Apparently, all us Christian conservatives are playing a big game of Pat says.
While I feel for Judge Joan Lefkow whose mother and husband were murdered in February, that sympathy does not mean that she should be allowed to insinuate that Pat Robertson, as looney as he may be, is calling for more attacks like the one that killed her family.
Lefkow said that comments by Robertson and members of Congress (conservatives of course) “can only encourage those who are on the edge or on the fringe to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them.”
The Robertson statement she was refering to was one he made on This Week on ABC. He said, “They’re [Judicial activists] destroying the fabric that holds our nation together. Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.”
While that statement may be attention-getting or even inflamatory, it in no way encourages people to go out and murder judges.
Lefkow also said that the “harsh rhetoric” about the judiciary could incite violence against judges on their families. By “harsh rehetoric” I assume she means comparing people to terrorists, since that is the jist of the complaint against Robertson. Would these be included:
“I hear uncomfortable echoes of 1930s Germany, or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan” when the Robertson comment was aired.
A columnist saying that conservative Christians are “waging their own ‘holy war’ against any ‘infidel’ judges”.
Someone “jokingly” calling for a return to “the Christians and the Lions thing” in a column. Constantly refering to conservative Christians as the “Christian Taliban.” Or maybe winding down your column with this sentence: “These corporate pimps, murderers, and thieves feeding at the public trough all in the name of their perverted brand of Christianity deserve no less than being publicly humiliated and punished.”
When she was talking about lawmakers, was she talking about Sen. Byrd comparing Republicans to Nazis?
Is creating t-shirts that call for the death of a politician harsh enough?
Maybe this would be included in her list of “harsh rehetoric”:
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod’s law dictates he’ll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr – where are you now that we need you?
– Guardian Columnist Charlie Brooker in a column that was later retracted
Do a simple “Bush Hitler” or a “Bush Nazi” google search and you find close to 2 million hits for each search. That is the constant mantra from the liberal side of the blogosphere. I don’t think a day goes by where some left-wing blogger doesn’t refer to Bush as Hitler, a Nazi, a terrorist or all three.
Do we see Congressional hearings into that? Is it ever insinuated by the media that they may be taking those comparrisons a bit too far? Does the media ever raise the free speech flag for Pat Robertson?
What Pat Robertson said was tactless and unneccessary, but not any less so than the countless columnists that refer to Christians as extremists or the Taliban. His statement is no less inflamatory than a pundit calling President Bush Hitler or a terrorist.
I am waiting (not holding my breath) for the same crowd who always defends the free speech rights of the left to rush to Robertson’s defense and invoke the First Amendment for him. I’m still waiting on that New York Times editorial.