FUNDAMENTALIST WEIRDOS, FREE
SPEECH, AND MY SUCCESSOR'S BLOG

Remember Pat Robertson's call last August to assassinate the democratically elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, simply because the televangelist doesn't like his politics? My take on it at the time was that it was more of a reflection of the wealthy elite's belief that Latin American money ought to be handed over to them rather than being spent on social services, and less of a real threat to Chavez, although when leaders talk crazy talk, it can easily be interpreted by true psychos as a go-ahead for real violence. At any rate, a day or two before Hurricane Katrina came to Louisiana, I posted an excerpt from and a link to an AlterNet article which reported that Robertson's fatwa against Chavez is most likely illegal: apparently, there is a Federal law forbidding the threat of violence against foreign leaders.

When I posted the article, I was, as is all too usual these days, exhausted from a week of school and rehearsal, and did one of my lazy twofers. My own commentary on the article was short and glib: "That's good enough for me. Lock the murderous bastard up and throw away the key. Any moral American would agree." That statement invited this response in Real Art comments:

Here's a question about Pat Robertson. He's an old quack and a poor representative for people of faith around this nation and the world. It is my sincere hope that non-Christians don't lump us all together with him. Of all the Christians I don't want to get lumped with (and there are many...well, damn near all) Robertson is probably numero uno in the public sphere.

But, don't you think there is a double standard for anyone calling for the legal retribution for Robertson? As liberals, we are constantly under fire from the right about different things that they feel we should refrain from, like abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, the list goes on. These are protected, or should be, however by our constitutional rights and, as you know, it's wrong to try to implement into law just to be able to say "gotcha" to your political opponent. I think that the left has taken this comment of Robertson's and taken it to that kind of pathetic level of saying "look, we gotcha now." I hate it when the right wing shock radio talking heads play this game with Democrats or the left wing activists, and I likewise cringe when it goes the other way. I believe that we, as the liberal core of America should have treated Pat Robertson like he deserves to be treated. Ignored. He is a kook. Not dangerous, not influential, not even within the Christian faith. He's basically on a par with that Binny Hinn guy in my book. what are your thoughts on this?

The guy who made the comment isn't simply some thoughtful, wayfaring internet stranger, it was Kyle Martin, the man who took over my position as theater teacher at Ross S. Sterling High School in Baytown. I've never spoken with him, although I directed his younger brother in a show his senior year, and I've met, I believe, both his father and uncle, both of whom have theater backgrounds--indeed, the Martins are kind of like the Barrymores of Baytown; they seem to have a hand in all things theater there. Furthermore, as his comment above, and what I've read on his blog, Great Blogs of Fire, seem to indicate, Kyle is reflective and articulate. As far as I can tell, my former students, and those I would have had if I had remained, are in very good hands. He's liberal, too. I dared not even hope for a replacement as cool as Kyle.

And now we check out each other's blogs. What a weird time we live in.

Anyway, when Kyle left his comment, I was dealing with hurricane issues, and my response to his response was something to the effect that he made some good points, and I would get back to it when I had the chance. But then I became obsessed with the Federal response to the disaster in New Orleans, and then Rita came along and...well...a month and a half later, I'm finally getting back to it.

Here goes.

Don't worry, Kyle, about my lumping you together with Robertson. As a former Southern Baptist, myself, with all of my immediate family still in the fold, I know as well as anyone that, even among fundamentalists, there are countless well-meaning, good Christians. Furthermore, despite my decision over a decade ago to renounce my own identity as a Christian, I am still greatly influenced by the teachings of Jesus. Indeed, much of my liberalism today probably comes from my understanding of the Gospels--really, Jesus was a leftist, himself, when you get right down to it. However, I must admit that I am angry that rank-and-file Christians do not take more steps to loudly and publicly denounce people like Robertson. American Christians' relative silence in the face of the booming megaphone of lunatic Old Testament Jesus Nazis collectively amounts to a kind of consent. The missing voices of sane Christians from public discourse essentially allows nuts like Roberson, James Dobson, and others to politically define what Christianity is, and their Jesus is a dark, war-mongering, avenging avatar of God's wrath--"love" is only a secondary concern, if at all; fearing God is primary.

As for calling for Robertson's punishment being a double standard, I think you raise a good point. After all, the man is entitled to speak his mind. And I don't even know why it is illegal to call for the killing of a foreign leader. I'm sure there is some sort of reasonable rationale behind the law, most likely diplomatic in nature, but I wonder if that rationale is so strong that it trumps the first amendment--of course, calling for the murder of our President is an entirely different matter, and I really have no problem with laws against that.

Really, when I said that we should lock Robertson up, I was just piling on without really thinking about it. But I forgive myself for that: for me, blogging is, necessarily, fast and loose; I'm bound to make some statements here and there that I regret, or that are factually incorrect. Hopefully, I do a good job of correcting such mistakes, but then, I don't have an editor. Such is the nature of the beast; I hope people who read blogs are generally intelligent enough to realize the limitations of the medium. Really, if a blogger is intellectually honest, such mistakes stand to offer a wealth of blog content, especially when a bit of discussion is whipped up by them. Consequently, your comment is quite welcome.

On the "gotcha" issue, I must disagree somewhat. Overall, such a game with Robertson is just too easy. If one wants to rail away against his outrageous statements, all one has to do is watch the 700 Club: on a daily basis, Pat spews vile insanity, twisting and distorting the news to suit and further his sick interpretation of the Bible. Really, one can play "gotcha" with Robertson every day of the week. But his call to assassinate Chavez was over the top for various and sundry reasons (I've linked to my thoughts on this on the word "assassinate" above), and needed to be condemned. Not suppressed, but denounced for the hate speech it is, because that's what you do in a democracy when confronted with speech you don't like--you counter it with your own free speech.

I don't think that ignoring Robertson is a good idea. He is influential. I don't know the numbers, but his television show reaches millions of American households, and a significant percentage of those homes actually watch the show: Robertson has far more sway over people's thinking than any one fundamentalist minister; indeed, my guess is that his views are amplified by other right-wing preachers who recycle his lunatic ravings from their own pulpits on Sunday morning. As I said above about the relative silence of Christians who are actually interested in what Jesus had to say, so, too, with this issue. In public discourse, Robertson's voice is treated as an important Christian point of view, and when he starts spouting kooky nonsense, which is all too common with him, if there is no dissenting voice, his opinion wins the debate by default. I agree that he's basically on par with "faith healer" Benny Hinn, but, unlike the Nehru jacket man, Robertson is very dangerous indeed, if only because of his influence and political connections.

Consequently, this is no case of "gotcha," although I agree with your more generalized sentiment that there is all too much of that in American politics today. At any rate, thanks for your comment Kyle, and come back and make more if you like. Responding to you has been fun and thought provoking.

Everybody else, go read Kyle's blog!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$