Wednesday, August 24, 2005

A Christian's Reponse to Pat Robertson's Remarks

On Monday evening August 22’s 700 Club Program, televangelist Pat Robertson suggested that the U.S. Government use covert operatives in Latin America to assasinate Venezuelan President Hugo Cahvez.. Robertson’s actual words were “We need to take him out” because it is a whole lot cheaper than “starting a war. We don’t need another $200 billon war to get rid of one strong armed Dictator.”
The media immediately seized uopn the statement to not only attack Mr. robertson, but to level a volley at Evangelical Christians in general and hope to make the link to President Bush. Typical of this type of attacks is the report by the French news agency, Agence France-Presse which reported the following: Pat Robertson, the fire-and-brimstone US evangelical preacher whipping up a new storm over Venezuela, is a founding father of the "Christian Right" wing of American politics….. Robertson and some of his evangelical cohorts are also said to have an "open line" to the White House, and have enthusiastically campaigned for President George W. Bush's two White House election triumphs. Do you catch the tactic? Here is the condensed version they want you to get: Robertson founding father of the Christian Right and some of his evangelical cohorts have an open line to the White House and campaigned for George W. Bush’s election triumphs. Scattered in the article are mentions of the anti-gay and anti-choice positions of Mr. Robertson further painting a picture of an out of touch enemy of the American Progressive agenda.

What we need to remember in all of this is that the liberal media has no real interest in Pat Robertson or Hugo Chavez for that matter. The real prize in this is the looming Supreme Court fight(s). Watch and see that the press does not begin suggesting that President Bush’s Supreme Court nominations have right wing Christian ties, and are therefore dangerous.

Most rational thinking believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is what makes one a Christian, disagree with Mr. Robertson. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals puts it best when he says, “Certainly I don't condone his comments, but I've know Pat for years, and he's a good man. ... I don't think he wants people killed. I think he made ill-advised remarks in his role as a pundit. He does not speak for all Christians or evangelicals." Pat Robertson has said and done many things that have helped thousands, if not millions of people. Do we discard all of that for some ill advised and personal remarks? If liberals followed those rules, we would not have a host of Democratic U.S. Senators and liberal commentators still holding their positions. Do we forget USA Today’s Julianne Malveaux and desire that Clarence Thomas have a heart attack & die at the hands of his wife’s cooking? Ms. Malveaux is still a writer for USA today.

Jesus said that one of the signs of the end would be that, “because lawlessness abounds, the love of may will grow cold.” Mt. 24:12. The word used here for love is the word Agapeo, which we call Agape. It is one of 4 different Greek words used for love. Others are Phileo (brotherly love), and Eros (physical or sexual love). Agape is a God centered and God-like love. A type of Love that is only capable by those who know Him. Jesus was saying that even those who know Him will begin to lose that love for others in the end. I believe Pat is at that point. But there is good news. In verse 24:13 where Jesus said, “but they that endure ‘till the end, the same shall be saved.”

Let us not allow the events of the world shape our faith, and let us not allow the media shape our views toward people we respect, even if they are mistaken.

8 Comments:

Blogger DarkStar said...

So, you defend the man who defends Charles Taylor, who orders and oversees violence and killing in the name of diamonds...

What's that phrase?

Blood diamonds!

8:14 PM  
Blogger Eddie Huff said...

Ed,

I suggest you take a remedial vocabulary class or get a good dictionary. Your understanding of the definition of defend is apparently lacking.

There was no part of my piece that defended any particular statements or positions. What I said regarding his helping millions is also the truth.

What you blatantly missed is that I was defending Christianity not Pat Robertson. I was comparing and contrasting Pat's position to how a true believer should think and act.

You remind me of Larry Elder who I discussed in my earlier article. He was so preoccupied with his dislike for Donna Brazille, that he missed an great opportunity to make a good case when she agreed with him. You like Larry and others are mere reactionaries and really need to learn the art of listenning and comprehending before you speak. It would serve you much better.

You are obviously an intelligent man, why not act like one.

8:51 PM  
Blogger DarkStar said...

Cal Thomas is right.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas083005.asp

10:30 PM  
Blogger DarkStar said...

No, you went to attack the media.

The U.S. media said little about evangelics in general. They went after Robertson in particular.

That was not a defense of Christianity. In this case, it needed no defense.

10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eddie I couildnt agree with you more. Any time I say someting remotely in support of something Bush has done immediately reactionary liberals go on the attack. They dont even listen to what you say. For thelm its all about race riots and liberalism.

12:37 AM  
Blogger Sirc_Valence said...

Darkstar, the attack on the media was warranted. There's a big difference in the way that it went after Pat Roberts for suggesting death on his political opponent (a megalomaniac in South America) and the way that you never really saw the same thing when a leftist, generally bitter woman, Julian Malveux wished death on a fellow American - and one much better than herself.

A big difference. The difference in the treatment is easy to comprehend, Clarence Thomas is a Conservative and so is Pat Robertson, and Julian Malveux (I don't know what she is) and the unstable leader of Venezuela are leftists.

I also recall that Robertson was speaking in this context of Chavez: "if he is claiming that the U.S. is doing this, trying to assassinate him, they might as well." And he was doing it in the context of U.S. national security. It is no secret that Chavez supports dictatorship (Castro for example) and is one of America's enemies.

7:11 PM  
Blogger kooz said...

eddie...

great post! I agree with you whole heartedly.

9:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is my new guilty pleasure. You are a well-informed man. I really appreciate your suggestion about anti-reactionary measures and the benefits of listening.

7:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home