On assassination

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2005

The various certifiable reverends are out today defending the mad cleric, who claims we should murder Hugo Chavez. I’m sure there are lots of reasons why we should do this (and who else?):

Because Venenzuela is becoming a hotbed of communisim and a harborer of mad clerics
Because of Chavez’ habitual downloads of pornography and updates from Stream
Because Chavez speaks Spanish
Because he wears tube socks to church
Because he reads the newspaper
Because he enjoys the OC
Because his dues lapsed
Because he’s forsaken true biblical readings
Because he’s been seen reading poetry

I wonder what else.


7 responses to “On assassination”

  1. susan says:

    The man’s an ass, but I worry about compromising his right to free speech. Should Robertson be lawfully restrained from making such statements? Should I, for calling him an ass?

  2. Steve says:

    The way I see it is, Sure, you can say what’s on your mind, but can one typically stand by a position that contradicts others. That’s one way of avoiding censorship.

    The equivalent is this: A claims they’re a devout Catholic yet they decide to drink every Sunday instead of heading to church. These positions are not technically in sync.

  3. susan says:

    “The way I see it is, Sure, you can say what’s on your mind, but can one typically stand by a position that contradicts others.”

    But of course; it’s called hypocrisy. And, I stand by my feeling that the man has a right to be a hypocritical ass.

    I think that the thing here is more that he is a celebrity, and a religious leader that calls attention to his position as more dangerous than if you or I said these things.

  4. JRadke says:

    I’ll probably get into this more in my blog, but I did want to say this:

    I’ve watched Pat Robertson on numerous programs. The guy is far from a “mad cleric” :-) But in our media-hyped society, when Robertson made his comment the media moguls probably fell off their chairs. I mean, Robertson dropped them a gift-wrapped oppurtunity to rip him and the Christian faithful. It’s not at all right. The guy said something he shouldn’t. But we all know that if a Democrat had said something similar, the media would’ve buried it.

    Now, Robertson stepped up and apologized fully, but will the media cover that? Nah (except on FOX News). Whoopee, right? Someone admitting they were wrong isn’t exactly part of their agenda–especially when it’s a political rival. Besides, the media and the Dems are too busy trying to tie Robertson’s statement to Bush at the moment. Gimme a break.

    It’s on these grounds that I continue to protest the unabashed liberal bias of the media–especially when it comes to painting me and my fellow Christians as “cooks”, “freaks”, and scientific “idiots”.

    I will say this though. As much as I respect Robertson as a Christian leader is as much as I would never vote for him (or any other) religious leader to be President of the United States. European and Middle-eastern history is pretty full of examples of why religious leaders in power are generally a bad thing for everyone involved.

  5. Katherine says:

    That’s exactly what I thought the moment I read about Robertson’s comment. Just because he’s supposedly “chosen by God” (not unlike a certain president) does that give him the right to decide who should live or die? That’s God’s job. I was taught as a kid that it’s a sin for a human to think of himself as God and make those kind of decisions.

    Unfortunately, this kind of hypocracy is seen a lot with devoutly religious types (the fault of the human not the religion). Many pro-lifers claim they are doing God’s work saving unborn babies by shooting abortion doctors and bombing clinics. It’s a convoluted logic that I just don’t get.

  6. Steve says:

    Josh,

    I contest the notion of a liberal media and have contested it here before (although I believe it should be that–brazen, confrontive, no one’s friend). The notion of a politicized media is “politics.” At the moment the issue is hypocricy. No right-thinking and fair arbitor should accuse religious people of being freaks and idiots just because they’re religious or spiritual.

    We can blame the media for lots of things. Often being too soft on people they should be hard on and being too hard on people who shouldn’t deserve harshness are two. But blaming media for being “liberal-biased” these days just doesn’t get us anywhere. In parlance, media should be aggressive in providing people with useful investigation and information. Do we see a lot of this at CNN and FOX? Absolutely not, in my opinion, because everyone’s playing for audience size rather than for the meat of things.

    But this doesn’t mean that when we disagree or find contradiction (from anyone) we shouldn’t note it or fail to satarize it. Nor should we fear bias or restrict it. I disagree with the president, the war, and with institutions that try to hide from blame. Why should I hide these positions?

  7. JRadke says:

    Katherine:

    I sincerely believe that Pat Robertson made a mistake. He’s hosted The 700 Club for many years now and this is the first time I’ve ever heard of a slip-up in regards to his views. I don’t agree with him on everthing politically or doctrinally. But to lump his snafu in with religious extremism isn’t really fair (imo).

    Mr. Ersinghaus:

    I’m not saying that satarizing shouldn’t be done by you and me. But I certainly have a problem with Journalists doing it because it’s a pretty obvious conflict of interest.

    In the end, an objective media is an illusive unicorn, just like the theories of a just monarchy, a wise dictatorship, and a pure democracy. But man, if we had one, it’d be an incredible ally in the process of “checks and balances”.