[INDEX |
NATIONAL
|
WORLD
|
PERSPECTIVE
|
COLUMNS
|
MONEY
|
ENTERTAINMENT
|
HEALTH
|
TECH
|
LETTERS
|
SUBSCRIBE]
FinalCall.com News
Perspectives
Pat Robertson, Ariel Sharon and Hugo Chavez
By Bill Fletcher Jr.
-Guest Columnist-
Updated Feb 7, 2006 - 11:12:00 AM
The recent exchanges over Reverend Pat Robertson’s comments concerning ailing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon were particularly noteworthy only, in part, because of his outrageous remarks and the response he received. It was remarkable to contrast the response he received with the response that he received when he called for the murder of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Consider for a moment that Mr. Robertson blamed Mr. Sharon’s stroke on allegedly violating God’s covenant with the Jews. Let’s leave aside, for the moment, the theological bastardization in which he involves himself. Is this another example of where God supposedly spoke to Mr. Robertson, just like God supposedly spoke to him about George Bush’s re-election? If this were not so serious, it would be hilarious.
His comments were barely out of his mouth when he was, and quite correctly, attacked and repudiated by virtually everyone walking on two legs. Even the Bush administration offered a forceful statement concerning the lunacy of his remarks.
Yet, only a few months ago, the same Pat Robertson called for the murder of the democratically elected president of Venezuela. There was little of the outrage expressed then. In fact, the Bush administration’s comments at the time were not simply mild, but they never actually condemned the inappropriateness and inflammatory nature of his death call.
The irony of this is that it is actually an example of something that the religious Right regularly criticizes: moral relativism. Moral relativism, in brief, refers to a lack of consistency when it comes to moral principles. The dissimilarity between the responses is clear evidence of this moral relativism on the part of the political Right generally, and specifically the Bush administration.
When one compares the responses, it becomes very clear that allies of the U.S. are entitled to a specific form of treatment that lets them off the hook for any crimes that they commit and protects them from assault or defamation. The same is not the case when one stands in the way of the global ambitions of this administration. The permitting of Pat Robertson to make a death call and the failure of the administration to both repudiate these comments and explore legal actions against Mr. Robertson, demonstrates a lack of sincerity about a fight against terror.
Terror is not simply flying planes into buildings or suicide bombers blowing themselves up in crowds. Terror is also the absence of any feeling of protection and safety, as well as the collapse of any rule of law. As despicable as were his comments about Mr. Sharon’s illness, his death call concerning Pres. Chavez was more disconcerting. Given that Pat Robertson has an international following, his death call cannot be viewed as simply the ravings of a demented mind, but must be taken seriously as the proposals of a right-wing fanatic.
If there were ever a question as to why this administration is viewed so uneasily by most of the world, the comparison between its responses to Pat Robertson’s comments in the Sharon case vs. the Chavez case should settle the matter. Much like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, for the Bush administration, words mean what they want them to mean … nothing more or less.
(Bill Fletcher Jr. is president of TransAfrica Forum and co-chair of the anti-war coalition, United for Peace and Justice. He can be reached at [email protected].)
