MERGED --> Bono Should Be Ashamed + More ranting from Robertson

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't think Bono has anything to be ashamed of here. He isn't the one making these remarks, and I would sincerely hope people's first thought on hearing this wouldn't be "Oh my God! Didn't Bono associate with this guy at one time? Guess I won't support anymore of Bono's causes!":|

I agree with those who have said Pat Robertson is a nutcase. And you can't really hold Bono responsible for what someone else says, just because he's been in the same room/worked with them before. Just my 2 cents.
 
just so everyone knows ... Pat Robertson was on the list of people the White House "consulted" on the Supreme Court nominee decision.
 
Irvine511 said:
just so everyone knows ... Pat Robertson was on the list of people the White House "consulted" on the Supreme Court nominee decision.

:barf: Let's hope he doesn't enjoy a similarly privileged position with regard to foreign policy.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I don't think the left would be that easily turned off. The left, at least here in America know Pat Robertson, if they were going to be turned off, they already would have.

This campaign needs the right, Bono realizes that.

Here's the issue. And I'm gonna try and word this as carefully as possible but I'm still probably going to offend some. Conservative Christians a group that has helped the current president keep his chair, a group that has helped him get there, is very influential and is very sensitive. We've seen it in here, any slight on any stance or any leader of theirs and they take it as a slight on Christianity as a whole. Bono "kicking" out Robertson could jeopardize this campaign from a large influential group. And frankly this is a group that historically hasn't supported such campaigns, whereas the left has.

But I am turned off.

What the fuck do I care about how sensitive conservative Christians are? Its THEIR turn to change that. I am a Catholic Christian and I have the right to be pissed of by the complete American conservative Christian right. it doesn´t appeal to me at all, it doesn´t follow the teachings of Jesus at all, and probably one would need to explain the ten commandments to Mister assfucking Robertson.

Like I said, if he is that unimportant and everyone thinks he is a NUT, then why not take distance? Or could we suspect that the conservative religious right DON´T think he´s a nut, that democratically elected Presidents of other countries just should be killed?

Just for the reason of probably alienating some other NUTS - and everyone who supports or excuses Robertsons words, is a nut in my eyes - its not worth to support those. Next thing we know is the Ku Klux Klan utters something incredible, and in order not to scare the oh-so-sensible "Christian" Right, no one says ANYTHING against it.

IF Bono kicking out Robertson (or people like Helms, for that matter) "alienates" this group, like you fear, I really ask myself where the hell they stand. If this group decided to back off an extremely important humanity cause like the African cause is, just because one of their most extreme representatives is critisized (when they would have the Christian duty to critisize him and kick him out of their circles themselves), then the answer is very simple: I´ll put them ALL in bowl with NUTS like Robertson if they are not able to take distance from extremists. And I will light a big fire under that bowl, so their asses get burned.

Just imagine how it looks the other way round! Say, a leftist group supports the African cause, but at the same time makes statements like "Kill Bush". Would you advocate to just let them be and hush hush keep quiet, because otherwise some other leftists would be whining?

Pah. To all you so-called conservative Christians out there - in my eyes you have no right whatsoever to call yourself a brave Christian. The Pope - and he is a conservative Pope! - has advocated peace amongst all religions.

Yes, I am judging you and I take my right to do so, judge me in return if you will. You are pissing me off; you book-burners, killers, racists and warmongers are a shame to every serious Christian out there.
 
And as to note a few deatails about President Chavez, I will post part of an article by Greg Palast here, a journalist (you can easily do a google search to find the whole article):

"What happened with Venezuela is that Hugo Chavez took Joe Stiglitz's advice as opposed to the World Bank's advice. Chavez passed two laws that were suggested by Stiglitz. Firsly, he changed the terms of trade. Venezuela was the biggest seller of oil to the United States, so he doubled the royalties — not the price to be paid by final consumers, but the royalties to be paid by the oil companies, mainly British Petroleum and Chevron — from 16 percent to thirty-something percent. To oil-man George W Bush, that was virtually an act of war. They're talking about going after Saddam Hussein, but the real war's against Hugo Chavez, for doubling the price of oil.

The second thing he did was what Stiglitz called "putting an end to landlordism". He said, "The Thatcherites talk about excessive taxes being a drain and discouraging businesses. The worst tax on this planet, which is driving it economically into the ground, the reason why millions are in poverty, is landlordism: the fact that most productive property on this planet is owned by people who are not the tillers. They take 50% of the crops — that's the worst, most horrendous tax on the planet." So Chavez decided that any land which is left fallow for two years — and there's lots of that in Venezuela, there's giant plantations where properties are not touched — that unused land goes to the landless. It's a simple law.

Two laws is all that Chavez has been able to pass on being elected president, even though he has control of Congress. And those two laws, land for the landless and higher taxes on foreign oil companies, mean that he's in economic war with America, Britain and his own elite. And so they decided to kill him. I'm not kidding: that's where it's heading right now.

I was ready to lose my lunch when I read the headlines about Hugo Chavez in my own paper, The Guardian. The line has been put out that he's a dictator. George W Bush was elected by computer in Florida, but the "dictator" is Hugo Chavez, elected by 70% of the popular vote — and no one questions the validity of that election. This is a popularly elected president with a popularly elected congress, and yet they keep talking about "the dictator". I was stunned and sickened that The Guardian would repeat this stuff, would swallow it whole.

The IMF has said such shaded things as "We're not going to get involved in the politics of Venezuela, we don't touch local politics. But if there were a transition government we would be willing to fund its operation." Basically the IMF is saying they'll pay for the coup d'état! No one is covering this. I understand John Pilger wrote an article saying, "Jeez, no-one's covering this!" Well I was trying to cover it, but I can't be everywhere at once.

Concerned, not only with what's happening, but with the lack of coverage. And with what we read in The Guardian, let alone the other papers: the false, phoney, fake, propagandistic bullshit coverage. Also I'm very concerned that because of this we're not getting the kind of support from progressive forces worldwide that we normally would see.

One reason that I think that the left worldwide has not been a big fan of Hugo Chavez is that he's not a Sandinista, he's not Allende, he's not a Marxist, he's just a guy from the streets, a reformer. He says "Let's help out the poor people", but without any big plans or giant ideology — no red flags, none of that. He's just a guy who says: the poor people in our nation have been fucked too long.

Chavez is not necessarily a lovable character, a good character, a sophisticated character. It's not a question of him — it's a question of supporting the poor who finally, through democratic means, said: "We'd like to have some of our economy. We are an oil exporting nation, why are we poor? We are a gigantic nation several times the size of Britain, with extraordinarily productive land. Why are we landless? Why are we hungry?" Chavez said: there's no reason. And basically for that the international financial community in Europe and America is at economic war with him."
 
Pat Robertson is NOT a nutcase. The man is dead serious, and he is a mainstream, well-respected figure. He's not like Jerry Falwell...and was in a different class altogether from Jim Bakker and Tammy Fae. He's not some upstart. He founded a big university in Virginai that has churned out mainstream evengelical pastors for over 20 yrs. I remember watching him when I was a kid. That's the problem..I was a kid. Thank God, I outgrew him even before he turned corrupt.

That is what is so frightening and dangerous about him. I never thought he would radicalize like this. You would have never predicted it in, say, 1989. All these other upstarts..James Dobson, etc etc, are all trying to be like him, but they'll need another 20 yrs to approach his class. They have the politcal influcne but not the financial powerbase. He has a well-established business and Educational empire, a true "base of operations" every bit as powerful as a corporation. Again, this is what makes him so frightening.

We should not condemn Bono for assosciating with him, b/c he is a good actor. I am sure Robertson turned on the charm when Bono approcahed him. I have observed this decade that Bono has lost some of his edge in dealing with these people..or rather that they have learned how to neutralize him. He is used to dealing with recalcitrant politicans. He knows how to handle them. But when these politicians do their homework and study his methods, they turn his own weapons on him, and suck him in. Bush is the prime example of this.

The best thing I can say is, I HOPE someone informs Bono of this comment..and I hope Bono's response is a public one, aimed at his (Rebertson's) followers and the evangleical community, and NOT just a private telephone call saying, "Bob, what the heck were you saying?!?!?!" You can't mean that can you!??!" Because it will send fans like us the wrong message. Bono needs to temper a private response with public comments. I'm sure many in his own congragation are shocked.

What I REALLY think Robertson is upset about is China's approaching Venezuela this month to make trading deals over its oil, after its bid to buy that US oil company was stymied by a COngressional outcry. China is even worse than we are in its relentless thirst for oil. Want to know why we arent' doing anything about the genocide in Darfur? The dirty secret is, 5 or 6 years ago China approached the Sudanese regime regarding its oil (yes, Sudan has oil), and now China gets 7% of allits oil every year from Sudan. Of course, China is afraid to pressure the corrupt Sudanses regime over its genocide in its province of Darfur. And, of course, the West esp the US, does not want to jeapordize its business relationship with China by taking her to task over an area it is tacitly acknowledging as a Chinese spehere of influence. The Chinese are VERY touchy in matters like this. It would be like the Cold War all over again, if we did (so they say.)
 
Last edited:
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


But I am turned off.

What the fuck do I care about how sensitive conservative Christians are? Its THEIR turn to change that. I am a Catholic Christian and I have the right to be pissed of by the complete American conservative Christian right. it doesn´t appeal to me at all, it doesn´t follow the teachings of Jesus at all, and probably one would need to explain the ten commandments to Mister assfucking Robertson.


But this is not Bono's crusade to change the church, he's looking to get as many people behind this as possible, some you and I may consider evil, but he needs the backing of as many as possible in order for this to work.

No matter how much of a nut Pat Robertson is, a lot of the truth behind Robertson is not being exposed to the church here in the states. Here in the states the majority of Churches are still very conservative and do see him as a spokesperson.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's how it works. And like I said this isn't Bono's campaign to change that, the fact that he's getting some of these CC's on board with him is already change enough for many(like the Helms story) wouldn't have touched any project dealing with AIDS with a 20ft. pole.
 
nbcrusader said:


You lost me here. Are you claiming to have the true way of following Jesus?

I KNOW that I lost people like you there, because conservative Christians have a serious problem being critisized (and that´s not meant personal at all, just to avoid future claims). That´s just the sentence that nails it right on the head - "You lost me there". Same what the rest of cons. Christians would probably say if Bono opened his mouth and critisized Robertson, see?

Wake up, man! You conservative Christians have a SERIOUS problem if you break off conversation or someone "loses" you just because he provokes you a little!

YES, I am claiming to have the true way of following Jesus. I take it from the Bible, you know. Just take a look there. 6th commandment.

And then tell me if you still think
a) Robertson is just a nut you can afford to ignore, or
b) he is such a nut that your oh-so-nice conservative Christian groups have the duty to critisize, being ashamed he calls himself a conservative Christian
 
Teta040 said:
Pat Robertson is NOT a nutcase. The man is dead serious, and he is a mainstream, well-respected figure. He's not like Jerry Falwell...

I very much disagree with this. I mean yes he has more respect than Faldwell, but I wouldn't call him mainstream at all. Maybe it depends on what circles you live in. Churches I grew up in we heard more about Dobson then Robertson.


Teta040 said:

I am sure Robertson turned on the charm when Bono approcahed him. I have observed this decade that Bono has lost some of his edge in dealing with these people..or rather that they have learned how to neutralize him. He is used to dealing with recalcitrant politicans. He knows how to handle them. But when these politicians do their homework and study his methods, they turn his own weapons on him, and suck him in. Bush is the prime example of this.


I think this is huge misconception. I don't think Bono's been neutralized at all, I just think he's found a smarter way to deal with it. Bono's worked harder in the last decade for the causes he believes in than in the early days. He talked more then, but he walks the walk more now. Getting up on stage and talking out against Bush now days would be like shooting himself in the foot, so he does it in more disceet ways. Bush hasn't sucked him into shit. He's playing these guys, just like I'm sure some are playing him...unfortunately that's how politics works. But let me ask you this, who's getting more done? The ones being outspoken or the ones playing the game?
 
The arrogance of you statement is appalling. If you want to criticize, fine, make your statement - I can handle them. Hiding behind broad statements leave nothing to respond to.

As for the specific issue, your expectation that everyone (from Bono to conservative Christians) has a duty to condemn Robertson establishes a principle you really don't want to live by.

Yes, Robertson is a nut that I can afford to ignore. He is the Howard Stern of politics, interjecting wild statements to get people riled up. He's done this for years. And the vast majority of what are called "conservative Christians" ignore him as well.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

But let me ask you this, who's getting more done? The ones being outspoken or the ones playing the game?

If you take a look at Bono´s (and ours) big heroes like MLK, I´d say, the outspoken. I appreciate the efforts of Bono, however, he´s walking a very thin line, and accusations of being neutralized don´t exist out of oblivion. I am far from thinking he is neutralized - the recent Live8 concerts being an example for that - but he shouldn´t exaggerate in "walking the walk and playing the game". Many eyes are watching him, and it is our duty to control the directions he takes, with the image of angel he has and likes to spread.
 
Well, to get back to the subject....I don't think that you can fault Bono for what Robertson (or anyone else ) says or does. Bono has gotten smarter in terms of his politics. I'll give you an example. Remember the video montage of old man Bush rapping "We Will Rock Baghdad" over the loop of the Queen song? That was making a very political statement - one that very polemical, and although true it probably didn't make a lick of difference in the whole scheme of things. Fast forward to 2005. Bono is received like a head of state by many world leaders, and has the ability to broker deals for Africa involving tens of billions of dollars. He's older and wiser - he doesn't come out and make outrageous statements about certain leaders (*cough*sputter*dubya*cough) anymore, but his staments on issues leave no doubt as to where he actually stands. This has allowed him unprecedented access to powerful people. I've heard Bono say that some of the politicians he deals with actaully make him feel ill, and he doesn't name them, but he's doing it to achieve his goals. He's playing their game, and winning, but without sacrigficing his intergity in the process. So in the end, Bono should not be ashamed of collaborating with Robertson on the One campaign.
 
nbcrusader said:
The arrogance of you statement is appalling. If you want to criticize, fine, make your statement - I can handle them. Hiding behind broad statements leave nothing to respond to.

As for the specific issue, your expectation that everyone (from Bono to conservative Christians) has a duty to condemn Robertson establishes a principle you really don't want to live by.

Yes, Robertson is a nut that I can afford to ignore. He is the Howard Stern of politics, interjecting wild statements to get people riled up. He's done this for years. And the vast majority of what are called "conservative Christians" ignore him as well.

Fine, so keep on thinking you can ignore him. In reality you can´t, because you and the complete American conservative Christians lose the respect of potential future conservative Christians.

You could have impressed me with some of the views in your agenda, but if you are to stubborn to take distance from the extremists in your own rows, no matter how nutcase or powerful they are in reality, you must understand that I can´t take you serious at all.

Calling someone a nut is actively and consciously playing down the sins this person is committing in his statements and the negaitve effects they might have on the rest of the world.

nbcrusader, I have not heard a SINGLE word of serious critique from you regarding Robertson, Helms, book-burners or other extremists who - sadly, but that´s life - call themselves conservative Christians. For the record, i believe you dont agree with them - but all I ever heard from you is "They´re nuts, those are nuts too, ah and he´s a nut too, nuts, nuts, nuts, ignore them all".

Since you fail to take distance from extremists, but rather choose to belittle the dangers they pose to an opened, democratic society, I can only reiterate what I said in the paragraphs you obviously must have been missing:

Yes, I am judging those extremists; and I take my right to do so, judge me in return if you will. You are pissing me off; you book-burners, killers, racists and warmongers are a shame to every serious Christian out there.
 
Last edited:
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


If you take a look at Bono´s (and ours) big heroes like MLK, I´d say, the outspoken. I appreciate the efforts of Bono, however, he´s walking a very thin line, and accusations of being neutralized don´t exist out of oblivion. I am far from thinking he is neutralized - the recent Live8 concerts being an example for that - but he shouldn´t exaggerate in "walking the walk and playing the game". Many eyes are watching him, and it is our duty to control the directions he takes, with the image of angel he has and likes to spread.

Two complete different causes. MLK had to be outspoken, he was fighting from the outside trying to get in.

Bono got his foot in the door, it's a different game now. What would Bono acomplish by alienating Bush, Blair, etc? This cause requires the backing of governments...

My point is that those like Vedder, Green Day etc who are very outspoken against Bush aren't going to be getting his backing anytime soon.
 
@ BonoVoxSuperstar: Your general question, not limited to musicians, was whether the outspoken succeed or those who play the game. Leave mediocre rockbands like Green Day out of that. Like I have said, there´s no reason to critisize Bush or Blair openly, everyone can live with that. Everyone can see the reason for it, those are men in power, right. But if you can´t afford to kick a "nut" like Robertson, where are we heading to? Courtesy for (if you believe the conservative Christians here) unimportant people who advocate killing democratically elected Presidents? Thats a stretch a little far, I would say.
 
Hiphop,

Perhaps you should read more of my posts.

I doubt you are unwilling to live to the standard you are establishing here. Let's see if I get this straight - for every nut job, extremist view or disagreeable viewpoint made, there should be a clear statement repudiating such viewpoint. Failure to do so will subject you to judgment as, what, agreeing with? in step with? said nut job, extremist, etc.

Get off the high horse. Roberton is one on many nut jobs in this world. I disagree with his statements and his style. But, I'm not going to play your game of guilt by "insufficient outrage".
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
@ BonoVoxSuperstar: Your general question, not limited to musicians, was whether the outspoken succeed or those who play the game. Leave mediocre rockbands like Green Day out of that. Like I have said, there´s no reason to critisize Bush or Blair openly, everyone can live with that. Everyone can see the reason for it, those are men in power, right.
Right but that question was in direct response to a statement Teta040 said...
 
Se7en said:


well since we live in a "free" and "democratic" society, shouldn't the cause require the backing of the people?

i'm...so...confused....

That's why the campaign is asking the people to write their government, that's the whole premise of action behind this campaign.
 
Teta040 said:
Pat Robertson is NOT a nutcase. The man is dead serious, and he is a mainstream, well-respected figure. He's not like Jerry Falwell...and was in a different class altogether from Jim Bakker and Tammy Fae. He's not some upstart. He founded a big university in Virginai that has churned out mainstream evengelical pastors for over 20 yrs. I remember watching him when I was a kid. That's the problem..I was a kid. Thank God, I outgrew him even before he turned corrupt.

That is what is so frightening and dangerous about him. I never thought he would radicalize like this. You would have never predicted it in, say, 1989. All these other upstarts..James Dobson, etc etc, are all trying to be like him, but they'll need another 20 yrs to approach his class. They have the politcal influcne but not the financial powerbase. He has a well-established business and Educational empire, a true "base of operations" every bit as powerful as a corporation. Again, this is what makes him so frightening.


Robertson's still a nutjob. Just because he has lot of other nutjobs (including the one in the White House) agreeing with him doesn't make him less of one.
 
nbcrusader said:
I doubt you are unwilling to live to the standard you are establishing here. Let's see if I get this straight - for every nut job, extremist view or disagreeable viewpoint made, there should be a clear statement repudiating such viewpoint. Failure to do so will subject you to judgment as, what, agreeing with? in step with? said nut job, extremist, etc.

First a clarification please: You mean you doubt I am willing..? or unwilling? Excuse me, if you meant unwilling, I don´t understand the sentence. Or do you mean you don´t doubt I am willing to live up to the standard?

However, what I missed to say is that I dont think for every nutjob or extremist there should be a clear statement. I mean this for the ones who influence enough people to make it into the media, there should be one. If your neighbor tells you at a barbecue "this idiot Clinton really deserves to be roasted", I don´t expect any official statement from a conservative Christian organisation. But if a man who calls himself a conservative Christian (or part of the American Christian Right) makes such a statement, yes, then the conservative Christians have to issue a statement that takes distance from him! If not, everyone else will autimatically assume they are the same opinion.

But let´s not beat around the bush anymore: the real problem here isn´t that the American Christian Right opposes those extremist views, the real problem is that they apparently accept them as a part of their so multifaceted organisation. The real problem is that some people share those extremists´ views. Don´t believe me? Please, don´t make me dig up conservative Christian messageboards to see what´s going on there.

Allow me to compare: if Muslim organizations didn´t take distance from the extremists in their own rows, but kept saying "oh they´re all nuts, just ignore them" - would you take those same Muslim organizations serious? No, you will only take them serious when they say "We condemn the evil acts of those terrorists, that´s not what we believe in, that´s not what the name Muslim stands for".

Allow me to compare another time to point out the dangers of qualifying someone like an innocent nut to be ignored. Maybe you can understand where I am coming from when I tell you I´m from the country where Hitler was born. You know what many people said when WWII was over? They said Hitler was a crazy nut who had better been left in a psychatric hospital. They totally ignored the fact that this man was responsible for so many millions of deaths, but chose to trivialize his personality. They totally ignored that without support from the German steel industry (capitalists, by the way), Hitler wouldn´t have risen to power in 1933 - and that support happened when WWII had not broken out yet; at a time when this man still travelled around the country spreading his evil extremist views to build his fanbase for later on. (Most of)The Germans LOVED Hitler! Don´t be so naive to assume that the Americans are above all that. I wonder what would happen if one of your extremists was in power.

People who are not able to speak out against the extremists in their own organizations lose all their impact on me. I am not interested in their opinions, you know. Either you side with them or you clearly critisize them and take distance. Like Bush has said so nicely, "either you´re with us, or you´re against us". A wishy washy "This guy´s a crazy idiot" doesn´t help anyone. Consider that, however sad it is, thousands of people are following persons like Robertson, Falwell or Helms. Tell me again if that´s a potential danger or not.

You see, I have very valid reasons for my opinion.

Now let´s both get off the high horse, maybe you can see my point of view even if you don´t share it.

With that, we´ve neither started to speak about Robertson´s sins, as ignoring the 6th commandment in what he advocates. I´m still the opinion every Christian should stand for his views, and if one believes in the ten commandments, he shall oppose such extremist statements very clearly. Call that my own personal game of guilt, if you want to, no problem. In that case, I stand by what the Bible says.
 
Last edited:
How come every time someone calls for the assassination or ouster of a world leader, said leader is conveniently sitting on MASSIVE oil reserves? :confused:
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Allow me to compare: if Muslim organizations didn´t take distance from the extremists in their own rows, but kept saying "oh they´re all nuts, just ignore them" - would you take those same Muslim organizations serious? No, you will only take them serious when they say "We condemn the evil acts of those terrorists, that´s not what we believe in, that´s not what the name Muslim stands for".

This is a valid point. It seems we (meaning residents of many western countries) have very high standards in our expectation that Muslims will condemn extremism in the strongest terms. It seems only fair to expect the Christian community to condemn its extremists in similarly strong terms. As you said though, I suspect that the views which many Christians in FYM claim aren't representative of conservative Christianity are in fact far more widespread than many would like to acknowledge. You have to ask, if people like Falwell and Robertson have so little support as many claim, how do they maintain their consistently high level of visibility and influence?

Also: *Puts mod hat on* Could we all please make some additional effort to keep this discussion civil and respectful. There have been a few posts which seem to engage in unfounded generalisations about particular groups and some posts which aren't terribly respectful to other posters. This is an interesting subject and I'm sure it's one which people on all sides of the debate have strong opinions about, but please try to express those opinions in a respectful and polite way. Thank-you. :)

*Fizz.
 
DaveC said:
How come every time someone calls for the assassination or ouster of a world leader, said leader is conveniently sitting on MASSIVE oil reserves? :confused:

Hmmm...that is a puzzle. :wink:

Although in the interests of fairness, I feel compelled to point out that a number of people advocated the assassination of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian territories aren't exactly endowed with plentiful natural resources of any kind.
 
Question: Is it considered a Terrorist action to call for the assassination of somebody by the authorities?

We get upset with Imams and such because they incite violence amongst their own followers. But Robertson didn't ask his followers to do anything. Robertson did not call for Christians or just anybody to assassinate him, he called for the US Government to do so. Is this much different than many other people calling for the assassination of Osama Bin Laden? Does it matter that Bin Laden is a known bad guy?
 
Back
Top Bottom