A Closer Look at Pat Robertson

I'm jumping back into the game to address what I felt where some unsupportable statements about Pat Robertson in the thread devoted to his recent, despicable remarks advocating the assassination of Hugo Chavez.While I felt that the heavy-handed ridicule directed towards Robertson was inappropriate, neither did I find the attempts by Faith and randman to style him as some kind of humanitarian and good Christian very truthful, either. So I'd like to share some facts I recently learned that speak to the character and conduct of Pat Robertson, and invite his defenders to respond to the allegations if they wish. Also I'll close with some remarks on why I find the response of the Christian and evangelical communities rather hollow.The Wiki article on Pat Robertson alludes to several controversies surrounding his person. Out of deference to evangelical positions on redemption, I'll refrain from judgement on the substantiated reports of his pre-conversion conduct (drinking, sex with prostitutes, etc.)Embezzlement from his own humanitarian fundsI might as well start with this since I find it the worst. According to columnist Greg Palast:

quote:

---

Robertson faces a separate investigation by the State of Virginia. In 1994, his charity, 'Operation Blessing', bought airplanes to ferry medical supplies to refugees in Rwanda.
Virginia is now completing an investigation into the diversion of the planes to ferry equipment to a diamond mine in the Congo owned by Robertson. But the president of Robertson Financial, Neil Volder, says Operation Blessing received donations from the clergyman exceeding the planes' worth.

---

According to one of the pilots hired, ostensibly to fly planes full of medical supplies and personnel to aid Rwandans:

quote:

---

Robert Hinkle, the chief pilot told reporter Bill Sizemore that of about 40 flights within Zaire during the half-year period he was there, "Only one or at most two" were related to the humanitarian mission of Operation Blessing. The rest were "mining-related."

​

"We got over there and we had 'Operation Blessing' painted on the tails of the airplanes, Hinkle told the Virginian-Pilot, "but we were doing no humanitarian relief at all. We were just supplying the miners and flying the dredges from Kinshasa out to Tdshikapa."

---

While Virginia's investigation did turn up enough evidence to charge Operation Blessing with violations of its non-profit status, Virginia's Attorney General Mark Earley declined to prosecute. Earley had recieved a $35,000 campaign contribution from Pat Robertson.Support for humanitarian abusesContrary to Faith's attempts to promote Robertson as a humanitarian and philanthropist, Robertson's business interests support human rights abuses in several African countries. Several times, on his 700 Club program, he has supported African dictators who have committed war crimes, such as Mobutu Sese Seko and Charles Taylor. Here's Robertson advocating on Taylor's behalf on his program, via CBS:

quote:

---

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson accused President Bush of undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels by asking Liberian President Charles Taylor, recently indicted for war crimes, to step down.

​

How dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down,'" Robertson said Monday on The 700 Club, broadcast from his Christian Broadcasting Network.

​

So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country, he said in the broadcast.

---

What Robertson did not mention on that program were his $8 million dollars of investments in Liberian gold mines.Robertson's aforementioned Congolese (then called Zaire) diamond mines? Human rights disasters:

quote:

---

Diamond Miners are Disproportionately Exposed to HIV/AIDS

​

Many diamond mining camps enforce all-male, no-family rules. Men contract HIV/AIDS from camp sex-workers, while women married to miners have no access to employment, no income outside of their husbands and no bargaining power for negotiating safe sex, and thus are at extremely high risk of contracting HIV.

​

Diamond Mine-Owners Violate Indigenous People's Rights

​

Diamond mines in Australia, Canada, India and many countries in Africa are situated on lands traditionally associated with indigenous peoples. Many of these communities have been displaced, while others remain, often at great cost to their health, livelihoods and traditional cultures.

​

Slave Laborers Cut and Polish Diamonds

​

More than one-half of the world's diamonds are processed in India where many of the cutters and polishers are bonded child laborers. Bonded children work to pay off the debts of their relatives, often unsuccessfully. When they reach adulthood their debt is passed on to their younger siblings or to their own children.

​

Conflict Diamonds Fund Civil Wars in Africa

​

There is no reliable way to insure that your diamond was not mined or stolen by government or rebel military forces in order to finance civil conflict. Conflict diamonds are traded either for guns or for cash to pay and feed soldiers.

​

Diamond Wars are Fought Using Child Warriors

​

Many diamond producing governments and rebel forces use children as soldiers, laborers in military camps, and sex slaves. Child soldiers are given drugs to overcome their fear and reluctance to participate in atrocities.

---

(This is why Mrs. Crashfrog sports a lab sapphire and not a diamond on her engagement ring. That, and we were really frickin' poor.)from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/conflictdiamonds.htm (supported with references down at the bottom.)Outrageous calls for violenceWe've already discussed his call for assassination (what Jon Stewart has hilariously called the "Patwa"), and his prior suggestion of violence against the State Department has been alluded to. These statements don't represent isolated instances of "wacky" behavior - Robertson is only 75, a little too early to be having "senior moments" - but a continual pattern of calls for violence against persons and groups he percieves as being contrary to his business and political interests. (As his current cash-cow, the Christian Broadcasting Network, caters to conservative evangelicals, these business interests are often, I believe, mistaken for religious dogma. Robertson decries homosexuality not because it's against the Bible, but because it puts money in his pocket.)The hollow protests of the evangelical communityBoth Faith and randman have decried Robertson's recent statements, and for that they should be commended. Indeed, as they have stated, no Christian organization is on the record as supporting Robertson in this regard.So the fuck what? I find it very disingenuous for Faith, randman, and indeed the entire evangelical community to act as though their responsibility in this matter ends with lip service. The evangelical community has done nothing to truly extricate themselves financially and politically from Robertson; he continues to be allowed to speak on behalf of evangelicals and profit from their support of his assorted ministries, his CBN channel, his political aspirations and organizations (most notably the various incarnations of the Christian Coalition, which he started), and his attacks on the Federal judiciary.The pattern is familiar. Robertson shoots his mouth off, Christians condemn him, and then nothing. No calls for ABC to cease broadcasting of the 700 Club. No boycotts of those who advertise in or around that timeslot. No calls for cable companies to drop CBN. No calls for the FBI to rescind the award they gave to him in 1978, the least they could do considering he's called for the mass murder of government officials.No calls for President Bush to cease meeting with Robertson, something he has done many times in the past.Faith and Randman, and others, I'm heartened by your vocal repudiations of his comments on this forum, but what next? Don't you think you have a little more to do? How about some letters to your local ABC affiliates and cable providers? How about some letters to your senators asking the FBI to rethink the decision to award him a Department of Justice award in 1978?For a man who regularly makes terroristic proclamations against democratically elected leaders and innocent civilian personnel, Robertson enjoys remarkable wealth and enviable status among the evangelical Christian community, something they appear very reticent to do something about. Faith and Randman's rejections of his comments are hollow indeed unless they're prepared to take steps to distance their communities from this dangerous and amoral figure.

I was hoping that you or randman would present it. I was unable to uncover any "other side" in my own research, but I imagine you have your own thoughts on how hard I probably looked. What if you don't have that information because that information doesn't exist? What if there is no other side? Haven't you just essentially argued that the man is innocent of these actions because all the evidence says he's guilty?I'm trying to turn over a new leaf, here, and proceed from a much more respectful and evidenced basis than I have in the past, but this post of yours is reminding me why I post the way I do. You really haven't addressed my points at all; you've simply asserted that information exists that exonerates him without actually telling us what that is. Additionally you've attempted to erect a smokescreen and drag us off-topic by bringing up the left's criticisms of Bush. I've made no remarks against Bush that weren't called for and supported by the evidence; moreover comments about Bush are not on topic in this thread.That goes for absolutely everybody. I won't be baited off-topic in my own thread.

Ad-hominem attacks against my person are the best you can marshall to defend Robertson?Disappointing, and also completely off-topic. Robertson's status as a humanitarian is the topic here, not how large a person I am.

I'm listening. Are you willing to present his side?

I don't understand in what sense you think I've insulted him, or have picked on him.I have, on the other hand, presented a factual case that Robertson probably diverted resources from a non-profit humanitarian aid mission to fund for-profit diamond mining, and then escaped prosecution for that act because of a monetary contribution to the Virginia Attorney General. (That's more commonly known as a "bribe.")It's fine if, like Faith, you opt not to challenge the factual basis of my post. But if all you're going to do in this thread is misrepresent the content of my OP, then it would be better for you not to participate at all. Don't you agree?And if you object to the subject of the thread as a whole, then your side shouldn't have described Robertson as such a great humanitarian before you did the research to see if that was the case.

Great article. Good find. And I love the context - rappers and diamond jewelry. Remember how I said that his diamond mine was in DR Congo?

quote:

---

The Kimberly Process was adopted in December 2000, and to date 68 countries participate - excluding the Republic of Congo which was kicked out in July 2004 for being unable to account for the origin of many of their rough diamonds.

---

Probably they mean the other Congo, but due to the similarity between the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo, it's ambiguous. Certainly violence and civil strife continue to wrack DR Congo, and has for decades. Amnesty International has some critical things to say about the effecacy of the "Kimberly Process" in general. In many countries, I hope so. It's not clear to what extent this can be substantiated for the mines of DR Congo, and even if labor conditions have improved the sale of diamonds to fund warfare still occurs, and was during the time period in question.

You appear to be defending Robertson, or, at least, taking an opposing position to mine.Unless I was supposed to take your off-topic ad hominem attacks against me as agreement?

Well then I guess I don't understand the problem. You act like I'm somehow preventing or concealing his side of the events in question, and I apologize in advance if I'm simply misunderstanding you, but I don't see how I'm doing that. I'm not aware that there is a "his side" to all this, and neither apparently are you.So I guess I don't understand the basis for your criticism.

And what is it?Could you be a bit clearer about what you're talking about? Do you believe that there's additional facts that I've neglected to present, or that there's an alternate interpretation of the facts?Because when you have a situation where a state agency recommends charges to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General declines to prosecute, and it turns out that the AG has accepted thousands in contributions from the leader of the organization that would have been charged, there's only one reasonable interpretation of those facts. Any "other side" is going to be the dissembling of a dishonest person trying to exonerate themselves from facing the consequences of their misdeeds, and I don't understand what relevance that person's "side" is going to have.Can you explain it to me? That's the problem. You're exonerating Robertson based solely on the fact that "his side", whatever that is, hasn't been presented. And it's not going to be presented because your side won't do it - because as long as you never present his side, you have a basis to conclude that he's guiltless.Since nobody can present his side, including, apparently, himself and his spokespeople, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no other side - the facts as I have presented them, and the conclusions those facts obviously dictate, are essentially correct.

I have to point out, that didn't stop you from concluding that he was a basically good man and humanitarian. That didn't stop you from attacking his detractors.Did you make the assertions that prompted me to start this thread in ignorance? And if that's the case are you willing to retract them now? Do embezzlement and corruption strike you as heinous crimes? Violation of not-for-profit statutes? Since neither you, nor Prophex, nor randman appear to be able to mount a defense, the reasonable conclusion is that there is no defense for Robertson's actions. Which, again, means that Robertson has no "side" worth hearing, as far as I can see.If I'm wrong I hope you'll explain how.

Well, I certainly agree that he should have his day in court.But a $35,000 donation to Virginia's AG seems to have ensured that won't happen. Maybe I'm being hypersensitive but that rubs me the wrong way.

I don't see in what sense that paragraph is an attack. He is the host of the 700 Club, he does hold conservative views, he rejects the doctrine of the separation of church and state, he did call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, and he has condemned groups he believes are "sinful."If you believe that a factual description of the man is an "atack piece", it's not clear on what basis we'll be able to move forward in a discussion. Nonetheless I'll attempt to address your posts to the best of my ability and avaliable time. I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion. He's repeatedly rejected the idea that the church should be separate from the state, for instance in this statement:

quote:

---

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.
-- Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice

---

or this one:

quote:

---

The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program

---

or this:

quote:

---

Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program

---

I'm not certain where you're getting your information but the man does, indeed, believe that religion - excuse me, his religion - and politics should be inextricable. The Wiki article? No. The OP? Yes, except where I have quoted sources.

I don't recall faulting him on that basis. He's rich. More power to him. I have absolutely no problem with that.But I have detailed instances where he has misused his wealth, or misused charitable donations for uncharitable purposes. Where he has committed illegal acts but been spared prosecution because of "donations" to government officials. You seem to forget that I was an evangelical for many, many years. While I can only speak for the community I was a part of, Pat Robertson was indeed spoken of with respect throughout our church, and in periodicals ranging from the faxed Pastor's Weekly Briefing to Focus on the Family to Citizen, all national evangelical publications.Rand he's not some fringe lunatic. He's a national figure in religious politics. He ran for president and actually beat Bush Sr. in one state. He's met with and advised the current president on many occasions. Did I assert that he speaks for all evangelicals? No, of course I did not. But he's a very vocal, very public, and unexplainably, a very well-respected figure in evangelical circles. So write a letter to your cable provider and tell them you don't want to support that channel. Won't do any good, for sure, but shouldn't you at least attempt to put your money where your mouth is? One state agency recommended prosecution. The AG was the one who declined to prosecute, and I've already substantiated his conflict of interest in the matter. A dropped investigation in this case is meaningless. I'm sorry but we can say that. That was the conclusion of the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs - laws were broken. Again, the Attorney General declined to prosecute but his interests were obviously conflicted. If you're not interested in defending the man, you have a very curious way of demonstrating that.Nonetheless I appreciate your contribution to the thread. I hope you had a good time with your family.

Bush is not the topic of this thread. Please try to stay on topic.

Why? You don't believe that you can bribe someone in advance?Regardless of the timeline, recieving that kind of donation places the AG in a conflict of interest and he should have appointed an independant prosecutor. Regardless, the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs concluded that there was enough evidence of lawbreaking that they recommended prosecution. Without being able to verify that claim directly we're in a position where we have to take their word on the matter.Moreover, the spokesman asserts that Operation Blessing was refunded, but the planes weren't purchased with their money. Rather, they were purchased by the donations of OB's supporters for the express purpose of humanitarian aid to Rwanda.Were they ever used for that purpose? If not was the money refunded to the donators?If you give money to a charity for a purpose, and they don't make even a good-faith effort to apply that money to that purpose, it doesn't matter if they just keep the money or spend it on another company's business venture - they've done something unethical, don't you agree?You've made a good attempt but none of this information appears to absolve Operation Blessing. They never did deliver the aid they promised.