Certain American’s Can Defy Social and FFC Standards Without Consequence


On Monday August 22, 2005 religious broadcaster Pat Robertson made terrorist statements by suggesting that American agents assassinate President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

There was no immediate comment from Chavez, but Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel called Robertson ''a man who seems to have quite a bit of influence in that country”.

Vice President Rangel said the comments ''reveal that religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times”.

Pat Robertson has a history as a preacher always standing on the side of the status quo, and has always been right in there with people like Jerry Falwell, furthering oppressive causes such as segregation, censorship and other inequities hidden by a veil of purity – not to mention subjecting non-believers to illegal slander, provoked hatred, and violence.

Pat Robertson is far more destructive to peace and security on the national level than those of the many thousands of individuals - not owning broadcast networks - who have been incarcerated merely for using cannabis.

Whether or not Pat Robertson claims divine inspiration for his violent suggestion, he damned well knows the power of mass communication. Is he setting a precedent for everyone to freely ignore FCC standards?

If a fundamentalist Moslem leader is a terrorist for condoning violence in the name of Allah, then so is a fundamentalist Christian leader for condoning violence in the name of God. Again, Venezuela's Vice-President Jose Vicente Rangel said, “religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times”.

As for Chavez, polls indicate a strong popularity.



Thank you. yezbok drahcir

Note: I am very much against censoring even Pat Robertson. I want everyone to witness Pat Robertson’s ways, and learn how easy it is to defy social and FFC standards without consequences, when one broadcasts as a fundamentalist Christian.