August 23, 2005
Robertson has quite bluntly stated that the reason he wants President Chavez dead is that the Venezuelan government, according to Robertson, poses a threat to US economic interests. In today's US politics, it is apparently quite acceptable for a religious leader like Robertson constantly to meddle in purely political and economic affairs. On the other hand, when the late Ayatollah Khomeini issued his call for Salman Rushdie's assassination on purely religious grounds, as the latter had, among many other indiscretions, called the Prophet of Islam a whoremonger, Western liberals didn't lose any time in joining their conservative brethren's condemnation of the fatwa.
Robertson's fatwa came only a couple of days after Pope Benedict's call on Moslem leaders (while visiting Germany!) to promote the fight against terrorism (as if real religious leaders were in the business of promoting anything other than religion), without once mentioning the terror inflicted by the US on the people of Iraq for their oil. It is clear that whereas religion in the East is a component of nationalist resurgence against capitalism and imperialism, religion in the West is increasingly a handmaiden to the interests of the Empire.
Personally, I can not believe that people and events such as these exist in total isolation.
I can not say that (at this time at least) religion is in fact leading the US.
What is certain is the truth of your comment.
I have no doubt that the likes of Robertson and Falwell (if he is still around) in religion, Limbaugh and his ilk in the media, are being subtly manipulated and used by the neo-cons especially to further their interests.
The skill with which this is being accomplished probably has Dr Goebbels looking on in wonderstruck admiration.
Equally as amazing is the fact that 280 million people keep falling for the same old tricks - the commies, the fear tactics, the us and them division...
The most advanced nation on this earth, in this earth's history, is being held to ransom by 1,000 people (at most).
At their most fundamental level, the methods, tactics and ambitions of that very small group differ little from the leadership of the US. They are just further down the road, and are better at doing it.
- Religion based
- Fear of "not belonging"
- Fear of the "implacable enemy"
In no way shape or form did he call for an assination. that is the media making him out to be a bad guy when he was just stating an opinion.
The United States media has always done this and will continue to put words in people's mouths that were never spoken.
take it how you will but Pat Robinson never called for an assination.the man loves God and people who truly love God do not call for others to be murdered.
Hold on... wasn't that the kind of thing the scribes in the temple were saying about Jesus? Oh, I guess that would explain where he gets it.
But aren't the words of Jesus supposed to be the ones this man listens to, lives by, and preaches to others? Exactly where in the Bible does Jesus call for the murder of a leader who actually uses the resources of his own country to the benefit of its own people?
Someone needs, at the very least, to remind Pat Robertson that Venezuela's oil belongs to Venezuela. Not the United States. A "sphere of influence" is not extraterritorial sovereignty.
By his own standards, he is a man of God- the same sort who believes in capital punishment and war. There is no reasoning with an unreasonable interpretation of God (and then they will call it, simply "faith" which has no need for reason).
I thought it was VERY interesting that the Venezuelan VP (I believe) said that Pat Robertson's remarks were "terrorist."
Links to this post:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.