|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reflections of Ken Towery
Pat Robertson Sometime ago we commented on a recent outburst by televangelist Pat Robertson, in which Pat, who holds himself out to be a man of God, called for the United States to assassinate Hugo Chavez, the current leader of Venezuela. We said, in so many words, that Pat should keep his mouth shut on that particular subject. We did not see a call for someone's assassination to be in line with the image of a Godly man.
Needless to say, our opinion piece generated other opinion pieces, some of which took a different approach. We have tried to wrap the adverse comments into one response, and that response is presented herewith.
In the first place, we did not say, and certainly did not intend to say, that Pat Robertson is a less than honorable person. One letter writer reminded us that a James Robison is also an honorable person, although, to the best of our memory, we did not even mention James Robison. We certainly do not know him, have never heard of him, and how he got into a discussion about Pat Robertson, is beyond us.
As far as we are concerned, there are very few bad, or less than honorable, people in this world, Many do not agree with us on fundamental issues, nor do we agree with all others. That does not make either we or they less than honorable, it merely means we have a difference of opinion on certain things.
I suppose it is no secret among our readers that we do not regard Pat Robertson as among our favorite individuals. Part of our occasional unhappiness with Robertson revolves around his uncritical support of Israel, and part around his continual begging for funds to support projects that we believe have no bearing, none at all, with the messages of Jesus Christ. We do not hold in high regard any person who accumulates a personal fortune while begging from others, particularly when begging from people of lesser means. That attitude (and it is an "attitude" on our part), extends to Popes, Bishops, Senators, preachers, monks, televangelists, whomever. For example, we can hardly see television footage of the lavish quarters occupied by some "religious" folks without thinking of Jesus Christ riding a donkey to where he knew the prophecies would be fulfilled, and feeling a touch of shame and embarrassment for what Christianity has become for some folks. Other people can, and do, see matters differently, and, as we have said many times before in these columns, we believe those people have the right to their own opinion, even if those opinions differ markedly from our own.
There are people, many people, who believe the principal reason one should lead a publicly virtuous life is simply because that route might result in personal wealth. In other words, the objective is personal wealth, the route to that wealth in some cases is a publicly blameless life. We simply are not among them. To us, a decent, believing life in the eyes of God, is reward aplenty. If there is reward or punishment in the after-life, and we believe there will be, it will come from being close or distant from God throughout eternity, as we see things. We see little difference between the person who steals in order to achieve personal wealth, and the person who publicly professes a belief in God in order that he may achieve personal wealth, In the latter case, wherein personal wealth is the central and only objective, adjusting religious beliefs is very, very, easy. And, as an addendum, we would say that between the two, we would hold the latter in more contempt.
We were in Washington when Pat's father, the former Senator Willis Robertson from Virginia, died suddenly. (I believe it was in the mid-60s). The senator, generally called a conservative Democrat, had been a member of the Virginia political establishment for many years. As far as I know, he was a good man. He was very highly regarded. He had no apparent political heir, and it became clear to many that the son was the logical choice for replacement, primarily because of the name identification factor.
But the son had gathered sufficient financial support to buy a television station, and evidently chose to stay the course in broadcasting. He saw his future, not as a public servant, but as a self-centered television preacher supported by others. He stayed the course, and with the power of his own personality, a shrewd business sense, and a little help here and there, began the climb that, as far as we know, has not ended yet. His personal wealth has been estimated in various publications as in excess of $500 million, indeed the extent of his holdings have been estimated by some as high as $1.2 Billion. We do not know, and do not care, what his personal wealth is. Nor do we know or care what his political ambitions are.
There are certain truths, however, that we do not need to speculate about. Pat has long been a fervent political supporter of Israel, and Israel, in turn, has long supported Robertson. That support has even extended to Robertson's support of helping the South Lebanese Army many years ago, an armed cadre of mercenaries on the southern border of Lebanon who killed, not in service to Jesus Christ, but in the service of the Israeli army, until it (the SLA) folded and ran in the face of certain difficulties. Prior to that, the SLA had accompanied the Israeli army to Beirut, where it was credited (or blamed) by Ariel Sharon (then the Defense Minister and now the Prime Minister) with slaughtering over 600 unarmed men, women and little children in a refugee camp made up of Palestinians chased from their homes in the south. A great stench evolved out of that particular episode, but nothing ever came of it, simply because the government of the United States, of which I was a party at that time, defended the Israelis, even though they had lied to us about the proposed extent of their drive into Lebanon, but whose lies were somehow justified publicly by our government as necessary and beneficial, even though the real reason for our support of the Israeli move was purely political.
The lies of the Israeli government to the government of the United States are as well documented as they are numerous, ranging from the Israeli attack on our U.S. naval ship "Liberty" (they called that murderous act a case of mistaken identity, despite the fact that the ship was prominently flying the American flag and in international waters), to the Pollard spy case (they have been trying for years to get America to pardon the Jewish spy who stole American nuclear secrets for the Israeli government and allow him to go to Israel), to the creation of the secret Israeli nuclear arsenal while that government was under the protection of the United States Armed Forces. It is not a pretty picture to anyone except Pat Robertson and his loyal band of apologists.
Almost everyone understands that governments lie on occasions. They must, or they feel they must, in order to protect the lives and property of their citizens. But few are as adept at the art of lying as the Israeli government, and still fewer have such a willing cadre of helpers on hand in this country.
We, personally, would have no problems with the manner in which Israel exists as a state, were it not for the fact that America gets drawn into its squabbles and American youths get killed in the process. If the world's Jewish population wishes to support, with financial aid or manpower, a "home" for Israelites among their ancient enemies, they will get no argument from us. But we do take a dim view of the practice of American politicians casting American youths in harm's way for the sole purpose of satisfying a domestic constituency and seeking its vote. And anyone who thinks we would now be losing American lives in the Middle East without the influence of the "neo-conservatives" just simply does not know how American foreign policy in that region is arrived at.
Many United States Senators and Congressmen can see no distinction between the two. They simply believe that any problems Israel has, automatically becomes America's problems. Nor can many editorial writers, dependent as they are upon an advertising base that also favors Israel. Very few televangelists would not fit in that category. Certainly Pat Robertson would fit. We do not know about Mr. Robison.
Needless to say, we do not believe that way. We have always taken the position that America's young people, ought, as a matter of course, flock to the colors when their nation needs them. But we have never believed that our young people should be called on to fight wars and give up their lives in someone else's interest. Rightly or wrongly, we believe Pat Robertson would defend Israel's maneuvering for American support in any conflict that threatened Israel, even if it meant the death of American youngsters. We have never heard him say otherwise.
In our view, one cannot honestly believe Jesus Christ was right with his many messages of love and kindness on the one hand, and also believe the ancient Jewish prophets were right when they preached the death of those who lived on land they wanted for themselves. Even faith requires some consistency. One can hardly accept the teaching of the Pharisees while also accepting the teaching of Christ, in our view.
Concerning the central complaint by some letter writers that we implied Pat Robertson was capable of tying prayer to donations, or requests for donations, and that we said Pat implied he could direct the path of hurricanes, we plead guilty. We did indeed imply that Robertson linked prayer and donations, and that he, through his unique association with the Almighty, does imply he can ask God to send hurricanes elsewhere. We should not have said that Pat implied he could control the path of hurricanes. Rather, he has asked God to influence the path of hurricanes, we suppose in a manner desired by Robertson. The latter effort, if it happened, is perfectly legitimate, in our view. We are indeed commanded to pray to God, through Jesus Christ (if we profess Christianity), for things we want God's help on.
We are still troubled by the linkage of donations to prayer. If some believe Pat Robertson would not do that, and that neither would Mr. Robison, whoever he is, they are to be commended. If we have unjustly accused either of them of doing so, we apologize.-
|
|
 |
|
