|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Closer Look at Pat Robertson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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 funds I might as well start with this since I find it the worst. According to columnist Greg Palast:
quote: According to one of the pilots hired, ostensibly to fly planes full of medical supplies and personnel to aid Rwandans:
quote: 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 abuses Contrary 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: 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: (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 violence We'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 community Both 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Accusations always sound righteous until the other side is heard, and how will the other side be heard on this forum? 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.
I don't have that information but without it, judging the man on the basis of these allegations would be foolish. 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.
When you and the Left in general apologize for your outrageous uncalled for remarks against Bush and his supporters I'll give it another thought. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It is simply a general rule that you can't condemn a man without hearing his side of it. I'm listening. Are you willing to present his side?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I thought picking on the poor guy would 'get old'. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Great article. Good find. And I love the context - rappers and diamond jewelry.
The horrors you mentioned most certainly happened. But it would seem Pat Robertson would have had to participate before the 90's most likely Remember how I said that his diamond mine was in DR Congo?
quote: 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.
99% of killing and forced child labor has stopped. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My side? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't know his side, Crash, that's the problem. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There's ALWAYS another side. 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?
But that's all I have to say. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't KNOW about the diamond mine, either Pat Robertson's or diamond mines in general or political issues about diamond mines or anything at all. I don't know what he does with the money, I don't know how involved he is in it, I don't know anything. 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?
But offhand owning something or being rich doesn't strike me as a heinous crime Do embezzlement and corruption strike you as heinous crimes? Violation of not-for-profit statutes?
It's always a good exercise to try to anticipate the opposition's possible defense. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I haven't agreed with your reaction to Faith's posts because all she is saying is that everyone should have their day in court 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Looks to me like someone hastily wrote an attack piece against the man. 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.
Plus, he has never advocated joining church and state 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: or this one:
quote: or this:
quote: 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.
Crash, did you write this yourself? The Wiki article? No. The OP? Yes, except where I have quoted sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He has gotten involved in a lot of business ventures and gotten rich. 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 think Pat Robertson is a giant among evangelicals. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's not the case. 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.
I'd say I'd stop giving to CBN except I don't give already. 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?
As far as allegations of fraud, the state investigated and dropped it. 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.
Basically, without an accountant and a more exact investigatio, we can't say whether the law was broken. 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.
But frankly, I don't care too much. It's not my job to go after Pat Robertson and make him pure. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You know, I never heard Bush deny he was a pedophile, child killer and drug runner. I guess he's guilty then by your logic? Bush is not the topic of this thread. Please try to stay on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So the campaign donations were given prior to any official investigation. Crash was therefore wrong to call it a bribe, as I suspected. 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.
Robertson's spokesman claims he paid for the use of the planes. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024