Pat Robertson flip flops on sinIf Clinton was morally unfit to be president, how can Pat Robertson endorse Giuliani?
I have to say, this story really chaps my hiney.
As a Democrat Evangelical, I got verbally beat up for YEARS because of my support of Bill Clinton. Sure, he doing a fantastic job as president but how could I ever personally support someone who was of low moral character. Character is everything!
Driven on by the likes of Pat Robertson, my conservative Christian friends even believed that I was morally complicit in Clinton's sexual antics because I supported him politically.
And now Pat Robertson proudly and publicly endorse Rudi Giuliani,
Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani on Wednesday received the endorsement of televangelist Pat Robertson, who said the former New York mayor's promises to appoint conservative judges and protect Americans "from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists" should trump conservatives' concerns about Giuliani's support of abortion rights.
If there was one issue I got beat up more for than the "Monica Affair" was my supposed support for the "murder of millions of babies" because I supported a pro-choice president.
So, is it fair to believe that Pat Robertson endorses the "murder of millions of babies" because he endorses pro-choice Giuliani?
Robertson, does seem to realize his moral flip-flop but explains it away:
Robertson backs Rudy despite abortion differences
Robertson said Wednesday he set aside his differences with Giuliani on issues such as abortion because he believes that fighting the war against terrorists is more urgent.
"To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists," Robertson said. "We need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead."
But I've been beat up on that very point, too! Here's their logic:
Abortion and terrorism: Chillingly similar
... at the heart of terrorism is a willingness to act without regard to the claims or loss of innocent human life. We have seen this firsthand and on our own soil with the events of 9-11 and countless other atrocities around the world. In fact, we maintain it is this savage disregard for innocent human life that cannot be tolerated by the civilized world.
[A] contradiction is created by abortion. We condone it personally with our inaction and sanction it corporately with our laws. We are therefore complicit in the taking of innocent human life. Maybe this explains why we as a nation are not wholly committed to the war against terrorism – there is no guiding principle for protecting innocent human life from one group of people versus another. That means to some extent we have lost our standing in this fight.
So, there you have it. If you are anything less than an activist against abortion, you support terrorism.
So, where does that leave Pat Robertson in the eyes of the Religious Right?
In my eyes, its reveals Robertson nakedly as a political operative.