Okay, so it's kind of a late hit. But here, for you schadenfreude-istic pleasure, are some editorials on Pat Robertson and his yen to off Hugo Chavez:
Quotes and analysis below.
Seems like a fairly broad swath of writers agree that Robertson was beyond the pale. Here's some of the better lines:
Houston Chronicle:
Robertson's preaching, tinged from time to time with hints of derangement, has become almost a parody of the Old Testament prophets. That so many people still look up to him is a testament to unreasoning habit.
Philly Inquirer:
The ranks of American clergy - evangelical, Catholic, Presbyterian, Jewish, Islamic, whatever - are full of hard-working men and women who grapple bravely with hard spiritual questions. These servants give lavishly of their time and treasure to uplift the needy and nourish souls in thirst.
They should be front and center in the coverage of what religion is and means in America, not Pat Robertson.
To treat the mean, partisan blather of The 700 Club's host (a fellow who deemed liberal jurists to be a greater threat to America than the 9/11 hijackers) as the voice of "religious values" insults the millions who strive daily to live out those values.
Why such a blowhard ever had any influence in the Republican Party's councils of power is a mystery. That he still has some is indicated by the gingerly way in which Bush administration officials reacted. They appropriately distanced themselves from his evil statement, but didn't criticize him personally.
A LTE from Sarasota:
Do we need any more proof that Pat Robertson and his band of zealots aren't peddling religion (especially Christianity), but politics? What is this talk of his, about the need to put out a contract on a world leader? A Christian fatwa? Does Robertson think he's a Soprano?
Heh.
Robertson himself still doesn't quite get it. From the "clarification" on CBN.com:
The brilliant Protestant theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived under the hellish conditions of Nazi Germany, is reported to have said:
"If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver."
On the strength of this reasoning, Bonhoeffer decided to lend his support to those in Germany who had joined together in an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer was imprisoned and killed by the Nazis, but his example deserves our respect and consideration today.
There are many who disagree with my comments, and I respect their opinions. There are others who think that stopping a dictator is the appropriate course of action. In any event, the incredible publicity surrounding my remarks has focused our government's attention on a growing problem which has been largely ignored.
Robertson compounds his error here. First of all, there is an enormous moral gulf between Bonhoeffer's situation and Robertson's. Setting aside the obvious differences between Hitler and Chavez, Bonhoeffer knew and proclaimed that his actions in the assassination attempt were sinful, and while he awaited death in a SS prison, he ministered faithfully to other inmates and guards. Robertson is never going to face jail time, let alone death. Wrapping himself ever-so-subtly in Bonhoeffer's mantle mocks that martyr's sacrifice.
Moreover, Robertson's reluctance to concede the point simply underscores that he doesn't comprehend the nature of the problem. The ends do not justify the means: a third-grader could have told Robertson that much.
How does somebody get to the point where they think calling for the assassination of a foreign leader to protect American oil interests is a Christian teaching? How do they reconcile their belief in the Prince of Peace with cold-blooded murder?
Some folks will say that it's all plotted out, that Robertson and his staff made a calculated decision that attacking Chavez would earn them maximum political advantage.
I think it's more subtle than that.
What I see in Robertson is a man who has no one to tell him he's wrong. Like many celebrities, he's gone so long with an adoring entourage that he's beyond the point where anyone says to him, simply and directly: you're full of it. That problem is only magnified in the religious right-wing; between persecution complexes, self-righteousness and cynical partisan politics, many of the people who lead conservative Christians have simply stopped listening to alternative viewpoints.
It's a closed system within a closed system: Robertson gets fawning advice (or no advice) from people who start off with a limited perspective.
It'd be nice to say that problems like these are limited to the Religious Right, but they're not. In fact, any leader is vulnerable to them--and yes, that includes opinion leaders--on the left and the right.
Something to think about.
