A Closer Look at Pat Robertson

Note the following in the very first paragraph: Looks to me like someone hastily wrote an attack piece against the man. Plus, he has never advocated joining church and state, and condemning sin is nothing new for clergy-men.Considering this is put forth in the very first paragraph, I would not consider anything written in it reliable, and would recommend discounting the entire article as anything more than a very biased piece masquerading as legitimate scholarship.Crash, did you write this yourself?This message has been edited by randman, 08-27-2005 02:08 AM

First off, it's a free country and Robertson has a right to get rich. I understand he was very poor for many years, and came from a wealthy family (think his Dad was a senator) but turned away from law practice to serve the Lord, and did so in poverty for many years.He has gotten involved in a lot of business ventures and gotten rich.So what?He has had a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth.So what?I'd say I'd stop giving to CBN except I don't give already. You seem to think Pat Robertson is a giant among evangelicals. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's not the case. He's not some sort of revered father of the faith in the eyes of the Christian community, but then again, few are. Most church groups and denominations have their own leaders they listen to.As far as Pat, I do know Operation Blessing has done a lot of good. I think the university he started is a good thing, from what I've been told. His broadcast, basically the times I've seen it, I have no problem with it.So sorry. I'm not all that worked up to do anything more than I was before, which was pretty much nothing, in regard to Pat Robertson. My only advice to him is something I also need to give to myself, which is to be careful not to let political opinions get in the way of being a disciple of the Lord.As far as allegations of fraud, the state investigated and dropped it. Maybe he improperly used the planes, but considering the amount of money he pumps into those charities, I suspect the state thought better of prosecuting on hyper-technical grounds.In other words, my impression is not that Pat is getting rich from the charitable foundations or anything like that, but that it's the other way around. He's not taking cash from them, but pouring cash into them.Basically, without an accountant and a more exact investigatio, we can't say whether the law was broken. They could be arguing they paid Operation Blessing for the use of the planes, and may have done so, but if they took a charitable deduction for the money donated, that would be a wrong accounting error, but since they could also deduct the payments correctly as business expenses, I don't think the business would be prosecuted.Should Operation Blessing be held accountable for letting it's planes be used in a for-profit business?Once again, I think it comes back to accounting. A ministry can lease equipment legally for-profit and keep it's not-for-profit status under certain conditions where the primary focus is not-for-profit.For example, you sometimes see cell-sites as steeples on church property. The church gets money by leasing space for the cell-site, but the church still maintains it's non-profit status.So the fraud claim is weak at best, and probably not fraudulent, which is probably why the state did not prosecute.But frankly, I don't care too much. It's not my job to go after Pat Robertson and make him pure. You can do that, crash.Heck, I know of some public ministries that do have immorality of a nature that's very wrong, and if I were to go on a crusade in this area, I'd probably pick on them first, but it's a big world, and we have to go on the path we think we should be on.My path this evening was to take my youngest son to the beach, for me to catch a redfish, and then come back and play hearts (card-game) with my kids.Heck, I feel more guilty about posting so much than I do on whether I've done enough to keep Pat Robertson in line.

Crash's source is Greg Palast who also claims Kerry really won the election, but it was rigged for Bush. He claims Kerry won Ohio and New Mexico.Not saying he's wrong a priori, but take it for what it's worth. He's a left-wing journalist.

I've been looking at sites on this stuff, and came upon this. Page not found – David IckeYou know, I never heard Bush deny he was a pedophile, child killer and drug runner. I guess he's guilty then by your logic?

OK, let's see what more credible reporting says on the matter of the planes. CNN is liberal, no friend to Pat Robertson, but at least their not claiming Bush is a child killing, drug running pedophile. ErrorSo the campaign donations were given prior to any official investigation. Crash was therefore wrong to call it a bribe, as I suspected.Did the donation influence his decision though, in the sense he was investigating a supporter?Basically, we'll never know, but giving 35K to the campaign of a rising star in his own party and in his own state is not unusually large for a man that is worth over 200 million dollars.Next point: Robertson's spokesman claims he paid for the use of the planes.End of story, folks. If you pay for it, it's not fraud. It may look improper, and the accounting may be off, but most prosecutions in these areas need to show actual financial wrongdoing, and if you pay for something, you haven't stolen it. Maybe this is iffy, but it's understandable why the state would not want to pour resources in a trial where the state might lose with such a weak case and a legally well-represented target.From some other press reports, Operation Blessings was required to do a better job with it's books.

Nuggin, Pat made a lot of money via some shrewd business deals. According to the wiki article, which appears very biased against Robertson: Pat Robertson - WikipediaThere's nothing wrong with using your mind to make a lot of money off good business deals, if the deals are honest, legal, and moral, and it seems like the man made some smart moves outside of the ministry. He apparently made some awesome investments that paid off.Of course, the diamond mine was not one of them.This message has been edited by randman, 08-27-2005 03:28 AM

I just think you are right in stating we need to hear both sides, and so thought I'd look into it.I honestly think one of the main problems some have with the guy is that he is so rich. They think he has swindled people to become rich, not realizing he made his money indepedently it seems.They also hate him because he is a conservative. The verbal gaffes and mistakes, imo, are not the primary reasons some hate him. They hate what he represents, imo, as much as any genuine flaws in the man.For myself, I've seen him do things I didn't like such as help go after John McCain, but that's where the political side of the man comes in. His Dad was a senator, and politics is a rough "sport" so to speak.However, I'm not willing to stand in judgment of him as if he is wrong and I am so much more pure. I think we have to be careful not to let politics cause us to act in ways not becoming of a Christian, and I certainly have fallen prone to that from time to time.

I posted credible sites. Crash has not, nor anyone else.What part of the CNN report do you disagree with?

I don't know, but whem he first went into the ministry, he was poor, very poor, from what I have heard.As far as the timing on when it changed, I really don't know.If he came up with the money to get these stations, maybe he did it prior to going into the ministry or borrowed from his family.Why don't you or someone from your side spend even a little time investigating whether your charges and opinions have any merit?

Crash maintains the use of the planes is fraud. The CNN report indicates that the planes were paid for, or that was the claim.It's not illegal for the non-profit org to lease it's equipment. The state did not prosecute. Crash and others are making a mountain out of a molehill.Maybe PR should not have been in business with the likes of Charles Taylor. He lost over 7 million. I think that's lesson enough, and I'm not about to play God and tell the world he is a crook for making an error in judgment.

I think you would have to assess to what degree the business-side here profited. For instance, if PR is not making any money from the ministry, the non-profit, but is pouring money into the non-profit, then I don't think it's shady.I don't get the impression from these reports that PR is making money off Operation Blessings.

Doing the critic's homework for them. Apparently PR and CBN do use ministry seed-money as venture capital for new businesses, but with the idea of using the businesses to pay for the ministry.I don't see this as bad, although some are very critical of it. Consider thought the following facts from an article which is critical of the whole thing. http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=13521So he used ministry money to start the Family Channel. It became so successful the IRS insisted it not be owned by a non-profit, and PR bought the channel (250 million mentioned on other sites). Then, they took it public, and PR took home 400 million.What did he do with his 400 million?Regent, the university he founded, got $148 millionCBN got $136 million$109 million went to a trust that pays out to CBN in 2010 or earlier
And he and his son personally seem to have taken home $19 million out of the $400 million they madeOh, and he insured for the life of the channel with Fox and now Disney and whoever else buys it that CBN will be aired twice a day in perpuity.What's wrong with that?He used ministry money to start a business which had to be sold. He got investors and bought it for 250 million, according to another site, and then they went public, and it sold for 1.9 billion with PR and his son making 400 million.Rather than pocket that money, they poured over 95% of it back into the ministry, school, etc,....and kept 5% for themselves.That picture is a far cry from what some are saying about the man.

How is making 380 million for the ministry stealing?Let me ask you something. When a church has an endowment or another non-profit and invests in stocks and bonds, is that stealing too?He took some seed money from donations; built up a TV channel; went public, and poured at least 380 million back into the non-profit.It seems that his idea is to develop businesses so the ministries are not depandant on donations. Sorry, but that's not stealing.

Wrong. He upholds the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state", which was a term considered to be coined by the Anabaptists, but used as far back as the Donatists. He rejects the modernist definition of that term, as he should, since it is merely an expression of religious bigotry towards religion in general and favoring secularism as an anti-religious ideology. So? You do the same thing in your own terms. You condemn YECers and religious conservatives all the time.Also, he is correct that the term "separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. The Constitution is about encouraging freedom of religion, not discouraging it. The modernist version of separation is a violation of the "free exercise" clause because it seeks to ban any governmental participation of religious worship rather than governmental establishment in the law, and that's a distortion of the Constitution.If the modernist myth was correct, Congressional chaplains and openign Congress with prayer should be illegal. You prove my point. You seem to think the Constitution bans religion from politics, and it does no such thing at all. The fact you could make such a statement shows how far removed you are from understanding the concept of the 1st amendment.The concept is not to ban religion from politics. The 1st amendment in fact guarantees the right of religion to be involved with politics.No, the issue is that the State cannot limit religion, and cannot regulate religious doctrine. There is nothing in there though about religion not effecting non-religious laws in the government.

Nuggin, this is where you guys just make stuff up. It appears Robertson is the one pouring over 90% of his business profits back into the non-profits. There is no evidence he leased the plane at severely slashed prices, and he can write off the cost of fuel either way. It's a business expense. It matters not to the business whether the planes are leased from a non-profit or not.