Is Pat Robertson calling for a murder, or is he insane?

So, because we are all sinners, does that mean that it it alright to commit murder?

 

Why is anything that Pat Robertson says a national issue? He hasn't mattered much in national policy since his 1988 presidential campaign and he didn't end up mattering much then.

 

BIR,

I'd be interested in what kind of killing you could support.

A simply yes or no to each of the following will suffice.

War?
Insurgency?
To stop a Terrorist with a bomb?
Self Defense?
To Protect a woman against Rape?
To stop a pedophile from raping a child?
Abortion to save the life of the mother?
Euthansia?

You're always quick to point out you didn't say this or that - well now's your chance to be absolutely crystal clear on this subject.

 

He reminds me of my late great grandfather who suffered from alzheimers disease. Routinely he would shout hateful things for no apparent reason.

 

Slow news day.

 

rivers1222
The problem is that if a murder evil Leaders of foreign governments were put into practice, the Idi Amin's of this world would not be on the list.
Taking the Cold War as an example. Assuming the US has a perfect killer on the payroll who always succeeds.
They are going to kill the enemies of the US instead of those leaders that are their own peoples enemies.

The USSR has nukes so Stalin and the guys that come after him are save.
Mao ze Dong (an unpleasant massmurderer whose incompetence caused the deaths of untold millions on top of that) get's murdered and becomes a huge martyr for the Communist cause doing more damage to the US in death than he did in life.
The same probably happens to Castro and afterwards the Russians would probably have extended the umbrella of nuclear retalliation to other leaders of Communist regimes friendly to the USSR .
The US after bullying the Netherlands out of Indonesia in the late 40's decide they don't like Sukarno the new leader of that country so they 'repair' their 'mistake'.
Charles de Gaulle is such an ass for stepping out of part of NATO let's murder him as well.
By the time Amin came into full 'bloom' the USA would have either abondened the practice or it would have been the most unpopular country on earth.

 

Robertson is right about that, unfortunately.

 

The parallel with Mugabe is not entirely fair. If you're referring to Lord Vesty's land, then what Chavez is attempting there is land reform; redistributing land from the rich to the peasantry. Now I'm sure that that is scarcely music to the ears of the average right-wing American Christian with their notions of private property being as sacrosanct as the Bible, but it should be pointed out in Chavez' defence that (a) he's compensating the landowners, unlike Mugabe and (b) the Brazilian and Argentinian governments are contemplating similar social reforms to raise the standard of living of their countries' poor and (c) unlike in the US 83% of the Venezuelan population lives below the poverty line and owns no land and any measures which better their lot are to be welcomed; if those measures mean that some rich idle British aristocrat loses his land, then too bad - we've done more or less the same over here in the last century. That's why most of those 83% keep voting for him - he's been democratically elected to do what he's doing. I thought the US was all in favour of spreading democracy round the world. Oh, I forgot, not when that democracy is left-wing and you have a Republican administration; I seem to recall that the US had a similar problem with the democratic choices of the Nicaraguan electorate 20 years ago and the Chilean electorate 32 years ago...

Oh, and BTW, Aaron, my wife's a feminist. Does that mean you think she's a lesbian witch who's about to murder our son? Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your rash comments...

[ August 24, 2005, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

 

Robertson is right about that, unfortunately. </font>[/QUOTE]Yea, right.

 

Can someone please explain the difference between what Pat is saying and, say, an Islamic cleric in Egypt calling for the assassination of Tony Blair, George Bush and all other decadent and corrupt western leaders by suicide bombers?

 

Hasn't anyone noticed that after these men have been around awhile they become immortal and invincible? It seems as though they have become gods to themselves.

 

If you're talking about Robertson, I agree.

 

To answer the questions in the title of the thread, yes and yes.

 

Chávez is a socialist and he is taking British land and as far as I know he is not paying for it. Chávez is also involved in the war against the Colombian government, has called for what would be a bloodbath in Taiwan in that he thinks Taiwan should be turned over to China, has propped up Commandant Castro with a billion dollars worth of oil per year, has said that Jesus is a socialist, and has called the clergy of his country demonic.

Clinton, I think and correct me if I am wrong, re-instated the policy of bumping off foreign leaders if necessary. Considering that Chávez has abused a lot of human rights and that his election victories are doubtful, etc, it is clear that something more needs to be done than what is being done although I do not think that we need to employ the Clinton option at this time.

I am a little surprised, Matt, that a rich lawyer like you would want the property of the rich taken away by the government. You yourself would be next, wouldn't you? Or do you do legal work for free. Here in Indianapolis, the average lawyer charges $250 per hour according to what passes for our city newspaper. And I notice how quickly you took the Falklands back when another Latin dictator tried to take them from you.

 

1. I'm not that rich; although $250 an hour is actually less than I charge (£185 an hour), I only see about one sixth of that - the rest is split with my partner, staff salaries and other overheads
2. My property is already up for grabs: I pay 40% income tax on the above, and my estate will have to pay 40% inheritance tax on everything I own over £275,000 when I die; plus my wife owns an apartment which we rent out and we will have to pay 22% tax on any increase in value of it, plus 22% income tax on the rent. Like I said, the Venezuelan land reform program is scarcely different to what successive governments have been doing in the UK for the last 100 years - how else do you think all those stately homes in England came to be open to the public so that American tourists can visit them?

Re the Falklands: based on what I can remember from my International Law lectures at Uni, I'm far from convinced of the legality of the UK's claim to that territory

 

My comment wasn't rash, and no I won't reconsider it. Sorry to hear about your wife.

 

Apparantly h ethinks he can have it both ways:

STORY

 

Okay, from a political viewpoint, you might have a leg to stand on. However, a pastor is supposed to have a scriptural viewpoint. For a pastor to advocate this kind of thing as scripturally okay seems quite out of left field.

 

Greetings Hardsheller:

I would be glad to answer your questions; however, I am still over in that other thread waiting for you to provide me with answers to my questions.

As for pointing out that I "didn't say this or that," you can clear that up for me with a response to my questions in that discussion.

Once you have done that, I would be happy to answer your questions. But since you made observations about what I allegedly believe, I feel I am entitled to a response.

Hope you are having a great week,
BiR