Fundamentalist Fatwa, Protestant Version

It used to be that only Moslem clergymen issued Fatwa, or religious decree. The most famous Fatwa was the one issued against the writer Salmon Rushdie by the Iranian Ayatollah, Khomeini in 1988.


There, Iranian clergymen put Salmon Rushdie and his loved ones through hell years, largely because the Khomeini disliked his novel, The Satanic Verses. Rushdie had to go into hiding to avoid being assassinated in the name of religion. A huge reward post posted for his death.

And most people are aware of the Fatwa against the US issued by Osama bin Laden. That Fatwa too, ordered or decreed the indiscriminate killing of Americans, all in the name of Islam.

Sad to say, it appears that Fatwas are catching on. Now the Protestants are getting into the act.

Well, fundamentalist Protestants anyway.

Television evangelist Pat Robertson, during one of his political rants the other day, came out for the assassination of Venezuela’s president, , Hugo Chavez. Now, assassinating foreign political leaders isn’t in keeping with any known sect of Protestant Christianity.

Pat Robertson’s changed things.

This new version of fundamentalist Protestantism, Robertsonianism, incorporates religious doctrines into political doctrines, which also translates into the idea that church (Robertson’s) and state are somehow one. Under Robertsoniansim, a TV evangelist with a large media empire and close ties to a political party (the GOP) can use his leadership of a religious faction to advocate an extremist political agenda.

Robertson’s recommendations led to a lot of media hype as well as a curious defense. CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight had as guest, Ted Haggard, who heads the National Association of Evangelicals who tried to defend Robertson as follows:

DOBBS: Let me -- let me ask you first, Reverend Haggard, the fact is that these comments were stunning in every regard, outrageous coming from a Christian leader, weren't they, by any definition?

REV. TED HAGGARD: Oh, yes, but I think you have to understand the context of it. You know his program has one section of it that's a Christian exhortation, and then another section where he's a political pundit. And I think what he was saying was, we have a looming problem down south, and there are several bad options there. And he's saying maybe the least of the bad options is to do something about the dictator.

All of which amounts to the “Mikado" , or multiple hat Defense.

In the first act of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta, The Mikado, Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner and Pooh-bah, Lord High Everything Else are having a discussion:

  KO. Pooh-Bah, it seems that the festivities in connection
with my approaching marriage must last a week. I should like to
do it handsomely, and I want to consult you as to the amount I
ought to spend upon them.
  POOH. Certainly. In which of my capacities? As First Lord
of the Treasury, Lord Chamberlain, Attorney General, Chancellor
of the Exchequer, Privy Purse, or Private Secretary?
  KO. Suppose we say as Private Secretary.
  POOH. Speaking as your Private Secretary, I should say
that, as the city will have to pay for it, don't stint yourself,
do it well.
  KO. Exactly--as the city will have to pay for it. That is
your advice.
  POOH. As Private Secretary. Of course you will understand
that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am bound to see that due
economy is observed.
  KO. Oh! But you said just now "Don't stint yourself, do it
well".
  POOH. As Private Secretary.
  KO. And now you say that due economy must be observed.
  POOH. As Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  KO. I see. Come over here, where the Chancellor can't hear
us. (They cross the stage.) Now, as my Solicitor, how do you
advise me to deal with this difficulty?
POOH. Oh, as your Solicitor, I should have no hesitation in
saying "Chance it----"
  KO. Thank you. (Shaking his hand.) I will.
  POOH. If it were not that, as Lord Chief Justice, I am
bound to see that the law isn't violated.
  KO. I see. Come over here where the Chief Justice can't
hear us. (They cross the stage.) Now, then, as First Lord of
the Treasury?
  POOH. Of course, as First Lord of the Treasury, I could
propose a special vote that would cover all expenses, if it were
not that, as Leader of the Opposition, it would be my duty to
resist it, tooth and nail. Or, as Paymaster General, I could so
cook the accounts that, as Lord High Auditor, I should never
discover the fraud. But then, as Archbishop of Titipu, it would
be my duty to denounce my dishonesty and give myself into my own
custody as first Commissioner of Police.
  KO. That's extremely awkward.
  POOH. I don't say that all these distinguished people
couldn't be squared; but it is right to tell you that they
wouldn't be sufficiently degraded in their own estimation unless
they were insulted with a very considerable bribe.
  KO. The matter shall have my careful consideration. But my
bride and her sisters approach, and any little compliment on your
part, such as an abject grovel in a characteristic Japanese
attitude, would be esteemed a favour.
  POOH. No money, no grovel!

Thus as high Pooh-bah of the 700 Club, Robertson cannot advocate the assassination of a foreign leader. However, in his capacity as high Pooh-bah/pundit for the 700 Club, Robertson and quite easily advocate assassination with no compunction or worry about contradicting his Christian beliefs.

In fact, Robertson cannot escape the fact that in advocating assassination, he is going against the religious beliefs of most Protestants.

Or most Christians, for that matter.

Robertson’s advocacy of assassination is little more than a fundamentalist Protestant version of a Islamic Fatwa and as such should be condemned. The “different hat” theory is as silly in real life, as it was in The Mikado.

Punditwalla--