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 áššhølëš. 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
• 
++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 ášš. 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 hëll 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
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. Hëll, 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 ášš.
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 áššhølë. 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 Hëll 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 hëll 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 áššhølë. 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 HÊLL 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. Hëll…make it one.
“When it’s time for Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and their ilk to meet their maker, they will be welcomed to Hëll with open arms.”
And speaking as someone whose religion doesn’t have a concept of hëll, 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.