Robertson/Falwell or bin Laden?

[showcase]

In the wake of Pat Robertson's spectaularly stupid suggestion that someone should assassinate Hugo Chavez before Venezuela becomes a bastion for the spread of communism and Islamic extremism in the Americas (two great tastes that have always proceeded hand-in-hand, obviously), someone decided to compair the rhetoric of the religious right with that of Osama bin Laden:

funnystrange.com/quiz/

I got 11/20, and was surprised to learn where I was wrong. Interesting how eerily similar their apparent views are.

[TBird41]

I got 11/20 as well. And it kind of shocks me how similar their language is, but the more I think about it, the less surprised I have to say that I am.

[EasyEd]

But --- Stephanopolis said the same thing about Saddam:

www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/24/122804.shtml?et=y

Why not an outrage against him? I there a dual standard? Huh?

[SoCalHoya]

1) Steph is not a "man of God." Nor was he at the time when he said this.
2) Steph does not have the following Robertson has.
3) As bad as Chavez seems to some, he's nowhere near as awful as Hussein was/is.
4) Many in the Bush I camp were pro-assassination of Saddam. Steph was certainly not the only guy out there saying this.

This is not to say I'm so fond of Steph, he's got his warts. But fortunately, he is not revered by so many in this country as Robertson is. So many people just ignore him altogether. But it is particularly damaging when someone like Robertson starts a campaign to assassinate world leaders. Especially when he has the ear to the President (not that GW would follow his advice anyway, but it certainly *looks* awful).

[EasyEd]

Guess I was right. There is a dual standard.

[Cambridge]

Your right Easyed, there is a double standard. Stephanopolis was speaking about a world leader who was accused (rightly so) of mass murder and genocide...however Chavez, who although he has questionable democratic credentials was democratically elected by the people, and his only "crime" is that he fraternizes with Fidel, strongly critiques the US government and holds socialist views. So I suppose, yes, a double standard is being upheld. We, as a society, treat mass murdering, meglomaniac dictators differently than we do democratically elected leaders who hold a less than flattering opinion of our nation and its values.

By Robertson's standard we should be calling for the state sponsored assassination of Chirac.

[EasyEd]

As I said, on the question of whether or not it is okay to suggest the assassination of another country's leader, we have a double standard. When did it become acceptable for the end to justify the means? If assassination of another country's leader is wrong isn't it always wrong? And I am sure that your opinion of Saddam is why you so strongly support President Bush in going into Iraq.

[Cambridge]

Steph doesn't claim to be a righteous christian leader Ed, so perhaps I don't hold him to as high a standard.

[Nevada Hoya]

One of the arguments I used about going into Iraq was that we saw these terrible dictators in South America and never invaded their countries. Maybe Venezuela is interesting, because like Iraq, it has some oil.

[SirSaxa]

Robertson's claim to fame is that he is a Christian leader. He preaches in the name of Christ.

This is a GU board, a Catholic Univeristy, can anyone imagine Jesus Christ calling for the assassination of a political leader? or of anyone else?