<p>Leftist, liberal, progressive… however you want to parse it… Stephy’s one of yours, not one of ours. On the matter of murdering a half a milllion children let’s not forget those lovable leftists Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al.</p>
<p>The Rev. Jesse Jackson, founder and president of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, called for an investigation by the Federal Communications Commission, which fined CBS affiliates $550,000 for airing Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction. </p>
<p>“This is even more threatening to hemispheric stability than the flash of a breast on television during a ballgame,” Rev. Jackson (registration required) told The New York Times. </p>
<p>Jackson released a statement yesterday calling Robertson’s comments “morally reprehensible and dangerously suggestive.” He said, “Calling for the assassination of world leaders is wildly provocative.” </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=91637[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=91637</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve noticed disgust here. Panic? No.</p>
<p>See, Browninfall, that seems to be the difference here. I don’t consider this as two sides, and everyone on one side is “mine.”</p>
<p>You can ignore terminology differences, but they’re important; I don’t feel any allegiance to the hoary left/right dichotomy which you use to assign Pol Pot, Stalin, et al to someone’s side. I call myself a progressive, and they ain’t on my side. Nor are most of the Clinton-types like Stephanopolous.</p>
<p>When Cindy Sheehan said something about Israel she was slammed by the right over and over. </p>
<p>And that was okay with the righties</p>
<p>BUt when a Robertson says something we are to ignore it</p>
<p>Can’t have it both ways</p>
<p>WHen the right stops smearing people, then they can talk…until then…take it</p>
<p>And today he lied about what he said…I love having stuff on tape…</p>
<p>The only difference is the right condemns Robertson, Sheehan gets millions of supporters…</p>
<p>Robertson has rags for brains and Mullahs have rags on their brains. Sounds the same but look a little different.</p>
<p>Cause as a very public Evangelical Christian leader, he should be taken to task for talking about murder. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>Yea we could only wish he were a Stem Cell…I am closing my eyes and imagining. Limit the supply,the funds and the opportunity. Right.</p>
<p>Agreed, citygirlsmom. It was a statement of hubris and hypocrisy and he deserves the condemnation from Christians and non-Christians alike.</p>
<p>“WHen the right stops smearing people, then they can talk…until then…take it”</p>
<p>There are enough smear-worthy representatives of both sides of the political spectrum, and no shortage of hypocritical, self-righteous breast pounders eager to perform the task. But to actually be more threatened, more offended by the words of Pat Robertson than those of Osama Bin Ladin—that’s something I’ll never understand.</p>
<p>Because we are supposed to be better and when one of our Clerics calls for murder, and he is a figure known throughout the world and is a Evangelical Christian.</p>
<p>I wasn’t more offended, I was offended.</p>
<p>So does it make Robertson okay because someone else is worse?</p>
<p>From today’s news: Chavez has been traveling in Cuba, where Fidel Castro was asked to comment on Robertson’s remarks. Castro’s response? “I think only God can punish crimes of such magnitude.”</p>
<p>Who mandated that are our clerics supposed to be “better” when it comes to refraining from calling for “murder”? Why is it not MORE grevious when radical Muslim clerics like Moqtada Al-Sadr (who wield infinitely more influence world-wide than Pat Robertson could ever hope to wield in America) call for suicide bombings that result in the MURDER of hundreds, if not thousands of innocent civilians across the globe? Al-Sadr called the collapse of the twin towers “a miracle from God”, but I’m guessing you are probably among the many on the extreme left who have said that such rhetoric and the actions engendered by it are “understandable”, given the particulars of American foreign policy and all… Riiiiighttt…</p>
<p>You see, the reason why I have a hard time believing you aren’t MORE offended by Robertson, is because your postings indicate that the politics of “the religious right” inspire your vociferous condemnation, but you’ve yet to express any real concern over the dangers of radical Islam. And of course, if this is the case, you are certainly within your rights to feel the way you do, given the fact that you are an American woman and not an Iraqi one. I just find it all rather perplexing, therefore, I’m merely trying to understand…</p>
<p>As I’ve said earlier, in my opinion, Robertson is an idiot. I have NO RESPECT for him whatsoever. But I don’t see how he rates breast pounding self-righteous indignation while other supposed “men of God”—excuse me, I mean, “Allah”, get understanding and are judged somehow justified in the eyes of the very people they would just as soon see obliterated off the face of the earth.</p>
<p>“So does it make Robertson okay because someone else is worse?”</p>
<p>Maybe I’m not very good at making myself clear. I apologize. I thought I’d already posted an opinion which indicated that I do not think Robertson’s words are “Okay”. I think that I said that he was an “affront to Christians everywhere”, and that he was an idiot who “ran off at the mouth”. But I guess you didn’t get that sense, given the fact that you’ve just asked if “it makes Robertson okay because someone else is worse”. Need I come outright and say, NO!?</p>
<p>Disney will continue to air the show:</p>
<hr>
<p>By R. Thomas Umstead 8/24/2005 5:03:00 PMABC Family Wednesday distanced itself from evangelical minister Pat Robertson and controversial comments made on his 700 Club show Monday, but the network said it will continue to televise the show.</p>
<p>During Mondays 700 Club telecast, Robertson called for the U.S. government to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.</p>
<p>The network is contractually obligated to carry the show as part of The Walt Disney Co.s purchase of then-Fox Family Channel from News Corp. in 2001.</p>
<p>In a prepared statement, ABC Family said it strongly rejected the views expressed by Robertson during the program, but it is contractually obligated to air The 700 Club and has no editorial control over views expressed by the hosts or guests.</p>
<p>The network referred all other comments to Robertsons Christian Broadcast Network.</p>
<p>On Wednesdays 700 Club show, Robertson said his comments were misinterpreted, according to AP.</p>
<p>DPP’s …I’ve been thinking about this a bit…instead of packing…Falwell made his remarks…and they denied he said what he said…then apologized…it could be a a question of impulse control …maybe a sign of a little drug problem or early alzheimers. …Remember when Reagan was saying really goofy things toward the end of his administration?..my mom called it. …maybe falwell has the same thing…</p>
<p>Poetsheart - to state it simply, yes, I do hold America and Americans to a higher standard than I expect the rest of the world to achieve. Just as I hold myself to a higher standard than I expect the rest of the world to honor, and try to teach my children to live by that same principle. If simply not being worse than others is good enough, the world will never be a better place. I can’t control the actions of others, but I can make my own decisions. We have little control or even influence over the behavior of foreignors, but I like to think that we have some sway over our fellow countrymen. And Robertson’s backpedalling - lame, equivocal, and self serving as it was - strikes me as evidence of that fact.</p>
<p>Well, Kluge, you can call it whatever you want: "holding America and Americans to a “higher standard”, “trying to teach your children to live this higher standard”—whatever. But, in this context, it has the appearance of amounting to the same thing: a smug self-righteousness used to blind oneself to one’s own brand of hypocrisy. </p>
<p>Ultra-liberals weild it when innumerating the sins of “the religious right”, and other stripes of facsist/conservative, and ultra right-wingers, like Sean Hannedy and Michael Savage employ (interestingly enough), THE EXACT SAME BRAND of smug, breast pounding self-righteousness when it comes to declaring the sins of “socialists/communists”, and other stripes of “misguided liberal”. And it’s not attractive OR CORRECT coming from either end of the spectrum. You see, I’ve come to observe (in my admittedly limited experience as a human being, that extreme politics of any stripe—and religion is just politics’ pious little simese twin, joined at the heart), almost always act as catalysts for social chaos, and human misery.</p>
<p>Perhaps this sense of “being better” will serve to comfort you as extremists like Al-Sadr and Bin Ladin blow you and your oh-so-better children to kingdom come, but I suspect that your smug American sense of “being better than them” only fuels their conviction that you deserve to die. Go ahead and convince yourself that Pat Robertson is more worthy of your condemnation, "because, as an American, he’s supposed to “be better”. Go ahead and excuse the deadly politics of extreme Islam, but it’ll not likely result in a more terror-free future for you or your children. </p>
<p>“If simply not being worse than others is good enough, the world will never be a better place.”</p>
<p>I don’t get it. Why do you and Citygirlsmom insist that I think "not being worse than others is “good enough”? I have stated in ways that I thought clearly conveyed (silly me), that I DON’T THINK PAT ROBERTSON IS “GOOD” at all. I’ll not call him an idiot again. I’ll not call him a blithering fool again, nor question his christianity again…Ooops, guess I just did…</p>
<p>But I will question (AGAIN), the perplexing insistence on condemning the lesser evil while making excuses for the greater.</p>
<p>One is something of a vaudeville act and purveyor of boorish entertainment that liberals/atheists LOVE to hate (the way Mets fans hate the Yankees; or the way Britneys fans hate Christina) and traditional people of faith and the religiously serene consider a meddling fool and a blowhard, such as poetsheart, me and other non-ideologues. </p>
<p>The other will exterminate human beings at a level precisely equal to his ability to do so (with the support and aid of the rest of his fan[atic]s, and the non-judgmental disapproval of libertines who hold him to a lower standard because he is not one of ours he merely hopes to slaughter us (which most are uncomfortable with) and denigrate America and Americans (which some are ok with for their own enigmatic reasons).</p>
<p>At least everyone has their priorities straight.</p>