The Pat Robertson Assassination Squad

Hello America! And for you Pat Robertson supporters, I believe that would be Amerika.

The Religious Reich really made itself known this week. Or as I refer to it, the Amerikan Taliban. Pat Robertson, who started the Christian Coalition, Christian Broadcasting Network, and Regent University, called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the elected President of Venezuela, on the 700 Club on August 22nd. That created a bit of a stir. Then he lied and said he didn't say that. Then he apologized, but rationalized it by saying he was "misrepresented."

So is this a First Amendment issue? Hardly. In his books Robertson claims that Hindus, Muslims, and any one non-Christian are not qualified to be Americas leaders. George Stephanopolous pegged him on this one Sunday on his show, and Robertson, contradicting his recent written words, denied it. But he has that freedom to say what he wants. However, television is another matter. Those are public airwaves. There are rules of indecency, obscenity, and profanity that must be adhered to or the fines start flying. Just ask Howard Stern's syndicators. So on a TV show where children may have been watching, an alleged Christian states, "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."

I would have thought such a statement would never leave the lips of a so-called leader of the Church. No praying for the foreign leader that Robertson deemed a "terrific danger." None of that apparently. Instead, we whack him. Take him out. Where is the love brother! This statement is so absurd, it deserves the response it has gotten.

But it didn't stop there. Then he denied making the statement. This seems to be typical of the current administration and it's supporters. Make a stupid statement and then lie about it. Then he apologized with the rationalization he was misrepresented. That "taking him out" could have meant kidnapping. And that's Scripturally mandated activity? Robertson denied using the word assassinate. In his own mind, he was thinking I didn't use the word (ONCE I actually used it at least TWICE).

So where is the outcry from the Church about this barbarous statement? Not just from the liberals, but from the Robertson/Falwell/fundamentalist camps? Do they believe these statements are how Jesus would speak? What Jesus would do?

As for Robertson not knowing about this "doctrine" of assassination, I have a couple questions. First, has he never heard of Representative Terry Edwards bill before the Congress of 2003 called the Terrorist Elimination Act? I would find it hard to believe he didn't. But I'll grant him that at this moment. The second question is, since when is assassination a doctrine? A doctrine is "A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; " Since when has assassination been presented for acceptance to the American public? It has long been understood that as Americans we are above assassinating foreign leaders to get our way. What has changed?

So a bill is before Congress. One of the cosponsors was Virgil Goode, of the 5th district of Virginia. One of the largest donators to Goodes campaign was MZM, a security firm under investigation. One of the COOs of MZM was Kay Cole James, who once served as a dean at Regent College, the very same college Robertson started. So there is a link between Robertson and a cosponsor of a bill(H.R. 19) that implicitly advocates assassination. As well, the Christian coalition has given 5 term member Goode their 100% rating(because of his family values positions), so one could infer more links between these two from that. Where then does this concept of assassination become a doctrine? Perhaps Robertson was talking from the viewpoint of his own faith. Doctrine is the teaching of the Scriptures, and they are categorized. I would like to have the biblical doctrine of assassination pointed out to me as I have read the entire Bible through more than once and don't recall reading or hearing about. Being that the bill was introduced into Congress in 2003 as I recall, we can fairly state that this represent s a shift in American policy. A dramatic one. But this is hardly something like Social Security that is well known to everyone, and hence can't qualify as a "doctrine" of the the foreign policy of the US government. The bigger point remains that if Robertson didn't know about it, why was he talking about it? It isn't a doctrine, he doesn't know about it, yet here he is advocating it.

Can this really be just frustrated words? I don't think so. A man of such supposed Christian stature and education should be much more in control of his own language. However, Robertson has a history of stupid statements, much like President Bush. But the subject of killing, which is so contrary to biblical moral law, should not even be entertained by someone of Robertson's alleged caliber. Yet it was. Perhap one of the reasons why is that it was deliberate. This was a way to introduce a philosophical change, a doctrine to be accepted, in at least this administration. The subject has been broached, and now it can be discussed. What better test rats than the Christian Reich? If they don't rise up in concerted rebuke of Robertson, than there is a green light that they can go ahead and begin to move on this bill, introducing it as necessary to "national security." If there is wholesale resistance, than the faux apologies flow and the matter quietly slips into the background, though it doesn't go away. However, what the Christian Reich needs to see is that Robertson has then colluded with a government to sanctify killing foreign leaders as it sees fit. Hardly the work of a supposed evangelist.