Pat Robertson, the American televangelist (of the "700 Club" fame, or rather infamy) has issued a fatwa for the assassination of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for "spreading communism and Moslem extremism." The "free press," those obsequious hired hands of the highest bidders for their services, will doubtless laugh it all off, and refuse to discuss the serious implications of the issue.
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.
11 comments:
"...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"
Here's a link to what he said. You judge for yourself whether he's a man of God.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006
I guess we all sometimes believe what we want to believe, Amanda Lee. For instance, I probably use more water on a daily basis than an entire "primitive" village, but I somehow manage to justify this waste of resources to myself. I "believe" there are valid reasons for the waste, but actually, to paraphrase my favourite US President in one of his weak moments, "I do it because I can." If you believe Pat Robertson is a "man of God," there is nothing I can say that would change your mind. In any case, whether he is a "man of God" or not is neither here nor there. What is important, as far as I am concerned, is whether he is committed to the most important things that a human being can be committed to, namely, peace and social progress. I know of many "men of God" with the blood of thousands on their hands, but I know of no-one who believes in peace and social progress and sheds blood at the same time.
Thanks for the link, Moh'd. Obviously, no-one is putting any words in Robertson's mouth. He could not be more clear: "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
Robertson, facing the condemnation of his fellow evangelical types, who have got worried about the adverse propaganda effects of his behaviour, now claims he was misunderstood. He says he didn't necessarily mean President Chavez should be killed. But the thing is that, firstly, in military usage "taking someone out" has only one meaning, which is to kill the person. Secondly, Roberston specifically recommended assassination: "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. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." Thirdly, even if, for the sake of argument, we assume he wasn't talking about killing President Chavez, is kidnapping a democratically-elected president of a sovereign nation a legitimate part of US policy and Christian belief?
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
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.
Probligo, they have religion, but they have no faith, neither in themselves nor in others.
Lone Primate, my guess is that the church is an institution that arose exactly to control Christians, and make sure they don't even dream of living by the actual content of the Gospel.
>>Here's a link to what he said. You judge for yourself whether he's a man of God.<<
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."
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050822234809990001&_ccc=3&cid=842
Thanks for your comment, Tiffy. There were some comments I wanted to make myself, and so I'll do it here. To paraphrase my favourite US Presidnet again, it all depends on how you define it. That applies to just about everything. I think the Left should always apply its own concrete criteria, instead of getting tangled in the system's propaganda. That way, we won't get misled by the prevailing system's lies. For instance, I see opinions and debates in some liberal websites about whether Robertson is a "real" Christian. To my mind, that's not the issue we should be talking about. The real issue is not whether somebody holds to the 2000-year-old ideology of the New Testament or to the 3500-year-old ideology of the Old Testament, or, for that matter, to the 1500-year-old ideology of Islam. What we should be talking about, I think, is whether someone is committed to a specific set of ideas, for instance, the ones I suggested, namely, peace and social progress. This would automatically weed out the types of Robertson and so on, and then we won't have to waste time debating whether they are real Chrisians or not. So, as I said, it is all a matter of definitions. When the US Government (and its proxies, such as Robertson) calls someone a "terrorist," or when it calls a country "undemocratic," all they mean is that that person or that country is opposed to the interests of American capitalism. So even if every single Venezuelan votes for Presidnet Chavez, he is still an "undemocratic dictator," because he has committed the unforgivable sin of saying No to the US Government. Or when American soldiers kill Iraqis by the tens of thousands, often by indiscriminate aerial bombardment, those soldiers are not "terrorists," because they work to further the interests of US capitalism.
Robertson shouldn't even be taken seriously anymore. He's made outrageous comments like that from a long time. He's not a rational person. He doesn't even follow the teachings that he's dedicated his life to preaching. The existance of people like Pat Robertson and their regligeous extreamism is the reason we're fighting a war on terrorism. I've started my own blog about how the media has failed to keep america informed. check it out if you want to.
Post a Comment