Pat Robertson has been known recently primarily for his, shall we say, “surprising” statements: After 9/11 The 700 Club host commented that God was “lifting his protection from us” because of acceptance of homosexuality. He suggested the United States should assassinate Venezuela President Hugo Chavez. In 2006 warned that “the coasts of America will be lashed by storms. There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest.” And at the beginning of this year, warned that terrorist will attack the US with mass killing, possibly millions of people, major cities injured.” But last week, may have been his most surprising declaration of all:
The conservative Christian, who founded the conservative Christian Coalition, endorsed liberal Republican Rudy Giuliani! The former NYC mayor supports abortion and gay rights—two issues opposed by Christian conservatives. Robertson believes Giuliani will support the war on terrorism, appoint conservative judges, reduce crime and limit federal spending.
I asked my source at CBN why Robertson would endorse a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate and not thoroughly conservative Mike Huckabee. His answer, “Giuliani has a better chance of winning.”
If the election choice comes down to Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, conservative Christians won’t have any candidate who passes their abortion and same-sex marriage litmus test. Many will simply choose to stay home election day. Others will be forced to more closely examine which candidate most closely aligns with issues Jesus considered important, rather than simply asking “Is he or she pro-life and anti-gay rights?”
“I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink? I was a stranger and you invited me ink, I needed clothing and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sister of mine, you did it for me” (Matthew 25).
So, who do you think Jesus would elect?
Loading ...
November 11, 2007 at 21:50
Seems like Robertson lacks faith.
I think Huckabee is the GOP’s best hope. He is the kind of canidate who knows and understands the working man. While the rest of the pack is scrambling to retain the party’s (already inadequate) base, Huckabee is breaking ground with folks who wouldn’t normally vote Republican.
November 11, 2007 at 22:03
You really popped the cork on this one. One of the greatest things we are given is freedom and the right to exercise that freedom. I’m not entirely sure that I would vote for somebody who doesn’t stand for the right for life and the integrity of marriage between a man and a woman. However, I’m not sure if staying home and letting the non-christian decide who should be our next president, is the best idea. Maybe choosing the lesser of two evils is the right answer. Maybe it’s not. In fact, I don’t even think that Jesus would even vote, had he come in our generation. He would simply proclaim the Kingdom of his father which is eternal and spiritual. I would even imagine him in a Starbucks introducing a greater leader than our president, his Eternal king and father. Did I just get too spiritual? I’m just saying…
November 11, 2007 at 22:51
No one… remember them (Israel) not wanting Gods leadership in the OT and asked for a king instead? They got what the asked for.
(Devils Advocate)
November 12, 2007 at 00:49
Jesus wouldn’t elect anyone. He’s the King of Creation.
He’ll let us elect the candidate of our choosing. He tells us through his apostle, Paul, that God is not mocked (Gal 6:7). We’ll get the kind of leaders we deserve, which isn’t good. But that is how the process works.
The Baby Boomers have been a lustful and adulterous generation. The confusion and wickedness that we’ve seen in the realm of politics, irrespective of party lines, are the fruits of iniquity that were sown by us in our youth.
Vipers raise vipers, so I don’t expect much from the younger generation. The Boomers are going to grow old and senile soon enough. There will be great pressure to euthanize people, because their are too many of us. We’ve conditioned ourselves to consider death to be the ‘moral’ choice. The WWJD kiddies will tell themselves that their doing God a service to ‘shorten suffering’.
We already have a gross form of senility working in our political culture. Very little gets done in Washington, because our elected politicians are engaged in endless morality plays along ideological lines. The needs of the nation are secondary. Their strategy is to oppose the opposition for no other reason than to paint the other side as incompetent. The media is preoccupied with Brittany, Paris, political theater, and the lint in their navels. It’s what the people want, apparently.
Truth does not abide in America today. Relativism is thriving in Land of the Free, however. So it is much easier for people to convince themselves that the truth is on their side, no matter what their moral standard is. Moralism based on biblical illiteracy is a poor substitute for truth, friends. God will not bless vanity, and He won’t wink at sin.
I don’t see anyone on the horizon in politics operating under the principal of Matthew 25. Their talk is cheap. I won’t be voting for Hillary or Rudy, that is for sure.
November 12, 2007 at 01:19
I think He would choose Giuliani
November 12, 2007 at 12:17
It is time for American Christians to wake up and realize that the United States of America is NOT a covenant nation under the New Testament like Israel was under the Old Covenant.
Our citizenship is in heaven, we are aliens and strangers on earth, ambassadors representing our heavenly homeland. This does not mean that we should not be involved with engaging the culture or participating in civic responsibility, but we should not act as if our salvation depends on the political results of an election.
If we are not given a candidate who will align with our position to meet our goals then we should vote for the candidate who will do the least damage.
November 12, 2007 at 20:08
I seem to recall the Democrats trying this in 2004 – everybody gathers behind the person they think is most likely to win (Kerry) instead of the person who best represents them (pretty much everyone BUT Kerry). I seem to recall it not working very well.
It’s a sad state of affairs when one supports a candidate just because they have a better chance of winning. The only logical conclusion is that Robertson cares more about Republicans staying in power than the issues.
As for who Jesus would endorse – I imagine somewhere in a Seattle coffee shop, their sits a Christian longing to bring an end to poverty and injustice, longing to protect life, longing to live out his faith. I imagine Christ endorsing him.
November 12, 2007 at 21:00
If the race boils down to Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, I would vote for my dad (he is not on either party’s ballot, but at least he thinks like I do).
When Robertson was interviewed on Fox News about a month ago, he said that he would never vote for a candidate that was pro-choice. I am shocked and appalled that he would go back on that. It shows a complete lack of faith.
November 13, 2007 at 01:42
Ack!
I dislike all the candidates. None of them represent me. I’ve been a registered Democrat for about 35 years, I’ve never voted the party line but I pretty much stopped voting Democrat at all about six years ago. (Yes, that coincides with 9/11.) It was like every Democratic Candidate in the country turned into a whiny-assed, name-calling, utterly clueless, partisan politician out to create divisiveness for no purpose other than to be divisive.
I was a liberal because I believed in mercy. I wanted to help the poor, feed the hungry, heal the sick, save the lost, and be a good steward of the earth.
I was a conservative because I value honesty, integrity, hard work, faithfulness, the value of human life, capitalism, and a strong defense of our nation, and I disliked the idea that Truth was somehow “relative” or “situational”, and that responsibility for bad choices could be avoided and excused because of personal misfortune. I am intolerant of bigotry but expect immigrants seeking our freedoms and benefits to enter the country legally. I don’t believe that homosexuality was part of God’s plan, but I do believe that every human being is entitled to basic human rights and dignity. I’ve been know to say that I don’t see how homosexuals can screw up marriage any worse than the heterosexuals have. I don’t think God needs my help in determining what constitutes “holy” matrimony and I do believe a person should be able to choose whoever they want to be their life partner, even if I disapprove of their choice. [Obviously, I diverge from the mainstream conservative line with those thoughts.] I abhor abortion, but I’m also reluctant to make criminals out of every woman desperate enough to want one, or every doctor who consents to perform one. Isn’t there anyone willing to consider a middle ground?
What would Jesus do? How would he vote?? Wouldn’t he ask, “What choice is the most loving?” Unfortunately, I don’t know the answer to that question. But I’ll be at the polls anyway. Confusion and doubt is no excuse for staying home.
November 13, 2007 at 09:17
I’m definitely a Huckabee fan; after him, it’s McCain. Wish Alan Keyes would run again. He’s a thinking candidate.
I want to encourage everyone of voting age not to stay home on Election Day. Write in a candidate if you must, but please vote!
November 13, 2007 at 16:40
What would Jesus do? He would love us all and want for us what he has wanted all along. For us to love the Father and to love one another. Politics get in the way and hurt feeling get in the way and someone saying something that hurt someones culture. Where does it stop, no one knows, but for me I will follow Jesus for he is the one that I trust. I will vote on election day and will with prayer and petition try to do what is best for us all. To not vote is to not care and I care for us all, as our Father does.
November 14, 2007 at 09:05
None of us really knows who Jesus would vote for, and we’re kidding ourselves if we think we do. But the question for us is, how do we apply our Christ-centered worldview to the this arena? For me, the answer is to support Mike Huckabee—-who is demonstrating incredible strength in Iowa despite not a lot of cash—-a candidate who not only represents what I believe, for the most part, but who could win (he’s a refreshing contrast both to the other Republican politicians, and to Mrs. Bill Clinton as well).
But if Giuliani gets the nomination? Folks, we have to remember that there are always more than two choices. We’re bound as patriots to vote; we’re not bound by law to choose between TWO candidates. I hear the pragmatic arguments for Giuliani (and shame, shame on Pat Robertson for succumbing to them), but I’ll offer a different pragmatic argument: if we vote for Rudy Giuliani, we’ll keep getting Rudy Giulianis as nominees, whereas if we reject Rudy, perhaps somebody will learn not to trot pseudo-conservatives out for our approval.
November 14, 2007 at 15:13
Voting for the sake of voting is absurd. Voting one’s conscience—that is, voting for someone that might not win but that shares one’s beliefs—is great, and will probably be what I do come election day. (Hello, Ron Paul!) But saying that we should vote “just because” is like saying that someone should vote even if they don’t understand the issues: it’s irresponsible.
If you don’t like the candidates, don’t care, or don’t grasp the importance of what’s going on, don’t vote.
As for the candidates themselves (with the exception of Ron Paul), I suspect they are all tax-and-spenders, whether explicitly or in hiding. They will all continue to meddle in the affairs of countries in which we have little business meddling. They will all say one thing and do another. They will all lead the US further toward “Here’s 80% of my paycheck, Mr. Government Sir!” Western Europe, even while US education and healthcare looks more like third-world Eastern Europe.
I’m finding it difficult to come up with a reason to vote, or even care. Whoever gets elected will arrive in Washington and do precisely whatever the heck they please (or whatever they are bribed, er, encouraged to do).
BTW, if I thought the Republican party would listen to Rudy’s argument (i.e., to vote against Giuliani would convince them to stop trotting out pseudo-conservatives), I think that message would have resounded loud and clear with Clinton’s ‘92 election over Bush. We weren’t interested in status quo, pseudo-conservative values… and yet, here we are again.
November 14, 2007 at 21:49
I must admit that I’m much more concerned about political correctness in our churches.
I am very concerned about paid ministers who have a hard time taking a stand against those who blaspheme the name of Christ. We’ve got leaders who turn a blind eye to ‘secret sins’ that are done in full view of the public. We have men who claim to love God and stand on His Word, but cower when they consider losing the mammon machine they’ve built around their work for the LORD.
I guess they tell themselves that Jesus was wrong when He preached that repentance was necessary to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Political correctness seem to be the greater problem in my opinion.
November 16, 2007 at 17:51
Picking the lesser of two “evils” is the wrong thing to do. Stand firm, do not compromise. Vote for who stands for what you believe no matter how electable they are. Pat Robertson is not one to follow, as his past decisions has shown. Who would Jesus vote for, since He is God and God places all authority, He would place the one that He pleases that might lead this country back to Him. We may need someone who will bring this country to rock bottom, so we will turn back to God and away from ourselves.
November 18, 2007 at 23:22
Jesus would most probably elect someone who is against homosexuality and abortion. If he had to choose between two candidates who support homosexuality and abortion, then he would simply go to the polling station and give a sermon on to what levels our nation has fallen down, but he would never elect someone who is supporting immoral issues. I’m sure he wouldn’t elect someone who would further the homosexual and abortion movements,no matter they maybe feeding the whole world and clothing the entire universe.He would most probably, talk like he talked to his disciples, who brought him food and asked him to eat. He would say, Id rather do the will of my father and be satisfied with food.