said they wanted Venezuela to turn into Cuba. But that is the direction the country is headed.

Chavez has kicked out American military advisors and brought in Cuban officers. We interviewed a former Venezuelan Army officer, now seeking political asylum in the United States.

Speaking by phone from the Krome Detention Center in Miami, Lieutenant Jose Colina told us, "I was present in meetings in which members of the Cuban government were trying to change the ideology and indoctrinate officials of the Venezuelan Armed Forces, especially those of the National Guard. Without a doubt they were pointing out that we had to fight imperialism, capitalism and its top representative, the United States -- which is also the main cause of poverty and misery in Latin America."

In the barrios of Caracas we met a Cuban doctor, one of thousands of Cubans who now operate low-cost medical clinics for the poor. He said his was not a political mission, but a humanitarian one.

Chavez has been called the "anti-Bush." He has embraced virtually every enemy of the United States, past and present, from Saddam Hussein to Moammar Khaddafy to the Taliban and Iran.

An important early advisor to Chavez was an Argentine Holocaust-denier named Norberto Ceresole.

Ceresole believed that Latin America must forge alliances with Arab nations to fight against the United States and what Ceresole called "the Jewish financial mafia." And a few months ago, Chavez played a major role in the first South American-Arab Summit in Brazil, which attacked both the United States and Israel as the chief enemies of Latin America.

And although his government repeatedly denies it, a large body of evidence suggests that Chavez is harboring and supporting the FARC guerillas of neighboring Colombia, one of the largest and most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world.

Chavez calls the United States the world's greatest menace and says he simply wishes to be left alone to do his work. But there is a growing fear that Chavez is preparing to export his Bolivarian revolution to his neighbors. Why else would he need 100,000 recently purchased Russian AK-47s? Why announce plans to increase the size of the army reserves from 50,000 to 1.5 million? Why the ties to guerilla movements?

Chavez says the arms buildup is defensive. His opponents disagree. Taylhardat says, "He wants to do now what Castro failed to do in the 60s, when he sent out Che Guevarra to export the Cuban revolution to the rest of the continent."

Chavez said, "The U.S. administration is behind the opposition in Venezuela, and Mr. George Bush has a black hat, black horse and black flag. He is the main instigator and the main planner of all the movements that have attacked us."

Chavez says the U.S. is plotting to have him killed, and he says if that happens, oil shipments to the U.S. will stop. It is a strange relationship between business partners. But get used to it. Hugo Chavez remains the most popular politician in Venezuela. And he shows no sign of going away.

He states, "I bet a dollar to Mr. Bush to see who will last longer, him there in the White House or this Venezuelan, Hugo Chavez, here in the Miraflores Palace. Let's see who lasts longer, Mr. Bush."

In his fight with America, Chavez intends to be the last man standing."

From http://www.700club.org/cbnnews/news/050531a.asp

I don't necessarily agree with all of the content or all of the tone, but the article did raise some valid concerns.

I don't know. I also read lots and lots of stuff about what a horrible threat to our security Cuba is and how the Castro wants nothing more than to see America fall. But I don't think that any of it makes me advocate killing Castro in his sleep.

Again, what is most shocking is not that someone on the Right called for Chaez's assassination, but that a "respected" Christian evangalist did. No matter what Chavez's position on the US, I don't see how it can be at all Christian to call for his murder.

Why does the superpower care what the small country politician says? So they have oil - if we find ourselves short blame it on SUV's and plastic, not on someone not wanting to sell it to us. Our politicians say/do alot to impress their electorate so why wouldn't a politician from venezuala?

I have not read elmer gantry, but it sounds like Pat Robertson may be worse. I would hope the fundamentalists would call out their own if they recommend breaking a commandment.

An honest confession may lead to forgiveness. But I would say Mr. Robertson has sacrificed the right to speak publically for christians.

I am happy some conservatives have spoken up. A unified response from the christian community would go a long way towards increasing our respectability in the world.

Perhaps God was ashamed when Jesus failed to assemble military combatants to assassinate others around the globe? Perhaps Pat Robertson's dominion theology is the corrective to the evidently insufficient gospel of Jesus Christ?

That many U.S. Christians are spending their time and energy *defending* Robertson is a clear indication of how remarkably far U.S. religious fundamentalism is from the teachings of that radical Jewish prophet.

KSM

Wow. After admitting that you don't have enough information on the topic, you cut and paste directly from the 700 club website. I can only assume that you adopt those comments for your own, or else why would you include them here? If you don't adopt them as your own, let me tell you, I can give you a pretty good deal on the Brooklyn Bridge!

Why is it that you are so quick to conclude that Pat Robertson is right, and that you should defend him? Why is it that you are so quick to conclude that concern for the lower classes should be condemned as a threat to the United States? If you are so concerned about the ability to criticize an elected official, what are you doing to protest the American citizens who have been arrested when they have protested (peacefully) aginst George Bush?

Simply cutting and pasting from the 700 club website does nothing to further your argument. The lengths that you have gone to defend Pat Robertson, when such a high number of mainstream Christians have denounced him, speaks volumes. You have to consider the source, right?

KSM:

Right up front, I want to say whole-heartedly that I endorse Pat Robertson's efforts at spreading the Gospel. It is undeniable that his efforts have had some wonderful effects - on an individual level and at a community level.

I have to ask, though, what Gospel is he really preaching? This is not the first time he has, in your words, "said something stupid". In fact, he's made a career of it - including saying that Foggy Bottom (which is the State Department) should be nuked.

For my part, when I blogged about the episode, I did so with equal parts outrage and concern. Above all else, Robertson is my brother-in-Christ and he needs to be confronted by his ENTIRE family for his continued advocacy of violence and death. He is a former marine and he seems to have confused "semper fidelis" with "love thy neighbor".

Honestly, it doesn't matter what Chavez has done to this point. He hasn't attacked us. There is no Christian doctrine that would indicate any support for a "just war" against Venezuela. If you look at the history of Latin America, you'll find that they tend to do much better when their "hermano Norte" minds its own business.

So, congrats to Pat on helping many people. But that does not excuse his actions or his words. Until the Christian Right leaders say so, his "stupid words" will be broadcast throughout the world as the words of American Christians. He doesn't speak for me, and apparently not for you. That message needs to be spoken loudly and clearly.

XT

Well said XT. And while Robertson does not speak for me, his actions have tainted how Christians are preceived. Is it any surprise the Venezuela has suspended permits for foreign missionaries to that country? http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3327063 I would not be surprised if Robertson uses the move as evidence of an anti-Christian bias as part of an after the fact effort to give Robertson a false sense of justification for his comments.

John G. –

You said “No matter what Chavez's position on the US, I don't see how it can be at all Christian to call for his murder.” I have to agree w/ you, especially since we are not at war with his country. But I am also concerned about the reports I hear of human rights abuses that he sanctions and the support he gives to Castro. I would like to see Chavez out of power, and replaced by a government that actually cares for its own people. Unlike the one that proceeded Chavez.

Brian W –

You said “Why does the superpower care what the small country politician says?”

Recent events have shown how even a small backwards country (like Afghanistan) can be very damaging to the US, or even a miniscule group of people (like 19 men w/ box cutters) can cost thousands of lives, tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars.

We as a country need to strike a proper balance between being blissfully trusting of everyone and every other country versus being hyper-paranoid about everything.

Evil is real, and there are people out there who want us dead. Chavez, with his money and oil resources, can be of help to them.

Tenoch –

Welcome. I see that you’ve come over from the Sojo forum. Can’t say that I blame you. Not much going on over there lately.

You say “Perhaps God was ashamed when Jesus failed to assemble military combatants to assassinate others around the globe?”

I don’t think so.

You say “Perhaps Pat Robertson's dominion theology is the corrective to the evidently insufficient gospel of Jesus Christ? “

Again, I disagree.

You say “many U.S. Christians are spending their time and energy *defending* Robertson”

Who is defending Robertson’s statements on Chavez? I probably come closer to doing that than anyone I’ve heard of, and even I have said they were foolish and unChristian.

You have constructed a straw-man argument. No wonder it was so easy to knock down.

r. Johnson –

You say “you cut and paste directly from the 700 club website. I can only assume that you adopt those comments for your own, or else why would you include them here?”

You need to read my post more closely. Apparently you overlooked the fact that I prefixed my quote with the following (mostly negative) comment “The following article from the CBN site is a mile wide and an inch deep, but that in and of itself doesn't mean it is unfactual. It clearly presents primarily one side of the argument, though it does at least acknowledge Chavez's work for the poor.”

And I followed the quote with the additional comment “I don't necessarily agree with all of the content or all of the tone, but the article did raise some valid concerns.”

How could I have been clearer that I don’t “adopt those comments as my own”?

Regarding your question “Why did you include them?” – As someone who is trying to be an honest seeker of the truth, I like to look at both sides of an issue and examine the merits of the arguments based upon the facts as I can best determine them. I trust that the majority of the people in this forum try to do the same. So I thought that this article would be of interest to other readers.

Regarding your offer to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn – No thanks. I’m trying to cut back on my bridge buying. I would have no place to store them.

You say “you are so quick to conclude that Pat Robertson is right, and that you should defend him?”

I have merely said that Robertson has done some good things (and he has), and that Robertson has done some bad things (and he has). Regarding his comments on Chavez, I have not defended them, but I have said that there are valid concerns regarding Chavez.

You said “Why is it that you are so quick to conclude that concern for the lower classes should be condemned as a threat to the United States?”

I don’t.

I welcome concern for the lower classes. In and of itself, concern for the poor is a good thing and ought to be encouraged, especially when the poor are as desperately impoverished as they are in Venezuela. But it is also possible for someone to retain power by bribing a large class of the populace and creating dependency.

Let’s see if Chavez moves forward to truly empower his people by improving education and providing means of them starting businesses, and by respecting property and human rights, or if he keeps them dependent on the government for handouts.

You say “If you are so concerned about the ability to criticize an elected official, what are you doing to protest the American citizens who have been arrested when they have protested (peacefully) aginst George Bush? “

Yeah, it’s really a shame how Michael Moore was arrested and imprisoned, isn’t it?

Seriously, if someone is peacefully and lawfully protesting the administration, that’s their right, and I would defend them. I’ve not heard of anyone who meets this description being arrested. But I’ve heard of tens of thousands who meet this description who haven’t been arrested. Perhaps you could enlighten me. It sounds like you have some specific cases in mind.

Personally, I tend to be a bit more concerned about the innocent children who are murdered every day in this country. There are only so many hours in a day for activism.

You say “Simply cutting and pasting from the 700 club website does nothing to further your argument.”

I am not trying to “further my argument” as much as I am trying to shed further light on the topic. You should welcome that, shouldn’t you?

You said “The lengths that you have gone to defend Pat Robertson, when such a high number of mainstream Christians have denounced him, speaks volumes.”

As I said before, some things about Robertson are defensible, and some things are not.

Also, to use an extreme example, Jesus was denounced by the mainstream religious rulers of His day. Perhaps “Majority rule” is not always the best way of determining whether someone is right or wrong. (And no, I am not saying that Roberson is Jesus. This was a metaphor or simile (not sure which))

XT –

Though we disagree on many topics, your posts are often intelligent and refreshing.

Thanks for seeing that things are not always black and white.

You are right – Robertson has said some really wacky things in the past. Not to mention his run for President, which I did not support.

But he has also done good things, and he is our brother in Christ. That doesn’t give him a free pass for making mistakes, but we are clearly called to love him. Sometimes that means to confront him in love. Sometimes that means to do other things. But it does mean that we should not denigrate him (or anyone else) or act abusively toward him.

Come to think of it, Bush is a Christian too.

r.Johnson –

I’m not surprised that Chavez has suspended permits for missionaries. Castro did that long ago. A friend of mine was just arrested for evangelizing in Cuba. Cuban prisons are no fun.

Could it be that Robertson is right about Chavez being anti-Christian? That has no bearing on a call for assassination, but is it not possible that Chavez is a bad apple?

KSM:

I'm confused. Isn't Venezuela a country that is 98% Roman Catholic? I fail to see how an anti-Christian man could be voted into a country predominantly Catholic.

Or even why his attitude towards religion has any influence on the question of its morally acceptable to propose killing him in cold blood. Sure there's a lot of good things to say about him, and a lot of bad, but thats all irrelavant to the discussion. The discussion is of how you can maintain yourself as a Christian leader of distinction and go around calling for assasinations of other human beings.

Exactly right, John G.

And KSM,I have no problem with 'looking at both sides of an issue.' The problem that I had with your post was twofold. First, you seemed to argue that whether Robertson was wrong or not would depend on whether his criticism of Chavez was justified. Second, you began with: "I have heard conflicting things about Chavez. Until I investigate further, I ought not to state an opinion about whether I personally am glad that he is in power or not. Some people liken him to Castro and say that the elections were not honest. If that is accurate, I would like him out of power before he can do the damage to Venezuela that Castro has done to Cuba. Some people say he’s a good ruler. If so, more power to him!"

You followed that comment with a post that reproduces Robertson's (the 700 Club) opinions on Chavez, and I criticized that. Robertson is not exactly an unbiased source for information on Chavez. More importantly, if you are not adopting those comments as your own (or defending them), they do not add to the discussion. Robertson is not participating in this dialogue, and if one were to criticize those comments, the 'easy out' is to simply say 'those are his thoughts, not mine.' Rather than having a dialogue, we are presented with Robertson's monologue. If you are familiar with Sojourners, then you might know of Jim Wallis' comment that 'the monoglogue of the religious right is over and a new dialogue has begun.' I favor a dialogue, and this site is working to provide a forum for that dialogue.

Many articles have been written on the US dispute with Chavez, including this one. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N2611461.htm I have covered others on my own website. Part of the dispute lies with Chavez providing an alternative economic model to the private property and capitalism models advocated by the US. Lula in Brazil is no different. The more successful Chavez is, the more we see 'digs' against him and suggestions of 'grave concern' in Venezuela and the region. Again, I would be happy to point you to these articles if you send me an email (or you can search my site for some of them). As I said before, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" offers plenty of background to explain current policy in the region.

And as far as free speech, there is no doubt that we have many freedoms here in the US. Many are able to protest freely (assuming they are 'properly' herded out of view first when it comes to election protests). Two of the cases I was referring to can be found here. http://www.desententia.com/desenarchive/2005/04/it_cant_happen.html

hello dear,i really dont know how to begin or what to even start with but well am mercy agyapon the president of Y.P.O.(Young Peoples Org.) in ghana - accra, our main aim is to try in our possible way to help the poor and the less deprived children in our community,we have many sad stories that we cant really tlk of all but we will just tlk of one boy called kwami who was not an ofrphan the tmie we meet him but is now an orphan we do hope his story touches ur heart so that u can come to him and many other childrens aid

Week of March 19: When we first met Kwame he was sitting quietly on a bench, with his paralyzed legs dangling, while watching other children play. Kwame Yeboah is a 7 year old boy who never received any protection from polio and reportedly had an acute onset of flaccid paralysis, first with one leg and then the other. No polio virus, however, was isolated in his stool and so we needed to investigate to find out what might have happened. We first reviewed his hospital records and then after an hour's drive over dirt, washboard roads we arrived at the village where Kwame lived. Our first contact was the Community Based Surveillance Volunteer (I'll tell you more about community volunteers later), who led us past mud homes and hovels, many with their walls broken down, until we came to this unsmiling boy sitting on a bench watching other children play.
We questioned the mother for a detailed history and learned that the reason he was brought to the hospital was that he couldn't urinate. Then he complained of pain in his lower left leg and had difficulty walking on it. the day after this both legs became paralyzed. He had only one recorded fever spike. Now he is able to urinate but does not have full bowel control and the paralysis is complete in both legs, including the toes. Now before he had problems with urinary retention he had a boil on his left buttocks, which was painful and evenetuall finally burst, right before his urinary retention symptoms began. On examination he has feeling and deep tendon reflexes, but is unable to control the movement of his lower extremities.
We don't have access to MRI, Scanners, EMG, etc., and no lumbar puncture was done, not even a CBC and so our diagnosis is merely and educated guess, but perhaps I suspect he developed a subdural abscess from his boil, and the focus of abscess was around the area of his sacral nerves. Then the common Guillain-Barr� Syndrome must be included in the rule out, but Poliomyelitis is not high on the list of probabilities.

we really try to help alot of school out drops,war victims,orphan,street children ect. with our own pocket money, a very good friend of mine told me to reach with the problem in our country and you chould help so plz try to do ur very best to help us out ok and goos will richly bless and multiply what ever you spent on those children ok
you can reach us on

YOUNG PEOPLES ORGANIZATION
patrick boamah (secretary)
p.o.box ant 367
accra new town
ghana - 23321

Tell : +233 242 948734
HOPE YOU HEAR FROM YOU SOON, GOD RICHLY BLESS YOU AMEN

xmrsqeii http://iulgphar.com rlfkssyz mcdbzmzy xwsgcmcl [URL=http://gpsournm.com]xwpylyrs[/URL]