You know, it always causes me giggles when Christians complain of how ill-used and oppressed Christianity is in this country. Because, y'know, having the only religion for which government shuts down on your major holidays isn't enough due diligence. Still, it can't help the perception of your faith when your major spokesmen in this country are assholes. Kind of skews perceptions of you. Consider Pat Robertson, bastion of Christian charity, advocating the covert assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
Oh yeah. I seem to recall, from my limited familiarity with the New Testament, that Jesus advocated such thinking. Right between "Love thy neighbor" and "The meek shall inherit the Earth," he espoused,
"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."
I can understand why Pat Robertson is such a prominent religious figure. Every time the guy opens his mouth, people say, "Chriiiiiiist."
PAD
And it's not as if your President is doing anything to improve that perception out here in Not-America. (Not that I blame that on you at all PAD - he's your President only under duress.)
The fact that there are more than three people on the planet that take Pat Robertson seriously never ceases to amaze me. I remember in the mid-90s when he jumped on the Y2K bandwagon and started preaching on the 700 club that the entire world economy was going to collapse on January 1, 2000 because, you know, it says so in the Bible. Then in the next segment, he'd give viewers long-term financial advice. Hello?
Between his investments in a slave mining operation in Africa and his "Christian vitamin" business, Pat has shown to be a total hypocrite for decades now.
Before Ross Perot, he was known as the nutbar presidential candidate.
If you think calling for the assassination of a foreign president is weird, the Daily Show had a clip of him last week praying for more openings on the Supreme Court. So he's also called on God to bump off a few justices as well.
Yeah, unfortunately it appears Pat Robertson prefers the Book of Numbers -- where that quote can be found, maybe not verbatim, but gosh dang close.
"If you think calling for the assassination of a foreign president is weird, the Daily Show had a clip of him last week praying for more openings on the Supreme Court. So he's also called on God to bump off a few justices as well."
Well if you can't call in a few favors to the big guy.....
I saw the article about this last night.
I mean, sure, Chavez is a nutjob as well. But for Pat Robertson to make a comment like this?
Yeah, I'm sure that's just want Chavez needs - more fuel for his anti-American tirades.
Of course, being one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world, if we actually decided on a whim to stop buying oil from Venezuela, Chavez would just bitch and moan about how the Americans are just trying to ruin his country, blah blah blah.
"If you think calling for the assassination of a foreign president is weird, the Daily Show had a clip of him last week praying for more openings on the Supreme Court. So he's also called on God to bump off a few justices as well."
Okay, well, to be totally fair, he COULD simply be praying for more justices to retire...
PAD
oppressed? i wouldn't say that but... i do complain sometimes. Mainly because I despise the public spokesmen of my religion and believe most of them are morons. They don't speak for me.
it bothers me that people's first and sometimes only impression of Christianity is Bush Christianity or Falwell Christianity. And it frustrates me that "Christian" is becoming almost a "dirty" word....
"oh...you're christian?"
but i mainly blame it on the vocal minority who give us a bad name.
though it would be nice if people would be a little more specific when making blanket statements about christians. i know some people are specific, but a lot just say "those christians are up to it again!" and my response is "um, I'm a christian...and i'm not up to anything again!"
"Yeah, unfortunately it appears Pat Robertson prefers the Book of Numbers -- where that quote can be found, maybe not verbatim, but gosh dang close."
No kidding. Where?
PAD
It's not as if I'm against killing foreign heads of state if they prove to be dangerous to our country, but to have a religious leader saying it is just plain creepy.
Well, here. Check out the Landover Baptist Bible Quizes.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/quizlist.html
My favorite is Exodus 21:17 - "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." I guess Jack Osbourne is in some deep sh!t.
oppressed? i wouldn't say that but... i do complain sometimes. Mainly because I despise the public spokesmen of my religion and believe most of them are morons. They don't speak for me.
They don't speak for you, no, but I hardly see throngs of Christians, of any denomination, denouncing those like Robertson and Falwell.
it bothers me that people's first and sometimes only impression of Christianity is Bush Christianity or Falwell Christianity.
Well, 'moral values' was half the reason Bush got reelected, but apparently the country doesn't seem to mind following Bush's Christianity.
And it frustrates me that "Christian" is becoming almost a "dirty" word....
Hardly.
Now, words like 'liberal', 'gay', and 'lesbian', on the other hand, would be added to those "seven dirty words" if some had their way.
it bothers me that people's first and sometimes only impression of Christianity is Bush Christianity or Falwell Christianity. And it frustrates me that "Christian" is becoming almost a "dirty" word....
Which is, in essence, the same thing that's happening to the Islam. Which does not mean I'm equating Bush with Bin Laden, but hey, if the shoe fits, you've finally managed to find the right foot. Or some such. ;)
Bottom line: there's too many nutballs in any faith - including atheism.
"Okay, well, to be totally fair, he COULD simply be praying for more justices to retire..."
Come on PAD, Judgeing by all the things he has said over the years......
for those who don't know what he has said over the years..... form the AP article on yahoo news
"Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
Okay, well, to be totally fair, he COULD simply be praying for more justices to retire...
Sometimes what is left unsaid is telling. What he did not say is for God to change their hearts to convince them to retire.
craig-
They don't speak for you, no, but I hardly see throngs of Christians, of any denomination, denouncing those like Robertson and Falwell.
oh they exist. some (because there are two versions of them) presbyterians and episocopalians.... and many non-denominationals... they just don't get any air time. its kind of how the libertarians are growing, but still you hardly hear from them on news channels or debates.
Well, 'moral values' was half the reason Bush got reelected, but apparently the country doesn't seem to mind following Bush's Christianity.
or, half the country anyway. and a lot of the people i talked to who voted for bush were voting against Kerry and it seems a lot of those people are regretting it now with the way Iraq is going.
as far as the moral values thing goes, its sort of on a pendulum. 70's had a sexual revolution...80's had a counter sexual revolution, the 90's didn't go all 70's on us but it swung back left again...and now it's right again...hopefully eventually it'll stop swinging in the middle.
Hardly.
Now, words like 'liberal', 'gay', and 'lesbian', on the other hand, would be added to those "seven dirty words" if some had their way.
well, i guess its perception... half the US is conservative and the other half liberal right now..... i hang out with mostly liberals and to them, christianity is almost a dirty word.
so yes, you're right, some would have those be dirty words but i don't hear that as much.... even though i do live in alabama lmao
Yeah, I'm sure that's just want Chavez needs - more fuel for his anti-American tirades.
Well, it's not like the Bush administration publicly backed a military coup to depose him.
Oh, wait. . .
Bottom line: there's too many nutballs in any faith - including atheism.
there are too many nutballs period....
and who the hell gave them the microphone!?
"Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
That's simply not true. My mother has NEVER been gay. ;)
It's unfortunate that lunatics like this bozo get such followings. It's the same zealotry that let Hitler come into power.
I wish people would wake up and see what's becoming of this country before it's too late. Unfortunately, they're really not close to opening their eyes just yet.
that Jesus advocated such thinking. Right between "Love thy neighbor" and "The meek shall inherit the Earth,"
Don't forget "Blessed are the peacemakers"
And this is one of the assholes that preach that Islam is a religion of violence.
BTW, Pat Robertson has concluded that abortion-on-demand and no-fault divorce are both the fault of gays.
BTW, Pat Robertson has concluded that abortion-on-demand and no-fault divorce are both the fault of gays.
well falwell thinks that aids is because of gay people also, because they have such a high incidence of it....
actually...straights are second....
the least amount of aids cases happens in lesbians.
therefore, by falwell logic, Lesbians are God's chosen people!
Y The Last Man was right! Go Brian K. Vaughn!
From the CNN report on Robertson's comments:
"In November 2002, Robertson charged that the Muslim holy book, the Quran, incites followers to kill people of other faiths and disputed Bush's characterization of Islam as a religion of peace."
Which is COMPLETELY different that HIS inciting his followers to support a covert assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, of course.
Hunh... It just amazes me sometimes that a lot of those witches Robertson mentions (or at least the ones I know) act a LOT closer to how Jesus taught then a lot of so-called "Christians."
Me, I just tell people that I'm Christian by philosophy as opposed to by affiliation, meaning I strive to follow Christ's example (falling short more often than not) without subscribing to a particular denomination or to all of the extraneous bullshit that religion insists on foisting upon everyone.
From what I've seen of the article, I have to take issue with the characterization of Robertson as calling for the covert assassination of Chavez.
I don't think there's anything covert about it.
Pat, Pat, Pat...
TWL
Pat Robertson is a total wingnut. It's only news these days when he can go a full week without saying something nutty as a peanut factory.
I saw the headline, noticed PR's name and bypassed.
Sadly, it's not just him. I find it interesting that Billy Graham and Sons continue to garner great respect after 1) the revelation of BG's comments inside Nixson's office and 2) the Graham camp along with the help of Jerry Vines and the SBC denounced the entirity of Islam and called their prophet a terrorizing bigamist pedophile.
My views towards these people isn't a global condemning of Christianity. I retain a healthy respect towards my parents for nurturing my spirituality. But I've really begun to despise the "leaders" of any organized religion. I haven't found an honest one yet.
There's a quote from Seven that I think is pertinent here:
"C'mon, he's insane. Look. Right now he's probably dancing around in his grandma's panties, yeah, rubbing himself in peanut butter."
Pat, Pat, Pat.
Please stop believing in my relgion. You're making the rest of us look stupid.
Of course, I'm an Episcopalian, so Pat probably doesn't think I'm really a Christian -- too close to the Roman Catholics, y'know.
*Graham's antisemitic comments inside the Nixson office.
A quote and a personal view...
"Those who look for 'hate' usually find it." (And I wish I knew who to attribute it to.)
And I have always said that I have no problem at all with religion - an religion. It's *organised* religion that I have a problem with. Shouldn't worship be between you and your god/ess? Why should you need *anyone* in between.
Of course, if that idea took hold, then all those church people would lose their nice cushy jobs and their power base. Which is why the Catholic church went to extremes to wipe out the so-called Albigensian heresy a few centuries back. Gnosticism was simply unacceptable, as is anything which threatens those in power.
I really, really had to bite my tounge this weekend while visiting my mother. She's very spiritual, a devout Catholic. The last "discussion" (she doesn't discuss, she states) we had even close to politics was how she was voting for Bush because of the abortion issue, and me making some attempt to be logical about it and say how the office of the President has very little to do with deciding how that issue is to be resolved, and there were greater things that the President did have influence and control over, and blah blah blah, and in the end, how she could only support Bush.
So, as the news show on the TV is stating how it's been another bloody week in Afghanistan and Iraq, she shakes her head sadly and says "you know, our Pope begged us not to attack there."
So, there I am, biting my tounge, while inside I'm screaming "THEN WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THE MAN THAT SENT US IN THERE!"
Apparantly, Robertson's close connection to God allows him to see the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. How else could he offer condemnation of another man?
Hey, does that make Robertson....the Shadow?
As an Agnostic (with Discordian leanings), I am far from a fan of organized religion, or many unorganized religions. That said, I hate the idea that fundamentalists like Pat Roberts represent Christianity in America. Roberts is a fanatic, someone willing to ignore both the tenants of his own religion (I seem to recall the words "Thou shalt not kill" being on the Top 10) and whatever disagrees with him (according to the IMDB, Claimed that the portion of the U.S. Constitution that pertains to the separation of church and state was not in the original Constitution and was forged onto it by a Communist spy sent to Washington, DC, by the Russians in the late 1920s. According to Robertson, the original framers of the Constitution were told by God that the United States was to be governed by a coalition of ministers, businessmen and property owners, and that the words "democracy" and "republic" are nowhere to be found in the original U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights). But he's visible and controversial, and those make him more newsworthy (or at least more likely to make the news) than people with moderate views, Christians who don't believe in advocating assassinations.
Now it's up to those Christians, those believers, to stand up and say they disagree with Roberts, that his views are not Christian views and they do not advocate state-sanctioned murder.
(Alas, Bush is far too scared of the Religious Reich, er, Right to say anything against a believer.)
"I seem to recall the words "Thou shalt not kill" being on the Top 10"
I think the more faithful translation of the Old Testament Commandment is Thou Shalt Not Murder. superceded of course by Jesus Turn the Other Cheek approach.
"I hate the idea that fundamentalists like Pat Roberts represent Christianity in America."
He doesn't. He just happens to have a lot of money, and a podium.
"Now it's up to those Christians, those believers, to stand up and say they disagree with Roberts, that his views are not Christian views and they do not advocate state-sanctioned murder."
Problem is, true Christians won't do this, because Jesus didn't teach them to go out into the world and speak out. He taught them to teach by doing, not by speaking. He taught them specifically to NOT go out on the street corner (TV program?) and declare their spirituality to the world, proclaiming how great they were because they were close to God.
Oh, and who were those folks Christ was referring to? The Hypocrites.
And I have always said that I have no problem at all with religion - an religion. It's *organised* religion that I have a problem with. Shouldn't worship be between you and your god/ess? Why should you need *anyone* in between.
This pretty much sums up my view of the whole thing.
Well, that and the supposed duty to 'convert' people, far too many hypocrits compared to the normal of decent religious people, a few other things.
I mean, if you're agnostic (which is what I consider myself), aetheist, or even non-Christian, and Bush says "God told me to attack Iraq", well, you should have a problem with that.
Hell, if you're any kind of Christian, you should have a problem with that.
Alas, Bush is far too scared of the Religious Reich, er, Right to say anything against a believer.
Why would he fear them when he is a card-carrying member?
And I have always said that I have no problem at all with religion - an religion. It's *organised* religion that I have a problem with. Shouldn't worship be between you and your god/ess? Why should you need *anyone* in between.
I agree 100%. The real fear organized religion has, and this is why so many like Robertson wage war on science, is that if people start to think for themselves, people will realize that the world doesn't need them. But what do I know, I am just one of few remaining deluded fools who believed that one of the underlying principles of America was that every individual had the right to explore or not explore their own spiritual path.
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
I think you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who hangs around on this site - even the Conservatives - supporting Robertson. He is not to be taken seriously.
Bluntly speaking, I have a problem considering anyone who gets on national TV and asks for money in the name of God as much of a leader in ANY religious movement.
I wish I knew who said this:
"God, please protect me from your followers!"
With so many fundamentalists around you knew the net would rebel:
http://venganza.org/
WWFSMD indeed.
You know, I find it absolutely incredible that this Robertson can still, in any way, shape or form consider himself a Christian. His statements are so obviously completely self-centered and hateful. Even his reason for assassination is because it's "cheaper." No, Mr. Robertson, you're the one who's cheaper.
And, by the way, I'm a gay, liberal, Episcopalian Christian.
Some Christians here have been saying "Pat Robertson doesn't speak for me." They should be asking themselves, "Why am I allowing him to imagine that he does speak for me?"
Simply because he states that he is a "man of God," a great number of Christians allow him to say what he wants, unchallenged. The silence from the people in the pews might be understandable, especially when other public religious leaders won't challenge him. It seems to take completely insane comments from a public preacher to begin the questions - such as Oral Roberts's statement that unless he got more contributions, God would 'take him home.'"
Do you know why Robertson and Fallwell and the other wackos are the leaders of Christianity?
Because all of the real Christians don't have the money to get on TV. They're too busy feeding the poor and ministering to sick people and trying to scrub off all the crap that keeps falling on them from the nutjobs who think they're in charge of God.
"They should be asking themselves, "Why am I allowing him to imagine that he does speak for me?""
??? Rather, I would say, why does everyone assume Robertson speaks for all, a majority, or even some Christians? Where are the thongs of Christian followers saying "Right on, PR! That's the way the Good Book teaches us!"
Do I also need to rent out a billboard to distance myself from Eminem's latest single, saying that just because he and I are from the same part of Michigan, he doesn't speak for me? The fact that Robertson is mostly a lone voice should tell you that he is what he seems...a looney religious extremist with lots of money and a public venue to spew his particular brand of hateful rhetoric.
Re: Robertson, et al. I'm reminded of Snoopy's book on theology, entitled, "Did You Ever Consider That You Might Be Wrong?"
Linus also asked the same question at an evangelical summer camp the kids had somehow ended up attending.
At that same camp, Peppermint Patty was worried about the impending end of the world the camp leaders kept going on about, until Marcie directed her attention to their long-term plans to expand their facilities. That opened Patty's eyes.
Rick
Rather, I would say, why does everyone assume Robertson speaks for all, a majority, or even some Christians?
I could ask the same about Bush, couldn't it?
Why is it assumed that because he got 25% of the vote in this country, he has a mandate?
Well, it's because nobody else out there stands up and gets more (and worthwhile) attention.
So, until somebody does, Robertson and Falwell will continue to spew this kind of crap.
I mean, take the Sheehan situation. She stands up and says "you can't speak for my son".
Now you've got counter-groups standing up saying "and Sheehan can't speak for our sons". Which is a good thing - everybody speaks for themselves, rather than letting everybody else speak for them.
Basically, somebody needs to put Robertson in his place. No, he no more speaks for Christians than a radical Islamic cleric speaks for all of Islam.
But as long as people are willing to listen to the fringe radicals, they won't go away. And people won't stop assuming they speak for all.
From this year's DragonCon:
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick -
Actually, Craig, I don't know that anyone could make Robertson go away any more. If he's got any financial savvy about him, he's invested his donated millions well enough that he could continue to thrive on interest alone, and thus continue to speak his mind.
I considered mentioning how the President doesn't speak for America, except that, by virtue of having won the election, he sort of does. He doesn't speak for me, specifically, but despite my stated opposition to his policies here and elsewhere, I don't think I need to affirmatively state my position in order to have it.
Robertson only speaks for other Christians because the people that hear him assume he does. He's never been elected, so far as I know, to represent any general Christian group, and the farthest you could take him as a representative is one that speaks for the people that support him through donations. To say that he represents anything more is a false impression on behalf of the listener.
I don't think anyone needs to put Robertson in his place. His own actions are doing a bang-up job of declaring his place all on his own. And I'm willing to bet it's not the place of white, fluffy clouds and perpetual harp music.
Why Pat Robertson's Statements Help Hugo Chavez
The Venezuelan President has long thrived on criticism from the U.S.
By TIM PADGETT
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2005
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has a new best friend this morning: television evangelist Pat Robertson. With his astonishing call for the left-wing leader's assassination last night—"I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it...We have the ability to take him out"—Robertson will have surely made Chavez an even more popular anti-yanqui icon in Venezuela, Latin America and around the world. Like his mentor Fidel Castro, Chavez thrives on threats from the U.S., real or perceived. He has long insisted that his foes are plotting to kill him, and this summer had armed civilians training with the Venezuelan military to prepare for what he says is an imminent U.S. invasion. A public effort to whack him, offered from the right-wing Christian establishment so closely aligned with President Bush, is just what Chavez needs to keep his approval ratings soaring as high as the price of the Venezuelan oil he controls, the largest crude reserves in the hemisphere.
Chavez is no doubt a source of concern for Washington, if only because Venezuela is America's fourth-largest foreign oil supplier. Chavez's erratic and often bellicose anti-U.S. rhetoric—he publicly called Bush an "ass____" in Spanish last year—as well as his desire to sell less oil to the U.S. and more to ideological allies like China, are hardly comforting as gas nears $3 per gallon. But neither is Chavez's embrace of nations like Iran, and nor is the fact that he's leading a politically potent (and, to the Bush Administration, potentially destabilizing) wave of angry neo-leftism in Latin America, from Argentina to Mexico.
But Chavez holds cards that make remarks like Robertson's all the more incendiary on the Latin American street, where language like "U.S. imperialism" suddenly has currency again. One is the past: Latin Americans have too many vivid and bitter memories of U.S. intervention in their countries—operations that sometimes included brazen assassinations —which is why the Bush Administration got burned by accusations it backed a failed coup against Chavez in 2002. Another is democratic legitimacy: Chavez, for all his authoritarian tendencies, is a democratically elected head of state who last year won a national recall referendum approved by international observers.
Perhaps an even more important factor is populist backing: leftism is on the rise again in Latin America for a reason, namely the burgeoning feeling around the region that a decade of U.S.-backed capitalist reforms has simply widened an already epic gap between rich and poor—and that the Bush Administration is indifferent to it. As Chavez uses his multi-billion-dollar oil revenues to fund the kind of social projects that Venezuela's legions of impoverished never saw from his kleptocratic predecessors—and to subsidize cheaper oil for his cash-strapped Latin neighbors—more people are willing to defend him, as most Latin leaders did last spring when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice toured South America.
As a result, any cold war-style talk about "taking Chavez out" with "covert operatives," as Robertson suggested, just confers more Che Guevara cachet on the former army lieutenant colonel (who himself led a failed coup in 1992). And since Chavez has threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. at the first sign of gringo aggression, it makes America's important Venezuelan oil supply look all the more volatile.
The Happy Fundy presents "The Ten Commandments"
Won't it be great to live by the Ten Commandments once they are put up in the courthouse for all to see? As a reminder, let's go through them one by one so we are prepared for these great principles from the Old Testament!
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Wow, well I guess it's goodbye religious tolerance and hellooooooo Yahweh! That's right, we will be unable to worship Jesus, Allah or Buddha since none of these is the Jewish God, Elohim.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. Good golly, all of that artwork throughout the ages from the Sistine Chapel to the wooden crosses that adorn many a neck and steeple will have to come right down! Not to mention the name of God on our currency...
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Again, this is the Hebrew God so you can say "Jesus Christ!" all you want!
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. And here I've been going to church on Sunday, yikes! Looks like we will need to start worshipping on that lazy day of Saturday from here on out.
5. Honor thy father and mother. Dubya has got this one down, now if only he would honor other people's sons and daughters.
6. Thou shalt not kill/murder. Okay, soldiers, it?s time to lay down those arms. No more killing in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other place for that matter!
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Sure, it seems to be something that only involves those who are in the relationships, but privacy be damned, it's time for the government to get into the bedroom of straight people too!
8. Thou shalt not steal. This one sounds simple enough! After all, who could accuse Big Business in America of stealing?!?
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thankfully, we never accuse people falsely, especially where WMD?s are involved!
10. Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's. Sheesh, I suppose advertising will have to rely on something else to sell products! And no more coveting foreign oil, Dubya and Dick!
Well, that's it for the Ten Commandments. Oddly enough, they don't say anything about stem cell research or gay people marrying, but maybe we can chisel in some amendments.
Simply because he states that he is a "man of God," a great number of Christians allow him to say what he wants, unchallenged. The silence from the people in the pews might be understandable, especially when other public religious leaders won't challenge him. It seems to take completely insane comments from a public preacher to begin the questions - such as Oral Roberts's statement that unless he got more contributions, God would 'take him home.'"
It is undeniable that there is a segment of Christianity that follows and listens to Pat Robertson. It is, however, a rather small segment.
I have in the past and do again now completely disagree and denounce what Pat said. He does not represent me or other conservative Christians. He has always been on the fringe of even conservative Christians.
As a side note, Pat plays a different role than many TV preachers. He is more of a political and social commentator than a TV Pastor. He does not have a church but an audience. As such, he does get into political issues. That is not to excuse his insane comments, but it is wrong to ignore the context in which they were said. Many watch the 700 Club because they get news they cannot get anywhere else, including even Fox News. That does not mean the person watching agrees with everything or with Pat's comments any more than someone watching CNN or Fox agree with the commentary on those channels.
One final thought: Most pastors in America avoid denouncing others. For every Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, there are tens of thousands of pastors who would never say the things Pat or Jerry have said. If I was preaching at my church on Sunday, I wouldn't even bother to mention Pat Robertson -- he is a non-issue. The church I attend probably agrees with Pat on some political and social issues, but they are not what identifies us as a church. Most at my church (I admit, there are proably a few who are the exception), do not listen to Pat, or if they do, do not get their "marching orders" from him.
This differs a lot from what is well documented in the Arab world. You don't just have a few Muslim leaders advocating the killing of Jews and acts of terrorism. You have a wide range of lower level religious leaders. Pat Robertson's inexcusable comments do not resonate with most of Christian churches. His message is not being reinforced every Sunday from 99.9% of American pulpits. So any fear that Pat represents American Christianity is very out of place.
Iowa Jim
Of course Christ said this about people who would hurt children, "it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."
Also, Evangelical Christians have no Pope or no leaders. Just because a guy can get on TV does not make him the spokesman for the religion.
I also love how people are so quick to seperate terrorism in the name of Islam from Islam itself. We are told time and time again that the terrorists do not represent Islam and the Islam is a peaceful religion.
Then a couple of nuts get on TV and these same people declare these nuts as "major spokesmen" for Christianity.
Wow, thanks.
I agree that the actual number of Christians who would agree with Robertson's idiocy is very small. However, the fact that he and Falwell and others of their ilk presume to speak for all Christians is one of the primary reasons why I left Christianity behind years ago.
There is no doubt that they, for better or worse, are the public face of Christianity in America today and if other pastors and priests don't feel comfortable with that, then they need to speak up. They can counter the hate and bigotry these men preach without mentioning them by name.
J'myle: Well, here. Check out the Landover Baptist Bible Quizes.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/quizlist.html
We've been through this: Landover Baptist is a parody site. While I don't doubt that there are a few people out there who are of a frame of mind to take what the site espouses seriously, it's fairly obvious that the site is meant to be the 'Onion' of church websites.
As for Robertson, well, I hope it's obvious that he doesn't speak for the great majority of Christians. One of the problems with following the tenets of Christianity is that the whole 'turn the other cheek' thing encourages many people to quietly ignore those who ought to be openly challenged.
Well, at times I sort of like Pat Robertson, I guess I must have a perverse streak in me. But, I agree that his latest statements have me wondering about him. I mean, I don't know about other religions, but don't Christians have a commandment that states, "thou shalt not kill"? What happened to that?
"don't Christians have a commandment that states, "thou shalt not kill"? What happened to that?"
Actually, the 10 Commandments have very little to do with Christianity. Though many Christian churches have adopted the 10 Commandments as being very important.
A lot of the new Testiment is focused on the fact that Christians are no longer under the old law(commandments).
Of course the trick there is that by accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior you follow those commandments anyways. Not because you are told to or because it is writen down as law, but because you want to.
http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/shlach.html
Moses has sent 12 spies to scout out the promised land, and they have returned. Caleb speaks first:
Numbers Chapter 13 verse 30
Caleb hushed the people before Moses and said, "Let us by all means go up, and we shall gain possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it."
The other spies are fearful. They proclaim that the people currently occupying the land are giants. Caleb responds:
Chapter 14 verse 9:
you must not rebel against the Lord. Have no fear then of the people of the country, for they are our prey...
Sure, talking about an entire people, and not one guy. And instead of "we have the ability" the sentiment is "we have the backing of God".
The problem with citing scripture, whether it's the Bible, Torah, or Koran, is that you can find a passage that will justify just about any position you want to take.
Case in point are many of the Old Testament descriptions of the many wars the Israelites fought to take and hold the land of Canaan, such as the passage from Numbers John quotes. One can argue that they are how-to guides on conducting warfare or simply state that they are descriptions of specific events and are meant to be applied in every conflict.
What irritates me about Robertson is that he claims to be speaking on behalf of Christians, yet precious little of what he uses to justify his positions resembles anything I was taught in Sunday School. His justifications for assassinating Chavez are purely economic, not religious. I think he knows that his views are completely without foundation in Christian thought, despite the fact that tries to dress it up as such.
If there is a hell, I am sure that there is a special seat waiting there for him and hypocrites like him.
"If there is a hell, I am sure that there is a special seat waiting there for him and hypocrites like him."
Well, according to Dante, it is going to be a big, damn, lead robe he will have to haul around.
Although an arguement COULD be made that he is a sort of Simonist (one who sells church offices or favors) and would thus be stuck upside down in a baptismal font with the souls of his feet on fire.
Man, which is worse, hypocracy, or simony???
Oh fer crying out loud, like we all haven't said the same thing about some DICKtator or the other in the past. (Including those of you who think the same thing about Bush.) No worries mates, no ones taking him seriously and since everyones tired of the Sheehan hype, it's moving onto this. Don't buy into it.
Sheese there's gotta be SOMETHING else to report on out there.
"As for Robertson, well, I hope it's obvious that he doesn't speak for the great majority of Christians."
And Osama Bin Laden doesn't speak for the great majority of Muslims, but there are still millions of Americans who think he does.
As for Pat, he makes me damn glad I'm neither a Christian nor a Republican.
--R.J.
"Oh fer crying out loud, like we all haven't said the same thing about some DICKtator or the other in the past."
Well, see, that's just the thing. I haven't, and my beliefs are such that I never would. And since I consider myself something of a Christian, it does bother me that here's this guy on TV calling for the execution sans a trial of another human being, yet he's widely recognized himself as a Christian. Even to the point where some view him as somewhat of a Christian spokesman.
And that goes for our President. He won the election, and no matter how pleased I'd be if he were to be removed from office through impeachment or retirement, I don't want him dead or killed.
What surprises me is not what Robertson said. I don't believe he speaks for all christians. My surprise is that people keep sending him money. Who's doing that?
And then here's another thought: I have a friend who is a christian and he wakes up and turns on 700 Club while he works out. Turns out he agrees with some of what Roberton says. But does he agree before hand? His turning it on in the morning is kind of robotic. He turns it on because he's a christian and 700 Club is supposedly christian.
I think a lot of people who have good hearts turn his show on without really listening to him. He has managed to convince them that it's the "liberal media" spreading lies about him by simply the fact that they absentmindedly turn on the tv.
The thing that muslims, christians and any other people of faith have to do is not so much speak out against people who speak hatred but rather just don't support them. Don't send them money, don't turn on the tv and listen to them. Once you've determined that they don't represent you, don't support them.
Michael J Norton
no matter how pleased I'd be if he were to be removed from office through impeachment or retirement, I don't want him dead or killed.
I agree. I'd like him to live a long, healthy life ... preferably in jail for offenses against the Constitution and humanity, but I'd settle for him being surrounded by scorn and ignominy.
I'd quite frankly like for him to live long enough to see what history really thinks of his little modern-day Crusade.
TWL
Hey Zeek:
From the Time Article I posted above:
"Chavez, for all his authoritarian tendencies, is a democratically elected head of state who last year won a national recall referendum approved by international observers."
Thus he's not a dictator (nor DICKtator as you so amusingly call him.)
Oh fer crying out loud, like we all haven't said the same thing about some DICKtator or the other in the past. (Including those of you who think the same thing about Bush.)
Let me add my voice to those who have never called for the assassintion of Bush or any other president. Now, are you going to ask any of us when we stopped beating our wives?
Even if I had said that about Bush or even Castro or Kim, who am I? I'm nobody. Robertson has an audience of millions who (apparently) tune in like robots every day. He has a right to say what he thinks, but he also needs to be called to the carpet when he starts advocating murder as a way to get oil prices down.
"He won the election, and no matter how pleased "I'd be if he were to be removed from office through impeachment or retirement, I don't want him dead or killed."
I get most feel that way who don't like Bush, but I've seen protestor signs that've said otherwise.
Deh, I just think it's a slow news cycle of late if this is all the press has to talk about.
As far as Chavez, I realize he's been elected "by the people" it's his friendship of Castro that makes people think of him as otherwise.
And by the way, I'm not defending PR, he does need to keep his opinions to himself with the audience he has and all.
Just sayin' I've heard similar comments in the lunch breakroom, he just said it on the air.
There is no doubt that they, for better or worse, are the public face of Christianity in America today and if other pastors and priests don't feel comfortable with that, then they need to speak up. They can counter the hate and bigotry these men preach without mentioning them by name.
The problem is that 1,000 pastors could get up Sunday and denounce Pat or at least what he says and you will never hear about it. While most pastors avoid tearing down anyone (political or religious) by name, there are a few (like Falwell or Robertson, or Rev. Sharpton and Jackson for the other side) who do so regularly. And they are the ones who get the press. Billy Graham and Franklin Graham emphasize the positive and focus more on meeting people's spiritual and physical needs, and they do get some press, but they are the exception. Most of the time, the only religious leaders you hear about are those making outrageous statements.
As I said earlier, some of you are making the mistake of not understanding that Robertson is as much of a political entity as he is religious. Many who support his ministry do so because of his political viewpoint and because the 700 Club gives a perspective they find missing in the mainstream news media. Obviously there is a mixing of politics and religion and you cannot divorce the two when you evaluate Pat.
Let me use an example: Rev. Jesse Jackson. I bet some of you disagree at times with what he says, but support some of his political causes. Those who give to Robertson do so as much because of the political perspective he has that they agree with, even if they disagree in some particulars. Personally, he has never received a dime from me and never will. I think he hurts my cause more than helps it. But others feel he does help in some ways and so overlook his past comments because the 700 Club is more than just Pat. (My understanding is that giving to the 700 Club is in decline, so I think more people are being turned off by his comments.)
Bottom line: Other than perhaps a Billy Graham or even a Jerry Falwell being allowed "air time" to denounce Pat Roberston, name for me a major Christian Pastor who has the name recognition and national visibility? Protestant Christianity does not have a Pope or anything close to it. Except for a few authors (such as Rick Warren), the only Christians that are nationally know are political/social commentators (such as Jesse Jackson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc.) and Billy Graham. I know some of you already feel Christians are too involved in politics. The reality is, most are not and so they do not have a platform to denounce Pat. So don't wait for it to happen because it can't.
Iowa Jim
So don't wait for it to happen because it can't.
I think "can't" in this situation is more a situation of "won't".
Look at Cindy Sheehan and tell me that somebody can't get the attention of the media to denounce somebody like Pat "Wacko" Robertson. Or Falwell. Or the latest up-in-comer Dobson.
"If you think calling for the assassination of a foreign president is weird, the Daily Show had a clip of him last week praying for more openings on the Supreme Court. So he's also called on God to bump off a few justices as well."
Okay, well, to be totally fair, he COULD simply be praying for more justices to retire...
PAD
Got to admit, it would make a funny scene on Family Guy;
God: I going down there..
Jesus:(sighs) Dad..
God: I'll go old testament on his ass.
Jesus: Dad!
God: I'll reach through the clouds and send him to Hell! And put it on tv. Then people will know not to mess with the Creator, ME!
Jesus: Buddha? We're going to need that meditation tape again.
Dobson's an up and comer? Wow, he's had a huge audience since I was a kid...and he's just now become an "up and comer"? :)
Say something like this in a bar, and you're a kook. Remind me to tell you about the guy that told my sister-in-law about all the invisible people in a bar sometime. Say something like this on TV and you'll have those with just enough brain power to push buttons on a remote but not much else following you like just what they are-sheep. Unfortunately, most people lack the intelligence to question what's said on TV or in the paper. Doesn't seem to happen much around here, but I'll guarantee it happens more than you might think. Unfortunately, though, you can't just say the guy's a nut and ignore him or say he doesn't speak for me. Reason being, there's someone out there that will agree and think it sounds like a good idea and do something about it and people end up dead.
Last thought-anybody else feel like Robertson and a few others want to start the Tower of Babel Rebuilding Project?
"Why am I allowing him to imagine that he does speak for me?"
How am I gonna stop him? Assassination?
Christians had the opportunity to show just how much support they had for Pat a few years back when he ran for president. He got shot down even by the southern conservative republicans that were supposed to be his base. And this was a much less transparently crazy Robertson than the one we have now.
What exactly is it that makes him a "leader" of Christian values? He has enough ratings to stay on the air and there are people who CALL him a leader...but I'll bet I could ask the next 100 people here in North Carolina about him and get less than 25 who care much about what he has to say and about 10 who like him. With the number of U.S.A. Christians said to be around 85% of the population, I think that Mr Robertson's base of support is woefully inadequate to legitimize his ranking as a Christian leader.
Criticizing Christians for Pat's random neural misfirings is like blaming blacks for whatever idiocy Al Sharpton spews forth. It tells more about the critic than the people he or she is blaming.
I agree that the actual number of Christians who would agree with Robertson's idiocy is very small. However, the fact that he and Falwell and others of their ilk presume to speak for all Christians is one of the primary reasons why I left Christianity behind years ago.
Why? It's no reflection on you. I might question my beliefs if a huge majority of the people with the same beliefs were insane or evil but not just because a few media chosen "leaders" were. And even then, my conclusions might just be that my truth happens to be one that appeals to crazy people. That doesn't make it crazy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad PAD and others are mocking him. It's the only time I like to see him get any press. I've heard some conservatives bitch at how right wing nuts get publicity when they say stupid things and left wing nuts get a free ride. Fine. That's ok; it will help conservatives eliminate the idiots from the ranks while the left is still stuck with theirs. Why would conservatives WANT Cynthia McKinnon (D-Conspiracyville) out of the picture?
The problem is that 1,000 pastors could get up Sunday and denounce Pat or at least what he says and you will never hear about it.
Maybe somebody should organize a million pastor march to bring sanity back to organized religion. I'll bet that would get some camera time. Or at least a mention on the Factor so that O'Reilly can call them a bunch of loons.
As I said earlier, some of you are making the mistake of not understanding that Robertson is as much of a political entity as he is religious.
No, I understand fully that he is a political animal that manipulates religion to rake in tons of money that he can invest in a slave operation with Charles Taylor. The problem is that many people buy the crap he is selling and drink the Kool-Aid he is passing out. As somebody who was raised in a Protestant church, if you ask me which is a greater threat to Christianity today, Pat Robertson or openly gay couples getting married, I think the answer is obviously Pat Robertson.
Let me use an example: Rev. Jesse Jackson. I bet some of you disagree at times with what he says, but support some of his political causes.
Not me personally. I think he's every bit the opportunist as Robertson. He just works the other side of the street.
Bottom line: Other than perhaps a Billy Graham or even a Jerry Falwell being allowed "air time" to denounce Pat Roberston,
I can't speak about Graham, but no way Falwell would agree to denounce Robertson. He's a con man cut from the same cloth.
name for me a major Christian Pastor who has the name recognition and national visibility?
You have to start somewhere. Robertson and Falwell didn't just walk into their empires of greed and graft one day. It took years of conning old ladies out of their social security checks to get as rich and famous as they are now.
I know some of you already feel Christians are too involved in politics.
Every citizen has a right to participate in politics. What they don't have is the right to make their religious beliefs the law of the land or expect the taxpayers to subsidize their faith.
Of course, I'm sure there are numerous people who are involved in politics and consider themselves to be Christians (Michael Moore, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc) that I am sure do not meet the definition many people have of Christianity.
This brings me full circle to another reason why I have left Christianity. I got tired of listening to people, many of whom wouldn't cross the street to help out a starving child, tell me that I wasn't a Christian because I didn't vote for the "right" candidate. So, I've said fine. The fundamentalists want an exclusive right to say who is and is not a Christian, then count me out of the club. I'd rather focus on treating people the way that Jesus preached then to try and conform to their label.
Criticizing Christians for Pat's random neural misfirings is like blaming blacks for whatever idiocy Al Sharpton spews forth.
The irony behind this statement is that Sharpton has toned down his rhetoric in recent years in an effort to broaden his appeal while Robertson has just gotten nuttier.
Why? It's no reflection on you. I might question my beliefs if a huge majority of the people with the same beliefs were insane or evil but not just because a few media chosen "leaders" were.
No, but as I said above, the fact that too many people were telling me that I wasn't a "real" Christion because of who I voted for or that I wasn't in favor burning women who had abortions at the stake wore me down. Ultimately, I realized that I just didn't want to be in the same club with people who preached that 9/11 was caused by homosexuals, feminists, and witches or that AIDS was God's judgment on the wicked.
And yes, I know that not all Christians believe those things.
Den, you are the only example of a decent Christian I've ever seen. *applauds*
-Q.A., card-carrying agnostic
"I know some of you already feel Christians are too involved in politics. The reality is, most are not and so they do not have a platform to denounce Pat."
Yeah, nobody paid any attention to those Catholics last year who were saying it was a sin to vote for John Kerry because he supported abortion rights...
--R.J.
I think "can't" in this situation is more a situation of "won't".
Two different issues. I think you are right that most won't. But why? In many cases it is because they already believe Pat is a nut, and think the overwhelming majority agree. If the news had not replayed his comments, virtually no one would have even known. Pat quite simply is not a mover and shaker in any way that matters. He has no clout or credibility. (Which may be why he utters such nonsense -- because he finally gets the press he seems to crave.)
My point, though, is that short of a million pastor march (as someone suggested), they can't in the sense of no one will listen. And quite frankly, a march is not needed. This is such a non-issue it is pathetic. No one other than a lone pscyopath is actually going to even consider doing what Pat suggests.
Compare that to someone who truly is making a difference. Rick Warren is pushing for a variety of programs to combat poverty, illiteracy, disease, etc., in America and around the world. He has made millions from his book, "Purpose Driven Life." What has he done with it? He has repaid every dime his church has paid him in salary for the last 25 years. He is living on 10% of the royalties and putting 90% of the income into foundations that change peoples lives. And he is working to get other Christians and churches to join his "PEACE" initiative. I am glad to say, Rick Warren is much more representative of the Christians I know and the churches I have attended. While most are not as effective as he is, they are acting on their beliefs to make a real difference. I would much rather have a bunch of pastors doing things like Rick than bothering to do a purposeless protest of an insignificant TV commentator such as Pat Robertson.
So yes, you can say most pastors and Christians "won't" say anything, but for at least some of us, it is because to do so is to quit doing things that really matter.
Iowa Jim
I just have problems with any powerful people or organizations who condem sexuality - homo or hetero - and the expression thereof - and then closes up ranks to protect it's adulterers and peophiles - Jim Baker, the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts....
Yeah, nobody paid any attention to those Catholics last year who were saying it was a sin to vote for John Kerry because he supported abortion rights...
I have plenty of Catholic friends who did ignore the church and voted for Kerry.
The Catholic Church is different than protestant churches. It is able to speak with a single voice in a way other churches or denominations are unable to match. But even there, other than the pope, most of the nation has no clue who is a Catholic Bishop or leader in America unless they happen to be Catholic (and for some of my friends, not even then).
Iowa Jim
Back in '84, when Robertson was running for President against Mondale and Reagan, he held a rally at my college (Gannon University in Erie, PA). It was too much to resist: I had to go. So My friends and I showed up early and got seats near the front and listened to him rant on and on about the horrible shape tha country was in (the memory of this speech had me laughing out loud last summer when he was on TV nightly eulogizing Reagan as such a great man). Finally, he asked for questions from the students gathered. My hand shot up and I waspicked to be first. So I walked up to the microphone and told Pat that God had spoken to me last night and told me that I was to be his canidate for Vice-President. So where were we headed next? He gave me a look like I was Satan himself and then snapped "Get him out of here!" to some aides. I was bumrushed out of the auditorium like Hitler at a Bar mitzvah. The thing is, I think I would have made a great canidate.
What irritates me about Robertson is that he claims to be speaking on behalf of Christians
Actually Robertson claims to be speaking on behalf of GOD.
Oh fer crying out loud, like we all haven't said the same thing about some DICKtator or the other in the past
Yes, but we aren't the ones claiming to be preachers, we don't have a TV show aired worldwide that makes it seem that he represents us, and what's more, we're not the ones condeming an entire major religion as being violent, claiming that ours is peaceful, then using our religious pulpit to call for the death of others.
===================
Couldn't post this earlier, because I was out & didn't have access to the link, but ...
You know, it always causes me giggles when Christians complain of how ill-used and oppressed Christianity is in this country
For those who think Christians are being 'oppressed", "suppressed", etc, this should be required reading:
"Life In Our Anti-Christian America"
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=649961&lastnode_id=124
I know it's a long read, but nevertheless interesting.
Chavez and Robertson are both a can or two short of a six-pack, in my opinion. It's a shame either one wields the influence they do. However, I do think it's safe to say that Chavez does not speak for a majority of Venezualans, just as Robertson does not speak for a majority of Christians.
to quote Jon Stewart,
"Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe — dare I dream it — maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president, - or perhaps 43 of them - consecutively."
I dunno---maybe it's time to burn down ALL the churches.
That'll stop this kind of bulltish.
That last post was directed to Tim. The thing wouldn't update until after I posted... so I thought mine would be right after his.
Ultimately, I realized that I just didn't want to be in the same club with people who preached that 9/11 was caused by homosexuals, feminists, and witches or that AIDS was God's judgment on the wicked.
So if we give yuou a list of evil non-Christians it may be enough to get you back in the fold?
Just kidding, believe what you want. just don't let anyone else, especially a flea brain like Robertson make the choice for you.
I dunno---maybe it's time to burn down ALL the churches.
That'll stop this kind of bulltish.
Bulltish? You lyxdexlic?
Bottom line: Other than perhaps a Billy Graham or even a Jerry Falwell being allowed "air time" to denounce Pat Roberston, name for me a major Christian Pastor who has the name recognition and national visibility?
Roger Mahony?
Cardinal O'Connor certainly would have qualified while he was alive: anyone whose death causes a major Onion headline ("Heaven Tired of Hearing O'Connor Talk Of 'How We Do Things In New York'") has visibility.
I agree that there aren't a lot of people, but I don't think the set of prominent religious people who could speak out against Robertson and his ilk is *completely* empty.
TWL
"Actually Robertson claims to be speaking on behalf of GOD."
Yet so many assume he speaks for Christians of all denominations.
::sighs, hops up on a soapbox and yells in her loudest voice::
PAT ROBERSTON AND ALL THOSE OTHER NUT JOBS THAT POSE AS CHRISTIANS DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME!
::hops down::
I return you now to your regular programming...
"I agree that there aren't a lot of people, but I don't think the set of prominent religious people who could speak out against Robertson and his ilk is *completely* empty."
Here's an idea...just a nutty thought, off the top of my head:
How about Bush?
Certainly the Christian-in-chief who claims to take his marching orders from God can't possibly share Robertson's murderous views, can he?
Or does he?
Here's a man who would have NO problem denouncing the religious extremism that Robertson swills out. Bush opens his mouth and denounces Robertson as having anti-Christian attitudes, and it's on every news cycle for the next 48 hours.
Perhaps he feels Robertson isn't worth his time. But why? This guy is using a public pulpit to advocate murder and is causing an international stir. Certainly a few words from our Christian-in-chief to quell those fears and say, Hey, Robertson's an asshole, don't listen to him, wouldn't be out of line.
Let me know when Bush gets around to that. I would find that very interesting.
PAD
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/23/D8C5NJBO0.html
U.S. Dodges Robertson Comments on Chavez
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON
The Bush administration swiftly and unequivocally distanced itself Tuesday from a suggestion by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson that American agents assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a frequent target of U.S. foreign policy.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, appearing at a Pentagon news conference, said when asked: "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
Well, if he can take the time out of his busy vacation schedule to comment about Cindy Sheehan, we should be hearing "Pat Robertson expressed his opinion. I disagree with it," within the next day or so, right?
-Rex Hondo-
"Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, appearing at a Pentagon news conference, said when asked: "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."
So what? Rumsfeld isn't the Christian-in-Chief. To say nothing of the fact that invading a foreign country without provocation is against the law, and ignoring the Geneva convention is also against the law, so our hands aren't exactly clean.
I want to see Bush himself say something like, "Pat Robertson is hypocritical for claiming to be a man of god while advocating murder. He is not a good Christian and should be ignored by anyone who truly believes in the teachings of Jesus." THAT would impress me. As was pointed out above, if he can take the time to repeatedly crab about Cindy Sheehan ("I have to go on with my life." God almighty) then he can cut five minutes of a busy day of picking up brush to say that Pat Robertson is a douche bag.
PAD
Unfortunately, such a statement on Bush's part would effectively cut him off from his staunchest supporters, the "Christian" nutbars who think the US of A (Love it or leave it!) should be at the head of a worldwide theocracy.
-Rex Hondo-
***It's not as if I'm against killing foreign heads of state if they prove to be dangerous to our country, but to have a religious leader saying it is just plain creepy.***
When is a foreign head of state dangerous? obviously if he points his weapons to your country and say "I'm gonna kill you" then he is dangerous. Maybe if he pays terorist to do it, too.
But, as wingnut as he is, all Chavez really did was to start selling oil to China (wich is actually wise on his part, beign the largest growing economy) and use some old fashioned anti-american rethoric to win votes (cause, you know, hes not a dictator, hes an elected president...maybe not the best election system but better than others).
Real problem here is his toppling of the activities of certain evangelic churches in his country. Evangelic churches like those who funneled money into the pockets of Guatemala's military while they killed indians and catholic bishops in the name of "war on communism". Evangelic churches that teach things like "catholic mass is a satan's inspired ceremony" and advocate legal prosecution against anyone who defies their morals. Frankly, in Venezuela i think Chavez is just the lesser of two evils.
I've been lurking for awhile and I "decloaked" to ask why is it ok to use "Christian-in-chief" with sarcasm? Wouldn't someone be upset if you said Muslim-in-chief or Jew-in-chief? This is why some feel there is an anti-christian vibe out there.
I've been lurking for awhile and I "decloaked" to ask why is it ok to use "Christian-in-chief" with sarcasm?
Because Bush has made comments in the past such as God told him to bomb Iraq? that part of the neocon agenda is tied directly to what the hardcore Christian right wants?
So if we give yuou a list of evil non-Christians it may be enough to get you back in the fold?
No, but that may give me the names of other clubs that I don't want to join.
Dawn, technically, speaking, Christian in Chief is pretty accurate. Bush is and admitted Christian, of the born-again evangellical variety, I believe, and he's in charge. It's like calling the Pope Catholic.
Real problem here is his toppling of the activities of certain evangelic churches in his country.
And Pat Robertson is an evangelical minister.
Hmmmmmm.
You want a Christian Leader condemning what the doofus said? I'm small time (currently pastor of three small, rural churches), but I'll gladly oblige.
In no way, shape or form does Mr. Robertson reflect the teachings of the Christian Faith, and I wholeheartedly condemn his hate filled statements. They are an affront before God and man, and are inappropriate for any Christian, much less a man who has positioned himself as a leader.
Klingon-In-Chief....
Not a chance. Klingons have honor & would rather kill themselves than disgrace their race.
If "Christian-In-Chief" is considered to be "anti-Christian," then it explains why Christians are complaining that Christianity is under attack: It's because they have a chip on their shoulder the size of Alaska, since this country is so obviously de facto Christian. When I was in high school I had a math teacher who deliberately scheduled tests on all the major Jewish holidays and made a point of saying that only a doctor's note would be an acceptable reason for missing the exam (as opposed to, say, being in synagogue.) So I don't have a lot of sympathy in that regard.
That said, referring to Bush as the "Christian In Chief" cannot remotely be considered anti-Christian. Number one, it's simply a play on "Commander-in-Chief," and number two, Bush has used his faith to explain his motivations and thinking. He uses his faith in the same way that he uses the flag and 9/11: To justify achieving his ends. And since faith became SUCH a huge frickin' issue in the last campaign, it's abundantly clear that he is a de facto religious leader since that's one of the reasons people voted for him. "Christian-In-Chief" is simply a short-hand way of summing all that up.
"Bulltish? You lyxdexlic?"
You know, that would be a great button: "For Dog's sake, Pots all the Bulltish!"
PAD
I often wonder how sincere Bush's faith really is, or is it, like 9/11 or the flag, just another prop he uses to justify his actions.
if he can take the time to repeatedly crab about Cindy Sheehan ("I have to go on with my life." God almighty) then he can cut five minutes of a busy day of picking up brush to say that Pat Robertson is a douche bag.
The big difference is the amount of hounding from the press on the ridiculous Cindy Sheehan story vs. maybe a question or two about Robertson. Blame the media, neither story deserved the uproar or coverage that they have given them.
I understood it was a play on words and Bush brings it on himself, but wouldn't certain people call it anti-semitic if "Jew-in-Chief" were used?
The Sheehan story got a lot of coverage for a number reasons. One is that few things are more compelling than a grieving mother. Two is that it came out in a relatively slow news cycle when people had become sick of missing college girl stories. Three is that the more the Bush administration bungled their response, the more the story grew.
The Robertson story has just surfaced and is only in the first stages. Whether it ends up getting two or more weeks of constant coverage depends on a similar set of factors.
Peter, though I'm "only" 38, one thing I've found is that my own High School experience is not the same as the current one. That said, if your teacher had been a member of my congregation and I'd heard about it, I'd have given her an earful.
Christianity is under attack, but not in that sort of "visible" way, but in a far more subtle way. The "attacks" (if you wish to use the term, cultural shift is probably better), is against many of the underlying concepts, especially concerning the nature of truth, and the nature of good and evil. That said, as I've told my churches more than once, the attacks here in the US are nothing more than annoyances. Other parts of the world? Another story entirely.
In any case, boneheads like Falwell, Robertson and the like do far more damage than anything else.
"Real problem here is his toppling of the activities of certain evangelic churches in his country."
i think the real problem is that he's nationalized the oil wealth of his country. there are a lot of folks who still want to be fighting the cold war and think that any effort to redistribute wealth must be stopped at all costs.
he's effectively said that oil is a great national treasure, and it should be used to benefit the people, not just a handful of wealthy elites and foreign investors.
i get the feeling that for Pat Robertson, as well as many other "people of faith," economics trumps religion everyday.
on a related note:
PAT ROBERTSON URGES U.S. TO COVET CHAVEZ’ WIFE
http://borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=1202&srch=
"Blame the media, neither story deserved the uproar or coverage that they have given them"
My point exactly.
Gary, I'm not sure that changing notions on the nature of good and evil are real threats to Christianity. Quite frankly, I think this country deciding that slavery is evil (well, except for Pat Robertson who invests in slavery in Africa) and that women and minorities deserve the same rights as white male property owners (again, excepting Robertson) have been positive additions to our notions of good and evil.
However, societal mores do change over time and with it come changes in religion (Protestant Reformation, etc). These are threats to Christianity only if it withdraws from the modern culture and refuses to acknowledge this fact.
That said, there are several people who make a fine living exploiting the fear that there is an organized campaign against Christianity in this country. They're called Republican political consultants.
Den,
What I was referring to was not so much a matter of dealing with specific questions of good and evil (where it is clear that we can gain a great understanding), but the deeper questions of "is there such a thing as good and evil at all?"
Of course, one part of the question is that the groups that call themselves Christian any more make for a fairly wide grouping, but if you take the traditional view that the core message of Christianity is "the death of Christ for the sins of the world," there is an implied challenge in there. The existence of true good and (especially in this case) true evil does play directly to that.
It only gets more complicated than there, since even those who would say "there is no black and white," will still have things they clearly call evil (the holocaust as the easy example.)
Me, I'm just glad that the little toad is getting so much negative attention for it. Rumsfeld distancing the DOD from him is a start.
I do have to disagree with Bill that this will help conservatives "remove the idiots from their ranks while the left keeps all theirs," though. This is hardly removing Robertson from the ranks.
When I see Bush, Frist, et al. refusing money from Robertson or his foundations, and when I see them saying "thanks, but no" to his offers to rally the shee...faithful the next time election season rolls around, THEN I'll think that the right is serious about purging people like Robertson from the fold.
Until then, he's just the wacky rich uncle you hit up for money when it's convenient and try to dismiss at other times.
TWL
"Christianity is under attack, but not in that sort of "visible" way, but in a far more subtle way. The "attacks" (if you wish to use the term, cultural shift is probably better), is against many of the underlying concepts, especially concerning the nature of truth, and the nature of good and evil."
Most attacks on Christianity in the U.S. are courtesy of the entertainment world. And yeah, it's far easier to find representations of "bad" guy Christians in entertainment than good ones. It happens.
But frankly, if the worst "persecution" Christians face in this country is the Da Vinci Code (the non-Christian Left Behind)...then hey...I think we should be considering ourselves pretty lucky. There are countries where being a Christian can mean prison/death. Instead, guys like Falwell and Robertson whine as if we were getting locked up.
I just wish they would go away...far away.
WWPRD? Lie. Not quite from the same book of rules that you would get WWJD.
This is what he said today about how his words are being twisted.
"Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should, quote, "take him out," and "take him out" can be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time."
You ever wonder about the airheads that keep sending him cash no matter what because he's just such a good man of God?
"What I really meant was 'take him out to a nice dinner and movie.' And then shoot him. I mean, with a camera! Yeah, that's it."
You ever wonder about the airheads that keep sending him cash no matter what because he's just such a good man of God?
Well, that's what happens when you don't have a Commandment beneath "Thou shalt not kill" saying "Thou shalt not kidnap either". ;)
Mr. McClellan- I'd disagree that it's solely Christianity that's come 'under attack'/'undergoing cultural shift'/etc. There's been a downward attendance trend in almost all the major religions both nationally and abroad for the past two decades. I'm no social scientist, but it seems to me that this cultural shift is more 'anti-religion' than 'anti-Christian' in nature. That it is percieved as 'anti-Christian' probably has more to do with Christianity being the largest religious denomination in the country (and thus, has the largest number of people feeling its affects) than it has to do with any sort of specific anti-Christian sentiment or agenda.
Insofar as the blurring of the 'Good vs. Evil' line, well, that's going to get worse before it gets better. Humanity has entered a radical new paradigm where the communication of and interaction with new ideas/thoughts/viewpoints happens with much more fequency and simplicity than it has ever happened before, and we're still feeling those growing pains; there's simply too much to fight about. Thanks to the rampant proliferation of devices like video cell phones and high speed internet access, our world is connected like it's never been connected before. Would Robertson's recent crackpot remarks have generated this kind of media buzz 20 years ago? It would've maybe made page nine in some regional newspapers, and maybe Andy Rooney would've said something about it at the end of '60 Minutes', but that'd be about it. Nowadays, with 80 different major news outlets all trying to get your attention, and everybody's blog or website commenting on it, it becomes a major media trope. With more and more people talking, is it really that much of a surprise that there are increasingly more shades of grey available?
I'd agree that there are some pretty stark blacks and whites out there. The Holocaust was unquestionably a solid 'black', but I'd argue that people like Mother Theresa, Ghandi, and MLK offered some pretty solid 'white' for the world to see (yes, I'm fully aware of the inherent ironies in the last part of that sentence; what can I say, it's your metaphor). But the expansion of the 'grey' areas in between is something I feel organized religion has to acknowledge and compensate for, because most organized religion still thinks strictly in terms of black or white.
Which is not to say that religion should make 'grey' an acceptable designation; I've always advocated that religion should always strive to bring out the best in people, rather than encouraging the mediocre. Rather, I think that the 'you're either with us or against us' mentality of black vs. white is turning more people away than it is helping people who need help. That same attitude of 'you're either A or B; you can't be anything but' is what's ruining American politics... but that's a whole 'nother post.
"I understood it was a play on words and Bush brings it on himself, but wouldn't certain people call it anti-semitic if "Jew-in-Chief" were used?"
"Certain people?" Probably. Certain people considered it anti-semitic when I used the objects on a sedar plate as villains in one of my Trek novels. Sometimes, though, a joke is just a joke. Speaking for myself, if Leiberman ever took the office, and used his Judaism as a holier-than-thou club whenever possible, I'd be perfectly capable of referring to him as the Jew in Chief.
"Christianity is under attack, but not in that sort of "visible" way, but in a far more subtle way. The "attacks" (if you wish to use the term, cultural shift is probably better), is against many of the underlying concepts, especially concerning the nature of truth, and the nature of good and evil."
That's not an attack, quotes or no quotes. The way I see it, Christianity dictates that questioning is automatically a bad thing. Faith must be absolute, and if it's not, that's a sin. In Catholicism, the Pope's word cannot be questioned and he can never make a mistake because he's infallible. As opposed to Jews who are so aggressive about challenging everything that it's often said Jews answer every question with another question...and that's not far wrong.
It is human nature to question, to challenge, to say, "Wait, but what if..." Christianity has set up, as part of its own credo, the concept that questioning is bad, with the ultimate smack down being, "It's God's will. Now shut up." My attitude is: That's Christianity's problem. People aren't launching attacks. They're just doing what comes naturally. Saying that when people question, they're doing it as an aggressive attack on Christianity is like saying that when they masturbate, they're doing so in a deliberate endeavor to piss off the Church.
PAD
BrakYeller, the irony I saw was that when I was in college, there was a guy who used to yell and scream in front of one of the largest classroom buildings about how everyone was going to hell. One day, he said that Ghandi was in hell because he was evil.
That said, there are still many things that are clearly good and clearly evil and I agree with your short list. But I think that people are seeing more gray areas not just because of a blurring of the definition of good and evil compared to other times. I mean, take a look at some of things the crusaders did in the name of all that is good and holy. It's that many of the issues faces us a society are more complex then ever before. Look at stem cells. Some fear that they will lead to more abortions. Others point to their potential to relieve so much suffering among people already born. Which is good and whish is evil?
Those that keep saying all people need to do to shut PR up is stop sending him money...he owns his own fricken TV show. He could probably continue broadcasting for the rest of his life even if he stopped getting donations today.
I don't think we need to shut him up, just stop taking anything he says seriously.
That's the reply the administration should (but won't) make to cool the international uproar. "Yeah, that Pat. He's a wackjob. Hahaha. He just spouts off whatever comes into his head at any moment. I mean, did you know he once claimed God told him to run for president? You'd think if God wanted him to run, he would've won."
Den,
Yeah, the Admin should say that as loud as they can. Then more people could point out stuff like this.....
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."
July 16, 2004: President Bush, quoted in the Lancaster New Era
Jim..just to be clear...someone speaks, in your name, representing your god, and says something compleatly against all that you believe...and not some wackjob on the street, but a major public figure...rather than stand up like a man and say, "You, sir, are wrong." you instead shrug it off that it's not worth making a fuss about.
Well, you sir are wrong, and you are complaisant in all that he does.
It doesn't matter whether you are heard or not. You, as a claimed man of G-d, stand up and say that he is wrong.
Or do you agree?
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
Yeah, this was "misinterpreted".
Of note, not even Disney can shut Robertson up..in the terms of sale of what was the Christian Family network and is now ABC/Disney Family channel (home of the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers) is a clause that the 700 Club can not be canceled unless Robertson wishes it.
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
Yeah, this was "misinterpreted".
So, now Robertson shares a pew with Blue Oyster Cult?
"If he really thinks we're the Devil,
Then let's send him to hell!"
- Blue Oyster Cult, "Divine Wind", Cultosaurus Erectus (1980)
In Catholicism, the Pope's word cannot be questioned and he can never make a mistake because he's infallible
Sorry, no, that's incorrect. It's not as annoying as the fact that people keep saying that Jesus was the "Immaculate Conception" but it's still wrong.
You can question and disagree with the Pope's word. The Pope can make mistakes. Infallibility is something that is invoked ex cathedra under extremely specific conditions. It has to be specifically invoked and is usually regarding some matter of religious dogma (the aforementioned Immmaculate Conception is regarded as an example).
As the Wikepedia entry sates "Many Catholics and non-Catholics wrongly believe that the doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the use of papal infallibility is quite rare."
Now you may well believe that any and all claims of Infallibility are as so many horsefeathers. Fine, no problem, even some Catholics have issues with the concept. But please don't leave the impression that dissent within the church is disallowed by the infallibility of everything the Pope says. That is not the Church's teaching.
"Sorry, no, that's incorrect. It's not as annoying as the fact that people keep saying that Jesus was the "Immaculate Conception" but it's still wrong."
Yes, I know. That's Mary. I learned that from watching "Win Ben Stein's Money."
"As the Wikepedia entry sates "Many Catholics and non-Catholics wrongly believe that the doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the use of papal infallibility is quite rare."
I find that an interesting clarification. Curiously, it's also almost irrelevant to reality. The belief may be "wrong," but the fact that so many people DO believe it means that they act in that fashion, and feed into the concept of "Never ask, never question, and anyone who does is wrong."
PAD
"Sorry, no, that's incorrect. It's not as annoying as the fact that people keep saying that Jesus was the "Immaculate Conception" but it's still wrong."
Yes, I know. That's Mary. I learned that from watching "Win Ben Stein's Money."
Just as an aside, wasn't Ben's meltdown in that episode a thing of postmodern beauty?
"It's not as annoying as the fact that people keep saying that Jesus was the "Immaculate Conception" but it's still wrong."
wasn't the Immaculate Conception the conception of Jesus?
in which case i'd say, Mary HAD the Immaculate Conception, but Jesus WAS the Immaculate Conception. or, to be less semantically tortured, Jesus was the product of the Immaculate Conception.
By the way....how many of the rest of the Religious Right (Dobson, Kennedy, et al) have distanced themselves from Robertson's initial comments?
As an atheistic and unbaptized spaniard who was schooled in catholic institutions from 6 to 18, I can say:
a) Catholicism leaves room for dissent. Jesuists are a good example, as well as the fact that I got straigh A's in my "religion" class even tho Ive allways defended abortion rights, divorce and darwinism in class.
b) If the catholic church looks so old fashioned and disconected from the times, it's because liberals decided to leave the church instead of keeping the centuries never ending fight to renew it. The fact that it was the first church to adress the problem of urban workers in the industrial revolutions just tells you how "outdated" was not so long ago. And I consider myself a liberal, btw.
c) Evangelic churches give me the creeps. They are a relatively new phenomena here, mostly imported by south american inmigrants, but the kind of intransigence and political tendences they show reminds me to the talibans.
By the way....how many of the rest of the Religious Right (Dobson, Kennedy, et al) have distanced themselves from Robertson's initial comments?
As of the last article I read, Dobson et al. had said through their various spokesmen that they were "too busy to comment."
Uhhhhh huh.
TWL
Indestructable man,
Actually, the doctrine goes like this-- Jesus was the Virgin Birth. Obviously his conception was supernatural but since he existed prior to his birth (Jesus being an aspect of God), his "conception" is more of a posession or incarnation.
Mary was conceived normally, that is, through sex. What made her conception Immaculate was that she, alone among humans, carried no trace of sin or evil. The idea is, since Jesus is at least physically human and made of her flesh, she had to be perfect.
None of this is in the Bible but it became a Catholic tradition early on and it was made "official" by one of the aforementioned Infallible Proclamations back in the 1800s.
It's one reason that Mary is so big with Catholics. For one thing, one could never truly aspire to be as good as Jesus--I mean, you're kind of doomed to failure--but you COULD, theoretically, be like Mary.
I find that an interesting clarification. Curiously, it's also almost irrelevant to reality. The belief may be "wrong," but the fact that so many people DO believe it means that they act in that fashion, and feed into the concept of "Never ask, never question, and anyone who does is wrong."
Well, I know a lot of Catholics and that doesn't describe a single one of them. Dissent within the Church is pretty common and' despite another idea that many may have, it isn't all that easy to get excommunicated. (there's an amusing web page from some poor guy at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5599/excomm/excomm-home.html where he is asking readers to harass his former church to grant him an excommunication.)
If I remember correctly, the logistics of Immaculate Conception go like this:
1) Every descendant of Adam and Eve is born with Original Sin: they ate the Fruit of Knowledge, and passed it on to their children, and we inherited it.
((Yes, this is kinda boggle-worthy, don't worry about it just now.))
2) Himself felt that, if He was going to have a portion of His Being born into the world as a mortal avatar, the Original Sin might make an awful mess of things.
3) Solution: Make sure the source of the mortal body -- an as-yet-unborn nice Jewish girl named Miryam, member of the House of David -- gets the spiritual version of prenatal surgery, causing her to be conceived and born without having (or carrying) the Original Sin.
So that's the story of Immaculate Conception. Jesus wasn't "Immaculately Conceived" because he wasn't going to be inheriting from any carriers of the stain of sin: Himself never had the problem in the first place, and Mary was miraculously made Original-Sin-free at the moment that her soul was fused to her flesh.
I'm not going to get into the whole thing, just now, about how Mary symbolizes the idea that God loves us like a mother loves her child. God loves us other ways too. It's a big sidetrack to the original conversation, though.
*****
I've noticed that a lot of people who dislike organized religion also tend to think priests in general are unnecessary to an individual's spiritual relationship with the Deity in whatever form. I have to disagree with that.
Sure, not all people need a learned, professional intermediary who will actively and obviously participate in a conversation -- but there's nothing inadequate or shameful about those who do need that kind of help, on an occasional or regular basis.
Sometimes a person just needs an outside perspective, given by someone who has devoted LOTS of time and effort and thought to Deity's quieter communications -- maybe even an entire career worth of time and effort and thought.
It doesn't obviate the responsibility of the individual to judge the professional's opinions and advice against one's sense of Deity, but on the other hand, I wouldn't write a program without occasionally referring to the notes of those who've studied how the programming language was made.
Whups! I'm a slow typist, and Bill Mulligan already explained it better than I could. Sorry!
"With unmistakable clarity and an apparent lack of self-consciousness, Robertson simply called for an assassination, presumably to be undertaken by U.S. military forces in violation of U.S. law.
In so doing he gave the Venezuelan leader a propaganda gold mine, embarrassed the Bush administration, and left millions of viewers perplexed and troubled. More importantly, he brought shame to the cause of Christ. This is the kind of outrageous statement that makes evangelism all the more difficult. Missing from the entire context is the Christian understanding that violence can never be blessed as a good, but may only be employed under circumstances that would justify the limited use of lethal force in order to prevent even greater violence. Our witness to the Gospel is inevitably and deeply harmed when a recognized Christian leader casually recommends the assassination of a world leader." - Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Never heard of this guy but I like him.
Very impressive statement, that. Sure beats the weaselly sort-of apology Robertson's been hammering all day.
Maybe this'll actually be a real slam on his reputation. That may be too much to hope for, however.
TWL
I know I'm going to get reemed for saying such things, but I feel that it's something that needs to be said.
It's not fair to critisize and pick at the notion that Christians feel 'ill-used and oppressed'. I admit that this country was heavily dominated by Christians for a long time; but right not there seems to be a major back lash towards anyone who claims to be Christian (even if their liberal or conservative). It seems that Christians are the designated scape goat. We can't crap on other religions, so it's ok to crap on Christianity.
As a Christian myself, I must say that I resent people making assumptions of me. Pratically every day I'm slamned in the face by people who have an axe to grind about Christianity. I'm confronted by accusations about my faith and people who crap on Christianity for reasons I have nothing to do with, either personally or as a Christian. No, I'm not crazy; no, I don't believe what Pat Robertson believes; no, I don't blow up abortion clinics; no, I'm not against gay marriage or gay people in general. Making assumptions isn't a good thing, because there's always one that proves the assumption wrong.
Also, it seems that you're making a blanketed statement about Christians as well. Saying that we're all like Pat Robertson is like saying that all Muslim people are more than willing to strap a bomb to themselves and kill for Allah.
As far as major spokemen of Christianity being assholes; can't the same thing be said of the Jewish leaders in Isreal right now?
All in all, I love your work, but this attack against Christians really makes me sad. I thought you were a bigger person than this.
Jennifer, there are plenty of people (most of whom self-identify as evangelical Christians) who do appear to believe that all Islamic men are indeed suicide bombers in the making.
And it's not "an attack against Christians"; that's the sort of statement that tends to make us all look a little silly. It's an attempt to apply the same logic to Christianity that is generally applied to Judaism or Islam, presumably in an attempt to point up the stupidity of the argument. It would take a lot more than the posts here to make me feel like my faith was under any real sort of attack.
Here's a thought, back on the original topic, that occurred to me right before I went to bed...
If Robertson has such a hard-on to see Chavez taken out, why doesn't somebody take up a collection, give him a gun and a plane ticket and let him see how he fares?
Now for the part where I make sure I'm wearing my flame-proof underwear...
First off, just let me say, when you're in the vast majority and have all the real sociopolitical power, I have to wonder just what definition of the word "oppressed" you're using.
Now, speaking AS a Christian, IF Christianity is "under attack," (and that's a very big "IF") maybe it should be. After all, an unchallenged faith is worthless. You have to realize that most challengers have no particular beef with Jesus or his teachings. What they have a problem with is continued church endorsed persecution (tell any gay person or pagan that they aren't persecuted and see how long and hard you get laughed at), fear based religious teaching (let's be honest, the main concern of most "Christians" is not helping others, but simply avoiding Hell), and all the pork in most religious dogma (masturbation and eating meat on friday are sins? C'mon, get serious...). I can't remember the last time, if ever, I heard somebody in government or otherwise try to justify a "Christian Morals" policy decision by actually referencing the actual teachings of Christ!
Overall, I think the people whining the loudest are just taking it too personally when their religion is questioned. If somebody says that all Christians are Klan members, then, yeah, you are justified in telling them they're full of shit. (tish?) But when it's said that "The Church" is directly responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history, and indirectly responsible for a lot of other crap, even fairly recently, well, I'm afraid they've got the backing of history on that one.
-Rex Hondo-
"If Robertson has such a hard-on to see Chavez taken out, why doesn't somebody take up a collection, give him a gun and a plane ticket and let him see how he fares?"
...Okay, scary mental image.
"I'm your worst nightmare. A Christian with a gun and a television slot."
Brrr... Makes me glad I'm athiestic. Nutbars like this bozo convinced me a long time ago that no religion was worth it.
And can I please, please, PLEASE stress that it IS, indeed, possible to have absolutely no problem with Intelligent Design philosophically, but still believe that it has no place whatsoever in the classroom. Christianity as a whole isn't doing itself any PR favors on this one...
Whew... Sorry. Spillover from another discussion, but seemed to fit in with the side discussions.
-Rex Hondo-
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson apologized Wednesday for calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, only hours after he denied saying Chavez should be killed."Is it right to call for assassination?" Robertson said. "No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him."
Chavez, whose country is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush. He accuses the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.
All I can say is that it took him long enough. My guess is that all the condemnations people were looking for from religious leaders on the right took place in "the back room" and they let him know he needed to apologize.
++I find that an interesting clarification. Curiously, it's also almost irrelevant to reality. The belief may be "wrong," but the fact that so many people DO believe it means that they act in that fashion, and feed into the concept of "Never ask, never question, and anyone who does is wrong."++
I am asking this sincerely...are you really arguing that if a enough people believe something incorrectly, then the truth is not relevant? Where does that leave things like the erroneous 9/11-Saddam connection that folks routinely mention (like 73% of Americans believe it)?
Apology my ass. Here's the press release from Robertson's site: Http://patrobertson.com/pressreleases/hugochavez.asp
A couple highlights:
Col. Chavez has found common cause with terrorists such as the noted assassin Carlos the Jackal, has visited Iran reportedly to gain access to nuclear technology ... Col. Chavez also intends to fund the violent overthrow of democratically elected governments throughout South America, beginning with neighboring Colombia.
I haven't seen anything that backs up any of these claims
to wage war against one person
As in kill that person?
I am a person who believes in peace, but not peace at any price.
What the hell does this even mean? We won't have peace if it means killing someone? We won't have peace if it means letting someone live?
I am a person who believes in peace, but not peace at any price.
Turn the other cheek, hm?
P. A. D. wrote:
> Okay, well, to be totally fair, he COULD
> simply be praying for more justices to
> retire...
I specifically heard him call for the death ("I wish they would die!") of Supreme Court justices on The 700 Club back in the early '90s; the mainstream press didn't notice it.
He's been thinking like this for something on the order of fifteen years if not earlier.
For those of you who were asking about what other Christian leaders are saying, see this website:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/134/33.0.html
As I said before, Christians could condemn Roberstson's comments and it wouldn't matter since the coverage is all on Robertson. Bottom line: Many Christian leaders have publically denounced Robertson and his comments. They have not ignored it or given him a pass.
The article also makes the point that the 700 Club is not on the air due to high viewership but due to a shrewd deal Robertson made when he sold his network. ABC is contractually obligated to show the 700 Club, even if it just has the same 10 viewers!
Iowa Jim
Jim..just to be clear...someone speaks, in your name, representing your god, and says something compleatly against all that you believe...and not some wackjob on the street, but a major public figure...rather than stand up like a man and say, "You, sir, are wrong." you instead shrug it off that it's not worth making a fuss about.
You have too many false premises in your statement. If I was a member of Robertson's church, then you might have a point. If there was anything close to a chance that someone would act on what Roberston was going to say, maybe. But the fact that the media has chosen to plaster his insane remarks all over the place is not by fault.
I am sure it might exist somewhere, but I have yet to hear anyone say they agreed with Robertson. I have yet to hear anyone say they support him in this. Have you?
Let me deal with things that do matter, with lives that truly are being hurt and who need help. If a fool opens his mouth and shows he is a fool, I don't need to waste my time standing up and pointing it out.
Iowa Jim
Good link, Jim.
I especially love the Pat is still standing by the "I was misquoted" excuse that he's been using since his failed 1988 presidential bid. I guess he still doesn't understand how video tape works.
I've been thinking, which is always dangerous.
Paul Wolfowitz predicts that the Iraqi oil will pay for the reconstruction of Iraq and for his financial incompetence, gets named head of the World Bank.
John Bolton proclaims that "there is no United Nations" and gets named our UN ambassador.
George Tenet says that the evidence that Iraq has WMDs is a "slam dunk" and gets the Medal of Freedom.
Based on this track record, I predict Bush will nominate Pat Robertson as our next ambassador to Venezuela.
More rave reviews for Robertson:
"It's ludicrous, ridiculous, irresponsible," said former Sen. Bob Dole, who ran against Robertson in that 1988 race. "I mean, whenever somebody makes such a stupid statement as Pat Robertson made, it's probably going to benefit, in this case, Chavez."
"It was an incredibly stupid statement and has no reflection on reality," added Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. And conservative radio host Blanquita Cullum said, "I think what he did is a terrible thing. I think it's a disgrace. And there's no way I can support what he said. I don't think any rational person can support that."
PAD: "The way I see it, Christianity dictates that questioning is automatically a bad thing."
I've been away from this board for a while due to school starting up or I'd've posted sooner. Peter's stumbled onto one of my pet peeves as a Christian. The perception of all Christians as blind followers is not wholly accurate. In fact, one of the great protestant traditions is that of having the Bible translated into common language so that individuals can examine for themselves the Good News that has actually been stated, and not just others' interpretations. Furthermore, it can be inferred that Paul was a firm believer in questioning what one accepts. He mentions "testing the spirits" rather than blindly listening to anything that claims to be from God. He insists that everything must be compared against what is written in the Bible. In a Biblical evangelism lost today (and overshadowed by televangelists, imposters, and others wishing to hop on the bandwagon), Paul encourages the early church to spread the gospel and to accompany it by miraculous deeds so that others might see and believe. Does that sound like blind obedience to you? But I'm getting off track. Do Christians act irresponsibly at times? Certainly. The whole basis of Christianity is that everyone is screwed up and needs to be forgiven. That's the message of Grace, that's what the Good News is--that Christ paid the price (for the wages of sin is death) so that we might live. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the nuts and bolts of Christianity has been pushed to the side, and hypocrites and other issues (gays in the church, abortion, etc.) have taken over.
But back to my original point. Faith is something that you have to work out for yourself, and the only way to do that is to explore and question everything until you find what is true for your life. If anyone wants to actually know what Christianity is about, I'd recommend just opening a Bible and reading what's actually there; don't let other people tell you what it's about. Not national spokespeople, not even your family or local pastor. Find out for yourself; that way, you can be informed and make your own decision. Paul says that when that happens, that is when the Holy Spirit will work inside you.
I can only hope I've made some sense as it's 1 am. Sorry I missed the debate, but for what it's worth, that's my $.02 .
Chris
PAD: "The way I see it, Christianity dictates that questioning is automatically a bad thing."
I've been away from this board for a while due to school starting up or I'd've posted sooner. Peter's stumbled onto one of my pet peeves as a Christian. The perception of all Christians as blind followers is not wholly accurate. In fact, one of the great protestant traditions is that of having the Bible translated into common language so that individuals can examine for themselves the Good News that has actually been stated, and not just others' interpretations. Furthermore, it can be inferred that Paul was a firm believer in questioning what one accepts. He mentions "testing the spirits" rather than blindly listening to anything that claims to be from God. He insists that everything must be compared against what is written in the Bible. In a Biblical evangelism lost today (and overshadowed by televangelists, imposters, and others wishing to hop on the bandwagon), Paul encourages the early church to spread the gospel and to accompany it by miraculous deeds so that others might see and believe. Does that sound like blind obedience to you? But I'm getting off track. Do Christians act irresponsibly at times? Certainly. The whole basis of Christianity is that everyone is screwed up and needs to be forgiven. That's the message of Grace, that's what the Good News is--that Christ paid the price (for the wages of sin is death) so that we might live. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the nuts and bolts of Christianity has been pushed to the side, and hypocrites and other issues (gays in the church, abortion, etc.) have taken over.
But back to my original point. Faith is something that you have to work out for yourself, and the only way to do that is to explore and question everything until you find what is true for your life. If anyone wants to actually know what Christianity is about, I'd recommend just opening a Bible and reading what's actually there; don't let other people tell you what it's about. Not national spokespeople, not even your family or local pastor. Find out for yourself; that way, you can be informed and make your own decision. Paul says that when that happens, that is when the Holy Spirit will work inside you.
I can only hope I've made some sense as it's 1 am. Sorry I missed the debate, but for what it's worth, that's my $.02 .
Chris
PAD: "The way I see it, Christianity dictates that questioning is automatically a bad thing."
I've been away from this board for a while due to school starting up or I'd've posted sooner. Peter's stumbled onto one of my pet peeves as a Christian. The perception of all Christians as blind followers is not wholly accurate. In fact, one of the great protestant traditions is that of having the Bible translated into common language so that individuals can examine for themselves the Good News that has actually been stated, and not just others' interpretations. Furthermore, it can be inferred that Paul was a firm believer in questioning what one accepts. He mentions "testing the spirits" rather than blindly listening to anything that claims to be from God. He insists that everything must be compared against what is written in the Bible. In a Biblical evangelism lost today (and overshadowed by televangelists, imposters, and others wishing to hop on the bandwagon), Paul encourages the early church to spread the gospel and to accompany it by miraculous deeds so that others might see and believe. Does that sound like blind obedience to you? But I'm getting off track. Do Christians act irresponsibly at times? Certainly. The whole basis of Christianity is that everyone is screwed up and needs to be forgiven. That's the message of Grace, that's what the Good News is--that Christ paid the price (for the wages of sin is death) so that we might live. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the nuts and bolts of Christianity has been pushed to the side, and hypocrites and other issues (gays in the church, abortion, etc.) have taken over.
But back to my original point. Faith is something that you have to work out for yourself, and the only way to do that is to explore and question everything until you find what is true for your life. If anyone wants to actually know what Christianity is about, I'd recommend just opening a Bible and reading what's actually there; don't let other people tell you what it's about. Not national spokespeople, not even your family or local pastor. Find out for yourself; that way, you can be informed and make your own decision. Paul says that when that happens, that is when the Holy Spirit will work inside you.
I can only hope I've made some sense as it's 1 am. Sorry I missed the debate, but for what it's worth, that's my $.02 .
Chris
It is unfortuneate that we seem to focus on those who shout loudly. Though I am not a christian anymore I still hold to some of the things I was tought in my upbringing. I have several friends who are christians and we get on just fine with no holy wars between us.
The problem is, getting along will not get you on the tellie. Shoutly loudly gets attention, and though the meek may inherit the earth, they won't get air-time till they do.
I don't think the wack-jobs on the air speak for most of the religion. For starters that is over simplifying.. I know that what to the uneducated seems a monolithic religion is a hugely fragmented collection of groups with just enough in common to keep from explodeing all over each other.
My primary concern is not how unbelivers see Robertson and his ilk. We know they are insane and don't speak for all. Also the unbeliver is a very small group in the grand scheme of things. What worries me is how those who are Christians see him. I know many see him a just as much of a nut case as I do, but also there are many who see his face so often, hear his words so frequently that they begin to think of him as haveing some kind of legitimicy. What needs to change is the legitimicy of the loud.
He is no leader of mine, and not one of yours. His leadership is precisely what people give him, and for now it is too much.
Ben
"How many countries and wars do we go through to stop the hundreds of Saddams and the thousands of Saddam wanna be rulers in the world today making all those other mass graves?"
Sorry I'm a little late on this discussion guys, but I just headed back down to College, which keeps you offa the internet for quite a while.
Ok, I have said this before, but I would support a UN Colition to Remove Dictators, Who, Without Fear Of Hyperbole, Can be Compared to Hitler (UNCRDWWFHCCH for short.)
That isn't what Bush did. He, without any UN support, and with the condemnation of the rest of the world, invaded a soverign nation, without an act of war being committed. He didn't do it cause Saddam was evil, he did it 'cause it would A) get him re-elected, B) make his and cheney's friends happy, and C) 'cause it is a legacy.
and, if that coilition ever DID get started, it would have to overthrow Bush's personal friends, the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia.
as for PR, he has lost all respect from everyone. Everywhere. except for maybe the last few idiots who still think Ann Coulter/Michael Savage is right. God knows thats about all Bush has got left. Does anyone have his current poll numbers?
"I know that what to the uneducated seems a monolithic religion is a hugely fragmented collection of groups with just enough in common to keep from explodeing all over each other."
I agree with that, except you forgot a word at the end: "all over each other RECENTLY." might be better. Hell, in some places, they are still exploding all over each other.
And Bill, thanks for that explanation of the Pope's Infallibility. I had the wrong impression about that for a long time.
What religion is Pat Robertson a leader of or in?
seriously.
(The answer isn't Christian; I don't know where he'll go when he dies and I'm not arrogant enough to guess but the dude's theology and lifestyle are not leading anyone along the road to Christ. So stop putting him on my team).
"What religion is Pat Robertson a leader of or in?"
I think it's called Meism.
I'm pretty sure that he when he wakes up, goes on stage, shows up on TV or does anything else he is thinking, "now what can I get for Me outa this." I'm pretty sure God is an after thought (at best) with him.
He's not only on your team, he's claiming to be your quarterback.
Just because he's wearing a jersey that says "McNabb" on the back doesn't mean he's tossing bombs downfield to TO.
Most reports on PR over the past few weeks have identified him as a "religious leader." I think at least some in the media are catching on that real christians don't look to PR as a spiritual leader. He's certainly got some christian backers, but his words show him to be far, far removed from someone that's trying to adhere to Christ's teachings.
Personally, I don't see how anyone that uses television as a means to preach can be truly holding to christian teachings.
Questioning is the best way to understand something. Christians are SUPPOSED to ask questions. If we're adamant in our beliefs, we probably got there through the usual method of throwing rocks at it and believing in it when the rocks broke and the doctrine didn't.
I love Pat Robertson. Pat is a very kind hearted man would bend over backwards to help anyone, whereas I do not believe many of his critics would lift a finger. You may hate Pat Robertson, but if he saw you on the side of the road needing help I know he would come to your aid, even KNOWING that you hate him. However, if the tables were turned, I wonder how many on this board would lift a finger to help him. Peter, if you go back and re-read the "Love thy neighbor" quote in context, you will find that Jesus was asked who qualifies as a Neighbor, and he gave an example of a hated Samaritan helping a beatened and robbed jewish man. That would be like today's eqivalent of a republican coming to the aid of a democrat.
I beleive what Pat has said in the past is that the U.S. should look into assinating dictators instead of amassing a huge army at even huger costs that results in everyone but the dictator dying. I can see why someone would think this, and I don't think it is so easily dismissed. I definitely think it should be publicly debated and not done on the whim of just one man. Instead of attacking the man, attack his argument, the former is an intellectual cop-out.
One last thing regarding christianity I can tell by reading the posts here that there are a lot of people who are speaking without knowledge of what christian scriptures teach about God. God is first and foremost a holy God and he hates evil. Yes, HATES.He only askes two things from us people, 1. Love him above eveything else, and 2. Love others as much as we love ourselves. There will be a day when he decides that he has given everyone enough time to change their wicked ways and he will shut the door for repentence permanently. Example:
The story of the writing on the wall from the book of Damiel. God declares that the ruler Belshazzar has done enough evil and decided to take him out:
"This is the inscription that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN." Daniel read the words off of the wall before turning to face the king and solemnly announce, "this is what these words mean: MENE: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. Eke: You have been weighed in the scales and found wanting." And Belshazaar was slain that very night (my paraphrasing).
And in the book of Acts (chapter 12) God allows an Angel to slay Herod for accepting praise that he was a God.
So, the idea that God is mild, and SAFE needs to be discarded. He is Good, but he is NOT safe.
"I beleive what Pat has said in the past is that the U.S. should look into assinating dictators"
well, he himself said that it's not right to call for the assassination of a leader.
"God is first and foremost a holy God and he hates evil."
then why did he create it? does God have "issues" with himself that he needs to act out on a cosmic scale?
A few words for Mr. Robertson, and those who would defend his recent pronouncements:
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of the people. Ifit is possible, so far as it depends on you, live in peace with all. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for GOD's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the LORD. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals upon his head."
Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.
- St. Paul, Romans 12:17-21 (NIV)
I love Pat Robertson. Pat is a very kind hearted man would bend over backwards to help anyone, whereas I do not believe many of his critics would lift a finger. You may hate Pat Robertson, but if he saw you on the side of the road needing help I know he would come to your aid, even KNOWING that you hate him.
I'm not sure if you're being ironic or if you actually believe that. Pat Robertson is a con man who has made millions bilking people out of money. The only reason he cares about Chavez at all is because he is heavily invested in oil.
As for him helping others, I wonder if the slaves and he Charles Taylor put to work mining gold would agree with that.
That said, if I found him lying in the street, I'd help get him to a hospital because he is a fellow human being. And that would be more than I've ever seen him do for anyone else.
Randy how can it be consistant in any way to say that Robertson would aid one that hates him if he saw him on the side of the road, and in practically the very next breath you are saying this same man thinks it's a good thing to kill someone? Are you saying that Robertson would help Chavez if he saw him on the side of the road and in need, but put Chavez safely in his legally elected position as Venezualian President, and Robertson would have him killed? That idea is so random, it begs a new description beyond preposterous.
You're talking about Old Testamentary, Wrath of God stuff, which if I'm not mistaken would be closer to Judaism than Christianity. Christ brought a new way, a new world, and new teachings, replacing the Old. God may not be mild, and safe from our perspective (Katrina should be evidence enough of that) but Christ taught us that God wants His creations, or at least those that profess to follow him, to not kill each other.
I wasn't saying his idea was indefensible or that it was even justifiable, I was only suggesting that understanding his reasons might lead to a more constructive debate . Pointing out the contradiction in philosophy seems to me a perfectly acceptable retort.
As far as "God creating evil" thing. I don't think anyone in this lifetime will have a perfect answer. Personally, it seems to me that in order to have a great potential for Good, one must also have an equal potential for evil. A plant can't be very good or bad, an animal has a little more potential to go either way, a man or woman has more potential to be very good or bad, and, if you believe in them, Angels would have the greatest potential of created beings for evil or good. The less ability you have to choose, the less bad or good you can be. I guess God didn't want a bunch of robots. That's my theory.
Randy, do you watch Sci-Fi's Tripping the Rift? I'm not recommending it, as it's kinda like South Park in Space at time, but they did an episode where, essentially, the main characters run over and kill God. And without God, there's no good or evil. So reality becomes this bland utopia, where no one ever dies, no one ever gets hurt or hurts another, and everyone is essentially at peace with one another. It's an interesting take on the idea that God, in creating everything, also created evil.
I prefer to think about it more in terms of God giving man the freedom to commit evil acts, as there's rarely ever a case where an entity is purely evil. So, to go back to the PR issue, I don't think he's evil, and he probably is very capable of very altruistic and generous acts. But being human, he's also capable of extreme stupidity, indifference to fellow men, and also more than likely to stray from the path, just like the rest of us.
I wasn't saying his idea was indefensible or that it was even justifiable, I was only suggesting that understanding his reasons might lead to a more constructive debate.
So what are his reasons then? In the current of foreign adversaries, Chavez doesn't rate much more than an annoyance to the US. Sure, his marxist policies have make profits on Venzuelan oil more problematic for Exxon-Mobile, but compared to the situation with our enemies Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, not to mention our "friends" in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Chavez doesn't amount to a pimple on a dog's ass.
So why the sudden interest in bumping off Chavez?
You know who benefited the most from Pat's little remark? George W. Bush, because suddenly, the pundits have something to talk about besides Cindy Sheehan.
Hmmm.
"I wasn't saying his idea was indefensible or that it was even justifiable, I was only suggesting that understanding his reasons might lead to a more constructive debate . Pointing out the contradiction in philosophy seems to me a perfectly acceptable retort."
there's a question here of assassination vs. war. let's put this in a different context (as i really don't believe Chavez to be a real threat). let's say that we could bump off Kim Jong Il and thereby eliminate someone who might very well be a threat and who is, at least, a brutal dictator.
sending in Special Forces and killing him would be preferable to all-out war, in theory. in practice, however, i think that's too iffy. if we assassinate him, who is his successor? will the assassination provoke widespread anti-american sentiment there. is there a reasonable chance that we'll make things worse?
it also becomes a matter of where you draw the line. if we kill one guy because he's a brutal dictator, can we kill another guy because we don't like his economic policies? the U.S. has a very checkered past, specifically in Central and South America, when it comes to promoting the overthrow of leaders.
i'm skeptical that the assassination of foreign leaders can really lead to peace and prosperity.
1) What verse in the New Testament book of anything commands that we must not ask questions?
2) What is the mechanism that allows a society/group/nation/state/gathering to be "de facto Christian"? I've been doing my reading and obviously there is are believers and non-believers but I have never read of a de facto believer.
3) Pat Robertson ain't on my team. Not until there's an "I" in team is he on my team.... the painful and difficult thing is that the Bible command that I love the apparently nasty person; it's not too problematic as I am commanded to love the people I dislike to an even greater extent.
Well, if statistics do indicate that the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian, while every poll I've ever heard of shows a clear _minority_ of Americans are regular church-goers, maytbe that's your defacto there. People apparently self-identifying as Christian, rather than something else, but who, at least in some cases (some non-regulars could still be followers to some degree), aren't really in the religion to speak of.
I'm with you, Peter. Many American Christians whine and complain about not having cultural hegemony, when in fact they do. As someone who is stumbling along the Way of Jesus, I feel as alienated by this nonsense as you do, and to be fair, I think there are many Christians in this country who feel similarly...a strong minority if nothing else. Come by http://zoecarnate.com sometime to see the resistance.
I am Venezuelan, and reside in Venezuela. I wouldn't mind at all if Chavez took a loooooong vacation in Cuba. Preferably, with him never coming back. That man is bleeding our country and it's going to crumble anyday now.
I am also a non-denom _Christian, and I was shocked at Pat Robertson's statement. I can't believe preachers would stay stuff like that. And ON TV, with the whole world listening! He's going to get a surprise in Judgement Day, that's for sure.
Oh, and Chavez is not an inmediate threat, but a more indirect one. He's the voice of the rallying anti-american socialist sentiment that is having plenty of vogue in South America these days. Take a peek at the news and you will see a definite Leftist trend on most of our goverments down here.
Why, Caracas just hosted the 16th Youth and Student Festival for Peace. "Against Imperialism and War" was the main theme. There were plenty of people with Che Guevara t-shirts and hats, as well as several with Bin Laden pins!
Beats me what the consequences of his acts will be, but nothing good can come out of it.
The idiot strikes again!!!!!
What happened in NO is a good thing. Why? From PR's TV show:
"TERRY MEEUWSEN (co-host): And this is an important time for us to remember to be praying for what's happening with regard to the judicial system, because it's so easy to forget that in light of the --
ROBERTSON: That's right.
MEEUWSEN: -- situation that's happening south of us.
ROBERTSON: Well, in a sense, they say it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Out of this tragedy, the focus of America is going to be on these victims, and inflamed rhetoric in the United States Senate is just not going to play well now because this is a time of healing and compassion and reaching out to people, and if they start going on a vendetta against Roberts in the Senate, it's just going to hurt them. And I think they know that, so, I mean, Judge Roberts can, maybe, you know, be thankful that a tragedy has brought him some good."
Gee, isn't Roberts just so lucky that thousands upon thousands of people died so that he can have an easy time with his nomination?
Idiot.
I'm surprised that no-one else has commented on the coincidence(?) that Pat Robertson gets his power and wealth via the use of his initials...
Stephen Soymonoff, who thinks language is one of the best toys to play with...
Just for the record, I don't think Pat Robertson has EVER run for president of the US. The person who regarded him as the "nutbar presidential candidate" may have been thinking of Pat Buchanan, another conservative television host.
I guess it must be easy for ignorant people with ignorant views to get that mixed up.
Robertson ran as a Republican candidate for president of the united states in 1988
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1988
http://www.answers.com/topic/pat-robertson
it is easy for ignorant people with ignorant views to get this sort of thing mixed up.
As the "ignorant" person who regarded Pat Robertson as a "nutbar presidential candidate," I just want to say thank you to indestructible man for answering the charge before I had a chance to.
And for the record, both Robertson and Buchanan were nutbar presidential candidates.
>
While I agree Pat Robertson is a buffoon, I must take exception with your generalizations regarding Christians and Christianity.
As you are wont to do, PAD, you have painted with a broad brush. Robertson speaks not for the majority of Christians in America.
Pat Robertson speaks for a vocal minority. I am Catholic and I doubt my spiritual leader is an asshole. Frankly, I don't know enough about the new Pope to have an opinion yet; I'm still learning about him. I do know the Pope does not advocate killing of any kind. As a faith, Catholics are opposed to the death penalty.
As for the holiday issue, Christmas and Easter are the only Christian religious holidays I can think of that affect the country as a whole. And Easter is becoming 'less' of a holiday as more and more businesses are staying open on Easter Sunday. Thanksgiving is a holiday created by the federal government that first celebrated military victories. It wasn't until 1931 that a proclamation by Herbert Hoover mentioned the Plymouth Pilgrims and the 1621 harvest festival as a precursor to the modern holiday; a holiay which celebrates football and shopping above all else.
I wonder how you'd react if a Christian made sweeping comments similar to yours regarding Jews and the Jewish faith.
When it's time for Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and their ilk to meet their maker, they will be welcomed to Hell with open arms.
Regards,
Tom Hutson
While I agree Pat Robertson is a buffoon, I must take exception with your generalizations regarding Christians and Christianity.
As you are wont to do, PAD, you have painted with a broad brush. Robertson speaks not for the majority of Christians in America.
How can people tell? Robertson gets rebuked so seldom by other Christians.
And as some are wont to do, you completely distorted everything I said. Let us deconstruct:
"While I agree Pat Robertson is a buffoon, I must take exception with your generalizations regarding Christians and Christianity."
I didn't make any.
"Robertson speaks not for the majority of Christians in America."
I didn't say he did. I said that he's a major spokesman. He is. The fact that you disagree with him doesn't change that. And what he says makes Christians look bad. Now: How do you, as a Catholic deal with that? Do you go to his website and tell him to shut the hell up? Perhaps. I'm guessing not. I'm guessing instead you're just complaining to me because you don't like that I'm saying he makes you guys look bad. Am I wrong?
"Pat Robertson speaks for a vocal minority."
A vocal minority with a huge influence on the government.
"I am Catholic and I doubt my spiritual leader is an asshole. Frankly, I don't know enough about the new Pope to have an opinion yet; I'm still learning about him. I do know the Pope does not advocate killing of any kind. As a faith, Catholics are opposed to the death penalty."
Good for them. But your entire graf is utterly irrelevant simply because you ignored what I said in favor of your version of what I said. I said, "Major spokesmen in this country." Now unless they moved the Vatican from Rome, Italy to Rome, Georgia, the Pope is not a major spokesman IN THIS COUNTRY.
"As for the holiday issue, Christmas and Easter are the only Christian religious holidays I can think of that affect the country as a whole."
And here again: What part of my saying "major holiday" was unclear? Furthermore, that's two major holidays more than any other religion, so again I say that Christians should stop acting as if their religion is under siege when it is unquestionably not.
"Thanksgiving is a holiday created by the federal government that first celebrated military victories. It wasn't until 1931 that a proclamation by Herbert Hoover mentioned the Plymouth Pilgrims and the 1621 harvest festival as a precursor to the modern holiday; a holiay which celebrates football and shopping above all else."
What the HELL does that have to do with ANYTHING? Allow me to answer my own question: Nothing.
"I wonder how you'd react if a Christian made sweeping comments similar to yours regarding Jews and the Jewish faith."
Tell you what: You name, off the top of your head, a half dozen high profile American Jewish religious leaders who have a scintilla of the podium, influence and instant recognition that a Pat Robertson has, and I'll answer that question. In fact...half a dozen is too many. Make it three. Hell...make it one.
"When it's time for Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and their ilk to meet their maker, they will be welcomed to Hell with open arms."
And speaking as someone whose religion doesn't have a concept of hell, I can tell you that means a lot to me.
PAD
PAD: "Major spokesmen in this country."
Well, I think this is the problem. Just because someone manages to get in front of a camera and microphone, they don't become a major spokesman.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jesse Jackson, Al Shaprton, etc., are not spokesmen for this country. They are just people that have a microphone and a claim to speak for God. The only thing that can be proven is that they have a microphone.
